Auto Makers:
Acura
Aston Martin
Audi
Bentley
BMW
Bugatti
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Chrysler
Dodge
Ferrari
Fiat
Fisker
Ford
GMC
Hennessey
Honda
Hummer
Hyundai
Infiniti
Jaguar
Jeep
Kia
Koenigsegg
Lamborghini
Land Rover
Lexus
Lincoln
Lotus
Maserati
Maybach
Mazda
McLaren
Mercedes-Benz
MINI
Mitsubishi
Morgan
Nissan
Pagani
Porsche
Ram
Rolls-Royce
Scion
Smart
Spyker
SRT
Subaru
Suzuki
Tesla
Toyota
Volkswagen
Volvo
Other Makers:
Alfa Romeo
Ariel
Citroen
Gumpert
KTM
Noble
Opel
Peugeot
Renault
SEAT
Skoda
Wiesmann
Zenvo Automotive
I wasn't sold on it first time I saw it but it has definetely grown on me since then
Description: It can go from 0 to 60mph in just 4.4 seconds and has a top speed of 155 mph. However, with the addition of the optional M Driver's Package, top speed increases to 190mph.
Other changes f... Add Comments 54
Other changes f... Add Comments 54
Corvettes are just cheap toys to be used on track only 1 corvette IMO is good which is ZR1 cause it's actually comfy on the road. But a GTR can beat it on a track for 20K less money
I don't like corvettes theyre crap compared to the Beastely GT40. And most recently BMW came in 2nd for 24 HR race and it wasn't corvette. And since 2000 is compared to BMW motorsport history which is since 1978 from the birth of the M1 .
So a car that's unreliable is a car that would break down in 20K miles . Well that M3 you see in my profile pic is my cousins and it has 47K miles and it hasn't had any major problems. And it's spanked Camaros round the track Lancaster track
Actually they have way more than that, the corvette is just a faster car than the M3 any way you cut it and BMW will never win Le Mans while corvette has been on the podium 12 times SINCE 2000. Look at the Nurburgring times, BMW's just get eaten alive by cheaper cars with better interiors that don't break down, they are overpriced status symbols. Porsche is a different story though, they actuall...
I love Cadillac , my dad has a 1988 Limited gold edition Eldorado which is made me fall in love with cars. And that what caddys standard should be . The CTSV is a good car but the M5 is just better
Well who came in 2nd this year in 24 hours race . And does the corvette have over 12 titles and 15 race wins as the M3. I suppose not.
I think caddy made a better car today, BMW has fallen off and GM has made the corvette for longer with a better 0-60 and Nurburgring lap time than any BMW at a lower price. BMW hasn't won LeMans like GM so the facts really aren't on your side here, your just stating opinions.
Chris, people know M power has been the most dominant team in motorsport and they build better road and track cars than caddy and have been for over 25 yrs and you just have to live with the fact
Actually no, in 2009 Cadillac produced 3500 CTS-V's while BMW produced 8800 of the last generation M5's in a 5 YEAR RUN here in the states. Regardless, sales just prove irrational behavior anyways when it doesn't work out. People do stupid things like pay for overpriced BMW's because it makes them feel sophisticated.
You guys are all arguing but what really matters is the fact that this car is going to out sale the cts-v in America lol for 30k more because people enjoy BMW more because they are the cars that started the sports sedan segment
I think putting the next Gen S8 or RS7 against the next M5 is a better match up. The Corvette is not meant to fight those but rather offer some performance at a bargain price. I don't think the caddy can really stack up either because to be honest especially in terms of luxury and sophistication yah can't top the Germans but it will cost yah. The R8 GT is a good match up against the ZR1 but it w...
