<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"         Sometimes a car is slower than it feels, and other times it&amp;#039;s faster. This is one of the latter. The CTS-V is immensely capable and provides the feedback we&amp;#039;ve come to expect from a sports sedan. But we&amp;#039;ve learned what a superb sports sedan should feel like from the BMW M5. So here&amp;#039;s the monkey wrench that BMW has hit us over the head with: The newest M5 has lost much of that feel as it has been made more comfortable. But in the process of isolating the driver from the road, BMW engineers have made the car much quicker. Take a look at the data and see how they did it.   A - For starters, the M5 powers across the starting line and achieves a 5-mph advantage into the first corner. This is partly due to the CTS-V&amp;#039;s hitting the top of 3rd and needing a shift to 4th briefly.   B - The difference in this off-camber corner is grip. The M5, with its custom Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires, provided 0.07g more lateral grip than the CTS-V could on its older, smaller and less tacky Michelin Pilot Sports. We can guess that the next evolution of the CTS-V will include updated rubber.   C - A long 2-3 shift in the M5 delays entry to the tightest corner of the track; however, it stops quicker and pulls harder out of the corner than the CTS-V. From the driver&amp;#039;s seat, the M5 pushes through the corner while the CTS-V cuts a balanced slice through the apex. Thus, it&amp;#039;s a surprise that the M5 is so much quicker. We&amp;#039;ll chalk it up to the BMW&amp;#039;s Active M differential and tires.   D - A short shift here before a gut-checking dip is necessary. Each sedan takes it well, with their respective electronically adjustable dampers stabilizing the landing. But it&amp;#039;s the M5&amp;#039;s stability that allows it to carry more speed into this fast right-hander with a rise to the apex at the crest.   E - At the crest, the M5 is pulling 1.05g, a significant 0.10g more than the CTS-V. This allowed the BMW to open up a big gap. Here, even though the M5 feels stable, the CTS-V isn&amp;#039;t afraid to yaw, and requires its driver to keep hands at the ready for when it does.   F - With similar speeds down the straight, it&amp;#039;s no surprise that braking is important. The nod here goes to the CTS-V with more predictable braking manners. The decreasing-radius turn that follows is notoriously unfriendly to a car that understeers. The M5 requires its driver to be painfully patient, while the CTS-V can get on the gas much earlier. But the grip of the M5 keeps the fight close, only yielding a hundredth of second.   G - The CTS-V is able to eke out an extra 2.5 mph down the short chute thanks to its advantage in segment F. When it gets to the tight left, though, the BMW pulls a surprisingly high 1.11g, which is again 0.10g higher than the CTS-V. Are we sensing a pattern here?   H - Just as these cars have different levels of grip, they also require different racing lines. The CTS-V prefers the tighter line, with emphasis on its ability to shorten distances with tidy steering. The M5 is all about opening up a corner and late apexing. Patience is hugely rewarded once the go pedal hits the floor.   I - The tighter corner doesn&amp;#039;t favor the M5&amp;#039;s extra grip as much as we&amp;#039;d have thought. It has only a 0.03g advantage, and that lets the CTS-V keep pace.   J - The Cadillac navigates this high-speed right-hander better than the M5, but can&amp;#039;t keep the lead due to the overwhelmingly wide torque curve of the M5. The BMW just pulls amazingly hard from any rpm.       The Results     PERFORMANCE   Performance points based on proportional scale (normalization).     Points 2013 BMW M5 2012 Cadillac CTS-V   0-60 mph 30 pts 30.0 29.3   0\u20131/4 mile 30 pts 30.0 29.5   Slalom 30 pts 30.0 29.8   Skidpad 30 pts 30.0 29.1   Braking, 60\u20130 mph 30 pts 30.0 29.7   Braking, 80\u20130 mph 30 pts 30.0 30.0   Fuel economy, EPA 20 pts 20.0 16.9   SUBTOTAL 200 pts 200.0 194.3             SUBJECTIVE   Subjective ratings based on points awarded in each of 12 categories by editors and scored based on a proportional scale.   Driving excitement 20 pts 17.9 20.0   Engine 20 pts 20.0 18.9   Gearbox 20 pts 17.9 20.0   Steering 20 pts 16.8 20.0   Brakes 20 pts 17.9 20.0   Ride 20 pts 20.0 16.8   Handling 20 pts 16.7 20.0   Exterior styling 15 pts 13.4 15.0   Interior styling 15 pts 15.0 14.1   Seats 10 pts 10.0 7.4   Ergonomics/ controls 10 pts 10.0 9.4   Luggage space 10 pts 10.0 8.9   SUBTOTAL 200 pts 185.6 190.5             POINTS STANDINGS   Points based on a proportional scale, independent of price.    Total Points 400 pts 385.6 384.8   FINAL STANDINGS   1 2             STANDINGS, PRICE DEPENDENT   Points based on a proportional scale; points range based on percentage of top price.    Price as tested 200 pts 186.8 200.0       $97,047 $71,505   Price-sensitive total points 572.4 584.8   Price-sensitive standings 2 1     In My Opinion   On the track, the Cadillac CTS-V hits all the right notes\u2014good power, livelier chassis and steering feel. That is until you look at the lap times and realize that the BMW M5 is much faster, and achieves that speed in a more civilized manner. This is even more evident on the road, where the M5&amp;#039;s ride is daily-commute friendly and the CTS-V beats you up a bit. My overall pick goes to the M5. \u2014Patrick Hong Executive Editor   The M5 is the best-handling 7 Series BMW has ever made. Yeah, I know it&amp;#039;s a 5 Series, but it&amp;#039;s just so big, and soft, and comfortable and stomping fast. It&amp;#039;s high-performance luxury at its pinnacle, and for that reason I&amp;#039;ll take the CTS-V. It&amp;#039;s a sports sedan like the previous-generation BMW M5, where driver interaction and enjoyment take precedence over passenger comfort and isolation. \u2014Shaun Bailey Associate Engineering Editor "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/videos/a21098/the-results-2013-bmw-m5-vs-2012-cadillac-cts-v/>