Cadillac CTS-V Challenge: So Yeah, BMW Kinda Won

HAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAH

That's freaking great! A stock M3, driven by some random dude, is the fastest car! Awesome!
Too bad BMW didn't bring a professional driver around to see who's best when driven by a pro.

So much for all the bitching about the CTS-V being "soooooo much better" than the M3

and it's a 4 door!!!!!! :O

"And it's a stunt that a young guy, who claimed to be a Skip Barber school graduate but not a racer, won in his BMW M3."

Whether it's a stunt or not; I wonder how many of the contestants actually has real-world track experience.

BMW could have sent their best driver out to compete. They didn't, and they lost.

"So much for all the bitching about the CTS-V being "soooooo much better" than the M3"

They never said the CTS-V was sooooooo much better than the M3, they said it was the fastest 4 door sedan, and they proved that it is (again). Maybe syt_shadow can't count, but the M3 finished 5th.

This stunt is hardly definitive for anyone. Everyone can (and obviously will) draw their own conclusions.

Why not have a pro drive an M3 and Cooper drive a CTS-V?

Lutz was beaten in his own "superior" car. May the best car win Bobby.

M3 power to weight ratio: .11
CTS-V: .13

The M3 has 9lbs per horse and the CTS-V has 7.65lbs. If I did my math right.

Even if you take out all the ringers and the M3 Skip Barber racing school graduate- barring all those guys- the CTS-V still took the top 3 spots.

I agree with subaru123, they should have let Cooper do a few laps in the CTS-V for time. If he equalled the time in his own car, THEN they could boast their car is the fastest (my logic is that his familiarity with his own car is an advantage, so equal times would be a victory for the CTS-V).

But three pro's beating a 21 year old kid with some Skip Barbour instruction by 5 seconds hardly counts as a resounding victory.

That said, I the caddy certainly proved it has legitimate track chop's and is a legitimate option for anyone who wants a high performance sedan.

I'm just wondering how this 21 year old can afford a late-model M3 (and the insurance, and Skip Barber instruction)...

Hahaha funny stuff. Good 'ol GM. Way to stack the deck.

"BMW could have sent their best driver out to compete. They didn't, and they lost.

"So much for all the bitching about the CTS-V being "soooooo much better" than the M3"

They never said the CTS-V was sooooooo much better than the M3, they said it was the fastest 4 door sedan, and they proved that it is (again). Maybe syt_shadow can't count, but the M3 finished 5th."

So, the way you look at it is that professional drivers beat a 21 year old dude. The way I (and apparently IL too) see it is that the fastest car driven by a normal person was the M3. That's the end of the story. It even finished way in front of the CTS-V driven by Lutz.

The bitching about the CTS-V I was mentioning is done by members of this board, not Lutz or whatever.

At the very least, we've got to give GM credit for being open and a (somewhat) good sport about the challenge. Chances are good that anyone who's in the market for a super-sedan is either (a) buying based on the car's image, in which case the lap times don't matter, or (b) buying based on data, in which case they'll know to take the ringers' times with a grain of salt.

The BMW didn't win. Anyone who's ever been racing competitively has heard these kind of excuses time and time again...oh this driver is x and this driver is y...it doesn't matter. You have a slower time, you lose, very simple.

"Chances are good that anyone who's in the market for a super-sedan is either (a) buying based on the car's image, in which case the lap times don't matter, or (b) buying based on data, in which case they'll know to take the ringers' times with a grain of salt."

::Shrug:: I'd probably just test drive all the cars I was interested in and then buy the one I liked the most.

m3 ftw!!!

placing withing 5 seconds of a professional who's driving the fastest production sedan around the Nurburgring in a car that costs thousands less deserves at least a very big respect. This rich kid is going to get so much ass.

"They never said the CTS-V was sooooooo much better than the M3, they said it was the fastest 4 door sedan, and they proved that it is (again). Maybe syt_shadow can't count, but the M3 finished 5th."

Thank you.

Not that Il has much credibility with all the typos and false info they put out but posting a blog entry saying the BMW "won" is just pathetic. Cadillac didn't say "our amateur driver will beat yours", they said the car would outrun anything that showed up. It did. When you get the slower time you lose.

"placing withing 5 seconds of a professional who's driving the fastest production sedan around the Nurburgring in a car that costs thousands less deserves at least a very big respect. This rich kid is going to get so much ass."

Thousands less? The base M3 lacks basic luxury features and fully loaded the car costs MORE than the CTS-V. Its a $56k-$70k car, not some bargain basement underdog. Give me a break. The Cobalt SS beating a $40k $135i around a track is notable. A $60k BMW almost beating a $60k Cadillac is not notable.

"The BMW didn't win. Anyone who's ever been racing competitively has heard these kind of excuses time and time again...oh this driver is x and this driver is y...it doesn't matter. You have a slower time, you lose, very simple."

You mean 5th best time doesn't win? How does that work?

They sure loaded it up with CTS-V's, huh? Guess they just wanted to make extra extra sure that one would take the top slot. A sham, just like their government-supported bankruptcy. The REAL test would have been same driver, different cars.

Stingray454 said: "BMW could have sent their best driver out to compete. They didn't, and they lost."

This begs the question, how did "they" lose if they were not in the competition.

How's this for an analogy? A pro basketball team from Jamaica claims they're the best and challenges anyone and everyone to come to the island to play a game with them. Kobe, Lebron, and Company didn't even bother putting down their coke to listen to that crap. But a few American tourists and frat boys on vacation couldn't bear the indignity, so they suited up and gave the Jamaican team a game, losing 60-70.

