Top Gear is testing the ZR-1, CTS-V and Challenger in Reno

[AdamK47]

News link here. With first hand info here and here.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

i already know what they'll say:

vette: decent power, improved handling ("an american car that actually goes around corners!"), accessories, interior and build quality are inferior to the germans

caddy: inferior to the germans

dodge: looks good, but the worst of the bunch, inferior to a vespa

 

[theeedude]

Don't forget completely asinine attacks on leaf spring setup despite the superb handling achieved with it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i already know what they'll say:

vette: decent power, improved handling ("an american car that actually goes around corners!"), accessories, interior and build quality are inferior to zee germans

caddy: inferior to zee germans

dodge: looks good, but the worst of the bunch, inferior to a vespa

Fixed.

And it will still be funny as hell and the spot on truth. :thumbsup:

 

[BlackTigers]

zet arr one!

 

[ballmode]

Awesome

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i already know what they'll say:

vette: decent power, improved handling ("an american car that actually goes around corners!"), accessories, interior and build quality are inferior to zee germans

caddy: inferior to zee germans

dodge: looks good, but the worst of the bunch, inferior to a vespa

Fixed.

And it will still be funny as hell and the spot on truth. :thumbsup:

explain how a CTS-V is *not* better than an M5?

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
explain how a CTS-V is *not* better than an M5?

We're talking about Top Gear here. They could compare the CTS-V to a Yugo and it would still lose.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
explain how a CTS-V is *not* better than an M5?

We're talking about Top Gear here. They could compare the CTS-V to a Yugo and it would still lose.

i was looking for a legit reason from jules. i fully expect TG to deliver on the american hate though.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i already know what they'll say:

vette: decent power, improved handling ("an american car that actually goes around corners!"), accessories, interior and build quality are inferior to zee germans

caddy: inferior to zee germans

dodge: looks good, but the worst of the bunch, inferior to a vespa

Fixed.

And it will still be funny as hell and the spot on truth. :thumbsup:

explain how a CTS-V is *not* better than an M5?

I'll take a complete stab here, knowing nothing about either.

Depreciation? Fit & Finish (edmunds describes it as having 'an awkward interior design and mediocre interior materials.')? Transmission? (edmunds: 'drivetrain exhibits the sort of raggedness that sets it slightly below the standards of its European rivals.')

Personally I think the CTS-V looks cheap and tacky, but that's just personal preference at the end of the day

It's apparently plenty quick, and best of it's American, none of that poncy euro-crap thank you very much

 

[Anubis]

the CTS-V is ugly thats wht the M5 is better

 

[JackBurton]

Meh, I think a better comparison would be with the XLR-V instead of the CTS-V. The XLR-V looks waaaaaay better than the CTS-V.

 

[Arkaign]

Isn't the XLR-V essentially a really fancy luxury 'Vette? Cool stuff, but doesn't seem to fit the CTS-V comparo.

AFAIK, the CTS is a 3-series competitor, and the STS a 5-series competitor, though the CTS-V is more powerful than any //M car for now.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i already know what they'll say:

vette: decent power, improved handling ("an american car that actually goes around corners!"), accessories, interior and build quality are inferior to zee germans

caddy: inferior to zee germans

dodge: looks good, but the worst of the bunch, inferior to a vespa

Fixed.

And it will still be funny as hell and the spot on truth. :thumbsup:

explain how a CTS-V is *not* better than an M5?

It doesn't have that bling BMW logo on the trunk.

 

[canadageek]

it doesn't have that delicious V-10 either

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Isn't the XLR-V essentially a really fancy luxury 'Vette? Cool stuff, but doesn't seem to fit the CTS-V comparo.

AFAIK, the CTS is a 3-series competitor, and the STS a 5-series competitor, though the CTS-V is more powerful than any //M car for now.

the XLR, both regular and V, are quite sad, unfortunately. completely new model is coming out in 2010 i think?

