Cadillac V-Series Challenge Participants Announced

One guy already owns a CTS-V, so he really doesn't neet convincing? What's he doing taking up a spot?

Looks pretty fair so far, as long as the brakes/tires are up to par on the challenger's cars. I agree with bankerdanny on the CTS-V being involved--it's utterly self-serving.

Wow what an amazing test that will tell a lot about the CTS-V!

GM (Lutz) looks stupid again.

1487, you should be disappointed about this. The CTS-V will win and no-one will care or be impressed. You are the king of calling bad comparisons; when it goes against your pals at GM.

bankerdanny, someone has to counter balance the so-called journalist from The Truth About Cars.

Wow what an amazing test that will tell a lot about the CTS-V!

GM (Lutz) looks stupid again.

1487, you should be disappointed about this. The CTS-V will win and no-one will care or be impressed. You are the king of calling bad comparisons; when it goes against your pals at GM.

I guess I shouldn't say "bad comparisons" because the M5 was the intended competitor for the CTS-V. GM has said that the car was aimed at its German counterparts and then they'll go and just race an M3 and an M5. They could have saved this test to make a statement against Mercedes and Porsche.

I still don't know what this competition will accomplish.

I don't really get the point of this whole competition. It seems to be more of a "Look over here, nothing's wrong. Keep your eyes on the shiny object." type event.

There may yet be a Panamerica since they didn't announce what the 3 'journalist' types are driving. The CTS may be 5-series competition size wise, but I think including the M3 was smart.

So what's missing, a C63 and XF?

Somewhat of a letdown with regards to the RS4 and the M3. I guess they picked an M3 to show that you can beat an M5 with a car that costs less then the M3. Still, I would have liked to see the Panamera and an AMG product. The RS4 can't even beat the M3, so theres no interest there.

As for picking another CTS-V, I don't really understand or care about that choice. Its just taking up a space from a legitimate competitor.

Given the fact that this is a huge propaganda machine, I guess we shouldn't be surprised at these selections.

I imagine that they will all rotate among the cars. By bringing in an existing CTS-V owner he can test compeitors and compare them to his car on a track environment (which he certainly didn't do during the buying process) and will be able to say if he still thinks he picked the best car.

It makes some sense on that level. They have more drivers than possble competing models anyway.

Some that are left...

the C-63 AMG with the new performance package (don't know if it was out in time),
an IS-F,
Jag XF-R

Why don't I see the names Chris Walton or Josh Jaquot there with the long-term M3 Sedan? :(

i would have liked to have seen an IS-F an E-63 AMG.

at first i wondered why they included a current CTS-V owner, but it will be good to compare the times of Gm's car with that of the owners. it will show/keep GM honest about their car's stock status and will limit the amount of performance enhancing changes they can make to the car.

I'm betting the 'competition' will be even more bizzare than the candidates.

GM could send some of you fellows a hundred dollar bill and you would complain.

All I think the competition really lacks is an E 63 AMG. Caddy wants to be world class again. While they are the performance standard, BMW isn't the luxury standard of the world. MB is...

I note the total absence of anyone from the major automotive magazines. Say what you will about the guys from R&T, C&D, MT, Automobile and Autoweek--but they have more experience than any of these people when it comes to driving the largest array of performance cars.

I can see the concerns about Automobile--they don't do conventional road testing, let alone track testing. And MT's "Car of the Year" competitions in years past were ridiculous. But C/D, R&T, and AW have pretty decent credentials--certainly better than "a freelance automotive journalist who has written for the New York Times." Jeez--even Dan Neil (is he responsible for "The Mechanic"?) would be an improvement over that guy.

Interesting competition but I'm wondering how much this competition is actually costing GM... I mean the taxpayers?

As I stated in another related V- Series challenge thread, Lutz should have made the competition between it and the 2 other car companies (Honda/Toyota) it consistently slams in their Howie Long commercials as these cars are much more affordable and attainable for the average consumer. Vehicles like the Malibu, Cobalt XFE, Equinox and Silverado should have been pitted against their direct competition from Honda, Toyota and who ever else.

