Found this elsewhere... haven't received my copy yet:

Car and Driver Jan 06 M5 comparison w/CLS55 AMG and STS-V

In the January 2006 Issue of car and driver there is a comparison Between the BMW M5, Cadillac STS-V, and the Mercedes-Benz CLS55 AMG.

3rd Place CLS55
2nd Place STS-V
1st Place M5

Both the CLS55 and M5 got 0-60 in 4.2 seconds
BMW M5 did 0-100 in 9.4 seconds, and 1/4 mile in 12.5 seconds@118 MPH
CLS55 did 0-100 in 9.8 seconds, and 1/4 mile in 12.6 seconds@114 MPH.

M5 got 0.89g's in the skidpad and did something like 65.7 Mph in the emergancy lane change
CLS55 got 0.93g's in the skidpad and did something like 63.5 Mph in the emergancy lane change
M5 had the best Braking numbers

STS-V was behind in all performance numbers.

car and driver gave the M5 a 10 for handling and a 8 for ride
and the CLS55 got a 7 for Handling and a 8 for ride

I saw the numbers somewhere, and the STS-V lost by 6 points, 3 of which were from the "gotta-have it" factor. It actually won the "vehicle" section and just lost on the performance numbers. 0-60 was 4.6s for the STS-V and the 1/4 mile was 13.2s. I don't understand why they tested the CLS instead of the E. It sounds like if the GMPD went for balls-out performance with the STS-V like it did with the CTS-V and tuned the engine to what it's capable of (515hp) then it may have been able to pick up those 6 or 7 points and tie or win the comparison.

The M5 is hard to beat... Yet, as nice as the STS-V is I don't understand why GM would KNOWINGLY put out a performance car that simply doesn't OUT PERFORM the competition... This is a typical GM "Get it in the ballpark" or "Just good enough" or "At least competitive" logic..... I'm happy, but sad. :rolleyes:

.93 G is great, so what was the STS's ? What is the weights of all cars ? What is the final drive ratio ? followed by the EPA milage ? Do I care if some reporters did not prefer the American built car...........NOT !

will be interesting to read what R&T, MT etc have to say in their comparo. no surprise that M5 won a C&D comparison. (did they ignore the electrical quibbles and flashing lights and warnings like they did on the 3Series winner a few months ago????)

Car and Driver also said that the interior was "handsome". I had to do a double take on that word! It's amazing what switching vendors can do for you. They should just stick to these vendors that do the Maybach and use it on all the Cadillac models.

The M5 is too good; I would call it unfair compared to everyone else. However, the CLS55 and STS-V are pretty close IMO. It's no surprise that they switch places in different comparos. The CLS has more style, but the STS is more subtle. I think a better comparison would have been CLS55, STS-V, and XJR. Again, the M5 is just completely dominant.

The CLS won the MT comparison in the January issue. MT said the STS' interior upgrade looked like it was stuck on, something along those lines. The CLS blew the STS-V away performance-wise.

Didn't I say the STS-V wasn't adequate at first? I think I did... Seems that I was right. Frankly, I don't think it even deserved second. It's bland (for a Cadillac) and has the performance to match. While I find the others to be quite ugly, atleast they are unique and exciting with awesome performance, almost unbeatable in the M5's case.

Designed for everyday driving, the STS-V has been developed to deliver supercharged, rear-drive performance with an elegant design statement that is unmistakably Cadillac.

Supercharged V8 4371 cc
Horsepower: 440 bhp @ 6400 rpm
Torque: 430 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
Redline: 6700 rpm

Do Cadillac drivers do this :metal: hammering down the hilltowns crankin Black Dog.

This is Cadillacs first ever car in this arena. Bravo Caddy :metal:

The M5 competes more closely to an F430 than to the CLS and STS (other than 2 extra doors of course). The M5 is truly the ultimate driving machine. It's a monster. As was the e39 in its day. Unless you're comparing looks, there really is no comparison with the M5 in its "true" market and model range. The CLS is a great car, and it hauls ass in a straight line, as do all AMG's. They are made for the autobahn. Not so much for the twisties. Caddy is trying to be a little of both and unfortunately is failing. Though, to say it is failing is somewhat exagerrated as it does offer great performance, but compared to its competition obviously it falls short.

Unless these cars are directly racing each other... I fail to see the point about slightly different performance numbers. I mean- would a -say- 4 tenths of a second quicker to 60 force me to buy the one I didn't otherwise like? No.

Not making excuses just stateing a fact, this is a much larger engine guys.
Supercharged V8
Displacement: 5439 cc
Horsepower: 493 bhp @ 6100 rpm
Torque: 516 lb-ft @ 2650 rpm
Redline: 7000
curb weight: ----

Supercharged V8
Displacement: 4371 cc
Horsepower: 440 bhp @ 6400 rpm
Torque: 430 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
Redline: 6700 rpm
curb weight: 4295


thats just over a litre larger, Id say Cadillac did really well with the 4.3

the N* reached the same power per cube as the BMW but look at the torque. BMW has a comparitively low weight which is nice to see but 4000 is still hefty.

M5 $90,000
V10
Displacement: 5000 cc
Horsepower: 507 bhp @ 7750 rpm
Torque: 384 lb-ft @ 6100 rpm
Redline: 8250 rpm
curb weight: 4050

heres the $118,900 Audi A8
W12
Displacement: 5998 cc
Horsepower: 450 bhp @ 6200 rpm
Torque: 428 lb-ft @ 4000-7000 rpm
Redline: ---- rpm
curb weight: ----

this is nice ! I cant tell but this looks like a burled birdseye in spalded color, I really like all the color contrast


Oh well, I think Caddy has done an excellent job and its still a Cadillac that has some of roar and vitality.

Anybody know when Caddy is going to get around to adding STS-V info to their site...it just says "Coming Soon"...seems like now is the time since the reviews and comparisons are showing up in mags. Am I missing a micro-site someplace?