Why the AMG and M Car brigade should start worrying...

[Schwalbe]

You dont need to convince me RC45 , because I really like the Cadillac CTS-V. As we have already discussed in the topic or you talked about your test drive of the CTS-V, the central point is the "Bang for the Buck". Mostly of us, we love the RS6 and M5, but who can really buy such cars? For me, I envision very seriously to buy a Cadillac CTS-V series used of only two years. The CTS-V is the better rational choice for a fascinated of RWD sedan, with a big motor and manual 6-speed and a reasonable price.

Concerning the upcoming powerful motors V-10 and V-12 from the competitors, Cadillac does not have to worry, because GM possesses currently two V8 motors of + 500HP : the LS2 6.0L SFI and the LS7 6.4L SFI. In addition, several sources like TheCarConnection.com and many Cadillac forums talk about this engine upgraded for 2006.

[FoxFour]

My friend told me this, and I will do some research to back this up, he said that the CTS V chassis had to have some serious reinforcement , especially in the rearward area, to handle the power of the LS-6 powerplant. I wonder how much power that chassis can hold onto reliably?

[Minacious]

That Caddy is a great performer, anyone denying that is a fool. What I assume many don't care for is the styling. That alone will be the deciding factor.

[godspeed06]

i love the styling. i think it is way better than the new bmw styling. the old bmw styling gives it a run for its money though, but now that point is moot.

[Kangaroo Boy]

I'm sorry RC45,But I hate that thing...Its UGLY...

[RC45]

Originally Posted by Kangaroo Boy I'm sorry RC45,But I hate that thing...Its UGLY...

Remember that when it kicks your ass on the way to lap you for the third time..

Form once again follows function - and as a driver, not a poser, I would greatly enjoy that level of performance for the price.



yep - this sure looks ugly...



Coming and going you realize you just stomped on...

[sentra_dude]

It's nice and all...but faster than an E55...I don't know about that. I don't know if you are talking in general terms, or in terms of a drag race, but if you mean drag, the CTS-V will get spanked by the E55...it might be different if there are corners involved, but still, I find it hard to believe that the E55, with nearly 80 more horsepower will get its 'ass kicked'...

Yes, I know the e60 M5 is not out yet, but it will be out soon...and when it comes out, bye-bye CTS-V...at least in stock form, there is no way 400hp can handle 500+hp. :fadein:

[RC45]

Originally Posted by sentra_dude It's nice and all...but faster than an E55...I don't know about that. I don't know if you are talking in general terms, or in terms of a drag race, but if you mean drag, the CTS-V will get spanked by the E55...it might be different if there are corners involved, but still, I find it hard to believe that the E55, with nearly 80 more horsepower will get its 'ass kicked'... Yes, I know the e60 M5 is not out yet, but it will be out soon...and when it comes out, bye-bye CTS-V...at least in stock form, there is no way 400hp can handle 500+hp. :fadein:

Which is the entire point of my post.

The people buying the CTS-V for the perfromance (and there are a lot) will do the very same mods they do to their Z06's.

And these mods very easily take the engine to 550hp (at the crank) and beyond.

When ever I comment about the Z06 stomping other cars I refer to stock - and the same is true for the CTS-V... but bare in mind that very few of these cars remain stock...

While many M5's and E55's get modded - the mods are mostly limited to removing the 155mph governors and adding an exhaust etc.

Why?

Cost - the sheer cost of bumping the AMG and M engines by 100+hp is outrageous - while bumping an LS6f from 400hp to 550hp is a $10,000 head/cam/exhaust/instake affair.

Start playing with displacement upgrades and suddenly you have a 650hp N/A engine... don't even start talking about SC/TC addons that routinely deliver 750+hp.

While a 700 crank HP E55 or M5 is possible - the cost begins approaching NASA levels of commitment..

So - once again, while the "rich boys toys" may appeal some other "normal folks" that may never be able to swing the entry fee - I prefer to participate vs standing on the sidelines dreaming...

Enter the 4-door Z06...

[blah]

All i need is a black 93 Cobra 5.0 so i can put a Turbo on it, and do the AKA rally. RC you gonna run next year?

[sameerrao]

The car has a 400hp V8 as standard, 14 inch diameter brembo brakes, can pull .91G - 0-60 in 4.6s and does the ¼ mile in 13.1 seconds @ 107 mph and in that "slow bad handling standard form" lapped the Nurburgring faster than the current M5... at 8 min. 19 sec. (and now we shall hear that "the next M5 will kick ass" - well it isn't here yet - is it) Considering that it is extremely easy and cheap to extract power out of the LS6 - with an extra 120hp over stock, and fancy tyres like the Beemer guys use for Nurburg laptimes - a modified CTS V could go alot faster. (and let's see you add 120hp to an M5, RS6 or E55 for $15,000) Face the facts.. The CTS V is quicker than the current RS6, M5 and E55... --- once again, all the pretentious Europeans can claim is some kind of exclusivity - but when the flag drops, the bullshit stops... If money becomes no object, then the "prestige" factor also becomes moot - as can be witnessed by the sheer number of Ferrari and Porsche owners that also own a Z06 - alongside their GT2's, GT3's and 360CS's. Long gone are the days of having to pay $100,000+ just to have an excellent powered and handling automobile that is not a "specialized kit-car" - but rather a daily usable car.

