One of GM's few bright spots

I dont know what you are talking about in the STS-V interior. It has everything that the E55 and M5 have. The current STS won J.D. Power's best interior of the year award when it came out in 2005, so it beat the Audi, Infiniti, Lexus, and Jaguar that were all redesigned that year. The STS won the best interior of the year when 4 of its competitors were also redesigned in the same year. The Audi A6, the Lexus GS, the Infinti M35/45, and the Jaguar S-type. You said the CTS-V was disappointing, but it is the best car in its class. It does 0-60 mph in 4.6 seconds, 0-1/4 mile in 13.1 seconds and has a top speed of 163 mph. Not even Audi's new RS4 could be faster, but it is probably better on handling.

Now the escalade has the best interior in its class. It was designed by Drexyl-Meier, the same company that designed the Maybach 57 and 62. The escalade is the all around best full-size lux suv. It has a great interior, outstanding performance for a suv of its size, a great looking exterior with lots of chrome, and every feature that its competition has and maybe more.

Now the corvette's interior does need improvement, but its a car that does 0-60 mph in 4.1 seconds (with the Z51 package) and has a 186 mph top speed starting at only $44,000. So it is understandable that it wouldnt have an interior as good as a Porsche 911 or an Aston-Martin V8 Vantage. You cant get the performance of a Z06 in a european sports car for less than $120,000, and it starts at only $65,800. The Z06 does 0-60 mph in 3.7 seconds and does 200 mph.

Compared, by the numbers
Base
price Weight,
pounds SAE net
horsepower Weight/power,
lb/hp 0-60,
sec
Bentley Continental GT $156,285 5350 551 9.7 4.5
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 $75,000 3150 500 6.3 (est) 3.7
Dodge Viper $85,295 3410 500 6.8 3.9
Ferrari 575M Maranello $235,000 3850 508 7.6 4.2
Ferrari 612 Scaglietti $250,000 4100 532 7.7 (est) 4.1
Ferrari Enzo $652,830 3254 651 5.0 3.4
Ford GT $150,525 3468 550 6.3 3.7
Lamborghini Murcielago $279,800 3650 571 6.4 3.5
Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG $182,720 4650 604 7.7 3.8
Mercedes-Benz SL65 AMG $181,220 4550 604 7.5 (est) 4.2
Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren $455,500 3858 617 6.3 3.6
Saleen S7 $395,000 2750 550 5.0 3.6

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 3:38:06 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

Well it takes more then speed to be a nice car. I am tired of this site and other sites always putting a negative conotation to anything GM related. The title says it all.

Yes GM must improve to stay competitive and yes they dragged their feet to compete in certain segments. GM has made the most improvments to its line of vehicles then any other manufacturer and only GM can make a change so fast. Time will tell if GM will maintain and stay competitive or go back to their stubborn ways. When GM has a fire under it proverbial ass then it can make very good things happen.

— dblo7 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 5:54:45 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

You are totally right about Cadillac interiors. They have some of the nicest interiors in the luxury market. They really are better than the german cars.

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 6:25:13 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Wow you are rediculous, the STS interior has plastic that is hard as a rock, the same plastic as on the Cobalt, low quality, IT SCEAMS CHEAPNESS. BTW the RS4 IS FASTER THAN THE CTSV. GET THAT INTO YOUR DENSE HEAD, PLEASE. NOT A SINGLE MAGAZINE HAS BEEN ABLE TO MATCH CADILLAC'S OVERINFLATED ACCELERATION TIMES.

HERE YOU GO BUDDY. THE ROAD AND TRACK TEST FOR THE CADILLAC CTS-V.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/2252004154854.pdf

HERE IS THE ONE FOR THE RS4:

— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 7:38:53 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

THESE STATS ARE BULLSHIT!!!!!!!! Here is some real stats done by real professional drivers and not some writer who thinks his opinion is expert advice. Here it is from Audi. Performance


0-60 mph in seconds: 4.8
Top track speed: 155 mph*
EPA fuel economy estimates (city/highway)*: 14/21

Here is the link:http://www.audiusa.com/features_specifications/0,3523,bodyStyleId-18_contentType-26,00.html?bodystyle=rs4&tab=specifications.

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 7:53:51 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

So here you go buddy.

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 7:55:35 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

First of all is this the only road test you could find for this car? Stop posting it, because everytime you do, you get people telling you that they are wrong and you keep posting it again and again. R&T overrates times and its not just Audi and Porsche, Cadillac says that the 0-60 time of an XLR-V is 4.6 seconds, but its funny that R&T says that it is 4.3 seconds. So i guess cadillac underrates their times also then if you want to insist that R&T is completely accurate.