That's one example and another example is likely to find the opposite. The FACT is that when you take 1000 of each type of vehicle, the BMW's will report more problems. JD power can verify with actual data rather than one unreliable example. And the BMW interior is ugly, Audi and Merc have better interiors than the V but not the BMW's
@Chris top gear proved that a BMW 850Ci which was 17 yrs older than a Mercedes sl600 was more reliable than it cause the Mercedes broke down a week later and the BMW still worked perfectly . And there interior is way better than CTSV
BMW's actually have more problems per 1,000 vehicles and lower resale values than Corvettes do, and the interior is hideous, it's just a plain ugly bar across the dash.
the M5 has way better interior and it's a BMW so it's gonna last longer not only in the realworld but also in you're heart . Trust me my cousins m3 Won my heart the minute I got in
Yah, the Z06 takes 3.7 and my corvette takes 3.9, the ZR1 has trouble putting all that power down without losing traction, from a 40 mph roll its amazing though.
Check on the Chevrolet website Anthony, it says the ZR1 0-60 is 3.4 seconds.
Road and track tested it at 3.9, the wikipedia article will confirm for you. And the panamara is junk forthat amount of money, it's hideous and costs as much as two of these!
It is 3.9 according to motortrend, car and driver, and Cadillac actually.
My friend just bought one for 67,575 loaded with a bunch of options and the interior is way nicer than the plain Jane Beamer. The Beamer has that ugly flat bar for a dashboard that screams cheap. Plus, admittedly surprisingly, the new V holds it's resale better than the M's, alot better actually.
And on the CTS-V crap: it's still ugly and still not very luxurious compared to zee Germans There's a reason it's cheaper...
So is it still slower than the old E60 (204mph) or is the limit just raised to 190mph?
Chris i want you to walk into a cadillac dealership and ask how much is to walk out the door with a cts-v, then tell me it's under 65k.
It did do the ring 2 seconds faster though but I would rather hit 60 faster and pay 30k less...
This M5 is better than the current CTS-V, but I can't see GM not making any improvements to it.
Ctsv is like 0-60 4.1-4.3 (perfect launch) 80k < Bmw m5 0-60 4.4 $93k < e63 amg package 0-60 4.2s ~$102k
Wouldn't call a CTS-V cheap. And I agree, give me a big NA over a turbo anyday of the week. You don't get that stab of acceleration with a turbo, its more of a climb.
I'm not talking about Cadillac in general, just the V versus the M. And sales don't make a good car either, that can just be irrational consumers who pay a premium for an unreliable (JD power ranks BMW very low in problems per 1000 vehicles), slower, and uglier brand because telling people they drive a BMW strokes their ego.
@Chris, yeah, but compare Cadillac sales to those of Mercedes, BMW, Audi etc. Cadillacs are a relatively rare thing on European roads, yet the german big three are everywhere. GM have focused on Vauxhall/Opel and Cadillac are an after thought here.
100mm turbos on a 2.4L I4 running the same boost as 100mm turbos on a ford 5.4 or LS3 will result in the 5.4/LS3 putting out more power to weight.
Well John, sorry to tell you, new generation small block V8s put out better power to weight ratios than the little engines when naturally aspirated and when using forced induction for the most part.
I never see any m5s and wonder whose gonna sell more cars BMW or mercedes because the e63 has a faster 0-60 time
Problem is, opinion on the cars themselves aside, the rest of the world doesnt really buy Cadillacs. They've had to pull out of the UK twice in the past twenty years due to poor sales. For some reason, GM just doesnt seem to market them properly here
Why would anybody pay 35k more than a CTS-V for a slower, uglier car with a more boring interior? I can't wait for it to annihilate it again in the comparo's.
And besides who the hell goes that fast on highways..American ones at least
Cory is right, one is what a true driver would want, the other is a pissing contest.
Well the M package removes the top speed limiter, which is 155. That's why it's such a huge jump
Description: BMW has also recently unveiled pricing, which will begin at $93,000, but various options will easily push it over the $100k mark. The 2012 M5 will be coming to dealerships in the US and Europe in the ...
Add Comments
7
Ruben, if you really worked for BMW you should know 1) 4.4s is 0-62, 2) BMW always underrated their cars, 3) conditions matter and finally M5 F10 is tested a 3.7s 0-60. Don't compare mfg claim with 1ft rollout under optimal conditions.
