Cadillac CTS-V Coupe '11 vs. BMW M3 Coupe '07 @ Suzuka!

  • Thread starter Thread starter MidFieldMaven
  • 63 comments
  • 3,282 views
MidFieldMaven

MidFieldMaven

Messages
3,417
United States
NJ
Messages
Rave2Grave
Rear-wheel-drive. Six forward gears. V8 engines. What else do you need?

On one side we have the American heavyweight Cadillac CTS-V. Check out the specs:

6.2L
555 hp / 6,000 rpm
550 ft-lb / 4,000 rpm
1,940 kg
521 pp

The BMW M3 looks absolutely tame in comparison:

4.0L
414 hp / 8,500 rpm
295 ft-lb / 4,000 rpm
1,655 kg
488 pp

One of my favorite quotes is "Simplify, then add lightness." Americans can't get out of the mindset that power trumps everything else. Too bad for them, but it doesn't! Lap times don't lie...

2:20.141 - BMW M3 Coupe '07
2:20.442 - Cadillac CTS-V Coupe '11

Both are low 2:20 to high 2:19 cars (with a controller.) Which one do you prefer?


 
Last edited:
Holy cow that's much closer than I thought it would be! I still can't get over the weight of that Caddy! :lol: * sigh * I wish we had better car manufacturers in the States.
 
Interesting comparison in that the PP levels are so drastically different yet the lap times are similar. Otherwise, the two cars aren't anything alike.

No matter how sporty they make it, the Cadillac is still a Cadillac that weighs 4300 lbs. I don't know what a good comp car would be for it, but an M3 is not it.

Not that it matters, but in real life, without the badges, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd take that model M3 over that Cadillac.

It is embarrassing how poor the PP system is with some cars.
 
The cadillac has a lot of power but is terrible in corners/handling and its very heavy, reminds me of the typical old muscle cars in that aspect.
Meanwhile the M3 is very refined and balanced in power and handling.
 
If I were shopping for a V8 rear-drive sedan, I would definitely be comparing these two. What other car in GT6 is a good competitor for the CTS-V? The M5 costs a lot more than these two.
 
I've tested that car as well, and it's slower than the M3 and CTS-V on top of costing more money.

C 63 AMG
6.2L
450 hp / 7,000 rpm
443 ft-lb / 5,000 rpm
1,730 kg
500 pp

Has the same size engine as the Cadillac, and a bit more power and weight than the BMW.

Lap time - 2:21.574

BMW is still champion despite being the underdog. Any other cars I can throw into the ring?
 
The Lexus IS F is a weird one. When you buy it, the horsepower jumps from 416 hp to 445! When detuned to 93.4% you arrive at the correct 416 hp @ 6,600 rpm.

5.0L
416 hp / 6,600 rpm
373 ft-lb / 5,200 rpm
1,623 kg
501 pp

Lap time - 2:19.200

Nearly a full second faster than the M3.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, the CTS-V was meant to go up against the BMW M5 in the real world and it did well. It was the fastest sport sedan on the Nurburgring at one point. Anyway, I'm just telling you why the CTS-V here is a heavy car; it's a Coupe that happens to be based on a full-sized sedan. I would say though that the M6 is a more suited competitor to be honest, but that's not in the game sadly.
 
There's really no reason for the CTS-V to be so heavy. Mercedes are known for their weight and even the C 63 AMG is over 200 kg lighter...
 
SuzukaStar
There's really no reason for the CTS-V to be so heavy. Mercedes are known for their weight and even the C 63 AMG is over 200 kg lighter...
Click to expand...
Well of course that's going to be lighter, the C63 AMG is a smaller sedan than the CTS-V Sedan, they're not in the same class. As I said before, the CTS-V is more of a competitor to the M5 and the other sedans in that class which includes the E63 AMG. Of course like the BMW M6 I mentioned, you can't compare those either since the E63 is not in the game sadly.
 
CeeJay
Holy cow that's much closer than I thought it would be! I still can't get over the weight of that Caddy! :lol: * sigh * I wish we had better car manufacturers in the States.
Click to expand...


Nothing wrong with the car manufacturers we have in the US. Maybe you're not familiar with their lineups.
 
NixxxoN
The cadillac has a lot of power but is terrible in corners/handling and its very heavy, reminds me of the typical old muscle cars in that aspect.
Meanwhile the M3 is very refined and balanced in power and handling.
Click to expand...

Its not really meant to be a track car. Just because it has 500+ HP doesn't mean it was built with that in mind. Maybe that's the confusion for some people.
 
Blkout
Its not really meant to be a track car. Just because it has 500+ HP doesn't mean it was built with that in mind. Maybe that's the confusion for some people.
Click to expand...
This is accurate. If I'm not mistaken, this was the most expensive American production car until the Viper was reintroduced. Cadillac would rather they be aligned with Bentley as opposed to BMW, Audi or Mercedes.
 
The Carlton runs a 2:26.032 best lap, 2:25 if you're the Stig.

Interestingly, it weighs the exact same as the BMW M3 '07.
 
Last edited:
crowhop
This is accurate. If I'm not mistaken, this was the most expensive American production car until the Viper was reintroduced. Cadillac would rather they be aligned with Bentley as opposed to BMW, Audi or Mercedes.
Click to expand...
Technically, the Corvette ZR1 was more expensive than the CTS-V at that time, but I'm not so sure of that being the most expensive american production car during that time either.
 
