The December issue of C&D features a comparo of "Superfast Sedans!": the V, XFR & E63 AMG. The V yields to the first place Benz by just two lousy points. For some reason, they pitted the manual V against automatic others, even though C&D has previously (April '09) established that the auto is quicker and preferred. Not a bad showing against cars costing $13,000 and $36,000 more:thumbsup:

Rick

Ah, another cover to save for future car shows, in addition to the "American Hero" Motor Trend cover from a few months ago. Thanks for the heads up and I'll be looking forward to it in the mail.

The December issue of C&D features a comparo of "Superfast Sedans!": the V, XFR & E63 AMG. The V yields to the first place Benz by just two lousy points. For some reason, they pitted the manual V against automatic others, even though C&D has previously (April '09) established that the auto is quicker and preferred. Not a bad showing against cars costing $13,000 and $36,000 more:thumbsup:

Rick

I don't have my C&D issue in the mail yet. So was the E63 faster than the V?

I don't like to use the price argument, but $36k can buy you the V700 package from Hennessey (I think). I'd like to see that smackdown for sure. :kick:

cool, I will go out and buy this issue today.

I don't have my C&D issue in the mail yet. So was the E63 faster than the V?

I don't like to use the price argument, but $36k can buy you the V700 package from Hennessey (I think). I'd like to see that smackdown for sure. :kick:

I don't understand why you would not want to use the price argument.

If price doesn't determine the comparison, then I think GM should send a ZR1 to compete instead. Or if it must be a sedan maybe Mercedes sends an E550 which is the same price as the V2.

Let's get serious though: The newest car almost always wins. The V2 won their comparos last year and it would be stale for us to keep winning from a rag perspective.

any idea if the manual V2 faster than E63 ??

I don't understand why you would not want to use the price argument.


What I meant was I didn't want to use price as an excuse, meaning the car should stand on its own regardless of price. Not "it's not the greatest, but, it's the best car for the money..."

I don't understand why you would not want to use the price argument.

If price doesn't determine the comparison, then I think GM should send a ZR1 to compete instead. Or if it must be a sedan maybe Mercedes sends an E550 which is the same price as the V2.

Let's get serious though: The newest car almost always wins. The V2 won their comparos last year and it would be stale for us to keep winning from a rag perspective.

I agree. In fact, I the E550 will still cost more than the V.

E550 is a very nice car but loaded it's $72k (absolutly NO DISCOUNTS or CAHS BACK) & only 400+ bhp. I was test driving the E550 last month when the Caddy dealer called my cell phone and said he could get me $14k off a new '09. That's a no-brainer - advatanage: Caddy

They always make the newer car win. They get paid tons of money by manufactors for ads and such. and it helps sell cars.

In the same magazine there is an ad (pp 20-21) that pictures a CTS V...

Question are the lights different on the 2010? The lower bulbs appear to be blue...mine appear blue when on...but clear when off...is this a change or just retouching of the photo for emphasis?

anyone who got the magazine could please post aaceleration test numbers for the cts-v and E63 ?

CTS V and Jag XFR 4.3 for 0-60; E63 was 4.3

All three 0-100 @ 9.5

Zero to 150: CTS V 22.3; XFR 22.9; E63 23.4.

Thanks Prof :)

would you mind posting the handling and braking numbers? 1/4 mile time and trap speed?

Following all presented in the following order: CTS V, XFR, E63 AMG:

1/4 mile: 12.6 @ 117; 12.6 @ 116; 12.5 @ 115. (Strangely the CTS V was the manual...others were auto.)

Braking 70 - 0: 162; 160; 168.

200 ft Skid Pad: 0.90; 0.88; 0.92.

Lane change (mph): 66.7; 61.5; 65.4.

Bottom line: Total Points CTS V 214; XFR 206; E63 AMG 216...editors gave it a 2 point edge on "Gotta Have It..."

Opinions are like sphincter muscles...everyone has one.

There's just something slightly dorky looking about the new E63 - I could never see myself owning one. Plus it's only available with an automatic, so that eliminates it from my purchase list.

Yep, I'm sticking with my '10 CTS-V order - 1 more month! Can't wait! :D

With C&D, I automatically subtract out the "Gotta Have It" rating, which is easily the most subjective of all the scores, and not just on the V.

Looking at the 1/4 mile time they got on the V, I don't feel so badly about the 12.8 I posted last week at the dragstrip. It's all in the reaction time and the 60' time.