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: canadageek
it doesn't have that delicious V-10 either

because it has a superior v8

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: canadageek
it doesn't have that delicious V-10 either

because it has a superior v8

Well, superior in terms of output certainly, and the powerband appears much lower, which is very nice. But the BMW V10 @ 5.0L makes the M5 almost a perfect match on the track to the CTS-V with a supercharged 6.0(?) V8. I'd have to imagine if BMW got serious and tossed twin-turbos on the V10 (a la x35i series), that 650+HP would be in sight.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: canadageek
it doesn't have that delicious V-10 either

because it has a superior v8

Well, superior in terms of output certainly, and the powerband appears much lower, which is very nice. But the BMW V10 @ 5.0L makes the M5 almost a perfect match on the track to the CTS-V with a supercharged 6.0(?) V8. I'd have to imagine if BMW got serious and tossed twin-turbos on the V10 (a la x35i series), that 650+HP would be in sight.

Yeah, I was speaking strictly in terms of power band. On the track it's about peak horspower. There's other subjective areas, but both will be matched fairly evenly when BMW releases a refreshed V10.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: canadageek
it doesn't have that delicious V-10 either

because it has a superior v8

Well, superior in terms of output certainly, and the powerband appears much lower, which is very nice. But the BMW V10 @ 5.0L makes the M5 almost a perfect match on the track to the CTS-V with a supercharged 6.0(?) V8. I'd have to imagine if BMW got serious and tossed twin-turbos on the V10 (a la x35i series), that 650+HP would be in sight.

Yeah, I was speaking strictly in terms of power band. On the track it's about peak horspower. There's other subjective areas, but both will be matched fairly evenly when BMW releases a refreshed V10.

The LS7 V8 is also 90LBs lighter than the BMW V-10. the supercharged one is likely on par weight wise, but packing a good 130HP advantage.

 

[Arkaign]

^^ Yep, and mountains of torque available pretty early! For this kind of application, I'd have to say it's a superior setup. Too bad it's not reasonable to make a Supercharged LS7 M5

 

[Kadarin]

IMO the CTS-V looks absolutely hideous. It's a gawdawful fugly car, and I don't care how good its specs might be.

 

[sjwaste]

I'm sick of comparisons. For some reason, whenever they say they're comparing 3 cars, they always end up really doing a comparison of those 3 cars against another set of cars that aren't even in the same test. I think, actually, that when they do a 3 car comparison, they really mean they're comparing those to the 3-series. They'll find some way to shoehorn in comparisons to various BMW's and MB's, and somehow declare everything inferior to those. Usually on some really subjective criteria, too. While those comparisons may be valid at times, it gets old.

Ah well, controversy gets ratings, and automotive fanboys are no better than fans of pro wrestling when it comes to that.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: sjwaste
I'm sick of comparisons. For some reason, whenever they say they're comparing 3 cars, they always end up really doing a comparison of those 3 cars against another set of cars that aren't even in the same test. I think, actually, that when they do a 3 car comparison, they really mean they're comparing those to the 3-series. They'll find some way to shoehorn in comparisons to various BMW's and MB's, and somehow declare everything inferior to those. Usually on some really subjective criteria, too. While those comparisons may be valid at times, it gets old.

Ah well, controversy gets ratings, and automotive fanboys are no better than fans of pro wrestling when it comes to that.

Comparisons are very important, but I'll admit that there have been some odd ones out there.

It pretty much makes no sense to compare a Ford Focus with a Nissan Titan, for example, as nobody in their right mind would ever cross-shop those vehicles.

But :

There are probably a lot of people would would cross-shop :

The M5, the CTS-V, and the CL63, with perhaps an RS6 in there for good measure.

The CTS-V, though it's the cheapest, is also the fastest. There are lots of factors though, and just because a magazine/review says one is 'best', doesn't mean that it's best for everyone. The content of the article should ideally reveal the particulars about the vehicles so that people can make informed decisions. Nothing at all wrong with that.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Meh, I think a better comparison would be with the XLR-V instead of the CTS-V. The XLR-V looks waaaaaay better than the CTS-V.

xlr is old at this point, and clarkson already reviewed and hated on it (in the same set of reviews where he used a convertible mustang v6 on a dusty track and declared that a V8 mustang couldn't beat a horse).