Close

    • 2018 Super Sedan Showdown - BMW F90 M5 vs. Mercedes-AMG W213 E63 S vs. Cadillac CTS-V vs. Porsche Panamera Turbo

      Well, this is what what we have been waiting for. Although we knew it was going to be a bit boring with the Cadillac CTS-V being the only standout. Even before getting into this Car and Driver comparison we can tell you the CTS-V will be the lightest and liveliest of the group and the most fun to drive.


      For some reason though the measure of this segment has become acceleration. It's an output war like the world has never seen before. It's also easy to see the manufacturers are full of crap regarding their claimed out.

      The Cadillac is rated at the most power yet it has the slowest trap speed by far. The '600 horsepower' M5 traps 129 miles per hour. The 603 horsepower E63 S does a 128. Even the 550 horsepower Panamera Turbo, which is much heavier than the CTS-V, pulls a 123. How is the lightest and most powerful car only doing 121? Well, because it isn't the most powerful.

      The sandbagging is crazy. As is how fat these cars are. What excuse is there for the Panamera Turbo coming in at 4682 pounds? The Hybrid version must be close to 5000 pounds. These aren't SUV's.

      The BMW M5 is he lightest of the all wheel drive cars at 4288 pounds which is commendable but it has 54.7 percent of its weight on the nose now. Only the Mercedes has worse balance with 55.5 percent of its weight up front.

      The CTS-V is the lightest 4168 pounds and is tied for the best balance with the Panamera Turbo with 52.9/47.1 front to back weight. The Panamera should be commended for managing such balance with all wheel drive. That is partially thanks to its transaxle dual clutch transmission design.

      Speaking of transmissions, nobody in the segment offers a manual any longer. Seeing an all wheel drive BMW M5 with an automatic transmission just feels like something that made the M5 special died. It's a dragster now.

      The CTS-V is the best handling of the group and gets through the slalom the quickest. Does the guy in the M5 sitting a stoplight care though? He can get to 60 in 2.8 seconds while the CTS-V sits there spinning the tires.

      The M5 is chosen as the best of the group followed by the E63 and the CTS-V. The Panamera brings up the rear. Is this the right order? Should the CTS-V be punished for being the best driver's car? Should the M5 be rewarded for being the best dragster?

      The M5's handling is said to be playful which is hard to be believe. At least BMW kept it light in the context of the segment so they deserve credit there. The E63 doing what it does in a straight line considering what it weighs likely means it is making the most power. It is a shame the Porsche is said to be numb and imprecise when it offers the only dual clutch transmission and such great balance with a wide track.

      Maybe GM will get to work on a new CTS-V that addresses the traction issues? They're so close to being the best in this segment and offering the best value to boot.



