# CTS-v2 vs. M5

**URL:** <https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663>\
**Category:** NYSpeed Automotive\
**Created:** [August 21, 2008, 7:28pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663 "2008-08-21T19:28:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BigRon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58956e/32.png) [@BigRon](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BigRon)\
**Post date:** [August 22, 2008, 11:10am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/21 "2008-08-22T11:10:28Z")

</div>

> [@theblue](#):
>
> new thread, how does that compare to the alpina B7 :lol:

I really dislike the STS-V.  
I hate the Northstar engine and boosting it just sounds like a bad idea.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BigRon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58956e/32.png) [@BigRon](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BigRon)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 10:46am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/22 "2008-08-25T10:46:09Z")

</div>

My favorite quote from the responses from the bottom of the page:

“are the lawyers from BMW holding things up?”

Results are supposed to be up today.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![walter](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/walter/32/7202_2.png) [@walter](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/walter)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 11:27am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/23 "2008-08-25T11:27:26Z")

</div>

I can’t wait to drive one. So many attractive prospects out there right now.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Blue\_Eyed\_Devil](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/blue_eyed_devil/32/7292_2.png) [@Blue\_Eyed\_Devil](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Blue_Eyed_Devil)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 11:46am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/24 "2008-08-25T11:46:10Z")

</div>

Seriously though back to the curb weight.  
How does the CTS weigh so much?(4300)  
What am I missing?  
My wifes XTERRA has full framed 4x4 and 5 huge ass tires and wheels that about weigh 1000lbs.(curb weight 4170)  
The XTERRA is also about 6’ tall with a big rack on top.  
How can the CTS be that heavy?

Does the engine weigh 2000lbs?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dr.Stevil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dr.Stevil](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Dr.Stevil)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 11:48am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/25 "2008-08-25T11:48:06Z")

</div>

my guess is lots and lots of sound deadening materials along with lots of gadgets.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sobo](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/sobo/32/5267_2.png) [@sobo](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/sobo)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 11:49am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/26 "2008-08-25T11:49:12Z")

</div>

Lead.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joe](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joe/32/7219_2.png) [@Joe](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Joe)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 11:51am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/27 "2008-08-25T11:51:44Z")

</div>

XTERRA:  
Length 178.7  
4.0L V6

CTS-V:  
length: 191.6 in.  
giant blown V8

:gotme:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BigRon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58956e/32.png) [@BigRon](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BigRon)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 12:04pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/28 "2008-08-25T12:04:21Z")

</div>

I bet the seats alone are double the weight of the Xterra.

The V is definilty a pig. Mine is 3,850 so I was somewhat suprised when I saw 4,300

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BigRon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58956e/32.png) [@BigRon](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BigRon)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:59pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/29 "2008-08-25T14:59:51Z")

</div>

V \> M5

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![traumadog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8baadc/32.png) [@traumadog](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/traumadog)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 10:11am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/30 "2008-08-26T10:11:29Z")

</div>

[http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=131106](http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=131106)

> After spending time behind the wheel of Cadillac’s powerful new sport sedan, we weren’t disappointed. The 2009 Cadillac CTS-V, equipped with a supercharged 556-horsepower 6.2-liter V8 and a six-speed manual transmission, accelerated from zero to 60 mph in 4.6 seconds (4.3 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and crossed the quarter-mile in 12.5 seconds at 115.3 mph.
> 
> That’s a faster quarter-mile sprint than either the 500-hp 5.0-liter V10-equipped 2007 BMW M5 or the 507-hp 6.2-liter all-aluminum V8-equipped 2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG achieved. The two German super sedans both took 12.7 seconds to cross the quarter-mile marker and did so with trap speeds of roughly 113 mph.
> 
> The Caddy’s braking distances and slalom speed were even more impressive. The CTS-V stopped from 60-0 mph in just 109 feet, bettering the M5 by 5 feet and the E63 AMG by 6 feet. The CTS-V also managed to break the 70 mph barrier in the slalom with a best run of 71.1 mph. The BMW M5 ran 68.5 mph, while the E63 only managed 65 mph.
> 
> Acceleration:  
> 0-30 mph — 2.1 seconds  
> 0-45 mph —3.2 seconds  
> 0-60 mph — 4.6 seconds  
> 0-75 mph — 6.3 seconds  
> 1/4-mile — 12.5 seconds at 115.3 mph  
> 0-60 mph with 1 foot of rollout — 4.3 seconds
> 
> Braking:  
> 30-0 mph — 27 feet  
> 60-0 mph —109 feet
> 
> Slalom (600 feet)— 71.1 mph
> 
> Skid pad lateral acceleration (200 feet) — 0.92g
> 
> What this means to you: GM product head Bob Lutz promised that this CTS-V would put the M5 on the trailer. According to our test numbers, he’s right.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BigRon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58956e/32.png) [@BigRon](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BigRon)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 1:15pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/31 "2008-08-26T13:15:27Z")

