: TTAC Comparo:My Baby 2 the German 3 & 1 From Japan, CTS-V vs M3 vs RS4 vs IS-F vs C63



cmicasa
02-23-09, 09:58 PM
The other mad machines in this comparo made the sheetmetal leap from mainstream to insane stream via louvers, brake ducts, spoilers, exhaust pipes and more exhaust pipes. The Cadillac CTS-V simply adds some chrome to the aggressive original (v. 2) design and meshes around with the front end. Inside, the Caddy proves once and for all (unfortunately) that General Motors can make a class-leading interior. Taken as a whole, the Cadillac CTS-V comes across as the brash American, fitness-trained by Hollywood’s best, wearing a perfectly tailored who’s-the-[Hugo]-boss suit.

When the pinks are on the line, the ultimate Caddy delivers the goods. At our 60 large price point, the Cadillac CTS-V has 100 bhp worth of extra Bimmer-bashing oomph under the bonnet. The 556 hp (@ 6,100 rpm) rip out of the back wheels, while the engine snarls with enough ferocity to send the Germans to the local tuning shop for some fortifying kaffe und kuchen.

But it doesn’t stop there and neither do you. The CTS-V’s gearbox (automatic or manual), suspension and brakes may lack the M3’s delicacy of touch, but they work with equal harmony and precision. This is one of those rare cars that creates confidence even as it unleashes accelerative and lateral mayhem.

Theme song: anything by Stevie Ray Vaughan.

A Comparo that Seems Unfair until U See the Big Boy Win... (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bmw-m3-vs-audi-rs4-vs-cadillac-cts-v-vs-lexus-is-f-vs-mercedes-c63-amg/)


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/x09ca_ct015.jpg

BREAK THRU....

5th

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/08_c63amg_front.jpg

4th
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/20_2009_is_f.jpg

3rd
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ms_preliminarypar0051image.jpg

2nd
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2008-bmw-m3-first-drive-1.jpg

cmicasa
02-23-09, 09:59 PM
Let me say that first and foremost.. this test was UNFAIR from most rationale points of view.. the CTS-V competing against the M3 and C63AMG is wrong.. considering that they are both smaller by far.. and both will kick the shyt outta the M5 in a speed contest.. The M5.. the CTS-V's intended competitor... But then the Caddy simply beats the smaller powerhouses as well... and one of my prime questions is answered.


NOW... Caddy... this is why U need a BLS-V with 436+HP kicking out at us

SRT8/BMW
02-24-09, 07:35 PM
great read. All fine vehicles in their own right. Having read about them and looked at them and driven most of them and read about them..my order was the :bouncy:same except the Benz beat the IS-F.

But thats why I bought the V!!!

cmicasa
02-24-09, 09:16 PM
great read. All fine vehicles in their own right. Having read about them and looked at them and driven most of them and read about them..my order was the :bouncy:same except the Benz beat the IS-F.

But thats why I bought the V!!!


MY problem is that Cadillac needs a car in this category so these comparison are not even made... I mean seriously... the M5 is never put up against these cars because it is simply tolarge.. The CTS-V is actually larger than the M5... soooo:suspect:

GMX322V S/C
02-24-09, 11:54 PM
The CTS-V is actually larger than the M5...Really? I was always under the impression the CTS package slotted neatly between the 3-series and 5-series--in other words, if BMW made a "4-series" it'd look a lot like the CTS. But this wouldn't make economic sense for them since it would cannibalize 3 and 5-series sales--which I figured was Cadillac's strategy all along.

whisler151
02-25-09, 03:47 PM
Let me say that first and foremost.. this test was UNFAIR from most rationale points of view.. the CTS-V competing against the M3 and C63AMG is wrong.. considering that they are both smaller by far.. and both will kick the shyt outta the M5 in a speed contest.. The M5.. the CTS-V's intended competitor... But then the Caddy simply beats the smaller powerhouses as well... and one of my prime questions is answered.


