sdg1871

I agree. The reality is that with the government exercising control over GM, you can kiss gas-guzzling performance cars from GM goodbye. The government wants American car companies to focus on gree, fuel-efficient cars that can compete with Toyota, Honda, erc. The CTS-V simply does not fit into that structure. It will be one hell of a collectors item at Barrett-Jackson auto auctions 50 years from now as the last gasp of an American auto industry that was forced to change direction. It's sad.

And there is nothing wrong with competition. It does make cars better.

BetterMakeWay

Ok so i've read all the comments and i can say this:

1. If the CTS-V engine is truly lighter than the M5 engine then i dare post up the figures! Also i dare say what we understand by "engine". The whole engine with all the parts, or only the block, or the block and the pistons? The reason why i ask this is because i suspect the engine as a whole doesn't weigh more than the M5 and the main reason being that it has a supercharger strapped on. I may be wrong though but i'd like to see the figures along with the answer(s) to the above questions.

2. The CTS-V may very well be faster in a straight line, from a standing start, but what about from roll-ons? At different speeds maybe? Let's see what happens from a roll-on from 150km/h or 200km/h. Let's also see top speeds (derestricted).

3. Why does a FI engine be more reliable than a NA engine? If more, it has more vulnerabilities as it has more components that are interdependent. Like a blower or a turbo that can go bad! Seriously, without wanting to flame or anything, when it comes to car engines german engineering is utterly supreme to american engineering. When will US car maker produce a car that revs to 8500 revs, , is NA, has a F1 derived SMG gearbox, and still able to compete with European turbo or supercharged power-plants that are superior in displacement, AND still come out reliable enough I WILL rest my case. Till then US can continue to call 6-7 liters "small blocks" and strap turbos or blowers, since well in US little things are truly small.

4. Even though CTS-V may be overall faster, sales of the CTS-V at the end of it's life should be compared to the sales of the E60 M5, (WORLDWIDE) and then maybe people will get why the M5 is the superior sedan. Maybe...i dunno!

swajames

You're absolutely right. It is indeed sad. What the CTS-V, the ZR-1 and Z06 show is that American car companies can and did produce outstanding product. GM, Ford and the others always got judged based on their low end output, these cars show that their top end product was highly competitive. Simple fact is that the CTS-V is more representative of what America can produce than the base product. If you look at GM and Ford's product in other markets it's much better than their low end here. The European GM lineup is strong, as is Ford's. Both Ford and GM have great product coming out of Australia. Their issue is that middle America is, and always was, highly aspirational - and the domestic product never had the same kerb and neighbor appeal as an import. A BMW, Merc or Audi on the drive spoke louder than a GM or Ford.

swajames

JetBlack5OC

Never said or going to say GM motors are the best in the world.

You are just ignorant for calling them copouts.

Once again believe what you want.

GM is not going to build the most incredible FI motors in the world. All manufacturers, BMW, Audi, VW, Merc, GM, etc..... will build the most incredible FI motors in the future.



You can make this a BMW vs. GM pissing match or try to twist it into that. But that was never what this was about. You fail to realize I drive BMW's and very much like their cars. You also fail to realize that there are other great cars out there. This all stems from your ignorant statement about GM being copouts for using FI, when BMW is already heading the same direction.

For some reason you think this is a FI vs. NA argument, when I NEVER said one was better than the other. All I said (wether it is good or not), FI is the future of high horsepower cars, due to tighter emission standards.

For some reason you think this is a GM motor vs. BMW motor argument, when I NEVER said one was better than the other. I was simply stating GM is not a copout for using FI.

Maybe you should have asked what car I would actually buy out of the two, judging by your posts you would be surprised by my answer. Or ask me what I like in a powerplant, maybe I am not exactly happy with BMW M-division turning to FI. Too your surprise, I am a NA guy. I just have the ability to realize when another brand makes one hell of a car.

