Who says there is'nt an American import killer?

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  Who says there is'nt an American import killer?

I just felt like bringing this car up because I think its so damn cool. That kick ass car would have to be the Cadillac CTS-V.

5.7L LS6 V8 400 HP engine...Tremec T-56 6-Speed manual...Brembo Brakes w/14-in. rotors. But at a $50,000 price tag, this bad boy aint for amatuers. Made to compete with all M series and AMG's alike. The CTS-V is one bad mother... well you know where I was getting to with that one. I did'nt pick of my monthly copy of Car&Driver. So I'm a little hazy on the stats of the car.(i.e. 0-60, 1/4, skidpad, slalom, braking distance, etc..) So yeah, post up some feedback.


posted by  DSMer

not my cup of tea. i never have been a fan of caddilac's arts&science theme, this car only strenghtens my disposition.

The engine seems to be the same as the one in the C6

posted by  importluva

I wouldn't call this car an import killer. It doesn't out-perform any of it's competition.

Cadillac CTS-V
Horsepower: 400 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 395 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
0-60 mph: 5.2 sec
0-100 mph: 12.2 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.7 sec @ 107 mph
Skidpad: .90g
Braking, 60-0 mph: 118 ft
Slalom Speed: 66.1 mph


Mercedes-Benz E 55 AMG
Horsepower: 469 bhp @ 6100 rpm
Torque: 516 lb-ft @ 2650-4500 rpm
0-60 mph: 4.3 sec
0-100 mph: 9.9 sec
Quarter Mile: 12.5 sec @ 116 mph
Skidpad: .83g
Braking, 60-0 mph: 123 ft
Slalom Speed: 63.7 mph

Audi RS6
Horsepower: 450 bhp @ 5700 rpm
Torque: 415 lb-ft @ 1950 rpm
0-60 mph: 4.4 sec
0-100 mph: 10.7 sec
Quarter Mile: 12.8 sec @ 108 mph
Skidpad: .88g
Braking, 60-0 mph: 118 ft
Slalom Speed: 66.5 mph

2005 BMW M5
Type: V10
Displacement: 5000 cc
Horsepower: 507 bhp @ 7750 rpm
Torque: 383 lb-ft @ 6100 rpm
Redline: 8250 rpm
0-60: ?

The Cadillac CTS-V out-handles it's current competition, but BMW is expected to out-handle and out-accelerate everything in it's class with the introduction of the next generation M5.

As you can see, the Z06 engine that is powering the CTS-V isn't strong enough to make the Cadillac quicker than it's competition.

In it's current state, the CTS-V is no "import killer". But Cadillac is supposedly planning to upgrade the car so that it can better compete in it's class.

There is hope...

posted by  What

i honestly started reading, and i was expecting to see comparisons from a lower class, like SRT-4's vs RSX and something like that.

guess not :P

still, those M5's are monsters. they should bother bringing back the M6 and all the other dead M's :D

posted by  Inygknok

What, those are not the cars that this vehicle is competing with. Try the Audi S4, Jaguar S-Type R, MB C32 AMG, Volvo S60R, BMW M3, etc.

posted by  importluva

That's what I used to say when I first heard of the CTS-V, but Cadillac insist that the CTS-V be compared to the mid-size high-performance luxury sedans such as the M5 and E55 AMG. If you don't believe me, you can check all of the car magazine reviews, and notice how they call it an "M5 Fighter" and they compare it to the E class, RS6 and M5. Maybe this was done because the STS wasn't yet produced.

But anyway, this is what magazines had to say about the CTS-V when comparing it to it's competition:

Motor Trend:
"America's bargain-priced M5"
" Like the BMW M5, the CTS-V's ride quality is good..."
"The CTS-V most wants to be like the M5.."

Car and Driver
"The CTS-V promises to challenge super-sedans such as the BMW M5."

Road and Track
"GM's Performance Division has indeed transformed this Cadillac into an American M5 fighter"
"you're getting BMW M5 performance at a savings of about 30 grand."

That's why I compared the CTS-V to the E 55 AMG and M5.

posted by  What

I was reading a comparison in a magazine of a CTS-V, M3, and an M5, and it seemed to compete better with the M3. And I always thought the CTS was aimed toward the 3-Series, A4, etc...

posted by  moostang104314

The CTS is indeed aimed at the 3 series, and the CS-V is aimed at the M3. It IS, however, sized like the M5, but it undercuts the cost of he M5 by tens of thousands of dollars.

Caddy does say it's the competition for the M3,and the new STS-V will be competition for the M5.

In either case, the performance is there, and the price is better for the Caddy.

posted by  ChrisV

Technically, yes, the CTS-V is in the same class as the M3. But most agree that potential CTS-V customers are also considering an M5.

But yes, "technically", the CTS-V competes with the M3. But you'll have to search hard to find a direct comparison to a car in it's class.

posted by  What

The CTS-V was made to compete with the M5 only because of its price. Car & Driver obviously know that the M5 has over 100 BHP more than the CTS-V, but yet the still insist to compare the 2. Why? Because the CTS-V cost 30K less and could drive circles arround the M5.

Cadillac CTS-V
Horsepower: 400 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 395 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
0-60 mph: 5.1 sec
0-100 mph: 12.2 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.7 sec @ 107 mph
Skidpad: .90g
Braking, 60-0 mph: 118 ft
Slalom Speed: 66.1 mph

Jaguar S-Type R
Horsepower: 390BHP @ 6100 RPM
Torque: 399LB-FT @ 3500 RPM
0-60: 5.2 sec
0-100: 13.3 sec
1/4: 13.69 sec @ 103 mph
Slalom: 65 mph
Braking, 60-0mph: 109

Audi S4
Horsepower: 340BHP @ 7000RPM
Torque: 302 ft-lb @ 3500RPM
0-60: 4.99 sec
0-100: 12.65
1/4: 13.4 @ 105.06 mph
Skidpad: 0.90 g
Braking: (60-0) 117 ft

Horsepower: 333BHP @ 7900RPM
Torque: 262 ft-lb @ 4900RPM
0-60: 4.8 sec
1/4: 13.1 @ ???MPH

Horsepower: 369 BHP @ 6100RPM
Torque: 332 ft-lb @3000RPM
0-60: 4.77 sec
0-100: 11.80 sec
1/4: 13.24 sec @ 106.86 mph
60-0: 117 ft
Skidpad: 0.85

The CTS-V does'nt fall in with these but rather just above them and just under there biger brothers

posted by  DSMer

That doesn't make sense, the M3 is in the CTS-V price range, not the M5

Please clarify yourself please, you will confuse some people.

First of all, the M5 that has over 100 BHP more than the CTS-V hasn't been tested yet. The M5 that you believe that the CTS-V "can run circles around" actually has 6 horsepower less than the CTS-V.

And it isn't accurate to say that the CTS-V can "run circles around" the 394 horsepower BMW M5.....especially when the 394 hp M5 out-guns it in every acceleration test.

The only advantage that the CTS-V has over the 394 hp M5 is it requires a shorter distance to brake to a complete stop and the CTS-V runs the slalom at a slightly higher speed.

posted by  What

That explains it. I suppose caddy did aim too high. Hopefully the STS has what it takes to challenge the next gen M5.

posted by  importluva

That doesn't make sense, the M3 is in the CTS-V price range, not the M5

"Sigh...", we need a smiley where the guy is just like covering his face in the shame of other peoples stupidity.

They pit the CTS-V up against the 05 M5 because it resembles its performance and is 30 something K less. "Priced to compete", if you offer a car thats 30K less and has somewhat similar performance you'll naturally compare the two cars. Being that the 30K difference is supposed to make you overlook the extra 100HP on the M5

First of all, the M5 that has over 100 BHP more than the CTS-V hasn't been tested yet. The M5 that you believe that the CTS-V "can run circles around" actually has 6 horsepower less than the CTS-V.

And it isn't accurate to say that the CTS-V can "run circles around" the 394 horsepower BMW M5.....especially when the 394 hp M5 out-guns it in every acceleration test.

The only advantage that the CTS-V has over the 394 hp M5 is it requires a shorter distance to brake to a complete stop and the CTS-V runs the slalom at a slightly higher speed.

Why the hell am I explaining myself? I am in no way referring to acceleration.. Ahh forget it, I need not explain myself to people of your stature.

posted by  DSMer

I heard that exactly this car where designed to meet the european taste too, and definite know that this Caddy will be officially sold in Germany and other countries on the "continent" too.

posted by  lutz

Super V! Spy shooters uncover dazzling, 600-hp CTS prototype


Even the spy shooters were dumbfounded by this dazzler from Cadillac. Many dubbed it CTS-V Plus, only to retract that information, noting the presence of a hood scoop on a car with no superchargers or turbos in its future must mean it is merely a CTS test mule. Our sources beg to differ, however.

We’re told this beast is the forerunner for the maximum General Motors Performance Division Caddy, the CTS-V Plus. Available direct from GM for about $65,000, Super V features a 600-hp engine, carbon fiber hood and fenders, and that scoop for getting more cooling air in and around the engine bay.

Once GM engineers get done running the Nürburgring, they’ll get down to the business of building just 500 limited-edition Super Vs.



This car has been testing at the Nurburgring, as well as the 700 hp STS-V Plus

http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/spyshots/C/03-large/Cadillac-STS-V-Plus- 03.jpg

This is the car GM wants to put up against the M5 and AMG.

Something interesting to contemplate, however... Bob Lutz was instrumental in getting BMW's M Division created when he was working for BMW in the '70s. Now he's in charge of gunning for the M Division at GM...

posted by  ChrisV

I might be mistaken, but wasn't Bob Lutz the same man who worked for Ford (i believe in the Lincoln/Mercury division) and later in Chrysler with Iacoca (sp?) in the 80s?

posted by  importluva

Whilest it is pretty powerful. It doesn't attract me one bit. The way Caddy is going with the looks of their cars is hideous in my opinion. The lines just aren't right. Way to many cut-off edges and cheapy looking areas. Interior still needs to be improved it if really wants to be a Bimmer killer. I realize the M5 is a much more expensive car (probably it's main competition). But you just get SO much more over the CTS-V. Much better interior, handling, power, looks inside and out (my opinion) and overall quality.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Is it just me or does this rear-end HIGHLY resemble an Impalas (other than the fact it's a direct carbon copy stretch of the CTS)?

posted by  thunderbird1100

It is a GM car, so taking a design from another make and model is'nt uncommon.If you have'nt notice by now all caddilacs pretty much look the same except for their lenght, width, and or convertible top. The bodys all look like that. Tail lights all look like that. Even the trucks to an extent...

