America's M5 Killer?

drunkdaz

2manyturbos wrote: »

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.

I reckon 168 ft lbs could easily explain 14 secs on a 8 minute lap. 44% extra torque resulting a in 2.8% quicker lap? Some serious climbs around the ring.
I'm sure it still handles well though, but didn't GM already do this with the new Vette. It smokes on the track but is a bit of a dog once you get it on the road so hard is the set up.
Either way that much grunt in an auto would have to be a laugh.

TheBazman

GB15 wrote: »

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.

Yeah there was but it looked exactly the same as the current e60 except with extra vents in the front. I'd say it will be well into 2009 before we get decent shots of the next M5. I think the next 5 series will be out late 09, early 2010.

Biro

Matt Simis wrote: »

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




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.

Interior looks fine! (So long as that LCD is retracted). Serious car really. Kudos to anyone who buys one, dare to be different!

Biro

GB15 wrote: »

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.

Yep, that's coming.

tvr

Is it just me or is that CTS Interior just a dolled up version of the new Opel Insignia (aka the Vectra) Interior. Me thinks someone is sharing parts again.

Biro

tvr wrote: »

Is it just me or is that CTS Interior just a dolled up version of the new Opel Insignia (aka the Vectra) Interior. Me thinks someone is sharing parts again.

Maybe designed by the same person, but they're different dashes. No component the same from what I can see. Maybe the same plastics.

cabrwab

Interiors are the place i sit so to be comfy everything looking good , im happy, the exterior is what i look at through a window when its parked, going what a looker.

I actually like the look of that interior, and if i had the money i would be ordering it
1) to be different
2)Great car cheaper price
The interior of yank tanks is comfort for fat asses! Lotta buttons more to press!

Matt Simis

Vertakill wrote: »

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
.

May I suggest you look at this then, a more affordable car with very similar roots and goals:
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/204247/vauxhall_monaro.html

Monaro VXR 500, from the other side of the world (Australia, dont let the Vauxhall bit fool you). The standard Monaros are fast, this is "final" version of the model is much, much faster, to the tune of 500BHP and lots of torque. Its also 6litre and Supercharged.. not quite as fast as the new CTS, but IMO better lucking, available and cheaper.

A couple year old Monaro would be nice as a 2nd choice.

Climate Expert

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.

I'd guess it would be same in any country.

Looks like ****. It did however beat my 12 minute laptime so respect due.

paddydriver

Vertakill wrote: »

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 ****).

I have had the pleasure of going around the Nordschleife (Nurburgring to most) in an M5 and I cannot imagine any cars being much better:D

Defo an M5 for me - just as soon as those prices come down a little and a few more years of the mortgage then I will be looking for a nice one in Interlagos Blue:D

JHMEG

Typical boards crap.. car blows the M5 away, but the interior is flawed with clutter and cheap plastics, and so balance is restored. The M5 is back being better again.

Get over it bois, the Cadillac is the better car, the numbers prove it. And congrats to the Americans for producing some stonking cars in the last couple of years.

Mr.Diagnostic

JHMEG wrote: »

Typical boards crap.. car blows the M5 away, but the interior is flawed with clutter and cheap plastics, and so balance is restored. The M5 is back being better again.

Get over it bois, the Cadillac is the better car, the numbers prove it. And congrats to the Americans for producing some stonking cars in the last couple of years.

Some posters on this thread think the M5 is better, some don’t, either way, are they not entitles to their own opinion? What makes a car better is subjective. I thought the thread was quite balanced.
Your opinion is that the caddy is better but there again you think that anything is better than any BMW.

BTW I don’t have an opinion on the subject as I don’t know anything about the caddy.

Max_Damage

JHMEG wrote: »

Typical boards crap.. car blows the M5 away, but the interior is flawed with clutter and cheap plastics, and so balance is restored. The M5 is back being better again.

Get over it bois, the Cadillac is the better car, the numbers prove it. And congrats to the Americans for producing some stonking cars in the last couple of years.

The BMW fanboys just can't face the reality that the Caddy is better in this situation.

I always had a fondness for American cars, even if most of them were rubbish anyway.

JHMEG

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

Some posters on this thread think the M5 is better, some don’t, either way, are they not entitles to their own opinion? What makes a car better is subjective.

