Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

You guys need a hobby.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Improviz

You need to stop playing the victim and accept responsibility for your actions.


You tried to put the smackdown on someone, and got stuffed, then flamed him and acted like a baby, and now you've got the gall to call people who point out the obvious truth "haters"? Grow up. We don't know you well enough to hate you, although I will say you've done a fine job of making yourself unlikeable.

Originally Posted by Das Geld

Audi Moron

What the hell are you talking about

475 HP 2800 POUNDS>556 HP 4250

Straight Line any day of the week.

THE CTS-V cant keep up with a nimble F car with a good driver too

Originally Posted by dodger63

Hey das I missed you, you never replied to my challenge?

Originally Posted by Das Geld

I saw it after it was closed.

It was stupid anyway, I wouldn't have accepted.

You got defensive because I called out your car? Just answering my questions was sufficient or at least try to defend yourself. I didn't see what starting a thread and challenging me would accomplish

Originally Posted by Das Geld

I saw it after it was closed.

It was stupid anyway, I wouldn't have accepted.

You got defensive because I called out your car? Just answering my questions was sufficient or at least try to defend yourself. I didn't see what starting a thread and challenging me would accomplish

Originally Posted by Das Geld

I saw it after it was closed.

It was stupid anyway, I wouldn't have accepted.

You got defensive because I called out your car? Just answering my questions was sufficient or at least try to defend yourself. I didn't see what starting a thread and challenging me would accomplish

Originally Posted by Militant-Grunt

Ok, I'll give you a taste of the real world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3SaRIWXqjA

360CS's are actually slower stock for stock against a Plain Jane 360 (Proven with not 1 but 2 360CS's). Not to mention these cars weight MORE than advertised.

Grab some pop corn, its a good watch. (I had this video uploaded just for you guys.)

So when I say that a CTS-V coupe or sedan can rip one of these cars a new one (heads up highway run), I have no shadow of a doubt that they can.

If you're a track instructor then I am not surprised that you beat an inexperienced driver with his new car down some twisty roads. All I'm saying..

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

ClearlyEverything about that photo makes fun of the folks that actually use that term seriously in day to day life. my last "hater" pic-comment on the whole subject was tongue-in-cheek.

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

In fact, your believing that there was ANYTHING literal about that pic, proves to me how badly you missed the joke.

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

Everyone else had caught it and moved on,

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

It's shocking that all of this is based on one word I said, describing another forum member's time slip. I defended it because I respected his accomplishment. I ceded the argument because it was clear you all took that WAAAY too seriously. My bad.

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

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.

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

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.

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

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.

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

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.

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

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

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

Safe racing to you,

Originally Posted by dodger63

You called me a liar, and said it's physically impossible, and your wrong in both ends man up.. Dont assume things cause you think your smart.. I no you wouldn't except cause you would never admit to being wrong? Just stop your nonsense..

Originally Posted by Das Geld

Your calling yourself a liar, I never said those words "Your a Liar". I asked you a question and expected a response as to why your car is running so "GOOD". A simple mod list or explanation would have been sufficient. But you stayed quiet and other people answered for you.

I didn't dodge any thread either.

Are you Albanian btw?

Originally Posted by Das Geld

Your calling yourself a liar, I never said those words "Your a Liar". I asked you a question and expected a response as to why your car is running so "GOOD". A simple mod list or explanation would have been sufficient. But you stayed quiet and other people answered for you.

I didn't dodge any thread either.

Are you Albanian btw?

Originally Posted by Improviz

Oh, I see, ha ha ha, you didn't mean what your post said explicitly ("haters gonna hate"), but that, even though nobody in the thread had used the phrase "hater" or accused you of hating anyone, it needed to be pointed out to us nevertheless, and oh by the way, we are all taking this way too seriously when we defend a longstanding member against a bizarre rant from a newb. He hee he, wow, how hysterical, I guess I must've forgotten to take my sense o' humor pills when I read that.