      2018 BMW M5 2018 Cadillac CTS-V 2018 Mercedes-AMG E63 S 4Matic 2017 Porsche Panamera Turbo
      VEHICLE
      PRICE AS TESTED $127,295 $102,935 $134,600 $173,325
      BASE PRICE $104,595 $88,490 $105,395 $147,950
      DIMENSIONS
      LENGTH 195.5 in 197.7 in 196.4 in 198.8 in
      WIDTH 74.9 in 72.2 in 75.1 in 76.3 in
      HEIGHT 58.0 in 57.2 in 56.6 in 56.2 in
      WHEELBASE 117.4 in 114.6 in 115.7 in 116.1 in
      FRONT TRACK 64.0 in 62.1 in 64.9 in 65.2 in
      REAR TRACK 62.8 in 61.2 in 62.8 in 64.4 in
      INTERIOR VOLUME F: 57 cu ft
      R: 45 cu ft
      F: 61 cu ft
      R: 42 cu ft
      F: 52 cu ft
      R: 46 cu ft
      F: 54 cu ft
      R: 43 cu ft
      CARGO VOLUME 19 cu ft 14 cu ft 13 cu ft 17 cu ft
      POWERTRAIN
      ENGINE twin-turbocharged DOHC 32-valve V-8
      268 cu in (4395 cc)
      supercharged pushrod 16-valve V-8
      376 cu in (6162 cc)
      twin-turbocharged DOHC 32-valve V-8
      243 cu in (3982 cc)
      twin-turbocharged DOHC 32-valve V-8
      244 cu in (3996 cc)
      POWER HP @ RPM 600 @ 6600 640 @ 6400 603 @ 6500 550 @ 6000
      TORQUE LB-FT @ RPM 553 @ 1800 630 @ 3600 627 @ 2500 567 @ 1960
      REDLINE / FUEL CUTOFF 7200/7200 rpm 6500/6700 rpm 7000/7000 rpm 6800/6900 rpm
      LB PER HP 7.1 6.5 7.6 8.5
      DRIVELINE
      TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic 8-speed automatic 9-speed automatic 8-speed dual-clutch automatic
      DRIVEN WHEELS rear/all rear rear/all all
      GEAR RATIO:1/
      MPH PER 1000 RPM/
      MAX MPH
      1 5.00/5.1/37
      2 3.20/8.0/58
      3 2.14/11.9/86
      4 1.72/14.8/107
      5 1.31/19.5/140
      6 1.00/25.5/163
      7 0.82/31.1/163
      8 0.64/39.9/163
      1 4.56/5.8/39
      2 2.97/8.9/60
      3 2.08/12.7/85
      4 1.69/15.6/105
      5 1.27/20.7/139
      6 1.00/26.3/176
      7 0.85/31.0/200
      8 0.65/40.5/190
      1 5.35/4.8/34
      2 3.24/7.9/55
      3 2.25/11.3/79
      4 1.64/15.5/109
      5 1.21/21.0/147
      6 1.00/25.5/179
      7 0.86/29.6/186
      8 0.72/35.4/186
      9 0.60/42.4/180
      1 5.97/4.1/28
      2 3.24/7.5/52
      3 2.08/11.8/81
      4 1.42/17.2/119
      5 1.05/23.3/161
      6 0.84/29.1/190
      7 0.68/36.0/185
      8 0.53/46.2/180
      FINAL-DRIVE RATIO:1 3.15, limited-slip rear differential 2.85, limited-slip differential 3.06, limited-slip rear differential 3.36, limited-slip rear differential
      CHASSIS
      SUSPENSION F: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
      R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
      F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar
      R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
      F: multilink, air springs, anti-roll bar
      R: multilink, air springs, anti-roll bar
      F: control arms, air springs, anti-roll bar
      R: multilink, air springs, anti-roll bar
      BRAKES F: 15.6-inch vented, cross-drilled ceramic disc
      R: 15.0-inch vented, cross-drilled ceramic disc
      F: 15.4-inch vented disc
      R: 14.4-inch vented disc
      F: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled ceramic disc
      R: 14.2-inch vented, cross-drilled ceramic disc
      F: 16.5-inch vented, cross-drilled ceramic disc
      R: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled ceramic disc
      STABILITY CONTROL fully defeatable, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, traction off, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, competition mode, launch control
      TIRES Michelin Pilot Sport 4S
      F: 275/35ZR-20 (102Y)
      R: 285/35ZR-20 (104Y)
      Michelin Pilot Super Sport
      F: 265/35ZR-19 (98Y)
      R: 295/35ZR-19 (100Y)
      Michelin Pilot Sport 4S
      F: 265/35ZR-20 (99Y)
      R: 295/30ZR-20 (101Y)
      Continental ContiSportContact 5P
      F: 275/35ZR-21 (103Y)
      R: 315/30ZR-21 (105Y)
      C/D TEST RESULTS
      ACCELERATION
      030 MPH 1.1 sec 1.8 sec 1.1 sec 1.2 sec
      060 MPH 2.8 sec 3.8 sec 2.9 sec 3.0 sec
      0100 MPH 6.6 sec 8.1 sec 6.7 sec 7.4 sec
      0150 MPH 15.9 sec 20.1 sec 15.9 sec 18.2 sec
      -MILE @ MPH 10.9 sec @ 129 12.0 sec @ 121 11.0 sec @ 128 11.3 sec @ 123
      ROLLING START, 560 MPH 3.7 sec 4.2 sec 3.8 sec 4.2 sec
      TOP GEAR, 3050 MPH 2.2 sec 2.0 sec 2.3 sec 2.2 sec
      TOP GEAR, 5070 MPH 2.4 sec 2.4 sec 2.5 sec 2.8 sec
      TOP SPEED 163 mph (gov ltd) 200 mph (drag ltd, mfr's claim) 186 mph (gov ltd, mfr's claim) 190 mph (drag ltd, mfr's claim)
      CHASSIS
      BRAKING 700 MPH 147 ft 148 ft 153 ft 153 ft
      ROADHOLDING,
      300-FT-DIA SKIDPAD
      0.98 g 1.01 g 1.01 g 1.00 g
      610-FT SLALOM 45.2 mph 46.4 mph 44.4 mph 44.8 mph
      WEIGHT
      CURB 4288 lb 4168 lb 4579 lb 4682 lb
      %FRONT/%REAR 54.7/45.3 52.9/47.1 55.5/44.5 52.9/47.1
      FUEL
      TANK 20.1 gal 19.0 gal 21.1 gal 23.8 gal
      RATING 93 octane 93 octane 91 octane 93 octane
      EPA COMBINED/CITY/HWY 17/15/21 mpg 17/14/21 mpg 18/15/22 mpg 21/18/25 mpg
      C/D 400-MILE TRIP 15 mpg 11 mpg 13 mpg 13 mpg
      SOUND LEVEL
      IDLE 47 dBA 50 dBA 47 dBA 44 dBA
      FULL THROTTLE 74 dBA 85 dBA 80 dBA 75 dBA
      70-MPH CRUISE 66 dBA 67 dBA 66 dBA 64 dBA
      tested by TONY QUIROGA and ERIC TINGWALL in California City, CA




