Comparison Test: 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe vs. 2011 BMW M3 Coupe

Nobody likes a tie.

Well, that's not entirely true. Soccer fans seem unbothered by the idea of two mighty opponents meeting on the field of battle and leaving as if they'd never played, except deflated. We firmly believe that if two contestants enter a ring, one should emerge the victor and the other should suffer the agony of defeat and all that.

So imagine our consternation when our recent dream assignment — pitting the supercharged V8-powered 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe against the high-revving V8-powered 2011 M3 Coupe with the new Competition package — turned into a dilemma. After the tire smoke cleared, we reviewed the point totals for each coupe and found — oh dear! — a near dead heat.

These two high-performance coupes, so different in their driving dynamics, styling, power delivery and well, just about everything, nonetheless ended two weeks of evaluation with the CTS-V leading its more established supercoupe opponent by a scant 1.3 points.

There was a time at Inside Line when a two-point difference was declared a tie. More recently we narrowed that to a one-point margin. So the 556-horsepower Cadillac wins, technically. It had some help, though. We'll explain later.

Comparison Shopping
Were it simply down to a numbers race between the M3 coupe and the CTS-V Coupe, this would have been the shortest, easiest comparison test ever staged.

We already posted historical-M3 versus new-CTS-V numbers here and readers had their say. But there's more than a 12-second quarter-mile to consider when evaluating $70,000 high-performance coupes.

The curvaceous carbon-topped 2011 BMW M3 Coupe's price begins at $60,575 and our tester totaled $67,025 thanks to the addition of the Competition and Technology packages and a few stand-alone extras. Thankfully, the six-speed manual transmission comes standard.

In contrast, the angular 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe starts at $64,290 and our example came in at $69,285. The big-ticket extras? A set of Recaro seats for $3,400. A six-speed manual was part of the package, too.

Yes, we know that the Cadillac is larger and considerably more powerful than the M3, but if $2,000-$4,000 matters after you've ponied up nearly $70K, then the BMW gets the slight nod.

Advantage: BMW

Horses, Torques and a Boulder
Remember when we said the Cadillac was bigger than the M3? Yeah well, it outweighs the BMW by more than a quarter of a ton (650 pounds). Still, there's just no getting around the 142-hp deficit the M3 concedes to the CTS-V. Until the 2012 BMW M5 arrives, the CTS-V's 556 hp puts it in a league of its own. We learned this the last time a CTS-V sedan sent a BMW M5 and Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG packing.

Perhaps more dramatic is the variance in torque production. The supercharged pushrod 6.2-liter V8 in the CTS-V produces 551 pound-feet of twisting force, or nearly double the 295 lb-ft maximum of the naturally aspirated, high-revving 4.0-liter V8 in the M3. The M3's motor is spectacular, but compared to the CTS-V engine's tidal wave of torque the M3 mill feels like an ankle-slapper. It's a difference you literally feel in the seat of your pants.

The Cadillac was made to do smoky burnouts.

At the drag strip the M3 gets the hole-shot on the CTS-V. The M3 is simply easier to launch because of its more predictable clutch bite and more linear power delivery. But once the CTS-V's vast power is transmitted to the whimpering pavement, the outcome is as inevitable as shoving a boulder off a ledge. Thump. (See acceleration graph in the photo gallery.)

Both of the manual gearboxes proved excellent. Both glide easily through somewhat long gates. The Cadillac's clutch uptake is a bit smoother and easier with all that torque pulsing through its spinning bits. But the BMW's lightning-quick throttle response (especially in M mode) made it far easier to knock off near-flawless matched-rev downshifts.

The Numbers
The M3's best run produced a 0-60-mph time of 4.6 seconds (4.4 seconds with 1 foot of rollout) and a quarter-mile in 12.8 seconds at 111.2 mph. These results are within a tenth of a second and 1 mph of our best M3 coupe test.

The CTS-V, however, on the way to a gob-smacking 12.2-second 117.5-mph quarter-mile, ran to 60 mph in just 4.2 seconds (or 3.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout).

This coupe's straight-line performance is a couple tenths and a couple mph quicker and faster than any of the several CTS-V sedans we've driven, including a six-speed manual we tested that was 92 pounds heavier.

No doubt about it: This Caddy is a force-fed rocket, and it feels fast in any gear at any rpm. It's hard to get our heads around a car wearing the wreath and crest on its grille going faster than a Chevy Corvette Grand Sport did just a couple months ago.