There is a lot of hyperbole in what you say.. Don't get me wrong - the CTS-V is a great achievement (particularly considering it is an American four door car). But I don't think it is better than the cars you trash - M5, etc...

Specifically,

Nurburgring Laptime:
Is the 8'19'' time you quoted been independently verified? To my knowledge that quote is attributed to John Heinricy (I hope got the name right) - a GM engineer based on their testing.

The lap times as tested by Auto Motor und Sport for comparable cars are:
- Audi RS6 - 8.20 sec
- BMW M3 - 8.22 sec
- BMW M5 - 8.28 sec
- Mercedes E55 AMG (no time available but SL55 AMG has clocked 8.12 sec - the E55 should be close as it weighs less but also has slightly less power).

they have not tested the CTS-V yet.

So basically the Audi and E55 will equal or better than the CTS-V. The M5 is a good showing for a car that is nearly 5 years old. I do not think it is safe to say that the germans have been blown away by the CTS-V.

Tires used at Nurburgring test:

About the tires used in the test - the BMW was shod with Michelin Pilot Sport and Audi with Michelin Conti Sport Contact - pretty normal high performance tires. The Caddy has Goodyear Eagle F1 EMT (run-flat) in the US. The run-flats are sold as the car is w/o a spare tire. So I don't think the statement that the Bimmers used expensive tires really holds water. If Caddy wanted they could have shod it with Pzeros , right??

Acceleration and Braking data quoted by you
R&T got slightly slower numbers than what you posted - 5.0 sec 0-60, 1/4 mile in 13.4 sec and 80-0 in 202 ft.

Comparable data from R&T show:
Audi RS6 - 4.6 sec 0-60, 1/4 mile in 13.1 sec and 80-0 in 202 ft
BMW M3 - 5.0 sec 0-60, 1/4 mile in 13.5 sec and 80-0 in 197 ft
BMW M5 - 4.8 sec 0-60, 1/4 mile in 13.3 sec and 80-0 in 203 ft
Mercedes E55 AMG - 4.2 sec 0-60, 1/4 mile in 12.4 sec and 80-0 in 209 ft

Your numbers match Cadillac's own test data.
Therefore, I see CTs-V in the midpack if not tail end of this group other than its braking.

I reiterate - the CTS-V is a very good sports sedan but not the best of this group. It certainly wins the bang for the buck though...

However if one wants to bring in the price factor - you can buy a Mitsubishi Evo (handles exceptionally well for an AWD car) and spec it up to easily whip the CTS-V. I mean to say that once the dollar number is brought into consideration - the scope of relevant cars really widens...

I saw the CTS-V myself at the Houston Auto show - I loved the engine, the brake ducts, etc but thought the car looked pretty cheap inside - I mean it is a 50K car we are talking about. I appreciate that they spent money on good quality suspension, brakes and engine but they could have spent some more on improving the look inside.

My favorite in this segment is still the E39 M5. If I had the necessary cash, I would buy a 2 year old used m5 for 52K over a new CTS-V - just because it was and still is phenom in its time...

[RC45]

