06-30-2015, 02:12 PM
Last week CaddyBoost commented on the spectacularly fast ATS-V test numbers Car and Driver somehow managed to achieve which blew their previous test figures out of the water. It is starting to make more sense as those test figures appeared in this comparison test of the ATS-V versus the BMW M3 and Mercedes-AMG C63 S.
If we knew those figures were recorded for this test we would have stated Cadillac may have sent a tweaked ATS-V to Car and Driver. Maybe they changed the software on all ATS-V's. Either way, something happened and the ATS-V is now spectacularly fast.
Speaking of which, the C63 AMG S is not recording any spectacularly fast times. At least not in this comparison. Of all the races we have seen between the C63 AMG S and the M3/M4, the AMG takes the victory and somewhat easily. So how is the C63 AMG S only trapping 116 in the 1/4 mile which is a mile per hour less than the M3 and how is it getting beaten to 100 miles per hour and 150 miles per hour by the M3? We can not explain it.
Is Car and Driver just throwing together test figures from different days for the cars? That certainly is how it feels. The numbers do not make sense in context. The ATS-V may actually be as fast as they are saying despite the previous slow tests from more than one source but that would mean it blows the C63 AMG S away. It's not even close with their claimed 6 miles per hour trap speed spread. What this network thinks is that the C63 AMG S would be the highway king out of these three. The acceleration numbers are puzzling.
As far as the weights there is no surprise that the M3 is the lightest at 3608 pounds followed by the ATS-V at 3800 pounds and the C63 AMG S at 3939 pounds. The W205 C-Class is not the lightweight car Mercedes claimed it would be. In all fairness, the F80 M3 missed its weight target too.
The M3's weight advantage pays dividends in the slalom posting the fastest time follow by the ATS-V and the C63 AMG S. The Caddy does record the best skidpad figure at 1.02g followed by the C63 AMG S at .98g and the M3 at .97g.
BMW's 50/50 weight distribution is simply a myth in the turbo era. The cars have more weight on the nose and Car and Driver records 52.1/47.9 front to back. The ATS-V and C63 AMG S fair no better with 52.5/47.5 and 54.3/45.7 front to back respectively.
Out of the trio the car chosen is the M3 finishing in first place. They comment that it is the lightest and leanest but criticize the brakes which seems to always be a point of criticism on BMW's and BMW just can't get it right. The Cadillac's handling is said to be better and the AMG braking is set to be better yet they still pick the M3 due to it being the better all around package.
The Cadillac ATS-V wows with its eye opening (and suspicious) numbers but its overall package and namely the interior is behind the other two. The engine also receives criticism for being 'dull' whatever that means. Its sound is criticized yet BMW is faking their engine sound with synthetic engine noise through the speaker system. The ATS-V is said to be the best handling car offering the best steering feel and brake feel yet it loses out because of the lack of refinement. Cadillac is almost there. Almost.
The AMG's transmission is criticized but it's V8 engine is praised despite putting up the slowest numbers. We still do not understand how the most powerful motor out of the group is somehow putting up the slowest numbers when all independent testing shows us it should be the fastest. Something is off here and perhaps Car and Driver got some 'magazine specials' to test. It's becoming harder and harder to trust these test results.
Make of it what you will.