Advantage: Cadillac

Four Pistons as Good as 20?
We suppose, given their differing approaches to the supercoupe segment, it shouldn't be a surprise that the two vehicles' braking hardware reveal a huge difference in engineering philosophy. And again, these divergent approaches result in nearly equally impressive performances. Where the CTS-V features Brembo-sourced six-pot front and four-piston rear fixed calipers gripping one-piece ventilated discs, the BMW uses single-piston front and rear sliding calipers squeezing two-piece ventilated/cross-drilled rotors.

The CTS-V came to a halt from 60 mph in 104 feet and the M3 in 107 feet — both exceptionally short and both fade-free. Both cars' brake pedals exhibited a sporty and appropriately steep jump-in, but we found the M3's to offer more tactile feedback and it was therefore easier to modulate with almost as much precision as a Porsche 911, the benchmark for brake feel.

Advantage: Cadillac? BMW?

But where every previous M3 we've tested provided even shorter stops than this example on its fourth or fifth stop, this one could do no better than it did on the first stop. And we're blaming the tires. Read on.

The Worthwhile Competition Package (With One Modification)
Go ahead and tick the "ZCP" Competition Package box if you're considering a 2011 BMW M3 this year. The new $2,500 package offers some truly useful upgrades, but there's one caveat.

The ZCP package lowers the car by a noticeable 10mm and comes with some exceptionally handsome 19-inch forged aluminum wheels with deeper offset than stock hoops. Plus, BMW's electronic damper control (EDC) is reprogrammed so what was the firmest fixed-valve setting in "Sport" is now a variable-valve setting that offers a wider range of chassis control in a larger variety of road conditions. The "Comfort" and "Normal" settings remain unchanged from non-ZCP M3s.

During the slalom runs, our test driver reported being curious about this M3's newfound compliance and improved yaw response in Sport. That damper selection (indicated by two lights adjacent to the button) has historically proved too firm and nervous for our 600-foot slalom test. So the M3 Competition package car feels better through the slalom and is less sensitive to bumps. But this car's Continental ContiSport Contact 3 tires couldn't cash the check written by the improved EDC tuning.

The best results we could muster were 0.90g on the skid pad and a 67.7-mph pass in the slalom. Previous M3 coupe slalom speeds have been as high as 73.3-mph and skid pad orbits have been recorded as high as 0.95g — that's a big difference we attribute to tires.

Every preceding E9X-generation M3 we've tested has been delivered with Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tires — and each one (with the exception of a convertible) outperformed this loaner in our handling tests.

We're told the M division has blessed both brands of identically sized and rated tires, and that the decision to fit Michelins or Contis depends on "just-in-time" delivery to the factory. Insist on the Michelin PS2s if you're buying.

Agility Versus Feel
Where the M3 felt nervous, the CTS-V felt a little dull — not as in boring, but as in less sharp than it was on the first day we received it. Because this was the second full test this car endured while in our possession, there's little doubt the slightly reduced grip (from 0.90g to 0.89g) and slower slalom speed (from 69.3 mph to 68.2 mph) were the result of several heat cycles we put on its tires — Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s, by the way.

Despite the M3's poor tire choice and the disappointing instrumented-test results they produced, our experience tells us there's much more in this car than we measured on this day. The Cadillac may have made the numbers, but we'd still have to give the handling and dynamic feel award to the hobbled BMW. Telepathic steering response and a near-perfect driving position count for more in our books than a deficit of 0.5-mph in the slalom.

Advantage: BMW. However...

...the 4,200-pound Cadillac amazed us with how well its continually self-adjusting magnetorheological dampers can both firmly suspend the CTS-V for track tests and isolate occupants from nasty pavement out in the real world. Even with its rejiggered EDC, the short-wheelbase M3 couldn't match the Cadillac's all-around capabilities.

Advantage: Cadillac

Size Matters
Both of these two-doors share the same wheelbase measurements of their four-door counterparts, and both jettison the center position of the rear seat in the conversion to coupes. Further, legroom and headroom in both cars' driver seats remain essentially the same as their sedan versions, with the exception of the CTS-V Coupe's front headroom dropping by about an inch from the sedan. Because of our experience with their sedan counterparts, we expected the interior measurements to favor the Cadillac over the BMW in coupe form.

