GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-11-2005, 20:37   #41
c5367
Esq.
 
c5367's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Indiana!
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to c5367
Just got back from the BMW dealership where I tested the 05 330 Coupe and an '02 M3.
First was the 330: The interior was very utilitarian, almost spartan, but it didn't really lack anything. The upholstery was cloth, as this model had the performance package. This actually turns out to be a good thing, as I found out in the test drive.
The dealer was right next door to the dealers I had tested the Audi and Acura at, so I was expecting the same test drive route. I was surprised when the dealer directed me to some twisty little back road areas and fully encouraged me to attack the turns. I suspect this is because yes, the Bimmer is every bit the drivers' car it is made out to be. The car is really an apex strafer, and the dealer obviously was intent on putting its best foot forward. I've never heard, nor could I imagine hearing a dealer say "more gas, gas, gas!" while going through a tight curve until today. The cloth held me in the seat much better than leather. All in all, this car was the best feeling of what I had tested thusfar.
That didn't last long because the M3 came next. To make what would end up as a long post full of every superlative adjective I can imagine, it would be more to the point to say this car is EVERYTHING the car rags say it is, and then some. Now, I'm partial the low burble of pushrod V-8s, but the snarl this machine had was music. Pure music. I do think the very nice audio system would rarely get used. I was able to take it on the same route as the 330, where it did everything the 330 did, but better and faster. Driving that thing destroyed any notion of wanting a "practical" car. MPG numbers meant nothing. The rear shelf....um, I mean back seat which would have been a turn-off in the the others was suddenly completely irrelevant. Getting back into to my GTI was a sad disappointment. The brakes which I always thought were way more than adequate felt soft and weak. And the acceleration? Good grief it is severely wanting.
The only sore spot.....I'd be lucky to walk with it for the not-so-paltry sum of 51,000 plus tax, and that is getting a break from the 54K sticker.
__________________
Glock Armorer, GSSF Master.
c5367 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2005, 22:50   #42
Rob1035
Skeet Surfer
 
Rob1035's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 2,073
I'm glad you had fun, dealer days are always great.

For the price of a new M3, keep in mind you can probably get a CPO e39 M5, just food for thought
__________________
Rob
Rob1035 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2005, 08:42   #43
fnfalman
Chicks Dig It
 
fnfalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California & New Mexico, US
Posts: 58,942


The "cloth" isn't cloth but it's called Alcantara - a synthetic suade. Some of the racing motorcycles are using them for seats now, but for a different reason. With regular clothings on, the suade-like material holds you in place. But when you wear leathers, it's slippin' & slidin', baby! And that's what you need in order to hang off the bike on one side and slide to the other side for the next corner.

PS I personally wouldn't buy the 05 330i, Performance Package and whatnot. I'd spend the extra $600 and get the much more potent 06 330i.
__________________
Can you dig it?
fnfalman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2005, 09:10   #44
c5367
Esq.
 
c5367's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Indiana!
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to c5367
They say the 06's are a big improvement performance wise, but the new styling is a huge turnoff. I suppose the upside would be that the exact configuration I'd like would be more readily available. At the moment, the particular 330 I drove isn't on the short list, as it doesn't have the tech goodies I'd like. While it was a great handling car, the lack of features at its price point was a deal breaker. They do have a 05 330 convertible with everything but nav that may fit the bill, but it ends up only 2-3k short of the M3. It does have the M-wannabe package with the 235hp engine, upgraded suspension and M-looking aero pieces. The benefit would be the addition of the drop-top,(chicks dig drop-tops!) much better MPG, slightly cheaper insurance, and much less potential for losing my license
__________________
Glock Armorer, GSSF Master.
c5367 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2005, 19:20   #45
SJRTX
Plastic Lover
 
SJRTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,321
If were my choice, I would go with the CTS V-same motor and tranny as the Z06(LS6& T56). A guy I know has his brand new cts v making 400 at the rear wheels right now. Exhaust, small cam, intake and throttle body. still very much driveable, and very much a sleeper car that still gets good gas milage.
__________________
Lone Star Glockers #346

The Kalashnikov Klub #346
SJRTX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2005, 21:28   #46
Rob1035
Skeet Surfer
 
Rob1035's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 2,073
define "good"....
__________________
Rob
Rob1035 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2005, 22:42   #47
method
Senior Member
 
method's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 6,191
Depends on how hard you drive it of course, but the LS6 delivers upwards of 28 mpg in the 'Vette on the highway. Hard city driving will net 15 or less. The heavier and less aerodynamic CTS-V would probably be good for 25 mpg on an extended highway cruise. The LS1/2/6's really are top notch motors, being compact, light, powerful, efficient, and reliable. The LS7 will go down in history as one of the finest factory motors ever.

