I can't help but think of OHV vs. OHC...

 

How are the Germans at another level from the rest? BMW is quite good at their cars' "feel" (steering, ride / handling balance, throttle response, etc.). They've always engineered a sportier feel into their cars, which has an appeal with enthusiasts. But how are they in another league in performance? The CTS-V outperforms the M3 and M5, hands down. Caddy doesn't have a 7 Series type car yet.

Corvette absolutely mops the floor with the Z4. The Vette is bigger, too, but the whiz-bang Z4 sDrive35 ( ) weighs as much and runs slower.

The GT-R is certainly a technological tour de force, and it is a pretty stellar performer. But the Z06 delivers basically the same level of performance (and is a tire swap away from beating a GT-R outright; I really don't know why GM won't throw the ZR1's tires on the Z06, but in Z06 sizes).

If you want to talk about cars performing in another league, that would be the ZR1. Only the SUPER high dollar exotics car play in that realm.

Again, there is some validity to what you are saying. GM needs to keep pushing to improve their breed, especially as high end luxury marques have the budgetary advantage to stay on the cutting edge.

 

Stop comparing the XTS Platinum to M5s, M7s and AMGs, and start comparing it to Maybachs, Bentleys, and Lexuses and you'll be on the right path.

Its a luxury car not a performance luxury car.

 

OK, you've got 2 questions here so I'll go one by one.

1.) Which GM or Ford vehicles match the marque of technology of the Germans?

Answer: I do not know. But here's the catch; neither do you (unless you're VERY familiar with automotive engine design) nor does much of any of the buying public know. Why is this?

It's because high-revving engines and DOHC designs doesn't mean an engine is more "high-tech" than another engine. There's A LOT more that goes into engine development that crankshaft RPMs and how many cams it has.

One of the key aspects of engine performance is air flow. Hearing from some of my engineering friends at the GM tech center, GM has some pretty advanced CFD (computational fluid dynamics) modeling tools. The science of CFD is extremely advanced and is still progressing in terms of research. GM may have taken an old pushrod design and used it's high-tech CFD tools to squeeze the most HP and torque out of the engine as they could.

I was reviewing a CFD report on a propulsion system (not in a car) just a few weeks back, and it's VERY complex stuff (I needed the help of the experts down at our research branch to help me interpret some of the items).

Or what about advanced materials? GM could have put some high strength alloys in it's engine that it obtained from scientists at the GM tech center. There could be a lot of high tech stuff GM could use in the engine itself or in the development of the engine. The key here is that I do not know, nor do most other people know exactly what technology went into the engine development.

I spent several years working as a design engineer for Nissan, and I'd always get a kick out of when non-technical people would tell me that Nissan had way more high technology than GM did. Really? I didn't see it. In fact, one of the reasons I left Nissan is because it wasn't technical enough. My friends at the GM tech center informed me of development tools that GM was using which were way more advanced than what we had at Nissan. That of course, begs the question, "Well why didn't GM have better products?" The answer is because it doesn't matter what technology you have, what matters is how you use it. That's another long story by itself.

2.) Why are the Germans in another league for performance?

Answer: They aren't. CTS-V beats the M3 and M5. ZR1 beats just about anything on the road. The Ford Fusion Hybrid beats it's Asian counterparts for gas mileage.

Remember how I said it's not about what type of engineering and technology capabilities you have? That it's about how you use it? I think GM and Ford engineers are finally getting the direction from their management to start using their full capabilities.

 

Not on the Bob Lutz challenge....

 

What are you talking about?

 

Faster than Bob or any other amatuer in the V.

 

Still

I thought Michael Cooper was the semi-pro?

I thought Aaron Link was a GM engineer?

There was a pro racer named Brian Redman, but I thought he was last active in 1974? According to Wikipedia, he's 72 years old!!

Driver wise, I would rank them:

Aaron Link = Michael Cooper > Brian Redman.

Therfore, CTSv > M3.

 

OK you seem to be focusing too much on the context of my comments instead of understanding the engineering behind the AMG 6.2L. I'll spell it out for you more clearly this time.

The Sledgehammer 6.2L M159 V8 is a clean sheet design by AMG and is not the same as the 6.2L entry level V8 from MB (dubbed M156). The fact that its hand assembled is only a consequence of the amount of engineering that went into the design. It's the by-product of a team that designs and builds race engines. In short, the 6.2L engine is no ordinary engine - it boast all the hallmarks of powerful racing engines.

