Faster than an M5: First Cadillac CTS-V performance test published

[Drew Dowdell]

Likely the only view that M5 drivers will have of the CTS-V

Link to Autoblog

It's been over 60 years since the Americans have so thoroughly trounced the Germans, but Inside Line has the numbers to prove it. The Edmunds news service had a chance to take the new Cadillac CTS-V (which we're driving in upstart New York as we speak) and its supercharged V8 for a spin around GM's Milford proving grounds and brought along its testing gear. The resulting bombardment ought to have the Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come.

The CTS-V ran the quarter-mile in a scant 12.5 seconds, besting the 12.7 it takes for either the BMW M5 or the Mercedes E63 AMG. Getting back to a standstill was another hit to the Bimmer and the Benz, with the Caddy stopping from 60-0 mph in 109 feet – five feet less than it takes the M5 and six shorter than the AMG. And if you're thinking that brakes and power are easy to upgrade and that the Cadillac couldn't possibly best the Germans on the handling course, think again: the CTS-V ran the slalom at 71.1 mph, while the M5 and E63 ran it in 68.5 and 65 mph respectively. Deutschland über alles indeed.

[Sixty8panther]

Looks like Mercedes & BMW will be stuck

eating SOURkraut for a while.

While Lexus, Acura & even Infiniti are stuck

sitting in the corner of the recreation room,

watching re-runs of "Matlock" ...drooling on

their laps & bumbling like old man wearing

extra absorbent depends.

So, PUSHRODS are dead eh...?

Sounds a lot like "Dewie defeats Truman" to me!

Edited August 26, 2008 by Sixty8panther

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Man, that black car is sexy as can be!

I'm so glad they did away with the stupid "Supercharged" emblems.

[BigPontiac]

About time the CTS started getting compared to a BMW 5-Series instead of a 3-Series.

[michaelv13]

I expect it to drop by another half a second when other magazines test it. Edmunds seem to have a nag of producing astonishingly higher times compared to Road and Track or Car and Driver or heck even Motor Trend.

[Drew Dowdell]

About time the CTS started getting compared to a BMW 5-Series instead of a 3-Series.

careful, you'll get shouted down by the Rondel humpers in here for talk like that.

[siegen]

So the CTS-V is marginally faster than the two German competitors, within the margin of error for a normal driver, and somehow it has those Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come!

Congratulations to Cadillac for making a car that performs on par with the Germans, likely at a cheaper price. But nobody is blowing away any of the others as the article seems to suggest. Reality check, people who want a BMW will still buy the M5.

IMHO, the M5 is much nicer looking. More elegant and classy. How come nobody is griping about the CTS's hood bulge?

So, PUSHRODS are dead eh...?

It took GM 6.2 liters and a supercharger to best the output of the 5.0 liter naturally-aspirated BMW engine.

I expect it to drop by another half a second when other magazines test it. Edmunds seem to have a nag of producing astonishingly higher times compared to Road and Track or Car and Driver or heck even Motor Trend.

The M5 and AMG times also come from Edmunds. Perhaps they are lower on R&T (which usually does produce the quickest times) as well, I haven't checked.

[Sixty8panther]

careful, you'll get shouted down by the Rondel humpers in here for talk like that.

I love BMW and Mercedes, many new & classic

BMWs and MBs were depictedin the posters

that hung in my room back in my middle & high

school years (1989-1997) and I still love many

new BMWs and M-Benz products, esp. the M-

series Bimmers & CLK/CL hardtops from Daimler.

That being said it is FACT that as far as the

"bang-for-the-buck" performance-sedan

category goes this Cadillac kicks both their

rears into next tuesday.

Siegen:

Frankly I'm sick to DEATH of so many members here

who splice ATOMS except when a clear chasm

exists that is NOT in their favor or to their liking &

therefore it is negligable or irrelevant.

You can not agrue with those numbers. Period.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Sixty8panther

[michaelv13]

The M5 and AMG times also come from Edmunds. Perhaps they are lower on R&T (which usually does produce the quickest times) as well, I haven't checked.

I did not make comparisons of numbers for the three cars in my previous post. I am just saying it regarding the absolute test numbers for the CTS-V. Merc E-63 gets 4.1 s to 60 according to C&D. I expect the number to be 3.8-3.9 s for the CTS-V considering the power to weight ratio of the vehicle.

Edited August 26, 2008 by michaelv13

[VenSeattle]

I'm waiting for the predictable Comment: But the seats in the M5 adjust 95 different ways...

Impressive to say the least.

