CADDY TAKES ON BMW — AND WINS
With 640 horsepower, superior handling, 2016 CTS- V puts once- king M5 in rear- view mirror
OK, BMW, I have a message for you from the good folks at Cadillac. It’s not a verbatim quote, more a rough paraphrasing or, perhaps more accurately, an unspoken mantra.
But, discussed openly or just Vulcan mind- melded through Caddy’s entire engineering department, the message is as unmistakable as it is succinct: “Screw you.”
Since 2004, BMW apologists have made all manner of excuses for not recognizing the Cadillac CTS- V as a worthy competitor to the formerly all- conquering M5. The first- generation 5.7- litre V8 was “unsophisticated,” the second-gen supercharged 6.2- L edition was fast but “not track worthy.”
It was a cunning ploy. Although both earlier versions of the CTS- V were equal — or very nearly so — to the M5s of the day, badge slaves nonetheless dismissed the V simply because it was a Caddy.
I wonder what all those spinning-propeller fans are going to say now.
For here’s the truth of the matter: No matter how loyal a BMW fan you are, no matter how many M5s you’ve owned — it doesn’t matter if you work at BMW — there’s just no way to deny that the new- for- 2016 V version of the CTS is superior to the M5 in every single measurable performance criteria.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the engine department. What Caddy’s supercharged 6.2- L V8 does to BMW’s twice- turbo’ed 4.4 L is criminal.
There’s no comparison in horsepower ( 640 vs. 560), even less parity in torque ( 630 pound- feet vs. the Bimmer’s 500); and the CTS- V just smokes the M5, jetting to 60 mph in a supercar- like 3.7 seconds vs. the BMW’s used- to- be- fast 4.1. Top speed? The Caddy will pull more than 320 km/ h, the speedlimited M5 just 250.
Even those dramatic numbers don’t capture the big Caddy’s absolute domination of the M5 in speed, even if the CTS- V is tractionlimited off the line.
Its “launch” mode tiptoes out of the gate at a “can-it- really- beingmakingthis- much- power?” 1,400 rpm, and the traction nanny can be heard cutting power to well beyond 80 km/ h.
With more traction — and with this much horsepower, all- wheel drive may become a necessity — the CTS- V might dip closer to the magic 3.0 second mark reserved previously for mega- buck supercars.
The difference between the Cadillac and an M5 is startling; it is literally the equivalent of the advantage an M3 has over a 335i.
Yes, Hans, it really is that fast.
Nor, answering previous Teutonic denigrations of American iron, is the LT4 V8 a loud, louty affair. Most impressively, Cadillac has somehow disguised its antediluvian overhead- valve “small block” roots so completely that it’s impossible to distinguish GM’s pushrod V8 from a Munich double overhead cam affair; there is no clattering of pushrods or gnashing of timing chains.
Further adding insult to injury is that GM Canada claims the CTS- V consumes less hi- test — 14.1 L/ 100 km — than the M5’ s 14.7. Indeed, it’s a total rout in the engine department.
Even the CTS- V’s eight- speed transmission, an ostensibly inferior torque- converted automatic, shifts more smoothly and more quickly than BMW’s double- clutch seven- speed manumatic.
In years previous, BMW aficionados could at least claim their star player, though outgunned in a straight line, was still faster around a racetrack, all that European pedigree supposedly edging out raw power. It may have been more bluster than fact — the previous- generation CTS- V was as good as the current M5 on the roundy- round — but it at least allowed diehard M5 loyalists to make a last stand.
Unfortunately, even the most deluded propagandist can’t stand behind this last bulwark. The new CTS- V in a league of its own, more comparable to the much lighter, more agile ( but way less powerful) M3 than the comparatively squidgy M5. Grip — meaty Michelin Super Sport summer performance radials are standard equipment — is incredible.
The suspension, GM’s super high- tech Magnetic Ride Control, is firm yet well controlled, and the steering, perhaps the previous V’s most dramatic failing in the handling department, is now completely engaging. Seriously, the new V is more aptly compared with true supercars than “mere” sports sedans.
At least one way to compare — favourably, mind you — is with Lamborghini’s new Huracan for its front- end grip. I was seeing an incredible 1.2 Gs of lateral acceleration through some of Road America’s higher- speed turns. And damned if I could find any understeer.
The only chink in the armour is that all that speed, coupled with the CTS- V’s 1,884- kilogram curb weight, does tax the brakes. But even here in its weakest moment, the CTS- V still stomps the BMW hard. The six- piston calipers may get a little squishy after a few laps, and the huge 390- millimetre ventilated discs hot enough to glow red in the dark, but the brakes never actually fade.
The CTS- V’s supernatural speed into Road America’s Canada Corner may have been a “Come to Jesus” moment on every single lap. But even if the pedal travel became longer, the big Brembos never failed to scrub the incredible speed. For the record, BMW’s brakes, subjected to similar treatment, would have been mush in less than five laps.
Oh, for Pete’s sake, you’re saying, tell me the BMW’s ride is better. Surely German ingenuity triumphs in at least one regard. Well, I could tell you that, but it would be a lie.
GM’s Magnetic Ride Control system offers a far greater range of adjustability — firmer on the racetrack and softer on the street — by adjusting the hydraulic fluid in the suspension rather than the suspension itself. It’s an ingenious solution and more manufacturers ( again, Lamborghini) are following GM’s lead into magneto- rheological suspension.
Indeed, all you BMW fans are going to have to stoop pretty low to find some last bastion of BMW superiority. In fact, you’re going to have go all the way down Mazlov’s hierarchy of supercar needs to the navigation system to find something to boast about.
The CTS- V’s CUE- based onboard map is truly terrible. The screen is too small and the display seemingly two generations removed from the current norm. It may be the hint of irony that some portion of iDrive is the M5’ s last stand, but there you have it.
I suppose I could cite the Caddy’s interior decor as another win for BMW, but once you take out that ugly piano- black centre console ( housing that too- small LCD screen, Cadillac seemingly wanting to concentrate all its flaws in one small, contained area), it’s not a huge advantage.
Of course, no amount of quantitative comparison and qualitative analysis will ever allow the truly committed BMW loyalist to admit that a lowly Cadillac could best their beloved M5. But, in truth, it matters not: The M5, at least until BMW completely rethinks the M Division’s direction, is simply no longer in the game.
Indeed, the better comparators might be Lamborghini, Chevrolet, or Ferrari, the CTS- V now perhaps better described as a four- door Huracan, a Corvette sedan or even an FF with passable comfort.
The kicker? At $ 91,685, the 2016 CTS- V is $ 10,000 cheaper than the M5. So, BMW, what have you got to say now?