# Test Drove CTS-V



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Just got back from test driving the CTS-V

THE GOOD
The LS6 motor is fantastic. The motor gives you *NOW* acceleration at any rpm and any gear. Fantastically flexible motor yields a SAG grin and a very entertaining drive. There is no problem putting the power to the ground--- Traction control doesn't intrude excessively. 

YOu can feel that the drive train has to deal with a lot of power. It grunts and balks almost like an M3's drivetrain at some power transitions... quite a bit less than the M3, but it's there. 

The brakes are Extremely responsive. Much moreso than the M3's, IMO. Perhaps the numbers show differently, but those Brembo's can haul that car down viciously.

A "regular" CTS pulls up beside while stopped at a light, rolls down the window grinning and says "THAT's THE ONE!". Big smiles all around!  


THE OK
The interior is acceptable. Nowhere near the style and refinement of the E46M3. Probably more in line with the newer BMW's. It won't win an E46M3's drivers heart, but it's not bad either.

A small thing, but the shift knob is too wide. It's meaty, but even with large hands, it's not easy to get your hand around it the way that you can on the M3. As a result, your hand positions don't come naturally.

The exterior styling is subtle, the wheels are nice, but don't look like 18"s. The CTS is a big car, so it could do with even bigger wheels. Subtle sedan makes for a bit of a sleeper car, considering the bruiser under the hood.


THE BAD
Once you are used to Euro car's hoods where the outside hood lines roll away form your sight line, it's bizarre to see the hood corners so prominent displayed on both sides. They protrude upwards almost as much as a Corvette's. It's like a pair of hood "hips" up there. Visually, driving it conveys a "big car" mass rather than a "sports car" lightness.

More than "visual mass", there's a noticable increase in actual mass over an E46M3. A LOT of extra mass. Nowhere near as tossable, nowhere near as nimble, the CTS-V fails to be a "driver's car". The weight bogs the vehicle down. The motor makes up for alot, but you've got to USE the LS6's brute force to compensate for the lack of fluidity. I don't know it's curb weight, and it could actually be less the weight and more chassis lethargy... but motor and brakes aside, there is no comparison between the 2 vehicles chassis.

The CTS-V's weight results in a driving style that is more comparable to a high powered SUV than a sports car. Of course, with enough time and familiarty, one would adapt one's driving style to work harmoniously with the CTS-V.... but a BMW it wasn't.
IMO, the M3 is like a scalpel, the CTS-V's is like a chainsaw.



THE CONCLUSION
I can see Corvette drivers being swayed by this 4-door cousin of Corvette. However, I can't see too many M3 drivers being swayed by the CTS-V. If you think your M3 is a overweight "pig"... you ain't seen nothing yet. The M3 is a comparative featherweight in tossability and drivability. 

I'm not sure how Cadi is doing with CTS-V sales, but if they are low, I'm guessing that it's because of the 6-speed. The 6-speed wasn't anything to get excited over and was a bit of a contradiction with all that weight. They aren't going to attract the M3 buyer, so IMO a automatic is a must. I would think that SMG gearbox would do better with that vehicle.

It's good that Cadillac is building these types of vehicles, and I hope they do well with them. Unfortunately, while it was an amusing, highly entertaining test drive--- in the end, you walk away without much of a second glance. What it did though, was wet my appetite for the next gen V8 M3. That V8 torque and growl is intoxicating and is unlike any 6, even one as nice as the S54. Bring on the M3V8.


----------



## Ajax (Feb 1, 2002)

Thanks for the review...but isn't it better to compare the CTS-V to an M5?


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

AJAX said:


> Thanks for the review...but isn't it better to compare the CTS-V to an M5?


Nice write-up and my thoughts exactly. CTS-V isn't going after the M3 market, although there will be many takers.


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> I'm not sure how Cadi is doing with CTS-V sales, but if they are low, I'm guessing that it's because of the 6-speed.


CTS sales are blowing out expectations. This includes the V series. Cadillac sales in general are up over 30%.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

AJAX said:


> Thanks for the review...but isn't it better to compare the CTS-V to an M5?


From the price point, I'd say the M3 and CTS-V would be cross shopped. Plus, I've never driven an M5, and thus can only give my subjective impressions against my M3.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> Just got back from test driving the CTS-V
> 
> THE GOOD
> The LS6 motor is fantastic. The motor gives you *NOW* acceleration at any rpm and any gear. Fantastically flexible motor yields a SAG grin and a very entertaining drive. There is no problem putting the power to the ground--- Traction control doesn't intrude excessively.
> ...