So who lost? All Americans (all the NBA all-stars) because they had their chance, could have sent their best, but didn't?

It was a good PR stunt, and it garnered Caddy/GM more positive PR than they got the past year, but don't read too much into it.

You can interpret and debate the results all you want but it boils down to the fact that this got a lot of people thinking and talking about the Caddy and THAT was the big win for Lutz. Whether or not people start going into showrooms because of this is another matter entirely...

Wow, a BMW comes in 5th and you declare it the winner. Only BMW gets away with this crap.

"Thousands less? The base M3 lacks basic luxury features and fully loaded the car costs MORE than the CTS-V. Its a $56k-$70k car, not some bargain basement underdog. Give me a break. The Cobalt SS beating a $40k $135i around a track is notable. A $60k BMW almost beating a $60k Cadillac is not notable."

Once again you live elsewhere but planet earth. Base M3 sedan is 5 grand cheaper than base cts-v. That's 5 grand, which is more than 1. Do you understand the concept of thousands? I probably shouldn't expect you to.

Who cares about fully loaded or not? Again you make absolutely no sense.

A loaded M3 won't go around a track faster than a base M3 so your argument about pricey options have nothing to do with reality of hanging with ringers in their more expensive CTS-Vs. You need to stop believing that you can fool anyone with your 'arguments'. Wake up, you sound like a rookie at best.

It has been known for a long time that you cannot possibly give credit to anything or anyone that's not GM. Stop talking on this topic. You are biased and serve no interest to this thread.

I'll say this one last time: a young kid finishing 5 seconds behind ring veterans in a cheaper car is nothing short of remarkable. That guy should have all the respect in the world because he knows how to drive his car.

I'm not going to read anything else from you.

Unbelievable... I post about the driver and his achievement and he attacks me and switches topic to the cars. Is he 5 years old or what?!

Big respecet to the M3 guy. THats an awesome achievement for a non-pro. But still, given the same driver, nobody can argue that the M3 is as fast as a CTS-V. Its just not.

Big respecet to the M3 guy. THats an awesome achievement for a non-pro. But still, given the same driver, nobody can argue that the M3 is as fast as a CTS-V. Its just not.

hm ... looks like the '09 CTS-V has $5k incentive, plus $500 off in lieu of the 60-day should add some volume to sales ...

I guess in the "private owner" category M3 is definitely the fastest. Thats good enough for me. As I would be in that category if i wanted a 60k "track ready" car i'd get the M3.
In real life though i'll still go for Maxed out new S4 as comfort is my main concern.

I guess in the "private owner" category M3 is definitely the fastest. Thats good enough for me. As I would be in that category if i wanted a 60k "track ready" car i'd get the M3.
In real life though i'll still go for Maxed out new S4 as comfort is my main concern.

As someone pointed out in another thread, there's probably more to the M3 owner than meets the eye. What do we know about this guy? You can't throw any Joe in an M3 and get numbers like that.

Bottom line, all very good cars, CTS-V included, and some good drivers, some better than others. No one can deny the CTS-V is absolutely competitive at the very least with the best sedans in the world.

Wait.

Lutz challenged a private owner of a car.

GM even picked the drivers/cars.

Lutz practiced on the track a lot more.

As it was originally set up by Lutz, he would have lost.

I still say there is as much of a marketing punch for bimmer as for GM...

Ha!

M3 wins.

If I were BMW I'd run an ad saying "Bob Lutz loses his smackdown, needs professional drivers to compete against a 21 year old in a cheaper M3".

Cadillac technically wins - but its not a fair fight and cannot be considered decisive in any way. BMW could not have brought their best drivers - GM picked the opponents. Then they stacked the odds. Its impossible to gloat or take anything from a win by a professional driver over a private owner. This isn't taking anything away from the Caddy or the M3 - it wasn't a fair fight as soon as the ringers were introduced. It may generate buzz, and ultimately thats what its supposed to do. However, to talk about this as a resounding, credible victory of some sorts is silly.

I think everybody wins here. Cadillac technically won the competition, but even if it didn't win outright, it was perfectly on par with the competition. The Cadillac is M5 sized and pretty heavy so the fact that it could hang with the smaller M3 is impressive. BMW can say that anybody can pick up an M3 and race it against experienced competition. The only loser is Jaguar since they pulled a few cars out of the competition. Mitsubishi definitely wins, seeing as how the Evo X MR actually ran some nice laps despite being down alot of hp and priced about $20k less than any of the competition.

^^ well said.

Bob lutz is 77 and has no recent racing experience to my knowledge. The M3 is a lighter more focused product. The M5 is the CTS-V's main competition because they are almost the exact same size and weight. If the 21 year old would've driven the CTS-V and been familiar with the car, he would've beat his time posted in his own M3.

The fact remains, that the CTS-V is the fastest most impressive four door sedan for the money, period. The M3 is lighter and smaller yet cost the same as the CTS-V while the M5 costs $10k+ more than an equally equipped CTS-V and is inferior at the track and on the street.

How much better would this have been with an C63/E63, the actual XFR, a G8 GXP (yeah I know it is not longer in production, but I would have liked to see how it fared) etc. The CTS-V posted the faster times, but the M3 did really well, even in the hands of a civilian. Heck I know, I'll just take both!

"They sure loaded it up with CTS-V's, huh? Guess they just wanted to make extra extra sure that one would take the top slot. A sham, just like their government-supported bankruptcy. The REAL test would have been same driver, different cars."

