Vs Motor Trend - Comparison: 2009 BMW M5 vs 2009 Cadillac CTS-V

[Merc1]

Mirror, Mirror: The $89,325 Munich Benchmark vs. the $60,700 Motown Doppelganger. Which is the Fairest Supersedan of Them All?


Once "The Standard of the World," by the early 1980s GM's Cadillac division had nose-dived to "The Standard Engine on Our New Cimarron Is a Four-Cylinder." Cadillac has since scrambled back to become "Another Legendary Automaker Attempting To Reestablish Past Glory." But give the Wreath-and-Crest brand credit for aiming high. With Bavaria's BMW proffering a 500-horsepower, V-10-propelled Motorsport Division version of its 5 Series sedan, Cadillac has unveiled a new, second-generation CTS-V that wouldn't look out of place alongside a crate of TNT.

Clearly, Motown 2.0 was asking for this matchup against Munich.

Dimensionally, M5 and CTS-V are near-mirror reflections, within fractions of each other in length, wheelbase, width, and height. By those mere fractions, the BMW is the larger car, but it doesn't tip the scales accordingly. In fact, aided by its high-strength aluminum chassis, it's 183 pounds lighter than the CTS-V.

Leaving aside debates about the relative merits of the Cadillac's creased-envelope styling versus Chris Bangle's baroque E60 M5, there's a clear distinction in the Motown and Munich approaches to supersedan elegance. The Munich way is subdued and muted, with little exterior adornment and a neatly tailored cabin of matte-finish materials. The Motown way, in contrast, is all flash and Yankee Doodle dandy, the product of designers and marketers who equate "deluxe" with "shiny." Not a piece of trim or a ring of instrument escapes the Vegas patina. Thus, the understated M5 looks and feels far more expensive (and, at a base price of $89,325 including guzzler tax, it is -- almost shockingly so). The CTS-V starts, with guzzler, at $60,700. Brush away the glitter and the Caddy would look far richer.

Both cars wear enormous, ventilated disc brakes at each corner (the M5's discs are cross-drilled; the Caddy wears six-piston Brembos up front, four-piston in back), and the 19-inch alloys on both are shod with the same Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 performance tires. Computerized variable suspensions grace both sedans, too: The BMW uses the latest iteration of the maker's three-mode (comfort, normal, sport) Electronic Damper Control, while the Cadillac boasts Delphi's brilliant MagneRide shocks.



Results:

FIRST PLACE: Cadillac CTS-V
Glitzy exterior and cabin plus some finish issues detract from premium feel, but delivers where it counts. A Corvette ZR1 in four-door attire -- and a bargain to boot.

SECOND PLACE: BMW M5
Masterfully executed, but priced accordingly. Handling not on par with BMW's best, though, and V-10 power no match for Caddy's supercharged V-8.



Full Story: 2009 BMW M5 vs 2009 Cadillac CTS-V - Comparison - Motor Trend


M

 

[cawimmer430]

Nice photo!

 

[Zafiro]

It's the M5 for me, no matter what the verdict is - I simply can't resist a 8250 rpm engine. BMW last highreeving M5.

 

[ateekt]

Excuse me, but I'll never consider Cts-V as a M5 rival... she is simply no match to a master-piece like M5!

M5 is other segment & Cadillac's competitor for M5 is Sts-V! This is also the reason for the price difference!

 

[GTA45E]

Yet where it really matters, as a performance sedan, the CTS-V soundly spanks the M5. It's quicker in a straight line, handles better, steers better, even rides better (credit those amazing, multitalented magnetorheological shocks).

Wow, has there been any test where the CTS-V was ever beaten by the M5?

 

[GTA45E]

It's the M5 for me, no matter what the verdict is - I simply can't resist a 8250 rpm engine. BMW last highreeving M5.

lOl!
I thought you were all about track dynamics.. your new athlete has taken the gold medal away from the M5 in about every test that was ever done. Now it`s all about the engine.

That sounds like an old AMG toon.

 

[CarGuy]

Test Data:

2009 BMW M5 / 2009 Cadillac CTS-V
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
Drivetrain layout Front engine, RWD /Front engine, RWD
Engine type V-10, alum block and heads / Supercharged 90* V-8, alum block and heads
Valvetrain DOHC, 4 valves/cyl / OHV, 2 valves/cyl
Displacement 305.1 cu in/4999cc / 362.1 cu in/6162 cc
Compression ratio 12.0:1 / 9.0:1
Power (SAE NET) 500 hp @ 7750 rpm / 556 hp @ 6100 rpm*
Torque (SAE NET) 383 lb-ft @ 6100 rpm / 551 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm*
Redline 8250 rpm / 6200 rpm
Weight to power 8.2 lb/hp / 7.7 lb/hp
Transmission 6-speed manual / 6-sp manual
Axle/final-drive ratios 3.62:1/3.16:1 / 3.73:1/2.35:1
Suspension, f;r: Struts, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar / Control arms, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar
Steering ratio 12.4:1 / 16.1:1
Turns lock-to-lock 2.3 / 2.8
Brakes, f;r: 14.7-in vented/drilled disc; 14.6-in; vented/drilled disc, ABS / 15.0-in vented disc; 14.7-in vented disc, ABS
Wheels, f;r: 8.5 x 19-in; 9.5 x 19-in cast aluminum / 9.0 x 19-in; 9.5 x 19-in, forged aluminum
Tires, f;r: 255/40ZR19 96Y; 285/35ZR19 99Y, Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 / 255/40R19 96Y; 285/35R19 99Y Michelin Pilot Sport PS2
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase 113.7 in / 113.4 in
Track, f/r 62.2/61.7 in / 61.8/62.0 in
Length x width x height: 191.5 x 72.7 x 57.8 in / 191.6 x 72.5 x 58.0 in
Turning circle 40.7 ft / 37.9 ft
Curb weight 4109 lb / 4292 lb
Weight dist., f/r 51/49% / 53/47%
Seating capacity 5 / 5
Headroom, f/r 39.1/38.1 in / 38.8/37.2 in
Legroom, f/r 41.5/36.0 in / 42.4/35.9 in
Shoulder room, f/r 57.3/57.2 in / 56.7/57.4 in
Cargo volume 14.0 cu ft / 13.6 cu ft
TEST DATA
Acceleration to mph in sec
0-30: 1.7 / 1.7
0-40: 2.3 / 2.3
0-50: 3.2 3.1
0-60: 4.1 / 4.0
0-70: 5.1 / 4.9
0-80: 6.6 / 6.2
0-90: 8.0 / 7.5
0-100: 9.5 / 9.1
Passing, 45-65 mph 1.8 / 1.8
Quarter mile 12.5 @ 115.3 mph / 12.3 sec @ 117.0 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 109 ft / 109 ft
MT figure eight 25.8 sec @ 0.71 g (avg) / 25.2 sec @ 0.74 g (avg)
Lateral acceleration 0.90 g / 0.92 g (avg)
Road course lap 58.5 sec / 58.1 sec
Top-gear revs @ 60 mph 2400 rpm / 1800 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
Base price $89,325 / $60,700
Price as tested $94,895 / $67,540
Stability/traction control Yes/yes / Yes/yes
Airbags Dual front, front sides, front/rear curtain / Dual front, front side, f/r curtain
Basic warranty 4 yrs/50,000 miles / 4 yrs/50,000 miles
Powertrain warranty 4 yrs/50,000 miles / 5 yrs/100,000 miles
Roadside assistance 4 yrs/unlimited miles / 5 yrs/100,000 miles
Fuel capacity 18.5 gal / 18.0 gal
EPA city/hwy econ 11/17 mpg / 14/19 mpg
CO2 emissions 1.48 lb/mi / 1.22 lb/mi
Recommended fuel Unleaded premium / Unleaded premium


My thoughts:

Interior: CTS-V
Exterior: M5
Performance: CTS-V
Engine: M5
Handling: tie
Driving Dynamics: tie
Sound: M5
Value: CTS-V
Reliability: CTS-V
Depreciation: M5 (less)
Touch and Finish: M5
Quality: tie
Fuel Economy: CTS-V
Room, Head/Shoulder/Leg : tie
Cargo Volume: M5

 

[Zafiro]

lOl!
I thought you were all about track dynamics.. your new athlete has taken the gold medal away from the M5 in about every test that was ever done. Now it`s all about the engine.

I always loved highreeving N/A engines- shouldnt come as news for you. A turbo engine do not impress like a N/A higreeving engine does to me. And regarding track-dynamics, the M5 is still more involving drive according to other comparisons. just becuase the caddy is faster around a track doenst mean its better track car. No its not about the engine but if you knew me, you would know I cant resist highreeving engines.

This is hardly a big deal to argue about track dynamics - MT figure eight 25.8 sec vs 25.2 sec. - this laptime combined with a highreeving engine wins me over. So when you say "Im all about track dynamics", you are wrong.
Your little attack against me is redicolous, thats not a way to make friends.

 

[CarGuy]

As you can see from the test the CTS-V crushes the M5 in all handling and acceleration tests for fully loaded, $27,355 less.

 

[Cashmere]

strange how all of a sudden, all the M5 tests are with the manual transmission instead of the more robust SMG.

There's no question about it, the CTS-V is superior then the M5 in almost all counts (however the M5 is +5 years older) but then again the CTS-V is pretty darn cheap doubling as a bargain. Excellent value for money, looking forward to more road tests.

 

[Sunny]

The interior of CTS-V is truly impressive - pity they couldn't do the same to ZR1/Z06.

As for it beating the M5, yea, it beats the M5, but barely and for a car 5 years old and a big power deficit, M5 still holds up pretty well. The bigger question is how does the brand new E63 stack up against the CTS V, my guess, not too well.

 

[CarGuy]

strange how all of a sudden, all the M5 tests are with the manual transmission instead of the more robust SMG.