Nice review. I agree generally with your sentiments. However, I am both an M3 owner and someone who would never buy a new M3 over a new CTS-V.

You are correct that the CTS-V is a bigger, heavier car than the M3. It is, in fact, much closer in size and intent to the M5 than the M3. But at least in normal driving, I did not find the size to be such a burden. It feels a bit bigger, heavier and more sluggish in the handling department than the M3, but not much...

...and look at what you get in return. 5 usable seats. A cavernous trunk. And grand touring highway manners that simply blow the M3 away. The M3 is already fairly compromised on the lightness front--if I'm going to buy a luxury-biased car, I might as well buy one like the CTS-V.

Moreover, comparably equipped the CTS-V is substantially cheaper than the M3. A loaded M3 will run 55 or 56 grand, whereas a CTS-V (which has much of the same equipment) is 52. Cadillac gives you a functional, easy to use nav system and XM standard, things that cannot be had on the M3 for any price. And the little touches (6 lug wheels, electronic tire pressure display, g meter, tranny temp gauge, etc.) are just so damn cool.

What it comes down to for me is this: The M3 is too big and heavy to be a really fun car to toss around. It excels as a day to day commuter, and is faster than snot, but doing things like autocrossing with it feels like teaching a pig to dance. The CTS-V is a better commuter and is faster. Sure it won't be a good autocrosser, but the M3 isn't, either, so what do you get going with the smaller, more expensive BMW?

I think that there are lots of folks like me who'll buy a CTS-V over an M3 (and certainly over an M5), use it as their touring car, and get their sports car fix with something really fun, like a WRX or RX-8.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

jw said:


> CTS sales are blowing out expectations. This includes the V series. Cadillac sales in general are up over 30%.


Cool--- I hope GM does well. I know there are several in stock--- no wait time.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

is Cadillac in trouble?

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1443687#post1443687

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=110044#post110044

http://www.z06vette.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38736


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

JST said:


> Nice review. I agree generally with your sentiments. However, I am both an M3 owner and someone who would never buy a new M3 over a new CTS-V.
> 
> You are correct that the CTS-V is a bigger, heavier car than the M3. It is, in fact, much closer in size and intent to the M5 than the M3. But at least in normal driving, I did not find the size to be such a burden. It feels a bit bigger, heavier and more sluggish in the handling department than the M3, but not much...
> 
> ...


As I said, I can see a market for those wanting a 5-seat corvette.

However, I only have one requirement for my car: High speed commuter. As such, the M3 is perfectly sized, perfectly agile and perfectly capacious. The CTS-V would do nothing for me. The step down in esthetics is noticable to me. On turns, placing the M3 tire inches from a curb is brain dead simple, the CTS-V couldn't negotiate it without weight transfer and inaccuracy. The chassis, tranny & motor just work more harmoniously and more seamlessly on an M3, than the CTS-V.

Regardless, it drove great and it's the nicest Cadi I've seen, and shows their getting closer than ever before.

Around here, the M3 is identical in price to the CTS-V, perhaps with minor option differences-- but effectively identical in price, a mistake IMO from GM Canada. Here's some of the big financial negatives in my mind: minimal residual values downstream compared to the M3. Cadi's are notoriously lousy residuals-- you can pick up a 2 year old Escalade wholesale for peanuts if one wanted. Other negatives: much thirstier V8 motor compared to the I6.

So---- you are looking to replace your M3 with a CTS-V, really? Or just hypothetically? I mean, hypothetically, I *COULD* replace mine with that car, but realistically, I have no need. The M3 is the best car I've had and I have no issues with it... why you don't see me here any more. It's nice to be happy, rather than biatching about your car. ([email protected]#* 323i I had!)


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Side note: CTS-V is dynoing below 350hp and not 400hp.

http://www.autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=3019&categoryId=11

If true, that won't be good.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> As I said, I can see a market for those wanting a 5-seat corvette.
> 
> However, I only have one requirement for my car: High speed commuter. As such, the M3 is perfectly sized, perfectly agile and perfectly capacious. The CTS-V would do nothing for me. The step down in esthetics is noticable to me. On turns, placing the M3 tire inches from a curb is brain dead simple, the CTS-V couldn't negotiate it without weight transfer and inaccuracy. The chassis, tranny & motor just work more harmoniously and more seamlessly on an M3, than the CTS-V.
> 
> ...


