[tenfifteen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USaqtXPKsO8

Base price: $62,845
0-60: 4.2s (3.9s with rollout)
1/4 mi: 12.2s @ 117.5
60-0 braking: 107ft
Slalom: 69.3mph
Skidpad: 0.90g

For sake of comparison, E92 M3 (current base price: $58,400) as tested by InsideLine

http://www.insideline.com/bmw/m3/200...-m3-coupe.html

0-60: 4.6s (4.3s with rollout)
1/4-mi: 12.71s @ 112.06
60-0 braking: 100ft
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft: 73.3mph
Skid pad: 0.95g

Draw your own conclusions, but it seems pretty clear to me.

[Porshapwr]

So the Caddy boasts over 100 more hp but is only very slightly faster (many tests have done better than 12.7 with the M3). Meanwhile the M3 spanks it in everything else including track times. It is also substantially lighter......

And the CTS-V would be hard pressed to get more ugly.

[Porschec4]

Originally Posted by Porshapwr

So the Caddy boasts over 100 more hp but is only very slightly faster (many tests have done better than 12.7 with the M3). Meanwhile the M3 spanks it in everything else including track times. It is also substantially lighter......

And the CTS-V would be hard pressed to get more ugly.

While I agree with you the M3 is a much better car, it is not only slightly faster. 112 mph trap vs 117.5 is not in the same ballpark. The average et and trap for the m3 has been 12.6-12.7@112. I dont care what mag got some miraculous anomaly time that no actual driver could achieve (go look at the times actual drivers got on dragtimes), the CTSV is much faster in a straight.
Where are you finding track times for the CTSV coupe though to confirm its spanks it in track times, because last time i looked, BMW STILL hasnt cracked 8 minutes on the Ring with any US stock production car, even the new M3 ZCP didnt break 8 minutes whereas the CTSV has.

[tenfifteen]

Originally Posted by Porschec4

Where are you finding track times for the CTSV coupe though to confirm its spanks it in track times, because last time i looked, BMW STILL hasnt cracked 8 minutes on the Ring with any US stock production car, even the new M3 ZCP didnt break 8 minutes whereas the CTSV has.

Handling numbers sort of speak for themselves; lateral Gs, braking and slalom are considerably better on the M3, all of which are going to factor in to a lap time. In terms of the Ring, the M3 went 8:05 to the sedan CTS-V's 7:59, but I think we can rule out the Ring as a basis for "track times" given that it heavily favors high HP cars due to the track's epic straights. Put the two on Laguna Seca or the Glen and with the same driver, I'd all but guarantee the M3 would at least run even despite the HP differential.

[Porschec4]

Originally Posted by tenfifteen

Handling numbers sort of speak for themselves; lateral Gs, braking and slalom are considerably better on the M3, all of which are going to factor in to a lap time. In terms of the Ring, the M3 went 8:05 to the sedan CTS-V's 7:59, but I think we can rule out the Ring as a basis for "track times" given that it heavily favors high HP cars due to the track's epic straights. Put the two on Laguna Seca or the Glen and with the same driver, I'd all but guarantee the M3 would at least run even despite the HP differential.

I agree on the handling, its no contest, 4200 lbs vs 3600 isnt even close no matter how you slice it.
The ring doesnt always favor high hp, (i.e cayman S is faster than the e92 m3 on the ring despite ~100 hp less).
Either way, i dont think the ctsv would stand much of a chance on anything more than a track where it has plenty of room to stretch its legs.

[tenfifteen]

Originally Posted by Porschec4

I agree on the handling, its no contest, 4200 lbs vs 3600 isnt even close no matter how you slice it.
The ring doesnt always favor high hp, (i.e cayman S is faster than the e92 m3 on the ring despite ~100 hp less).
Either way, i dont think the ctsv would stand much of a chance on anything more than a track where it has plenty of room to stretch its legs.

True, good point.

[Porshapwr]

Oh, I'd also love to hear from people like Ging - who call the E92 a fat pig but then drool over the CTS-V.

[King Luis]

so being down on power by a lot the m3 loses slightly on acceleration but beats the cts everywhere else.

also, am i the only one that doesn't like the side view of the rear end?
this view....makes it look like an altima coupe.

[rave426]

I like the CTS-V but its no M3.

For an American attempt at the king of that class I think its damn good.

I think a CTS with about 200 less pounds with the 505 HP N/A V8 and 7200 rpm rev limit from the Z06 would be much more appealing. Why didnt they do that in the first place...hell if I know. Thats why GM is a f'in shatter house.

[frenchyfromFL]

http://mt.kargo.com/v/RoadTests/Comp...417c01469c1276

Not my cup of tea, plus check this link above