Last edited by method; 08-14-2005 at 22:46..
method is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2005, 22:46   #48
c5367
Esq.
 
c5367's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Indiana!
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to c5367
Comparing apples to apples:

EPA MPG
Caddy CTS-V 15/23
BMW M3 (manual) 16/24

All that extra power comes at the expense of a whopping 1 MPG.

But the real cost difference: 6 months insurance
CTS-V @$1900
M3 @$875

I couldn't even begin to guess why.
__________________
Glock Armorer, GSSF Master.
c5367 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2005, 09:51   #49
fnfalman
Chicks Dig It
 
fnfalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California & New Mexico, US
Posts: 58,942


Quote:
Originally posted by c5367
Comparing apples to apples:

EPA MPG
Caddy CTS-V 15/23
BMW M3 (manual) 16/24

All that extra power comes at the expense of a whopping 1 MPG.

But the real cost difference: 6 months insurance
CTS-V @$1900
M3 @$875

I couldn't even begin to guess why.
First of all, horsepower doesn't tell the whole story. The M3 outaccelerates and outcorners the CTS-V. Don't get me wrong, the CTS-V is a heck of a car, but there's a reason why the M3 gets top notch review. There isn't a sport sedan that can touch it. Well, the M5, but then that's because the M5 is a BMW.

As far as why the cost difference in insurance, I don't really know. Maybe because the M3 has been around longer and has better reliability records? I'm just guessing as to why the insurance is cheaper.
__________________
Can you dig it?
fnfalman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2005, 10:42   #50
Ned Ludd
Senior Member
 
Ned Ludd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Beach
Posts: 659
Send a message via AIM to Ned Ludd Send a message via Yahoo to Ned Ludd
My partner has a CTS-V. I have a 5 series BMW. Even though on paper the Caddy should be faster, on real streets the Beemer smokes it. (Well, that's not fair. It's a bit faster)

The main reason, I think, is in the mysterious area of "feel". The Germans just seem to be better at giving you a car that lets you know exactly what is going on. Also, given that you really can't drive fast that often anyway, I'm not sure performace should be the main issue.

-NL
__________________
We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart.
- Pascal, Pensées
Ned Ludd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2005, 13:37   #51
method
Senior Member
 
method's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 6,191
A quick glance in the back of Motor Trend shows an '05 M3 Competition trapping about 105 mph in the quarter mile, and an '05 CTS-V trapping about 110 mph. They're basically identical in handling measurements (slalom and figure-eight), and the Cadillac stops four feet shorter from 60 mph. The M3 is unquestionably the better sports sedan of the two, but being 67 hp and 140 ft/lbs of torque behind the V, it does not out accelerate it.
method is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2005, 13:48   #52
c5367
Esq.
 
c5367's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Indiana!
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to c5367
Road and track shows nearly identical numbers for 0-60, skidpad, and slalom. They show the M3 outbraking the CTS-V by 3 and 5 ft. from 60 and 80 mph respectively. 1/4 mile times are the same, but the CTS does indeed have a significantly higher trap speed. That extra power would undoubtedly show itself at the top end. I think the CTS-V wheel hop problem is what held it back in comparison to the M3. The CTS will undoubtedly hang with the M3 off the line, and I think it would take it past 1/4 mile. There is no replacement for displacement. And you get 2 more doors and back seat that can be used for adults for about 4k less. Not too shabby for the new kid, ehh?

