And down goes your ranking.

↓↑report

Here you go:


http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/gitemstevedave/Gawker/First.gif

↓↑report

bgkeen won´t get away with his comment...


...unless he´s got a JAAAAAAAG.

↓↑report

You don't watch very much Top Gear, do you?

↓↑report

I watch nearly every episode...it just stood out more in this one than in the other comparisons it seems like.

↓↑report

Sweet. I try to catch all the episodes I can, but being a full time student/ half-time workin' man makes it difficult.

I remember noticing what you're talking about on one of the first episodes of Top Gear that I saw. At first it bugged me, but then I figured out that it's not really a car review show with entertainment. It's an entertainment show with cars.

↓↑report

I second that. They'd NEVER do it though.

↓↑report

That's if the rear axle would stand up to the punishment, let alone anything else on the GM POS.
X- CTS-V owner.

↓↑report

@ Tony,

funny you say that

same thing happen to someone that I work with - he only had about 12k miles in his CTS (non-V), and had to drp a new rear axle and everything else back there

he was teasing me for having bought the G35 and was all proud until that happend, and the GM dealer did not just take care of it, he had to climb the ladder until they finally agreed (he was deling with GM at that point, not the dealer). He babies his car more than anyone I know and they were acusig him of racing the car, which I can vouch 100% never happened. the car never even saw as much as a wheel spin

He also tried to get he car lemon lawed but was unsuccesfull and he has a Pontiac and a Vette and rihgt now he basically said he'll never go the GM route again.

But I do think this new CTS is much better engineered overall adn only time will tell

↓↑report

aluminum turned out to be the wrong material for the rear diff... oops

↓↑report

06 V owner here (FTW! [snicker]) - the 04/05's have worrisome diffs, there were some improvements in 06/07 but all that is gen1. Gen2 (08+) is entirely different and, most importantly, no diff issues.

Considering this is, what? gen4 or 5 for the M, I'd say the current V not only spanks it on paper and the street, but did it in less that 6 years of development while BMW took what, 20 years?

The real question is that, if Caddy could produce a true world beater in such a short amount of time, why has BMW been hosing people for decades?

Alas, with the V group disbanded within GM, no plans for gen3, and GM now focusing on lean and green, I fear the brilliant gen2 V was a once in a lifetime event, now we'll go back to our regular programming of Euro dominated performance vehicles.

↓↑report

Come now, let's not be silly. No-one is denying the CTS-V is good, but if you read most of the european reviews (go have a gander at Evo's effort) they say it lacks the edge and involvement of the Europeans. It always amazes me that cars which achieve high praise in the American press usually turn out to be merely average in the eyes of the European press (the standard CTS is a great example of this).

↓↑report

d4rez: "It always amazes me that cars which achieve high praise in the American press usually turn out to be merely average in the eyes of the European press."

Me thinks me smells the air presumed Euro superiority.

As you said "Come now, let's not be silly."

I love it when, having been beaten on paper and on the track, an "objective" reviewer falls back on those unmeasurable, intangibles like "edge" and "involvement". It's not to say that those aren't perceptable, it's just that it's hard for me to take it seriously when a reviewer delivers it - fait accompli! -with a straight face.

↓↑report

@notYou

I am sorry that you found my comment smacking of "euro-superiority". Though you are right to call me out, I felt I had to counter the blind American rally-round. Please bear in mind that I wouldn't be reading/posting on Autoblog if I wasn't interested in all cars no matter their origin.

However I am not much in the mood for back-pedalling today. The terms "edge" and "involvement" were my attempt to assign nomenclature to something that is purely subjective and, in addition, academic until a back to back comparison is performed (I have only driven the M5 and a non-R XF). Nevertheless if I were looking right now which, I'm not, it would be these subjective qualities that would swing the buy for me. After all it is these things that create driver enjoyment, is that not the purpose of a sports car?
The crux of my argument and my contention lies with my perception of Cadillac's heavy-handedness. They simply throw power and mechanical grip at a car, storm the headlines on track and then declare the battle one. There is much more than that, but this is a classic example of GM winning the battle but losing the war, a little purity may have held them in better stead. Of course you may pick up on the fact that I have not, in fact, driven the CTS-V and therefore cannot pass judgement. I look forward to doing so, perhaps my preconceptions will prove wrong. Until then though I can rely only on the local motoring press which, has rightly influenced my buying decisions in the past and therefore commands my esteem.

↓↑report