M5 vs. CTS-V
09-21-2009, 07:36 PM
#1
Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2004 Silver BMW 525i, loaded w/o Nav
2007 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer, loaded w/o Nav
Well... That didn't go as I expected...
It did on the drag strip, but not on the road course...
----------------
MT M5 tribute:
It did on the drag strip, but not on the road course...
----------------
MT M5 tribute:
09-21-2009, 07:51 PM
#3
Senior Members
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: E60 BMW ///M5 V10
Watch this from 4:00 onwards. The M5 in that MT test was a 6speed, much slower than an SMG. This video shows just what an SMG M5 will do to a CTS-V
09-21-2009, 07:59 PM
#4
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: MPLS, USA
Posts: 5,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 10 Honda Fit Sport, 10 Honda Pilot Touring
If they were comparing apples to apples, Manual vs Manual, then the test was fair.
EDIT: The CTS-V comes with a six speed auto, so...not a fair test. Regardless, the CTS-V is a fabulous car and a much better value.
EDIT: The CTS-V comes with a six speed auto, so...not a fair test. Regardless, the CTS-V is a fabulous car and a much better value.
09-21-2009, 08:04 PM
#5
Senior Members
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: E60 BMW ///M5 V10
Originally Posted by DRANGED' post='1013432' date='Sep 21 2009, 11:59 PM
If they were comparing apples to apples, Manual vs Manual, then the test was fair.
MT seems like it has a thing for the CTS-V, every comparo I've seen from them always has the CTS-V win, which is why i believe they chose a 6spd M5 cause they knew the V would be quicker in a straight-line.
09-21-2009, 08:10 PM
#6
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: MPLS, USA
Posts: 5,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 10 Honda Fit Sport, 10 Honda Pilot Touring
Originally Posted by BMWPower06' post='1013435' date='Sep 21 2009, 11:04 PM
The M5 was never designed to be a Manual. It was built from the ground up with SMG in it. The 6mt was an after thought and AFAIK only available in the US. If you're gonna compare two cars, why not compare the best versions of both cars? The CTS-V has no SMG style gearbox, therefore the 6speed is the better choice in that car. The M5's SMG has closer ratios and quicker shifts, thus it should've been used in the comparo.
MT seems like it has a thing for the CTS-V, every comparo I've seen from them always has the CTS-V win, which is why i believe they chose a 6spd M5 cause they knew the V would be quicker in a straight-line.
MT seems like it has a thing for the CTS-V, every comparo I've seen from them always has the CTS-V win, which is why i believe they chose a 6spd M5 cause they knew the V would be quicker in a straight-line.
I love the M5 too but the CTS-V is a faster, albiet uglier, sedan than the M5.
09-21-2009, 08:20 PM
#7
Senior Members
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: E60 BMW ///M5 V10
Originally Posted by DRANGED' post='1013447' date='Sep 22 2009, 12:10 AM
Didn't the CTS-V beat the M5 by almost 14 secs on the Nuringburgring? Was that test unfair?
I love the M5 too but the CTS-V is a faster, albiet uglier, sedan than the M5.
I love the M5 too but the CTS-V is a faster, albiet uglier, sedan than the M5.
I remember reading an article before the CTS-V came out where they lined it up on the track against an M5. The two cars kept trading fast lap times, they were forced to leave early for some reason or another and the V was only about .1 second ahead of the M5 and the CTS-V got to do an extra lap that the M5 did not.
09-21-2009, 08:41 PM
#8
Contributors
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 4,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 Porsche 911 Carrera S Convertible. Midnight Blue, 6 Speed.Retired - 2007 997 Carrera S, Midnight Blue, Grey leather, premium audioRetired - 2007 550i, Monaco Blue over Beige, Navigation, Logic 7, Cold Weather Pack, Comfort Access, Sport Package
Model Year: 2008
Originally Posted by BMWPower06' post='1013454' date='Sep 21 2009, 09:20 PM
ring times are quite subjective, they are all on different days in different conditions and usually different drivers.
I remember reading an article before the CTS-V came out where they lined it up on the track against an M5. The two cars kept trading fast lap times, they were forced to leave early for some reason or another and the V was only about .1 second ahead of the M5 and the CTS-V got to do an extra lap that the M5 did not.
I remember reading an article before the CTS-V came out where they lined it up on the track against an M5. The two cars kept trading fast lap times, they were forced to leave early for some reason or another and the V was only about .1 second ahead of the M5 and the CTS-V got to do an extra lap that the M5 did not.
09-21-2009, 09:18 PM
#9
Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2004 Silver BMW 525i, loaded w/o Nav
2007 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer, loaded w/o Nav
Originally Posted by swajames' post='1013469' date='Sep 21 2009, 11:41 PM
'Ring times are what they are, and the simple fact is that no one in an M5 has recorded a faster time, in any conditions, than the CTS-V. That the M5 has been available for much longer, yet no one in an M5 has got close to the CTS-V's 'Ring time, is testament to the achievement of the CTS-V which has been on the market for a far shorter period. Personally, I'd probably prefer an M5 to a CTS-V - but there's no question that the CTS-V is an immensely capable car and it shows that GM can, when it puts its mind to it, create something that's just as capable as the best that Munich has to offer. Given how good the M5 is, and it is indeed a phenomenal car, that's quite an achievement for GM. The CTS-V is also an outstanding car, and it's incredible value for money.