Did you not see the challenge that was laid out? Cadillac would have allowed any manufacturer to submit a comparable car. Any owner with an unmodified car was also invited. Some of the magazine editors have race experience and if an M5, E63 or XF-R were provided they would have been allowed to drive those cars and compete against GM's engineers in the CTS-V. It's not Cadillac's fault that manufacturers would not give the press cars to drive. Personally, I find that to be cowardly because these companies give out cars ALL the time. Automobile was able to get an E550, Maserati, 550i and XF to challenge the MKS in that markering stunt but no one would show up for this one.

"This begs the question, how did "they" lose if they were not in the competition."

And whose fault was that? BMW's fault. Good thing they have fanboys to make excuses for them though. BMW choses not to send a car and now we are told "well they may have won but they didn't compete". Saying they are better but just chose not to show it is delusional.

"If the 21 year old would've driven the CTS-V and been familiar with the car, he would've beat his time posted in his own M3. "

Good point that no one here has raised until now.

"Cadillac technically wins - but its not a fair fight and cannot be considered decisive in any way. BMW could not have brought their best drivers - GM picked the opponents. "

Wrong Doug. Absolutely wrong. Cadillac said that they would have Heinricy at the track to race against anyone who has considerable racing experience. They never said no other experienced drivers could compete. Again, the auto magazines have editors with racing experience and those men likely would've competed IF they had cars to drive. They did not. I know you are loathe to give GM any credit for anything but this was open to credible competitors but the other manufacturers wouldn't play ball. And I will remind you that the CTS-V was comapred to the M5 with PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS provided by the manufacturers by R&T and the CTS-V won. I'm sure you will find a way to dismiss that result though.

"As someone pointed out in another thread, there's probably more to the M3 owner than meets the eye. What do we know about this guy? You can't throw any Joe in an M3 and get numbers like that."

Well because he is 21 we are supposed to assume he is some spoiled novice who just happened to show up and put down a great lap time because the M3 is so great. The times of the other owners were WAY behind this guy which suggests he knows what he was doing. BTW- if you watch the video on Cadillac's facebook page the 21 year old said he doubted he would be able to beat the V. He said the M3 has trouble putting power down at times but he felt it could compete by entering apexes faster or something like that. Its funny that all the BMW experts are talking about how the BMW "won" and showed up the CTS-V but the M3 owner had nothing but admiration for the V.

"Once again you live elsewhere but planet earth. Base M3 sedan is 5 grand cheaper than base cts-v. That's 5 grand, which is more than 1. Do you understand the concept of thousands? I probably shouldn't expect you to.

Who cares about fully loaded or not? Again you make absolutely no sense."

When you are talking about $55k-$60k cars $5k is not that much and the V has more equipment which is why it costs more. BAsically you can add the auto, Recaros and nav, that's about it. The M3 has about $15k worth of luxury kit missing at the base price of $55k. Comparably equipped its not cheaper. Does that make sense to you? Can you follow that "5 year old" logic? The CTS-V is about $30k cheaper than the M5- now THAT is a notable price gap, even in this rarified air.

"A loaded M3 won't go around a track faster than a base M3 so your argument about pricey options have nothing to do with reality of hanging with ringers in their more expensive CTS-Vs. You need to stop believing that you can fool anyone with your 'arguments'. Wake up, you sound like a rookie at best."

How many $55k M3s do you think are on dealer's lots right now? How much was the M3 at the track yesterday? Was THAT car even cheaper than the V's at the track? You wouldn't know. But that won't stop you from talking I'm sure. No need to "fool" anyone, just pointing out the obvious- or at least what seems obvious to me.

"Wrong Doug. Absolutely wrong. Cadillac said that they would have Heinricy at the track to race against anyone who has considerable racing experience"

I was under the impression that GM handpicked the opponents from a list of applicants. From a straightline post last week:

"Late last Friday, Cadillac unveiled its short list of participants in the CTS-V challenge. After receiving over 100 entries, the Cadillac brain trust narrowed the field down to three journalists and four consumers."

also from autoblog:

"Here's the best part: Anyone who happens to own a new comparable sport sedan, such as a BMW M3 or M5, perhaps a Mercedes-Benz AMG sedan or the Audi S4 (not to mention the Mitsubishi Evolution), is welcome to submit themselves for consideration to take part in the festivities in New York."

Maybe I've been mislead about the contest, but I don't see anything about a statement allowing absolutely anyone to show up and compete. It seems to me like GM hand picked the competitors. Anyone was allowed to APPLY, but it seems unlikely to me that they would select a test driver from BMW (assuming one submitted, which is also unlikely).

If I've missed something somewhere, and this was indeed open to anyone to show up and race regardless of GM's selection process, then I retract my previous statement. Perhaps you can link me something from the rules? If I've been mislead by the media, which is entirely possible, can you please backup this statement you made:

"Cadillac said that they would have Heinricy at the track to race against anyone who has considerable racing experience"

"I know you are loathe to give GM any credit for anything"

See my posts from yesterday regarding your credibility (or lack thereof) and your inability to read.

"but this was open to credible competitors but the other manufacturers wouldn't play ball. "

It seems to me like anyone could apply but GM made the selection. But I don't suppose you see an issue with this.

"And I will remind you that the CTS-V was comapred to the M5 with PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS provided by the manufacturers by R&T and the CTS-V won. I'm sure you will find a way to dismiss that result though."

I've never said anything regarding the M5. Again, your desire to shout the loudest is clouding your reading comprehension. I've stated that its silly to claim a resounding victory from this event when a professional driver was required to come up with the best time. The M3 came within 3 seconds of the professional driver, and it was driven by a regular guy. I'm not saying it will always, or ever, beat the CTS-V. I'm just saying this particular event is pointless as far as an official comparison. Its a marketing stunt and nothing more.