Look it up to understand what I mean... http://www.nospeedlimit.com/must-rea...mg-and-the-63l

There aren't too many performance engines built as a clean sheet design. Look at the keywords in bolt text. Now are you a believer?

 

Yes but the CTS-V needs a S/C to do it. What if the M3/AMG had a S/C or TT option? Can you understand what I am trying to say? In the eyes of many, S/C is a form of 'cheating' and not really an indication of the amount of technology and R&D invested into the product. If the Germans are able to run with the best without S/C, then it must say a lot about their engineering integrity - race bred engines and DSG-7 speed transmissions is technology that GM hasn't entered into yet.

Oh, this topic has strayed (probably my fault) but the point about this is that if GM is not serious about turning Cadillac into a BMW/MB fighter, does it need to go RWD comprehensively and offer cutting edge technology? The XTS suggests Cadillac is happy to compete with the likes of Lexus more than BMW/MB. That's all.

 

As far as I know, Michael Cooper was some kid (with an M3 ) who had attended a racing school. Seems like he's got talent, but not a pro.

 

Oh GTFO. I hate this point, as it is only made by the losing side. It is always the same thing... "well company X's product needs item y to compete with company Z's product." Guess what, company Z has the same opportunity to strap a blower on and go to town. If the CTS-V were rocking the LS7 you would probably complain that it wasn't OHC and was a truck engine. Both BMW and Mercedes have used FI in performance applications before, but I guess in that case it is okay... You're twisting the facts to favor your argument. I don't disagree that GM should be using advanced technology in their cars, but to call a different path "cheating" is ludacris.

Your second comment has been addressed already as well. GM isn't in a position to offer a 7-series/S-class competitor just yet, from both a financial perspective and also a prestige one. Cadillac as a whole just isn't there yet. If it was then the recent upper tier models wouldn't have been such flops.

 

Wow dude, You should really get a grip. Or more appropriately, get yourself a good set of glasses.

I wrote, "In the eyes of many, S/C is a form of 'cheating' and not really an indication of the amount of technology and R&D invested into the product." This statement does not imply that I agree with it!!! Comprende signore?

Do you not understand that that is the way some people think, even the wealthy, educated types? I'm not one of those people. All I'm saying is that if Cadillac are to be seen as legitimate rivals, they need to compete, head-on.

 

Well, considering that no one here actually saw the car, it is a much better looking car in person. The interior alone blows anything currently available away.
Dont get clouded in the chassis talk. The car looks amazing in person, giving a much more luxurious look in person then a CTS does.
Its not about performance, its not about anything else but making a luxury flagship car..

BTW, Nesbitt said that teh X stands for All wheel drive. So if this car shows up to market with this name, it will be AWD standard.
The overall car is amazing, and the attention to detail is what is important. Even if this is a concept, and lets say that tomorrow they green-light a RWD Sigma based or Zeta based car, the attention to detail is what is important here. Its not what the chassis consists of. Its hybrid system is what sets it apart from just a Lacrosse. And its AWD system is as advanced as anything else out there.

 

Aaron Link is a GM engineer. He beat the M3 in his CTS-V. So, amateur vs amateur, CTS-V wins.

Yes, I understand what you are saying completely. S/C are not cheating anymore than 8 cylinders vs 6 cylinders is cheating. What if I said it's cheating by using ultra high redline RPMs? Well gosh, the Germans need all those RPMs to get the same performance that Caddy gets at a much lower RPM. The bottom line is performance. Horsepower, torque, power curve, gas mileage are all aspects where Cadillac meets or exceeds the standards set by the Germans.

And that's the point Cadillac needs to drive home in their advertisements. Their performance is superior. I realize that some snobby irrational customers want Cadillac to achieve the performance in a certain way (naturally aspirated, high redlines, etc), but I can't follow that line of thought, as it makes no sense to me.

You know what I think? I think it's because the elitist BMW and Mercedes buyers are scrambling to find something, anything, which sets themselves apart from American car brands like Cadillac and Chevy that are giving them a run for their money, and in many cases, beating their cars.

As the performance numbers of Cadillac and Chevy increased, the car owners started searching for more subjective and vague reasons why BMW and Mercedes is still better.

If the day comes that Cadillac used a 9,000 RPM, DOHC, naturally aspirated engine to beat the BMWs and Mercedes, then the German car crowd would stretch the argument even further and say "Well, our cars have much more prestige and pedigree."