      Final Results
      Max Points Available 2018 BMW M5 2018 Mercedes-AMG E63 S 4Matic 2018 Cadillac CTS-V 2017 Porsche Panamera Turbo
      RANK 1 2 3 4
      VEHICLE
      DRIVER COMFORT 10 10 8 8 8
      ERGONOMICS 10 8 8 6 6
      REAR-SEAT COMFORT 5 3 3 2 2
      REAR-SEAT SPACE* 5 4 5 4 4
      CARGO SPACE* 5 5 2 3 4
      FEATURES/AMENITIES* 10 9 10 6 5
      FIT AND FINISH 10 9 10 7 9
      INTERIOR STYLING 10 8 10 6 8
      EXTERIOR STYLING 10 8 8 9 8
      REBATES/EXTRAS* 5 1 1 3 0
      AS-TESTED PRICE* 20 15 14 20 6
      SUBTOTAL 100 80 79 74 60
      POWERTRAIN
      1/4-MILE ACCELERATION* 20 20 20 15 18
      FLEXIBILITY* 5 3 3 4 2
      FUEL ECONOMY* 10 10 8 6 8
      ENGINE NVH 10 9 10 8 8
      TRANSMISSION 10 9 9 7 8
      SUBTOTAL 55 51 50 40 44
      CHASSIS
      PERFORMANCE* 20 19 19 20 19
      STEERING FEEL 10 8 8 10 8
      BRAKE FEEL 10 9 9 9 9
      HANDLING 10 8 8 10 9
      RIDE 10 9 7 9 9
      SUBTOTAL 60 53 51 58 54
      EXPERIENCE
      FUN TO DRIVE 25 22 21 25 21
      GRAND TOTAL 240 206 201 197 179
      * These objective scores are calculated from the vehicle's dimensions, capacities, rebates and extras, and/or test results.


      This article was originally published in forum thread: 2018 Super Sedan Showdown - BMW F90 M5 vs. Mercedes-AMG W213 E63 S vs. Cadillac CTS-V vs. Porsche Panamera Turbo started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 21 Comments
      1. BlackJetE90OC's Avatar
        BlackJetE90OC -
        GM has their chassis/handling/steering dialed. Every review their cars shine in that area over german rivals.