I'm not denying the speed of the CTS-V. Its a car I'd love to own, probably even more so then the M3. Your desire to shout loudly and defend GM ruins your credibility.

^^ I should defend GM against perceived slights that do not exist. Like calling me a Lutz hater, a GM hater, etc, when I've documented many times my interest in many GM vehicles. But you don't read, you just try to flame. Hence, no credibility.

Look, both the M3 and the CTS-V are very fine cars, and they are very close in performance. The CTS-V is slightly faster than the M3, and this was proven again at Monticello. That's not an opinion, it is a fact. It's a fact that's been shown in countless reviews by numerous journalists who have tested and compared the two cars before. This is nothing new. And the performance difference between the two is not huge, it's slight. Very slight.

Lutz claimed the CTS-V is the fastest production sedan in the world. He didn't say it was the fastest by a long shot, or that the CTS-V was tremendously faster than the competition - just faster. And it is. Lutz proved it again yesterday. Nobody has been able to step up to the plate and come up with a faster car around the track. That is also a fact, not an opinion.

The outcome yesterday lines up nicely with my personal view of the two cars. The CTS-V is my first choice, and the BMW M3 is a close second choice. I have a 2010 CTS-V on order, which I should take delivery of in about a month. The reasons I chose the CTS-V over the M3 are: 1) the interior of the CTS-V is much more attractive, 2) the CTS-V is larger and more roomy, 3) I think the CTS-V looks better than the M3 sedan, 4) the CTS-V has much more features, options, technology and luxury content than the M3, and 5) the CTS-V is the slightly better performer. Price isn't a factor, because optioned out, the two cars are nearly identical in price.

This doesn't make the M3 a bad car - far from it! It's just slightly less superb than the CTS-V, but still superb. And I'm sure if I bought the M3 instead, I would be thrilled with it as well.

So, can't we all just get along? ;)

The whole thing was a BIG-O-FART BOB marketing stunt. Pro racers against regulars. It shows a desperation attempt to sell the products. No wonder Caddy is loosing market share. What is next BOB? Who can stuff more Playmates on a Luxury SUV (Escalade)?

What Caddy needs is a total reorganization how to do business the new way not the old fashion way that still exist on their dealer floors.

Leave the car vs. car to magazines or other organizations to be the judge.

I think Stingray sums it up nicely. Nuff said except that while around a track the CTS-V might be slightly better, in a straight line it is significantly faster. And if you're into modding your cars even mildly, it can get substantially faster still for very little money.

And 1487, read carefully what Doug said. You're about 90% right on the topic of CTS-V vs. M3 in this post, but the way you go about presenting your case turns even those people who would generally agree with you against you. If you go for the sledgehammer approach you better be 100% right (and one rarely is), but even then, you lose as much as you gain versus a more measured and evenhanded style.

"I was under the impression that GM handpicked the opponents from a list of applicants."

I read all that Doug, trust me I am well versed in what happened. I never said GM wasn't going to pick who could compete, I said that they were open to allowing any comparable high performance vehicle at the competition and they never said you had to be a novice driver. Lutz specifically said Heinricy would be there to go up against any ringers. If any of the bloggers or auto media types could've gotten and M5 or E63 they were free to bring them. The partipants had to be chosen for a few reasons: there had to be a limit on the number of cars and they wanted STOCK vehicles. I'm sure they had plenty of responses but how many had stock vehicles and a way to get to the track?

" I'm just saying this particular event is pointless as far as an official comparison. Its a marketing stunt and nothing more. "

Except for the fact that these cars have been compared before in terms of track times and the CTS-V prevailed. You keep harping on this supposedly "inexperienced" driver (although you don't tell us how you know that) but that doesn't change anything. Driven by profressionals at the Ring and VIR the CTS-V is faster. Drive on THIS track by professionals (BTW, GM engineers are not "professional" racers) the CTS-V would be faster. Again, other manufacturers could have supplied cars and even drivers. They chose not to- not Cadillac's problem. That's like fielding a sports team that is great on paper and then saying you are going to crown yourself champion without competing because that is beneath you. Staying out of the competition isn't a good way to prove your superiority. At least not in my book.

stingray454:
I haven't seen any comparisons of the M3 vs the CTS-V. Not one. I recall one with an M5, C63 and CTS-V though. So, as I haven't seen any comparisons of the two, the only data I have about the CTS-V being faster is that it has a faster Nurburgring time. But then again, that is a single circuit.

I'm trying, but I can't see how Lutz proved anything yesterday. Well, he certainly proved that the M3 could only be beat by using professional drivers or development engineers, who likely have spend countless hours driving and have probably been able to use that same circuit before.

As dougtheeng points out, around 90 cars were "disqualified" from the competition. Perhaps there is where the better drivers were? I don't know and none of us ever will. What is a fact is that the CTS-V got the best timed lap only when driven by pros. The fastest car with a normal -or amateur if you wish- is the M3.

If I were in the market to buy a 60k car I would also be considering the CTS-V along with the M3, but the fact that the M3 has repeatedly been called "The World's Best Car", by multiple car mags, probably means that it is pretty much up there with anything else.

I suppose "we" can just all get along, but the posting of mindless dribble by some members supporting a specific car is not met with much patience by others, even when those same people like GM products. There is no way one can stand constant, one sided bias and stay in the sidelines...