Hell yes ChrisV, nice pics. 600HP special edition CTS-V. Dayum.. and a 700HP STS-V? Watch out M5 and AMG's. Caddilac has a few tricks up its sleeve, but the people ate BMW claim the M5 will produce 1.2g on the skidpad!

posted by  DSMer

Do you really get that much more power/speed out of it? The handling on eth nurburgring goes to the CTS-V, and the interior (as well as exterior of the 5 series) is being roundly lambasted by the press and enthusiasts alike...

While I do like the 5 series, it isn't enough to justify the pricetag increase.

posted by  ChrisV

It's just you.


Much longer rear deck, no license plate between the taillights (which are round), etc.

posted by  ChrisV

Yes, I completly agree with mah man ChrisV over here. Its allready been proven that the CTS-V has superior handling on race tracks than the M series. As to the interior of the M5 and the CTS-V, well... Just look at them. You mean to tell me that the interior of an M5, wich is far less "gadgety", justifies the price increase? Without a doubt the interior of any leather BMW is comfortable. The CTS-V offers alot more gadgetry(wich alot of car consumers love) and gives a more futeristic look than that of an M5.

Shoot I'll stop beating arround the bush. The interior of the M5 is dull and boring compared to that of the CTS-V. The CTS-V gives the respective feel of a race car. The M5 seems more relaxed. Hell if ChrisV did'nt specify that that was the interior of the M5, I might have thought that of a 7-Series.

posted by  DSMer

The M5 that you are comparing the CTS-V to has been basically unchanged since 2000. That's a long time in car years. The CTS-V is the first car in the M5's class to out-handle it. Your basically comparing a new car to an almost 5 year old car. If the CTS-V didn't outhandle the five year old M5, someone at Cadillac would've got slapped. And in my opinion, the CTS-V barely out-handles the M5. You're making it seem like the M5 is getting killed in the corners by the CTS-V. Car and Driver tested the CTS-V against the M5 and M3 at the track, and the CTS-V was only 0.138 seconds quicker than the FIVE YEAR OLD M5. That's basically a tie. Of course, the M3 posted the best times.

But why are we comparing the "M5" to the CTS-V? Isn't the CTS-V in the M3's class? Doesn't the M3 KILL the CTS-V in the handling department? Some say that the M3 is the "best handling car being produced"....that'll never be said about a "Caddy".

Wait until the new M5 comes out. BMW is going to set new standards in it's class. The new M5 will kill EVERYTHING. Just wait.

BMW produces the most "gadgety" car of all cars. The Cadillac interior isn't as nice as you think. Car and Driver agrees with me....

posted by  What

The M5 that you are comparing the CTS-V to has been basically unchanged since 2000. That's a long time in car years. The CTS-V is the first car in the M5's class to out-handle it. Your basically comparing a new car to an almost 5 year old car. If the CTS-V didn't outhandle the five year old M5, someone at Cadillac would've got slapped. And in my opinion, the CTS-V barely out-handles the M5. You're making it seem like the M5 is getting killed in the corners by the CTS-V. Car and Driver tested the CTS-V against the M5 and M3 at the track, and the CTS-V was only 0.138 seconds quicker than the FIVE YEAR OLD M5. That's basically a tie. Of course, the M3 posted the best times.

Sorry man, but the fact that the M5 has'nt been changed in 5 years is just a big excuse. No one told BMW to keep the same car for 5 years. So if the CTS-V kicks a car thats (not technically 5 years old its a 2004) not been changed in 5 years thats BMW's failure. Its a good car but the CTS-V just kicks its ass in alot of categories.

But why are we comparing the "M5" to the CTS-V? Isn't the CTS-V in the M3's class? Doesn't the M3 KILL the CTS-V in the handling department? Some say that the M3 is the "best handling car being produced"....that'll never be said about a "Caddy".

Thats because people are so damn biased towards American cars. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the CTS-V placed higher than the M3 in the Grand Prix races, although I may be mistaken.

Wait until the new M5 comes out. BMW is going to set new standards in it's class. The new M5 will kill EVERYTHING. Just wait.

The new STS-V is going to supposedly have 500-600+HP. Talk about set new standards. That will probably be the most HP on a stock sedan since the S55 AMG or the sports coupe SL65 AMG. Damn, I could'nt even fathom that much HP stock.

BMW produces the most "gadgety" car of all cars. The Cadillac interior isn't as nice as you think. Car and Driver agrees with me....
Look at the picture of the M5's Interior and the CTS-V. Tell me how many more buttons and gadgets you see on the CTS-V compared to the M5, and the picture I posted is'nt even the complete front cabin of the CTS-V. I don't think BMW is the most gadgety anywhos of all cars. I'd have to go with something like Lexus or Mercedes in that category. BMW has a nice "concealed" look to its interior.

posted by  DSMer

Name the categories where the M5 "gets its ass kicked" in.

posted by  What

Look at the picture of the M5's Interior and the CTS-V. Tell me how many more buttons and gadgets you see on the CTS-V compared to the M5, and the picture I posted is'nt even the complete front cabin of the CTS-V. I don't think BMW is the most gadgety anywhos of all cars. I'd have to go with something like Lexus or Mercedes in that category. BMW has a nice "concealed" look to its interior.

Umm, BMW created iDrive for a reason - to not make the dashboard look like a scientific calculator.

posted by  gtmash

I hate that knob, it always gets in the way of my arm resting in my fathers BMW. I wanna pull it off and shove it up the creators ass. That'll teach him to be ergonomic and space saving. There happens to be a certain simplicity to a calculator than a knob that controls everything. Try using a keyboard that only has one knob(not that keyboards have any knobs to begin with).

I feel like I'm about to unlock a secret BMW treasure with that thing. Its like a combination lock.

posted by  DSMer

The new M5 is much more advanced. The 7spd gearbox with something like 20 selectable shift patterns. The 5.0L V10 with 507hp and a cut-off program to make it run on 400hp for better fuel mileage (thats 107 hp more than the CTS-V). The interior by looking at the two is much better in the M5. the Caddy still uses too many GM plastics (I've also seen a few reviews blast the interior for it's 'not-up-to-par' status). Don't get me wrong, it's a big leap forward for GM. I just don't like the overall design of the car. The M5 only has 12 less ft-lbs of torque too, and it has .7L less of displacement. The new M5 just is overall more appealing to me. I'd happily pay the price premium over the CTS-V to get a M5. Supposedly the new M5 is going to be pulling 1.2g/1.3g on a skidpad, has nice big 19" wheels with nice big tires. I don't see the CTS-V outhandling it.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I meant the two door Monte Carlo with the vertical tail lights...oooppsss all these damn GM vehicles.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I disagree, you are forgetting ALL of the gadgetry is simplified on the BMW in the I-Drive system instead of having 10,000 knobs and buttons. I don't like a busy dash, because you can never find anything. Plus look at the dash on the CTS-V, it's ENTIRELY made out of a cheap looking plastic. That's not very appealing to me. While most people don't like I-Drive. I do. It seems the comp=uter generationites such as myself can get used to it pretty easily. Seems like it's most of the older folks having trouble getting used to it.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Yes thats all great but the CTS-V was'nt produced to compete with the new M5 thats what the STS-V is for you dumbass. Think before you type next time. The interior on the Caddilac CTS-V has been virtually the same since the debut of the 2003 CTS. I fail to see any big leap foward in GM. Caddilac has always been on the top of its game. They just decided to make a sport compact sedan. Wich they accomplished up to Caddilac standards.

"While most people don't like I-Drive. I do. It seems the comp=uter generationites such as myself....."
Ah shut up. Computers have been arround before your generation(at least from the point you actually devolped enough mental capacity to operate a computer). You're not special, and you're not smart for learning how to use a knob.

posted by  DSMer

You still haven't named the categories that the CTS-V kicks the old M5's ass in.

Yes, you are mistaken. The CTS-V will NEVER beat a M3 around ANY track. There isn't a car in the M3's category that can out-perform it.

Thunderbird1100, you're being too optimistic about the new M5. Yes, it probably will out-handle every car in it's class, but it will NOT pull over 1.00 g on the skidpad. Supercars struggle to produce over 1.00 g of lateral acceleration, and NO STREET LEGAL CAR ON EARTH can pull 1.3 g's on the skidpad. Racecars corner with that much force. I think you got too excited.

posted by  What

No I'm not the CTS-V has posted track times better than the M3 quite a few times. Like I said before I don't need to explain my reasonings to the likes of you.

This debate is futile, if you want proof of the M3 then find it yourself. I'm not here to disprove you. I don't care enough about your measily ass opinion to even challenge it.

If you want to see where the CTS-V shines against the M5 click back a few pages. Enough said...

posted by  DSMer

The CTS-V has never posted better track times than the M3. If it has, give me proof.

And you still haven't named the categories that the CTS-V kicks the old M5's ass in.

posted by  What

According to an article in CAR magazine issue 490 June 2003:

"Sometimes you can be a little too pleased with yourself. GM engineers testing the 400bhp Cadillac CTS-Vprototype at the Nurburgring Nordschliefe were all smiles after they'd offered the car to a BMW test driver who promptly beat his fastest ever M5 lap time. Until someone realised they'd just given the opposition a sneak preview of the fastest Caddy in history, that is. Doh!"


The truth is that the CTS-V is based on the same chassis that Holden uses in it's HSV range, and was developed at the N-ring by GM and Tom Walkinshaw racing. it in fact beats M3s and M5s aound a racetrack, which was it's intent. You can argue your "beliefs" all you want, but it's been reported on many times. This that I posted is merely one quote.

The UPCOMING M5 will be faster, but so will the upcoming CTS-V Plus and STS-V.

More quotes on the CTS-V vs M3:


posted by  ChrisV

Over at Roadfly BMW mesage boards, a number of BMW owners are changing to the CTS-V...