</div>

I think it is funny that Caddy has 0-60 at 3.9

They had the V1 at 4.6 and most tester had it at 5.0

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joe](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joe/32/7219_2.png) [@Joe](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Joe)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 1:18pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/32 "2008-08-26T13:18:32Z")

</div>

i would imagine the auto is a little faster to 60, they tested the 6 speed…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dr.Stevil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dr.Stevil](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Dr.Stevil)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 1:20pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/33 "2008-08-26T13:20:38Z")

</div>

> [@Joe](#):
>
> i would imagine the auto is a little faster to 60, they tested the 6 speed…

for sure… hooking up with a standard trans with that much power on street tires would be a handful

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![theblue](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/theblue/32/5074_2.png) [@theblue](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/theblue)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 1:29pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/34 "2008-08-26T13:29:30Z")

</div>

“the CTS-V is like a modern day beretta gtz… out there with it’s can of value whoopass on the bmw m5.”

- car and driver

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dr.Stevil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dr.Stevil](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Dr.Stevil)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 1:31pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/35 "2008-08-26T13:31:50Z")

</div>

^ lol

edit: although, I would take the CTS-V over the M

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![93dx\_hatch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/9/90ced4/32.png) [@93dx\_hatch](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/93dx_hatch)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 1:32pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/36 "2008-08-26T13:32:17Z")

</div>

> [@theblue](#):
>
> “the CTS-V is like a modern day beretta gtz… out there with it’s can of value whoopass on the bmw m5.”
> 
> - car and driver

LOL I was thinking the same thing

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rj-92](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/rj-92/32/7310_2.png) [@rj-92](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/rj-92)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 7:05pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/37 "2008-08-26T19:05:22Z")

</div>

> [@Joe](#):
>
> i would imagine the auto is a little faster to 60, they tested the 6 speed…

I believe it is. Read soemthing somewhere that would attest to that but i’m too laszy to look for it. Guess you’ll have to take my word for it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BigRon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58956e/32.png) [@BigRon](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BigRon)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 7:09pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/38 "2008-08-26T19:09:24Z")

</div>

same goes for the 11 second 1/4 they are promising

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![turbociv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@turbociv](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/turbociv)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 7:26pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/39 "2008-08-26T19:26:37Z")

</div>

lol, i could aviate a plain with the interior of the cts-v. More gadgets doesnt mean better. looks like GM went bling for the flavor of the month while bmw stuck with classy.:tup: cts-v \< m5

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mechanicalmadness](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mechanicalmadness/32/5022_2.png) [@mechanicalmadness](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/mechanicalmadness)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2008, 7:43pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663/40 "2008-08-26T19:43:08Z")

</div>

> [@turbociv](#):
>
> lol, i could aviate a plain with the interior of the cts-v. More gadgets doesnt mean better. looks like GM went bling for the flavor of the month while bmw stuck with classy.:tup: cts-v \< m5

i actually kind of like the interior of the cts. BMW definitely went the clean clasic look that has worked for them for years but I think Gm out did them as far as the interior is concerned. Hell i just might have to become a Cady fan again

[Previous page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/cts-v2-vs-m5/53663.md?page=3)