Track Tested: 2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG vs. 2009 Cadillac CTS-V

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by JBsZ06

Really? I thought the automatic CTS V set a lap record at the "ring" Who has gone faster ?

http://www.worldcarfans.com/10907132...on-nurburgring


http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/12/f...ly-tops-cadi/3


http://www.insideline.com/porsche/pa...est-sedan.html

[JBsZ06]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

http://www.worldcarfans.com/10907132...on-nurburgring


http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/12/f...ly-tops-cadi/3


http://www.insideline.com/porsche/pa...est-sedan.html

of course I knew the 150 grand porsche panamerica twin turbo was a tick faster... I just thought I'd have a good laugh.

Too bad its almost triple the cost of the CTS V and ugly as hell too! Any time you can have the only car that laps the "ring" faster and it happens to be the latest greatest twin turbo porsche....you've got a winner! I'd say the CTS V at 60 grand is class leading.

I do look forward to a panamerica two door coupe though...

its got to address the ugly bodywork of the panamerica 4 door..

[All-Or-Nothing]

I think the Panamera is beautiful. It's performance numbers are more than a tick faster also. In fact it is a lot faster than the CTS-V.

Without the price being cheaper the Caddy would be outclassed even more.

[PistonsFan]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

It's performance numbers are more than a tick faster also. In fact it is a lot faster than the CTS-V.

Oh please.

7:56 vs. 7:59

Wind speed alone can cause a time difference that big on the Ring.

The CTS-V is actually a lot faster than the Panamera. But the Porsche has better handling.

•The more expensive, Porsche Panamera Turbo, at 500 hp, comes closer to CTS-V performance than the Panamera S model, but is unlikely to be directly shopped with a CTS-V since it costs roughly twice as much as the Cadillac.
•The CTS-V has more power, at 556 hp/551 lb-ft vs 400-hp/369 lb-ft for the Porsche Panamera S, but weighs slighly more at 4,300 lbs vs 4,137 lbs.
•The CTS-V acceleration numbers are notably stronger, with an advantage of 0.8 sec 0-60, at 4.3 sec for the Cadillac vs 5.1 sec for the Porsche. At the quartermile the difference is still 0.9 sec, placing these two cars in different classes for acceleration. Cadillac CTS-V: 12.6 @ 114.6 mph Porsche Panamera S: 13.5 sec @ 105.8 mph
•Cornering: The Porsche has the advantage here, pulling 0.94 g’s on the skidpad vs 0.93 g’s for the Cadillac. However, the CTS-V powers ahead in the Figure-8: 25.1 sec @ 0.75 g (avg) for the Cadillac vs 25.7 sec @ 0.72 g (avg) for the Porsche.
•The Porsche has the advantage in fuel economy, at 16/24 mpg city/highway vs a thirsty 14/19 mpg city/highway for the Cadillac.
•The CTS-V is almost $30K less expensive than the Porsche, with the Cadillac CTS-V at $60.7K, and the Porsche Panamera S at $90.7K (starting prices).

http://caddyinfo.com/wordpress/?p=2040

The Panamera actually has pretty weak acceleration numbers for its horsepower rating. And that is due to the turbo. The turbo lag definitely shows up in the acceleration numbers.

CTS-V FTW!

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by PistonsFan

The CTS-V is actually a lot faster than the Panamera. But the Porsche has better handling.



The Panamera actually has pretty weak acceleration numbers for its horsepower rating. And that is due to the turbo. The turbo lag definitely shows up in the acceleration numbers.

CTS-V FTW!

LMAO @ you using the Panamera S numbers to prove your point and not using the Panamera Turbo numbers which are way better than the Caddy numbers.


Here you go

3.4 0-60
11.7 @ 118

[PistonsFan]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

LMAO @ you using the Panamera S numbers to prove your point and not using the Panamera Turbo numbers which are way better than the Caddy numbers.


Here you go

3.4 0-60
11.7 @ 118

My mistake. I forgot they had two engine trims. I wrote the Panamera off from the beginning because it is a very limited production vehicle and hasn't seen very much testing in the media yet to validate its performance.

But yes, you are right. Those are very impressive numbers from the Panamera. I believe those numbers are new (R&T this month). Previous numbers I've seen have been slower (0-60 of 4.0-4.1) or on-par with the CTS-V (0-60 officially at 3.9).

So, I stand corrected. The Panamera is slightly faster than the CTS-V. But, it's also an exotic sports car that costs 2x the price of the CTS-V.

[JBsZ06]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

I think the Panamera is beautiful. It's performance numbers are more than a tick faster also. In fact it is a lot faster than the CTS-V.

Without the price being cheaper the Caddy would be outclassed even more.

I admire the 150 grand porsche panamerica but to say its good looking is truly a rare statement..

Not one automotive journalist has stated the Panamerica is good looking.

In fact its ridicule is now a famous statement..with regards to its looks..

but I'm glad you like it. Opinions are like @s holes...we've all gottem

Getting back to this thread...I haven't heard the M5, E63, Jaguar XFR, Lexus ISF, Infiniti anything or the Audi RS lineup lapping the "ring" faster than the CTS V ..Have you?

Check out how the Bimmer guys relate to this stick: (pun intended)

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/gtb...ng-record.html

[70eldo]

The CTS-V is so much better, that german car magazines LIE about its performance!
Seriously, they just make it look worse and say they made some conversion mistakes. But who in Europe is going to notice or check that?

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by JBsZ06

Opinions are like @s holes...we've all gottem [/url]

Why do people always have to say this when someone else has an opposing opinion. I think you're trying to call me an A**hole on the sly.