Like i said earlier, audi blows dogs for quarters. CTS-V is better than Audi S4 and RS4, not just the street cars, but the race cars also. One year after Cadillac entered SCCA Speed GT Championship Series, Audi's team of three S4s dropped out to the lower series to compete with Mercedes C230 coupes, BMW 3-series (not even M3s), and Acura TLs. Now why would Audi, the defending champion of the series, drop out after Cadillac unleashed the beast called the CTS-VR? Hmm.....Could it be that they were beaten for the first time in years by a first timer and couldnt compete with a car of the CTS-VR's caliber. I think so. The CTS-VR is the current defending champion of Speed GT in both driver and constructors.

The only reason that Audi is so successful in P1 LeMans is becasue they have no competition. But a couple of weeks ago the P2 Porsche RS Spyders beat them for the overall win.

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 8:09:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

RS 4 Specifications

Model Configuration


420 hp V8 FSI® Direct Injection engine with 317 lb-ft of torque, 6-speed manual transmission, and asymmetrical/dynamic 40/60 rear-biased torque split quattro® all-wheel drive with 19-inch alloy wheels with high-performance tires*


Engine


DOHC 4.2 liter V8 spark-ignition engine with FSI® Direct Injection, 4-valve technology, two inlet valves, two sodium-cooled exhaust valves, intake manifold with integrated charge movement and naturally-aspirated high-revving set up to 8250 rpm
Displacement: 4.2 liters (254 cu. in.)
Bore: 3.33 in.
Stroke: 3.65 in.
Compression ratio: 12.5:1
Horsepower (SAE net):
manual: 420 @ 7800 rpm
Torque: 317 lb-ft @ 6000 rpm


Performance


0-60 mph in seconds: 4.8
Top track speed: 155 mph*
EPA fuel economy estimates (city/highway)*: 14/21


Chassis/Technical


Fully galvanized steel unibody with integrated aluminum and magnesium components; front fenders and engine hood 100% aluminum; all steel parts 100% dual-side zinc-galvanized with 12-year warranty against corrosion perforation



Front suspension: Independent 4-link with virtual steering axis, anti-roll bar; single-tube shock absorbers and coil springs, radius link



Rear suspension: Double wishbone, anti-roll bar



Electronic Stabilization Program (ESP® 8.0) with brake-disc wiping



Dynamic Ride Control



Servotronic® electronically controlled speed-sensitive close ratio power steering; turning circle: 36.4 ft.



Curb weight (lbs.): n/a



Capacities:
Engine oil (quarts): 8.5
Fuel tank (gallons): 16.6




http://www.audiusa.com/features_specifications/0,3523,bodyStyleId-18_contentType-26,00.html?bodystyle=rs4&tab=specifications

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 8:14:20 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Since enzo only gave you the performance, i took the liberty of getting you the entire RS4 specs. Here it is in german like you did on the A5







article.ModellRS 4
4.2 quattro 309(420) kW(PS) 6-Gang

PreisBasispreis
€69900.00

FahrleistungHöchstgeschwindigkeit
250 (abgereglt) km/h
Beschleunigung 0-100 km/h
4,8 s
Kraftstoffart
SuperPlus bleifrei 98 ROZ
Kraftstoffverbrauch nach 93/116/EG in l/100km städtisch
20,6 l/100 km
Kraftstoffverbrauch nach 93/116/EG in l/100km ausserstädtisch
9,3 l/100 km
Kraftstoffverbrauch nach 93/116/EG in l/100km insgesamt
13,4 l/100 km
CO2-Emmisionen (g/km)
322 g/km
Emissionsklasse
EU4

KraftübertragungAntriebsart
Permanenter Allradantrieb quattro
Kupplung
Hydraulisch betätigte Einscheiben-Trockenkupplung mit asbest- und bleifreien Belägen, Zweimassen-Schwungrad
Getriebeart
6-Gang-Schaltgetriebe, vollsynchronisiert

Fahrwerk/LenkungVorderachse
Einzelradaufhängung, Vierlenker-Vorderachse mit virtueller Lenkachse, Querstabilisator, Einrohr-Stoßdämpfer und Schraubenfeder, Führungslenker
Hinterachse
Trapezlenker-Hinterachse, Stabilisator
Bremssystem
18-Zoll-Hochleistungs-Bremsanlage mit innenbelüfteten, gelochten Bremsscheiben
Räder
Aluminium-Gussräder, 8,5 J x 18
Reifen
255/40 R 18
Lenkung
Servounterstützte, wartungsfreie Zahnstangenlenkung, Lenkrollradius spurstabilisierend, Wendekreis ca.11,1 m