The car is well faster than the M5 on the track, that's not subjective.

Max_Damage wrote:

I always had a fondness for American cars, even if most of them were rubbish anyway.

Same here, from the older muscle cars to some great modern ones like the current Mustang, Z06, S7 etc.

E92

JHMEG: you've never driven either car, therefore you know nothing about which is better no more than I do. But it doesn't stop you from having your cheap sly digs at BMW (for the umpteenth time)does it? You did the same thing with the Nissan GT-R too. It was an "M3 beater" even though you've never gone in either let alone driven either. And then you criticise those who don't own hybrids when we ask quite valid questions about them? Talk about being a hypocrite.

I'd personally like an interior that doesn't resemble an Opel Insignia at the price of a CTS-V thank you very much.

But unlike some posters I'd give it the benefit of the doubt and see what it is like rather than assume that it is automatically better because it's not a BMW like some posters here.

For the record the M5 is ugly and the V10 sounds like a paraffin stove, and the interior ain't that special either.

The lap time is seriously impressive, and it does indeed beat the M5(well you can't be the winner at everything), so in theory it should be great, so lets see about practice when it arrives OK;)!

Mr.Diagnostic

JHMEG wrote: »

The car is well faster than the M5 on the track, that's not subjective.

Being better /faster on track may make it better or not, depending on each individual point of view. That’s subjective.

In my opinion it takes a bit more than that to make a car good.

As I said above I know nothing about the caddy so I have no idea if it is better than the BMW or not. I wonder what you based your opinion on, other than your extreme dislike of all BMW’s. That’s not very subjective.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

JHMEG: you've never driven either car, therefore you know nothing about which is better no more than I do.

Oh, yeah sorry, the 'Ring times mean nothing, sorry, yah, I forgot that. That's why every manufacturer puts their performance cars on the ring to get an official time. They mean nothing when they show a BMW to be slower you mean:rolleyes: EDIT: missed it 1st time around: yes you're right, the GT-R does indeed blow the M3 into the weeds.

There's nothing cheap or sly about my digs at BMW. I'm open and up front and do it as regulary as I can. Which is lots these days what with all these great new cars coming to market. You fanboys, as Vertakill says, better get off the BMW c0ck for a while.

Mr.Diagnostic, to me a car like the M5, which is a performance car, is bettered by something which has better performance, and the figures are not subjective in this case. If you think it's something else like cabin plastics, comfort etc, then, like you said, that's fine, we're all allowed be subjective.

Mr.Diagnostic

JHMEG wrote: »

There's nothing cheap or sly about my digs at BMW. I'm open and up front and do it as regulary as I can. Which is lots these days what with all these great new cars coming to market.

In other words you are a troll

JHMEG wrote: »

You fanboys, as Vertakill says, better get off the BMW c0ck for a while.

Lovely, thats a very telling level of reasoned discussion that you have achieved.

E92

Awwwww. Poor JHMEG, has to resort to insults and name calling because someone has questioned his authority on these things:rolleyes:. JHMEG didn't you recent report people for using foul language towards you recently, and make a big scene when somebody criticised you before?

At the end of the day, getting around the Ring faster means just that. Yes of course it is important, very important for a performance car but performance cars have to do more than that too, otherwise we'd all buy cars like the Aerial Atom etc which I'm sure would make minced meat of any regular car, even a Ferrari.

A car isn't necessarily better because it can lap the Ring faster than another, otherwise cars are useless and motorbikes are miles better because they can go round the Ring faster too. Since when did getting round the Ring become the one and only judgement as to how good a car is anyway?

peasant

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56278818&postcount=17

Manic Moran

didn't GM already do this with the new Vette. It smokes on the track but is a bit of a dog once you get it on the road so hard is the set up.

They've thought of that. The new CTS-V has "Magnetic Ride Control", which is a rather clever system of suspended iron filings which adjust electronically as opposed to hydraulically. It's claimed to be the fastest-adjusting suspension in the world, and can also be used 'normally' to adjust the ride comfort level like normal adjustible suspensions such as found on cars like the M5. It's an American invention, but it's good enough to be used on cars like the Ferrari 599 GTB, for example, so there's probably something to it. Certainly posters on message boards with cars that have it are very happy with the cruise ride.

