BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 vs....
 
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-21-2010, 12:23 AM   #1
Poppin Fresh
Colonel
 
Poppin Fresh's Avatar
 
Drives: With a sunroof and front plate
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bergen County NJ

Posts: 2,128
iTrader: (0)

RD Sport RS46 M3 vs. Cadillac CTS-V.

It always puzzled me why people consider the CTS-V as competition when the M3 clearly is overpowered by the CTS-V's supercharged engine. What happens if it goes against the RD Sport RS46? How interesting would that be? Even better, how would it fair against a supercharged S65 engine?
__________________
Poppin Fresh is offline   Philippines
0
Reply With Quote
      10-21-2010, 01:19 AM   #2
H Bomb
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: 08 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FL to NY

Posts: 1,679
iTrader: (4)

since the M3 beat the CTS V in the mag shootouts i would say either one would be a winner with that much more power to it
__________________
Street- 08 E92 M3- Sparkling Graphite/ Fox Red/6sp
Track- 10 CRF 250-PR2 Race Motor/Ohlins TTX Susp
Hauler- 06 Ford Skyjacker F250 4WD
H Bomb is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-21-2010, 09:54 AM   #3
alpinem353
New Member
 
Drives: White M3
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NJ

Posts: 14
iTrader: (0)

Probably because they are priced similarly.
alpinem353 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-21-2010, 11:08 PM   #4
Poppin Fresh
Colonel
 
Poppin Fresh's Avatar
 
Drives: With a sunroof and front plate
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bergen County NJ

Posts: 2,128
iTrader: (0)

I mean car magazines should do a shootout. See how the M3 would fair if given a supercharged setup just like the CTS-V.
__________________
Poppin Fresh is offline   Philippines
0
Reply With Quote
      10-22-2010, 12:47 AM   #5
H Bomb
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: 08 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FL to NY

Posts: 1,679
iTrader: (4)

well they did a shootout with the M3, RS5, and CTS V coupe and the M3 won. so if a stock one beat it then its a no brainer i would think no??
__________________
Street- 08 E92 M3- Sparkling Graphite/ Fox Red/6sp
Track- 10 CRF 250-PR2 Race Motor/Ohlins TTX Susp
Hauler- 06 Ford Skyjacker F250 4WD
H Bomb is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-22-2010, 09:46 AM   #6
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Subaru Legacy GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,850
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppin Fresh View Post
I mean car magazines should do a shootout. See how the M3 would fair if given a supercharged setup just like the CTS-V.
Sure. Then they should do another one with DOHC and four-valve technology added to the Caddy. And then...

Ridiculous. The cars are competitors because they are priced similarly and both are very high performance sport coupes/sedans.

The Cadillac seems to be the quicker car around a road course and quite a bit quicker in a straight line, with the tech edge going to the bimmer.

Pay your money and take your choice between these two very viable competitors.
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-22-2010, 09:52 AM   #7
graider
Colonel
 
graider's Avatar
 
Drives: py/kiwi e46 m3
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: toronto

Posts: 2,408
iTrader: (0)

for me after all the test drives, bench racing, the purchase decision comes down to cost and if I can live with the look of the car. the ctsv just doesn't do it for me from an aesthetic standpoint, so I would have to go with the m3.

I think the rdsport m3 is faster than the ctsv both in straight line and road course.
graider is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-22-2010, 12:06 PM   #8
mdosu
Banned
 
Drives: Double Vanos'd Civic-M3
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Francisco

Posts: 8,517
iTrader: (6)

statswise, i feel the CTSV should be compared to the M5 and E63 AMG.

The only thing comparable to M3 is the price.
mdosu is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      10-22-2010, 12:07 PM   #9
mdosu
Banned
 
Drives: Double Vanos'd Civic-M3
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Francisco

Posts: 8,517
iTrader: (6)

Quote:
Originally Posted by H Bomb View Post
well they did a shootout with the M3, RS5, and CTS V coupe and the M3 won. so if a stock one beat it then its a no brainer i would think no??
did the M3 win on a track? I thought M3 won based on a combination of subjective and objective categories.
mdosu is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      10-22-2010, 12:21 PM   #10
SUB-ZERO
Lieutenant Colonel
 
SUB-ZERO's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 997TT Arctic Silver
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: VA

Posts: 1,562
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdosu View Post
statswise, i feel the CTSV should be compared to the M5 and E63 AMG.