Review of CTS-V by an M3 owner (908 views) (1323 thread views)
Message: As posted on a couple of BMW sites:

Short version: A thunderingly fast, amazingly competent sports sedan with a few minor flaws. Anyone who buys an E60 530i for the same money is a ****ing idiot.

Somewhat longer version:

The interior of the CTS-V is pretty well executed. The gauges are large and very legible, and the controls for the radio/climate control are very intuitive and easy to use. Kudos, for example, for including a large volume knob and large tuning knob for the radio.

Little details are also well done. There are two stalks, like in European and Japanese cars, and they feel solid and precise--a far cry from the ancillary controls that GM use to employ, which felt brittle and cheap. There is a wealth of electronic information available, including the individual tire pressures of all four tires (like the E55), an electronic g-meter, and an electronic digital speedometer (in addition to the analog display).

There are some missteps. The parking brake, in the grand American tradition, is foot pedal operated, for some reason. The steering wheel doesn't telescope. It's hard to describe, but the ignition key/lock retains ghosts of the old GM interior feel, which isn't a good thing. And the interior plastic is not as nice as that found in the E39 or E46, though it is just as good (if not better) than the crap BMW is putting in the E60/65/63.

The seats are acceptable. Side bolstering is not as aggressive as I might like, though they are probably about as good as the non-adjustable seats I have in my E46. The Alcantara center section looks nice, and provides a sticky surface that holds you better than the slick Nappa in the M3.

What's the drive like?

Pulling away, the first thing you notice is the steering, which is quite light at low speeds. The steering wheel rim is thinner than the fat boy in the M3, but is actually probably about the right thickness. The engine is quiet and docile at idle, and the clutch takeup is surprisingly smooth and light for a driveline this powerful. There is some driveline snatch,* of a kind that will be familiar to M3 and M5 drivers, but if you concentrate a bit you can smooth your inputs and make it go away.

As the traffic opens, and you can give the engine its head, you realize that the LS6 is the dominating feature of this car. It has torque in a bottomless, inexhaustible stream, and as the engine gains revs it issues an unmistakable, hammering V8 cacophony. I've gotta say that I love the way that high performance American V8s sound, because no matter how much power they produce, they all retain a little bit of that industrial backbeat that calls to mind Woodward in its glory days.

And this car is very, very fast. It adds speed effortlessly, the way a buggy pulled by a Clydesdale on a cocaine binge might. But that's missing the point a bit, because it feels much more relaxed than the M3 does--the M3 is wound tight, whereas the CTS-V is rangy and loping. I can't speak to the axle tramp question, because I didn't push it hard from a standing start, but in everyday driving it handles the power with aplomb.

Throw it into a curve, and you can feel the weight. This car is clearly bigger than the E46, and it's agility suffers a bit for it. The steering firms up at speed, and while it remains lighter than the M3, it's no less communicative. Hitting a mid-corner bump reveals the stiffness of the damping, brought about in part by the F1 Supercar EMT tires; while the ride is generally very good and very smooth, sharp impacts can be transmitted through the chassis quite directly.

The shifter is workmanlike, but no one is ever going to write sonnets about it. It's a bit vague, and the dreaded Skip Shift feature rears its head when you are puttering about. It's fairly easy to override, but disconnecting it (if that can still be done) would be the first thing I would do when I got the car home. The shift throws are about average, and the gate is reasonably well laid out, though 6th is way over to the right. Oddly, reverse is up and to the right.

In terms of the overall driving gestalt, it's a bit unfair to compare this car to an E46. It's a bigger car, and its extra space and avoirdupois dictate that it will never have quite the same directness as the M3. It's much better to compare it to an M5, and here the CTS-V acquits itself very well. The things that the M5 does better than the CTS-V are...well, I suspect that there may be some, but I can't think of any at the moment. Wait, here's one: It impresses badge snobs better. Other than that, the CTS-V has the measure of the E39 M5.

And this is the really good bit: It does all of that for right about $50K. And that includes all manner of doo-dads that are either optional or not available on the E39 (or E60), such as nav, the electronic info center (transmission oil temp/g force gauge/tire pressure), XM radio, auto wipers, heated seats, OnStar, etc. etc. Like the Acura TL, the Cadillac comes loaded, and GM doesn't try and nickel and dime you to death with stupid option prices. I suppose that if you are looking for a stripped down club racer this is a bad thing, but if you are looking for a stripped down club racer and you are thinking either M5 or CTS-V you should have your head examined. For the type of driving this car is going to do, the options are nice to have.

Comparing the CTS-V to a 400 hp M5 makes sense. Comparing it to the BMW you can actually buy for the same money (a moderately well equipped 530) is just stupid. The Cadillac has 175 more hp, a performance advantage that makes the BMW look laughably slow and overpriced, and comes with a vast range of additional equipment. It also (to me) looks better, though the very worst you can say about the styling of the Cadillac is that even if you dislike it, it's honestly no more polarizing than Bangle's bull****.

In the end, the only relevant question is whether, having driven a CTS-V, I would buy one. The answer is unequivocally yes. The minor flaws are meaningless compared to the impressive package that Cadillac has put together. Because the M3 is smaller and lighter, I'm not impressed *enough* with the Cadillac to end the lease on my M early. But when it's time for the M3 to go back, the CTS-V is going to be the first car on my shopping list.

posted by  ChrisV

Also from Roadfly...


I have been reading everyones opinions on this site for two month straint now and thought I could share some helpful info. In the past 18 months I have owned a 2003 M3 black 6 speed manual, S4 black 6 speed manual, and a black CTS-V. Let me first say I was set on getting the CTS-V when I heard it was comming out. I came upon this forum when I was researching the car. long story short most of you scared the hell out of me. There was no way I was going to buy this car based on eveyones comments. Let me give my opinions on each of the cars I have owed below.

BMW M3: What can I say it was trully a driving machine. Well built well engineered, light, nimble, and fast. Things I didn't like. Ride was way to stiff, jerky and inconsistant. It was almost too responsive (if there is such a thing). It sounded cheep, like a rice burner and lacked all the amenities I like inside the car. Most of all it was a two door which was frustrating when I wanted to take 4 people in my car.I had a 75 shot of NOS in the car and that did make it fun. Why did I sell it? Ride was to jerky and stiff and it didn't have 4 doors.

S4. I liked the S4 because It had a v8 which allowed me to use a 100 shot of nitrous, had 4 doors, and the fit and finish were top notch. The first month I owened it , it was in the shop for transmission problems. It almost made me bitter. Let me say this as far as fit and finish nothing beats it. The car is as tight as a drum. On the other hand the car was so borring to dive. No fun factor. This is because it is so damn smooth. No kick in the pants thrust and most of all you couldn't get your [Oops!] to kick out. I love to drift and that car just sticks to the road because of the all wheel drive. Bottom line was the car was no fun to drive. I called Audi and they bought the car back from me becuase the tranny problem.

CTS-V: I now needed a new car and I really wanted this car until I got on this forum. Because of the problems I had with my S4 I didn't want another car with problems. Long story short I could resist my desires to buy this car so I said the hell with it and just bought it. I have never been happier with a car. I love it. It has the power I need. Rear wheel drive. The car drifts and burns brodies better than any car I have owened. Not only that, the car is the best looking car on the market. Mine is black on black with the dash crommed out (aftermarket) and 20 inch rims (alloyed technology's) The 20's look so good. I want to post a pick,but can't get it to work. Someone let me know how So I can show everyone how good the 20's look. I have orded the lunds Vortec supercharger and the corsa exhaust. That should really make the car fun. I have had no problems with my car and I have 1,100 miles on it. It does register that the engine is overheating, but I know it is just a software problem. Wheel hop, come on guys it is not that bad. I can still burn rubber for about 20 feet with minimal wheel hop. My right rear does not hop, but my left rear hops just slightly. Not like everyone has been proclaiming. Maybe I got lucky. Once unweighted the car drifts like a dream. I am having my nitrous system put on next week just for fun, I will let you know how it feels. Over all the CTS kicks but over my last two cars. My brother still ownes an M3 SMG and my other brother ownes the S4. We race all the time and my car starts to pull away in 2nd and 3rd gear. By redline in 3rd I am I car length ahead. I couldn't be happier with my purchase, So all you fence sitters take a chance and buy the car you wont regret it. Someone let me know how to post pics of my car. Thanks Adam PS I will post my pics of my car on my web sight. One on my homepage click the link that says My Cars. www.homepage.mac.com/agalland

http://homepage.mac.com/agalland/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-05 -12%2012.49.42%20-0700/Image-58CCD48CA44D11D8.jpg

........................................................................... ...

Take those with a grain of salt, but from what I've seen in enthusiast magazines, and heard from owners of M3s, CTS-Vs, and M5s, the CTS-V delivers.

posted by  ChrisV


Much longer rear deck, rounded taillights, no licence plate between taillights, etc. Yeah, the fact that the taillights are slightly vertical, and placed at the outside corners might make you mistake one for the other :roll: and think they arte "identical" but that's a seriously lame reason to bash the car.

Most of your other points are about as baseless. If you can't tell the difference between this car, the Impala and the STS-V, then your powers of observation in everything are in question...

posted by  ChrisV

looks like WHAT just got http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s25/smilies-22158.png by ChrisV.

posted by  SuperJew

I said that the CTS-V never posted faster lap times than the M3. That isn't my opinion, it is fact. Every track comparison between the CTS-V and M3 has been a victory for the M3.

Remember, the CTS-V can't beat the M3 around the track. It can beat the M5, I've said that earlier.

posted by  What

You give a link to an article in which the CTS-V was tested against an M3 at a CADILLAC event. Yeah, I'm sure the folks at Cadillac would introduce their car to the public by allowing the M3 to win...

Obviously, that test was biased. I'm pretty sure they let the Cadillac win. But still, they didn't test the Cadillac against the M3 around a track. The Cadillac trails the M3 in a 0-60 test, but it beats it in a 0-100 test. Notice how that article strategically didn't post the 0-60 times...

But lets look at a non-biased comparison in which the M3, M5, and CTS-V were tested around a track....

posted by  What

Nice article(s) ChrisV, that subject is pretty much beat. Hes only going to Ki2AY his way now. Its allready been proven and documented that the CTS-V has posted better track times than the M3 on quite a few occasions.