[BigPontiac]

careful, you'll get shouted down by the Rondel humpers in here for talk like that.

I own an "almost" M3 with my 330i ZHP...and I like the compact size of it. The CTS from a spec sheet perspective (dimensions, weight, etc) matches up with the 5-Series, which is the rational comparison. The only people who seem to "get" this are either BMW 3-Series owners or Cadillac CTS owners -- the armchair critics seem to miss the point.

Hurry up with the alpha based Caddy to compete with the 3-Series. And give a less expensive version to Pontiac to replace the G6 to take on the BMW 3-Series CPO sales. With all the leasing cutbacks, odds are the luxury brands sales are going to diminish in the coming years...

[Drew Dowdell]

It took GM 6.2 liters and a supercharger to best the output of the 5.0 liter naturally-aspirated BMW engine.

Oh good! Another horsepower per litre debate!

[Drew Dowdell]

I own an "almost" M3 with my 330i ZHP...and I like the compact size of it. The CTS from a spec sheet perspective (dimensions, weight, etc) matches up with the 5-Series, which is the rational comparison. The only people who seem to "get" this are either BMW 3-Series owners or Cadillac CTS owners -- the armchair critics seem to miss the point.

Hurry up with the alpha based Caddy to compete with the 3-Series. And give a less expensive version to Pontiac to replace the G6 to take on the BMW 3-Series CPO sales. With all the leasing cutbacks, odds are the luxury brands sales are going to diminish in the coming years...

I have a new found respect for you sir..... not that I didn't respect you before... but... oh well, you know what I mean.

A neighbor/friend had a 3-series <just moved to a new C-Class and gave his partner the 3er> and I really disliked the small interior. I was used to the interior space of my CTS.

[Ed Hellwig]

Two things to keep in mind here guys:

1) If you want to compare our 0-to-60mph number to others you have to use the one with the rollout included, in this case: 4.3 seconds.

2) These numbers were for the manual, Cadillac says the automatic is faster. They might be right.

Ed Hellwig

Senior Editor

Edmunds Inside Line

[Lamar]

It took GM 6.2 liters and a supercharger to best the output of the 5.0 liter naturally-aspirated BMW engine.

Yep, and they did it with fewer cylinders (V8 vs. V10) and a smaller package overall (OHV vs. DOHC).

[siegen]

Siegen:

Frankly I'm sick to DEATH of so many members here

who splice ATOMS except when a clear chasm

exists that is NOT in their favor or to their liking &

therefore it is negligable or irrelevant.

You can not agrue with those numbers. Period.

I'm not the one splicing atoms here. I said that the difference is marginal, while Autoblog is making comments such as the one I have bolded above.

If I wanted to argue with those numbers, I could. The vehicles were not tested back to back; all three vehicles had their times sourced from different reviews. They may or may not have used the same instrumentation to test each vehicle, I'm not going to bother reading each article. That is irrelevant, and I don't want to argue numbers.

Oh good! Another horsepower per litre debate!

Nothing of the sort. What I said was merely in response to the "pushrods don't suck" comments. If GM made a 5.0L OHV pushrod V8 that developed 500 naturally aspirated horsepower, then we could all praise the smaller and cheaper OHV design and laugh at BMW for choosing the more expensive and complex OHC design.

[FAPTurbo]

Yep, and they did it with fewer cylinders (V8 vs. V10) and a smaller package overall (OHV vs. DOHC).

On 'Regular' gas, too.

BUT OH KNOWS! ITZ ONLEE FIEV POINT WUN SUROUND SOUND! GEE EMM UR SPEEKERS IS BAD I TELL IT ALL UR HARD DRIVEZ HAZ JUST FIRTY GIGABITES OF SPAIS!

[Robert Hall]

Daymn.... that's impressive performance. Cool. But, how does it compare to the competition in the most important category of all--cupholder design?

I'd love to have one...but since I don't have 3C- job title (what will the price be--$75k?), I'll have to be content with a regular 3.6 DI CTS.

If I'm not mistaken, the CTS-v engine is similar to the Z06 engine? I'd love to see Chevy build a Camaro Z06 and a Camaro ZR1...those engines are too great to leave just to the Corvette, IMHO.....a Suburban ZR1 would rock also....

Edited August 26, 2008 by moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

If GM made a 5.0L OHV pushrod V8 that developed 500 naturally aspirated horsepower, then we could all praise the smaller and cheaper OHV design and laugh at BMW for choosing the more expensive and complex OHC design.