The only thing comparable to M3 is the price.
+1
SUB-ZERO is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-22-2010, 05:52 PM   #11
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Subaru Legacy GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,850
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdosu View Post
statswise, i feel the CTSV should be compared to the M5 and E63 AMG.

The only thing comparable to M3 is the price.
I assume you meant sizewise, and of course you're correct on that score, but the V gets compared to the M3 because of price, mission and performance.
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-22-2010, 09:31 PM   #12
Poppin Fresh
Colonel
 
Poppin Fresh's Avatar
 
Drives: With a sunroof and front plate
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bergen County NJ

Posts: 2,128
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
I assume you meant sizewise, and of course you're correct on that score, but the V gets compared to the M3 because of price, mission and performance.
Price wise, sure. Mission, why not. Performance? Not so. It's 556 hp for the CTS-V and 414 hp for the M3. That's a 142 hp difference in performance. Forget the price similarities that places both cars in the same league. I just want to see a competition between two supercharged engines to see how the M3 would fare if given the same set-up.

Even with an RD Sport RS46 stroker putting out 520 hp for the M3, that's still a 36 hp deficit from the CTS-V.
__________________
Poppin Fresh is offline   Philippines
0
Reply With Quote
      10-22-2010, 11:59 PM   #13
H Bomb
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: 08 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FL to NY

Posts: 1,679
iTrader: (4)

i just looked through it, C&D didn't take them on the track it looks like just the autobahn and other roads but the M3 def got 1st place. here was the final scores

out of 240 points
M3-220
CTS-V-205
RS5-199

it didn't beat the M3 in any category but tied it for overall in the chassis category at 56 points for both and the RS5 with 50 points

the RS5 got spanked by the M3 and the CTS-V pretty bad now that i am looking at it again

they do say the CTS-V is scary fast though

"CTS-V- Highs- Animated steering,brake pedal, and chassis; ZR1 grade power; steady at 179; wreathed and creased sheetmetal."
Lows-"Muted V8,church pews by Recaro, a few lame reminders that GM runs Cadillac, 4260-pound mass and a big ass.
"Verdict-never a dull moment"

M3-Highs"Engine so good it may trigger angina,light and lovely handling, dark and lovely interior, sharkskin paint job."
Lows-" Steering not quite as good as the Caddy's, relatively flinty ride above 150mph,sharkskin suit isn't cheap."
Verdict-" Broadly focused, but uncompromised and always a pleasure."


Quote:
Originally Posted by mdosu View Post
did the M3 win on a track? I thought M3 won based on a combination of subjective and objective categories.
__________________
Street- 08 E92 M3- Sparkling Graphite/ Fox Red/6sp
Track- 10 CRF 250-PR2 Race Motor/Ohlins TTX Susp
Hauler- 06 Ford Skyjacker F250 4WD
H Bomb is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-23-2010, 09:26 AM   #14
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Subaru Legacy GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,850
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppin Fresh View Post
It always puzzled me why people consider the CTS-V as competition when the M3 clearly is overpowered by the CTS-V's supercharged engine. What happens if it goes against the RD Sport RS46? How interesting would that be? Even better, how would it fair against a supercharged S65 engine?
Wait a minute. You're puzzled, and what you seem to be saying here is that the Cadillac and the bimmer are not in competition with each other because the Cadillac is too powerful? How about the Mercedes? Is 481 HP too much as well for it to be considered a competitor? The Audi at 450 HP or so?

Where do you draw the line? Is the IS-F too much with 416 HP?

Gimme a break.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppin Fresh View Post
Price wise, sure. Mission, why not. Performance? Not so. It's 556 hp for the CTS-V and 414 hp for the M3. That's a 142 hp difference in performance. Forget the price similarities that places both cars in the same league. I just want to see a competition between two supercharged engines to see how the M3 would fare if given the same set-up.

