Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > Vehicle Specific > Domestic Cars
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-21-2004, 04:12 PM   #31
DSMer
CF Extraordinaire
 
DSMer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
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.

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.
__________________

...Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid...
DSMer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2004, 05:53 PM   #32
What
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Costa Nocha
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSMer
Its a good car but the CTS-V just kicks its ass in alot of categories.
You still haven't named the categories that the CTS-V kicks the old M5's ass in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSMer

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

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
Supposedly the new M5 is going to be pulling 1.2g/1.3g on a skidpad...
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.

Last edited by What : 07-21-2004 at 06:00 PM.
What is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2004, 05:57 PM   #33
DSMer
CF Extraordinaire
 
DSMer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by What
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.

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.

**EDIT**
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...
__________________

...Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid...

Last edited by DSMer : 07-21-2004 at 06:07 PM.
DSMer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2004, 06:02 PM   #34
What
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Costa Nocha
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSMer
No I'm not, the CTS-V has posted track times better than the M3 quite a few times.

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.
What is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2004, 06:37 PM   #35
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by What
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.


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:

http://www2.autospies.com/article/in...7&categoryId=9
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2004, 06:39 PM   #36
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
..................................
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.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2004, 06:39 PM   #37
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
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



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

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.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2004, 07:08 PM   #38
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
I meant the two door Monte Carlo with the vertical tail lights...oooppsss all these damn GM vehicles.




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 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...
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2004, 07:14 PM   #39
SuperJew
I like pie.
 
SuperJew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Suburbia Central, New York
Posts: 2,584
looks like WHAT just got by ChrisV.
__________________


CF's Resident Pimp Slapper

Pimp Slap Count (as of 30 May 2004): 34
SuperJew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2004, 08:26 PM   #40
What
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Costa Nocha
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
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!"


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.
What is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2004, 08:45 PM   #41
What
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Costa Nocha
Posts: 652
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....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Car and Driver
To no one's surprise, the M3 emerged as the athlete of the trio. The combination of its tidier dimensions, stiffer suspension tuning, and quarter-ton less mass easily offset the disparities in horsepower and torque versus the bigger cars.

As the track dried, the M3's logbook became sprinkled with rapturous reports from the test crew. "Such a sweetheart around the track," wrote one. "So composed, so balanced, so eager," rhapsodized another.

The smaller Bimmer's responses were quicker in abrupt transitions, its balance allowed easily controlled drifts off fast apexes, and its lighter weight made for quicker corner exits. Beyond that, the M3's seat bolsters were by far the best for keeping the driver centered during hard thrashing......the bottom line was no surprise at all: The M3 is much better suited to racetrack exercise than its bigger cousin and the CTS-V, and it posted the best lap time of the day at 1:24.471 (75.4 mph).
What is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 05:16 AM   #42
DSMer
CF Extraordinaire
 
DSMer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,639
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.
TO
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.

http://www.speedarena.com/news/publi...cle_4540.shtml
Now you can still argue your "beliefs", or you can accept the truth...
__________________

...Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid...

Last edited by DSMer : 07-22-2004 at 05:22 AM.
DSMer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 07:35 AM   #43
What
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Costa Nocha
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSMer
Its already been proven and documented that the CTS-V has posted better track times than the M3 on quite a few occasions.


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.
TO
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.

http://www.speedarena.com/news/publi...cle_4540.shtml
Now you can still argue your "beliefs", or you can accept the truth...


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...
http://www.fast-autos.net/cadillac/cadillacctsvr.html

By the way, the CTS-V race car can't touch the M3 race car...
http://www.fast-autos.net/bmw/bmwm3gtr.html

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.
What is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 07:57 AM   #44
DSMer
CF Extraordinaire
 
DSMer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by What
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...
http://www.fast-autos.net/cadillac/cadillacctsvr.html

By the way, the CTS-V race car can't touch the M3 race car...
http://www.fast-autos.net/bmw/bmwm3gtr.html

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.

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 "

http://autozine.kyul.net/html/GM4.htm

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.
__________________

...Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid...
DSMer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 01:13 PM   #45
What
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Costa Nocha
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSMer
CTS-V accelerates to 60 faster than both the M3 and M5... Hmm i never know that.

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..
What is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.