You argue what you think is right. Or you can simply accept the fact that ChrisV probably knows a hell of alot more than you on this subject and just take his word for it. What was that learning ChrisV always talks about? The kind where you don't have to find out something is crap on your own to know its crap?

Also if you can't seem to fathom that a CTS-V can't post better times than an M3 I'd be happily oblidged to allow you to eat your words.

2,(16), Max Angelelli, Monte Carlo, Monaco, Cadillac CTS-V, 1:29.162, 91.168.
5,(12), John Heinricy, Holly, Mich., Cadillac CTS-V, 1:29.582, 90.741.
18,(21), Jameson Riley, Wilton, Conn., BMW M3, 1:31.501, 88.838.
28,(20), Jeff McMillin, Erie, Pa., BMW M3, 1:35.353, 85.249.

That was an SCCA sanctioned event. About as unbiased as you can get, its a damn race.

Now you can still argue your "beliefs", or you can accept the truth...

posted by  DSMer

If you weren't so f*ckin' dumb you'd know that's not a street legal CTS-V. That's the 500+ hp, 2900 lb. CTS-V Race car. That's not the car that the public can buy. Of course a f*ckin' race car is going to beat out a stock M3.

Check out the CTS-V race car...

By the way, the CTS-V race car can't touch the M3 race car...

The CTS-V production car cannot beat an M3 around a track. That's a fact.

Also, that link that you posted wasn't the real race, that was times for practice laps.

posted by  What

Again you fail to see the point behind it. Iregardless to the race aspects of BOTH cars. The CTS-V still post better times. Stock, race or otherwise.. Not that the suspension of either cars was changed. They are pretty much stock, with minor or marginal changes. Again you find a way to weasle out of the truth

As ChrisV said before( i figured id show you a race aspect but since you wanna get all bitchy about it)

"However, the most important to GM is that this car has lapped Nurburgring in 8min 19sec, beating both the M3 and M5 "


Check the Nurburgring times for an M3 then check it for the CTS-V. You will find that both the M5 and M3 lost to the CTS-V and also the CTS-V accelerates to 60 faster than both... Hmm i never know that.

posted by  DSMer

Really? The CTS-V does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds...the M3 in 4.7 and the M5 in 4.9.

In what world is 5.2 seconds faster than 4.7 and 4.9..

posted by  What

and another http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s25/smilies-22158.png!!

posted by  SuperJew

I've no idea which of these is quicker around a track, but if I was spending that sort of money I wouldn't care: I'd buy a dedicated track car and a luxury saloon.

One thing is for sure: that monstrosity of a Cadillac is not going to go down well in Europe. Man, is it ever ugly. It's almost as if Chris Bangle got a sneak preview, felt sorry for Cadillac and decided to sabotage the lines of Beemers...

And the interior! How many colours and textures do you need? It really does look like the whole car was designed by comittee, and one with a 'no peeking' rule at that.

I can imagine that this may appeal to the American market, but personally, I wouldn't be seen dead in one (unless they make a hearse, of course). Give me a slower, more comfortable, prettier Jaguar or Merc any day.

posted by  heebee

Ah, yes, more inane comments coming from the DSMer. It's always welcome for you to keep doing this and me making you look more like an ass.

The CTS-V NOW competes with the M5 due to it's sedan design and also both cars are nearly identical in sizes. The M3 is a small two door sports car. The CTS-V is not. The M5 matches the critera more against the CTS-V. going by p[rice would be stupid knowing a BMW is going to cost much more anywho.

Just look at the stats for their size (using regular CTS vs. regular 5 series) :

CTS - Length- 190.1"
Width- 70.6"
Wheelbase- 113.3"
Weight -3,500lbs

5 series (530) - Length- 190.6"
Width- front - 79.8" total 61.3" center of wheel to other center of wheel, back - 72.7" total 62.3" center of wheel to center of wheel
Wheelbase- 113.7"
Weight -3,460lbs

Wow, looks like they are almost identical in every dimension, yet you claim the true competition for the CTS-V is the M3 which in turn is quite a bit smaller than above.

M3 - Length- 176.8"
Width- front - 70.1" total 59.4" center of wheel to other center of wheel, back - 70.1" total 60.0" center of wheel to center of wheel
Wheelbase- 107.5"
Weight- 3,400lbs

Now which car is closer to the size of the CTS? The M3 or 5 series? Well, I'll save you the trouble of being dumb again, it's the 5 series.

Again price has little-no bearing. If it were based solely on price that would mean the XLR is competition for the last M5, the Mustang GT premium is competition for the Evo RS, the TL is competition for the STi. See how your logic is flawed? You have to take into account size/dimensions and also style of car is a big factor (whether its four door, two door, roadster etc...).

Computers have been around since the 1940s. But really never took off until my generation. Computers really never made a big home appearance until the early 90's when the 386 and 486 were hitting the scene. Then later the Pentium. Again, now your LACK of computer knowledge impresses me all the more of your moronic statements such as your last paragraph above. Also, best you dont ever say ANYTHING about my computer knoweldge, for I will school you on ANYTHING hardware based. BTW - I ran a small custom computer business for over a year building computers to order.

I made the I-Drive comment becuase if you read ANY review for the new 5 or 7 series they blast the complexity of the I-Drive system and it's rather near-impossible learning curve.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I see since you got your ass shut up about the CTS-V arround the track you wanna nit pick and bitch about some other information found on that site. Meh your beef is with tha GM website not me.... Then again those test 0-60 test could have been actually been done by GM. Wich could conclude their 0-60 results.

No it does'nt... At least not the M5 you desrcribed with the 500HP. That car is yet to even be released. So tell me T-Bird... how do you design a car in 2004 to compete with a car that comes out in 2005? I suppose you're gonna tell me GM has the eye of the future? Again you're comment was beyond idiotic. Yes you desribed the 2005 model of M5, wich the STS-V will be made to compete with.

Oooh you're gonna school me because you can put together a computer? STFU, you're an idiot. It does'nt take rocket science to put a computer togheter. You are mediocre and a dumbass if you think you're special for possessing that "tallent". Again you fail to see that being 1 years old when the first 386 is realeased does'nt make you smart with computers. Again, you're not the generation of computers. Kids born arround 1996ish to now are. My god you're just stupid all over... . Maybe you should use you're special tallents to build yerself of a nice cumputy and search the web and learn something about a damn car.

"I ran a small custom computer business for over a year building computers to order"

Tell me T-Bird, whats so damn custom about somone saying I want that and you just add it to the motherboard? A "Custom" shop my ass. Unless you were "customly" building chips and boards you were'nt "customizing" shit. I could save everyone that ever bought a computer outta your "custom shop" the trouble of dealing with your mornic ass and gave them a tiger direct catelouge and they could have learned your "skill of building computers" in 10 minutes. Yeah Mr. I'm so smart on computers. Kiss my ass you dumbfounded fool, you aint special, and you sure as hell aint are'nt gonna school me on anything relevant to computers and or cars. Enuff said... I can obviously tell you have no idea what you speak of. So everytime you come out of your dark hole I'm gonna shoot you and your idiotic comments back in your hole until you learn yourself better. Has nothing to do with me being an ass, its you being a dumbass..

DAMN!, I'm thirsty....

posted by  DSMer

Except that in actual track use, teh CTS-V beats it. Proven. tyhe cars in teh Speed GT are prepared to stock class rules, which means very litle can be done to them other than safety and tire changes. Once given equal tires, the CTS-V beats teh M3 on teh track. Which means teh negineering of the CAR is at least as good as teh M3. Of course, you also said:

Again, proven wrong. In an unbiased SCCA event.

You said it earlier? you asked:

And those were given. Now you want to backpedal and say you never said it couldn't? Sorry, but you're wrong.

The fact is the CTS-V and the STS-V are the equal of BMW's finest. The upcoming CTS-V Plus and STS-V Plus will up the ante just like the V10 M5 will (which is a car I love, BTW).

posted by  ChrisV

This has to be the dumbest crowd I've ever been in...No wonder VWHOBO left....I said that the CTS-V doesn't DOMINATE the M5 like DSMer was saying that it was. I never disagreed that the CTS-V was faster than the M5 AT A TRACK. But in a drag race, the M5 will win.

Responding to you is pointless. I'd rather just slap you.

I wasn't going to say anything, but you left out a part of that quote...

"However, the most important to GM is that this car has lapped Nurburgring in 8min 19sec, beating both the M3 and M5 ! (though not the M3 CSL)"

The M3 prevails...

posted by  What

As a biased BMW enthusiast,...in "words" our average member can understand:

Nuh-uhhhh! :wink2:

posted by  BavarianWheels

There was no discussion of any M3 CSL. Just the M3, don't try and change your original words. You said the M3 will never be outracked by a CTS-V and you were wrong. Just shut up allready, ChrisV and I were right. You sit there and try to backpedal and change your original wording and "beliefs". Does'nt matter, you were wrong. End of story...

Hehe :) . Yes Bav, Caddy has their valves on there heads correctly. Well for the most part they were always on point. Now that they have decided to enter the genre of performance sedans, BMW and Mercedes are going to have to step up there game... cuz "GM's BACK BITCH!". (Hehe, I always wanted to say that) :thumbs:

posted by  DSMer

It's a shame you've had to hold your emotions back on account of GM's inability to play hard ball...However, since the Germans have played this game a bit better and a bit longer, I don't see a big problem. :wink2: :thumbs:

posted by  BavarianWheels

*Has a sneaking suspicion that BavarianWheels is German. "Art de voot te naimen, we like the Bayerische Motoren Werke"* Hehe J/K

Well if Germany is so big and bad they wont mind any newcomers into the sporty sedan genre. Surley a company thats been in the business since the early 1920's, and well before that with airplanes, wont mind another company(wich I believe is almost 20 yrs older than BMW) to venture into their turf. Go GM! :thumbs:

posted by  DSMer

I was pointing out the rear end only, not bashing it. Just syaing they appear similar.

I can bash one thing though...

STS = carbon copy of CTS stretched out.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Looks at the pictures ChrisV posted. Hmm, first he could'nt even distinguish the difference between a MonteCarlo and Impala. Then he says the rear end appears "similar" to that of a CTS. Yep that kid has lost all of his marbles if any he had to begin with.