Really. The lease on the M3 is up next year, and I probably won't be getting another one. It's either the Caddillac or something much cheaper. The M3 doesn't really thrill me, for some reason. I want something that knocks my socks off or something that costs a lot less.

I see what you're saying about residuals, though I am hesitant to compare Escalade residuals to CTS-V residuals.

The horsepower thing is a bit troubling, but given that the same engine works fine in the Z06, I suspect there is a straightforward explanation and that the issue will be addressed by the time I make my decision next year.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

JST said:


> Really. The lease on the M3 is up next year, and I probably won't be getting another one. It's either the Caddillac or something much cheaper. The M3 doesn't really thrill me, for some reason. I want something that knocks my socks off or something that costs a lot less.
> 
> I see what you're saying about residuals, though I am hesitant to compare Escalade residuals to CTS-V residuals.
> 
> The horsepower thing is a bit troubling, but given that the same engine works fine in the Z06, I suspect there is a straightforward explanation and that the issue will be addressed by the time I make my decision next year.


Watch the Cadi residuals... you are used to BMW residuals. You ain't seen nothing until you go over to GM.

I hear you about the M3. It's a little anesthetized, isolated feeling and doesn't really give you a "thrill". I drive mine 50 mph or 90 mph--- it's completely irrelevent except you run out of pavement so much quicker at 90mph which is annoying. The extra speed doesn't really thrill you in any way. The motor is so linear, that it's not mind blowing. I crave my old turbo charged eagle. What happened to turbos?

I'd love to find something that "knocks my socks off or costs a lot less". But, I struggle to come up with anything that would a) knock my socks off that doesn't cost a lot more or b) costs a lot less but doesn't annoy the crap out of me. I mean, I'm NEVER Driving a regular E46 aka "toyota". Brutally boring, underpowered vehicles, IMO.

On the other hand, the M3 gives you a lot of bang for your buck, does exactly what is asked of it driving wise, quite practical, looks great, sounds great... I can't think of any negatives other than insurance is too high, it's a bit isolated and draw too much attention to itself.

If the CTS-V will do it for you, awesome. It's a intoxicating burble from that V8... and those Brembos... Drool. No question, it's a beautiful machine.

What's cheaper that isn't dullsville? Unfortunately, nothing comes to mind. I drove a 300C last week and the Hemi is very entertaining. While no CTS-V, the Hemi 300C is ALOT cheaper, and offers similar stopping and going performance. It's a big brick, though.


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> Watch the Cadi residuals... you are used to BMW residuals. You ain't seen nothing until you go over to GM.


61% on 2/24 year lease, 53% on a 3/36. And that's just the CTS. I've seen better residuals for the V, depending on how you go.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

jw said:


> 61% on 2/24 year lease, 53% on a 3/36. And that's just the CTS. I've seen better residuals for the V, depending on how you go.


I forget how different US and Canadian pricing and lease structures are.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> Watch the Cadi residuals... you are used to BMW residuals. You ain't seen nothing until you go over to GM.
> 
> I hear you about the M3. It's a little anesthetized, isolated feeling and doesn't really give you a "thrill". I drive mine 50 mph or 90 mph--- it's completely irrelevent except you run out of pavement so much quicker at 90mph which is annoying. The extra speed doesn't really thrill you in any way. The motor is so linear, that it's not mind blowing. I crave my old turbo charged eagle. What happened to turbos?
> 
> ...


I could live with an STi. I was thinking about an Evo until Clyde clued me in to the fact that Mitsu has been dinging warranty coverage by looking at autocross results online. :yikes:

The RX-8 is another one. Rotary is weird and fuel-inefficient, but the car handles so deftly it probably makes up for it.

I want a V8, though. I wrote the GTO off after driving one and finding it ponderous and slow, but next year they get the 400 hp LS2, so I'll reevaluate when I drive one of those.

Also, the Mustang is a possibility, depending on how well they execute the suspension.

Honestly, I could drive an R32 every day, too, though those won't be around next year.

There is a rumor that the 300C will get a 425 hp version of the Hemi in an SRT-8 edition. No word on whether there is a stick option.