The article mentions that the only CTS-V available in Europe at the time of the test was this 6-speed manual. Additionally, this V was a pre-production prototype. They noted that although the car had a suede steering wheel, the shifter was still leather. The article states that the automatic V they tested in the States was .4 secs faster in the 1/4 mi than this manual, so that would have given the 1/4 mi test to the V, and thus an additional point in the overall comparo. I think it would have also given the V an additional point for the 0-60 time (3.9 vs 4.0 for the E63).

Is there any doubt here about what vehicle is the best by far???

I think not.

Our opinion is not unbiased, but for our purposes...does it have to be?

CTS V:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

Is there any doubt here about what vehicle is the best by far???

I think not.

Our opinion is not unbiased, but for our purposes...does it have to be?

CTS V:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:



No doubt. And our opinion doesn't need to be unbiased for our puposes or any other; do a YouTube search on "CTS-V vs." and you will be treated to a plethora of gushing-praise videos from automotive journalists. :D


http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cts-v+vs&search_type=&aq=2&oq=cts-v

With C&D, I automatically subtract out the "Gotta Have It" rating, which is easily the most subjective of all the scores, and not just on the V.

Looking at the 1/4 mile time they got on the V, I don't feel so badly about the 12.8 I posted last week at the dragstrip. It's all in the reaction time and the 60' time.
Reaction time doesn't affect a straight up 1/4 mile run...

If it were an acceleration test only, I could understand the complaints. It's just 1 magazine's opinion of the overall package.

I must say that the E63's new DCT sequential auto (w/clutch, not torque converter) is pretty impressive. Overall quality goes to the MBZ as well but the CTS-V clearly beats it on a racetrack. A fun comparison for sure.

Reaction time doesn't affect a straight up 1/4 mile run...

My bad. I'm a noob at dragstrip runs. :)

My bad. I'm a noob at dragstrip runs. :)
Don't worry, I'm not far ahead of ya...

Just finished reading the article, at the end the author writes that that CTS V is catching up with "ze germans", I guess he hasn't see all the other magazines where V was better than M5 which always in the past beat AMG.
It is embarrassing when such a large car magazine allows such poor comparison of a preproduction car with manual to production model with auto and then ranks tranny and fit and finnish..
Have to wait for proper comparison by MT.
By the way the back of the E63 is nice copy of Hyundai, and tail pipes are quite tacky, just saw one on the street in Chicago.
I did like the break lights on the preproduction CTS V in the article.
Anyway, I never considered AMG product, since manual is not an option.

Just finished reading the article, at the end the author writes that that CTS V is catching up with "ze germans", I guess he hasn't see all the other magazines where V was better than M5 which always in the past beat AMG.
It is embarrassing when such a large car magazine allows such poor comparison of a preproduction car with manual to production model with auto and then ranks tranny and fit and finnish..
Have to wait for proper comparison by MT.
By the way the back of the E63 is nice copy of Hyundai, and tail pipes are quite tacky, just saw one on the street in Chicago.
I did like the break lights on the preproduction CTS V in the article.
Anyway, I never considered AMG product, since manual is not an option.


As many have said before... the AUTO was given the faster nod by C&D just 6 months ago... They posted these times for the AUTO

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 3.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.7 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 14.8 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.2 sec @ 119 mph
Top speed (redline limited): 176 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 154 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g

Then followed those times with this comment:

In our first road test (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/08q4/2009_cadillac_cts-v-road_test), we pedaled a manual CTS- V to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds, to 100 in 9.7, through the quarter-mile in 12.6 at 116 mph, and on to a top speed of 191 mph. Heady numbers. But the automatic CTS- V trumps almost all of them: 0 to 60 in 3.9, 100 in 8.7, and the quarter in 12.2 at 119. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q2/2009_cadillac_cts-v_automatic-short_take_road_test


I think this was simply C&D.. HOBBLING The American KING for the sake of saving the new Benz... which IRONICALLY... considering your comment... was designed after BENZ stole Hyundai's Chief Design guy Joel Piaskowski

Interesting test, since NONE of these were American spec cars. Even so, the V had the highest trap speed in the 1/4, and the fastest 0-150, so the superior power does show up even with a poor launch. More interesting is the huge difference in lane change speed, especially over the Jag. The 66.7 mph that the V posted is right up there with the best sports cars, and is quite amazing for a car so large and heavy. C/D didn't really mention that at all. The Jag only posted 61.5, and the AMG 65.4, not bad but still not a sports car number.