"STS = carbon copy of CTS stretched out"

An M3 and M5 look the exact same aside from their slightly longer bodies and probably different head lights. So whats your point? Does'nt mean the car is any less of performance. I fail to see the "bash" there.

"Duh er, you looker just like yas twin bro, aww shucks but hes taller... HAWW I just OWN3ED you"

This guy needs a serious brain stem linkage adjustment. Cause hes not hitting all of his gears right. Haha :laughing: (Now that a bash)

posted by  DSMer

for anyone who dont believe cavy's or a domestic wont kill, try racing one first, you think because the cars that are stock racing against something with mods is slow, let me tell you somethin, any acura or honda over here in IA that races me doesn't compare, i have over $30,000 into my cavalier and it's an automatic, believe it or not, i also hate people saying that sticks are faster, NO THEY ARE NOT, i have beatin cars sponsored from actual companies that have the car all moded and race it for a sponsorship agreement and i win a lot of them, the biggest race i have won was against a mitsubishi eclipse GSX with stage 4 turbo and sponsored by about 25 different companies, so you can imagine what they had besides one of the best turbo's out there, i am not saying that imports suck, believe me i would love to have one, but you guys need to relize we are americans driving import cars, i am sticking with american here, it does save money too, but dont ever say a domestic can't beat an import because people out there know imports are not invincible to our domestics and that is the truth!!!

posted by  1-Sick-CaVi

Honestly, nuthin' surprises me anymore... :smoke:

posted by  lutz

Nope not German.

I'm sure they won't mind some "competition." :laughing:

posted by  BavarianWheels

Someone looking to buy a Sedan performance car is usually NOT looking to buy a COUPE performance car. They usually want the sedan for a specific reason. If they wanted a coupe they would look at the Vette instead of the CTS-V (or the XLR). Just ask around to M3 and CTS-V owners. They aren't shopping around for both of those cars...

I can't believe you said 'how can someone design a car to compete against a car that isnt out yet'. Are you a moron? They do that ALL THE TIME. If they didn't do that they wouldn't be competitive. Specs start getting leaked about a year ahead of time anywho for cars. not to even mention the car industry guys probably get those leaks WAY before us. Nissan said it themselves MONTHS back...they will be designing the U.S. version of the GTR Skyline (slated for it's 07 release) to be competitive with the 911 of around the same year. It's all about anticpation (you cant look at the ratings of cars now and then come out with a car two years later that competes with THEM...by then they will have something new out that is more powerful). This is simple R/D car design, you don't know what the competition has to offer in the future you're screwed. With a man of your claiming of knowledge on cars I think you would know this, but i guess not. Another inane, moronic, 'i dont know what I am talking about' comment coming STRAIGHT from your ignaorance.

Ah,yes, now you will try my on computers. I hope you were going to go there. Let's see EVERY person that's ever challeneged me on my computer skills I have this one thing they can do if they think 'its so easy, if it doesnt fit try another slot'. I give them what customers would give me and see if they can even fdirst build a compatable computer and then have to worry about even if the parts do all fit if they can co-exsist with one another without being bugged up and THEN on top of that know what each and every-thing you must do to compile and assemble a computer in the correct manner. Such as, before I've seen people put on HSF's on the chipset and CPU without ANY thermal compound down before hand. Lot's fo simple things people just don't know about. Also using adequete brands (such as a generic '550watt' PS against an Antec 550watt PS). Guess what though, everytime I've given them something a customer would have gave me, they screw up and cant even get the compatibilities correctly or not get a good enough this or that for the applications they will be running. Typical 'Its so easy anyone could do it' moron and then screw up horridly when trying. Kids born around 1996 are the computer geeks you say? Wow, I havent been seeing these 8 year olds have computer businesses and putting together computers. You must live around a Nuclear dump. Maybe you should try websters and learn to spell 'talent' correctly before insulting someone about it :laughing:

Wow, I think you really are 7 year old gone bad. Tiger Direct -> lmao. You are funny kid. Custom computer companies build to order. Also we do things such as add fans to sides/top of cases (which requires cutting), add watercooling systems (DangerDen/Koolance) and get custom paint jobs to the customers specs. Have you never SEEN a custom computer? First you waste all of your keyboard saying how building a computer is 'simple' and then you waste another paragraph 'its not custom'. I'll tell you this. Our computers are one-of-a-kind. How is that NOT custom? Unless two customers want the exact same thing it's original for each customer. You really are just trying nit-pick now aren't you? Oh well, typical of your idiotic kind.

Oh, and the 'stupid all around' comment. Very funny. I might as well laugh at that too, knowing I got a 1470 SAT and 4.4 GPA....gee, you really must NOT know me :clap:

You might as well stop posting to me if all you're going to do is bash every-thing I say because you're losing each time. It's actually pretty sad you persist on doing this and nit-pick at the DUMBEST of things to even argue about. Then write a whole paragraph on it (which usually never makes any sense) and bash it completely without even having the BASIS of knowledge on the topic. I guess that's what one is reduced to when you just have nothing left, oh so sad.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I said the CTS and Monte Carlo's rear ends resemble each other due to the vertical tail lamps. what is it with you people and bashing on stuff i never EVEN said? You really have NOTHING left, do you? I never once said the Monte Carlo looked like the Impala. So I dont know where that comment came from.

"M3 looks like an M5" <- ROFL, are you BLIND? First off, one is a coupe and one is a sedan (the biggest obvious difference...didn't know you couldnt tell that). The STS and CTS are both sedans.


http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_cod e=carnews&content_code=02986726&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=2282376&record=4< br />
I fail to see them being 'identical' like the STS and CTS.

posted by  thunderbird1100


I can't believe you even CLAIM to have invested $30,000 in a POS Cavalier. Then go on to say all this ricer crap. To top it off, you actually used 'stage 4 turbo'....lol. This isn't Grand Turismo chat kiddy, try your own age group.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Hmm... Cavalier... This thread is about A Caddilac. A CTS-V to be exact, and this guy is talking about some cheap ass Cavalier. Haha, where have peoples minds gone.

"Holy shit people. The M3 is a coupe and the M5 is a sedan!!! That must mean if I have a 2 door Impala and a 4 door Impala I have TWO COMPLETLY DIFFERENT CARS! Oh my GOSH! Because obviously an extra 2 doors means that the cars are completly different. Oh but wait I think the Impala is the same because it has a rear lip spoiler. Geesh am I SMART OR WHAT! No wait, I'm gonna backpedal and say I did'nt say the CTS-V looked like a Impala, wait I meant Monte Carlo because I'm do much of a dumbass to tell the difference between two common ass American cars. Maybe its the 2 doors, they look an awful lot like each other. But I never said that a STS-V looks like an Impala.

"Is it just me or does this rear-end HIGHLY resemble an Impalas (other than the fact it's a direct carbon copy stretch of the CTS)?"

Oh well ignore that, because even if I did mix up two common ass cars. I can still piece togehter a 550 watt psu for a computer, because I can sureley tell the difference from a generic one and a cheap one. Oh wait don't forget the thermal compound on the CPU,it might burn out. Not to mention I got XXX scores on this XXX test. So you know I'm really smart. Even though I think that GM designed a car in 2001-ish against a car that BMW had'nt even concieved yet or released specs to any general public. Maybe BMW just wanted to give Caddilac their specs for a 2005 M5 in 2002 so Caddilac can just beat them to the competition. I'm still smart. I have the need to tell a bunch of people online who don't know me (Nor do I give a shit about you) how big my SAT and GPA is because we all know book smarts and claimed SAT scores mean so much online. I'm.."

Oh I can't bear to go on you're just soooo damn stupid. Like ChrisV says, You could'nt pour piss out of a boot if the instructions came on the heel. Would you like to know how many cars I've built and worked on, how many car audio teams I've worked with, computers I've built and repaired, how many certifications I have? How many classes I've taken regaurding cars. Or how many car related business I worked at? What my GPA and SAT are? What is that... NO? Yeah, likewise to your shitty "stats". I don't give a rats ass about what you think you can do. Obviously anyone so "smart" who cant tell the difference between 3 common cars has'nt a shit of common sense in his head. ChrisV spared you a flaming for that dumbass comment. I don't need to rattle off at the mouth about what the hell I've done, my post speak for themselves. Yet your dumbass can't even distinguish between an Impala, Monte Carlo, and CTS-V or STS-V? Nor does your dumbass know that the CTS-V was'nt made to compete with the 2005 M5, because GM allready is making an STS-V to handle that job. I can't take your stupid ass serious. You're about as stupid as they get and I don't care what credentials you have. I'm gonna sue Websters, and any other dictionary company I can find, for creating false text and not having your face and name under the definition of stupid. It feel almost stupider listening to some of your stupid ass comments. I think I have to go get a cat scan to ensure that in some odd way, your stupid ass moronic comments did'nt imbed themselves into my frontal lobe via osmosis.

posted by  DSMer

and I thought GPAs were calculated out of 4.0...how could he have gotten a 4.4? :laughing:

posted by  SuperJew

Haha, I did'nt catch that SJ. Maybe hes just that "smart" :laughing:


posted by  DSMer

Advanced Placement classes.

posted by  abless

argh, so much crap written that i just can't go through all of it. anyhow, just thought i would drop a few comments a bit quick.

1) thunderbird, they are called Clone computers. mods such as fans everywhere and water cooling systems still make them called "Clones". also, custom paint jobs doesnt make everything a custom made item, only a customized item. in order for something to be custom, it has to be built completely in a custom way. for example, bikes from West Coast Choppers or OCC. also, getting a good grade in SAT's doesnt make you a real genius. an old classmate of mine took summerschool every single year, and he got a 1,300 something in his SAT exam. it is a known fact that u can get a very kick ass grade for not answering questions u dont know, as u get 1 point for those, 2 points for correct answers, and no points for a wrong answer. even writing your name and all gets you around 200 points. there are many people that fail school and are still geniuses. remember Albert Einstein?

