RD Sport RS46 M3 vs. Cadillac CTS-V.

[Poppin Fresh]

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?

[H Bomb]

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

[alpinem353]

Probably because they are priced similarly.

[Poppin Fresh]

I mean car magazines should do a shootout. See how the M3 would fair if given a supercharged setup just like the CTS-V.

[H Bomb]

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??

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Poppin Fresh

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.

[graider]

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.

[mdosu]

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

The only thing comparable to M3 is the price.

[mdosu]

Originally Posted by H Bomb

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.

[SUB-ZERO]

Originally Posted by mdosu

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

The only thing comparable to M3 is the price.

+1

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by mdosu

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.

[Poppin Fresh]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

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.

[H Bomb]

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."

Originally Posted by mdosu

did the M3 win on a track? I thought M3 won based on a combination of subjective and objective categories.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Poppin Fresh

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.

Originally Posted by Poppin Fresh

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.

[Poppin Fresh]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

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.

[991GT3]

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

[quality_sound]

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...

[bobbyd1961]

didnt caddilac do a ctsv challange? what car one the race with an amature driver?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

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.]

Originally Posted by bobbyd1961

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.

[991GT3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

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.

[chris719]

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.