Just because it had more displacement doesn't mean it isn't smaller, you should know that.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

So the CTS-V is marginally faster than the two German competitors, within the margin of error for a normal driver, and somehow it has those Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come!

Congratulations to Cadillac for making a car that performs on par with the Germans, likely at a cheaper price. But nobody is blowing away any of the others as the article seems to suggest. Reality check, people who want a BMW will still buy the M5.

IMHO, the M5 is much nicer looking. More elegant and classy. How come nobody is griping about the CTS's hood bulge?

It took GM 6.2 liters and a supercharger to best the output of the 5.0 liter naturally-aspirated BMW engine.

The M5 and AMG times also come from Edmunds. Perhaps they are lower on R&T (which usually does produce the quickest times) as well, I haven't checked.

OH NO!!!!

Someone's pushing the import apologist button again!

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Daymn.... that's impressive performance. Cool. But, how does it compare to the competition in the most important category of all--cupholder design?

I'd love to have one...but since I don't have 3C- job title (what will the price be--$75k?), I'll have to be content with a regular 3.6 DI CTS.

If I'm not mistaken, the CTS-v engine is similar to the Z06 engine? I'd love to see Chevy build a Camaro Z06 and a Camaro ZR1...those engines are too great to leave just to the Corvette, IMHO.....a Suburban ZR1 would rock also....

I think that was the plan with the Z/28 (Which has supposedly been cancelled now)

[Sixty8panther]

Speaking of splicing atoms,

the title of this thread should read:

QUICKER than the BMW M5.

faster = top speed

quick = 0-60, 1/4 mile run etc...

[Northstar]

Nothing of the sort. What I said was merely in response to the "pushrods don't suck" comments. If GM made a 5.0L OHV pushrod V8 that developed 500 naturally aspirated horsepower, then we could all praise the smaller and cheaper OHV design and laugh at BMW for choosing the more expensive and complex OHC design.

I would bet a lot of money that the GM engine is a lot cheaper than the BMW engine as it stands. If the CTS-V cost $80k like the M5, maybe we'd see some sort of V10 based on the Cien engine.

[Robert Hall]

I would bet a lot of money that the GM engine is a lot cheaper than the BMW engine as it stands. If the CTS-V cost $80k like the M5, maybe we'd see some sort of V10 based on the Cien engine.

I bet the CTS-v will be $75k or so, what with the regular CTS topping out at around $50k.

[Northstar]

I bet the CTS-v will be $75k or so, what with the regular CTS topping out at around $50k.

Well, not according to this article, which says the following:

Cadillac told us that the CTS-V would start production in August as a 2009 model, at a price from the high $50,000s to the low $60,000s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/automobi...w/14-cts-v.html

[siegen]

I would bet a lot of money that the GM engine is a lot cheaper than the BMW engine as it stands. If the CTS-V cost $80k like the M5, maybe we'd see some sort of V10 based on the Cien engine.

It's almost a certainty that the BMW V10 costs a lot more.

Just because it had more displacement doesn't mean it isn't smaller, you should know that.

I think you misinterpreted my post. Regardless, I'm not comparing external dimensions.

OH NO!!!!

Someone's pushing the import apologist button again!

Is that what you call everyone who tries to use reason to get a point across? Wait, why am I even responding to this?

Back to my original point. I am responding to Autoblog's comment that the CTS-V leaves the "Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come". Obviously this is a bit of sensationalism, but it is still a ridiculous notion. Then in response to "why pushrods don't suck" or the general sentiment of this comparison somehow making it seem as if pushrods are as good as the OHC design of the competition; The pushrod V8 defeated the high technology more complex and expensive OHV V10. But it required more displacement and forced induction to do so. What if we compared a 5.0L pushrod N/A GM V8 to a 6.2L supercharged BMW V10 (if one existed that is)? I guarantee everyone here would be complaining that it isn't a fair comparison.

But it's ok the way it is.

[Northstar]

It's almost a certainty that the BMW V10 costs a lot more.

I think you misinterpreted my post. Regardless, I'm not comparing external dimensions.

Is that what you call everyone who tries to use reason to get a point across? Wait, why am I even responding to this?

Back to my original point. I am responding to Autoblog's comment that the CTS-V leaves the "Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come". Obviously this is a bit of sensationalism, but it is still a ridiculous notion. Then in response to "why pushrods don't suck" or the general sentiment of this comparison somehow making it seem as if pushrods are as good as the OHC design of the competition; The pushrod V8 defeated the high technology more complex and expensive OHV V10. But it required more displacement and forced induction to do so. What if we compared a 5.0L pushrod N/A GM V8 to a 6.2L supercharged BMW V10 (if one existed that is)? I guarantee everyone here would be complaining that it isn't a fair comparison.