The M3 is damn near perfect, as cars go. It's so close to flawless that it's kind of boring. Still, if the CTS just feels too big, the M3 is probably the best option out there.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

jw said:


> 61% on 2/24 year lease, 53% on a 3/36. And that's just the CTS. I've seen better residuals for the V, depending on how you go.


That's not so good, but even BMW leases have been getting worse recently. I wonder what the most recent M residuals are.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> On the other hand, the M3 gives you a lot of bang for your buck,


Pardon me, but...

:bustingup :lmao: :rofl: 
:bustingup :lmao: :rofl: 
:bustingup :lmao: :rofl:

"Bang for your buck" and "M3" are not to be used in the same sentence unless "very limited" is also in there. It's a great car for what it is, but it's terribly overpriced for what it does and does not make for a good value (depreciation/residual not withstanding) for getting what it gives considering its price



> What's cheaper that isn't dullsville? Unfortunately, nothing comes to mind.


There's a lot out there that's a lot cheaper and isn't dullsville.

RX-8
Cooper (S and non-S)
CTS-V 
Corvette
Mustang GT
Mustang Cobra SVT
R32
Elise
WRX
STi
Evo

And those are just what come to mind without even trying to think about it


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

JST said:


> I could live with an STi. I was thinking about an Evo until Clyde clued me in to the fact that Mitsu has been dinging warranty coverage by looking at autocross results online. :yikes:
> 
> The RX-8 is another one. Rotary is weird and fuel-inefficient, but the car handles so deftly it probably makes up for it.
> 
> ...


I still haven't warmed up to the styling of the RX8. Styling is highly personal, of course, but realistically, if styling was irrelevent, we wouldn't be driving M3's, this would be a WRX board. I just can't get enthused at the froggy looking RX8.

The new retro Mustang is something to watch for. The styling is well done, and with the right motor, it could be a winner.

R32---- wow that's an expensive, underpowered VW. It's sad that VW can't get the power numbers up and get respectable performance numbers out of it. What happened to the "rocket" in pocket rocket? They need to supercharge the 3.2L and get some spice out of it. Subaru can do it-- VW is sleeping at the wheel.

Drive the 300C and see what you think. The current Hemi isn't lacking for power, I don't think more HP is what's needed there. It's the SUV of sedans, and I think Chrysler will do well with a smartly priced Hemi powered uber sedan. The classic american sedan reinterpreted by a German--- how bizarre is that. The CTS is a slender reed compared to the 300c. I'm not sure it's available with stick, but I'm not sure it requires a stick.

You didn't mention S4. I don't see many around here, so I don't know what's going on with that. I shudder thinking about the residuals.

The M3 may not be the ultimate in every single category, but it's up there in so many categories, and does everything well that it's a tough one to beat as an OVERALL package. At this point, there has to be some OVERWHELMING reason to NOT drive an M3. Lack of thrills isn't overwhelming enough in my book. Thrills diminish with age, you're just getting old!


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

·clyde· said:


> "Bang for your buck" and "M3" are not to be used in the same sentence unless "very limited" is also in there.


In your opinion. In my opinion, it's worth every dollar, and the value is great. First car I've ever had that I have not complained about something (my wife loves the M3 for that) and has not tempted me to spend a dollar to modify in attempt to "improve" some facet. I didn't say it was cheap. Perhaps I should reword to "bang for my buck". It fits my needs better than any of the cars in your list.

And being a BMW board, the frame of reference isn't supercharged Civic or PT Cruisers. Nobody is driving a BMW for true "value". The M3 is easily worth double the price of my old 323i. And double the price of any other E46 I've driven. That's how I determine value. Either the M3 is underpriced or the non-M E46's are overpriced. It's probably a little of both.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> Perhaps I should reword to "bang for my buck". It fits my needs better than any of the cars in your list.


I agree..that would have been a better choice of words.


----------



## rruiter (Feb 10, 2004)

JPinTO said:


> Just got back from test driving the CTS-V
> 
> THE CONCLUSION
> I can see Corvette drivers being swayed by this 4-door cousin of Corvette. However, I can't see too many M3 drivers being swayed by the CTS-V. If you think your M3 is a overweight "pig"... you ain't seen nothing yet. The M3 is a comparative featherweight in tossability and drivability.
> ...


unfortunately cars keep gettign heavier and heavier so this is nothing new. The only car that did NOT get heavier from it's previous model is the new Corvette.