        Honestly, you can't go wrong with either the M5 or E63. Both fantastic cars.
      1. SpeedLimit?'s Avatar
        SpeedLimit? -
        The CTS-V is the only car here that's accurately rated power wise. If it really did have more power it would make some time back from the germans at the higher speeds. I can't wait to see the M5 get dyno'd.
      1. Sticky2's Avatar
        Sticky2 -
        The M5 has to be over 600 awhp.
      1. maxnix's Avatar
        maxnix -
        Instead of adding FWD to RWD chassis, both BMW and MB need to design their cars as AWD with RWD variants.
      1. gaspam's Avatar
        gaspam -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SpeedLimit? Click here to enlarge
        The CTS-V is the only car here that's accurately rated power wise. If it really did have more power it would make some time back from the germans at the higher speeds. I can't wait to see the M5 get dyno'd.
        the cts-v did make time back, you have to normalize the time splits to mph....

        at 30mph the M5 was 63% faster to 30mph vs caddy
        at 60mph the M5 was 35% faster to 60mph vs caddy
        at 100mph the M5 was 22% faster to 100mph vs caddy
        at 150mph the M5 was 26% faster to 150mph vs caddy

        so off the line the AWD M5 creates a big 63% time gap while the caddy is struggling for grip, by 100mph the M5 only has a 22% time gap so the caddy is closing the gap.... but then at 150mph the gap widens a little again (probably the efficiency of the turbo taking over and the s/c on the caddy starting to heat soak)

        its also evident in the rolling times where the caddy is much more competitive.... lack of awd is what really hurts the caddy vs M5/E63 in the acceleration times
      1. C5LS6_CLS55's Avatar
        C5LS6_CLS55 -
        Cadillac needs to step up
      1. BlackJetE90OC's Avatar
        BlackJetE90OC -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by C5LS6_CLS55 Click here to enlarge
        Cadillac needs to step up
        Their car is the oldest in the segment.
      1. gaspam's Avatar
        gaspam -
        ^this...

        If they made an AWD version, I probably would of bought one already as love its aggressive looks
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
        Their car is the oldest in the segment.
        Exactly.

        Plus their next car is guaranteed to have a twin turbo V8.

        I just don't know what they are doing with the CTS. Cadillac can't seem to figure out how to get their model naming system down.
      1. Blown6's Avatar
        Blown6 -
        m5 quickest...
      1. BlackJetE90OC's Avatar
        BlackJetE90OC -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Blown6 Click here to enlarge
        m5 quickest...
        Hmmm...maybe not. M5 loses two races from dig and a roll race.

      1. bmwsport's Avatar
        bmwsport -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by gaspam Click here to enlarge
        the cts-v did make time back, you have to normalize the time splits to mph....

        at 30mph the M5 was 63% faster to 30mph vs caddy
        at 60mph the M5 was 35% faster to 60mph vs caddy
        at 100mph the M5 was 22% faster to 100mph vs caddy
        at 150mph the M5 was 26% faster to 150mph vs caddy

        so off the line the AWD M5 creates a big 63% time gap while the caddy is struggling for grip, by 100mph the M5 only has a 22% time gap so the caddy is closing the gap.... but then at 150mph the gap widens a little again (probably the efficiency of the turbo taking over and the s/c on the caddy starting to heat soak)

        its also evident in the rolling times where the caddy is much more competitive.... lack of awd is what really hurts the caddy vs M5/E63 in the acceleration times

        That is absolutely wrong. From 60-150mph, the gap widens, with the Caddy taking over 3 seconds longer where the AWD should actually hurt the others. You can't use percentage for time splits, because all cars accelerate slower at higher speeds and you are sampling a greater amount of seconds. I mean if all the cars topped out at 150mph and one does it in 10 seconds vs 20 seconds, you would say one is twice as quick. But about an 1 hour later they are both doing 150mph still, but one got there 10 seconds quicker. Yet 3600 seconds vs 3590 seconds is only a few thousandths of a % quicker to 150 for the car that was twice as quick to 150mph.

        Also, to say the M5 is only a one dimensional dragster compared to the Cadillac is unfair. People do buy this class of car for other reasons too such as the M5 being:

        Much more ergonomic (some what important?)
        More rear seat comfort
        More cargo space
        Superior Features
        Superior Fit and Finish
        Superior Interior styling
        Less Noise Vibration/Harshness
        superior transmission
        superior fuel economy
        safer AWD handling for the average buyer.