Even with an RD Sport RS46 stroker putting out 520 hp for the M3, that's still a 36 hp deficit from the CTS-V.
I'll say it again. Price, mission and performance are the reasons why the two cars are considered to be in competition by folks out here on the actual planet. The fact that in your mind the Caddy should be excluded as a competitor because it's too powerful is, as I said, ridiculous.

To answer your question, though, the M3 would beat up on the Caddy if it had the stroker kit or had a blower added. Better power to weight. On the other hand, and again as I originally mentioned, adding DOHC and four-valve technology to the Caddy (to offset the bimmer's advantage in that department) would mean that the Caddy would again beat up on the bimmer.

Silly. They build them the way they build them. Period.

If it makes you feel any better, the next M5 will almost certainly beat up on the Cadillac, in a straight line or through the twisties.

So will the next M3, in all probability.

Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 10-23-2010 at 10:54 AM. Reason: grammar
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-23-2010, 02:57 PM   #15
Poppin Fresh
Colonel
 
Poppin Fresh's Avatar
 
Drives: With a sunroof and front plate
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bergen County NJ

Posts: 2,128
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
If it makes you feel any better, the next M5 will almost certainly beat up on the Cadillac, in a straight line or through the twisties.

So will the next M3, in all probability.

Yes it does.
__________________
Poppin Fresh is offline   Philippines
0
Reply With Quote
      10-23-2010, 03:48 PM   #16
991GT3
Captain
 
991GT3's Avatar
 
Drives: Cayenne Turbo
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: North Dakota

Posts: 738
iTrader: (0)

How the hell did they get an M3 to hit 3.9 seconds to 60? There is no frickin way it can to that. C & D has the worst acceleration numbers of any car rag.
Edmunds doesn't cheat like C&D.


Here's a more accurate review.

http://www.insideline.com/cadillac/c...-m3-coupe.html


__________________
-2011 Cayenne Turbo
-2012 Cayenne Turbo
-2013 VelociRaptor 600
991GT3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-24-2010, 07:48 AM   #17
quality_sound
8 tracks of madness
 
Drives: Slowly
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: At home

Posts: 2,731
iTrader: (1)

Let me get this right, it's unfair to compare the M3 to the CTS-V based on price because the CTS-V has more HP, but it IS fair to compare the M3 to the S4 based on price even though the S4 is down almost as much HP to the M3 as the M3 is to the CTS-V.

Uh huh...
quality_sound is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-24-2010, 08:49 AM   #18
bobbyd1961
Banned
 
Drives: 2009 M3 sedan LeMans Blue
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: new jersey

Posts: 2,411
iTrader: (0)

didnt caddilac do a ctsv challange? what car one the race with an amature driver?
bobbyd1961 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-24-2010, 09:50 AM   #19
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Subaru Legacy GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,850
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 997GT3 View Post
How the hell did they get an M3 to hit 3.9 seconds to 60? There is no frickin way it can to that. C & D has the worst acceleration numbers of any car rag.
Edmunds doesn't cheat like C&D...
Every so often, Car & Driver publishes their testing techniques, so they're pretty up front about it.

They allow for a foot of rollout (as do Road & Track, Motor Trend, etc.) before the clocks start in order to match drag strip timing, and they also correct their observed times to "standard day" weather conditions. I haven't seen all the specifics of what their standard day conditions actually are, but they seem to follow the old "SAE Gross" numbers of 60 degrees, 29.92 barometer and zero humidity.

Therefore, on a good warm day with low humidity (and the optimum traction that results from that), Car & Driver's correction factor may in fact provide better results than one could actually hope for, especially since warm ambient temperatures tend to partially offset the loss of power with less rolling resistance from the tires, plus less driveline loss due to thinner lubricants.

Although these test standards may seem somewhat aggressive, C & D always tests with a full tank, doesn't powershift with stick cars, and avoids actual drag strip testing because starting lines sprayed with traction compound would allow better launches than those obtainable on the street.