NOW... Caddy... this is why U need a BLS-V with 436+HP kicking out at us

What??? This article compares the best super sedans under $60k. The M5 is not in the arena. He clearly states..."Mike’s ultimate guide to $60K super sedans. Nothing more. Nothing less."

Explain to me why this is unfair?

JEM
02-26-09, 02:17 AM
What??? This article compares the best super sedans under $60k. The M5 is not in the arena. He clearly states..."Mike’s ultimate guide to $60K super sedans. Nothing more. Nothing less."

Explain to me why this is unfair?

It's not unfair, but it's inconsistent - like saying that one should compare apples to oranges because one got a great deal on apples.

cmicasa
02-26-09, 08:54 AM
Really? I was always under the impression the CTS package slotted neatly between the 3-series and 5-series--in other words, if BMW made a "4-series" it'd look a lot like the CTS. But this wouldn't make economic sense for them since it would cannibalize 3 and 5-series sales--which I figured was Cadillac's strategy all along.


Cadillac CTS-V

Height 57.3
Length 191.6
Wheelbase 113.4
Width 72.5

BMW M5

Height 57.8
Length 191.5
Wheelbase 113.7
Width 72.7



For comparison the M3.. hell all 3series for that matter are essentially Compact cars.. hence the inclusion of the Chevy Cobalt's size...




BMW M3

Height 57.0
Length 180.4
Wheelbase 108.7
Width 71.5

Just for spit and Giggles… Chevy Cobalt SS Sedan (Compact Car)

Height 57.1
Length 180.3
Wheelbase 103.3
Width 67.9


If U notice the M3 is in a completely different Size category.. and it is for reasons of ONLY price that the CTS is ever compared to the 3series. The CTS, BTW, has been surging upwards in price since last year. At one time the CTS could be had at a cheaper MSRP than the 3series.. Now the CTS is retailing abouut $4K more... and moving closer to 5series numbers, Ironically it now outsells the 5series.

I will also add that anyone who has ever been in a 5series should agree.. that the CTS has a better, more upscale and attractive interior than the BMW. If Cadillac were to wise up and offer a detuned version of the 6.2L V8 found in the Camaro SS with Active Fuel Managment (402HP, not the 426HP one).. detuning to about 385HP.. U would have an all around better CTS than the 5series.

The way for Cadillac to canabilize 3series sales is to introduce a 3series size competitor. This proposed RWD Alpha platform based car would fit the bill.. or an EpsilonII based XWD vehicle with AWD all the time... STANDARD.. and engines ranging from 260HP-420HP... all V6 and Turbos for CAFE purposes...

For those who haven't seen it... this is the Converj Concept from January. This particular car is riding on the Chevy Volt's Technology

http://spbcar.ru/news/en/i/2009-02-02/cadillac_4-door_converj4.jpg

cmicasa
02-26-09, 08:57 AM
It's not unfair, but it's inconsistent - like saying that one should compare apples to oranges because one got a great deal on apples.


Granted.. and this is a correct point of view.

Based on this type of comparison... a ZR1 should not be being compared to anything but the 911 GT3 and Viper... but the 911 GT3 and Viper will be DESTROYED by a ZR1.. thus it has to be compared to vehicles costing 2-4 times as much in order for the comparos to even seem worthy of a read.

tblack
02-26-09, 02:43 PM
Anybody want to buy an M3?..............:banghead:

GMX322V S/C
02-28-09, 03:30 PM
Cadillac CTS-V

Height 57.3
Length 191.6
Wheelbase 113.4
Width 72.5

BMW M5

Height 57.8
Length 191.5
Wheelbase 113.7
Width 72.7

BMW M3

Height 57.0
Length 180.4
Wheelbase 108.7
Width 71.5


I see, you can basically lay the envelopes right on top of each other. Thanks for pointing that out. Even the interior dimensions are close, although the V's rear shoulder room is more M3-like:

CTS-V
Front Head Room: 38.8 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 56.7 in.
Rear Head Room: 37.2 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 54.7 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.4 in.
Rear Leg Room: 35.9 in.
Luggage Capacity: 13.6 cu. ft.

BMW M5
Front Head Room: 37.7 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 57.3 in.
Rear Head Room: 37.8 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 57.2 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.5 in.
Rear Leg Room: 36 in.
Luggage Capacity: 14 cu. ft.

M3
Front Head Room: 38.5 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 55.4 in.
Rear Head Room: 37.5 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 55.1 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.5 in.
Rear Leg Room: 34.6 in.
Luggage Capacity: 12 cu. ft.

cmicasa
02-28-09, 05:45 PM
I see, you can basically lay the envelopes right on top of each other. Thanks for pointing that out. Even the interior dimensions are close, although the V's rear shoulder room is more M3-like:

CTS-V
Front Head Room: 38.8 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 56.7 in.
Rear Head Room: 37.2 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 54.7 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.4 in.
Rear Leg Room: 35.9 in.
Luggage Capacity: 13.6 cu. ft.

BMW M5
Front Head Room: 37.7 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 57.3 in.
Rear Head Room: 37.8 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 57.2 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.5 in.
Rear Leg Room: 36 in.
Luggage Capacity: 14 cu. ft.

M3
Front Head Room: 38.5 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 55.4 in.
Rear Head Room: 37.5 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 55.1 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.5 in.
Rear Leg Room: 34.6 in.
Luggage Capacity: 12 cu. ft.


Yeah.. in the Rear the CTS is definitely stingy with space.. but yet.. (and I don't kno if U've ever been in a Benz CLS) more comfy than the Benz CLS back there.

It's the Sports Sedan's curse I guess. BUT PLEASE.. correct people when they compare the CTS to the 3series... The only comparison that can be made is the price.. and that would change if the BLS were sold here in the US... and the STS got a bump in size and amenities (like the Platinum STS) to S-Class territory.

and just think.. all of this was in the works.. before the Economic/Financial Meltdown. :rolleyes:

concorso
03-01-09, 02:24 AM
The only way the CTS competes with the 5 series is in size...Where is the performance or spec? Forgetting the V, the CTS really competes with the upper end of 3 series and the lower end of the 5 series...with blurred lines.

Selling the BLS in the US would be a bad idea. It is entirely the wrong car to help move Cadillac along.

concorso
03-01-09, 02:33 AM
C63AMG...will kick the shyt outta the M5 in a speed contestProof needed...

MacOSR
03-01-09, 11:20 AM
:banghead: Having owned a CTS-V (Gen 1) and an M5 I would NOT buy a CTS-V as a replacement to an M5. I would compare the M3 and the CTS-V based on overall package (interior and exterior). That just my 2 cents from someone that has owned both. The CTS-V is much smaller on the interior then the M5.

Razorecko
03-01-09, 12:19 PM
if you're comparing a first gen V to a newer gen m5 thats a pretty uneven comparison.

concorso
03-01-09, 02:39 PM
if you're comparing a first gen V to a newer gen m5 thats a pretty uneven comparison.Yea, really... E60 = V2, not V1. Personally, the only part of the new M5 I like is the extra performance. A modern take on the E39 would be much more attractive design to me then the E60.60

cmicasa
03-01-09, 08:44 PM
The only way the CTS competes with the 5 series is in size...Where is the performance or spec? Forgetting the V, the CTS really competes with the upper end of 3 series and the lower end of the 5 series...with blurred lines.

Selling the BLS in the US would be a bad idea. It is entirely the wrong car to help move Cadillac along.

Selling the CURRENT BLS in the US would be a bad idea certainly.. especially since the current one is 3 years old and riding on a platform that dates back another 4. I'm talking about a next generation EpsilonII (if Alpha is killed) using the Turbo X's XWD configuration EXCLUSIVELY.. meaning no FWD or RWD.. just XWD. Anyone who's driven a Turbo X will attest that it can perform.

As for teh comparison between the 5series and the CTS... While I have to ceratinly agree that the 550i has the upper hand on the CTS due to the 360HP V8 sitting under the hood... the other models, 535i included, simply of nothing of worth over the Direct injected CTS. NOT LOOKS, NOT QUALITY, NOT RELIABILITY, NOT INTERIOR, and NOT PRESTIGE.

Sorry BMW fans... "the Ultimate Driving Machine" is not so Ultimate.

BTW... I'm notthe only person who thinks like this... Check the links

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2008/bw20080314_713158_page_2.htm

cmicasa
03-01-09, 08:50 PM
Proof needed...


Car and Driver tested M5 0-60 in 4.2 seconds did 0-100 in 9.4 seconds, and 1/4 mile in 12.5 seconds@118 MPH

They tested the C63AMG 0-60 3.9sec did 0-100 9.2sec 12.3-second quarter-mile at 116 mph

So while it's not exactly a TRUE roasting... it still proves my point.. that the smaller Benz/BMW/etc should not be compared to the M5 or even the same-size CTS-V

cmicasa
03-01-09, 08:52 PM
:banghead: Having owned a CTS-V (Gen 1) and an M5 I would NOT buy a CTS-V as a replacement to an M5. I would compare the M3 and the CTS-V based on overall package (interior and exterior). That just my 2 cents from someone that has owned both. The CTS-V is much smaller on the interior then the M5.


I can appreciate your 2cents.. but since I actually own a CURRENT CTS-V and not a old one... I'm gonna give U my 10cents..

THE CURRENT CTS/CTS-V are MANY WORLDS APART FROM THE FIRST GEN... :yup:

concorso
03-01-09, 11:28 PM
Selling the CURRENT BLS in the US would be a bad idea certainly.. especially since the current one is 3 years old and riding on a platform that dates back another 4. I'm talking about a next generation EpsilonII (if Alpha is killed) using the Turbo X's XWD configuration EXCLUSIVELY.. meaning no FWD or RWD.. just XWD. Anyone who's driven a Turbo X will attest that it can perform.

As for teh comparison between the 5series and the CTS... While I have to ceratinly agree that the 550i has the upper hand on the CTS due to the 360HP V8 sitting under the hood... the other models, 535i included, simply of nothing of worth over the Direct injected CTS. NOT LOOKS, NOT QUALITY, NOT RELIABILITY, NOT INTERIOR, and NOT PRESTIGE.
If you were talking about a BLS that hasnt been produced yet, why not say that?

RE the 5series. This is all your opinion. The 5 series doesnt just offer more engines. It offers newer designed transmissions, and more options inside. People buy these cars for more then just performance. Whether or not these options and specs are important enough to you to pay alot more for, well thats the customers opinion and choice. And you cant talk about reliability on a car thats been out for 2 months. Youre just blowing smoke. I agreee with you, but its still just an opinion.

concorso
03-01-09, 11:37 PM
Car and Driver tested M5 0-60 in 4.2 seconds did 0-100 in 9.4 seconds, and 1/4 mile in 12.5 seconds@118 MPH

They tested the C63AMG 0-60 3.9sec did 0-100 9.2sec 12.3-second quarter-mile at 116 mph

So while it's not exactly a TRUE roasting... it still proves my point.. that the smaller Benz/BMW/etc should not be compared to the M5 or even the same-size CTS-VDrag times dont interest me that much. And its not like the C63 was killing it anyhow! Look at the trap speeds.
Put a C63 on the same track as an M5. If the MB is faster on a road course, itll be the first time since the Cosworth powered 190E. It is certainly possible. The C63 is the first AMG designed from the ground up for performance. Theyve said similar things about previous AMG models too, tho... Top Gear tested the C63 to be as slow as the much less powerful Audi RS4 on track. The M3 was significantly faster.

Im still trying to understand why you think the C63 and M3 do not compete with the V. Cost matters, and all 3 are very similar in cost.

JEM
03-01-09, 11:41 PM
RE the 5series. This is all your opinion. The 5 series doesnt just offer more engines. It offers newer designed transmissions, and more options inside. People buy these cars for more then just performance. Whether or not these options and specs are important enough to you to pay alot more for, well thats the customers opinion and choice. And you cant talk about reliability on a car thats been out for 2 months. Youre just blowing smoke. I agreee with you, but its still just an opinion.

The E60 5-series exterior is a bit nicer now following its cleanup a couple years ago, fewer extraneous lines and gouges. The M5 didn't change IIRC.

The interior is a variation of the E65 7-series' sucky 1979-German-hotel-room interior design.

The automatics are standard-issue ZF slushboxes, no advance over what GM uses. They don't yet offer the dual-clutch gearbox and the old single-clutch SMG in the M5 (is it still available with the 550i?) has some avid fans and a lot of detractors.

Dynamic Drive (variable-rate sway bars) works, Active Steering (speed-sensitive variable ratio steering rack) sucks IMO.

The E60's rendition of iDrive is still pretty unpleasant. The doesn't-latch-on turn signals you get used to.

The V8s are nice, the twin-turbo six a nice motor with a lot of potential but in stock form not a big step up over the normally-aspirated DI V6 in the CTS.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

RapidRob
03-01-09, 11:48 PM
I can appreciate your 2cents.. but since I actually own a CURRENT CTS-V and not a old one... I'm gonna give U my 10cents..

THE CURRENT CTS/CTS-V are MANY WORLDS APART FROM THE FIRST GEN... :yup:

As is amply explained, (as well as much of what is being discussed here), at the following link - for those who may not have seen it already:

http://www.truveo.com/Full-Test-2009-Cadillac-CTSV/id/1792386603

Can hardly wait for mine to be delivered ... :bouncy:

Rob

concorso
03-01-09, 11:58 PM
-I loathe IDrive. Even the newer versions that are a little more user friendly. But to some consumers, this is a step forward. I agree that its not, but to some its worth paying extra money for.
-The 535i is quite a bit faster in a straight line then the DI V6. Theres just too little torque and/or too much weight for the DI V6 to handle. I didnt find the DI V^ CTS to be that much quicker then the 1st gen. It has more pull top end, but off the line the new CTS is pudding.
-Active Steering is horrible.
-Dynamic Drive is great. Mercedes has a version too I think. Suppose to work wonders. A similar system in the V working along side the Magnaride could be interesting.

concorso
03-02-09, 12:03 AM
As is amply explained, (as well as much of what is being discussed here), at the following link - for those who may not have seen it already:

http://www.truveo.com/Full-Test-2009-Cadillac-CTSV/id/1792386603

Can hardly wait for mine to be delivered ... :bouncy:

RobGreat! :) Ive been contemplating the sedan lately, as well, but it looks now like GM is still planning the Coupe! :)

JEM
03-02-09, 03:11 AM
-The 535i is quite a bit faster in a straight line then the DI V6.

Maybe it's that every E60 turbocar I've driven has been the 4WD version, but I found the torque of the N54 motor to be healthy but not overwhelming.

cmicasa
03-02-09, 01:48 PM
As is amply explained, (as well as much of what is being discussed here), at the following link - for those who may not have seen it already:

http://www.truveo.com/Full-Test-2009-Cadillac-CTSV/id/1792386603

Can hardly wait for mine to be delivered ... :bouncy:

Rob
Wow.. thanx.. and I can't believe EDMUNDS came to the rescue of an America vehicle over the Foreign ones...

It also made my point about the C63. Not a car I would buy over an M5.. but still faster nonetheless

concorso
03-02-09, 04:15 PM
An M5 and the C63 are not competitors. The C63 and CTS-V are competitors, tho...a point supported by the numerous people cross-shopping them.

cmicasa
03-02-09, 04:37 PM
Give it a rest... By your rationale, basing this on Price... a Corvette and a 911 are not competitors either... :bonkers:

Sorry bud.. but Cadillac has arrived once again.. this time in the Sport Sedan area.

BTW... what part of Europe are U from?? Because U seem to despise the concept of the Domestics slappin the Germans around:welcome:

gotapex
03-02-09, 05:17 PM
Car and Driver tested M5 0-60 in 4.2 seconds did 0-100 in 9.4 seconds, and 1/4 mile in 12.5 seconds@118 MPH

They tested the C63AMG 0-60 3.9sec did 0-100 9.2sec 12.3-second quarter-mile at 116 mph

So while it's not exactly a TRUE roasting... it still proves my point.. that the smaller Benz/BMW/etc should not be compared to the M5 or even the same-size CTS-V

Here's a direct comparison, same day, same driver:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=136636?mktcat=enabler&AID=10364102&PID=268435&kw=N&synpartner=edmunds&mktid=cj260233#79


Power is wasted if you can't wield it with precision or are burdened by weight. Our calculations show that the 4,315-pound, 556-hp CTS-V with 7.8 pounds per horsepower should be the quickest car here, and so it proves to be. The M5's weight-to-power ratio is 8.3 pounds/hp and the C63 checks in with 8.9 pounds/hp in fighting trim.

The CTS-V outpaced its competitors in the sprint to 60 mph with a dominant 4.3-second performance (4.0 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) supplemented by a scorching quarter-mile performance of 12.4 seconds at 114.7 mph. The next quickest to 60 mph proved to be the Mercedes with a 4.5-second tear (4.2 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip), while the BMW stopped the clock in 4.8 seconds (4.5 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip).

The three different transmissions couldn't have behaved more differently, and they definitely influenced the outcome. The M5's seven-speed single-clutch automated manual required perfect throttle/shift coordination for a decent launch, not to mention constant vigilance against redline excess while shifting as well as forgiveness for harsh upshifts. In comparison, the Mercedes' seven-speed automatic obliged consistent launches and seamless shift action, while the Cadillac's six-speed automatic makes the task as easy as the Mercedes, yet it shifts nearly as hard as the BMW.

The quarter-mile finishing order was CTS-V, C63 and M5 just as it was to 60 mph, and 0.2 second separated each car (12.4, 12.6 and 12.8 seconds, respectively). At the end of the quarter-mile, however, the M5 began to reel the others in with a stout trap speed of 115 mph compared to the CTS-V's 114.7 mph and the C63's 112.3 mph.

cmicasa
03-02-09, 07:04 PM
Hey look up a coupla posts babe... I actually referenced that Edmunds article... or rather the VIDEO

But using that... the M5 is also a C63AMG competitor.. Hell a M3 then competes with the M5. The RS4 and IS-F compete with the M5 and CTS-V as well.

I dunno guy... its viable and thin at the same time. I guess both the BMW and Cadillac are officially "Demoted" to competing with the "smaller/lower" offerings.

I guess if Benz had of thrown an E63AMG to Edmunds.. then we wouldn't have to discuss this... but maybe the larger Benz just wasn't up to the TOTAL task.:rolleyes:

I love American Engineering more than I do German... Shoot Me. I won't enlist.:tisk:

JEM
03-02-09, 07:22 PM
Hey look up a coupla posts babe... I actually referenced that Edmunds article... or rather the VIDEO

But using that... the M5 is also a C63AMG competitor.. Hell a M3 then competes with the M5. The RS4 and IS-F compete with the M5 and CTS-V as well.

Ohferchrissake....

Any time you've got a $70K car it's competing with a whole lot of things - the new kitchen, a decent Cessna 182 (or maybe I haven't looked at 210 prices lately), an extra year of cushion in the retirement fund.

If you're shopping cars by price, then certainly the CTS-V competes with the M3 and the RS4 and maybe the C63. It also competes with used M5s and E63s, and maybe Porsche C4s and so on and so forth because if you're willing to buy an RS4 or an M3 then back seat room is less than an issue for you.

If you've got M5 or E63 money in hand then the CTS-V is an interesting alternative that leaves you headroom for a decent Citabria (or maybe a so-so Decathlon) or a Mini (or a Cobalt SS) or a cheap racecar and a couple years of spare parts (or a trailer) or a moderate kitchen remodel (or a very nice master bathroom) or a nice vacation and a bunch of other stuff.

And I'm not quite sure who buys a Lexus IS-F. I sure as hell wouldn't. I've only seen one on the road here so maybe other folks agree with me.

When you get past Camry-money there's all kinds of possible uses for the $.

concorso
03-02-09, 10:20 PM
Give it a rest... By your rationale, basing this on Price... a Corvette and a 911 are not competitors either... :bonkers:

Sorry bud.. but Cadillac has arrived once again.. this time in the Sport Sedan area.

BTW... what part of Europe are U from?? Because U seem to despise the concept of the Domestics slappin the Germans around:welcome:Seriously is there something wrong with you? Price is one of the most important variables in a purchase unless youve got ridiculously deep pockets.
Say what you will, I just prefer to have a decent discussion versus all this posturing you are doing.

In the great white north, the M3 is actually more expensive then the V. And I have no problems admitting that I can't afford an E63 or an M5 brand new. For me, and many others, these cars most definitley are cross-shopped.
I was born in the part of Europe called California. ;) I live in Canada though and own my 2nd CTS. And ask the manager at my dealership how many times Ive reminded him that I want the first allotment of a Coupe V when its available.

concorso
03-02-09, 10:28 PM
Ohferchrissake....

Any time you've got a $70K car it's competing with a whole lot of things - the new kitchen, a decent Cessna 182 (or maybe I haven't looked at 210 prices lately), an extra year of cushion in the retirement fund.

If you're shopping cars by price, then certainly the CTS-V competes with the M3 and the RS4 and maybe the C63. It also competes with used M5s and E63s, and maybe Porsche C4s and so on and so forth because if you're willing to buy an RS4 or an M3 then back seat room is less than an issue for you.

If you've got M5 or E63 money in hand then the CTS-V is an interesting alternative that leaves you headroom for a decent Citabria (or maybe a so-so Decathlon) or a Mini (or a Cobalt SS) or a cheap racecar and a couple years of spare parts (or a trailer) or a moderate kitchen remodel (or a very nice master bathroom) or a nice vacation and a bunch of other stuff.

And I'm not quite sure who buys a Lexus IS-F. I sure as hell wouldn't. I've only seen one on the road here so maybe other folks agree with me.

When you get past Camry-money there's all kinds of possible uses for the $.Thank you! I know Ive looked at used M5's and new M3's. I looked at E55's and C63's as well.

The IS-F isn't a looker at all. Ive seen 2, one in silver and one in a medium-dark blue. Both looked horrible. The fender flares are ugly imo.

cmicasa
03-02-09, 10:40 PM
Hey thanks for the money management lesson.. I appreciate it. Call me cheap if U will.. but what I did last year was consider buying an Aston Vantage for $125k CASH... :helpless:

But then I heard that the CTS-V was coming out stronger than the M5 at that time would ever hope to... it looked beautiful.. and looked about 10X better than the BMW as well.. not to mention the fact that I was at the time an owner of a ultra-reliable STS and a bullet-proof C5 who happened to kno quite a few BMW owners, including M5/M6/M3/B7s... that were less than... dependable:nono:

So I said "Eff IT..." and gave half of the $125K to a Chevy Dealer for a Z51 which would outperform the Vantage, looks as good, and knu that I'd be able to drive as a daily if I wanted. I took the other half and put aside in an interest baring CD at 4.35%, since I saw this Bush-Paulson Catastrophe coming, and figured I'd wait until the V got some street time... and BOUGHT IT.;)

See??? If I had of bought an M5... I'd gone outside my budget.. had a pretty ordinary looking BMW sitting in the BMW Service Shop instead of my garage.. and missing the oportunity to have 2 gorgeous pieces of American ingenuity equaling 1000HP in my garage as weekend... toys toys...:cloud9::cloud9::cloud9:

cmicasa
03-02-09, 10:43 PM
Seriously is there something wrong with you? Price is one of the most important variables in a purchase unless youve got ridiculously deep pockets.