Cheers

1487:
"Wrong Doug. Absolutely wrong. Cadillac said that they would have Heinricy at the track to race against anyone who has considerable racing experience. They never said no other experienced drivers could compete. Again, the auto magazines have editors with racing experience and those men likely would've competed IF they had cars to drive. They did not. "

Please enlighten me... did Lutz consider that the 21 year old, who had the nerve to actually complete a driving course before competing in a track that is "members only", someone who has "considerable racing experience"?
Because normal people could easily conclude that before the pros were taken out of their cages, the fastest car had been driven by a normal person. Then, without being challenged by a single "considerable racing experience" driver, they pull out the pros who prove to be faster.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time arguing with you...

"If you go for the sledgehammer approach you better be 100% right (and one rarely is), but even then, you lose as much as you gain versus a more measured and evenhanded style."

I don't have a problem with the M3 so I'm not sure what's not "evenhanded" about what I said. I'm not slighting the M3 in any way but facts are facts. It seems some people want to take the fact that this was a GM event and pretend that alters the laws of physics thus making the M3 faster. The CTS-V has proven it can beat the M3 on a track long before idea was hatched by Lutz. Once we accept that all this chatter about the fix being in is kind of absurd.

"Pro racers against regulars."

Who was a pro racer? The guy with the 2:48 was an engineer for GM, not a racer. I believe Heinricy has some racing experience, but he used to work for GM as well.

"See my posts from yesterday regarding your credibility (or lack thereof) and your inability to read."

I know doug, you are fair and balanced with regards to Gm even though the majority of your posts seem to be critical of anything or everything they do and produce. I can read just fine, thanks. Can you clue me in as to what, if anything, Gm makes or does that doesn't disappoint you?

"I'm not denying the speed of the CTS-V. Its a car I'd love to own, probably even more so then the M3. Your desire to shout loudly and defend GM ruins your credibility. "

There is no shouting on the internet- at least not from me. I am responding and demanding that you explain the gaps in logic found frequently in your posts. Me stating that the CTS-V is best in class based on price and performance is not "defending GM". If I said the Prius is unparalled in efficiency would you accuse me of being a shill for Toyota? If you love the CTS-V so much I really question the point of your posts here. Everyone understands this isn't a scientific study of performance but all the evidence thus far shows the Cadillac can outperform the M3 and M5 so I don't know why you are crying foul.

"Lutz specifically said Heinricy would be there to go up against any ringers."

Again, who exactly were the ringers? Oh yeah, a 21 year old who was soooo evil he even did a driving course before coming!!! :O

As yes, GM engineers qualify pretty nicely as "special" drivers. After all, they were the ones dialing the car in. I didn't read about the 21 year old participating in M Division. Did you?

"Because normal people could easily conclude that before the pros were taken out of their cages, the fastest car had been driven by a normal person. Then, without being challenged by a single "considerable racing experience" driver, they pull out the pros who prove to be faster.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time arguing with you..."

Me either. Name the pro racers at the event before responding further. It would help if you had any clue about whom GM had driving their cars before going on the attack. I eagerly await your response.

As Chavis already explained, the M3 driver could have beat his own time with the CTS-V. Not sure what's hard to grasp there.

"I don't have a problem with the M3 so I'm not sure what's not "evenhanded" about what I said. I'm not slighting the M3 in any way but facts are facts. It seems some people want to take the fact that this was a GM event and pretend that alters the laws of physics thus making the M3 faster. The CTS-V has proven it can beat the M3 on a track long before idea was hatched by Lutz. Once we accept that all this chatter about the fix being in is kind of absurd. "

Very funny. You're on an incredible percentage of M3 posts you whine and whine and whine. I mean, the amount of time you spend in the whole GM vs the_world is pretty incredible. No one that has ever read more than 4 of your posts could possibly rate you as "even handed" or "unbiased". Impossible.

What is a fact is that it took either a competition driver or a product engineer to beat someone who had been through a sporty driving school. So, you'll understand how some people have the temerity of stating that the M3 is the fastest car driven by a normal person.

"The company's first real ringer, engineer Aaron Link, took the track in a CTS-V manual in group 3 and ran a 2:48:902, nipping the M3 by about 2 seconds. "

Read above. Let me know where it says that he is an experiened pro racer.

"As yes, GM engineers qualify pretty nicely as "special" drivers. After all, they were the ones dialing the car in. I didn't read about the 21 year old participating in M Division. Did you?"

So now an engineer for GM is comparable to a professional racer? When Nissan sent the GTR to the Ring to establish a benchmark time did they use an experienced racer or a Nissan development engineer? I'd love to know.

Aaron link has track experience, he is not paid to race. The 21 year old has track experience, he is also not a racer by trade. See where I'm coming from now? BTW- do you have any evidence that Link had every been at Monticello before yesterday?

"Again, who exactly were the ringers? Oh yeah, a 21 year old who was soooo evil he even did a driving course before coming!!! :O"

No evil- but people are trying to pretend this guy walked in off the street and got a 2:50. He knows what he is doing as evidenced by how he trounced the time of the M5 driver. The evidence is clear, take it or leave it. This kid has skills and he put them to use. You nor I are in a position to say he is a worse driver than the GM engineer. All we know is both have track experience and niether is a pro.

i read somewhere in this blog that the gen 1 and gen 2 cts v has similar performance. So I went on ebay and check it out. For the price of a coma inducing camry v6, you can get a 2-3 yr old cts v with around 30k miles, 6mt, LS6 bahn burner!!! And there are plenty to choose from.

take that, bmw fan boys.