----------



## rruiter (Feb 10, 2004)

JPinTO said:


> Watch the Cadi residuals... you are used to BMW residuals. You ain't seen nothing until you go over to GM.


True. I don't think the CTS model is all that good looking, let's see how that is in 3 years or so. Prices might drop fast, while M3 prices stay absurdly high.


----------



## rruiter (Feb 10, 2004)

JST said:


> I could live with an STi. I was thinking about an Evo until Clyde clued me in to the fact that Mitsu has been dinging warranty coverage by looking at autocross results online. :yikes:
> 
> The RX-8 is another one. Rotary is weird and fuel-inefficient, but the car handles so deftly it probably makes up for it.
> 
> ...


Did you actually go and sit in an sti ?? ehw.. I was interested in one last year, went to the dealer and was amazed by how cheaply the inside feels and looks. The doors feel very flimsy. When they told me I could not testdrive one I was out of there.

The M3 is.. well.. you just have to drive it to know it.. It's great IMO.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

rruiter said:


> Did you actually go and sit in an sti ?? ehw.. I was interested in one last year, went to the dealer and was amazed by how cheaply the inside feels and looks. The doors feel very flimsy. When they told me I could not testdrive one I was out of there.
> 
> The M3 is.. well.. you just have to drive it to know it.. It's great IMO.


I drive a WRX fairly frequently. I drive an M3 every day. The M3's interior is nicer, no question.

The STi costs $20-25K less than an E46 M3, and can stick with it in every performance category (and doing things like autocrossing is actually faster, especially when it rains). That extra 25K has to go somewhere. It can either go toward nicer leather for my ass in the car, or into my 401K.

I'm leaning toward the latter.


----------



## rruiter (Feb 10, 2004)

JST said:


> I drive a WRX fairly frequently. I drive an M3 every day. The M3's interior is nicer, no question.
> 
> The STi costs $20-25K less than an E46 M3, and can stick with it in every performance category (and doing things like autocrossing is actually faster, especially when it rains). That extra 25K has to go somewhere. It can either go toward nicer leather for my ass in the car, or into my 401K.
> 
> I'm leaning toward the latter.


I thought it went to your every day driver (M3) ? :dunno:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

rruiter said:


> True. I don't think the CTS model is all that good looking, let's see how that is in 3 years or so. Prices might drop fast, while M3 prices stay absurdly high.


I said this a few years ago...Like the CTS styling or not, it's at the forefront of a new styling generation that encompasses much of the auto industry and most of the manufacturers from all over the globe. In 25-30 years, is there any doubt that the E60 and CTS will stand out as contemporaneous designs just as the 1964.5 Mustang and 1967 Camaro do? In each case, while terribly distinct, it's clear that they sprung from the same place and the same time. The era of the jelly bean is over.



rruiter said:


> When they told me I could not testdrive one [STi] I was out of there.


Yeah...*that* has never happened to a potential M3 buyer. 



> The M3 is.. well.. you just have to drive it to know it.. It's great IMO.


It's a great car for general duty because it compromises everything.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

JST said:


> Based on pure $$s, the CTS-V is less than a moderately well equipped 530.
> 
> Which would you rather have?


No brainer--- CTS-V.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

rruiter said:


> I thought it went to your every day driver (M3) ? :dunno:


The STi was not an option when I bought my car. Plus, mine was used. Running the numbers I don't think I can justify a new M3 as a replacement.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Clyde---

I'm out of the loop here. Do you drive a BMW any more?


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> Clyde---
> 
> I'm out of the loop here. Do you drive a BMW any more?


 A few times a week. The wagon is now my wife's car and I drive when we go out as a family. We have two kids now too.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

rruiter said:


> Did you actually go and sit in an sti ?? ehw.. I was interested in one last year, went to the dealer and was amazed by how cheaply the inside feels and looks. The doors feel very flimsy. When they told me I could not testdrive one I was out of there.
> 
> The M3 is.. well.. you just have to drive it to know it.. It's great IMO.


It looks like BMW is doing everything possible to close this gap:


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Way after the fact impressions of M3 vs CTS-V.


I realized this morning driving to work a big part of the M3's problem of "boredom": It lies with the S54 motor. 