The V tested out only two points under the AMG. Let's see: they give the MB nine points for ergonomics! I find it's layout much more haphazard and confusing than the V, and I always wind up hitting the cruise control than the directionals, a problem I have had with MB for years. While the Caddy's ergonomics is not perfect, I do feel it's better than both the Jag and the AMG. Then we have features /amenities. Let's see again: AMG 10, V and Jag 7 each! IMO, they are all pretty equally well equipped, each having a few unique features, though sometimes at exorbitant cost. We can't tell what options the MB had, except for the carbon brakes that were mentioned, and some things they have in Europe we can't get here, but certainly, it's not a ten vs the seven for the other two. They don't give any points to the Caddy for offering a transmission choice, either. This is supposed to be an enthusiast publication? Styling is highly subjective, but again most people find the MB overly busy, generic in places, and less than cohesive or inspiring, and the interior is pretty boring as well, though better built than previous generations. Ride: "punishing" as per "THE LOWS", but given an 8, but the V gets only ONE point more for "superb ride". WTF?

As far as "gotta have it", well, if resale is any indicator, it's pretty low. This past summer we were test-driving AMGs and the ASKING price for one year old AMG E63s was only 65% of the MSRP, and they seemed pretty willing to deal. The new car is certainly better than the last generation, but it's certainly not a game changer, and it's still really expensive. Maybe C/D has to "have it" to keep the ad revenues up, but the AMG would NOT top the scoring if the scoring was truly rational.

You guys complaining about ad pages are so off the mark it's comical...

All of you opining about C&D's ad revenue stream and the reason they chose MBZ's E63 as the winner in this comparo should COUNT the number of ad pages in C&D and see who one of their LARGEST advertisers is: GM/Cadillac.

In the issue in question, GM has the most expensive ad spot in the magazine (Cover-2 and p.1 GMC spread) PLUS a Caddy spread on p20-21, PLUS another Caddy spread on p40-41! Mercedes has zero (0) ad pages in C&D.

That's 6 ad pages for GM/Cadillac.
That's ZERO ad pages for MBZ. :hmm:

Give C&D a break, they chose the winner straight up based upon the test and that's it. If it were solely ad revenue based, C&D would have clearly chosen the CTS-V since GM pays a huge portion of their bills.

The scoring is fully rational, it just doesn't conform to the CTS-V owners' wishes. The bottom line is that BOTH cars (E63 and CTS-V) are awesome cars, and personal preference plays the final part. Most of you have spoken with your purchases. Give the devil his due, gentlemen--the new E63 is a monster, and its single-clutch transmission & updated chassis are game changers.

I'm still on the fence and am hoping that most CTS-V owners aren't quite so defensive. There's room for all of the cars on the market, and we are very blessed to have such wonderful options for our motoring! :cheers:

E63 in my country cost around 180,000 $ where as CTS-V only cost 80,000$ so the difference is 100,000$ ....and E63 not worth it at all :)

looking at other Super sedan cost , the E63 is the most expensive super sedan ...

You guys complaining about ad pages are so off the mark it's comical...

All of you opining about C&D's ad revenue stream and the reason they chose MBZ's E63 as the winner in this comparo should COUNT the number of ad pages in C&D and see who one of their LARGEST advertisers is: GM/Cadillac.

In the issue in question, GM has the most expensive ad spot in the magazine (Cover-2 and p.1 GMC spread) PLUS a Caddy spread on p20-21, PLUS another Caddy spread on p40-41! Mercedes has zero (0) ad pages in C&D.

That's 6 ad pages for GM/Cadillac.
That's ZERO ad pages for MBZ. :hmm:

Give C&D a break, they chose the winner straight up based upon the test and that's it. If it were solely ad revenue based, C&D would have clearly chosen the CTS-V since GM pays a huge portion of their bills.

The scoring is fully rational, it just doesn't conform to the CTS-V owners' wishes. The bottom line is that BOTH cars (E63 and CTS-V) are awesome cars, and personal preference plays the final part. Most of you have spoken with your purchases. Give the devil his due, gentlemen--the new E63 is a monster, and its single-clutch transmission & updated chassis are game changers.

I'm still on the fence and am hoping that most CTS-V owners aren't quite so defensive. There's room for all of the cars on the market, and we are very blessed to have such wonderful options for our motoring! :cheers:

Just thought that possibly you might consider that since the ad pages are so few for MB...that the publication is trying to remedy that situation? Maybe they are being prospective in their approach rather than retrospective.

