America's M5 Killer?

Manic Moran

The US has generally not exactly been at the top end of the high-performance 4-door market. They've usually had a great engine, and are a fair bit cheaper, but otherwise sortof sucked in the handling or interior departments compared to the Audi or BMW counterparts. Possibly no longer.

The latest generation Cadillac CTS-V has knocked 14 seconds off the E60 M5's Nordschleife time. Even if it didn't quite handle with the same balance, it would more than make up for it by cranking out 556hp at 551ft/lbs of torque getting it from 0-60 in under 3.9 seconds with its supercharged 6.2l V8, and stonkingly huge Brembos.

Best of all, it's not as ugly as the M5.



NTM

tdc

LOL!

Holsten

Since when is an M5 ugly!??!

TheBazman

I'm sorry but that is way uglier than an M5

cozmik

TheBazman wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is way uglier than an M5

QFT

American cars suck ass.

Plug

The absolute cut of it! Americans make bad cars and I don't think this is going to be different. I bet it will be half the price of an M5 but for what reason:rolleyes:

Alanstrainor

It looks pug fugly to me, i'd choose the M5 over it any day.

SuprSi

Agreed. It's a horrible looking thing. An M5 passed me this morning in Leopardstown and it's still a stunning car.

RobAMerc

I bet it goes as hard as the M5 in a straight line, rides like a supermarket trolley, costs half as much and goes straight off at the first bend it comes near.

Yanks don't build cars that go round things - they build them to go through or over !

alpina

M5 v Cadillac....EMmmm let me think...
Pedigree...Ride feel, quality...Residual value...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Evil_Clown

RobAMerc wrote: »

I bet it goes as hard as the M5 in a straight line, rides like a supermarket trolley, costs half as much and goes straight off at the first bend it comes near.

Don't forget the plastic
Lots and Lots of interior useless ugly plastic
Well the last super cadillac (on Top Gear I think) had it

Anan1

14 seconds is rather a lot though, isn't it?

Vertakill

RobAMerc wrote: »

I bet it goes as hard as the M5 in a straight line, rides like a supermarket trolley, costs half as much and goes straight off at the first bend it comes near.

Yanks don't build cars that go round things - they build them to go through or over !

Does that look like a straight line to you?

Seriously people, get off Germany's/BMW's c0ck for 2 minutes. I'd love to see how fast you lot could go around that track on your bandwagon.

You can't argue with a car that size doing 0-60 in sub 4 seconds.

Go check out this, and look at the recorded times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times

This 'shopping trolley' beat the times of R8's, M3's, 911's etc. Allbeit this doesn't hold a great deal of weight, it's still something to think about before going on a yank car bashing exercise.

Oh, for the record - both cars look like **** (admittedly the M5 looks less ****).

RobAMerc

Admittedly - I was a bit too quick to judge there Vertakill - but I still bet the M5 would blow it away as a daily driver -
Cadillac are not known for sports cars nor are GM producing anything at all worth while - so I will remain a sceptic that this thing is any good if you don't mind.
Just because they got a dickied up one about the Nordschleife quicker than an M5 doesn't mean it will be nicer to drive than the M5.

Vertakill

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Cadillac either. Also, I can't imagine a 6.2l SC'd V8 would be all that comfortable to drive daily, but if I were to buy this I would be weighing up performance over comfort. From a performance point of view, this does sound very impressive - especially for a US made saloon.

Jesus can you imagine what a 6.2l SC'd V8 would be like on petrol in Ireland? I doubt it'd ever get into double digits.

2manyturbos

Both cars are ugly.

The M5 could be seen as handsome if you think bulldogs are handsome. It misses being pretty by a long, long shot however. All current BMWs have ugliness in their DNA with the exception of the current 3 series coupe.

What specs I see for the M5 show 500 hp and 383 ft lbs of torque, versus the quoted figures above for the CTS of 556 hp and 551 ft lbs. This is a serious difference in grunt, but not enough to explain 14 seconds. This new Caddy must seriously handle, so it is time to be putting away the American straight line cliches.

In recent years most US cars trying to penetrate the Europe market seem to have good credentials in the dynamics department, but usually fall down [or get criticised by English journalists :rolleyes:] on the quality and taste of interior fittings.

It will be interesting to see how this one stacks up. I imagine that even if it comfortably trounces the M5 and equivalent Audis and Mercs, the muttering rotters will still condemn it by falling back on the Last Resort of heavy depreciation.

You just can't win with some people.

Vertakill

Totally agree 2manyturbos.

Annoys me when people dismiss a car or a brand with the usual "Oh well, I don't really like <name> - they have very plasticy interiors". I should just put a German brand in those brackets...

Honestly, if I'm hitting 60mph in 3.9 seconds, the last thing I'm thinking about is what kind of material has gone into my dashboard.

The same people are those who probably thought the flower holder in the Beetle was a good idea.

cabrwab

Wrong time to be bringing a car like that out! With the credit crunch in the US and there petrol reaching >$4 a gallon.
But 14 sec's off an M5 must be a stonker of a car. Im fairly certain the caddie doesn't have a super computer to drive aswell as the car!

Ok one thing that i do hate about american cars is there horrible interiors, they do tend to be awful. But a reason to hate it i don't know.

Look at the interior of a ferrari F40. not exactly ground breaking design but the car was meant to be amazing, there was no complaints from journo's then!
Oh its hardcore to save weight!

Matt Simis

Fun Facts and Figures:

$20k cheaper than the M5
100kg heavier than the M5 (EDIT, mean this a a compliment to the CTS, given its performance)
In fairness to the M5 though, current model will have been out for 4 years when this is forsale.

Matt Simis

Vertakill wrote: »

Totally agree 2manyturbos.

Annoys me when people dismiss a car or a brand with the usual "Oh well, I don't really like <name> - they have very plasticy interiors". I should just put a German brand in those brackets...

That would be Opel, if you can call them German these days.

Vertakill wrote: »

Honestly, if I'm hitting 60mph in 3.9 seconds, the last thing I'm thinking about is what kind of material has gone into my dashboard.

For the first week you wouldnt care, but after spending $60k (EUR80k landed here?) you would notice on your daily trip to work driving sub 60..

Here is the 2009 CTS-V Interior:



Suede steering wheel aside (!), if anything its simply more cluttered than outright plasticy.

cabrwab

:eek:Woooo buttons!

Max_Damage

cabrwab wrote: »

Ok one thing that i do hate about american cars is there horrible interiors, they do tend to be awful. But a reason to hate it i don't know.

Am I the only person that doesn't give a toss about what an interior looks like?

Matt Simis

Max_Damage wrote: »

Am I the only person that doesn't give a toss about what an interior looks like?

Out of 10, about a 5.5 to 6 for me. Its a consideration.
Some people have the view that since the interior is "for you" (exterior is what others see) its of paramount importance..

Cmar-Ireland

Interior and exterior design aside, this is seriously impressive. Any car that can do a sub 8 minute lap is proper quick.
Wouldn't be mad about the outside, but the interior does have a certain attraction.

Wouldn't say no to one...

Vertakill

Matt Simis wrote: »

That would be Opel, if you can call them German these days.

*Shudder*

Matt Simis wrote: »

For the first week you wouldnt care, but after spending $60k (EUR80k landed here?) you would notice on your daily trip to work driving sub 60..

Well, according to my car's computer, I do about 30mph avg to work, and get about 21mpg which is wasteful in itself, so there's no way I'd be using this car as a daily driver, which is what I hinted on in a previous post. There's also no way you could afford to run this car in Ireland, with Irish traffic and Irish roads - so your point doesn't really count. :P

Anyways, I would only buy this car for performance, because I really do think the exterior looks like a bag of sh1t.

However, that pic is the first time I've seen the interior and I think it's pretty decent. I especially like the LCD if it's pop-up. The rest is relatively standard, maybe a little cluttered - but it is a thumbnail, would be different sitting inside.

SV

That's fairly ugly to be honest.

Definitely not better looking than the M5 anyway!

Vertakill

Max_Damage wrote: »

Am I the only person that doesn't give a toss about what an interior looks like?

I'm pretty much the same. Provided it has comfortable seats, the dials are easy to read and everything is where it should be I'm pretty much satisfied. Anything else is a bonus.

2manyturbos

Thanks for the interior shot Matt Simis.

To me that is fairly busy looking, but the seats look nice and they have used Alcantara on the box between the seats. Overall, I could live with it, in fact I like it.

One negative would be the recessed clocks. To me that blue light seems to be reflecting back off the binnacle. That would be a bugger at night, they need to cure that before it gets to England.

6 point something litres V8 with a supercharger. I wonder if the CO2 emissions are low, I'm torn between this and a Passat Tdi?

:rolleyes:

Lord Nikon

Tbh it took the Americans long enough to produce a car that could do what every other non-american car can do already, and has been for years. Meh, nice interior though, I like buttons.

Wonder if it comes in a manual?

Manic Moran

Matt Simis wrote: »

Out of 10, about a 5.5 to 6 for me. Its a consideration.
Some people have the view that since the interior is "for you" (exterior is what others see) its of paramount importance..

I agree to a very large part. I spend a lot more time in my car looking out, than outside looking in. It's a large part of the reason I went with my S4 and not the M3.

To me that is fairly busy looking,

On the other hand, it means 'no i-drive' if there's a button for everything. And it doesn't seem that bad to me.

For the first week you wouldnt care, but after spending $60k (EUR80k landed here?) you would notice on your daily trip to work driving sub 60.

Anyone who can afford to buy a car of that sort of class probably doesn't really care all that hugely about the fuel prices. Besides, the V10 in the M5 probably doesn't just sip fuel either. You can also afford to run a car that torquey at the very low rev bands if you shift early, which helps economy. Dodge is making the same argument putting forward its Challenger this year. It's 6.1l Hemi is no miser with fuel, but the targetted buyers have little issue with the fuel prices.

One negative would be the recessed clocks. To me that blue light seems to be reflecting back off the binnacle

I'm not sure I see the difference between the CTS's aluminium-framed recessed clocks and those on my Audi. (Note: I put my money to quality, I'm not just commenting on the GM product because it's American) When looking straight at them from the driver's seat, there's no reflection.

NTM

GB15

Wasn't there a rumour of a revised M5 that has 575bhp? I don't have a link but I remember recently there being some spy shots - was supposed to be in response Audis more powerful RS6.