In a nutshell--- it is far too linear. Other than the bump at 4000rpm when the double vanos kicks in, the motor's linearity yields such a predictably boring power curve that it fails to excite unless you are winding it out to 8000. But how often do you really wind it out to 8000? Also, the S54's noise is so minimal that it doesn't give you those auditory cues that are associated with "power. 

With the M3, you need to ignore most of the external cues that are typically associated with fast acceleration: You just don't get them. The only real cue of speed is if you watch your speedo and realize how quickly how reach well into the illegal speed range. If you really, really pay attention, you will realize that the M3 accelerates with ferocity, but the external cues are few and far between.

Not so with the CTS-V's LS6. Power cues abound. The growl put out with small taps of the accelerator are intoxicating. The feel of the V8's brute torque is unmistakable. The external stimuli overwhelm your senses with a feeling of muscle and power. 

Side by side, the numbers show the M3 is faster, but from the driver's seat, the CTS-V is the one that "feels" like it's faster. I guess that's why CAI and exhaust mods are so popular on cars---- it makes them sound like they are going faster. 

Hmmmm.... maybe I've got to start modding my M3 so that it sounds like it goes. :eeps:


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

JST said:


>


The CTS-V's interior is nicer than that. Looks like BMW is doing everything in it's power to ensure that the competition will catch and pass them.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> Way after the fact impressions of M3 vs CTS-V.
> 
> I realized this morning driving to work a big part of the M3's problem of "boredom": It lies with the S54 motor.


I've said this a number of times about the M3 (in threads with you to boot )



> Also, the S54's noise is so minimal that it doesn't give you those auditory cues that are associated with "power.
> 
> I guess that's why CAI and exhaust mods are so popular on cars---- it makes them sound like they are going faster.
> 
> Hmmmm.... maybe I've got to start modding my M3 so that is sounds like it goes. :eeps:


How could I have forgotten to mention this earlier in response to someone else that said he didn't have fun driving a car that felt cheap? :banghead: How do any of you M3 drivers tolerate that exhaust which sounds like a Quisenart attacking cheap stainless steel utensils? Talk about cheap... :tsk:


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

·clyde· said:


> I've said this a number of times about the M3 (in threads with you to boot )


I haven't been around for almost a year, so I don't remember what you are referring to.

PS: Have you given consideration to changing your signature to "M board troll"?


----------



## rruiter (Feb 10, 2004)

JPinTO said:


> Way after the fact impressions of M3 vs CTS-V.
> 
> I realized this morning driving to work a big part of the M3's problem of "boredom": It lies with the S54 motor.
> 
> ...


Yeah, maybe it's engineered TOO well ? I guess this is why you see so many kids who slap on a fart-can on their Honda-civic and think they have a fast car.... hmmm
:tsk:


----------



## rost12 (Dec 22, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> Hmmmm.... maybe I've got to start modding my M3 so that it sounds like it goes. :eeps:


Totally agree with ya. It's the same in the m5, except that the kick in the butt is more pronounced... Still, I got used to it fairly quickly, hence my exhaust mod... CAI is next on the agenda, as soon as I come to terms with the prices on those


----------



## rost12 (Dec 22, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> The CTS-V's interior is nicer than that. Looks like BMW is doing everything in it's power to ensure that the competition will catch and pass them.


That's a 1 series interior, JP. It's not supposed to be as nice as 5er's or even 3er's :dunno: Although it sucks regardless.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

rost12 said:


> That's a 1 series interior, JP. It's not supposed to be as nice as 5er's or even 3er's :dunno: Although it sucks regardless.


current conjecture is that it IS the E90 interior


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2004)

rost12 said:


> That's a 1 series interior, JP. It's not supposed to be as nice as 5er's or even 3er's :dunno: Although it sucks regardless.


 Wrong. That's the E90 interior, the next 3-series.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

rost12 said:


> That's a 1 series interior, JP. It's not supposed to be as nice as 5er's or even 3er's :dunno: Although it sucks regardless.


Looks the same as the X3 and 5er.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> I haven't been around for almost a year, so I don't remember what you are referring to.


Most recently it's been in comparisons to the RX-8's engine, which suffers largely from the same thing (and develops considerably less thrust than the S54)...they both develop their power so smoothly and lineraly, that they their power delivery is less than exciting. The fact that they accelerate well is demonstrated in instrumated testing, but it's somewhat lost on the butt dyno. Conversely, peaky motors make you feel the acceleration in each gear, even when they're slower than overweight old dogs in 100 degree weather.



