While you are disclosing facts...why not also disclose the fact that both the Coupe and Wagon you quoted acceleration times for are manual transmission cars. "Your mileage may vary" quote becomes actually more poignant (probably unintentional) when you are looking at the performance of a manual transmission car. Also, the track surface and ambient weather conditions can also affect the performance of the cars and cause a deviation in performance. A Porsche Panamera Turbo with a PDK transmission and AWD kind of cuts down on the variables that deviate performance numbers by taking the driver's shifting ability out of the equation and mitigating the impact of the track conditions.

No one is saying that the Panamera Turbo is a slow car. Although the Panamera Turbo's prowess is from a standing start. From a roll it is more susceptible to being beaten. Here is the article for the Panamera Turbo you mentioned:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/ca...panamera-turbo

You will see that it does 0-60 mph in 3.4s and 0-120 mph in 12.2s (see data panel download). So let's say from 60-120 mph it takes the Panamera Turbo 8.8s (12.2 - 3.4s).

Here is another test of a CTS-V:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/co...010-jaguar-xfr

The CTS-V does 0-60 mph in 4.1s and 0-120 mph in 12.5s (see data panel download). So the CTS-V does the same 60-120 mph interval in 8.4s. This isn't a perfect test, but it does illustrate that the CTS-V, above 60 mph, is capable of hanging with the Panamera Turbo and will not be left for dead.

As far as modded to modded. The CTS-V takes to mods very well. My CTS-V with under $5K in mods runs a 60-130 mph time of 7.71s. A modded Panamera Turbo runs 8.28s 60-130 mph with probably close the same amount of money in mods. I have also recorded on my vbox, a 0-60mph time of 3.55s (with 1' roll-out like most magazines do) with my Michelin PS2's which had about 15K miles on them at the time.

Tom

 

I was in the back seat of a CTSV this past weekend and I would agree with the other poster. We had 4 adults in the car and it was very very tight in the rear seat for head room and leg room. We had an hour drive and I was pretty miserable.

 

lol! Not as miserable as you would have been in the backseat of my car...

 

Very true! I wouldn't throw an adult in the back of my GT-R....unless I really didn't like them...

Tom

 

Tom I agree with/can't argue with anything you've said. Since the Panamera Turbo is only available with the PDK and it's numbers have been repeated time after time, it will beat a CTS-V 95% of the time if the driver knows what they are doing. Besides a better transmission, it has the advantage of all-wheel drive, which is why it stomps most cars from a stop. On a roll, pure HP takes over and it becomes more competitive there. Don't get me wrong, the CTS-V is a very fast car but not the quickest stock sedan in the world (Caddy's claim) 0-60, the quarter or top speed.

 

Different definitions of quick.

Bentley - top speed
Porsche - acceleration from 0-60
Cadillac - around a world famous 13 mile road course

Bentley - uses the term 'fastest sedan'
Porsche - doesn't market their car as the quickest - just that it offers supercar level performance (kind of like Porsche, BMW, and Jeep did with their SUV's)
Cadillac - Specifically stated that it was the quickest around a track. There is no disputing their definition of 'quick'. And they can verify this with recorded lap times. So can we.

 

After looking at #'s 71, 72 and 80 you may edit your post whenever you like
http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html

 

I don't believe that the Autobild time with Walter Rohrl is "official". That goes for most of these N'ring times posted by the German mags. Unless the track is completely rented for the day, the track powers that be do not allow a complete lap of the track. Drivers must pull into the pits part way down the long straight. Cadillac on the other hand, rented out the track for the CTS-V to make its complete run. How much does that impact the 7:56 Panamera Turbo run? Nobody knows for sure. Porsche should ante up and rent it out and claim the title with the Panamera Turbo S. Until they do that, the CTS-V's time is officially the fastest for a sedan.

Tom

 

CTS-V is an awesome car but I do not particularly like the bare slab-sided styling.

 

Same-day test between CTS-V and Panamera Turbo:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...rbo/specs.html

The Cadillac was clearly slower off the line, but pulled 2 mph by the 1/4.

I think it's safe to say that the Panamera Turbo is definitely about as fast as the CTS-V on track. Porsche are very rarely far off the mark between claimed vs 3rd-party verified times. If anything they are generally conservative, if a mag editor can come within even 6 seconds, as with the GT2 RS. In same-day testing by Car Magazine, the Panamera was 2 seconds faster on a 1:3x lap than the Cadillac.


In terms of looks, it's hands-down the CTS-V for me. I like the brutal, edgy style and in wagon form, it looks far less awkward than the Panamera. I'd take the wagon over the sedan, actually.

 

The Panamera Turbo is fitted with 6 piston fixed aluminum monobloc calipers with 15.4" rotors in the front and 4 piston fixed aluminum monobloc caplipers with 13.8" rotors in the rear. You can also get the Porsche Carbon Ceramic brakes (PCCB) as part of the $27.6K powerkit option.

According to the mags (used the best test figures if more than 1 test):
Car & Driver: 70-0: 158'
Road & Track: 60-0: 114' 80-0: 204'
Motor Trend: 60-0: 109'

The CTS-V is fitted with 6 piston calipers with 15" rotors in the front and 4 piston 14.7" rotors in the rear (all sourced from Brembo). Although 2009 CTS-V's had 14.6" front and 14.4" rear rotors which switched to the larger rotors beginning in MY 2010.

According to the same mags (used the best Sedan test figures if more than 1 test):
Car & Driver: 70-0: 154' ('09 Auto)
Road & Track: 60-0: 114' 80-0: 198' ('10 Man.) (An '09 did 117' and 197')
Motor Trend: 60-0: 105' ('09 Man.) (backed up by 2 106' tests and 2 other 109' tests)

I am not going to say that the Panamera's brakes are in any way inferior to the CTS-V's. I think the Panamera Turbo's additional 100+lbs of weight doesn't help. The braking performance seems about even, with the CTS-V's lighter weight helping achieve very slightly better stopping #'s. Although, I don't believe that any of the Panamera Turbo testers were wearing the PCCB brakes. However, I am not sure that the PCCB's will generate necessarily shorter stopping distances. Although, they should be able to do those stops repeatedly without any degradation in distance.

As far as replacement...I would have to imagine that the CTS-V is much much cheaper to replace. The list price of the front rotors is $406 each (although my Cadillac dealer's parts guy said he would discount it to $260 each). Cadillac also offers a 2 piece full floating 15" Brembo front rotor as an upgrade. This was orginally supposed to be offered as an optional brake package from the factory. My part guy can get it for $1,175 for the front pair. I would imagine that this is still cheaper than what Porsche is going charge for its rotors.

Tom

 

Agreed. It is impressive that you could buy two V's for the price of one P-Turbo.

The fact that we are even comparing lap times, 0-60 times and 60-0 times with a car twice its price point sums up the answer for the thread quite nicely...

The launch control on P-cars in incredible-loved it in the turbo but it does take any of the fun (for me) out of it as it's mostly idiot proof and out off the drivers hands. Anyone have rolling start data on the cars? Given the trap speeds I bet 5-60 is faster in the V......

 

But at the same time the cts is (as of right now) the smallest cadillac sedan you can buy , so comparing it to an S- class mercedes as far as space is dumb ..... your better off comparing the c63 vs cts-v and sts-v vs s65 .... as far as size and room is concerned

 

I was making an example of what can be bought for under 50k or so (used) and is faster-
has more room by far-better riding - better looking etc.
The original poster asked thoughts on the V and asked our opinions and thoughts. Mine was keep 30k in your pocket and buy a nice used S65.

SEE POST #27

If you wanna compare new to new the 2012 C63 looks pretty interesting

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/mercede...-ar102537.html

 

Compelling. Arguments in here. I wasnt even thinking of considering the V as my next before I read this thread, I would like awd in my daily tho hmmm...