But I too agree it is probably not an attempt to drive ad pages...but every article does have ulterior motives...maybe it is the European market that is driving the MB slant...or possibly an attempt to garner as much attention from MB and Cadillac readers...possibly it is an attempt to rouse enough emotion to generate another article this time using an automatic...the possibilities are endless.

We should be very happy that the V2 is a wonderful vehicle...some will choose the MB over it...but that is exactly what they should do. We don't want them in our vehicle anyway!

If each of us had purchased a Jag, we would be up in arms about the test too...there is nothing that makes a person a more devout supporter than a purchase...the proof is in a year or two to see if we are seeking the successor, or moving to another vehicle...if things stay the same, I see a V2 coup and a V2 Wagon in my future...but as I have said before...I have never stayed in a Holliday Inn Express...and probably never will!

By the way .. sport auto used this CTS-V on the worst test ever for the cts-v

They got ( all in km/h )

0-100 in 4.7
0-200 in 14.3
0-300 in 69 sec

http://www.cargraphic.de/stepone/data/downloads/b3/11/00/SportAuto_1009.pdf

You guys complaining about ad pages are so off the mark it's comical...

The scoring is fully rational, it just doesn't conform to the CTS-V owners' wishes. I'm still on the fence and am hoping that most CTS-V owners aren't quite so defensive. There's room for all of the cars on the market, and we are very blessed to have such wonderful options for our motoring! :cheers:

I agree that we have broad and wonderful motoring options, but if I may be so bold to presume to speak for "defensive CTS-V owners": I don't mind getting my a$$ kicked in a fair fight. But using a pre-production vehicle with a performance set-up (6MT) known to be .4 sec slower to 60 and .7 slower to the 1/4, is not rational, and is comparing apples to oranges. I would like to see a rematch with production North American-spec cars with automatic transmissions.

For me, I look at these articles with a jaundiced eye. Even numbers can be fudged. It's all about the end-result they want to present.

The bottom line is, many of these companies pay these ragazines for publicity to get their car in for a review, let alone any ad-campaigns they may be running with them.

A classic case of this line of spin that is ridiculous involves another publication running a "6versus8" online video schtick in which the Lincoln MKS ecoboost is pitted against:

1. BMW 550
2. Jaguar XF
3. Maserati Quattroporte' base model.
4. Mercedes E550

According to the ploy, one professional driver makes 3 runs with each car up the Loveland 10,000+ ft pass section of HWY. Best time is taken from each.

Okay so, the ecoboost in an interesting engine. Cool... 350 hp with a V6. I love it.

Amazingly enough, the MKS takes second place to the BMW 550i. Yeah right. That MKS handles like a wet turd, and only 'performs' well in a straight line. This is well-documented fact about the MKS. The 280 hp 2010 LaCrosse spanks it's butt in the curves. Nice fast cruiser-car the MKS may be, perhaps; but it is not a twisties car whatsoever. Furthermore, what video clips you do see of each car you will notice the driver is pushing each car differently, especially thru the haipin.

That video shootout is a farce, IMHO, and Lincoln PAID for the MKS to 'shine'...Second place only to the bimmer, my butt. Not to mention each of the other cars were naturally-aspirated and we all know what effect that altitude has on a NA engine, vs one with a turbo or blower. What a load of garbage. Now when and IF Lincoln would come up with something that actually handles and has the capacity to compete against what it is pitted against this review would be believable (as in GM's CTS-V's handling ) then I'd be more than happy to cheer them on.


Lincoln wouldn't dare do that same test below 5000 ft, let alone 2000 ft or less above sea level. The MKS would get eaten alive.

But I digress... :D

I agree that we have broad and wonderful motoring options, but if I may be so bold to presume to speak for "defensive CTS-V owners": I don't mind getting my a$$ kicked in a fair fight. But using a pre-production vehicle with a performance set-up (6MT) known to be .4 sec slower to 60 and .7 slower to the 1/4, is not rational, and is comparing apples to oranges. I would like to see a rematch with production North American-spec cars with automatic transmissions.

Fair enough. I tend to believe (after reading the article completely) that C&D reached their conclusion on the winner NOT based purely upon straight-line acceleration numbers. Their scoring sheets are an interesting read that explain a lot. The MBZ gets the advantage in interior quality, overall quality, some performance and the overall package. The CTS-V gets the advantage with its power, its engine, and its suspension.

I just don't see magazine shootouts as "rigged" as many internet forum members seem to think they are. Again if they were rigged, wouldn't GM/Cadillac have won in a landslide due to their 6+pg ad campaign? I give the automotive press & journalists the benefit of having integrity in their comparos, because if they lie enough times, people will stop reading their magazines and they lose their reputation.