2) DSMer, just a few hours ago i replied to you on another thread to your "stove" thing. look at everything you have read and your little insults and think back to everything you said to me. "STFU, you're an idiot" doesnt sound very un-kiddy-ish to me, and this is going on what *you* refer to as childish, even though you are still a kid yourself as well. also, when putting 2 words together, such as "does" and "not", it's put together so that only the "t" is after the little apostrophe, not the N as well.

examples: doesn't, aren't

just thought i would correct ya. if u plan on using correct spelling all the time, atleast do it right. also, it's "talent".

also, i have noticed how you have constantly posted about "yea, this is wat ChrisV would have done", "oh, ChrisV this...". could you drop it already? its as if all of a sudden you worship the man and you would never dare say anything against him.

3) 1-sick-cavi...... wat the hell are u talking about? like it was said, this is about a cadillac, not a lower class cavalier.

as for marketing... yes, in every aspect of marketing, no matter wat the product is, everything is designed with anticipation in mind and last minute change plans. this is how competition works in the real world, not in "this is wat ChrisV would have done" world. sadly, but true, but this is the human way of doing things.

as far as the whole cadillac vs bmw thing goes, if i knew more about the cadillac, i would give an exact opinion, but i dont. the only thing i can do is say that, according to YOU people, it seems that its going to be directed towards competing against the M5.

btw, its true. people sometimes look only for the sedan version of the model and not the coupe version. sometimes its both, sometimes its only the coupe version. this is kinda obvious actually.

posted by  Inygknok

Yes, so much crap has been written, but I don't have to respond to each person individually, I have a universal response.....


posted by  What

um....thats just a plain NO. AP classes don't make your GPA over 4.0...its just another grade factored into it.

posted by  SuperJew

of course he could get a 4.4.....just like the 337 game I bowled last night!

SuperJew,don't even bother with this kid. He MAY(and I say that loosely)be intelligent but he's insecure. He posts about everything and anything to try to "prove" himself correct so people think he's "the shit" or "cool". I also don't see how you can "run" a business when you're under the age of 18, but hey, it's America so who knows. "Hey guys, I customized my mommy's computer yesterday!!! I put a new modem in!" At any rate, he's not worth wasting time over. He has very little real world experience with cars and it shows. He also comes from a family of honda owners...he even said so himself...gee, I always wondered why he is biased towards hondas. As far as making cars to compete with future cars...lol, that's bullshit but he's almost right. For example...cars made in 2004 are generally made to excel in certain categories over competing '03 models and so forth and so on. It's a case of "one-up-manship" not looking into the crystal ball or "leaking" info. You can shoot holes in just about every post he makes, it's so easy it's not even fun! thunderbird1100, you need not respond to this post or try to butcher certain statements I said and use things out of context(i know that's a big word for ya) because it really doesn't matter to me, you're a jackass and everyone knows it. Have fun plotting and writing a big elaborate comeback to this because I know you will anyway. Talk down about me, call me names, say that I have no idea what I'm talkin about, it really doesn't matter to me.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

It came from the fact that you first said the STS "highly resembles" an Impala from the rear. When it was pointed out theat nothing was the same, you said,

Implying that you didn't know the difference between the Impala and the Monte Carlo, as you get "all these damn GM vehicles" confused.

The point was that your opinions tend to be based on other of your opinions, in a circular fashion. Which came first? The perception or the opinion? If you've justified the opinion by the perception, then you can't turn around and justify the perception with the opinion.

posted by  ChrisV

man this thread was stupid to begin with...the true import killer these days is the '05 WRX STi. No competition from stupid ricers. And by the way, you can get more then 4.0....i had a 5.2 weighted GPA in high school from honors and AP classes.

Peace - MILFhunter


posted by  MILFhunter


posted by  abless

MILFhunter has just been http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s25/smilies-28173.png

posted by  SuperJew

that's kinda like saying that you want a domestic killer, so you're gonna go out and pick up an '03 cobra :screwy:

good call on the "pimp slap" SuperJew

posted by  Sick88Tbird

cannibalism obviously, but look at it this way - when someone says import vs. domestic, what comes to your mind first, japanese imports or european imports? I think that japanese imports pose more of a threat to American cars than do european imports. But whatever....and when I think import, i think of all the tuner POS civics and intergras and eclipses, so in that sense, the STi is a killer of imports, it's own kind. And that's what I would use it for if I had one - to kill imports. Yeah, I did get slapped pretty hard, but whateva, it's all good.

- MILFhunter

posted by  MILFhunter

Rice killer? Yes

Import killer? No.

posted by  abless

thats what its all about...

and good job taking the slap. you're cool in my book. :thumbs:

posted by  SuperJew

Now if you want a real import killer, look no further than my one-of-a-kind 1992 BMW Sable wagon. Well, it's actually a Mercury, but I replaced all the emblems for fun and changed it into a BMW. It has a 3.8L V6 that has plenty of power and the exhaust is taken off, so it sounds really mean. It can even spin the tires while going 30 mph. This is just a car that kinda sits behind my garage and nobody drives, so I put on a cardboard body kit, and it's the lowest thing in town...I can't even go out of my driveway without scraping. If you want more pics, tell me how to attach them or put them in my signature. Thanks and dont get too green looking at this beast.

- MILFhunter

posted by  MILFhunter

btw it's my avitar picture

posted by  MILFhunter

My tires are always spinning at any speed above zero...they're kind of quirky like that... :banghead: :laughing:

posted by  BavarianWheels

MILF got http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s25/smilies-29382.png

posted by  SuperJew

uhh wtf...spin as in spin out as in burn out...damn you people are so difficult

posted by  MILFhunter

I plan on commenting aobut this thread in a new thread that Iwil lwork on later. It is bout SRT-4

posted by  Voda48

the import killer would be a CIVIC because it uses NOS!!!

posted by  CarEXPERT

No because a Civic is an import! Jeez! Nitrous Oxide does not help your car that much if it is the only mod being used. A C6 would kill a Civic that only had Nitrous. :banghead:

posted by  StiMan

No shit a civic is an import. Civic=HoNDA=Japan=Not US=IMPORT DUMBSHITMAN. Nirtous will give you like 60hp and in somecases more you stupid mofo and 60 is alot of hp dumbass. a C6 has like 500hp while a civic with nitrous only will have 200 so the c6 wil win. Dam you are dumb :banghead:

posted by  CarEXPERT

The whole point of this thread is about Domestics that are Import Killers. Notice how you are in the Domestics section of Car Forums. This is about US cars that can beat imports. Not a Civic because it is an import, so how can it be domestic at the same time? It cant. So you are in the wrong part of the Forum. :banghead:

posted by  StiMan

a import killer would be a ford GT90

posted by  CarEXPERT

This is an absurd comparison:



They look similar? :screwy:

posted by  Gothicaleigh

I fail to see how the STS and CTS are 'identical'.

They definately hail from the same company, but to not see a difference you would have to be blind:



posted by  Gothicaleigh

As for the performance question in regards to BMW:
The CTS-V does outperform the M3 and M5. This is well documented.

From Car and Driver's first test drive of the CTS-V...

"Quite proud of it's creation, Cadillac invited us to the 'Ring to try out it's BMW beater to be."

"This chassis competence is critical because the CTS-V gains speed ferociously."

"Those figures make the V-series quicker than a BMW M3 or M5."

"...lapped the Nordschleife in 8 minutes and 19 seconds in the V - a better time than either M-car can turn."

From Automobile's "V-Bomb" article:

"At warp speeds of 150mph and above, the CTS-V is as solid and well planted as an M5."

"Around the Nurburgring, the V is heroic."

"Turn all the stability controls off, and you can steer the V through the side windows."

"The CTS-V is a better driver's car than the Jaguar S-type R, the Audi RS6, or the Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG."

From Road&Track's "Something Wicked This Way Comes..." article:

"GM's performance division has indeed transformed this Cadillac into an American M5 fighter, a supurb rear-drive sports sedan that blows us away with it's power, brakes, suspension tuning, and balance."

"...the V is a very fast car, keeping pace with both the Maserati Coupe, and the 50th Anniversary Corvette..."

"The power is especially sweet above 3000rpm, and the top speed of 163mph is reached in 5th gear."

"6th is a mileage maker, allowing the engine to loaf along at 1600rpm while the V cruises at 60mph, returning an impressive 26 mpg..."

"The rear brakes, in fact, are so large they look like they are the fake rotors used on non-running concept cars."

"The pedal is not quite Porsche-firm, but the stops from 60 and 80mph are on par with a Porsche 911. Impressive."

"Cadillac's onboard G-meter tells no lies- during our photo shoot the V spiked at 1.13g to the left, and .91g to the right."

"It was once hard to think of a Cadillac in the realm of the world's top sport sedans, but the CTS-V, with it's Corvette heart and expert chassis tuning, belongs there."

posted by  Gothicaleigh

The CTS-V is a very touchy car to launch correctly due to it's wheelhop. The suspension has been retuned for 05 and has a stiffer rear available as a dealership upgrade. This subdues some of the hop.

Experienced V drivers can launch even the 04 V's into a 4.6 to 4.7 0-60 and recent published road tests reflect this.

From a recent Motor Trend comparison where it bested the new 400hp GTO and the 425hp 300C SRT-8:

Cadillac CTS-V (2005 w/o factory performance add-ons)
0-60: 4.7 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.1 @ 109.8 mph
60-0 Braking: 111ft.
Slalom: 66.8mph
Figure Eight: 25.6
Average Figure Eight g: 0.72

The Car&Driver article that everyone is referring to (comparing the CTS-V to the M3 and M5) isn't a level comparison. The car they had was an early production model and they report it had a faulty engine temperature sensor that limited performance (they short-shifted through the gears and did not put the car in performance mode). They also found out after the test that the one tire was under-inflated.
Why did they continue with the test despite these known problems? Typical european bias by the automotive press? Who knows. The fact remains that even with it not performing near it's full potential, it bested the M5 and ran very close to the M3. A true comparison would undoubtedly have the CTS-V taking both.