You obviously need the whole text:

**That cover was a bit blown when we saw Corvette racer Johnny O'Connell walking out of Monitcello in a 'Speed" racing suit. **

**Professional racer and retired GM engineer, John Heinricy posted the day's fastest lap at 2:46:560.**

**GM development engineer and Nurburgring veteran, Aaron Link**

**And who is this Redman. Oh, that would be Brian Redman, legendary road racer and Grand Marshall of Monticello. **

I put it all down for you in case if you have trouble following links. Enough said.

syt_shadow -

So what is your point? Were you shocked to learn that the driver matters so much on the track?

Like I said, this race has been done before, pro driver versus pro driver, on the same track in Monticello, and the M5 lost to the CTS-V.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6963

BMW had their racing driver, Bill Auberlen, drive the M5. Actually, John Heinricy isn't even a pro driver - he's a GM engineer who has previous racing experience many years ago. Auberlen is a pro driver, as is Johnny O'Connell.

So, apples to apples drivers, the CTS-V still won. Not by much, but it a win is a win. And last I checked, the M5 was faster than the M3.

The times are there. Anytime BMW or Porsche, or MB, or whoever wants to beat it with whoever driver they want, they're welcome to. Same thing with the Nurburgring lap time. Somebody will eventually beat the CTS-V's lap time there. But of course, GM could always run it again with a pro driver and get a better time than the 7:59. As we saw yesterday, Johnny O'Connell is a faster driver than Heinricy. As he should be!

"If the 21 year old would've driven the CTS-V and been familiar with the car, he would've beat his time posted in his own M3. "

How would you know this is true? That looks like a big presumption to me. The same driver didn't run both cars at that track to compare. Maybe the M3 would have won outright with a professional driver, it was close enough as it was. Of course GM would never allow that.

It would have been cool of them to offer Cooper some laps in the CTS-V to see what he could do. Although if he doesn't get it around as fast then GM looks bad, even if only because he is not as familiar with the car. Then there is also the possibility that the M3 is better suited to that track, or just plain better :p.

" compliance says:

09:26 AM, 10/30/09

"If the 21 year old would've driven the CTS-V and been familiar with the car, he would've beat his time posted in his own M3. "

How would you know this is true? That looks like a big presumption to me. "

Because the CTS-V is a faster car than the M3. What part of faster do you not understand? Look up the test specs on both cars if you don't believe me.

stingray454,

My point is that the CTS-V was only faster than the M3 when driven by a pro.

By the way, I would have never expected the M3 to be that fast.

The M5 did lose that comparison. Right now I would undoubtedly buy a CTS-V over an M5. What is also true is that the M5 has been around for a while and the CTS-V is pretty new. I'd expect the CTS-V to win, the same as I expect the next M5 to win when it comes out.

The links I quoted say he is a pro driver, but even if he isn't, he posts 1 second difference times with someone who dedicates themselves to racing. So he's pretty damn good, isn't he?

That the CTS-V is the first american product that can compete under equality of conditions with "imports", and win, is not news to me. I'm really glad they built it, if nothing else because I can't stand the whining when comparing Vettes against Porsches ("... the Porsche is so much slower and costs double, but the Vette has such an ugly interior blah blah"). So, it's good they now have something that is every bit as worthy as M/RS/AMG products.

I actually do like GM products. A lot. Proof of that is the 2002 Tahoe I currently own along with a 2001 330 Ci. And yes, I live in Europe, which means I paid 60.000€ for the 'Hoe. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is...

I cannot believe Insideline, which did not even bother to take on Lutz offer, could stoop as low as to outright tell a tall tale as to who won. . IL credibility is wearing thin, really. First it was the attempt to push a theory that the “corvette is no longer cool”, and now this while GT-R is the best thing since sliced bread.
InsideLine is becoming the MSNBC of automotive world, loosing all credibility.

In reality, the CTS-V has proven that it can out run and out perform both the BMW M3 and M5 in various tests, using the same methods and the same driver(s). With that said, the CTS-V wears the crown......for the moment anyway.

In the particular situation, the variables weren't at all even. Personally, I see no victor using these lopsided methods.

Over on the cadillacforums, the first time track driver with a CTS-V (Chris Fairman with the 3:14), posted his experience at the event. Here is what he had to say about the "kid" with the M3:

"Here is my take. In all categories within "like driver" comparison the V wins. Did Lutz lose to the kid in the M3?, yes. Is the kid in the M3 an amateur? I'm not sure, but he has skills for sure. Everyone gave him credit and he deserved it. I asked him several times what he does, where he's raced, what schools he's been to etc. etc. He was very tight lipped, like a sandbagger, ringer. His dad and little brothers on the other hand revealed that he races a lot and goes to race camps every summer. In my opinion he's somewhere above an accomplished amateur and somewhere below a pro. Which happens to be right where he finished. Give him credit for sure, but don't be fooled that he's just a 21 year old kid with a nice car. It was revealed he also had a Z06 in the past and there was a Porshe and maybe some other cars in the family stable as well."

I wouldn't consider the M3 guy an amateur. He likely has considerable experience on the track, even at 21, which like I said, isn't THAT young.

from m3post.com, the kid replied to the observation of that Caddy driver

"I can give you guys my take on this. I am a shy kid period, but when it comes to me and the steering wheel watch out. As for "attending race camps every summer" I did the skip barber 3 day course last summer and then the 2 day course at the end of the summer/fall. Other than that Ive ran 2 skip barber races and tracked my previous z06 twice, Had never been on the track in the M3."

The fact is GM hosted a marketing event for their cars. They "invited" (aka chosen) a few competitors to showcase how much better the CTS-V is than the competition. It backfired on them when a kid with an M3 beat ALL of their CTS-V driven by non-ringers. So they bring a few ringers in at the end to "reclaim the crown".