Originally Posted by sameerrao The car has a 400hp V8 as standard, 14 inch diameter brembo brakes, can pull .91G - 0-60 in 4.6s and does the ¼ mile in 13.1 seconds @ 107 mph and in that "slow bad handling standard form" lapped the Nurburgring faster than the current M5... at 8 min. 19 sec. (and now we shall hear that "the next M5 will kick ass" - well it isn't here yet - is it) Considering that it is extremely easy and cheap to extract power out of the LS6 - with an extra 120hp over stock, and fancy tyres like the Beemer guys use for Nurburg laptimes - a modified CTS V could go alot faster. (and let's see you add 120hp to an M5, RS6 or E55 for $15,000) Face the facts.. The CTS V is quicker than the current RS6, M5 and E55... --- once again, all the pretentious Europeans can claim is some kind of exclusivity - but when the flag drops, the bullshit stops... If money becomes no object, then the "prestige" factor also becomes moot - as can be witnessed by the sheer number of Ferrari and Porsche owners that also own a Z06 - alongside their GT2's, GT3's and 360CS's. Long gone are the days of having to pay $100,000+ just to have an excellent powered and handling automobile that is not a "specialized kit-car" - but rather a daily usable car. There is a lot of hyperbole in what you say.. Don't get me wrong - the CTS-V is a great achievement (particularly considering it is an American four door car). But I don't think it is better than the cars you trash - M5, etc... Specifically, Nurburgring Laptime: Is the 8'19'' time you quoted been independently verified? To my knowledge that quote is attributed to John Heinricy (I hope got the name right) - a GM engineer based on their testing. The lap times as tested by Auto Motor und Sport for comparable cars are: - Audi RS6 - 8.20 sec - BMW M3 - 8.22 sec - BMW M5 - 8.28 sec - Mercedes E55 AMG (no time available but SL55 AMG has clocked 8.12 sec - the E55 should be close as it weighs less but also has slightly less power). they have not tested the CTS-V yet. So basically the Audi and E55 will equal or better than the CTS-V. The M5 is a good showing for a car that is nearly 5 years old. I do not think it is safe to say that the germans have been blown away by the CTS-V. Tires used at Nurburgring test: About the tires used in the test - the BMW was shod with Michelin Pilot Sport and Audi with Michelin Conti Sport Contact - pretty normal high performance tires. The Caddy has Goodyear Eagle F1 EMT (run-flat) in the US. The run-flats are sold as the car is w/o a spare tire. So I don't think the statement that the Bimmers used expensive tires really holds water. If Caddy wanted they could have shod it with Pzeros , right?? Acceleration and Braking data quoted by you R&T got slightly slower numbers than what you posted - 5.0 sec 0-60, 1/4 mile in 13.4 sec and 80-0 in 202 ft. Comparable data from R&T show: Audi RS6 - 4.6 sec 0-60, 1/4 mile in 13.1 sec and 80-0 in 202 ft BMW M3 - 5.0 sec 0-60, 1/4 mile in 13.5 sec and 80-0 in 197 ft BMW M5 - 4.8 sec 0-60, 1/4 mile in 13.3 sec and 80-0 in 203 ft Mercedes E55 AMG - 4.2 sec 0-60, 1/4 mile in 12.4 sec and 80-0 in 209 ft Your numbers match Cadillac's own test data. Therefore, I see CTs-V in the midpack if not tail end of this group other than its braking. I reiterate - the CTS-V is a very good sports sedan but not the best of this group. It certainly wins the bang for the buck though... However if one wants to bring in the price factor - you can buy a Mitsubishi Evo (handles exceptionally well for an AWD car) and spec it up to easily whip the CTS-V. I mean to say that once the dollar number is brought into consideration - the scope of relevant cars really widens... I saw the CTS-V myself at the Houston Auto show - I loved the engine, the brake ducts, etc but thought the car looked pretty cheap inside - I mean it is a 50K car we are talking about. I appreciate that they spent money on good quality suspension, brakes and engine but they could have spent some more on improving the look inside. My favorite in this segment is still the E39 M5. If I had the necessary cash, I would buy a 2 year old used m5 for 52K over a new CTS-V - just because it was and still is phenom in its time...

Your loss - not mine.

Give me a call when you get your M5 - I will be the guy in the CTS-V passing you in the bends, straight aways and open road.

[Schwalbe]

I saw the CTS-V myself at the Houston Auto show - I loved the engine, the brake ducts, etc but thought the car looked pretty cheap inside - I mean it is a 50K car we are talking about. I appreciate that they spent money on good quality suspension, brakes and engine but they could have spent some more on improving the look inside.

To put in application the "Bang for the buck" theory, GM like always are cuting in the investment of the interior of the car. I can live with that fact from domestic cars.

Start playing with displacement upgrades and suddenly you have a 650hp N/A engine... don't even start talking about SC/TC addons that routinely deliver 750+hp.

With this kind of equipments bye bye M5 rich boy!


I take advantage of the occasion for presented to you a video that I found between a Cadillac CTS-V Series vs Corvette C5 convertible:

Video: http://www.z06fest.com/MOV06058.MPG

[sameerrao]

Give me a call when you get your M5 - I will be the guy in the CTS-V passing you in the bends, straight aways and open road

That may be because you are a better driver and not because you have a better car.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by sameerrao Give me a call when you get your M5 - I will be the guy in the CTS-V passing you in the bends, straight aways and open road That may be because you are a better driver and not because you have a better car.

LOL - - I doubt it - I am just a weekend warrior with no wars to fight..

And just to clarify something - I would never buy a CTS-V new - becasue as a GM product the sum of the parts is NOT worth $50,000...

But as an upper $30,000's used car - it represents unbelievable performance value for those of us on a budget (read as poor working stiffs.. )

[Schwalbe]

And just to clarify something - I would never buy a CTS-V new - becasue as a GM product the sum of the parts is NOT worth $50,000...

Many GM cars possess a average depreciation rate of 49% after only 3 years. Thus, the futures buyers of CTS-V have interest to buy it used. I base this reflection on my own personal experience. Because, my first car that I bought myself in 1998 was a 1995 Chevy Impala SS. I paid it the half of his origin price.