However, in the transformation from sedan to coupe, the CTS-V lost more volume and inches than the M3. Of particular note, the CTS-V's rear headroom dropped by a head-knocking 2.6 inches where the M3 only lost 0.7 inch, retaining habitable dimensions.

Rear passenger shoulder room shrank by 6.5 inches in the CTS-V and 5.3 inches in the M3, still favoring the M3 by an inch. Finally, besides its narrower orifice and luggage-crushing gooseneck hinges specific to the coupe, trunk volume in the CTS-V was reduced by 3 cubic feet. The M3's trunk retained cargo-friendly scissor hinges and lost just 1 cube, giving it the clear advantage.

Advantage: BMW

That both of these high-performance cars are available in far more accommodating and practical sedan form — with essentially no loss of performance — would make the choice of a coupe purely a styling preference. That's where the CTS-V Coupe detours farther from its sedan brother than the M3 does.

Style Matters
Aside from the way-cool standard carbon-fiber roof panel, you'd barely be able to see the difference in a quick glance between M3 coupe and sedan. They evidence the same economical use of organically shaped metal and the same well-vented fasciae. The coupe offers only a slightly sportier profile.

Put a CTS-V Coupe and sedan side by side and even a novice would notice that only the front fenders, grille and headlamps are the same. The absence of door handles is the give-away in profile, but especially from the rear, the CTS-V Coupe is really trying very hard (too hard?) to make a bold statement.

The CTS-V Coupe interior shares much with its sedan counterpart. That means the same inboard knee-thrashing occurs in the CTS-V's front seat, but it also means the same rich, high-quality interior materials are used, as are the innovative pop-up infotainment screen and hard-drive-based navigation and music storage — which we like very much.

In contrast, the M3's interior, like most BMWs, looks pretty austere. We're over the moon that the latest version of iDrive has found its way to the M3, and the optional hard-drive-based navigation, too. Sure the materials quality is expectedly high, but it isn't much to look at.

Advantage: Let your personal aesthetic sensibilities be your guide.

Sillier Than a Shoot-Out?
Because all of this thoughtful consideration and careful measuring, to say nothing of all the gallons of gas burned, brought us to an effective stalemate between these two, we've decided to do something utterly ridiculous.

Allow us to introduce you to our new tie-breaking procedure, performed in accordance with the rules of the High-Output Oversteer Naturalization (HOON) committee: the drift competition.

We did our first exploratory pass in the ultra-precise M3 assuming that its shorter wheelbase, quick, informative steering (in M mode) and mile-high redline would make it a natural. But we had to zing the BMW motor up near redline (8,400 rpm) to kick the tail out. Once the drift started, there wasn't enough headroom left to stay out of the rev limiter. And there wasn't enough torque below to maintain wheelspin. We also found the combo of short wheelbase and quick steering to be almost too precise for such a gratuitous show of smoky acrobatics. It's almost as if BMW didn't design the Continental sophisticate for such gross displays of ridiculousness.

Yes, the M3 can drift, repeatedly, precisely and with a pretty glorious V8 howl, but it also requires vigilance and a well-rehearsed plan.

Then the CTS-V came in with a stunning display of power and vulgarity. The Caddy's got exactly the right combo of a semi-long wheelbase, a shipping container's worth of torque and lightly weighted steering. The CTS-V put down uninterrupted black stripes not just through our test corner but through the following straight and into the next corner. God Bless America, huh?

It was only after this dramatic and decidedly lopsided display that we felt compelled to add the HOON score in honor of the CTS-V Coupe. We even drew a new box for the previously absent category. The CTS-V got a perfect 10.

Advantage: Cadillac

A Win's a Win
OK, so we let a drifting contest settle a score that was too close to call. You got a better idea? Track numbers only tell part of the story. Price, features, fuel economy, evaluations and editors' picks fill in the blanks, but that ended in an implicit stalemate.

In all seriousness, we think this is a pretty polarized segment. You're likely either a fan of one or the other of these cars. Do we honestly believe you'll choose the CTS-V Coupe over the M3 because of its superior driftability? No, we do not.

But in this comparison test, the Cadillac CTS-V Coupe is the winner. It represents a unique combination of Corvette-beating acceleration, a paranormal ability to smooth out rough roads and tear up test roads, head-turning looks, loads of standard features and a price that is at the very least, fair for the segment. And it can do positively vulgar things, too, if that's what you want.

Rock on, Cadillac. You won this round fair and square; not by a landslide, but by a powerslide.

The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.