Close

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    139,054
    Rep Points
    41,807.2
    Mentioned
    2443 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    419


    Yes Reputation No

    Spot Auto chooses the BMW F90 M5 over the Cadillac CTS-V, W213 Mercedes-AMG E63 S, and Porsche Panamera Turbo S E-Hybrid

    Remember that 0-300 kph sprint video Sport Auto teased us with from their BMW F90 M5, Cadillac CTS-V, W213 Mercedes-AMG E6 3S, and Porsche Panamera Turbo S E-hybrid comparison test? Well, now we have the magazine data.

    Click here to enlarge

    And the F90 M5 wins. Easily.

    It is the quickest around the track, fastest in a straight line, and simply the magazine's choice.

    The Cadillac CTS-V finishes second to its credit and it is the lightest as tested but surprisingly the all wheel drive F90 M5 is only 5 kilograms heavier. Close enough that driver or amount of gas in the tank can change the result.

    The CTS-V also is on Pilot Super Sport tires but gets crushed by the F90 M5 to the tune of two full seconds around the track. Ouch.

    The E63 is second quickest around the track but Sport Auto did not feel it was as much fun to drive.

    Chalk up another win for the F90 M5.


    1st: BMW M5 (84 points)
    Weight: 1904 kg
    Tires: Pirelli P Zero
    Price (incl relevant options): 128.600
    0-40: 1,2 s
    0-100: 3,3 s
    0-160: 7,1 s
    0-200: 10,9 s
    Braking 100-0 (c/w): 35,0/32,9 m
    Braking 200-0 (w): 129,5 m
    Slalom: 70,0 kph
    Laptime: 1.10,6 min

    2nd: Cadillac CTS-V (75 points)
    Weight: 1899 kg
    Tires: Michelin Pilot Super Sport
    Price (incl relevant options): 98.900
    0-40: 1,5 s
    0-100: 4,3 s
    0-160: 8,5 s
    0-200: 13,2 s
    Braking 100-0 (c/w): 37,5/34,9 m
    Braking 200-0 (w): 146,8 m
    Slalom: 69,6 kph
    Laptime: 1.12,6 min

    3rd: Mercedes-AMG E 63 S (72 points)
    Weight: 2040 kg
    Tires: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S
    Price (incl relevant options): 132.245
    0-40: 1,1 s
    0-100: 3,5 s
    0-160: 7,3 s
    0-200: 11,1 s
    Braking 100-0 (c/w): 37,3/35,8 m
    Braking 200-0 (w): 141,2 m
    Slalom: 68,4 kph
    Laptime: 1.11,3 min

    4th: Porsche Panamera Turbo S E-Hybrid (69 points)
    Weight: 2370 kg
    Tires: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 N0
    Price (incl relevant options): 187.521
    0-40: 1,1 s
    0-100: 3,4 s
    0-160: 7,5 s
    0-200: 11,5 s
    Braking 100-0 (c/w): 37,2/35,0 m
    Braking 200-0 (w): 138,6 m
    Slalom: 67,7 kph
    Laptime: 1.11,5 min

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    493
    Rep Points
    612.0
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Yes Reputation No
    That CTS-V is a bargain. Get some sticky tires, a tune, pulley and you would have a better drivers car. It's a whopping 16 grand cheaper than the M5 in the USA and a whole 18 grand less than the Merc.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,351
    Rep Points
    1,692.1
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ms335i Click here to enlarge
    That CTS-V is a bargain. Get some sticky tires, a tune, pulley and you would have a better drivers car. It's a whopping 16 grand cheaper than the M5 in the USA and a whole 18 grand less than the Merc.
    It's a much bigger difference once you factor in options and dealers willing to deal.

    I would pick the CTS-V too. Until I hit a stoplight...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    493
    Rep Points
    612.0
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky2 Click here to enlarge
    It's a much bigger difference once you factor in options and dealers willing to deal.