To put the performance potential of this car into perspective, here are documented Nordschleife lap times from the famed Nurburgring track:

Porsche Carrera GT: 7.32
Chevrolet Corvette Z06: 7.56
Lamborghini Diablo SV: 8.09
Ferrari 360 Modena: 8.09
Porsche 993 Turbo: 8.12
BMW Z8: 8.15
Cadillac CTS-V: 8.19
BMW M3: 8.22
BMW M5: 8.28
Honda NSX: 8.38
Honda S2000: 8.39
Chevrolet C5 Corvette: 8.40

posted by  Gothicaleigh

1) The STS-V and the CTS-V look VERY similar, not identical but much closer in resemblance than the M cars.
2) You say that in performance the CTS-V outerforms the M3 and the M5. It does outperform the M3 with 67 hp, but the M5 out performs the CTS-V by 107 hp. It does not PERFORM at the SAME level as both of those cars. It performs better than one, and far worse than the other.
3) 0-60 in 4.7 sec? The STi is only 30k and does it in 4.5-4.6 sec.
I see no reason to continue this. :thumbs:

posted by  StiMan

1) The STS-V and the CTS-V look VERY similar, not identical but much closer in resemblance than the M cars.
Duh, I suppose that Caddilac made the cars resemble each other on accident? Who cares about their resemblance, it was done for a reason.

2) You say that in performance the CTS-V outerforms the M3 and the M5. It does outperform the M3 with 67 hp, but the M5 out performs the CTS-V by 107 hp. It does not PERFORM at the SAME level as both of those cars. It performs better than one, and far worse than the other.
Performance is'nt based soley on output numbers. Leave all your rice anaologys to the internet racers. The CTS-V was created to beat the M3 and some other Mercedes, it does that. Any other comparisons of the CTS-V to any other car is strictly for the reason of stating it. Nothing more nothing less.

3) 0-60 in 4.7 sec? The STi is only 30k and does it in 4.5-4.6 sec.
I see no reason to continue this. :thumbs:
The STi may accelerate to 60 faster but both the M3 and CTS-V would kill the STi in about any competive track event aside from rallying.

You're right this event has went on far to long. Stop discussing it. Wait for the new STS-V to come out. If it kills the new M5 then Cadillac has done their job.

posted by  DSMer

Sounds fine to me. Simply making a few statements to the based on the previous poster's. As to the STi being killed by the M3 and CTS-V. I am not quite so sure, but that is for another day. :thumbs:

posted by  StiMan

But which M3 and which STi? An M3 CSL will beat a standard STi however the WR-1 Vs the standard E36 M3 could be a diffrent story...

posted by  2002_EVO_VII

Okay, I'll give you that. The designs have the same elements. Many high end companies do this.

It outperforms (do you understand what the definition of performance is?) both the current model M3 and the last available M5. The new M5 is not available yet so comparing it is pure speculation at this point.

Using the same source used for the CTS-V numbers above:
Subaru WRX STi 2005
0-60: 4.7 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.3 @ 100.1 mph
60-0 Braking: 113ft.
Slalom: 69.7mph
Figure Eight: 26.1
Average Figure Eight g: 0.70

Cadillac CTS-V 2005
0-60: 4.7 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.1 @ 109.8 mph
60-0 Braking: 111ft.
Slalom: 66.8mph
Figure Eight: 25.6
Average Figure Eight g: 0.72

Take a CTS-V for a test drive. You will see where the extra $20k is.
I won't knock the STi, it's an amazing car for it's price and class, but it isn't a luxury sport sedan.

posted by  Gothicaleigh

Very true.

Point taken. It does out perform the current M3, and the new M5 is not availible yet, but it has been tested, but I understand that it cannot be factored in until it is out.

What mag is that from?

Ok. STi is DEFINATELY not a luxury sport sedan. :thumbs:

posted by  StiMan

Cadillac is making a serious move into the luxary sedan performance market. They want to be on top, and they got there minds set right, The V series from Cadillac, main topic in this forum about the CTS-V, and how its comparing to the M3 and M5, personally its hard to find truthful facts on the net, some say the CTS-V can do 60 in 5.2, first article i pulled up from a search said 4.7 which makes more sense. Dont get performance specs from GM as they might be altered for insurance purposes. Get performance specs from a various of sources, like motor trend, road and track etc. Anyways the CTS-V is dancing in M5 and M3 territory, and soon it will surpass it i dunno if anyones heard but there has been a "CTS-V plus" testing in germany with a 6.0L producing 475HP-500HP.

The problem is to many people have came to believe the bmw is one of the best car makers, and cant accept the fact if another car maker is coming into there territory, especially if its american, well its its here and its happening, but im sure bmw will have some tricks up there sleeve to throw back at them.

posted by  speedy266

I really agree, get your performance numbers from a reliable source that ACTUALLY tests the cars. Cadillac's new marketing slogan for the V-Series is "Under 5 Seconds," which refers to the 0-60 times each V-car can run. If GM posts results under 5 seconds, it is safe to assume the CTS-V can reach 60 mph in under 5 seconds.

posted by  moostang104314

The new Charger SRT8 would have to be an import killer....with pure 6.1 Hemi Power! :laughing:

posted by  Xploder87

Couldn't have put it better myself :thumbs:

posted by  04subwrx

I worked for a Cadillac Dealership and I can tell you from experience that the CTS-V is one bad ride. Under full acceleration you are doing almost 100mph in second gear! Also it is the most comfortable ride i have been in. Even travaling at speed in excess of 150mph. But cars that you should take a look at if you like caddys are the STS-V and the XLR-V both are coming out soon and both will have horsepower well over 500. I believe the XLR-V is going to be pushing 650hp. But all of the V series cars are true import killiers. Great cars.

posted by  Pwright23

Yes, the CTS-V is a great car. Even the base model V6 is a good run for a 25K. The styling on the CTS is very clever, and although the sound system lacks the feel of a quality Mercedes or Acura it has its ups. The CTS-V has bad wheel hop upon hard launches and stand still lateral acceleration. Until that is improved by GM the CTS-V will never be faster from a stop than a BMW M3. However, in a world of performance sedans who cares about drag racing? You'll rarely see an M3 at the strip let alone a CTS-V. The CTS-V has forever been impressive on a road course, posting faster "Ring" times than both the M3, C55AMG, and Audi S4. It even beats the bigger brothers M5, E55AMG, and RS6. But they outclass the CTS-V by almost 100+HP and $20,000 a piece so who cares? The CTS-V should never meet on the road course with the aforementioned cars out classing it.

Everyone knows thats when entering the ring of performance sedans you have to tango with the white propellers in the sky. A job that Audi and Mercedes have been after for years, but couldn't quite get the position. After dropping lap times at nurburguring, BMW knew they had a serious contender on their hands, both on and off the track. SCCA races prove that Cadillac has done something right when the CTS-V team placed number one over the M3 racers on several occasions. On the road ,where most of these Internet racers seem to forget, is where these cars will probably spend more than 99% of their lives from the average consumer. Almost all who partake in the purchasing of a BMW M3 and or CTS-V will undoubtedly want to experience those "ultimate driving machine" qualities. After all, who wants to pay $50,000 for a race car that can't be comfortably driven on the streets?

Aside from the fancy wheels, concept car-like styling, and hype of owning a car that can accelerate from stoplight to stoplight the fastest; we get down to the real meat and potatoes of what makes these two "real driving machines". For those with more than one driver of the car, per household, the CTS-V offers memory seats as a standard option. The M3 has it as an added option. In contrast the M3 has a telescoping steering wheel, and when changing from driver to driver this REALLY makes a difference. All luxury sedans should have this option.. I can deal with adjusting an electronic seat, however steering wheel position is something that makes driving a lot more comfortable, and when the option to adjust the steering wheel is not present it can really work my nerves.

The CTS-V comes with GM's renowned On-Star and a standard navigation system. BMW has an optional navigation. Thats a big negative for M3. Navigation systems can get pricey and with one already tagged into the CTS-V's price, that only sweetens the already sugary deal. This brings us to some other issues. Some may argue that these options are not necessary in a sports car, but for $49,000 these had all better included as standard. On the CTS-V it offers rear cup holders(not available on the M3), power/heated driver and passenger seats, and leather upholstery(but from my understanding the M3 has a suede interior which can go either way so we won't look negatively on this unless you fancy the leather). Thats a lot of stuff that isn't offered standard on the BMW which can only raise the price of a fully loaded Bimmer.

The sound system in the BMW rules over the CTS-V, which is always a plus. But what has Cadillac put up their sleeves? A DVD entertainment system standard. The CTS-V may not have as good a sound system of the BMW but I believe it makes up for that with the DVD entertainment system. However BMW offers a greater warranty and more advanced technologies such as Brake assist, passenger sensing airbags and rain sensing windshield wipers. The CTS-V isn't without its own technologies such as auto suspension leveling. But, BMW always has it nice little gadgets such as the integrated key remote that can control the windows via remote. Not to mention the door locks are heated so you'll never have to worry about being frozen out of your car. Not that you should leave such a nice car outside in the elements, but for those of you whom don't own garages. Even the windshield wiper jets are heated.

The BMW has its own systems monitor with so many computers you can practically be alerted when a bug is in danger of hitting your windshield(You can't really, but it would be nice if you could). The CTS-V has the ingenious design of run-flat tires that allow you to drive for a specific amount of time on a flat tire without fear of damaging the wheel. And with the built in tracker on the CTS-V you'll never have to worry about your vehicle being stolen. Passenger space is a dead giveaway to the CTS-V. The M3 has cramped rear seats, which probably won't be a problem for most people buying these cars, but for that occasional guy with a three person family looking for a performance sedan the CTS-V would be the better choice.

These two have more features for the demanding driver, and the CTS-V seems to go blow for blow with the M3's advanced features. Their road driving and comfort are almost par. They both have their negatives and positives in different areas. It seems that the CTS-V is the bizarre world M3. Everything seems as if it is exact opposite. Where the M3 lacks the CTS-V prevails. So what am I saying? The CTS-V, like any car, is not perfect. Can it compare to the likes of the Bimmer? Yes. Is it better? In certain areas, Yes. Can it be crowned the new "Ultimate driving machine"? I'm leaning more towards No. The CTS-V offers a wide variety of options to compete with the M3 but its not up to BMW level just yet. Give the CTS-V a few more years of engineering and maybe it will be better than the BMW in over 60% of its assets.

I mean cmon`, the BMW M3 is almost 20 years in the making. You surely didn't expect a rookie to take the throne!

posted by  DSMer



STS-V (I'm on the waiting list at my dealer for one of these btw)

They both use the exact same handbuilt 440hp Supercharged Northstar. It's been confirmed that the 06 CTS-V will have the 400hp LS2 engine (replacing the current 400hp LS6)from the new Corvette and rumor has it that the LS7 isn't far behind...