@jimmy Sorry but the cts-v is still faster than the m5 Cts-v wit the crappiest driver is 4.2 0-60 and wit a great driver 3.9-4.0 seconds. And 191 mph wit a manual @ken I drive alot I already have almost 36000 miles on my car and it's driven hard
How bad are you beating on that Camaro? I never had to take my F body to the shop and I was running that thing balls to the ball with modifications to that LS1.
It was a turn off on these cars too see the same 1 every like 2 too three weeks bcuz my 2010 camaro doesn't see the shop for like 4-5 and I'm hard on my car always driving hard.
Wow 100k is ridiculous I'm so glad that I worked for BMW bcuz I kno how often these cars have problems. I'm goin for cts-v it's faster and a more beautiful interior.
@Carlos Get the VIP Forza 4 and you will be able to hear what he has to say in autovista mode.
True !!!!!! Let see what Jeremy Clarkson has to say abaut the new M5
Looks pretty damn good... But I still like the V10 version more, and likely sound A LOT better than the new one. But I also don't doubt that the performance of new one will be a noticeable step up from V10.
@borphan agreed. You can hardly recognize the M's nowadays if you aren't an enthusiast. I'll almost drive off the road going "m5! V10!" and my buddy will go "eh? Didn't see it"
Sorry, but in what way is this a sleeper? A sleeper is my buddy's 96 Ranger with a 383 stroker
I love sleepers because a regular guy would just say it's a BMW but a car nut knows it's an m5
Caddies are great in a straight line I'll give them that but in terms of shear driver enjoyment BMW wins hands down all day long
And the previous M5 had more power weighed less and tuned chassis from BMW unlike the previous CTSV . so this new M5 compares with the new CTSV AND IT WINS AGAIN
@Shane the M5 is 4 secs faster round the ring even though it's heavier and more equipped because the M cars are famous for their chassis . I give caddy credit for making a really good car but the previous M5 should be compared to the previous CTSV...
M power is is not just numbers... It is how it feels! Btw this M was 4 sec faster on Nurbugring by the GTS so who is faster? Anyway serious now it's up to personal taste..these cars are almost identical in performance and in EU u don't see cadies
I can't wait to see what G-Power does to this one :)))))) Btw Justin Bieber drives a cadillac cts-v so that make BMW better... again....
Wow, SOMEbody's a BMW fanboy. Sorry, but the CTS-V is faster, and no matter how much you want to believe orherwise, thats how it is. The end
M5 rules as it always does the last decade..it is the epitome of technology and performance! Also who would compare BMW with a Cadillac?? European cars are far more advanced guys and you know that..
Ya the zr1 and zo6 are sport coups and are in another league but the cts-v's got nothing on this ;) (performance or looks)
The vette I can understand that the ZR1 and Z06 are faster around a track and achieve the same 205 MPH top speed as this M5 but the CTS-V fanboys are now just gonna start hating and calling ugly when they know that this M5 looks way better than a CTS
@Zain I suspect carry on as usual, due to the fact that its still slower
What you Gonna do know vette and CTS-V fanboys
How quick it revs depends a lot on the weight of the internals, the sensitivity of the throttle body, among other things. The LFA revs so fast because it's internals are very light. Same way with the Porsche engines, no counter-weights on the crank
that car is HEAVY :( and the lfa is an overpriced supra
Haha I'm just saying typically. The LFA is just godly.
Scratch that, remembering my source on that makes me seriously doubt the validity of that statement.
The amount of cylinders doesn't really effect the amount of time to rev (I believe). Weight is the most important factor, the more a car weighs, the quicker the RPMs climb to pull the car.
Brady that's coz it's got a small displacement:)
The LFA goes from idle to 9k in .6 seconds and that's a v10 sooooo
No, less cylinders equals less time to reach higher rpms. 4 banger will reach 6K quicker than a 8 or 10 cylinder.
CAFE standards people...a smaller engine with turbos not only gives the performance equivalent to the V10, it also gives higher MPG
having a v10 just sound cool. I wish they kept it
Slot of people complain about it bot having the V10, but I'm just fine with it honestly
Nice, I like the sound of this