Given that fuel efficiency and greener vehicles are the top priority it would have been much smarter on Lutz's part if he could back up those superior (EPA) fuel economy numbers that GM brags about so much as I have yet to see any superiority in any sort of reviews in real world on road testing.

Ho hum. They may as well make the journalists drive an SRT-8 Charger, G37, and a Genesis V8.

bankerdanny: "One guy already owns a CTS-V, so he really doesn't neet convincing? What's he doing taking up a spot?"

Isn't it obvious? It's to see which color the CTS-V looks best in. DUH!

"1487, you should be disappointed about this. The CTS-V will win and no-one will care or be impressed. You are the king of calling bad comparisons; when it goes against your pals at GM. "

This isnt a formal comparison. Its a publicity stunt and entertainment. I'm sure if BMw or MB issued such a challenge you would feel differently. This event will generate lots of internet coverage and cost far less than a few commercial spots in primetime TV. It makes sene to me. Whether or not a few self appointed internet experts feel this is fair or not is irrelevant.

"Interesting competition but I'm wondering how much this competition is actually costing GM... I mean the taxpayers? "

Why don't you audit GM's spending for commercials and auto show displays as well? I'm confused as to how promoting product is a poor use of your taxpayer dollars. BTW, its impossible to determine where the money for the event is coming from. GM got taxpayer money to make it through bankruptcy but they still sell cars and bring in revenue every month. How you are going to determine what is paid for with the money they bring in vs what's covered by the billions they got months ago? Its a lame excuse. Let's just be honest and admit that people only have a problem with it because GM is doing it. If BMW was doing it people would be praising them for standing behind their well engineered product.

One reason some of the competition won't be represented is because MB and BMW would not loan out cars for this contest. Jaguar would. MT, C&D, etc. cannot participate if they don't have cars. It's not like they have a fleet of purchased high performance European cars sitting in their respective garages.

"Ho hum. They may as well make the journalists drive an SRT-8 Charger, G37, and a Genesis V8."

So the XF-R, M5 and M3 aren't worthy competitors? Interesting.

"Given that fuel efficiency and greener vehicles are the top priority it would have been much smarter on Lutz's part if he could back up those superior (EPA) fuel economy numbers that GM brags about so much as I have yet to see any superiority in any sort of reviews in real world on road testing."

when you compare cars you compare EPA numbers because they are acheived by putting all vehicles through the EXACT same regiment. Real world numbers from a test are nice to have but you can't rely on them because you don't know how the cars are driven. For example, IL noted the less than stellar mileage of the Equinox but if you read the review you find out they were overriding the shift logic and shifting themselves because they wanted more immediate downshift. Once you do that you can throw the "observed" mileage figures out the window. Its the same thing with "real world" mileage on performance cars, they are always low because the magazines exploit every ounce of performance while they drive the cars as opposed to driving them as an owner would during the daily commute.

1487, I have nothing AT ALL against GM or the CTS-V as I have repeatedly praised numerous products from GM, including the CTS.

In reality just about every car enthusiasts knows the CTS-V is a beast and offers exceptional performance that out paces the benchmark M5 and other European high performance sports sedans.

All the fuss about the CTS-V before it even debuted was substantial as well as its Ring' domination after the car debuted. Then we have the numerous comparison tests by various publications that again proved the Cadillac still had a sizable advantage over its European competition. That said, what does Cadillac STILL need to prove?

Regardless of how much this event costs, GM could have used those funds elsewhere or on a smarter competition as they should be watching every last penny they spend.

Marketing a product is a great solution to get the word out about the product in question but why not invest in a challenge that more potential consumers can relate to? This goes back to the EPA fuel mileage competition I spoke of in earlier posts. Given those vehicles that are are advertised (Malibu/Equinox/Silverado/Cobalt XFE) sell in much larger volumes (vs CTS-V) are much more affordable and appeal to a substantially larger amount of consumers it seems like the smarter way to advertise and prove yourself.

This is a good article about GM marketing currently that may (or may not depending on who you are) shed some light: http://adage.com/article?article_id=139821