JetBlack5OC

+1 agree 100%

BetterMakeWay

Ok so i've read all the comments and i can say this:

1. If the CTS-V engine is truly lighter than the M5 engine then i dare post up the figures! Also i dare say what we understand by "engine". The whole engine with all the parts, or only the block, or the block and the pistons? The reason why i ask this is because i suspect the engine as a whole doesn't weigh more than the M5 and the main reason being that it has a supercharger strapped on. I may be wrong though but i'd like to see the figures along with the answer(s) to the above questions. I've posted the weights on here before. The valve gear in the M5 engine is highly complex and it adds weight, as do the individual throttle bodies. Either way, there's a mistaken assumption by many that a larger displacement automatically means the powerplant itself is heaver. That's not necessarily the case.I didn't assume that bigger the displacement equals meaningful weight increases, i just thought people tend to compare the engine block, and if so i would not be surprised the M5 engine would be heavier since it has to cope to 8000 rpms and last more than 2 or 3 races on a racetrack. People tend to forget that adding superchargers or turbos they add significat weight due to added components like bigger intercoolers etc....

2. The CTS-V may very well be faster in a straight line, from a standing start, but what about from roll-ons? At different speeds maybe? Let's see what happens from a roll-on from 150km/h or 200km/h. Let's also see top speeds (derestricted). From most rolling starts the much greater torque and much flatter torque curve in the CTS-V is going to be a significant advantage. The M5 engine is a wonderful engine, but it's not pulling at its hardest until you're deep into its rev range. ]All i can say at low speeds i agree. At higher speed i'm putting my money on the M5.

3. Why does a FI engine be more reliable than a NA engine? If more, it has more vulnerabilities as it has more components that are interdependent. Like a blower or a turbo that can go bad! Seriously, without wanting to flame or anything, when it comes to car engines german engineering is utterly supreme to american engineering. When will US car maker produce a car that revs to 8500 revs, , is NA, has a F1 derived SMG gearbox, and still able to compete with European turbo or supercharged power-plants that are superior in displacement, AND still come out reliable enough I WILL rest my case. Till then US can continue to call 6-7 liters "small blocks" and strap turbos or blowers, since well in US little things are truly small. You're misunderstanding the term "small block" , it doesn't necessarily refer only to displacement and there's not really any specific displacement that puts an engine into one category or another. As for American engineering being subservient to European engineering, that's a vast generalization. I don't see Western Europe sending people to the moon, launching space shuttles, building stealth bombers or the like... I may have misunderstood the term small block, if so care to explain what do Americans understand by small block V8s? As for the rest of the comment you missed the express words i wrote "car engines... engineering". I was talking mainly about car and engine specific engineering.

4. Even though CTS-V may be overall faster, sales of the CTS-V at the end of it's life should be compared to the sales of the E60 M5, (WORLDWIDE) and then maybe people will get why the M5 is the superior sedan. Maybe...i dunno! The CTS-V isn't sold worldwide like the M5 so it's tough to draw many meaningful conclusions. Until GM gets back on its feet, sales of products that would otherwise have done very well in a more robust market will suffer. Bummer!


Still i'd like to point out for good reason the obvious...as another member said: there is a reason for cheap being cheap. You can for sure make a ZR1 or GTR best or even surpass a Porsche 911 or a Ferrari but it will NEVER have the same refinement, it will never please you with the same soundtrack and will always feel as it was built more by marketing people than people who put soul and passion. And i'm talking here about engineering, about design, about sound expertise etc.... You know things like that cannot be done with a cost/expenditure calculator, and for sure cannot be done by people that only build a machine with one aim alone: to only crush the opponent.

You know this reminds me of the brilliant guy named Steve Jobs (Apple cofounder for some of you that don't know him). When he came back at Apple he said: "We have to change the way we think. We have to change the idea that for Apple to win Microsoft has to loose." That was just brilliant !! And ever since Apple went on a roll and mostly because of this little incentive.

swajames

I think we're actually on the same page, Andrei. In fact I very nearly bought an M5 when I got my latest 997, it's an absolutey incredible machine. The point of my posts is not to say the CTS-V is superior to the M5, at the end of the day it most probably isn't, although on most objective levels it does outperform it. It is indeed the intangibles that generally make us pay a premium for the cars we choose to drive. My point was that the posters who atavistically dismiss the GM engine in the CTS-V ought to take off the blinkers. The point is not that the LSA engine is necessarily better, it's that it's just as capable of providing performance and thrills as the M5 powerplant. Each goes about its business in a different way, and each has inherent advantages and disadvantages, but both are great engines. It's the ability to appreciate and critique engineering and performance without reference or deference to the badge on the hood that distinguishes enthusiasts from the proverbial "fanboy".

BetterMakeWay

Wisely said! I agree.

JetBlack5OC

+1

Great post James. Couldn't be said any better.