But it's ok the way it is.

GM makes a 6.2L crate engine that makes 515HP N/A.

I'm guessing that if GM wanted to, it could make a 5.0L V8 with 500+HP. It would probably cost as much as the V10 in the M5, but they could do it. What would be the point though? ~500HP for ~$75k or 550+HP for $60k, it's not too hard of a decision, IMO.

[siegen]

GM makes a 6.2L crate engine that makes 515HP N/A.

I'm guessing that if GM wanted to, it could make a 5.0L V8 with 500+HP. It would probably cost as much as the V10 in the M5, but they could do it. What would be the point though? ~500HP for ~$75k or 550+HP for $60k, it's not too hard of a decision, IMO.

It would be quite a feet if they made a 100HP/liter naturally-aspirated pushrod engine, and I don't think they could do it without sacrificing driveability in the low end or incorporating some sort of variable lift mechanism.

[smk4565]

About time the CTS started getting compared to a BMW 5-Series instead of a 3-Series.

Well it is a good thing they did, the M3 does the slalom at 72.9 mph and 0-60 in 4.2 seconds (C63 AMG does it in 3.9), it would have beaten the CTS-V. M3 and CTS-V will likely cost the same, so do people that want performance buy the faster BMW or Mercedes (which have badge/snob appeal too) or the Cadillac.

Good numbers for the CTS-V especially in the handling department for how heavy it is. 0-60 in the 4.3 to 4.6 range is good, but the STS-V can do it in 4.6 seconds also, and that car has been a non-factor in the performance car arena.

Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, because in 2 years there will be a 570 hp E63, and the new M5 is going to be lighter, and who knows how much power if they twin turbo the V10. In 2011 will Cadillac still want to compare a 2 year old CTS-V to an all new M5?

[Robert Hall]

Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, because in 2 years there will be a 570 hp E63, and the new M5 is going to be lighter, and who knows how much power if they twin turbo the V10. In 2011 will Cadillac still want to compare a 2 year old CTS-V to an all new M5?

I've read that the next M5 will have a twin turbo V8 instead of the V10.

[79VetteZ06]

Back to my original point. I am responding to Autoblog's comment that the CTS-V leaves the "Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come". Obviously this is a bit of sensationalism, but it is still a ridiculous notion. Then in response to "why pushrods don't suck" or the general sentiment of this comparison somehow making it seem as if pushrods are as good as the OHC design of the competition; The pushrod V8 defeated the high technology more complex and expensive OHV V10. But it required more displacement and forced induction to do so. What if we compared a 5.0L pushrod N/A GM V8 to a 6.2L supercharged BMW V10 (if one existed that is)? I guarantee everyone here would be complaining that it isn't a fair comparison.

But it's ok the way it is.

I agree that it is the sensationalization that you are commenting on. And honestly despite being commendable performance, CTS-V does not knock the panties off the Germans, as the article claims. CTS-V betters the Germans no doubt and in someways realigns the benchmark. Except for the Corvette, which GM car in the recent past has done that? But hey NOW is time that GM does need this kind of trumpets from somebody in the press to give them some crumpets they desperately need .

However, .2 seconds in a quartermile is a lot in the actual racing arena, granted we should look at the way it handles too if you are going to consider the car's overall racing prowess. But given that the stopping distance, slalom (parameter showing cornering prowess), lateral acceleration, and straightline speed of the Caddy are better than Bimmer and Merc, Caddy as a whole will beat the Germans hands down. In circuits like VIR where all the cars qualities are tested, I think Caddy will trounce.

It would be quite a feet if they made a 100HP/liter naturally-aspirated pushrod engine, and I don't think they could do it without sacrificing driveability in the low end or incorporating some sort of variable lift mechanism.

It is difficult to obtain that. The closest is the C6R with 600 odd hp with racing fuel in a 427 block. You have to understand that HP/liter is just a number which in broad terms is nothing but bragging right. If the engines with different displacements produce identical powers, identical torque, identical fuel economy in the applications, and now even identical level of refinement, while the higher displacement engine costs about a third to make compared to the smaller engine, which one will you choose?

A BMW V-10 costs about $35K (Source BMW parts) and the 6.3 AMG is about $33K (car and driver 2007) while the LS2 is roughly $9K (GM performance parts and Car and Driver) assuming the supercharger, extra big wet sump, and other nannies you are looking at another $2-2.5 K at most. No wonders Caddy will stick with that push rod mill.