RandomCarGuy17
Technically, the Corvette ZR1 was more expensive than the CTS-V at that time, but I'm not so sure of that being the most expensive american production car during that time either.
Click to expand...

The most expensive American-made car in 2009 was the Saleen S7 Twin Turbo. Since then it's been the ZR-1 and the Viper.
 
SuzukaStar
The Lexus IS F is a weird one. When you buy it, the horsepower jumps from 416 hp to 445! When detuned to 93.4% you arrive at the correct 416 hp @ 6,600 rpm.

5.0L
416 hp / 6,600 rpm
373 ft-lb / 5,200 rpm
1,623 kg
501 pp

Lap time - 2:19.200

Nearly a full second faster than the M3.
Click to expand...

It's weird because in real life it is slower than the M3. But the M3 being faster than the C63 seems correct as the M3 have sharper cornering abilities.

Anyway, one more good comparo @ Suzuka. Thank you! :)
 
SuzukaStar
The most expensive American-made car in 2009 was the Saleen S7 Twin Turbo. Since then it's been the ZR-1 and the Viper.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the Saleen S7 was no longer in production in 2009. I'm referring the cars that were still in production during the time period, which was between 2010 and 2012. When the 4th gen Dodge Viper was dropped and the 5th Gen Viper hasn't come out yet.
 
The S7 Twin Turbo was in production until 2009.

In 2012, the most expensive American car was the Hennessey Venom GT. Basically a Lotus Exige on steroids.
 
Performance Points with oil change:
Lexus IS F '07 516pp 2:19.2
BMW M3 '07 495pp 2:20.141
Cadillac CTS-V '11 531pp 2:20.442
Mercedes C63 AMG '08 507pp 2:21.574


Try these cars:
Maserati Gran Turismo S '08 496pp
Jaguar XFR '10 510pp
Jaguar Coupe XKR '10 519pp
BMW M5 '08 521pp
BMW M5 '05 528pp
BMW M4 517pp (this will be the quickest by far)
Aston Martin DB9 Coupe '06 512pp
Jaguar XKR-S '11 540pp

Even just based on the PP system in game (which is obviously flawed) the M5 is a better competitor for the CTS-V. The Jaguars should be close to the CTS-V as well and the Maserati should be slightly slower than the C63 AMG.
 
Maserati - 2:21.925
XFR - 2:22.439
XKR '10 - 2:21.695
M5 '05 - 2:16.604
M5 '08 - 2:16.935
M4 - 2:15.423
DB9 '03 - 2:18.826
XKR-S - 2:17.836

I re-tested the M4 just now, and the M5's were tested very recently. The rest could probably be improved by at least two tenths, but I'm done testing for now. Maybe later, or else it'll have to be tomorrow. Also, I don't do oil changes.

The M5 stomps the CTS-V into the ground with ease.

The SL 65 AMG is technically not a competitor, but it does run a lap time of 2:19.696 which is less than a second quicker than the CTS-V, so I think it deserves a spot.

Also, the Aston V8 Vantage '10 runs a 2:20.147 which is only .006 seconds slower than the M3.
 
Last edited:
SuzukaStar
Rear-wheel-drive. Six forward gears. V8 engines. What else do you need?

On one side we have the American heavyweight Cadillac CTS-V. Check out the specs:

6.2L
555 hp / 6,000 rpm
550 ft-lb / 4,000 rpm
1,940 kg
521 pp

The BMW M3 looks absolutely tame in comparison:

4.0L
414 hp / 8,500 rpm
295 ft-lb / 4,000 rpm
1,655 kg
488 pp

One of my favorite quotes is "Simplify, then add lightness." Americans can't get out of the mindset that power trumps everything else. Too bad for them, but it doesn't! Lap times don't lie...

2:20.141 - BMW M3 Coupe '07
2:20.442 - Cadillac CTS-V Coupe '11

Both are low 2:20 to high 2:19 cars (with a controller.) Which one do you prefer?


Click to expand...


SuzukaStar
Maserati - 2:21.925
XFR - 2:22.439
XKR '10 - 2:21.695
M5 '05 - 2:16.604
M5 '08 - 2:16.935
M4 - 2:15.423
DB9 '03 - 2:18.826
XKR-S - 2:17.836

I re-tested the M4 just now, and the M5's were tested very recently. The rest could probably be improved by at least two tenths, but I'm done testing for now. Maybe later, or else it'll have to be tomorrow. Also, I don't do oil changes.

The M5 stomps the CTS-V into the ground with ease. The XKR '10, Lexus IS F, and C63 AMG are the closest competitors next to the M3 if we're talking strictly lap times and nothing else.

The SL 65 AMG is technically not a competitor, but it does run a lap time of 2:19.696 which is less than a second quicker than the CTS-V, so I think it deserves a spot.
Click to expand...


Great job on this comparision - Can you make race cars tests some day ?
 
PatrisS136
Great job on this comparision - Can you make race cars tests some day ?
Click to expand...

Race cars are unfair because they can be tuned, and testing a racecar not tuned for the track it's on is unrealistic. What I'm trying to say is there are too many variables with race cars.
 

Latest Posts

Back