Like they say, you run what you brung...
The 911 Turbo is actually quicker than the manual version in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. While rowing the gears is fun, one can't cry if an automatic smokes you. It is what it is... Automatics are no longer the handicap on a powerful car that they were 10 years ago. GM's F-body cars with the LT1 V8 (Z-28 & Trans Am, circa 1993-1994) were the first to begin to be faster with the auto than their manual, equally powerful counterparts.
That said, if I were writing the check, I'd take the CTS-V, just in case someone wanted to flex at a red light. It's a capable car, and it's fun to smash cars that cost more... It reminds me of a sleeper- and I love sleeper cars.
If cost were no object though, the choice between the two for me would be the M5. Not that it's more capable, just a little more exclusive. So, in this case- had I the means, I'd take style over substance.
However, regarding substance- hat CTS-V is the fastest (stock) sedan on the planet, period. Four doors, and 0 - 60 in 3.9 seonds (fastest 've seen) to 4.1 seconds (slowest)... And, with the 700 HP V8 ( detuned to 638 HP in the ZR-1) in the GM parts bin, already being placed in production vehiclesthe CTS-V has room to grow... Scary....
09-21-2009, 09:28 PM
#10
Contributors
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 4,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 Porsche 911 Carrera S Convertible. Midnight Blue, 6 Speed.Retired - 2007 997 Carrera S, Midnight Blue, Grey leather, premium audioRetired - 2007 550i, Monaco Blue over Beige, Navigation, Logic 7, Cold Weather Pack, Comfort Access, Sport Package
Model Year: 2008
Originally Posted by bighersh' post='1013510' date='Sep 21 2009, 10:18 PM
Indeed... Very true.
Like they say, you run what you brung...
The 911 Turbo is actually quicker than the manual version in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. While rowing the gears is fun, one can't cry if an automatic smokes you. It is what it is... Automatics are no longer the handicap on a powerful car that they were 10 years ago. GM's F-body cars with the LT1 V8 (Z-28 & Trans Am, circa 1993-1994) were the first to begin to be faster with the auto than their manual, equally powerful counterparts.
That said, if I were writing the check, I'd take the CTS-V, just in case someone wanted to flex at a red light. It's a capable car, and it's fun to smash cars that cost more... It reminds me of a sleeper- and I love sleeper cars.
If cost were no object though, the choice between the two for me would be the M5. Not that it's more capable, just a little more exclusive. So, in this case- had I the means, I'd take style over substance.
However, regarding substance- hat CTS-V is the fastest (stock) sedan on the planet, period. Four doors, and 0 - 60 in 3.9 seonds (fastest 've seen) to 4.1 seconds (slowest)... And, with the 700 HP V8 ( detuned to 638 HP in the ZR-1) in the GM parts bin, already being placed in production vehiclesthe CTS-V has room to grow... Scary....
Like they say, you run what you brung...
The 911 Turbo is actually quicker than the manual version in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. While rowing the gears is fun, one can't cry if an automatic smokes you. It is what it is... Automatics are no longer the handicap on a powerful car that they were 10 years ago. GM's F-body cars with the LT1 V8 (Z-28 & Trans Am, circa 1993-1994) were the first to begin to be faster with the auto than their manual, equally powerful counterparts.
That said, if I were writing the check, I'd take the CTS-V, just in case someone wanted to flex at a red light. It's a capable car, and it's fun to smash cars that cost more... It reminds me of a sleeper- and I love sleeper cars.
If cost were no object though, the choice between the two for me would be the M5. Not that it's more capable, just a little more exclusive. So, in this case- had I the means, I'd take style over substance.
However, regarding substance- hat CTS-V is the fastest (stock) sedan on the planet, period. Four doors, and 0 - 60 in 3.9 seonds (fastest 've seen) to 4.1 seconds (slowest)... And, with the 700 HP V8 ( detuned to 638 HP in the ZR-1) in the GM parts bin, already being placed in production vehiclesthe CTS-V has room to grow... Scary....
Dead on. As you say, if cost isn't in the equation the M5 is the one to get, but it's the intangibles that give it the win. Objectively, you have to hand it to the CTS-V. Personally, I'm generally prepared to pay the premium for heritage, prestige, fanatical obsession over engineering details and overall engineering excellence, but that's a heart over head decision. There are plenty of cheaper cars that are faster than my Porsche, but there aren't all that many that tick all the boxes that would make me write the check. It's much the same with the M5, it's the fanatical obsession of the M engineers to pack the car full of cutting edge technology that would make it the heart over head winner for me, but I have to take my hat off to GM for what they've built in the CTS-V. On another day, I could easily (and I have in the past) give the personal nod to the CTS-V. Irrespective of the badge on the hood, it is truly a top shelf car and it's winning these tests on merit - nothing more, nothing less. It's a very special car, and it's easily the best bang for the buck in its class. Great car.