MotorisierungMotorbauart
8-Zylinder, V-Ottomotor mit Benzindirekteinspritzung
Hubraum
4163 cm3
Max. Leistung
309 (420)/7800 kW bei min -1
Max. Drehmoment
430/5500 Nm bei min -1
Motormanagement
Vollelektronische Benzindirekteinspritzung mit Luftmassenmessung
Abgasreinigungssystem
Zwei Rohr-Krümmer, zwei Vorkatalysatoren,
zwei Unterflur-Hauptkatalysatoren, zylinderbankselektive Lambda-Regelung

Gewicht/VolumenLeergewicht
1650 kg
Zul. Gesamtgewicht
2200 kg
Zul. Dachlast/Stützlast
75/- kg
Zul. Anhängelast
kg
Zul. Anhängelast bei 12% Steigung
kg
Zul. Anhängelast bei 8% Steigung
kg
Gepäckraumvolumen
460 l
Tankinhalt
63 l

SerienausstattungHeckscheibe und Seitenfenster in Wärmeschutzverglasung
Scheinwerfer-Reinigungsanlage
Zentralverriegelung mit Funkfernbedienung
Außenspiegel, elektrisch einstell- und beheizbar
Audi parking system vorn und hinten
Radschrauben mit Diebstahlsicherung
Reifendruck-Kontrollsystem
Ablagepaket
Komfortklimaautomatik
Lichtpaket
Innenspiegel, abblendbar
Verbandmaterial mit Warndreieck
Rücksitzlehne, geteilt umklappbar
Lendenwirbelstütze für die Vordersitze, elektrisch
Höheneinstellung für Vordersitze, manuell
Airbag
Diebstahlwarnanlage
servotronic
Tagfahrlicht
Radioanlage concert
Lautsprecher (aktiv)
Außenspiegel links, asphärisch
Außenspiegel rechts, asphärisch (großes Sichtfeld)
Außenspiegelgehäuse in Aluminiumoptik matt
Xenon plus
Ohne Dachreling
Dekoreinlagen in Carbon
Einsatz für bleifreie Betankung
Einstiegsleisten in den Türausschnitten
Gepäckraumklappenentriegelung
Fensterheber vorn elektrisch
Dachhimmel mit Stoffbezug
Frontscheibe aus Verbundglas
Frontspoiler
Fußmatten vorn
Gurtanlegekontrolle
Gasdruckfeder für die Gepäckraumklappe
Heckspoiler (Limousine) bzw. Dachkantenspoiler (Avant) in Wagenfarbe
Kindersitzbefestigung ISOFIX
Instrumenteneinsatz
sideguard
RS Sportlenkrad im 3-Speichen-Design
Aluminium-Gussräder 8,5 J x 18 im 5-Speichen-Design
Leuchtweitenregulierung, automatisch, dynamisch
Fahrerinformationssystem mit Farbdisplay
RS Schalensitze vorn
Reifen 255/40 R 18
Räder der quattro GmbH
Schalthebelknauf in gelochtem Leder mit Aluminiumoptik
Sitzbezüge in Stoff Race/Leder
Sportfahrwerk mit variabler Dämpfung (DRC)
Staub- und Pollenfilter
tire mobility system
Schriftzug RS 4
Zierleisten in Aluminium matt

Drucken
StartseiteNeuwagenKaufberatungGebrauchtwagenKundenserviceErlebnisweltFinanzdiensteZubehörShopUnternehmen
SucheSuche
Erweiterte Suche
Job-SucheLoginLoginLogin
PW vergessen?
RegistrierenKonfiguratorKonfiguratorStellen Sie Ihren ganz persönlichen Audi zusammen.
KonfigurierenLexikonLexikonA B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Lexikon öffnenHändlerHändlerStadt

Erweiterte SucheKontaktKontaktHier finden Sie alle Kontaktmöglich- keiten.
Zur Übersicht
myAudiGroßkundenJournalistenB-2-B

http://www.audi.de/audi/de/de2/neuwagen/a4/rs4/technik/technische_daten.html

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 8:17:39 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Like it says in German up there, the RS4 does 0-60 mph in 4.8 seconds and the CTS-V is 4.6 seconds. The Audi has a 420-hp V8 with 317 lb-ft of torque at 6000 rpm and the Cadillac has a 400-hp V8 with 395 lb-ft of torque at 4400 rpm. The Audi weighs 3957 pounds and the Cadillac weighs 3850 pounds. The both feature 6-speed manual overdrive transmissions.

