CT4-V Disappointed after lengthy Test drive

[MookdocOE]

Hey Jeff, we have a similar car background. I've had a ton of cars the past several years from the BRZ, Corolla GR, new Type S Integra, then on the other end an Escalade V, C6 ZR1, Ford Lightning, TRX, C8 Z51, Model S Plaid (new '24 I just got), etc. I've also driven the 4BW predecessor in anger on the track and autocross. I also own a 5BW six-speed.

As far as nimble sedans go, the 4BW is about as good as it gets. Yes, the LF4 engine isn't a world beater, but it gets the job done. The 5BW doesn't feel as nimble, but that LT4 is a monster and the 5BW can still dance when the road gets twisty. It doesn't feel nimble, but still very competent and fast. Think Chris Farley (RIP!) doing cartwheels. As long as you know it's a 4k lb sedan, it kicks a**.

Best bet is to keep your Miata (or some other light, fun, nimble car) and then get a 4 or 5BW for all your other drives where you don't need absolute flickability. Best of both worlds.

Man, I want a 4BW

 

[Throat Yogurt]

The 4BW is geared much taller than any 6-cyl BMW M-Car

That's not even a little bit true.

 

[AC2024]

That's not even a little bit true.

Which M car comes to mind where this is t true? I think this is absolutely true.

 

[BimmerFan]

Which M car comes to mind where this is t true? I think this is absolutely true.

Did you mean "not true"?

I think we have to step back and ask what the poster means by "geared much taller". Does he/she mean final drive ratio, top speed, spacing of ratios between 1 and 6, etc.?

Oops, I went back to the original (since he/she wasn't quote in entirety) which said "The 4BW is geared much taller than any 6-cyl BMW M-Car, (190MPH) so that might be why it feels sleepy compared to them at the same speed".

But the M cars (unless spec'd with track pack option) are electronically limited to 155. I'm not sure what the actual top end is, it's likely very close to 190. But which M car? 3, 4 or 5? I had an Alpina 7 series (not an M car) that could do 205, stock, factory. Not that I'd be foolish enough to try it.

What was my point?

 

[Throat Yogurt]

Did you mean "not true"?

I think we have to step back and ask what the poster means by "geared much taller". Does he/she mean final drive ratio, top speed, spacing of ratios between 1 and 6, etc.?

Oops, I went back to the original (since he/she wasn't quote in entirety) which said "The 4BW is geared much taller than any 6-cyl BMW M-Car, (190MPH) so that might be why it feels sleepy compared to them at the same speed".

But the M cars (unless spec'd with track pack option) are electronically limited to 155. I'm not sure what the actual top end is, it's likely very close to 190. But which M car? 3, 4 or 5? I had an Alpina 7 series (not an M car) that could do 205, stock, factory. Not that I'd be foolish enough to try it.

What was my point?

I checked 1 data point, the F80 M3 6MT, and it achieves (slightly) higher speeds in each of its gears, other than top end. So the statement is not true.

 

[seattlecubes]

@Throat Yogurt What am missing here? That looks like a much shorter gearbox set for the BMW (zmt) right…especially 1 and 2?

BMW M3
Transmission Order Code
ZMT
Transmission Description
Manual w/OD
Number of Transmission Speeds
6
First Gear Ratio
4.11
Second Gear Ratio
2.32
Third Gear Ratio
1.54
Fourth Gear Ratio
1.18
Fifth Gear Ratio
1.00
Sixth Gear Ratio
0.85
Reverse Ratio
3.73
Final Drive Axle Ratio
3.46

Cadillac CT4 BW
Transmission Order Code
MG9
Transmission Description
Manual
Number of Transmission Speeds
6
First Gear Ratio
2.66
Second Gear Ratio
1.78
Third Gear Ratio
1.30
Fourth Gear Ratio
1.00
Fifth Gear Ratio
0.80
Sixth Gear Ratio
0.63
Reverse Ratio
2.90
Final Drive Axle Ratio
3.73

 

[AC2024]

I checked 1 data point, the F80 M3 6MT, and it achieves (slightly) higher speeds in each of its gears, other than top end. So the statement is not true.

This is related to quite a bit more than gear ratios. The f80 redlines over 10pm higher than the 4bw. See the following by Seattle cubes. The gearing is certainly taller in the 4bw. It’s just math.

