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.

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