View Single Post
  #139  
Old 10-08-2012, 04:40 PM
dunderhi's Avatar
dunderhi dunderhi is online now
0-60 in 4 secs or less!
Location: MD
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,746
Mein Auto: '13 X5M, 650xi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth.Pilot View Post
That's my point.

Cadillac is picking a bigger and more expensive car and the saying its smaller car handles like a smaller car.

That comparison is as ridiculous as the M5 vs Bentley comparison.

They should compare to the M3, and when the new M3 is out it will crush the CTS-v.


The new ATS-V will be Cadillac's first M3 competitor and it will compete against the F30 M3, just as the current ATS' are competing against the current F30s. The new CTS-V will continue to compete against M5, just as the current version does. Below are the specs for the E90 M3, E60 M5, CTS-V, and F10 M5. It's obvious to that the M3 is in a different class, and shouldn't be compared to the M5's or the CTS. Argue, if you must, about the Caddy's rear leg room, just watch out for the lack of front leg and head room in the F10.

Test Weight: 3765lbs (E90 M3) 4215lbs (E60 M5) 4475lbs (CTS-V) 4525lbs (F10 M5)
Wheelbase: 108.7" (E90 M3) 113.7" (E60 M5) 113.4" (CTS-V) 116.7" (F10 M5)
Length: 180.4" (E90 M3) 191.5" (E60 M5) 191.6" (CTS-V) 193.5" (F10 M5)
Width: 71.5" (E90 M3) 72.7" (E60 M5) 72.5" (CTS-V) 74.4" (F10 M5)
Height: 57.0" (E90 M3) 57.8" (E60 M5) 58.0" (CTS-V) 57.3" (F10 M5)
Front head room: 38.0" (E90 M3) 40.0" (E60 M5) 39.5" (CTS-V) 38.5" (F10 M5)
Rear head room: 35.5" (E90 M3) 36.5" (E60 M5) 35.0" (CTS-V) 35.8" (F10 M5)
Front Leg room: 46.0" (E90 M3) 44.0" (E60 M5) 45.8" (CTS-V) 44.3" (F10 M5)
Rear Knee room: 25.3" (E90 M3) 25.5" (E60 M5) 23.5" (CTS-V) 24.0" (F10 M5)
Trunk space: 12.0" (E90 M3) 14cuft (E60 M5) 13.6cuft (CTS-V) 14.0" cuft(F10 M5)
0-60mph: 4.6s (E90 M3) 4.1s (E60 M5) 4.2s (CTS-V) 4.1s (F10 M5) 3.6s (F10 M5 DCT)
0-1320 ft: 13.0@110.4mph (E90 M3) 12.4@115.8mph (E60 M5) 12.5@115.3mph (CTS-V) 12.3@116.7mph (F10 M5) 11.9@119.7 mph (F10 M5 DCT)
80mph-0: 195ft (E90 M3) 207ft (E60 M5) 201ft (CTS-V) 201ft (F10 M5)
Lat Accel: 0.95 (E90 M3) 0.87 (E60 M5) 0.92 (CTS-V) 0.97 (F10 M5)
Slalom: 72.9mph (E90 M3) 68.9mph (E60 M5) 70.5mph (CTS-V) 71.0mph (F10 M5)
Noise@70mph: 70dBa (E90 M3) 70dBA (E60 M5) 70dBA (CTS-V) 70dBA (F10 M5)
Top Speed: 155mph* (E90 M3) 155mph* (E60 M5) 191mph (CTS-V) 155mph* (F10 M5) *limiter
All data from Road & Track test measurements.

Again, not a fan of the CTS-V, just getting the facts out there.




Anyway, Car and Driver had some comparo fun and picked the appropriate Cadillac, the XTS, to go against the Bentley Flying Spur. Despite the $186,010 difference in price, the Bentley won: 2013 Cadillac XTS vs 2012 Bentley Continental Flying Spur Speed. The better news is that the 2013 Bentley CFSS is faster and more fuel efficient.

Unfortunately, the $63,350 difference in price between the M6 convertible and the Camaro ZL1 convertible was too big for the more expensive car to prevail: 2013 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 convertible vs 2012 BMW M6 convertible. Before anyone gets too upset, the Camaro ZL1 Coupe has 7:41 ring time, so it has real performance credentials!
__________________


2013 X5M ........ 2013 650xi ...... 2011 550xi (ret) 2011 335d (ret)

Last edited by dunderhi; 10-08-2012 at 04:41 PM.
Reply With Quote