 

[BimmerFan]

This is related to quite a bit more than gear ratios. The f80 redlines over 10pm higher than the 4bw. See the following by Seattle cubes. The gearing is certainly taller in the 4bw. It’s just math.

Man oh man, you people really need to proofread...

 

[AC2024]

Sorry. Cellphone. Regardless, math is fundamentally more important than spelling/typos. For the avoidance of doubt, 10pm should’ve read as “1k rpm”. Hopefully that resolves you confusion on gear ratios.

 

[BimmerFan]

Hopefully that resolves you confusion on gear ratios.

Well, at least you didn't write "you're confusion".

 

[AC2024]

Well, at least you didn't write "you're confusion".

“You’re” a bit of a dick. Glad “you’re” here to patrol the internet for dangerous typo/grammar/syntax errors.

To go back to the point-an alpina is not an M car and the post said any 6 cyl M car. Gearing is not top speed. Gearing is gearing. And I still cannot think of any 6 cyl M car that is geared as tall as either BW.

 

[obeykube]

I find it a bit frustrating when people say the car "feels" a certain way, and we "do not caring about the numbers" but then say the "feel" is something about measurable performance (aka the numbers). The M2 comp and the CT4V BW have the same rated 0-60mph time, same 1/4 mile time, and around Virginia its 2:52 versus 2:59 for M2 comp. I am sure there are other tracks that the M2 would be faster, but maybe I am too much of an engineer, and I feel badly for the car manufacturers since it seems everyone is looking for why the cars are not good instead of why they are but like....we need to stop thinking we can have it all, all the time. The CT4V BW feels slower because its much more refined. Switch the mag ride suspension with 2x4's and I am sure the thing will feel like its the fastest car on the planet and be violent and like a hyper car.

We have actual measure-able data. We can sit and debate pros and cons all day but to pretend the car is slower than an M2 comp because you "feel" it is just not the case, objectively.

Again, the m2 comp offers a much different package. But I wouldn't say one is better or worse, or even faster or slower. It's just what are you looking for and what you want to feel. I wanted a car capable on a track, but also extremely comfortable driving everyday. Turning the BW on comfort and taking a road trip in it, you forget its a sports car. I think thats very impressive and very special. Hence why I own one.

Also...three pedals with a stick that is actually good. I didn't care about the stick or comfort, I would be driving an M2 comp. but I do. But to rag on the engine or performance of a car based on "feel for speed" when we have actual things like....clocks and speedo's to tell us that is mildly frustrating for my engineer mind

 

[Roadhawk]

WOW - great post Obeykube!

 

[ngoni]

I find it a bit frustrating when people say the car "feels" a certain way, and we "do not caring about the numbers" but then say the "feel" is something about measurable performance (aka the numbers). The M2 comp and the CT4V BW have the same rated 0-60mph time, same 1/4 mile time, and around Virginia its 2:52 versus 2:59 for M2 comp. I am sure there are other tracks that the M2 would be faster, but maybe I am too much of an engineer, and I feel badly for the car manufacturers since it seems everyone is looking for why the cars are not good instead of why they are but like....we need to stop thinking we can have it all, all the time. The CT4V BW feels slower because its much more refined. Switch the mag ride suspension with 2x4's and I am sure the thing will feel like its the fastest car on the planet and be violent and like a hyper car.

We have actual measure-able data. We can sit and debate pros and cons all day but to pretend the car is slower than an M2 comp because you "feel" it is just not the case, objectively.

Again, the m2 comp offers a much different package. But I wouldn't say one is better or worse, or even faster or slower. It's just what are you looking for and what you want to feel. I wanted a car capable on a track, but also extremely comfortable driving everyday. Turning the BW on comfort and taking a road trip in it, you forget its a sports car. I think thats very impressive and very special. Hence why I own one.

Also...three pedals with a stick that is actually good. I didn't care about the stick or comfort, I would be driving an M2 comp. but I do. But to rag on the engine or performance of a car based on "feel for speed" when we have actual things like....clocks and speedo's to tell us that is mildly frustrating for my engineer mind

People may be focused on the rate of change of acceleration (aka the 4th 3rd derivative, aka the 'jerk') which at certain points of the 0-60 or 1/4 mile may actually vary between the two yet still give similar overall numbers in the first derivative. To your point, some transmissions and suspensions are just harsher and make it seem like the car is really moving when the clock says otherwise. You're probably on to something why some folks' 'butt dyno' is 'reading' more for one car versus the other when objective facts say they're very similar.