My guess is to save costs and make the gap a little less than the ridiculous 30k. The SMG is more expensive than the manual, no? It does make sense to use the manual though so that both cars can be tested on par (manual for manual). The E63 AMG would get crushed by the CTS-V in terms of pretty much everything including style and interior. Sorry but the new E63 does not appeal to me at all. It is much to classy and it seems to appeal to more elderly people. Like that wasn't enough, I mean the W211 was designed to appeal to 40-50's year olds IMO, but this new one W212, looks more like appealing to 60-70's year old males.

 

[Merc1]

What, some of the BMW stalwarts are admitting that CTS-V beats the M5 astonishing.....!!

M

 

[CarGuy]

I never take sides. I try to keep an open mind, unlike some members here who are so biased and washed by a particular make supremacy, it is not even funny. I won't say which, it's best to leave it open to self reflecting thoughts.

 

[Sunny]

My guess is to save costs and make the gap a little less than the ridiculous 30k. The SMG is more expensive than the manual, no? It does make sense to use the manual though so that both cars can be tested on par (manual for manual). The E63 AMG would get crushed by the CTS-V in terms of pretty much everything including style and interior. Sorry but the new E63 does not appeal to me at all. It is much to classy and it seems to appeal to more elderly people. Like that wasn't enough, I mean the W211 was designed to appeal to 40-50's year olds IMO, but this new one W212, looks more like appealing to 60-70's year old males.

No, SMG doesn't cost extra, in fact SMG is the standard transmission and the manual is a no cost option.

 

[CarGuy]

There's no question about it, the CTS-V is superior then the M5 in almost all counts (however the M5 is +5 years older) but then again the CTS-V is pretty darn cheap doubling as a bargain. Excellent value for money, looking forward to more road tests.

The E60 M5 has been with us since 2005, so 4 years now, which can be argued is quite dated, although I think the style is still very much on par with the freshly released CTS-V. The new M5 due in 2011 or so better be marvelous. In fact I don't even know how they can make these sedans any better before they start insulting and intruding into supercar crushing territory. I mean when the M5 came out it had so much hype and fanatics, and I remember automobile magazine took it on some twisty roads somewhere in France or so and they were astonished how they couldn't get the F430 to lose the M5 through the twists. The new CTS-V is insane. I mean quite literally I can see it crush a NSX even on a track. Heck even a ZO6 with it's much to lose rear end, I don't see it as much of a ways away from in terms of straight line acceleration and track performance and handling. Soon enough if they continue like this there won't even be a point to much more expensive supercars since when your going to be married and have a family, you can have your equally as much fun, for fractions of the price, with the kids and dogs in the back too.

 

[bmer]

Caddy has totally impressed me with the CTS-V. I even voted it in some poll a while back. If it's manual M5 and manual CTS-V, I'd take the CTS-V. If it's auto CTS-V & SMG M5 then perhaps I'd choose the M5.

 

[Mr Robert]

The interior of CTS-V is truly impressive - pity they couldn't do the same to ZR1/Z06.

As for it beating the M5, yea, it beats the M5, but barely and for a car 5 years old and a big power deficit, M5 still holds up pretty well. The bigger question is how does the brand new E63 stack up against the CTS V, my guess, not too well.

Yes, it is a very good looking interior! Well done. I guess thiss is the start of something new. I mean, who would have thaught that a Caddy would beat the M5 (even if it is an American test and the M5 is soon to be replaced). Not even American magazines would have come to this conclusion a couple of years ago. Who knows, maybe the next STS/CTS will beat the Germans even in European comparisons?

We’ve arrived at Monticello, where a bunch of rich and sometimes famous have each sunk 5,000 into the building of a fine racetrack. A hot Cadillac on track. The idea still doesn’t quite fit, but the manual CTS-V I’m in now (dampers set to Sport, ‘Stabilitrak’ chassis electronics switched to Competitive, claimed top speed: 191mph) feels stable, planted, grippy, confident. The earlier promise of savagery doesn’t quite materialise, perhaps because the torque delivery is very even across the rev range, so the CTS-V doesn’t feel as quick as the figures suggest. I’d have expected more than 140mph at the end of the straight, though.

But this is an easy, forgiving car to hustle through the track’s corners., so I kill the chassis electronics. It doesn’t bite, it merely drifts with easy but rather unfocused predictability. For such an allegedly potent machine it feels strangely aloof, 7min 59sec Nürburgring time notwithstanding. A Lexus IS-F is a sharp-edged trackday paragon by comparison.

No more of this?

BTW, I thaught the manual transmission was a no-cost option.

 

[Mr Robert]

As you can see from the test the CTS-V crushes the M5 in all handling and acceleration tests for fully loaded, $27,355 less.

Haha, "crushes", funny, didn't you think this would get ugly enough without the obvious provocations?

The cars are equally fast (remember, faster is never the same as better unless you are in a competitive race) and these journalists liked the Caddy better. No crushing.

 

[Sunny]

BTW, I thaught the manual transmission was a no-cost option.

Yup.