German Car Zone

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

Nice photo!

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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.