Edit: My high-school calculus teacher would be so disappointed in me. 3rd derivative is jerk- the 4th is the 'snap' which is probably what gives you whiplash

 

[AC2024]

People may be focused on the rate of change of acceleration (aka the 4th derivative, aka the 'jerk') which at certain points of the 0-60 or 1/4 mile may actually vary between the two yet still give similar overall numbers in the first derivative. To your point, some transmissions and suspensions are just harsher and make it seem like the car is really moving when the clock says otherwise. You're probably on to something why some folks' 'butt dyno' is 'reading' more for one car versus the other when objective facts say they're very similar.

We have engineers here!

First, to be a jerk (get it?), i believe jerk is the 3rd derivative of distance (velocity first, acceleration second, jerk 3rd).

To be less of a jerk, I totally agree. I do think its the linearity (less jerk) that makes things “feel” less lively. I also agree with okeukube’s similar points.

Interestingly enough, this is also one of my only “complaints” - the 4BW is SO capable its always composed. This is a car the does fast lap times and comfort cruising. If you want a tail happy hooligan - an M car fits the bill better.

 

[Roadhawk]

People may be focused on the rate of change of acceleration (aka the 4th derivative, aka the 'jerk') which at certain points of the 0-60 or 1/4 mile may actually vary between the two yet still give similar overall numbers in the first derivative. To your point, some transmissions and suspensions are just harsher and make it seem like the car is really moving when the clock says otherwise. You're probably on to something why some folks' 'butt dyno' is 'reading' more for one car versus the other when objective facts say they're very similar.

My GTI still feels faster than the 4 BW (torque slam in the back....and it does move pretty good...). I imagine its pretty close...but the BW probably takes it by a hair...

 

[ngoni]

We have engineers here!

First, to be a jerk (get it?), i believe jerk is the 3rd derivative of distance (velocity first, acceleration second, jerk 3rd).

To be less of a jerk, I totally agree. I do think its the linearity (less jerk) that makes things “feel” less lively. I also agree with okeukube’s similar points.

Interestingly enough, this is also one of my only “complaints” - the 4BW is SO capable its always composed. This is a car the does fast lap times and comfort cruising. If you want a tail happy hooligan - an M car fits the bill better.

I stand corrected. Thank you for the remedial calculus lesson. I needed it.

Making a sports sedan so well balanced and composed that it 'feels slow' is somewhat of a complement and a good problem to have. As we all know “slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.” Cars that are always at the limits of control are more likely to have a mishap or worse. It really is a testament to how well integrated all the systems are that Blackwings maintain their composure when other cars would be trying to make friends with the nearest tree.

 

[obeykube]

Thanks all for the support and the engineering love. I'm a professional mechanical engineer for a decade now, but not in the automotive industry, mostly aerospace and nuclear industries, but regardless.

Furthering the point, when I had my 2014 S5 the car felt great, but me adding an AWE track exhaust and stiffer suspension (so very negligible real world 0-60, 1/4 mile, or HP difference) and it made it feel SO much faster.

When I did the performance academy with this car, my fastest lap time was the lap I thought was my worst. The tires weren't screaming at me, the car felt unbothered, and I didn't really feel like I was moving.

Also, CT4V BW's and CT5V BW's were posting similar times all day, but that track is obviously geared towards CT4V's.

More of a point though that better or worse is subjective, kind of like what is a better tool, a hammer or a screwdriver?

 

[565565]

People may be focused on the rate of change of acceleration (aka the 4th 3rd derivative, aka the 'jerk') which at certain points of the 0-60 or 1/4 mile may actually vary between the two yet still give similar overall numbers in the first derivative. To your point, some transmissions and suspensions are just harsher and make it seem like the car is really moving when the clock says otherwise. You're probably on to something why some folks' 'butt dyno' is 'reading' more for one car versus the other when objective facts say they're very similar.

Edit: My high-school calculus teacher would be so disappointed in me. 3rd derivative is jerk- the 4th is the 'snap' which is probably what gives you whiplash

I just love that the next derivatives are snap, crackle and pop. It's so nerdy that it makes me just want the find physicists that came up with it and stuff them in a locker.