I think a DI push rod will help push that 100hp/l if DI makes into small block application (Dwightlooi can confirm that for us).

Edited August 27, 2008 by 79VetteZ06

[smk4565]

I'm waiting for the predictable Comment: But the seats in the M5 adjust 95 different ways...

Impressive to say the least.

20 ways, and the side bolsters move in turns to prevent the driver from sliding.

[Robert Hall]

20 ways, and the side bolsters move in turns to prevent the driver from sliding.

But more importantly, are the cupholders heated/chilled/lighted?

[Blake Noble]

20 ways, and the side bolsters move in turns to prevent the driver from sliding.

Whoop-de-f@#kin-do.

[balthazar]

>>"Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, "<<

Did Cadillac 'call out the Germans', or was it AutoBlog ?

[Robert Hall]

Speaking of engines and usage, AMG is definitely spread the 63 V8 far and wide.... in at least 12 distinct models, I believe ---3 sedans (C,E,S), 3 coupes (CLK, CLS, CL), 3 SUVs (ML,GL,G), 1 CUV (R-class), 2 roadsters (SLK, SL). No A, B, Sprinter or Vito AMG 63s though... And I've read the GLK isn't getting one either.

It is impressive--no other automaker has a dozen V8 high performance models, across a wide span of sizes and body styles.

Edited August 27, 2008 by moltar

[Robert Hall]

>>"Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, "<<

Did Cadillac 'call out the Germans', or was it AutoBlog ?

Autoblog...it's inevitable this car will get compared with the Teutonic 3 + the Lexus F. With the Germans, it will no doubt be compared against both the compact (M3,RS4,C63) and midsize (M5,RS6,E63) because of the price/size positioning....

Speaking of press hyperbole--the lead article on Inside Line calls the CTS-v an 'M5 Killer'... Road And Track has a CTS-v vs M5 article posted also.

Edited August 27, 2008 by moltar

[balthazar]

Right- then it's moronic to say, 'Cadillac is taking a risk by calling out the Germans' when Cadillac did no such thing, no?

[Robert Hall]

Right- then it's moronic to say, 'Cadillac is taking a risk by calling out the Germans' when Cadillac did no such thing, no?

Right...no doubt Cadillac has the Germans in their sights, but it's the press proclaiming it an M5 'killer'...

[Northstar]

Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, because in 2 years there will be a 570 hp E63, and the new M5 is going to be lighter, and who knows how much power if they twin turbo the V10. In 2011 will Cadillac still want to compare a 2 year old CTS-V to an all new M5?

Yes, because they'll stick the 640HP LS9 in the CTS-V and call it a day.

[Robert Hall]

Yes, because they'll stick the 640HP LS9 in the CTS-V and call it a day.

Yes... a CTS-Z...take it to the next level.

[BigPontiac]

Well it is a good thing they did, the M3 does the slalom at 72.9 mph and 0-60 in 4.2 seconds (C63 AMG does it in 3.9), it would have beaten the CTS-V. M3 and CTS-V will likely cost the same, so do people that want performance buy the faster BMW or Mercedes (which have badge/snob appeal too) or the Cadillac.

Good numbers for the CTS-V especially in the handling department for how heavy it is. 0-60 in the 4.3 to 4.6 range is good, but the STS-V can do it in 4.6 seconds also, and that car has been a non-factor in the performance car arena.

Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, because in 2 years there will be a 570 hp E63, and the new M5 is going to be lighter, and who knows how much power if they twin turbo the V10. In 2011 will Cadillac still want to compare a 2 year old CTS-V to an all new M5?

I already posted my thoughts in an earlier post as to why I think it's logical to compare the CTS-V against the M5 instead of the M3. However the CTS-V did beat both the M3 and M5 in fastest lap time around the 'Ring. Link

[smk4565]

>>"Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, "<<

Did Cadillac 'call out the Germans', or was it AutoBlog ?

Well Bob Lutz said the CTS-V would "suck the doors off an M5" the CTS-V posted marginally better times than an M5 that has been out a while M5 without a limiter can do 204 mph, that is impressive. I'd prefer Bob Lutz stop making claims, because often he just over states or the bean counters step in, and what he claimed doesn't get delivered.

Bottom line is American car fans of big growly engines will like this car. Those that had a 300C, Corvette, older V-series, Charger SRT-8, etc will probably want one. People that spend $90,000 on Euro-exotics won't be interested, they buy BMW or Mercedes for prestige, and often don't consider American cars.

