Comparison tests Sport Auto 12/2015 - Cadillac CTS-V MkIII vs. Audi RS7 C7 Performance

[Nelson Shirtmobile]

0-40 km/h: 1,3 vs 1,6 s
0-100 km/h: 3,5 vs 4,3 s
0-160 km/h: 7,4 vs 8,1 s
0-200 km/h: 11,5 vs 12,3 s
Claimed Vmax: 250 vs 320 km/h (322 km/h for the US-spec CTS-V)

Estimates:
40-100 km/h: 2,2 vs 2,7 s
40-160 km/h: 6,1 vs 6,5 s
100-160 km/h: 3,9 vs 3,8 s
100-200 km/h: 8,0 vs 8,0 s
Actual Vmax: 304 vs 350 km/h
0-300 km/h: 37,8 vs 35,2 s
Time to reach Vmax: 124 vs 101 s

Actual Vmax = 0-100 et ÷ 0-200 et, or sometimes even (0-100÷0-200 et)×0.5+(0-200 et÷0-300 et)×0.5

0-300 km/h: 0-200 et ÷ Vmax (only works for cars capable of a Vmax of 301 km/h or higher)

Time to reach Vmax: 0-200 or 0-300 (if car reaches 301+ kph) ÷ Vmax

 

[Rolf]

0-40 km/h: 1,3 vs 1,6 s
0-100 km/h: 3,5 vs 4,3 s
0-160 km/h: 7,4 vs 8,1 s
0-200 km/h: 11,5 vs 12,3 s
Claimed Vmax: 250 vs 320 km/h (322 km/h for the US-spec CTS-V)

Estimates:
40-100 km/h: 2,2 vs 2,7 s
40-160 km/h: 6,1 vs 6,5 s
100-160 km/h: 3,9 vs 3,8 s
100-200 km/h: 8,0 vs 8,0 s
Actual Vmax: 304 vs 350 km/h
0-300 km/h: 37,8 vs 35,2 s
Time to reach Vmax: 124 vs 101 s

Actual Vmax = 0-100 et ÷ 0-200 et, or sometimes even (0-100÷0-200 et)×0.5+(0-200 et÷0-300 et)×0.5

0-300 km/h: 0-200 et ÷ Vmax (only works for cars capable of a Vmax of 301 km/h or higher)

Time to reach Vmax: 0-200 or 0-300 (if car reaches 301+ kph) ÷ Vmax

Vmax is based on drag coefficient, frontal area and power and also gear ratios/rev limit. Acceleration especially higher speed is based on a combination of power, torque, gear ratios and aerodynamics. What is the km/h/1000rpm in top gear for both cars, then you can calculate the theoretical max speed at power peak and red line? The Audi has a traction advantage and possibly quicker shifting gearbox so it is 0.8sec faster to 100km/h and keeps the same advantage to 200km/h. The Audi is also available with a different package to increase top speed to 305km/h. I reckon the CTS may catch the Audi closer to 300km/h due to its higher power output, but it also depends on its gear ratios in higher gears, if they are overdrive ratios (long gearing) then it will lose acceleration to the Audi at higher speeds also. It would be an interesting test if they could have tested the cars up to 250km/h as well.

 

[tristatez28lt1]

Even though the scan was copied, it's Nelson's first genuine test and not made up shit! Congrats buddy!

 

[Karabiner98k]

They have exactly similar 100-200 time which is 8.0 seconds dead.

It is totally amazing how Audi can keep up with Cadillac in a rolling test with much less torque and hp, more weight and extra drivetrain loss due to AWD system!

The efficiency of Audi's powertrain is indeed higher.

Wish they had also tested fuel consumption.

 

[Kowalski]

My choice? Err... BMW M5 with Competition Package. Oh wait that's not available is it? Oh dear... Ok then Audi it is.

 

[Centurion]

It is totally amazing how Audi can keep up with Cadillac in a rolling test with much less torque and hp, more weight and extra drivetrain loss due to AWD system!

I think AWD is beneficial when flooring it at high speeds. Audi's gearbox is probably a bit more sophisticated too. This is what makes performance variants of family cars so special. They are more than just larger engines, more noise and colourful calipers.

 

[Karabiner98k]

I think AWD is beneficial when flooring it at high speeds.

Why?

As far as I know it is only beneficial from standstill which results in better traction off the line. Other than that it is only more weight to carry. (Let alone drivetrain loss)

 

[tristatez28lt1]

Why?

As far as I know it is only beneficial from standstill which results in better traction off the line. Other than that it is only more weight to carry. (Let alone drivetrain loss)

With high horsepower cars like this flooring it at 100 km/h awd will still be a benefit. If you floor it in third gear in an M6 (which has less hp than the CTS-V) it can spin its wheels. It would be interesting but I think the RS7s traction advantage goes further than 80-90 km/h and it is not only present at launch. Both cars are very very fast, that's a fact.

 

[Karabiner98k]

It it true but i don't think flooring @ 100 km/h results in wheelspin unless the surface is greasy!

High performance cars also have high-grip tires.

Even if we have wheelspin @ 100 km/h, then at speeds above 150 km/h the AWD has no benefit at all.

I have seen lots of rolling drag races and even 700 hp+ cars didn't have wheelspin problems.

I remember the old comparison between Gallardo and F430 in which the tester mentioned that F430 had the advantage of less drivetrain loss (RWD vs AWD) and can be faster in most real world conditions.

 

[tristatez28lt1]

For sure the AWD diminishes constantly the faster you go and then it goes from positive to negative as there is more drivetrain loss. I'd guess that that point for the RS7 performance is somewhere around 100 - 120 km/h when the advantage of AWD turns into a disadvantage. However, there is a engineering advantage of the RS7 to accelerate brutally from 0-100 taking into account all the grip that Audi has available.

 

[Karabiner98k]

For sure the AWD diminishes constantly the faster you go and then it goes from positive to negative as there is more drivetrain loss.

Yes, exactly!

But as I said before, I don't understand how Audi can keep up with CTS-V from 100-200!

After 100 or 120 the Audi has no advantage.

Even if we consider the fact that maybe Cadillac has taller gearing but it also benefits from higher torque and can compensate for that.

 

[tristatez28lt1]

It comes down to smart drivetrain engineering. There are so many variables to consider.

 

[Karabiner98k]

It comes down to smart drivetrain engineering. There are so many variables to consider.

I have always liked to talk about this things in a more detailed point of view.

Maybe rotating mass is the reason or anything else.

If you have more explanations, i would be happy to read it!