Topic: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V vs. 2008 BMW M5 SMG

[rrocket]

Shame on you all.  We're talking about two 500+hp supersedans, insanity on four wheels, and y'all are evaluating them based on depreciation and maintenance costs?  Here's a reality check.  Either of these is an absolutely terrible financial decision.  They're expensive as heck new, expensive as heck to keep running, and offer zero practical advantage over a 528i or a base-engine CTS.

What happened to everyone's adrenal gland?  Y'all are evaluating these cars like we're talking about Fiesta versus Yaris.

Sorry...I guess that's what happens when you own 600HP supercar.....my bad....

[The Mighty Duck]

I love, love love LOVE the M5.  But that CTS-V is bloody brilliant...  insane power, great looks...  I'm waiting to see Top Gear do a CTS-V vs. M5 vs. RS6 vs. AMG shootout... 

[mmret]

Shame on you all.  We're talking about two 500+hp supersedans, insanity on four wheels, and y'all are evaluating them based on depreciation and maintenance costs?  Here's a reality check.  Either of these is an absolutely terrible financial decision.  They're expensive as heck new, expensive as heck to keep running, and offer zero practical advantage over a 528i or a base-engine CTS.

What happened to everyone's adrenal gland?  Y'all are evaluating these cars like we're talking about Fiesta versus Yaris.

Agreed. Anyone who can afford one of these puppies doesn't care about the running costs, and probably isn't even aware of the price of gas.

[Jameel]

Honestly the CTS-V is a better looking car. Although a V10   Those cars do sound good.  Good thing about GM is they depcreciate like crazy, I'm sure you can pick up that CTS-V in about 4 years for $35K.

[DriverJeff]

... and the BMW will be worth 30k more after 5 years... it's all relative.  Plus the Caddy will have that famous GM quality.

In Canada what will be the price difference. I would expect the M5 to be $30k more. Caddy wins.

...and the BMW will be in the shop for electrical gremlins.  Anyway... the SMG is the deal killer for that M5 anyway.  Who'd want that awful thing anyway?  (I still LOOOOVE BMW, but without the stickshift, you might as well just have an old, be-winged 90s Japanese car or something... oh, sorry, Rrocket).   

[Mitlov]

Edmunds' take on the same topic:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=131206?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..2.*

The objective stuff:

Equipped with the six-speed automatic, the CTS-V sprints to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds (4 seconds flat with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip). And then it powers on to a quarter-mile time of 12.4 seconds at 115 mph.

The CTS-V equipped with the Tremec TR6060 six-speed manual that we also tested did the deeds just a tick slower at 4.6 seconds to 60 mph (4.3 seconds with 1 foot of rollout) and then completed the quarter-mile in 12.5 seconds at 115.3 mph.

Yes, that takes down the CLS63's quarter-mile performance of 12.8 seconds at 111.8 mph, while the mighty V10-powered M5 goes down, too, with its run at 12.7 seconds at 113 mph. The M3? Nope — not as quick. The Audi RS4? Nuh-uh. The Lexus IS-F? Please. What about the C63 — that little bugger with the big lump? Well, now, this one's close, and makes a pass in 12.5 seconds at 113.7 mph. That's close — real close. But the CTS-V is still a hair quicker.

The subjective stuff:

And goodness, the CTS-V absolutely flies through our slalom course at 71.1 mph.

The only sedan we can think of that can do it faster is the BMW M3, and the sport sedan icon does it less than 1 mph faster than a freakin' Cadillac. And the M3 is shorter by 11 inches and narrower by 1 inch (size matters in the slalom). Of the other similar luxury sport sedans, only the Lexus IS-F and Audi RS4 are close to the CTS-V with performances of 70.2 mph and 70.5 mph, respectively. The harsh-riding Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG gets through at 68.6 mph.

Anything else the CTS-V's size gets stomped. The M5 went through once at 69.2 mph and once at 68.4 mph. And the CLS63 trundles through at 64.4 mph.

The Caddy sucked the skid pad with an average of 0.92g of maximum lateral acceleration. The only other two sport sedans that can match or better it are the M3 sedan and the IS-F, and it is probably not a coincidence that both of those cars wear Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tires. Both these cars register 0.93g, while the Mercedes AMG sedans do about 0.88-0.89g. We've never seen an M5 do better than 0.84g. The RS4 could manage 0.90g when shod with PS2s and less when it was on different tires.

And they loved the driving experience too.  It's fast in an AMG way.  You think you're going fast, but not nearly as fast as you're going.  Both transmissions work very well (which is nice, because the 6MT in the normal CTS is allegedly notchy, although the automatic is excellent).  Body motions are well controlled without a harsh ride.  And rrocket, axle hop has been cured.

Edmunds isn't biased in favor of American cars.  They gave the new MKS a very negative review when Car & Driver really liked the new Lincoln.  So when they drool over this car to this degree, I take them seriously.