Let's look at this way, the AVERAGE time for all CTS-V that participated in this event was over 4 seconds slower than the M3 kid.

Also just because CTS-V beat the M5 by less than a sec, doesnt mean its faster than M3. Show me a direct CTS-V to M3 comparison? The M5 is not faster than the M3 at the track, especially in tight tracks.

"I wouldn't consider the M3 guy an amateur. He likely has considerable experience on the track, even at 21, which like I said, isn't THAT young."

He's also not one of the M3 development engineers either.

"They should have had Cooper run a lap in th CTS-V"

--------------

I agree.

The CTS-V is a sweet ride. The Euro-snobs will always say BMW is better but whatever.

Reading the BMW guys in this article is hilarious. They really seem to think that this publicity stunt proves that their beloved M3 is faster than a CTS-V. Well guess what: It isn't. There is a very simple way to remove the doubt. IL should do a regular road test comparison between the two cars (never done before to my knowledge because the Caddy is so far out of the M3's league; but I digress). Let the Edmunds' road test editors wring the cars out and declare a fair winner. The CTS-V will simply destroy the M3 and that will be that. I await this test and a nation of irrate BMW fanboys to follow....

also from m3post.com:

"I am he, Its been a long day. I will post up about my experiences later or tomorrow

But I will say this right off the bat, anybody that thinks the m3 should beat any time the ctsv can do on that track doesnt know anything. I got to do 2 laps in the CTSV at the end of the day and was extremely impressed."

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6122007#post6122007

If he can give the CTS-V credit where it's due, why can't the rest of you?

Another "biased" report:
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=1346514&_blg=1,1346514

Relevant quote:

"Some sites have erroneously suggested that Cadillac “won” because of the faster times posted by their ringer race-car drivers, who set out after I had made the day’s last official run. But GM itself had set the rules: The Challenge was to take on Lutz, not GM’s professional gladiators from the top ranks of racing. Cooper and his BMW won the event fair and square, as referee and former Car and Driver editor Csabe Csere made clear during post-race presentations. And Cooper -- an obvious natural who’s attended Skip Barber schools and run a few open-wheel amateur races -- was congratulated by Cadillac officials and the gracious Lutz, 77, who quipped before the race, “I should get an age-based handicap of one second per lap for every year over 70.”

I'd only add that the Challenge proved that both the CTS-V and the M3 are world class sport sedans- and that they are close enough in performance that in most all cases the talent of the driver will determine the fastest car.
I think that it would be fun to take both cars to a 2-3 day HPDE and see how each one holds up in a more demanding track environment. A track such as Watkins Glen, Mid Ohio, or Infineon would be a perfect setting...

I think some of you GM fanboys are hilarious too, finding excuses after excuses on why CTS-V "won" this challenge, even though by the official rules that GM itself setup, it did not. I find it more hilarious you can be a fan of a failed auto company that takes $50 billion of your (and mine and everyone's) money to stay alive, but I digress.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that the M3 is faster than CTS-V in all circumstances, not like the gang of GM fanboys here who say there is no doubt the CTS-V is faster in every way. You know what the 21 year old kid proved that CTS-V is not faster everywhere and everytime. In drag strips and courses with long straights, its reasonable to assume the CTS-V should come out on top with its better thrust to weight ratio. In tighter tracks and autocross courses, M3 with its more nimble chassis and more balanced handling can have the advantage. It would be fun to read/watch a true comparison test, make it happen IL.

Just to add, the BMW kid did say he was only able to do 2 official laps during the challenge, 2nd one was better than 1st. He thinks that a 3rd lap could have been even better. Unfortunately, the M3's brakes faded too much for him to try. The brakes are something that BMW need to address in the rumored upcoming CSL/GT4/Competition Edition, as the stock ones are pretty disappointing for long track use.

"If he can give the CTS-V credit where it's due, why can't the rest of you?"

And why do none of the GM fanboys give the M3 any credit for actually winning the challenge? It's simply excuse after excuse as to why the mighty CTS-V had to have won.

IMO if the results aren't repeatable and interchangeable this stupid publicity stunt is basically meaningless. I'd like to see O'Connell take the wheel of the M3 for as many laps as he drove the V and see those lap times. Of course GM wouldn't do that. And why don't we have Cooper's time in the CTS-V?

"And why do none of the GM fanboys give the M3 any credit for actually winning the challenge?"

Because it came in sixth.

Granted, the rules were a bit of a moving target. If we want to pick and choose the rules to favor the M3, then;
A 21 year old in a BMW beat a 77 year old kook in a Cadillac.
Does that really make you feel better?

Really, Insideline?

Looks to me like the CTS-V still won....and still has the top 3 spots.

I've heard these excuses before. What is pathetic is that Insideline hasn't. No serious BMW proponent would honestly consider this a win, since most BMW M3 guys are actually car guys and would know better.

Edmunds: Give it up. The CTS-V can't be beaten on this kind of track by any similar car from any competitor.

The fact that some people try so hard not to appreciate the CTS-V makes it much more attractive to me.

Granted, this M3 driver obviously deserves respect.....but it's still not a win.

"Because it came in sixth.

Granted, the rules were a bit of a moving target. If we want to pick and choose the rules to favor the M3, then;
A 21 year old in a BMW beat a 77 year old kook in a Cadillac.
Does that really make you feel better? "

The rules shouldn't favor any competitor if it was to be a fair fight that we the consumer could take away as something meaningful.

Does anyone here honestly think that if I took 4 professional/experienced racing drivers and put them in M3's and raced them against a couple amateurs in their personal CTS-V's, that the racing drivers in the M3's wouldn't wipe the floor with them? Come on people. And that would be just as meaningless of a victory.