In the final analysis, C & D uses their published techniques for all cars tested by them, and those techniques are no more or less useful than those of Edmunds or anyone else.

Except:

Edmunds is not accurate when they publish the difference between rollout and no-rollout times. It takes more than two (or even three) tenths of a second to roll through that first foot of travel for a street car on street tires. It tends to be closer to four tenths on average, and may in fact be closer to five tenths for some cars.

At a guess, what Edmunds does is start their clocks when a G meter first registers, meaning when the car starts to roll.

On the other hand, in a real drag strip start, when you pop the clutch in a stick car, you have to take up the slack in the drive train before the car begins to roll, and in an automatic, you have to wait until the brakes release, which also takes time.

Whatever. As long as you know what the techniques and measurements are, you're golden, no matter the source of the data.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-24-2010, 10:00 AM   #20
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Subaru Legacy GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,850
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyd1961 View Post
didnt caddilac do a ctsv challange? what car one the race with an amature driver?
An amateur (with some track experience) beat GM's chief marketeer Bob Lutz' time with an M3, but was slower than several of the CTS-V's best times. The Caddy's best times were also accomplished by amateurs, but in the case of John Heinricy (overall best time), certainly an extremely accomplished amateur with a huge amount of SCCA-winning experience.

In general the evidence points to the V being a slightly quicker track car than the M3, and of course quite a bit quicker in a straight line.
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-24-2010, 10:53 AM   #21
991GT3
Captain
 
991GT3's Avatar
 
Drives: Cayenne Turbo
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: North Dakota

Posts: 738
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Every so often, Car & Driver publishes their testing techniques, so they're pretty up front about it.

They allow for a foot of rollout (as do Road & Track, Motor Trend, etc.) before the clocks start in order to match drag strip timing, and they also correct their observed times to "standard day" weather conditions. I haven't seen all the specifics of what their standard day conditions actually are, but they seem to follow the old "SAE Gross" numbers of 60 degrees, 29.92 barometer and zero humidity.

Therefore, on a good warm day with low humidity (and the optimum traction that results from that), Car & Driver's correction factor may in fact provide better results than one could actually hope for, especially since warm ambient temperatures tend to partially offset the loss of power with less rolling resistance from the tires, plus less driveline loss due to thinner lubricants.

Although these test standards may seem somewhat aggressive, C & D always tests with a full tank, doesn't powershift with stick cars, and avoids actual drag strip testing because starting lines sprayed with traction compound would allow better launches than those obtainable on the street.

In the final analysis, C & D uses their published techniques for all cars tested by them, and those techniques are no more or less useful than those of Edmunds or anyone else.

Except:

Edmunds is not accurate when they publish the difference between rollout and no-rollout times. It takes more than two (or even three) tenths of a second to roll through that first foot of travel for a street car on street tires. It tends to be closer to four tenths on average, and may in fact be closer to five tenths for some cars.

At a guess, what Edmunds does is start their clocks when a G meter first registers, meaning when the car starts to roll.

On the other hand, in a real drag strip start, when you pop the clutch in a stick car, you have to take up the slack in the drive train before the car begins to roll, and in an automatic, you have to wait until the brakes release, which also takes time.

Whatever. As long as you know what the techniques and measurements are, you're golden, no matter the source of the data.

Bruce




I disagree with that. I have two accerelation meters, a Gtech and a Vbox, and they both confirm Edmunds gap between 1' rollout and standstill.
You may argue that it only matters that they apply consistent testing. I disagree again. There is no way an m3 will consistently match CTS-V to 60.
__________________
-2011 Cayenne Turbo
-2012 Cayenne Turbo
-2013 VelociRaptor 600
991GT3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-24-2010, 11:07 AM   #22
chris719
Lieutenant
 
Drives: '08 M Roadster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NJ

Posts: 413
iTrader: (0)

0-60 is useless with cars that have this much power because it's more about how easily it can be put down. The M3 with less low-RPM torque may be easier to launch.

We all know the CTS-V is faster and all you need are rolling numbers and qtr mile trap to see it.
chris719 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST