*The performance chart that has ALL BMW's competitors shaking in their boots!

For as long as I've been reading car comparisons in the major automotive magazines, I don't remember the competitors getting hammered sooo bad as in this comparo.

Usually, when you boil it down the winner wins by anywhere from a tenth of a second, to a half a second.

And, the competitors will shine in a few of the tests and beat the winner.

It's NEVER an un-adulterated knockout.

At least, for as long as I remember.

Until now.

I was at the dentist paging through the usual list of old mags when I came across this comparo in the September issue of Automobile magazine (I used to like it best but I prefer Motor Trend since Angus took over the reins).

And as I was skimming over the article comparing the BMW 335, Mercedes C350 and new Cadillac CTS, my eyes almost popped out of my head when I saw their performance numbers.

WOW!

This wasn’t a comparo, it was an old fashioned ass-whipping!

Take a look at the numbers and see for yourself.

Here’s one I’m sure the Mercedes and GM guys stewing on right now…0-120, the 335 beats the Cadillac CTS by 7.2 seconds!!!!!! And the C350 by 6.1 seconds!!!

Are you kidding me?

By the time they finished and saw the carnage, I don’t think they even had the heart do a gas mileage rating…because the 335 would have KILLED the CTS and C350 there as well.

Bottom line?

The 335 competitors REALLY have to do some major homework to solve this Rubic’s cube!

*We just got a call from Cadillac PR mentioning these test parameters were not fair because the 335 and C350 were tested on dry pavement in the USA and the CTS was tested on the ring in Germany in the rain.

Here's is the exact quote from the article:

"Our 6.6 0-to-60-mph time was measured under less-than-ideal conditions on the fly in Germany; it likely would have been a few tenths lower if we had been able to test the CTS in Michigan, as we did the BMW and the Benz."

Our Cadillac PR contact tells us that with a manual the CTS does about 5.8 seconds 0-60 on dry pavement.

So, take this Automobile article with a grain of salt...

Don't forget, the SEMA auto show is right around the corner!

2007 SEMA Auto Show, SEMA Girls and Models Photo Gallery

jeffy210 - 10/9/2007 2:21:05 PM

+12 Boost

Before anyone mentions the IS-F or other cars, realize this is the top trim of the *standard* line of cars.... so CTS (not the -V), C350 (not the C63).

Though in all consideration i would have thrown a A4 3.2 and a IS 350 in there as well.

JRobUSC - 10/9/2007 3:27:03 PM

+4 Boost

Automobile Magazine left them out, 001 didn't. And I believe they left them out because this wasn't a 5 car comparison test, it was a comparison of the two newest vehicles in the class against the benchmark in the class. I'm sure an in-depth multicar comparison is forthcoming in several magazines. In this case it was simply "here are the new CTS and new C350, and here's how they stack up against the car they're trying to dethrone, the 335i". And the result is that if performance is your key measuring stick, they don't.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 4:54:10 PM

+1 Boost

Not new for 2008.

farabira1 - 10/10/2007 12:53:54 PM

+2 Boost

001 you used the title "The performance chart that has ALL BMW's competitors shaking in their boots!" and what will any blogger with average intelligence perceive from such use of a sentence? Obviously anyone will think the phrase "All BMW's competitors" includes Audi, Lexus, and Infiniti alongside MB and Cadillac. So i want to explain to you that your choice of words are quite ambiguous because later on you try to explain for your dim witted choice of "title" by saying that you were only commenting on an article that incorporates only MB and Cadillac as the competition, well if so was to be the case then you should have explicitly mentioned that the competitors who were "shaking in their boots" were only MB and Cadillac; because your title implicitly includes the other brands withing this cornered crowd.

M35MT - 10/9/2007 2:32:26 PM

-4 Boost

That's funny, this is completely bogus.

The only real 3-series competitor (performance wise, handling and acceleration) is the Infiniti G.

Not to mention the IS350 which is quite fast in a straight line.

001, why are you so suprised? I could make the same comparison with another segment, and leave out key competitors.

M35MT - 10/9/2007 2:33:58 PM

-7 Boost

"Bottom Line"

...You forgot about the rest of the competition, 001.

Agent001 - 10/9/2007 2:39:55 PM

+5 Boost

I was commenting on this article which only compared the 335, CTS and C350...maybe you should write Automobile and ask them why THEY forgot the competition? ;)

001

M35MT - 10/9/2007 2:46:00 PM

+2 Boost

"Bottom line?

The 335 competitors REALLY have to do some major homework to solve this Rubic’s cube!"

Did you not say that 001? Better a 'reviewer of articles' you should have pointed out that major competitors are missing. Get it yet?

M35MT - 10/9/2007 2:48:56 PM

-1 Boost

"For as long as I've been reading car comparisons in the major automotive magazines, I don't remember the competitors getting hammered sooo bad as in this comparo."

For as long I've been reading the, I've never seen so many key competitors left out to claim that "All BMW's competitors are shaking in their boots!"

Agent001 - 10/9/2007 2:52:05 PM

+6 Boost

Let me guess...you like Infiniti's? ;)

LOL

001

M35MT - 10/9/2007 2:57:47 PM

-3 Boost

I have an unbiased view of all cars...I go by facts. And the fact is, the G is the closest thing to a 335 and it needs credit for it.

However, you should discount the IS350 either.

A comparo of only a few competitors is fine, although, if critiqing it, you should mention who was left out, because BMW only looks this good when compared to MB and Caddy, which have a focus on luxury over performance at this price point.

BMW4me4ever - 10/9/2007 3:35:41 PM

+2 Boost

M35mt ... The 335 has already beat the Lexus IS350 and G35 in head to head comparisons. How many more times do those vehicles have to be beaten? Plus the Mercedes and the Cadillac are the new kids on the block and most want to see how they stack up. Unfortunately not very well.

BMW4me4ever - 10/9/2007 3:36:30 PM

0 Boost

M35MT - 10/9/2007 4:10:46 PM

-2 Boost

Once again, missing the point. I know that 001 did not write the article. However, he said (in all CAPS) that ALL competitors are 'shakin in their boots'. Not true.

Not to mention, the G35 with the sport package costs 32,400. The 335i with the sport package costs 43,300. That's more than a 10k difference. for .4 seconds to 60. Not to mention the G's engine is 6 years old.

I'm not saying either of them beat the other. I dont favor Infiniti. And 'M35' in my name has nothing to do with an Infiniti.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 4:58:10 PM

+6 Boost

"However, he said (in all CAPS) that ALL competitors are 'shakin in their boots'. Not true."

I disagree. Let's review:

• It's quicker than everything else in this class--INCLUDING the G35 and IS350

• It has a perfect ride/handling balance

• It gets better mileage than everything else in this class

• It is more refined than the G35, sportier than the CTS, IS350 and C350, and as luxurious as any

• The coupe looks amazing

• It's not overpriced, although the Infiniti makes it look like it is

• It does everything well

Heyhuub - 10/9/2007 2:32:32 PM

+6 Boost

As far as i know the 335i is a class above the C350 and A4 3.2.
Overher the 330i competes with those.

jeffy210 - 10/9/2007 3:09:38 PM

+4 Boost

The 330i no longer exists in the US. BMW only offers two trims, the 328i and the 335i.

Heyhuub - 10/9/2007 4:13:40 PM

+2 Boost

So we can just ax wel put it against the S4/s5

bmwdrvr - 10/9/2007 5:28:01 PM

+1 Boost

so your saying audi has to charge 10 grand more just to be able to create a V8 powered car that can compete with the 335i well thats hilarious the 335i is about 2 grand more than the 330i it replaces in the US 2 grand how much more is the s5 over the a5 or the a4 over the a4....your saying it takes that much more for the audis to compete with a non performance model 3 series.......and for years the S4 has been compared to the M3,now all of sudden it doesnt just because they are selling the rs4 over here now....excuses...

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 8:10:11 PM

0 Boost

"so your saying audi has to charge 10 grand more just to be able to create a V8 powered car that can compete with the 335i well thats hilarious"

No, not really. The 335i can very easily go over $50K, in coupe or convertible configuration especially.

Since when do Audis have to compete directly with the BMWs? The standard A4 3.2/A5 3.2 are competing against the Euro-market 330i. They are faster than the 328i models but slower than the 335i's. On the other hand, the S4/S5 are faster, more expensive and more exclusive than the 335s and slightly slower than the M3s. The RS4/RS5 make short work of that.

Audiphile - 10/9/2007 11:41:01 PM

+3 Boost

Touche, S4cabriofoxone! By the way, Road & Track reviewed the Audi S5 in their November 2007 issue. I compared the performance results with their August 2007 review of the BMW 335i coupe. The S5 matched the 335i in the 0-60 dash, barely beat it in the quarter-mile, and trounced the BMW in the slaloms and skidpad. The Audi S5, BMW 335i, Infiniti G37, Audi S4, Cadillac CTS, Mercedes C350 - be thankful we have such a fine selection of high-performance coupes and sedans to choose from.

bmwdrvr - 10/10/2007 8:37:19 AM

0 Boost

being able to get into the 50's and (thats fully loaded by the way) and starting at the 50's aren't the same thing the 335i sedan starts just under 40, the s models currently start around 50 grand, and go up from there. yet your saying the 335i competes with these cars, and not only that but that audi doesnt compete directly with bmw, and the s models dont directly compete with anything from BMW, ok which is it because that is a condtradiction. the point is in order to even get the numbers that the 3 series is getting from turbo 6, it takes audi thousands more, and a bigger engine with more power, and yet all it can muster is times right there with the NON-PERFORMANCE model 335i, because the M3 is the performance car.....thats pretty amazing for the 335i that is.....but hey if BMW's weren't so good there wouldnt be all these great cars to even compare, all the cars in this class are good choices sans the x-type....

S4cabriofoxone - 10/10/2007 12:20:51 PM

+1 Boost

"being able to get into the 50's and (thats fully loaded by the way) and starting at the 50's aren't the same thing"

They are when the S5 has so many standard features. I'd be surprised if it went over $60K, fully-loaded. The 335i convertible CAN go over $60K when it's loaded. The coupe is close.

LexusKindaGuy12 - 10/9/2007 2:33:04 PM

-3 Boost

i dont understand why the cts i there to begin with. lol.

and yes, an audi and lexus woud have helped.

enthusiastx11 - 10/9/2007 5:20:42 PM

+2 Boost

lol?

the cadillac is getting points in multiple reviews for handling better than the G and the C. only overshadowed by the 3-series in handling. plus it's great looking and has what is arguably THE BEST interior in the class. not to mention it's far bigger inside than everything else in the class.

lenkun - 10/9/2007 2:34:58 PM

-1 Boost

Well yes, that's an unfair comparsion. The top of the trim *standard* IS350, G37 and S4 will definitely tear the 335i apart.

Agent001 - 10/9/2007 2:38:28 PM

+2 Boost

There is no G37 sedan yet and the S4 is priced closer to the current M3, not 335.

001

M35MT - 10/9/2007 2:47:29 PM

-3 Boost

Yes, however, there is a G35 sedan. Which will destroy the CTS and C350 the same way the BMW did.

M35MT - 10/9/2007 2:53:19 PM

-4 Boost

lenkun-

Those cars wouldnt 'tear apart' the 335, but they would give it fair competition.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 5:00:07 PM

+1 Boost

"Yes, however, there is a G35 sedan. Which will destroy the CTS and C350 the same way the BMW did."

But it still can't catch the 335i.

enthusiastx11 - 10/9/2007 5:22:04 PM

-1 Boost

FYI: the S4 is NOT a 335i competitor even though the 335i surpasses it in many ways. plus it's FAR MORE expensive.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 8:13:43 PM

+1 Boost

"FYI: the S4 is NOT a 335i competitor even though the 335i surpasses it in many ways. plus it's FAR MORE expensive."

When did I say it was?

Anyway... the S4/S5 could just as easily be argued for as the 335i. It is NOT far more expensive. Option up a 335i coupe and then build a similarly-equipped S5 when it's available-- they will be within $5K of each other. For the V8's power, the interior luxury and the much sexier style, I say it's worth it.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 8:16:09 PM

+1 Boost

Sorry, make that a 335xi coupe.

I now realize that you weren't talking to me (the "S4" in the beginning drew me to it), but my comment stands.

jmrA480 - 10/9/2007 8:26:52 PM

+2 Boost

true, go price out a 335xi to a s4, the s4 is about 4k more with the same options. BMW is almost as bad as porsche with all the options.

When your spending over 50k, 4k-5k more is not alot at all.

DaHarder - 10/9/2007 2:51:00 PM

-3 Boost

This is all so... MOOT!

It takes a pretty silly/irresponsible driver even give a flying F__K about how fast their vehicle goes from 0 to 120... At least here in America, where this ability is wasted anyway.

And if it's a Bragging Rights issue, I find these individuals to be even more immature!

All three of these vehicles have performance limits far beyond 95% of the individuals who drive them, and that's all that matters.

enthusiastx11 - 10/9/2007 5:26:13 PM

+1 Boost

that's where handling sets the BMW apart. you can feel that at ANY speed. and boy does it feel good good good. ; )

DaHarder - 10/9/2007 7:18:12 PM

0 Boost

Please!

Not a single one of my BMW vehicles (over the past 20+ years - including my current e46/M3 and E54/4.8is) feel as though they're performing 'at the limit' at ANY speed, nor would I want them to.

Yes, they are (typically) fine driving vehicles, but Seriously...

GET A GRIP!

DaHarder - 10/9/2007 7:27:25 PM

0 Boost

1. I do feel that 0-60 times makes sense, as do stopping distances etc., but this 0-120 idiocy is simply ludicrous... Which is very much what a typed (O-120). So please try to shoot for a modicum of accuracy if you're going to attack what someone has posted.

2. As an owner/driving of numerous BMW vehicles over the past 20+ years (including my current E46/M3 and E54/4.8is), never has any of them felt as though they were performing AT The Limit under all driving situations, nor would I even find that desirable.

Wow! Get a Grip!

enthusiastx11 - 10/9/2007 8:04:57 PM

+1 Boost

Da:

i never said it performed at the limits at any speed. please don't put words in my mouth. you can however get great feedback and feel very connected to the car at any speed. something the competition simply fails to match.

0to60 - 10/9/2007 2:53:08 PM

-3 Boost

Bottom Line, I think someone was a little biased when submitting this article Agent001....

david999 - 10/9/2007 3:03:17 PM

-2 Boost

No doubt the 335i has terrific performance capability, but comparing it to a
Mercedes C350 or CTS is not really playing cricket.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 5:02:17 PM

+1 Boost

The CTS has more horsepower- 4, to be exact. So why not?

And it's obvious that, like everyone else in this class, Mercedes-Benz had the 330i/335i in their sights when developing the new C350.

enthusiastx11 - 10/9/2007 5:27:50 PM

0 Boost

really? so what should it be compared to?

henbmw - 10/9/2007 5:39:21 PM

+2 Boost

How?? Are they not all luxury sport sedans? Are they not all priced between 30-45k? Are these the best engines the manufacture has to offer for these models (excluding the uber-sedans)?

Stop crying bias when people advertise the brilliance of the 335i. It deserves all the praise it gets, and then some.

GLover - 10/9/2007 3:04:27 PM

-3 Boost

Ahh, the most obvious question is WHERE is the G35 and I350 is the "camparo"? I seriously doubt that the people considering a 335i are looking at the Cadillac! Sorry Agent001

DaHarder - 10/9/2007 3:12:35 PM

+1 Boost

Again, I fail to see the logic in comparing the CTS with these lesser (in both size and equipment) vehicles.

The CTS is a Mid Sized Vehicle... Not a Compact - PERIOD!

Compare it to the 6-cylinder 5-Series/E-class/A6 variants, and then you'll have a point.

golfer38 - 10/9/2007 3:14:40 PM

+3 Boost

He's not comparing them, Automobile magazine is!?

JRobUSC - 10/9/2007 4:11:41 PM

+4 Boost

As I pointed out earlier, this isn't a full comparison test, it's an article about the two newest entries in the class and how they compare to benchmark of the class. This is not a 12 page, six car shootout. It's "here are the two newest entries, and performance-wise here's how they measure up against the 335i, top dog in the class". If you don't want to see the 335i on top then switch to a magazine that isn't about vehicle performance. I'm sure if Audiophile Magazine did the writeup on the car stereos the results would have been flipped. But this was Automobile Magazine, and it was about performance for the two new models versus the standard bearer.

enthusiastx11 - 10/9/2007 8:09:04 PM

+1 Boost

i agree with you sailor.

the CTS is the only car in the class i'd consider besides the 335i. the CTS is just that good looking and has such a great interior. and the reviews are saying it's second ONLY to the BMW in terms of handling.

golfer38 - 10/9/2007 3:12:44 PM

+3 Boost

I think its interesting how the CTS had a shorter stopping distance, especially considering its a lot heavier than the others. Also, the 30-70 mph was pretty close.

BTW if you load up a 335i its almost 50k which is right where the S4 is in price, so I would considerate a competitor or at least I wouldn't rule it out based on price.

SHOWTIME - 10/9/2007 3:13:32 PM

+3 Boost

Is that the new 306HP CTS? If so then I'm dissappointed!

golfer38 - 10/9/2007 3:17:55 PM

+1 Boost

Good question, I heard 5.9 sec 0-60 out of that motor. At 4000+lbs., I wouldn't be surprised.

Porschinator - 10/9/2007 3:48:05 PM

+1 Boost

Would have been nice to have specs on each car within the article to compare. Which is heaviest, best handling, type of power plant, etc... Not just drag numbers. CTS and MB C do not have the turbo and I can assume they weigh more without researching. The latest 3 series is ugly with the coupe being the better looking version so luckily the 335i comes in sedan form to help sell. CTS and C350 are under powered for the weight.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 5:05:02 PM

0 Boost

"Which is heaviest, best handling, type of power plant, etc..."

The CTS weighs the most.

The 335i has the best handling.

The Mercedes has a 3.5L 270hp V6, the BMW has a 3.0L bi-turbo inline six and the Cadillac has a 3.6L 304hp V6. There, done.

carfan33 - 10/9/2007 4:06:13 PM

-2 Boost

seems that the cts was again chosen because of price, not size. If based on price, I would like a comparison between a 335 and a vette.

carfan33 - 10/9/2007 4:08:27 PM

+1 Boost

seems that the cts was again chosen because of price, not size. If based on price, I would like a comparison between a 335 and a vette....or even the outgoing cts-v.

kablaam - 10/9/2007 4:15:02 PM

+5 Boost

The 335i already beat the G37:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=121462
"And by most standards, the Infiniti G37 is an impressive car and a lot of fun. But it isn't as quick as the BMW 335i, nor does it engage its driver with equal commitment."

The 335i also beat the IS350:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=120903
"Purposeful, coordinated, powerful and still the benchmark. The new twin-turbo 3 series has it all. "

henbmw - 10/9/2007 5:42:45 PM

+1 Boost

Thank you for that. Now will the crying please stop now

Agent001 - 10/9/2007 4:17:35 PM

+2 Boost

We just got a call from Cadillac PR mentioning these test parameters were not fair because the 335 and C350 were tested on dry pavement in the USA and the CTS was tested on the ring in Germany in the rain.

Here's is the exact quote from the article:

"Our 6.6 0-to-60-mph time was measured under less-than-ideal conditions on the fly in Germany; it likely would have been a few tenths lower if we had been able to test the CTS in Michigan, as we did the BMW and the Benz."

001

Agent004 - 10/9/2007 4:54:13 PM

+1 Boost

It's nice and cool here in Boston, have then send over the CTS and I will take it to the New Hampshire Speedway to get dry track numbers.

henbmw - 10/9/2007 5:43:40 PM

+2 Boost

Still would have gotten whooped.

kablaam - 10/9/2007 4:20:44 PM

0 Boost

P.S.: The 335i also beat the S4 around Nuburgring per "Sports Auto": http://bmwblog.net/?p=210

Heyhuub - 10/10/2007 9:57:30 AM

+2 Boost

The S4 Avant, which is the station wagon. Plus it's the 2003 model, so it's not so weird it's gonna get beaten by a 2007 car.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/11/2007 9:56:39 PM

+1 Boost

OMG, a RWD coupe beating an AWD wagon that weighs 400lbs more. What a surprise!

Bill - 10/9/2007 4:49:07 PM

+1 Boost

The "underpowered" C350 did pretty well against the Cadillac. Interesting.

bigTYME - 10/9/2007 4:54:05 PM

0 Boost

The figures for the CTS look like its the standard engine. The Direct Injection engine should do better than that. As for BMW. The 335 is no doubt the fastest in the segment. This article is BS anyway. For a major car magazine to not compare an Infiniti G with the 3 series, is pathetic. The 3 series and G35/7 have the biggest fued in the segment. All this shows is how much greater the 335 is than the bottom of the list (performance-wise). The article wouldn't get much attention if they had put the G35 in the comparison. Nice one Automobile.

JRobUSC - 10/9/2007 5:20:53 PM

+2 Boost

oh for crying out loud, THIS WASN'T AN IN-DEPTH COMPARISON OF ALL THE VEHICLES IN THE SEGMENT. It was three cars, and purposely three cars -- the two newest additions to the class that are BRAND NEW for 2008, and the car considered the class leader that they're up against. THAT'S IT. There was no G35, no Audi A4/S4, no IS350. Because they're no good? No, of course not. Because Automobile and Autospies (who had nothing whatsoever to do with writing the article) are all up on BMW's nuts? Of course not. How about because the article was ONLY ABOUT THOSE THREE CARS, the two brand new ones against the benchmark. I'm sure sometime in the next six months there'll be plenty of multi-car full comparison tests. This was not one.

Ironman273 - 10/9/2007 5:01:25 PM

+1 Boost

I know it's a different magazine, but since the tests aren't together anyways here are some numbers from Car & Driver:

IS350
0-60: 5.1
1/4 mile: 13.7 @ 104mph

G35
0-60: 5.2
1/4 mile: 13.9 @ 103 mph

Hardly a huge difference if these cars were included.

bmwdrvr - 10/9/2007 5:22:24 PM

+1 Boost

well to be factual, the mag that you got your numbers from also picked the 328i over the g35...with that said the G35 is no match for the 335i...by all means the G is the closest to the 3 series "performance" wise but it lacks alot of things that makes the 3 series, best in class, and other class leaders have refinement...this class is about more than just a sports car handling, and power in a compact/mid size sedan. thats what evo, stis, charger srt, stuff like that is for. It seems like a class below the 3 series, and the IS350 has speed, but mags dont seem to think it can handle, and especially not as well as a 3 series, the IS has lost to the 330i....and not just that but all of those cars have been tested countless times....why not compare the newcomers, to the class leader that makes sense

Ironman273 - 10/9/2007 5:37:38 PM

+2 Boost

I'm not saying they would beat the BMW, just that the gap isn't as large as this particular article would make you think.

M35MT - 10/10/2007 10:25:00 AM

+1 Boost

Ironman, that was the only point I was trying to make earlier. Yes the 3 is the benchmark, didnt deny that. However, if ALL of the competition was included, it wouldnt look like it had such a lead on everyone. I dont understand what's wrong with saying that.

lewishamiltonpimp - 10/9/2007 5:05:27 PM

0 Boost

Nice. Plus the 335 can be tweaked for another 30HP 40ftlbs with a simple plug in module for under $400 and run in the 12s.

Some 335 owners with this single minor mod are running 0-60 in under 4 secs on drag radials.

enthusiastx11 - 10/9/2007 5:16:28 PM

+1 Boost

this is only a surprise to those who haven't driven a 335.

love it. love it. love it.

jasaero - 10/9/2007 5:17:11 PM

+1 Boost

Biggest issue with this article is that the CTS is more sized and designed to challenge a 5 series or E class rather than a 3 series. The Alpha based Caddy BTS or BLW will be the car to compare to the 3 series, but that isn't due until 2011. So the BMW can be safe until then I guess.

chewy - 10/9/2007 5:42:16 PM

+1 Boost

The 3 series is much smaller than the competition. The CTS is the size of the BMW 5 series.

Sure they are considered to be in the same class, but sizewise they are different.

Which CTS was tested, the 304 or the 256 hp version?

chewy - 10/9/2007 5:43:52 PM

+2 Boost

of course the 335i has performance, but there is more to it than just comparing 3 numbers

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 8:25:06 PM

0 Boost

You're right, and the 335i covers everything. Comfort, ride quality, handling, straight-line speed, style, refinement. That said, I think the S5 is worth the price premium because it's so beautiful.

sedaine - 10/9/2007 6:12:27 PM

-8 Boost

Let's Put This Puppy To Bed!!!!

Year 2007
Make Lexus
Model IS
Trim 350
Transmission 6-speed Manual
Theoretical Top Speed 158 mph
Limited Top Speed

0-30 mph 1.95 s
0-40 mph 2.93 s
0-50 mph 3.99 s
0-60 mph 5.14 s
0-70 mph 6.86 s
0-80 mph 8.58 s
0-90 mph 10.57 s
0-100 mph 13.49 s
0-110 mph 16.57 s
0-120 mph 20.26 s
0-130 mph 26.08 s
0-140 mph 35.42 s
0-150 mph 50.69 s

30-50, 2nd gear 2.13 s
Street Start, 5-60 mph 4.91 s

100 ft 2.99 s @ 40.49 mph
500 ft 7.58 s @ 74.34 mph
660 ft (1/8 mile) 8.98 s @ 82.18 mph
1320 ft (1/4 mile) 13.85 s @ 101.91 mph
2640 ft (1/2 mile) 21.79 s @ 123.49 mph
5280 ft (1 mile) 35.36 s @ 139.95 mph
7920 ft (1.5 mile) 47.80 s @ 148.6 mph

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(Lower is better) 8.7 tons

Notes:
Closest in Performance
2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1
2001 Porsche Boxster S
2004 Pontiac GTO 5.7
1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
1994 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4

Track Times (Lap 1, Lap2)
Nurburgring GmbH 9:47.4 9:41.1
Sebring International Race Circuit 3:52.6 3:47.3

theoptimisticpessimist - 10/9/2007 8:02:58 PM

+4 Boost

According to Lexus web page this car doesn't exist. only automatic IS350.

enthusiastx11 - 10/9/2007 8:12:25 PM

+4 Boost

non-existent car.
IS350 is auto only.

sedaine - 10/9/2007 6:15:40 PM

-1 Boost

Year 2003
Make Infiniti
Model G35
Trim Coupe
Transmission 6-speed Manual
Theoretical Top Speed 156 mph
Limited Top Speed

0-30 mph 1.99 s
0-40 mph 3.36 s
0-50 mph 4.37 s
0-60 mph 5.50 s
0-70 mph 7.64 s
0-80 mph 9.28 s
0-90 mph 11.98 s
0-100 mph 14.38 s
0-110 mph 17.35 s
0-120 mph 22.10 s
0-130 mph 27.12 s
0-140 mph 34.83 s
0-150 mph 54.30 s

30-50, 2nd gear 2.02 s
Street Start, 5-60 mph 5.29 s

100 ft 3.01 s @ 38.2 mph
500 ft 7.84 s @ 71.31 mph
660 ft (1/8 mile) 9.28 s @ 79.97 mph
1320 ft (1/4 mile) 14.28 s @ 100.39 mph
2640 ft (1/2 mile) 22.37 s @ 120.62 mph
5280 ft (1 mile) 35.96 s @ 141.05 mph
7920 ft (1.5 mile) 48.44 s @ 147.44 mph

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(Lower is better) 8.5 tons

Notes:
Closest in Performance
1973 Porsche 911 Carrera RS
2001 Audi S4 Quattro
2003 BMW Z4 3.0i
1968 Chevrolet Corvette L88
1993 Nissan 300ZX Turbo

Track Times (Lap 1, Lap2)

Circuit de La Sarthe (LeMans)
5:12.1
5:03.5

Laguna Seca Raceway
2:17.9
2:12.7

sedaine - 10/9/2007 6:18:51 PM

-1 Boost

Year 2007
Make Acura
Model TL
Trim Type-S
Transmission 6-speed Manual
Theoretical Top Speed 152 mph
Limited Top Speed

0-30 mph 2.11 s
0-40 mph 3.32 s
0-50 mph 4.36 s
0-60 mph 5.52 s
0-70 mph 7.57 s
0-80 mph 9.24 s
0-90 mph 11.42 s
0-100 mph 14.52 s
0-110 mph 17.48 s
0-120 mph 21.57 s
0-130 mph 28.28 s
0-140 mph 35.70 s
0-150 mph 53.01 s

30-50, 2nd gear 2.05 s
Street Start, 5-60 mph 5.26 s

100 ft 3.09 s @ 38.67 mph
500 ft 7.87 s @ 71.88 mph
660 ft (1/8 mile) 9.30 s @ 80.34 mph
1320 ft (1/4 mile) 14.28 s @ 99.88 mph
2640 ft (1/2 mile) 22.34 s @ 121.33 mph
5280 ft (1 mile) 36.07 s @ 140.4 mph
7920 ft (1.5 mile) 48.46 s @ 148.66 mph

Notes:
Closest in Performance
1987 Buick Regal Grand National GNX
2003 BMW Z4 3.0i
2002 Infiniti Q45
1969 Dodge Super Bee 383
2003 Infiniti G35 Coupe

Track Times (Lap 1, Lap2)

Adelaide International Circuit
2:14.4
2:09.7

Daytona International Speedway
2:37.8
2:32.0

sedaine - 10/9/2007 6:21:19 PM

-1 Boost

Year 2001
Make BMW
Model M3
Trim
Transmission 6-speed Manual
Theoretical Top Speed 165 mph
Limited Top Speed

0-30 mph 1.70 s
0-40 mph 2.75 s
0-50 mph 3.69 s
0-60 mph 4.69 s
0-70 mph 6.45 s
0-80 mph 7.96 s
0-90 mph 9.65 s
0-100 mph 12.15 s
0-110 mph 14.71 s
0-120 mph 17.69 s
0-130 mph 21.43 s
0-140 mph 27.37 s
0-150 mph 35.10 s

30-50, 2nd gear 1.79 s

100 ft 2.81 s @ 40.56 mph
500 ft 7.32 s @ 75.89 mph
660 ft (1/8 mile) 8.68 s @ 84.46 mph
1320 ft (1/4 mile) 13.38 s @ 105.73 mph
2640 ft (1/2 mile) 21.01 s @ 129.01 mph
5280 ft (1 mile) 33.89 s @ 148.73 mph
7920 ft (1.5 mile) 45.59 s @ 157.81 mph

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(Lower is better) 9.9 tons

Notes
Closest in Performance
1970 Ford Mustang Boss 429
2001 BMW M5
1999 Chevrolet Corvette LS1 Hardtop
1993 Mazda RX-7 Twin Turbo
2003 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution (USA)

Track Times (Lap 1, Lap2)
Circuit de La Sarthe (LeMans)
5:00.5
4:53.8

Daytona International Speedway 2:32.9
2:29.1

sedaine - 10/9/2007 6:44:17 PM

0 Boost

Didn't bother with the Audi A4 since it was taken down in the is350, BMW330i comparison tests . . . numerous on the web.

A4 0-60 6. 4secs

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 8:28:00 PM

0 Boost

The 3.2? Really? Because I've seen a 6.5 sec time... for the 2.0T quattro.

The new A4 will put the IS350 to shame- it may not be quicker, but it will just drive so much better.

sedaine - 10/9/2007 9:57:10 PM

0 Boost

6.4 was the best time I got for all the 3.2 A4 variants

sedaine - 10/9/2007 7:27:09 PM

0 Boost

I didn't bother with the 335i numbers since they are on those fancy charts already on this site. I put the 6 year old M3 numbers there because BMW wanted the 335i to basically have similar numbers to old M3 - so this is just cool to compare the numbers.

New 335i is not to far from old M3.

sedaine - 10/9/2007 7:10:19 PM

+1 Boost

BMW 335i Lexus IS350 Inf. G35
0-60 5.1 5.14 5.50
0-100 12.7 13.49 14.48
0-120 18.6 20.26 22.10
1/4M 13.6(104mph) 13.85(101.9) 14.28(100.4)

sedaine - 10/9/2007 7:17:55 PM

+1 Boost

-----BMW 335i------- Lexus IS350-------- Inf. G35
0-60----5.1--------------5.14-------------5.50
0-100---12.7-------------13.49----------- 14.48
0-120---18.6-------------20.26----------- 22.10
1/4M---- 13.6(104mph)---13.85(101.9)----- 14.28(100.4)

That PUPPY SHOULD BE SNORING NOW!!!!!!

chewy - 10/9/2007 7:25:27 PM

+2 Boost

from the same graph

30-70 (real world acceleration)merging to a freeway for example

335i: 6.5
cts: 6.9
c350: 6.4

sedaine - 10/9/2007 7:36:43 PM

-1 Boost

Real world? What are you overtaking? A tractor on the beltway or I95? That may happen every now and then - but you're more likely going to be doing the 50-70.

In real life why would someone be going 30 in a 65 zone? So the speeds have to be closer.

chewy - 10/9/2007 7:46:23 PM

+2 Boost

http://www.autospies.com/images/users/Agent001/335-comparo/SNAG-1119.jpg

golfer38 - 10/10/2007 12:40:36 PM

+1 Boost

How 'bout when your entering a highway off of a street that has a 25 mph speed limit. You enter the on ramp at say 25-35 mph, and then you would accelerate to highway speeds. In the US this is quite typical.

henbmw - 10/10/2007 9:12:14 PM

+1 Boost

They finally found a number that beats the 335! Congrats guys!

carmogul - 10/9/2007 7:34:46 PM

+1 Boost

The 335 is a beast!!!

zorbeeze - 10/9/2007 8:36:18 PM

+2 Boost

There's something very wrong with those numbers. The lowest i've found the C-class 0-60 is 5.8, i'll research and post it here. From the Benz fanatics i've spoken to they all say it can do 6 flat. As for the CTS i've been able to pull less than 6sec on it. Can't remember the exact number but 5.8 or 5.9.
Anyways those numbers are far off. As for the BMW 5.1 like i've been saying all along. Obviously the BMW is faster. BMW better pray it is considering it's turbo powered. Whereas the G and IS are right behind it's tail.

Porschinator - 10/9/2007 8:42:48 PM

+2 Boost

^^ true. BMW saves weight with smaller engine block and turbo and others compared are n/a thus bigger block = more weight. Throw on a turbo to the C350 or CTS and watch the sparks :)

Would be nice to see other specs in the article such as handling Gs, weight, comfort/ride, etc...not just drag times. Hell a 1993 Z28 is nearly as fast as the 335i and would you compare the two?

Maxmpower - 10/9/2007 9:34:32 PM

0 Boost

Sorry if you guys are believing what you're seeing here. Automobile figures are always off...there are not known for giving out accurate and reliable performance stats. These stats are all wrong. Check the dealer's stats. or motor trend.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 10:24:23 PM

0 Boost

BMW ALWAYS underestimates their times. I don't know about Cadillac, but Mercedes-Benz usually gets them about right.

This post sounds like an excuse. I know Edmunds.com always has strange times, but haven't noticed the same trend in Automobile.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/9/2007 10:25:34 PM

-1 Boost

BTW- the 5.1 second time quoted here isn't even particularly fast for the 335i. I've seen a 4.8, which is its fastest. This is in between the G37's fastest time that I've seen (5.0) and the Audi S5's (4.5). Very nice job, BMW!

Bmw8ter - 10/10/2007 9:21:40 AM

0 Boost

"BMW ALWAYS underestimates their times. I don't know about Cadillac, but Mercedes-Benz usually gets them about right."

That's not the only thing BMW underestimates. There have been all sorts of dynos on the 335 that conflict with BMWs posted stats. Some dynos show the 335 producing upwards of 340hp and 300+ft/lbs of torque. BMW can't possibly be so stupid that they can only muster up a 300hp rating.

It's all a marketing ploy so BMW can pat themselves on the back when the rip the crap out of the competition.

Maxmpower - 10/9/2007 9:35:52 PM

+1 Boost

DaHarder - 10/10/2007 12:07:43 AM

+2 Boost

Hmmm?

When last I checked, the E90/3-Series (the current generation) started with:

The 2006 325i which had 215 hp @ 6,250 rpm/185 lb-ft. @ 2,750 rpm

The 2006 330i had 255 hp @ 6,600 rpm/220 lb-ft. @ 2,750 rpm

Note: Later to be changed to the 328i and 335i both receiving horsepower/torque increases, though that's not what you stated my alleged "BMW fan".

Heyhuub - 10/10/2007 10:03:57 AM

+2 Boost

It actually starts with:

The 2005 BMW 318i with 129hp @ 5750rpm/ 132 lb-ft @ 3250rpm

:)

DaHarder - 10/10/2007 12:04:51 PM

+2 Boost

Your initial statement, "let's not forget that the 3-Series started off its current generation with a 255-hp engine" would lead one to believe that 255hp was the starting point for E90 hp.

Your statement required clarification, so I clarified it for you, so save the insults.

briankravitz - 10/10/2007 10:05:48 AM

0 Boost

001, this was NOT a fair fight by any stretch and you should know that above anyone else-first, the 335 is TWIN TURBOED, the others are not, which gives the 335 an immediate advantage over the normal asp CTS and Merc350. I did not read if the CTS had the DI 3.6 but even if it did, while the hp numbers with the 335 are the same, the 335 has gobs more torque BECAUSE OF THE TURBOS!!! Additionally, 001, and I'm addressing this statement to you and about every other auto writer out there who inexplicably keeps doing this-STOP COMPARING THE CTS TO COMPACT CARS!!! The CTS is a true midsizer, the others true compacts, in size and weight. So right off the bat the comparo is invalid. So what if the price points are similar?! The CTS is dynamically different from the other cars and should NEVER have been in this group. Put it up against the 5 or the E class. Yeah, it might not win but at least it would be a fair contest. Put twin turbos on the 350 and then do a comparo. I bet the numbers would be a lot different. 001, this comparo was an absolute joke and an insult to anyone with even a molecule of automotive intelligence. I'm VERY disappointed with you.

DaHarder - 10/10/2007 12:13:48 PM

-1 Boost

I have yet to see a single advertisement/commercial that compares the 2008 CTS to the BMW 3-series.

and, as I have stated many times before, the CTS is indeed a direct competitor to the 6-cylinder variants of the 5-series, E-Class, M35 et al, NOT the smaller compact offerings from those makers.

The longer wheelbase/over-all size alone places it in a different handling/dynamic category from these compact sports sedans.

bmwdrvr - 10/10/2007 1:13:29 PM

+3 Boost

the cts doesnt compete with the 5, a6, and e class the STS does.....according to your logic that also means the lexus es, and tl are also a6, 5, and e class competitors. that doesnt make sense, if gm intended for the cts to compete with those cars it would have been alot more expensive than what it is, and would offer a V8 option, outside of the high performance cts-v

zorbeeze - 10/10/2007 1:22:19 PM

+2 Boost

"I have yet to see a single advertisement/commercial that compares the 2008 CTS to the BMW 3-series"

Actually the current CTS, which is about to expire, was always a 3series, C-class, G, IS, A4 competitor from the moment it came out. The new model which just barely came out will be pushed against the 5series, Eclass, etc.

DaHarder - 10/10/2007 2:38:24 PM

0 Boost

^ Please, just for laughs, look at the line that you quoted from my post...

Notice that number preceding the letters CTS?

Hint: It says 2008!

S4cabriofoxone - 10/10/2007 8:27:29 PM

+1 Boost

"and, as I have stated many times before, the CTS is indeed a direct competitor to the 6-cylinder variants of the 5-series, E-Class, M35 et al, NOT the smaller compact offerings from those makers."

The CTS doesn't compete directly with ANYTHING. Not the 3 Series, not the 5 Series. But it's closer in price to the 3- so therefore, they are compared.

briankravitz, that was simply a stupid bunch of excuses. TheSailor summed it up perfectly. BMW CHOSE to use the superior technology. Cadillac, Mercedes-Benz and others COULD HAVE if they wanted to. But they didn't! And of course it gives the 335i an advantage, but the advantage is completely fair! Cadillac was not banned from using twin-turbos on the new CTS! Nor were BMW- they just took advantage of it!

carfan33 - 10/11/2007 12:57:49 AM

-1 Boost

if size does not matter, only price, compare the 335i to a 300C SRT-8.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/11/2007 9:59:24 PM

+1 Boost

"if size does not matter, only price, compare the 335i to a 300C SRT-8."

You completely misinterpreted my statement. Of COURSE size matters. But if a car is between the sizes of two classes--the CTS--it should be compared with the others that have similar prices to it.

ezatnova - 10/12/2007 1:31:05 PM

+1 Boost

Carfan - powned. 300C with all its extra cubes can't hang with the BMW boys.

zorbeeze - 10/10/2007 1:25:35 PM

0 Boost

"what about the slob a4?"

In a perfect situation maybe 6.2sec, on average 6.5 from what i've seen.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/10/2007 8:28:24 PM

+1 Boost

Audi quotes 6.2 for the new one... and you know how wrong they always are. I'm guessing 5.7 for the new model, because not only is it more powerful but it weighs less.

Porschinator - 10/10/2007 5:47:24 PM

+1 Boost

Article is BS if the cars were not tested on the same track in the same conditions. THis article is written off in my book.

lexusis350 - 10/10/2007 8:02:17 PM

-1 Boost

I could've told anyone the CTS isn't anything to be proud of.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/10/2007 8:28:54 PM

+1 Boost

What are you talking about?

DaHarder - 10/10/2007 9:35:13 PM

+1 Boost

S4... Apparently Not Anything Of Merit

NEXT!

lexusis350 - 10/10/2007 11:39:48 PM

-1 Boost

Well, the old CTS. The new one is nice but I always thought the old CTS was boring and not much of a competitor to BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, Audi, or Mercedes. It compares better to an Acura or something which is why I'm confused as to why they compared it to the 3-Series and the C-Class.

DaHarder, I'm so glad you take time out of your life to follow me around and annoy me just because I hate Hyundai.

zorbeeze - 10/11/2007 1:12:01 PM

+1 Boost

The CTS has always been a competitor to the Lexus and others in that class. In fact the previous IS300 was not much to talk about either, it was the slowest in its class, and the handling was "meh" at best.

lexusis350 - 10/11/2007 5:48:14 PM

+1 Boost

Yeah, the IS 300 wasn't anything to brag about either. I'm just saying, look at the stats. The CTS is significantly slower than all the rest.

zorbeeze - 10/11/2007 7:01:36 PM

+1 Boost

And those stats are way off. I've been able to pull less than 6.0sec 0-60 on the older CTS, i'm willing to bet the newer model will be as fast if not faster.

lexusis350 - 10/11/2007 8:50:14 PM

+1 Boost

I still think the CTS compares more to Acura.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/11/2007 10:02:53 PM

+1 Boost

Which one? The TL?

• FWD vs. RWD/AWD

• No-style vs. High-style

• Similar interiors

• Pretend performance vs. Real performance

• Low prices vs. aggressive prices

The only one I can give you is "similar interiors." Their interior designs really are quite similar- even the door panels. But with wood trim, the CTS's is still nicer.

2ndbimmer - 10/12/2007 10:15:19 AM

+1 Boost

I drive a 335i sedan and I can tell you the 30-70 is a LOT faster than 6.5 seconds. It feels a lot faster than going off the line because it just sits and spins. But then again, I know how to shift gears and I dont start at 30 mph in 6th gear. The 30-70 times also feels just as fast as 70-110.

ezatnova - 10/12/2007 1:20:14 PM

+1 Boost

I drive a coupe and thought the same thing.