Read post above:D... and yeah.. I might be:cookoo:

MacOSR
03-02-09, 11:00 PM
I can appreciate your 2cents.. but since I actually own a CURRENT CTS-V and not a old one... I'm gonna give U my 10cents..

THE CURRENT CTS/CTS-V are MANY WORLDS APART FROM THE FIRST GEN... :yup:
I'll refund you dime...:thehand:

The interior is still smaller in the new V. I haven't driven the new CTS-V but I have driven the new CTS.

The Gen2 V is still situated somewhere between the M3 and M5 regarding size.

The new V is a great car provided it doesn't have all the long term problems my V1 did.

JEM
03-03-09, 02:48 AM
The interior is still smaller in the new V. I haven't driven the new CTS-V but I have driven the new CTS.

The Gen2 V is still situated somewhere between the M3 and M5 regarding size.

The CTSes are comparable to an E39 5-series in back seat room except for headroom, where a six-footer (me) finds his head damn close to the glass.

But in exterior dimensions...the CTS is a couple inches longer than an E39 5-series and within rounding error of an E60 5-series.

vperl
03-03-09, 05:13 AM
Thank you! I know Ive looked at used M5's and new M3's. I looked at E55's and C63's as well.

The IS-F isn't a looker at all. Ive seen 2, one in silver and one in a medium-dark blue. Both looked horrible. The fender flares are ugly imo.

***************************************

at a auto show the IS-F I saw had the back seat space for two
baby seats, no one not even a 7 year old would have any leg room and if your tall than 6'2" your gunna bump your head big time, but it is a Lexus

JEM
03-03-09, 11:51 AM
***************************************

at a auto show the IS-F I saw had the back seat space for two
baby seats, no one not even a 7 year old would have any leg room and if your tall than 6'2" your gunna bump your head big time, but it is a Lexus

Neither the IS-F nor the M3 have particularly generous back seat room, and the IS-F has a really weirdly-shaped seat that won't let you sit upright, it forces you to lean over.

Fundamentally, you couldn't put anyone back there that you wanted to actually like you when the trip was over.

The IS-F is kinda "Nice first try, someday you'll get it right."

liqidvenom
03-04-09, 01:05 AM
why would a v2 owner get mad at comparing a 09 sports sedan against the newest and greatest sports sedans from other companies. c63, m3, isf are all the newest and most tech spec'd vehicles the v2 can go against. the m5 is nearly on its way out...its an old vehicle.


and size wise the cts has always been bigger then the entry level vehicles from other luxo name plates, but interior wise its a smaller then the 5/e/etc.

darjae
03-04-09, 01:19 AM
and size wise the cts has always been bigger then the entry level vehicles from other luxo name plates, but interior wise its a smaller then the 5/e/etc.

Not so sure about that. Maybe with cubic foot measurement and with headroom, the V2 is smaller interior wise than some others, but I've got 3 kids (13, 11, 2) that fit in the back seat of my V2 with a carseat and I could not find another performance sedan that I could do that in (and we went to all the dealers with carseat in tow to check)!

Maybe with adults in the back seat, it would be a different issue, but how often are 4 adults riding around in it? And we just took a 1000 mile (both ways) road trip with 4 adults and didn't have any comfort issues.

liqidvenom
03-04-09, 10:11 AM
Not so sure about that. Maybe with cubic foot measurement and with headroom, the V2 is smaller interior wise than some others, but I've got 3 kids (13, 11, 2) that fit in the back seat of my V2 with a carseat and I could not find another performance sedan that I could do that in (and we went to all the dealers with carseat in tow to check)!

Maybe with adults in the back seat, it would be a different issue, but how often are 4 adults riding around in it? And we just took a 1000 mile (both ways) road trip with 4 adults and didn't have any comfort issues.

Performance sedan or not. a 2nd gen cts overall is more roomy then a 3/a4/c class chassis but a bit cramped compared to the 5/a6/eclass sedans. thats just how cadillac placed the cts to make it a price bargin between the two