On a side note, I know I would be much more careful with my personal car on a track than I would be in a company-owned vehicle. I bet my times in my car would be slower.

For all we know the 21 year old is a professional racer.

"And why do none of the GM fanboys give the M3 any credit for actually winning the challenge? It's simply excuse after excuse as to why the mighty CTS-V had to have won."

The M3 didn't win the challenge.

Further reading:

"I can say one thing for sure I got to drive the CTSV and the M3 is NOT the faster car on the track. I am hoping to get some timed laps in the CTSV on monticello in the near future."

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6123400&postcount=61

|And why do none of the GM fanboys give the M3 any credit for actually winning the challenge? It's simply excuse after excuse as to why the mighty CTS-V had to have won."

The M3 is a great car, but it lost. Not sure why you can't grasp that simple fact. The car with the fastest lap is the winner. At least that's my understanding. You must be using that New Math.

"My point is that the CTS-V was only faster than the M3 when driven by a pro."

C&D had the V on the track last year in Lighting Lap. It was faster than the M3. Not sure how many times that has to be stated here.

"**GM development engineer and Nurburgring veteran, Aaron Link**"

I asked you to show me where it said Link is a professional racer. Heinricy may have some racing experience, but he is not a pro driver. Period. He was an engineer for GM that helped develop the handling of the car.

"How would you know this is true? That looks like a big presumption to me. The same driver didn't run both cars at that track to compare. Maybe the M3 would have won outright with a professional driver, it was close enough as it was. Of course GM would never allow that."

Gm doesn't need to allow it, its been done already by C&D at VIR. You are wrong.

"Some sites have erroneously suggested that Cadillac “won” because of the faster times posted by their ringer race-car drivers, who set out after I had made the day’s last official run. But GM itself had set the rules: The Challenge was to take on Lutz, not GM’s professional gladiators from the top ranks of racing. "

Nice quote, but it would be nice if you provided some links to show where GM said this competition was about Lutz's driving skills and not the cars. Lutz said he would race anyone in a comparable car but he also said his driving skills are not good enough to maximize performance in the CTS-V. Also, please let me know the basis for this talk of "professional gladiators from the top ranks of racing". One of the guys who beat the M3 is an ENGINEER from GM. Nothing stated so far mentions ANY pro racing experience. How many times does that have to be repeated? Its obvious that many on the internet are taking sides and publishing stories that frame this from their anti-GM perspective. This was ALWAYS about the car, not about Lutz's ability to drive. Its been WEEKS since he said he would have better drivers there because he is OLD and he lacks any relevant, recent track experience. The car is much better than he is at 77 years of age.

Those who continue to claim that the M3 would likely beat the CTS-V on a track if the drivers were equal should read this:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q4/the_lightning_lap_2008-feature/ll2_3a_2009_cadillac_cts-v_page_6

Case closed.

"But GM itself had set the rules: The Challenge was to take on Lutz, not GM’s professional gladiators from the top ranks of racing."

That is not a true statement at all. The Challenge was to take on the CTS-V, any driver. Lutz said he would drive, and he also said Heinricy would be driving too. BMW could have sent their best driver too, but they didn't. That's not GM's fault.

As for the performance of the two cars, the M3 is the better handler, given it's 600 lb. weight advantage. But in everything else, it's slower. Considerably slower.

Just the facts (instrumented testing from R&T):

0-60: M3: 4.6 seconds CTS-V: 4.1 seconds Advantage: CTS-V
0-100: M3 10.5 seconds CTS-V: 8.8 seconds Advantage: CTS-V
1/4 mile: M3: 13.0@110 mph CTS-V: 12.3@119 mph Advantage: CTS-V
slalom: M3: 72.9 mph CTS-V: 70.1 mph Advantage: M3
skidpad lateral g: M3: 0.95g CTS-V: 0.90g Advantage: M3
Braking 60-0: M3: 113 ft. CTS-V: 114 ft. Advantage: M3, but damn near a tie

Like I said, both are phenomenal cars, but the CTS-V is faster. However, the lighter, nimbler M3 could definitely beat a CTS-V in a tight, slow road course, or an autocross where the CTS-V won't have the chance to stretch its legs. Monticello is definitely NOT one of those tracks. Neither is the Nurburgring.

Case closed.

Remember this quote from "the fast and the furious" ? Vin Diesels character: "Ask any racer, any real racer. It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning. " I know it's just a movie but the quote is accurate.

I think it's great that the kid in the M3 won.

Car and Driver says of the CTS-V's 1.6-second edge over the M3, "the real difference was the M3’s automated manual gearbox, which didn’t want to downshift on command."

So the M3 in this test had M-DCT (and was also a coupe), whereas the CTS-V had a six-speed manual.

It would be quite interesting to see what a professional driver could do with an apples-to-apples comparison -- M3 sedan 6MT vs. CTS-V 6MT.

-JS

BMW won? "What part of faster do you not understand?"

The title of this article / blog is silly. IL - Why is it that you can't allow anything to be fully faster (or even better?) than a BMW?

Time to clean house & bring in some unbiased editors & journalists.

I'm tired of reading the exceptionally biased & flaky reporting (typos, poor grammar, repetitive blogs, a dearth of well written columns, wrongly reported statistics, the list goes on).

Lets bring back the quality journalism & lose the staff full of BMW fanboys / fangals.

I'd personally still buy an M3 when comparing everything. Nothing new came out even in these 90+ comments.

Good for GM making a cheap fast sedan, and kudos BMW for the balanced sedans they produce.

To each his own, right?