The CTS is in between BMW's 3 and 5 series. You get a car with the size of the 5 series with the price and performance of the 3 series. That is how Cadillac is crushing the competition. Even BMW itself can't get it's 5 series to handle like the 3. The CTS does the job of the 3 and the 5. That is impressive engineering.

posted by  Gothicaleigh

Spacewise, the CTS is no larger than a 4-door 3-Series BMW. The fact that BMW chose to make the M3 a coupe only car has nothing to do with Cadillacs stretch towards the performance area of an M5. An M3 can outdrive an STS-V anyday of the week. Does that mean BMW intended for the M3 to be competetive with the STS-V? By no means. The CTS-V was aimed to be the M3 of the Cadillac team. Magazines just compare the CTS-V to the 2000 M5 for "ooh's" and "aaah's".

Wow, a CTS-V can beat an M5 arround the track. So can my friends Honda Civic Si. Challenging a 300lb man to an agility race when you're 115lb's is'nt very fair now is it?

posted by  DSMer

Do you remember when I argued with your dumbass about this in this SAME thread? But wait, your argument was different then. Remember, you were like.."the CTS-V is comparable to the M5"...and I was like..."no, the M3 is in the CTS-V's class"..and you were like..."well, blah blah blah...but the new STS-V is going to supposedly have 500-600+HP.." and I was like.."shut up bitch you don't know what you're talking about..."

You still haven't shut up, but I'm glad you realised you were wrong. By the way, the new STS-V makes 440 hp...about 67 less than the new M5. Boy oh boy, the BMW sure is something, right? That M5 is amazing..."talk about setting new standards..."

Side-switching bitch.

posted by  -What-

Really? I've owned a 3 series and my current CTS is much larger. You obviously haven't seen the two cars next to each other.

As for the 5 series, the CTS' dimensions match up very close:
Cadillac CTS
Leg Room (front)...................42.4
Leg Room (rear)....................36.2
Head Room (front).................38.9
Head Room (rear)..................36.9
Shoulder Room (front)............56.6
Shoulder Room (rear)..............56.2

BMW 5-series
Leg Room(front)....................41.5
Leg Room (rear).....................36.0
Head Room(front)..................37.7
Head Room(rear)...................37.9
Shoulder Room(front).............57.3
Shoulder Room(rear)...............57.2

The CTS was purposely positioned to compete with the 3 and the 5. This was Cadillac's intention. The STS is positioned to compete with the 5 and the 7. The true DTS replacement coming in 2008 (not the facelift they unveiled this year) will compete with the 7 and an ultra-luxury version will have even maybach in it's sights.

The marketing game that Cadillac is using is completely new and doesn't line up with the current standard classes. They have been doing extraordinarily well aligning their cars in this way too.

The CTS-V was aimed as an M5 competitor with the performance of the M3. When the CTS was designed, Cadillac was in poor shape and didn't know if they would get another chance to compete should it fail. Thus it was designed to appeal to both classes in terms of size, performance, and pricing.

GM itself has purposely set it's cars in between the two 'common' classes. Both the CTS and the STS compete with the 5 series for example... you just get to pick if you want your 'american 5' to be a little larger or smaller. This way they cover a larger demographic with each car. The STS also compares to the 7, and does a fine job in terms of performance and price.

When the DTS comes out, I gaurantee it will be sized a bit larger than the 7, but be in line with the 7's price and performance. At least that is how Cadillac has placed each of it's redesigns thus far.

For example:
CTS -> 325i, 330i, 525i, 530i (and in V form: 545i, M3, M5)
STS -> 530i, 545i, 7 series (and in V form: M5)
DTS -> 7 series and larger

The CTS-V is closer in weight to the M5 than the M3, so your example makes no sense. Besides, the much heavier CTS-V posts better track times than the M3, so yes, sometimes that 'heavier man' will surprise you with his agility.

posted by  Gothicaleigh

The STS-V doesn't need 600-whatever horse to compete with the new M5, as it does well enough with 440hp (and look at the price difference!)...

2006 BMW M5
500hp 384 lb ft of torque
0-60 in 4.7 seconds (manufacturer est.)
Top Speed: 155 mph

2006 Cadillac STS-V
440hp 430 lb ft of torque
0-60 in 4.7 seconds (manufacturer est.)
Top speed: 169 mph



posted by  Gothicaleigh

Comparable: Able to be compared.

A rock is comparable to a CTS-V. Hmmm... side switching? I think not...

posted by  DSMer

You think the STS-V competes "well enough" with the new M5 because of some ESTIMATED 0-60 times? Get the f*ck outta here. First of all, the M5 is about WAY more than acceleration, and secondly, the M5 will be quicker than those estimates. Which car do you believe would posts better lap times at a track.

posted by  -What-

We'll see this fall when both are released. The STS rides on the formidable Sigma platform that underpins the CTS-V, which has already more than proven to be the equal of either M class bimmer. Now take that amazing platform and add the faster reacting MagneRide system to it (as found in the Corvette and base STS) and this will be one corner carving beast. The STS has it's suspension bases covered, so the handling issue really depends on how much of an improvement the new M5 provides over the old.

STS: 440 bhp @ 6400 rpm
M5: 500 bhp @ 7750 rpm

STS: 430 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
M5: 384 lb-ft @ 6100 rpm

Wheelbase: 116.4 in
Length/width/height: 197.6/72.6/58.2 in
Curb weight: 4300 lb

Wheelbase: 113.7 in
Length/width/height: 191.1/72.7/57.8 in
Curb weight: 4050 lb

Both cars are close in size, the STS being a bit longer (and this is reflected in it's extra weight). Where it makes up for this weight disadvantage is that both it's horse and torque numbers peak much earlier in the powerband than the M5. It also has a much higher torque available sooner and for much longer in it's powerband. Both manufacturers quote very similar performance numbers.

On a track (I'm sure we will be hearing the STS' Nurburgring times very soon now from GM, just as they publicized the CTS-V's), I think they will run very close. Of course, no one knows for sure until they are released and we get some head to head comparisons and track times.

...and not performance oriented, but worth noting due to the current trend in gas pricing:

City: 16 mpg
Highway: 25 mpg

City: 10 mpg
Highway: 23 mpg

I believe the M5 to be a very nice car, but I can't justify the $15,000 premium over the STS-V for a car that so far looks to only be it's equal (not even considering the fact that BMW still hasn't massaged the ugliness out of it).

Wait and see, I have a feeling that Cadillac will surprise the bavarians yet again. In fact, I've put my money on it.

posted by  Gothicaleigh

I'd also like to add that after speaking to a Cadillac representative, the main goal of Cadillac STS-V was not to demolish the M5 in track numbers. Rather beat the M5 and E55 AMG in areas that matter more to the buyers than a bunch of magazines and internet racers . Such as interior styling, ride quality, luxury amenities, passenger space, etc... I highly doubt the greater percentage of people who can afford M5's and STS-V's will be racing them on the tracks or on streets. So track numbers would be useless in over 80% of STS-V, M5, and E55 AMG sales.

People buy these cars because they have style, passenger space, power, and control. Not necessarily in that order, but the general idea of Cadillac is to offer a better sedan. The Cadillac representative even told me, realisticly the STS-V won't probably beat the M5 in every racing category. Which is reasonable to infer. The car is larger and has 67 horsepower less than the M5. None the less, if the performance is close and Cadillac is offering more features stock (as they do in the CTS-V over the M3), the consumers will more than likely sacrifice a few milliseconds of lateral acceleration and some odd number of horsepower to get a car thats just as quick as the M5 and that cost nearly $15,000 less. Especially if that car has a better gas mileage, due to the current hike in gas prices.

posted by  DSMer

I don't agree with you. If people didn't have intentions on racing or involving themselves in some type of high-speed activity with these vehicle, they'd buy the non-racing variants. If I were to purchase an M5, I'd sure like to take all 7 of those gears and that wonderful engine to a track.

Who buys a hotted-up variant for comfort? Wouldn't a luxury edition of the vehicle serve that purpose better?

posted by  -What-

People who understand the value of a $70,000+ sedan don't think like you do. Why would Brittany Spears buy a SL65 AMG? So she can go to the track with it? No, because shes rich and has the money to buy one(Yes she actually has one). How many of Jerry Sienfields expensive Porsche's does he drive on the track?

Go to an M5 or M3 owners club. A good proportion of them buy the car because they like the fact that it has performance and looks good. Alot of them are just flashy show-like cars. When you have that kind of money to just throw arround maybe you'll understand the idea of having a "toy" car. Wich is all the M5 will be to a good percentage of its consumers. That and a daily driver. If you don't believe me ask BMW how many of their consumers would actually take the new M5 to the track.

Think about it, there are going to be 2 types of people buying cars. Those who can barley afford it and those who can easily afford it. Those who barley can will not likley take their hard earned downpayment on a house to the track and take the risk of damaging it. Those who can easily afford it are either race teams/race enthuisiast who will turn the car into a race car, or greater who buy the car for fun weekend drives and BMW enthuisiast

0-60, 1/4 mile times, and skidpad acceleration are for internet racers, magazine comparisons, and dreamers. Real drivers buy cars like the M5 to have fun doing just that... Driving. It does'nt matter if your can car go from 0-60 in 4.7 seconds or 0-60 in 4.2. It does'nt matter if your car has 440HP or 500HP. The drive is what an enthuisiast buys cars for, not for the numbers.

If your theory were true everyone who buys a Camaro has to race it. Everyone who buys a performance version of the Civic has to race it. Everyone who drives Mustangs, Ferraris, Corvettes, Dodge Vipers, and performance Audis have to race them or involve themselves in a high speed activity. Its obvious that everyone who owns those cars does'nt race. So the same is be true for the M5.

posted by  DSMer

If you are from the United States and you think the Cadillac is an American import, you are ignorant. You can't import an American car if you live in the states.

posted by  fedroger

DSMer means that it's a American car that kills Import cars.

posted by  Godlaus

I see. Thanks for clarifying that up.

posted by  fedroger

Your Message