[2QuickZ's]

Then in response to "why pushrods don't suck" or the general sentiment of this comparison somehow making it seem as if pushrods are as good as the OHC design of the competition; The pushrod V8 defeated the high technology more complex and expensive OHV V10. But it required more displacement and forced induction to do so. What if we compared a 5.0L pushrod N/A GM V8 to a 6.2L supercharged BMW V10 (if one existed that is)? I guarantee everyone here would be complaining that it isn't a fair comparison.

It's not a realistic comparison either. One thing that really pisses me off is when people get into the hp/liter discussion like that is somehow relevant to anything. I could write a whole dissertation on this but for now I'll keep it short. Here goes:

- A 6.2L DOHC V10 (let alone a V8) with or without the supercharger would not realistically work in a BMW because it would be too damn big to fit in anything BMW makes today, probably including their SUV's.

- HP/liter is only important for a OHC engine! Why? Because they are displacement limited. You have to keep the block small to keep the giant cylinder heads from making the engine too big to fit in the average vehicle.

- If an OHV V8 engine of say 6.2 L can make 430 hp with a lot of area under the curve, 400 ft-lbs of torque, be very refined, rev to 6.5K rpm and get 17/25 gas mileage, explain to me why an DOHC 5.0 L V8 making 420 hp with less area under the curve, less than 400 ft-lbs of torque, slightly more refinement, the same rev limit and the same (or sometimes worse) fuel economy be any better?!? Ahh, that's right, it has 4 cams and weighs more! It must be better. Plus, that timing belt is quieter than a chain. Thank goodness many automakers have gotten away from the damn timing belts on interference engines.

So, let me ask you a simple question since you are the one I have seen discussing hp/liter the most recently. What exactly is it about a DOHC engine that makes it superior to a well designed pushrod engine? Put it in engineering terms for me. Don't just use the meaningless and overused hp/liter argument. Trust me when I say if an OHC engine could get the job done with only 2 valves per cylinder, they would only have 2 valves per cylinder due to cost and weight. They only have 4 valves per cylinder for one reason: they need to be more efficient to produce the same hp from a smaller displacement due them being so damn big. Obviously that isn't a big factor with a 4 cylinder (or pretty much any other inline engine) so that is one engine where it definitely makes sense for DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder. Lets keep this argument to V8's, or really any V automobile engine.

Edited August 27, 2008 by 2QuickZ's

[Lamar]

Well Bob Lutz said the CTS-V would "suck the doors off an M5" the CTS-V posted marginally better times than an M5 that has been out a while M5 without a limiter can do 204 mph, that is impressive. I'd prefer Bob Lutz stop making claims, because often he just over states or the bean counters step in, and what he claimed doesn't get delivered.

Bottom line is American car fans of big growly engines will like this car. Those that had a 300C, Corvette, older V-series, Charger SRT-8, etc will probably want one. People that spend $90,000 on Euro-exotics won't be interested, they buy BMW or Mercedes for prestige, and often don't consider American cars.

1) As many have said, fractions of seconds are impressive on a track. They often equal car lengths.

2) Go find an M5 without a governor and we'll talk. How much you can mod a car means absolutely NOTHING.

3) We have car enthusiasts, we have people with money, and we have car enthusiasts with money. Look at that list and tell me which there are more of in the market. Yep, it's the ones with money. AKA the badge snobs. Who don't give a crap about what's under the hood anyway just as long as it has the roundel, 3-point star, four circles, or the L within the oval.

[maxximus1]

love that cts-v!

[eldiablobanshee]

GM does not usually claim better than they can deliver and all the GM number that I have seen say 3.9 0-60 and 12.0 1/4 mile.

[balthazar]

'09 CTS-V : fastest recorded production sedan on factory-spec street tires @ Nurburgring.

[Drew Dowdell]

People that spend $90,000 on Euro-exotics won't be interested, they buy BMW or Mercedes for badge, and often don't consider American cars.

fixed.

[Intrepidation]

I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet:

CTS-V uses a V8 and a supercharger

but

makes more power than the M5 with 2 extra cylinders

It doesn't matter if it only beat the Germans by a little, the point it is is faster, stops better, handles better and laps the Ring quicker than the Germans. No one has been able to touch them in the uber performance market until now: not Acura, not Lexus, not Cadillac. Now Cadillac has released a car that beats the Germans, including the benchmark BMW in every performance measure. Most impressive indeed.