Improviz

Well, the M3 sedan is, in terms of size, interior space, wheelbase, etc....it's just far lighter, which will give it an advantage on shorter tracks, ditto the C63, etc...the CTS-V is a bit heavy for its size, and this clearly shows on the shorter tracks, but class-wise it's certainly competition for these sedans, and in any case it certainly "holds its own" against them, be it on a short track or long. Truly impressive performance, no doubt about that.

The Panamera is really not a direct competitor to the CTS-V imo. It is larger and costs much more.

Militant-Grunt

Agreed, Cadillac is slowly but surely getting there, but they're yet to come up with a car that will hold a candle to the likes of a car made by Porsche. (In all aspects, luxury, performance, refinement, etc..)

118E63

Not to take anyting away from Dodger's accomplishments but since when is a 10.87 "deep in the 10's"??
.13 into the 10's isnt considered "deep" on my side of town

jmf003

I disagreed with your first post in which you wrote the CTS-V would "more" than hold its own against similar performance cars. I don't take issue with your second post in which you dropped the "more" and excluded lighter weight luxury performance cars from the comparison.

But it's not just 911s and M3s that turned in faster times at Autozeitung, the M6, SL55, and E63 ( to name just three) all posted faster lap times times than the second generation CTS-V.

The CTS-V's chief performance virtues are its 550 HP engine, the absence of a 155 mph speed limiter, and its Michelin PS2 tires. GM fixed the brittle rear differential and did enough suspension tuning to keep the PS2s planted on the ground, which is good. The car weighs a lot, though, and the mass holds it back on a tight course.



I've said many times in many different posts that GM's recent improvements are good for the company and the industry in general. I stll believe that. That said, none of us should be surprised when a CTS-V fails to keep pace with any of the world's lighter luxury performance vehicles.

For what it's worth....

Kreuzfeuer

Unless there's a time slip of yours I haven't seen, he's deeper than you are.

gnxs

OK.

118E63

Umm,I must have touched a nerve since u had to comeback w a snide comment.
I can show you my 25 or so 9sec timeslips from the MIR rental that was held Nov20(which Dodger was at no less)....I can GUARANTEE they are deeper than yours....

Kreuzfeuer

No nerves touched here, just thought it was interesting that out of ALL the opinionated subject matter covered in this thread so far, the only thing that elicited a response from you was my praise of a forum member's impressive times. "Deep" on a timeslip is a relative term, but apparently you felt the need to split hairs about it. Whose nerves were touched again?

We see, all to often on various forums, where someone is bragging about their car being a "ten second car" when they had but one run that clocked 10.999999 and it was with a tail wind, on a downhill track, while spraying.

Dodger's runs were "deep enough" to not be a fluke and were repeatable at that. I respected that, and was illustrating a different point altogether. One that was actually on topic.

Congrats on having a nine second car though, good for you. Too bad you didn't have 30 or so time slips, so you could REALLY put me in my place. I'm glad you did all that work just for lil old me.

As for my car, and my times -- Not to make you feel threatened, but I'm DEEP in the 14's

CLEARLY I didn't buy it to impress you or anyone else, and I knew that going into the deal. I bought it because it's a fine machine using Benz components, in an eye-catching body. I most likely paid less for it than you've paid for mere parts/track time for yours.

I would dare say I smile as much driving mine though.

Safe racing to you,

118E63

Holy over-analyzing Batman

Only commented on your post since deep in the 10's is not a 10.87.....99.99% of the people I know would say that is "shallow" in the 10s.
That's all,nothing more,nothing less.
But hey,if you needed to get all that off your chest to feel better,good for you sunshine!!
Enjoy your day sir

Kreuzfeuer

I enjoy every day, my friend.

BTW, if two minutes of typing is overdoing it, you're a man of few words. Must be all that racing

TMC M5

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but the Autozeitung test track is only one track. The CTS-V has held up quite well at Car & Driver's annual Lightning Lap events. A 3:04 at VIR's Grand West Course is moving. It is a longer track, but it isn't the N'ring with multiple super long straights.

Tom

Improviz

Yeah, that was pretty over the top, gotta agree... If you're 13% down from the top of the pool, you're not in deep water.

gnxs

Kreuzfeuer

We're STILL talking about this? Wow.

Lesson learned on the MB boards -- I'll remember to downplay people's accomplishments in the future.

Carry on...

Improviz

Please...it was neither the praise nor the misuse of the word "deep" that raised our eyebrows, it was the your subsequent overreaction, presumption, and extreme defensiveness in response to someone having the temerity to point out said misused word to you that got us scratching our heads.

My suggestion: decaf...

118E63

...glad someone else noticed the wackness thrust upon me

gnxs

+1.

Kreuzfeuer

You guys need a hobby.

118E63

I think we just found one....

Kreuzfeuer

Glad I could help ya out

IngenereAMG

Not to hijack my thread.........

But here's something to cheer things up....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1x6IzBF8d0

Kreuzfeuer

Sounds amazing

jmf003

I agree with you, Tom, but even at VIR if you look at the Car and Driver numbers for the E63 and the CTS-V the E63 outruns the CTS-V in the tighter sections of the track, e.g. section 5: http://www.caranddriver.com/features...r_times_page_7

Deuuuce

Yes the V is too heavy, it's every bit as capable on a road circuit as it's similar size/power European competitors, but judging by the clusters of the models and their lap times in that list, it's not a very good example.

I like this one better because it's a fairly fast track, some tight turns and virtually all of the lap times are by hired guns: http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html

Improviz

Actually I was struck by how similar the order is. If you look at the cars tested by Motor Trend in the Laguna Seca list that were also tested by Autozietung in that list (which should hopefully ensure that the same driver was piloting the vehicles for each publication and remove that variable from the equation), the finishing order was practically identical and the time differentials between cars was also similar in most cases:

As tested by Motor Trend:
3 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 01:35.8
6 Porsche 997 GT3 01:39.5
10 Nissan GT-R 01:40.5
12 Audi R8 4.2 FSI quattro 01:40.8
13 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 01:40.9
14 BMW M3 (E92) 01:43.0
15 Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK 01:43.0
17 Cadillac CTS-V 01:43.9
22 Jaguar XFR 01:45.4
26 BMW 135i Coupe (E82) 01:46.0
29 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X MR 01:47.7

As tested by Autozietung:
2 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 01:34.1
3 Porsche 997 GT3 RS 01:35.0
5 Nissan GT-R 01:35.6
28 Audi R8 4.2 FSI quattro 01:39.4
27 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 01:39.4
35 BMW M3 (E92) 01:40.1
39 Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK 01:40.6
50 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X MR 01:41.6
51 Cadillac CTS-V 01:41.7
80 Jaguar XFR 01:43.5
155 BMW 135i Coupe (E82) 01:46.9

In fact the CTS-V ran closer to the M3, Cayman, Z06, and R8 in the Autozietung tests than it did in the MT tests. Anyway, both show that the CTS is definitely a heavy hitter, and is definitely every bit as much of a handler as it is a straight line champ.