> PS: Have you given consideration to changing your signature to "M board troll"?


I'm not trolling M3 owners/lovers/supporters. I've never said anything other than that it's a very competent luxury GT coupe that goes like stink. I've only taken issue with comments that suggest it is something more or different than that. What makes the "luxury GT" part work so well compromises the "goes like stink" part, preventing it from both going like super-stink and being particularly fun to drive compared to a number of other cars at similar through much lower price points. :dunno:


----------



## rost12 (Dec 22, 2001)

Crap, got mixed up in the new designations :banghead: That's even worse, then


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

rost12 said:


> Totally agree with ya. It's the same in the m5, except that the kick in the butt is more pronounced... Still, I got used to it fairly quickly, hence my exhaust mod... CAI is next on the agenda, as soon as I come to terms with the prices on those


I hear you. After biatching about the underpowered 323 for years, it only took a few months to acclimatize to the M3's power. Sometime's I'd catch myself wondering if the M3 was slowing down. Power craving is a never ending pursuit. The other day I saw a S55 on the road--- supercharged V8. $10 says that it's driver want's a power upgrade.

WHat works well for appreciating your power is to drive a MUCH slower car for a while. Your M5 will feel like a rocketship after that.

I still crave the non-linear power delivery of turbo motors. Definitely not boring. I was hoping that BMW would bring a Twin Turbo 6-Cylinder. Entertaining power delivery PLUS highly upgradable. A 3.0L TT would be amazing.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

·clyde· said:


> Conversely, peaky motors make you feel the acceleration in each gear, even when they're slower than overweight old dogs in 100 degree weather.


True--- non linear motors, specifically turbos are very entertaining. I've had a lot of experience with modding cars with CAI and exhausts, and I've found that the only true benefit these have is helping cars breathe on nasty, hot humid days.


----------



## rost12 (Dec 22, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> WHat works well for appreciating your power is to drive a MUCH slower car for a while.


Yeah, but who want's to get stuck in a slower car? 

I heard an amazing M3 yesterday. It was slammed, tinted and had 20s, from the looks of it, but that's not the point... It was 5-6 cars ahead of me, my windows fully closed, yet I could still hear its wail above the wind-noise of 120 km/h. An exhaust like that would definitely help your car feel faster and get rid of the need to drive a slushbox hon-duh once in a while


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

rost12 said:


> Yeah, but who want's to get stuck in a slower car?


It's true. I only commented because I took my family back out to Utah for another offroading trip in a ML320 with 33" oversized all terrain tires. After 7500kms and 2 weeks driving that slug, getting back into an M3 was like strapping myself onto an Acme rocket.

Oddly enough--- it again got slower after a week.


----------



## MMMM_ERT (Mar 13, 2004)

CTS-V may be a fast, powerful car....but its still GM (Generally Mediocre)...having owned
GM for many many years...their build quality, fit and finish, SUCK compared to
BMW. Lets not even talk engineering.

Worst part about owning a GM car...the service. Which is the big reason I finally
got pi$$ed off and bailed on GM.

I'd take an M3/M5 anyday of a 400 HP Cadillac. I'd rather have my 290 HP
540i over the new Cadillac for that matter. You get what you pay for.

My .02 cents.


----------



## rruiter (Feb 10, 2004)

MMMM_ERT said:


> CTS-V may be a fast, powerful car....but its still GM (Generally Mediocre)...having owned
> GM for many many years...their build quality, fit and finish, SUCK compared to
> BMW. Lets not even talk engineering.
> 
> ...


Good not agree more. I have a bad taste about (recent) GM products.


----------



## carnuts3 (Dec 23, 2005)

I'm one of those "not soo old" but retired guys. I like fast, quality-built and agile cars with great style like most car nuts. But, I can tell you that with all this talk about the CTS-V and M3, here is the bottom line IMO: the Cadi's interior has a cheap feel to it so it doesn't rate for me; the M3 is too small inside (no back seat room) so I can't get the impulse to buy it. I think that the way to go is to wait until the E90 M3 sedan?? is introduced or maybe the E90 335i???? I know, two big wishes, but these two alternatives could solve the price-value concerns and IMO certainly my size problem.


----------