There's no two ways that American designers in the last few years have woken up to the fact that there's more to making a good car than simply getting a great quarter-mile time. They've kept the same great engines, have started making a few fantastic-looking cars (Albeit they've hit a few dogs on the way too) and are providing warranties which rival the best the Japanese or Koreans are giving. If there's a place they are generally still behind, it's the interior fittings. America's best aren't actually that bad, I mean, I could live with a Caddy's or Corvette's interiors but they're certainly not class-leaders either. If they sort this out, and maintain the same lower prices, there could well be a resurgence in the upper-end American car market.

NTM

Cmar-Ireland

I'd love to see top gear or the like, do a comparison of these. The bmw would win on quality of fit and fittings, but the caddy looks like it would rape the m5 in terms of performance.

As another poster mentioned, the m5 has a crap exhaust note, I wonder what the caddy sounds like?

JHMEG

Cmar-Ireland wrote: »

the caddy looks like it would rape the m5 in terms of performance.

The Top Gear track is quite short and would suit the lighter car better, so the M5 mightn't be quite as humiliated as it was on the ring. But it certainly would be worth seeing alright.

2manyturbos

JHMEG wrote: »

The Top Gear track is quite short and would suit the lighter car better, so the M5 mightn't be quite as humiliated as it was on the ring. But it certainly would be worth seeing alright.

I agree it would be interesting, but I'm not so sure the M5 would do relatively better on TG than at the Nordschleife.

At the Ring, the track is so long that track specialists who know all the bends and all the correct lines can do it way faster than most, so having the right driver and the best car is the way to get lap times down.

On Top Gear the track is short and easy to learn. Assuming the Stig drives both, the better car will win.

Because the CTS is supercharged it has the torque to get up to speed quickly after braking for bends, and probably better brakes than the Beemer.

I predict if they do it the CTS-V will walk away with the honours.

Ferris

I'd like to supercharge an M5 and then see which car wins.

People should remember that the BMW is a naturally aspirated (albeit fuel injected) 5.0L and the caddy has a 6.2L Supercharged engine and there is only 56hp in the difference.

I know that the caddy will be a lot cheaper but in pure engineering terms the M5 has the better engine. Handling etc we obviously can't comment on.

Not a BMW fanboy either.

Manic Moran

Cmar-Ireland wrote: »

I'd love to see top gear or the like, do a comparison of these.

Wasn't a comparison, but Clarkson rather liked the old CTS-V, the video's on youtube.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9E1ZmWIXaAE
The only problems he had with it were the 'incessant bonging', and a vague complaint that 'it felt cheap so you're better off with a Monaro.' Oh, and that the SatNav kept finding fast food restaurants, but that balances out because the BMW's SatNav only takes you to Poland.

As another poster mentioned, the m5 has a crap exhaust note, I wonder what the caddy sounds like?

Again, the joys of Youtube.
In-car footage of the Nurburgring lap. Problem is the engine's too quiet, if anything.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ky8ZiO6ebn0

This Edmunds clip focuses on the note.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d4KfVoNMDuM

NTM

Cmar-Ireland

Ferris wrote: »

People should remember that the BMW is a naturally aspirated (albeit fuel injected) 5.0L and the caddy has a 6.2L Supercharged engine and there is only 56hp in the difference.

Not a BMW fanboy either.

Not BMW bashing here, but there is a huge difference in torque, and we all know, Torque is king!!! The caddy has nearly 170 extra torques

unkel

Manic Moran wrote: »

The latest generation Cadillac CTS-V has knocked 14 seconds off the E60 M5's Nordschleife time

Hold on a second, that's a claim made by Cadillac, not an official time, so it's a bit meaningless

But if it is anywhere near as quick, it sure is a very impressive performance

Matt Simis

Cmar-Ireland wrote: »

Not BMW bashing here, but there is a huge difference in torque, and we all know, Torque is king!!! The caddy has nearly 170 extra torques

Lol, thats a dangerous topic!

Cmar-Ireland

Matt Simis wrote: »

Lol, thats a dangerous topic!

Hence the ":p"