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 8:27:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Did you see the Road and Track link for the Cadillac CTS-V, they got 0-60 in FIVE SECOND? Road and Track got a time of 4.3 seconds for the RS4. Here it is if you missed it.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/2252004154854.pdf

Here is a video of the RS4 BEATING (ACCELERATING QUICKER THAN THE MB C55) in 4.4 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odtZ-I28Tf4&search=RS4%20vs.%20C55

Here is a link to a Car and Driver article that shows that the C55 is QUICKER than the CTS-V.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/8682/executive-adrenalators-page3.html

So what have we learned? The RS4 is QUICKER than the MB C55. The MB C55 is SLIGHTLY QUICKER than the Cadillac CTS-V. So what can we conclude? Here is an equation for you.

(RS4) QUICKER than (C55)

(C55) Qucker than (CTS-V)

Therefore

(RS4) IS QUICKER THAN (CTS-V)

— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 7/4/2006 8:47:01 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Don't bother, both enzo and three2four are what I would class as a typical biased GM fan. Not only are they blind on all matters interior quality (Note: having the same number of interior features as rivals doesn't mean the design and fit/finish is better) but they also judge one car to be better than another based on 0-60 times.

Woopdee and indeed doo.

So having acceleration-oriented gear ratios negates interior design, materials quality, handling and general appeal?

I'm not trying to have a dig at Cadillac products, I think they have certainly come a long way in the past few years, but people need to take off those rose-tinted glasses.

What people like enzo and three2four forget is that the RS4 performs amazingly on America's smooth roads, while also showing a real depth of talent on Europe's bumpy, often poorly surfaced and cambered roads. The CTS-V's dynamics would fall apart on these roads, as noted by numerous British magazines.

The CTS-V's straight-line urge may win favour in America, but take it out of its comfort zone and be prepared for the RS4, M5, and E63 to eat it alive.

— Matthew1 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/5/2006 2:04:21 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

I can classify you two as a couple of jackasses who only like the german cars, and believe stats that come from a magazine. Here is the C55 amg stats:

Performance
Acceleration1 0 - 60 in 4.9 secondsFuel economyEPA estimate2 17 mpgHighway estimate3 22 mpgEmission certification Low Emission Vehicle (LEV)

http://www.mbusa.com/models/features/specs/performance.do?modelCode=C55&class=06_C


Audi RS4

Performance


0-60 mph in seconds: 4.8
Top track speed: 155 mph*
EPA fuel economy estimates (city/highway)*: 14/21



http://www.audiusa.com/features_specifications/0,3523,bodyStyleId-18_contentType-26,00.html?bodystyle=rs4&tab=specifications


Cadillac Cts-v


The four-door, rear-wheel drive CTS-V now uses the overhead valve 6.0L V-8 LS2 engine (replacing the LS6) producing the same 400 horsepower (298 kw) and 395 lb.-ft. (536 Nm) of torque. Acceleration figures include 0-60 mph in 4.6 seconds with a top speed of 163 mph (262 km). The quarter mile is achieved in 13.1 seconds at 109 mph.



http://www.topspeed.com/cars/cadillac/cadillac-cts-v-ar1393.html




Cts-v quicker than rs4
rs4 quicker than c55
therfore cts-v is quicker than c55.

And the cts-v is the m3 killer.

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/5/2006 2:08:22 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

I dont care what these magazines say, im not one of those people that believe everything they read in car mags is absolutely the truth. Like i said before, whatever the manufacturer of the car says that it can do is what it can do, nothing more. Manufacturers push their performance cars to the limit during testing to achieve the fastest possible times for their high-performance automobiles. Who the fuck are these magazine writers to say that an RS4 is better than a 911, that a ferrari is better than a lamborghini, that a toyota is better than a honda, etc. These magazines are purely someone's opinion about these cars. And jerkoffs like you believe someone's opinion on a car is gold.

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/5/2006 2:37:19 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Chewy is the one trying to say that 0-60 times make a car better than another. All im saying is that the RS4 is what it is and should not be taken as a 911, Corvette, or V8 Vantage competitor. It is a high performance SEDAN not a sports car and thats would it should be seen as. The RS4 is a higher power S4, now is adding 40-hp to a car gonna make a .7 seconds difference, i highly doubt it. And the CTS-V does not compete against the M5 or the E63, it competes against the S4, M3, and C55. The STS-V competes against the M5, E63, S6, and S-Type R. The XLR-V competes against the SL55 and XKR.

You say that i am a typical biased GM fan, but what are you?