Yes, yes, I see: if I miss (supposedly) something that I was, magically, supposed to have divined as having been implicitly stated by your posting a photograph which in no way alludes to it, I'm "badly missing the joke", whereas if you take someone's explict comments to have some hidden implicit meaning that only you can see, you're simply defending yourself and others against things that were not written.

Rrriiiiiiigggggghhhhht....gotcha there,



Wow, I had no idea you had the gift of clairvoyance...so you "know" that everyone "got" your joke, eh? Pretty impressive...but then, if you're able to read minds and "know" what people do and not "get", it's kind of strange that you managed to misconstrue what 118E63 stated rather explicitly...



Again, you misrepresent what actually happened, and disengenuously insist upon focusing on your "defense" of the time. The problem is, nobody attacked it. In fact, when 118E63 posted about YOUR COMMENT (i.e., NOT "attacking" the slip), he made it quite clear that he was not intending to denigrate the time itself in any way and was only questioning your usage of the phrase "deep into the 10s" to describe a 10.87:


Can't put it any more plainly than that. Perhaps boldface, underlined, italicized and in size 22 font might have gotten the message across? Or maybe his (and our) pointing it out several more times might have pierced the fog a bit? Dunno, seems like when it comes to "getting it", you're living in the proverbial glass house and really shouldn't be throwing stones.

And speaking of explaining things several times: your attempt to recast this as an argument over the correction itself is pretty clearly a deliberate attempt to recast the issue and divert attention for your uncalled for, petty rant against 118E63. So let's have a look at it, with a bit of commentary thrown in:



Well, obviously, yours. For starters, did you ever stop to consider that the reason your post (not your "praise") elicited a response from him is that he thought your usage of the phrase "deep into the 10's" was a bit of a stretch? Secondly, you took a Neil Armstrong-sized leap when you presumed to know his motivations, which you seemed to believe stemmed from hostility towards the time itself (none of which was evident in his post and which he had explicitly discounted), rather than taking it for what it actually was: a simple questioning of your usage of "deep", nothing more, nothing less.



Which would be nice, if it were relevant.



Great, but it still bears no relevance to what 118E63 said.



Now here is where you really go off the deep end (pun intended): are you seriously insinuating that he went and did all of the runs for "little old you"? Or that he had to research the number of the runs he did?



And now we proceed from the deep end into the murky depths of tinfoil hat territory. Where in the hell did this come from?? He made no mention of your motivation for purchasing your car, what you paid for it or whether or not you purchased it to impress anyone (although if having an "eye-catching body" is important to you, it would seem logical that you're wanting to impress someone).



Did he say you didn't enjoy driving your car somewhere? I must have missed that, along with his spelling out why you bought it, that he was/wasn't impressed with it, his "attack" on the time Dodger ran, etc. etc. etc..



Likewise.

Originally Posted by Kreuzfeuer

I overreacted on my first response to 118E63, and that's that.

Originally Posted by Improviz

Stick a fork in it, it's done.

Originally Posted by Improviz

Stick a fork in it, it's done.

Originally Posted by 118E63

Improviz,would you say the fork has been inserted DEEP OR SHALLOW

Originally Posted by kindafast

lol

When Improviz joins the battle you just run, run and never look back!

Originally Posted by chrislis

wait wait wait.

are we comparing a cadillac to a ferrari? oh ok.

Originally Posted by chrislis

I was making a joke, ahhhhh this board is way too serious.

Anyways, I've owned a Datsun 280Z, One fully built S14 Kouki, Two S13 Coupes... I know where you're going with that, but I was only joking haha.

In my head anyways, it's only fair to compare similar cars to each other. Maybe CTS-V vs M5 or E63, etc. But to compare it to the Challenge is well ehhhh stretching the CTS-V track cornering abilities maybe. But I don't really know, I only drove the STS-V and I know that thing handled like a bag of rocks. It was however fast as hell.