2013 Audi RS 5 vs 2011 BMW M3 vs 2011 Cadillac CTS-V

[sirwilliam]

ARTICLE LINKY

[Sabre]

Amazing how far Caddy has come!

[Mr Kleen]

Each of these cars is seriously fast and highly desirable. That we could even contemplate putting a Cadillac up against the best from BMW and Audi and not have the thing left gasping and wheezing, brakes on fire and suspension turned to mush after three days of hammering around Bavaria shows how far Caddy has come from the days when most of its customers left their teeth in a glass by the bed at night. The RS 5 is a marvelous Grand Tourer, an elegant, classy two-door that will feel just as comfortable antiquing in the Hamptons as hustling over the Grossglockner Pass in an early autumn snowstorm. But when it comes to performance, passion, and pure driver appeal, the BMW M3 is still the benchmark.

damning the Cadillac with faint praise?

[scheherazade]

I found it odd that the caddy was in last, and m3 in first, when they even said :
- caddy has nicer interior than the m3
- caddy is quicker than the m3

So I guess the decision is on how they 'feel'.

-scheherazade

[WRXWagon2112]

Motor Trend, just like Car & Driver, give you a plethora of stats and then just throw the whole thing out the window. It's like they're saying "I know the super-intelligent, nerdy girl actually looks pretty good and really IS the better choice ... but screw it, I'm just gonna choose the cheerleader anyway."

It's either that, or they're trying to justify to GM their continued inclusion in press junkettes and loaner cars while still saying between-the-lines that the General's products are crap.

Your pick.

--Alan

[PGT]

the S5 was utterly uninspiring and overpriced compared to the M3. I can't imagine more a bit more top end HP and $30k higher price could alter that assessment.

[PGT]

In this company, the CTS-V Coupe seems stereotypically American. It's the heaviest of the three, tipping the scales at 279 pounds more than the RS 5 and a hefty 710 pounds more than the M3.

umm, based on the data in the specifications panel, its five hundred something pounds difference. MT, for the lose, again.

[GaToR]

I found it odd that the caddy was in last, and m3 in first, when they even said :
- caddy has nicer interior than the m3
- caddy is quicker than the m3

So I guess the decision is on how they 'feel'.

-scheherazade

I find few things in the universe more frustrating than an unresponsive, unpredictable, or inconsistent transmission.

There are some roads where I can't picture a more fun car than an M3 with DCT. Up to and including Godzilla.

[PGT]

I'd agree. It was so superior to the manual M3, one wonders why they still sell the manual. it is a bit clunky around town but then again, so is a Viper. Get it out at speed and it all makes sense.

[GaToR]

I'd agree. It was so superior to the manual M3, one wonders why they still sell the manual. it is a bit clunky around town but then again, so is a Viper. Get it out at speed and it all makes sense.

That last sentence is why I think the RS5 could potentially be more inspired than the S5.

The reason the M3 is such a screamer is it opens up over 7000 rpms like a big-spooling turbo (even though its NA).

RS4 is kinda the same way compared to the S4. One way they got the 420hp out of it was to raise the rev limiter. I think that engine was what BMW copied when they made the E90 V8. RS4 is a rather different beast from the S4.

So on certain roads, I might assume you can throw the RS5 around flipping between 2nd and 3rd gear corners at 8000rpms the whole way with the DCT, just like the M3.

Sure it might not be as nimble as the M3, but likely a better car in the wet. I think it has potential.

[Sabre]

For the discussion of transmissions and shift patterns, see this post now