A change in perception is what the Cadillac brand wants and needs... however, based on the car presented to Car and Driver for their March 2004 comparison test of the CTS-V against the M3 and M5... GM drops the ball once again. How the heck does someone let this happen? The car had a flat tire, a supposed faulty oil temp sensor (which some how manged to burn through a full quart of mobile 1 synthetic after only 2 laps on the track, severe axle hop, and a shifter described as too stiff. Gentlemen, I want this car and I will buy this car, but GM should be ashamed of themselves. Public perception is what builds a brand. The miserable dealership experience and articles like this one will do nothing to build this brand. Heads should roll at Cadillac because of this. What were the Cadillac guys doing instead of going over this car with a fine tooth comb? What the hell could have possibly been more important than either fixing or changing the oil sensor? Inspite of having puny looking 245 width tires, how does this car have a rear suspension set-up that the magazine predicts will destroy differentials? Didn't anyone at Cadillac think it was important enough to make sure the car didn't have GLARING FLAWS?!?!? The testers liked the car inspite of it's problems, but left the reader with the following, as I will you: The objective test results suggest that Cadillac didn't hit it's development targets quite as squarely as hoped.