        For some people who don't regularly drag race and go to a road course, these are things that matter too. I mean, go get an Atom if you just care about track performance without comfort.
      1. gaspam's Avatar
        gaspam -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bmwsport Click here to enlarge
        That is absolutely wrong. From 60-150mph, the gap widens, with the Caddy taking over 3 seconds longer where the AWD should actually hurt the others. You can't use percentage for time splits, because all cars accelerate slower at higher speeds and you are sampling a greater amount of seconds. I mean if all the cars topped out at 150mph and one does it in 10 seconds vs 20 seconds, you would say one is twice as quick. But about an 1 hour later they are both doing 150mph still, but one got there 10 seconds quicker. Yet 3600 seconds vs 3590 seconds is only a few thousandths of a % quicker to 150 for the car that was twice as quick to 150mph.

        Also, to say the M5 is only a one dimensional dragster compared to the Cadillac is unfair. People do buy this class of car for other reasons too such as the M5 being:

        Much more ergonomic (some what important?)
        More rear seat comfort
        More cargo space
        Superior Features
        Superior Fit and Finish
        Superior Interior styling
        Less Noise Vibration/Harshness
        superior transmission
        superior fuel economy
        safer AWD handling for the average buyer.

        For some people who don't regularly drag race and go to a road course, these are things that matter too. I mean, go get an Atom if you just care about track performance without comfort.
        yes cars accelerate slower at higher speeds, but you are failing to see that the M5 puts the majority of its time gap, on the caddy, in the first 30mph.... even if you dont normalize the numbers and just go raw time then at 30 mph the M5 has .7 sec gap on the caddy (traction differences obviously), then by 100 mph the gap has only gone up by .8 sec more over an additional span of 70 mph

        so in the first 30 mph a .7 sec gap was created between the M5 and caddy
        in the next additional 70mph (the 100 mph mark) it was only able to create a .8 sec gap
        after 100 the caddy just seems to heatsoak and fall on its face as even the porsche gets there much faster, so the blower on the caddy seems to turn into a hair dryer after 100

        again, the 30-50 and 50-70mph pulls proves this, where the caddy beats (30-50) and ties (50-70) the M5..... that proves the power is there for the caddy, it just cant put it down effectively from a standing start
      1. gaspam's Avatar
        gaspam -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
        Hmmm...maybe not. M5 loses two races from dig and a roll race.
        jeep trackhawk also beat the M5 in drag race Click here to enlarge I know, not a real track but kinda funny and surprising

      1. BlackJetE90OC's Avatar
        BlackJetE90OC -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky2 Click here to enlarge
        The M5 has to be over 600 awhp.
        Just noticed the data sheet shows the E63S was only car with 91oct, others had 93oct.

        Why would they do that? Could explain Carwow video, M5 losing two dig races even while getting the launch both times. E63S also slightly pulled from a roll, although they are very close.
      1. BlackJetE90OC's Avatar
        BlackJetE90OC -
        I bet a lot of the weight difference between the M5 and E63, is in the huge panoramic sunroof in the Benz. That thing has to be a solid 150lbs extra weight vs M5 carbon roof.
      1. leveraged sellout's Avatar
        leveraged sellout -
        Everyone says the CTS is great to drive, but as far as I can tell so is the M5. Have to drive one myself and find out.

        It's pointless to truly compare the Panamera with these cars and argue about weight, size, cost. It's an S-Class/7-Series competitor, not a 5/E/CTS/A6 competitor. Reason it's so heavy is likely because this platform will also have to be the next Flying Spur and is already the new Continental as well. Although...I've heard it's quite good to drive as well, better than the old one which was already excellent. It's no M3 but the Panamera also has heated, cooled power rear seats, tons of leg room and a fridge in the back if you like...what more could you want.
      1. Blown6's Avatar
        Blown6 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
        Just noticed the data sheet shows the E63S was only car with 91oct, others had 93oct.

        Why would they do that? Could explain Carwow video, M5 losing two dig races even while getting the launch both times. E63S also slightly pulled from a roll, although they are very close.
        That’s the rating not the fuel used. In other words, the recommended octane by the manufacturer for maximum performance.....
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Blown6 Click here to enlarge
        That’s the rating not the fuel used. In other words, the recommended octane by the manufacturer for maximum performance.....
        He's right.
      1. subaru335i's Avatar
        subaru335i -
        The next gen CTS-V coming out probably in 2020 will be called the CT5-V and will most likely be twin turbo DOHC and AWD like the rest of these.
        There are rumours from people in GM that they might bring back the manual for that too..but that is hard to believe.