The floor mounted parking brake and skip-shift crap really spoil it though. I don't even see why they bothered with the latter. The CTS-V still gets hit with the gas guzzler tax, so it's pretty damn pointless.
__________________
Glock Armorer, GSSF Master.
c5367 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2005, 18:06   #53
SJRTX
Plastic Lover
 
SJRTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob1035
define "good"....
Well, I can tell you that I have an LS1 Camaro, with about the biggest cam you can fit in an ls1(.608/.612 238/242 @.050 115lsa) with just exhaust, and intake manifold/throttlebody, my car made 430rwhp 382rwtq SAE corrected through the 6spd, and I can still get 26+mpg on the hwy in 6th gear.
__________________
Lone Star Glockers #346

The Kalashnikov Klub #346
SJRTX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2005, 23:49   #54
Z28ricer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 923
Send a message via AIM to Z28ricer
Quote:
Originally posted by c5367
Road and track shows nearly identical numbers for 0-60, skidpad, and slalom. They show the M3 outbraking the CTS-V by 3 and 5 ft. from 60 and 80 mph respectively. 1/4 mile times are the same, but the CTS does indeed have a significantly higher trap speed. That extra power would undoubtedly show itself at the top end. I think the CTS-V wheel hop problem is what held it back in comparison to the M3. The CTS will undoubtedly hang with the M3 off the line, and I think it would take it past 1/4 mile. There is no replacement for displacement. And you get 2 more doors and back seat that can be used for adults for about 4k less. Not too shabby for the new kid, ehh?

The floor mounted parking brake and skip-shift crap really spoil it though. I don't even see why they bothered with the latter. The CTS-V still gets hit with the gas guzzler tax, so it's pretty damn pointless.
A resistor, or high dollar resistor depending on which you prefer, and the skip shift is gone either way.

The CTS makes the higher trap, therefore is faster, those claiming that their holy grail bmw is faster and smokes the ctsv are getting lucky enough to go up against morons who cant drive.
Z28ricer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2005, 12:43   #55
epsylum
Boolit Hoze
 
epsylum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Racing Capital, USA
Posts: 14,373


Yes, in a drag race, my money is on the cadillac. On a road course however, the M3 will take it. The fact is you are comparing 2 different classes of car. One a sports sedan, the other a sport coupe. I am not bringing money into this, since BMWs are and always will be more expensive than a somewhat comparible US made car. That's not the point. You don't buy a BMW if you are worried about money. Just like people shouldn't whine about the price difference between a SIG P220 and a Ruger P90. Both get the job done, just one does it better and costs more.

Now the BMW that is actually in the same class as the CTS V, is the M5. That will KILL a CTS-V in any comparison. But cost about twice as much.
__________________
Quote:
What are you having trouble with? I'll teach it some respect.
Epsylum (EE-SAI-LUM)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
epsylum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2005, 12:53   #56
Rob1035
Skeet Surfer
 
Rob1035's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 2,073
Quote:
Originally posted by epsylum

Now the BMW that is actually in the same class as the CTS V, is the M5. That will KILL a CTS-V in any comparison. But cost about twice as much.
I'm glad you brought that up, as its much closer to a apples to apples comparison. I personally would take the CTS-V and a dp on a house;f
__________________
Rob
Rob1035 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2005, 16:07   #57
fnfalman
Chicks Dig It
 
fnfalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California & New Mexico, US
Posts: 58,942


The M3 may have only two doors but it's still a sedan. And yes, the M5 was more of the same class with the CTS-V and the price difference is only about $15,000. The new M5, of course, is a class on its own with no rivals. One of those supercharged AMGs may match its speed and acceleration but not anywhere else.
__________________
Can you dig it?
fnfalman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2005, 19:09   #58
method
Senior Member
 
method's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 6,191
The CTS-V should get upgraded to the LS7 V8 in the next couple of years, which will match the BMW V10's horsepower, and stomp it in torque. Even the LS6 currently in place produces more torque than the Bimmer V10. Thank God BMW came to their senses to offer a true manual transmission in the M5/M6 for the U.S.
method is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2005, 10:03   #59
fnfalman
Chicks Dig It
 
fnfalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California & New Mexico, US
Posts: 58,942


I would prefer to have a manual rower, but a 7-speed SMG specifically developed for the M5/M6 wouldn't be a bad deal either. Remember that the V10 only has 5-liters worth of displacement to put out that much horsepower and torque And that's why it's a BMW.
__________________
Can you dig it?
fnfalman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2005, 13:59   #60
method
Senior Member
 
method's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 6,191
Other automakers know how to squeeze lots of horsepower out of small displacement engines, not only BMW. Fact is, however, most of these high strung engines are lacking in torque. The 305 cu in BMW V10 makes less torque than the 346 cu in LS6 V8, and a LOT less than the 427 cu in LS7. No replacement for displacement (except forced induction).
method is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:06.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,073
352 Members
721 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31