    I would pick the CTS-V too. Until I hit a stoplight...
    Get you a set of ET streets and stoplights won't be a problem Click here to enlarge

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,104
    Rep Points
    933.7
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    It's crazy how the M5 outperformed all the others on a significantly worse tire. Imagine it on something proper.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    139,054
    Rep Points
    41,807.2
    Mentioned
    2443 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    419



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ms335i Click here to enlarge
    Get you a set of ET streets and stoplights won't be a problem Click here to enlarge
    Corners will be though...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Points
    538.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Yeah I'm surprised the M5 didn't have 4Ss but I think the F10 had the same problem...they couldn't get the supply of Michelins, so many F10 M5s came with P Zeros as well. I can't talk too much sh*t about Pirelli, I have Sottozeros on my M5 for winter and they're great (and still necessary in April here in the midwest, kill me) - but the 4S is basically the best tire in the world. Throw those on the M5 and I bet that lap time goes down a few more tenths, and you might shave one or two off of the 0-200 kph time as well.

    M5 is king again, as it should be.

    The CTS-V may be a good driver's car, but I have not heard a single person *who has actually driven the new M5* say anything but the same about that car as well. And please, go sit inside a CTS-V. If you want to buy a luxury 4 door sedan and then do nothing but trailer it to drag strips, I guess, go do that, and maybe re-evaluate your choices in life. But most people buying these cars are going to drive them every day, and for tens of thousands of miles. And the CTS is so far behind the others now inside that I have to think it's a damn good thing it's as cheap as it is.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    139,054
    Rep Points
    41,807.2
    Mentioned
    2443 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    419



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by leveraged sellout Click here to enlarge
    And the CTS is so far behind the others now inside that I have to think it's a damn good thing it's as cheap as it is.
    Part of the reason the ATS-V was a flop. May have been first in chassis dynamics but it was generations behind inside (and nothing special outside).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Points
    538.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Part of the reason the ATS-V was a flop. May have been first in chassis dynamics but it was generations behind inside (and nothing special outside).
    Right. ATS-V was shameful inside...this game Cadillac is trying to play (still! When the f*ck will they learn) of trying to do 80% of the German refinement for 85% of the price will never work. No one is going to buy an ATS-V or CTS-V because they're 15% cheaper than the equivalent AMG or M. No one buying these cars new gives a damn about that. But they sure do care about whether or not it looks half as expensive as it is inside. As do I. I still remember sitting in a year old previous generation CTS-V back when they were new...everything was worn, squeaking, rattling, all the moving parts inside felt like they were going to break. Compared to the E60 M5 interior it was an absolute joke. No one wants to pay even 35% less for a car that's such a step down inside.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    139,054
    Rep Points
    41,807.2
    Mentioned
    2443 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    419



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by leveraged sellout Click here to enlarge
    Right. ATS-V was shameful inside...this game Cadillac is trying to play (still! When the f*ck will they learn) of trying to do 80% of the German refinement for 85% of the price will never work.
    That's what I have been saying.

    They should deliver 120% the product for 80% of the price. Make everyone open their eyes and jaws drop.

    Then, up the price once they are on par or better and the market responds to it.

    They don't seem want to win.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Points
    538.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    That's what I have been saying.

    They should deliver 120% the product for 80% of the price. Make everyone open their eyes and jaws drop.

    Then, up the price once they are on par or better and the market responds to it.


    They don't seem want to win.
    I think they could do very well at 100%/100%...just make an even-up competitor. People are almost scared of the cheap price in the luxury game, and rightly so, to be frank.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    139,054
    Rep Points
    41,807.2
    Mentioned
    2443 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    419



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by leveraged sellout Click here to enlarge
    I think they could do very well at 100%/100%...just make an even-up competitor. People are almost scared of the cheap price in the luxury game, and rightly so, to be frank.
    Cadillac just doesn't have the perception of being on par. I think they need to overdeliver and not just try to offer value.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Points
    538.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Cadillac just doesn't have the perception of being on par. I think they need to overdeliver and not just try to offer value.
    That's true...but in the same way that a guy who always self-depreciates and tries to become "best friends" with a girl in order to appear nice and harmless and safe never actually gets anywhere...Cadillac's whole "budget luxury" thing isn't working either. People just find it pathetic. But I agree...if they could eat some profit for a couple years and really go all out, that would be dope. But they won't, GM is allergic to things like that, seemingly. Hence why their flagship CT6, even when fully decked out, still has an interior that in terms of materials and "screwed-togetherness" is behind even the W212 E Class, which was actually literally a step down from the W211. Let alone the full-size cars it's supposed to compete against...I can't even imagine someone cross-shopping a W222 and a CT6...the thought alone makes me laugh.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    139,054
    Rep Points
    41,807.2
    Mentioned
    2443 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    419



    Yes Reputation No
    Well then I don't know when Cadillac expects to be taken seriously.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •