Cts-v - Page 4

I find it hard to fathom that someone would take a large hulking heavy beast like an M5 at a track and enjoy it that much. I guess you'd need a track with lots of open high speed corners and long straights.

It's actually quite good at the track --- it would take tremendous amounts of skill (like a pro-level racer) to find its limits. The car may not carry as much speed into the corners as an M3, but it is plenty fast. On the Nurburgring, we were passing all sorts of smaller, sportier cars, and that was with Sabine drifting through every corner.

--Andre

If the difference in ride quality between the two bothers you THAT much, you should be driving an old Cadillac Eldorado or Lincoln Continental. The M5 is a smooth ride and mated with the SMG transmission, it's a perfectly fine daily driver (the 6MT is a horrible transmission for that engine).

If you're driving in traffic, anything bigger than a Honda Fit is overkill. I drive my M3 in the city and I often scratch my head wondering why I wasted all this money when the speed limit is 50km/h. It's not until I hit the onramps that I remember...

Well, Nordschleife would qualify as a fast track with high speed sweepers, no? Not implying I would be able to find the limits of that beast anyway, I have enough trouble finding my little Miata's limits before I break in to a cold sweat due to approaching my own limits

The Ring does have a couple of high-speed sections, but there are also a lot of technical sections, which is one reason why car companies that care about performance test there.

Weight isn't necessarily less of a disadvantage for high-speed tracks --- it depends on the rest of the car, how it's designed, and how you're driving it. In slower sections where you have a lot of transitions, weight can slow you down by affecting how quickly the car transfers weight, but high-speed sweepers are also affected by weight since you can generate large lateral loads in them. The tires have to react against those loads, which are proportional to the weight of the car. And if you have to brake for a slow corner after a high-speed straight, your brakes will be affected by the weight since the kinetic energy you have to dissipate will also be proportional to your weight.

But there are lots of things you can do to make a big car nimble, so big doesn't necessarily mean clumsy. I once got a ride around Buttonwillow (a very technical racetrack) in a bone-stock E65 745i with 4 people on board, and we were passing solo E36 M3s shod with R-compound tires in the advanced group. The AC and traction control were on because no one could figure out iDrive to turn them off.

For another example, the Nissan GT-R is very heavy (about 4000 lbs), and outperforms sportcars many times its price. Check out the graph in this article (which is also a track map of Buttonwillow):

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...ct_OnTrack.pdf

The article itself is:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6594

The most incredible thing about the GT-R was that it carried 5 MPH more through the esses and the bus stop (the part between Cotton Corners and Riverside) than either the Porsche or the Corvette. That is totally ridiculous for a car that's 800 to 1000 lbs heavier! Having driven this configuration of the track, I know that those sections are very technical and require great handling, so while weight is important, so is the rest of the car.

--Andre

The GT-R is 90% computer, 10% driver. Not saying it isn't a beast, there isn't much to respect about jamming on the gas pedal and letting the car drive itself. Now this, this is real driving: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Tho...x=0&playnext=1

Great point. There's nothing like needing to pass quickly or take an on ramp to be reminded of why it's really nice to have the burst of power when needed.

Looking at the GT-Rs that have been crashed, and seeing students in GT-Rs at driving schools, I think it's a fallacy to say that the GT-R is point-and-shoot. You still need to know when to brake, how hard to brake, when and how much to turn in, and all the other things about driving the line.

The car also can't overcome physics. When you've used up all the traction on your tires, like when you're trying to carry too much speed into a corner, the car is not going to turn for you. Nor does the suspension have instantaneous reaction time, so you still judge your weight transitions. It is true that the car's driver assistance features can help you get closer to the limit than your skills alone might, but there is still a big gulf. Think about it this way: could you get the same lap times as Michael Schumacher driving the same GT-R?

Lastly, the driver in the article is a professional race car driver, so he knows how to get the most out of each car. I don't think he suddenly became a better driver in the GT-R.

--Andre

Yes but the gtr requires less skill since it is merely an appliance for speed. Are you talking about Judy Ray in the E65?


If money was no object which would you choose? Why would anyone choose not to have the best variant of something? Agree with posters above that you should be driving a cadillac if the marginal cost in comfort would upset you to that extent.

+ 1

wow, good driver.

Dear lord, that is probably the best driving video Ive ever seen.

It's often regarded as such.

Should also note that the driver was not wearing a helmet. From what I understand, he basically said if he was going to get in any sort of crash, he would parish on the spot so a helmet was pretty much useless.