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/5/2006 2:45:25 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

The CTS-V is awesome and I wouldn't doubt that it would be faster than a bitch-ass Audi in a straight-line drag. The CTS-V is a powerhouse with 400-hp at 6000 rpm and 395 lb-ft of torque at 4400 rpm. The majority of Audi drivers are women and little bitches that drive around in their Audis gettin no attention and more importantly no pussy. I love my CTS-V and Maserati Gransport, they are both great. American and Italian cars are the shit. Fuck German cars and more importantly FUCK Japanese cars. German cars might have great handling but what good is it going to do you when it spends 50% of the time in the shop getting fixed because we all know that BMW and MB reliability SUCKS. If Audi is such a great car, then why did they only sell a little over 88,000 cars last year, and MB, BMW, and YES CADILLAC sold between 200,000 and 300,000 in the United States. Japanese luxury cars should not even be called luxury cars, Lexus is merely a re-badged Toyota and Infiniti is a re-badged Nissan. Maybe the CTS-V cant beat an RS4 around a track because the RS4 has better handling, but i guarantee you it can sure kick the shit out of an S4 or any of its other competitors. I like to support my country's automakers unlike some Americans that love to hate everything American and think American cars are nothing but shit. Im talking about Americans who will always put down American cars when in fact the Japanese pieces of shit that they all buy are really built here by American people. And its also funny that the BMW and MB cars that are built here in the states have far less problems than the ones built in Europe. I cant stand it when people always put down the corporations of GM, Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler, when in fact everything they build is on par or even better than its competitors. So fuck all you assholes and your bitch-ass rides. American and Italian Muscle FOREVER.

— three2four (View Profile)

Posted on 7/5/2006 3:05:20 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

First 420-340=80. BTW, three2four, read the whole RT article about the RS4 comparison against the Porsche 911 C4s, you will be surprised. Here is the link once again.

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?t=281433

johnnyd, did you see my post above? Probably not. So if RT got a time on 4.3 for the RS4, and 5.0 for the CTS-V, I guess the CTS-V really is quicker. Whatever, I am done with this one.

— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 7/5/2006 4:08:10 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

Three2four I love your "Objective" comments. Nothing wrong with supporting American cars.We need all the support we can get these days. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I simply don't like the current Caddy styling. And while I like BMW's less the 3 series still has the best sedan chassis in the world.Audi's still have one of the top interiors in the world(including Bentley).Cadilac is certainly making a good effort though. Personally I'd go for an SRT8 from Chrysler or Dodge simply because I like the styling better. GM simply needs to improve on sedan styling if it's going to get itself out of it's financial rut. Also they need to stop discounting their cars. They screwed themselves when they started this crap 20 yrs ago. Today everyone thinks of GM as the cheap brand while the Japs and the Europeans have that cache of quality and value. It's GM's own fault.

— pg54 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/7/2006 5:11:18 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

First off, who cares about the shrinking economies in the European Union? GM makes cars that will start to sell wonderfully in America, and in alot of cases, already do, there is just a lag with the old reputation and the new product. I also love the Cadillac CTS-V, and you can't find anything like it for the price, design, performance, or quality. That is my opinion, and much of America's. This why Cadillac sells way more cars than Audi. And by the way, quit using sharty R&T and etc. magazine, and use a real mans magazine, Motor Trend. Also, if you talk crap about the Corvette to anyone in America, chances are you will get a black eye. And BTW, my 06 Z06 can kick your Porsche's hairy pussy.

— scottcampbell10 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/15/2006 7:25:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

gm has just made their warranties 5 year/100,000 miles. this is going to sell alot of cars.

gm needs to shrink their dealerships. they have too many.

gm also needs to do away with those defunct auto unions. they are requireing too much to work for gm.

imagine if your employer had to pay 100% of the costs for you medical coverage. and then pay you a pension when you retire! wouldnt that be awesome!!!! but lets face it. it is dragging the car company down in a competitive labor segment.

also, it is a matter of bias when comparing many of the gm cars interiors with the euros. why is hard plastic bad? i was in a mercedes benze the other day and there was the hard plastic and no one gives MB any crap. it depends on the moulding technique, if the plastic has flashing etc....

personally, its all about the money. american cars are cheaper than the euro's. and our economy, with the housing boom that has busted, has put equity money in the pockets of the middle class to spend on stupid thing s like cars that depreciate so fast. so get all you can for the money. doont try to keep up with the jones's, and for the money, the malibumaxx ss is the best bargain out there. great utility, nice appointments and materials, cool sunroofs, sliding rear seats, and a bad ass motor. americans have been duped into thinking they need all this other crap, when if they had little money to kick around on a retarded depreciating car payment, with gas prices too high, they would get some sensability back.

— BAROSSO (View Profile)

Posted on 9/9/2006 11:08:29 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1