The new E63 does seem like a great enough car to warrant a 1st place overall, no matter how much "we" on this forum may disagree. Again, that's the beauty of having so many choices--we can disagree w/the press and still be fortunate to have MANY choices for 500HP+ 4-door sedans. At what other point in time could a consumer have such choices?! We are fortunate to live in a time period where we have such choices. The next generation of automotive enthusiasts may not be so lucky :bouncy:

Fair enough. I tend to believe (after reading the article completely) that C&D reached their conclusion on the winner NOT based purely upon straight-line acceleration numbers. Their scoring sheets are an interesting read that explain a lot. The MBZ gets the advantage in interior quality, overall quality, some performance and the overall package. The CTS-V gets the advantage with its power, its engine, and its suspension.

I just don't see magazine shootouts as "rigged" as many internet forum members seem to think they are. Again if they were rigged, wouldn't GM/Cadillac have won in a landslide due to their 6+pg ad campaign? I give the automotive press & journalists the benefit of having integrity in their comparos, because if they lie enough times, people will stop reading their magazines and they lose their reputation.

The new E63 does seem like a great enough car to warrant a 1st place overall, no matter how much "we" on this forum may disagree. Again, that's the beauty of having so many choices--we can disagree w/the press and still be fortunate to have MANY choices for 500HP+ 4-door sedans. At what other point in time could a consumer have such choices?! We are fortunate to live in a time period where we have such choices. The next generation of automotive enthusiasts may not be so lucky :bouncy:



They are not "rigged", just biased. Biased towards new cars. It is the worst kept secret in the industry. The newest car almost always gets the nod unless it is blatantly worse than the existing competitors.

Mark my words, BMW could introduce their 2009 M5 as a 2012 and the car mags would have it beat the Caddy and Merc.

I recall the V2 getting a lot of prase over the past year from the rags so I'm not giong to call it "unfair" for them doing the same for the other competitors to boost magazine sales and keep everyone happy.

But at the same time, I'm getting really tired of the car mags ignoring the unbelievable price differences. To me, if the Merc really does cost $36,000 more (or whatever it is), that should count for about 30 points. Again, GM might as well supply the ZR1 for the comparison if price doesn't matter. On top of it all, I've driven a 2010 E550 a number of times now and nothing about its ergonomics or quality tops the V2. The fit and finish feel exactly the same.

Their scoring sheets are an interesting read that explain a lot. The MBZ gets the advantage in interior quality, overall quality, some performance and the overall package.

The problem is, all of that except for the performance, is subjective. Interior quality? How is the E63's interior of higher quality? They didn't cite examples. Overall quality? This one is REALLY subjective given that this wasn't a long term test. How do they measure overall quality? What areas is the CTS-V deficient in overall quality, while the E63 excels? Again, they gave no examples. Overall package? What does that mean exactly?

Of course the E63 would be a better choice for *some* people, depending on their needs and wants. But C&D should have really spelled out what the subjective E63 advantages are from their opinion, and let the readers draw their conclusions if those subjective advantages matter to them or not. Don't say "it's just better" and not explain.

They are not "rigged", just biased. Biased towards new cars. It is the worst kept secret in the industry. The newest car almost always gets the nod unless it is blatantly worse than the existing competitors.

Mark my words, BMW could introduce their 2009 M5 as a 2012 and the car mags would have it beat the Caddy and Merc.

I recall the V2 getting a lot of prase over the past year from the rags so I'm not giong to call it "unfair" for them doing the same for the other competitors to boost magazine sales and keep everyone happy.

But at the same time, I'm getting really tired of the car mags ignoring the unbelievable price differences. To me, if the Merc really does cost $36,000 more (or whatever it is), that should count for about 30 points. Again, GM might as well supply the ZR1 for the comparison if price doesn't matter. On top of it all, I've driven a 2010 E550 a number of times now and nothing about its ergonomics or quality tops the V2. The fit and finish feel exactly the same.


I agree... The issue at hand tho is that perception still leads many of these reviewers to not giving the Cadillac... an American luxo... the credit it deserves. The same thing happens every time with a Corvette comparison. PRICE, tho always mentioned, is never given the true attention it needs to be taken into account as to why these GM vehicles should be praised even more so. Truth is... GM could have charged a starting price of $69K for the CTS-V (hell tack on $5-10K on to the whole line) and still sold as many as they have. I would have certainly bought.. Then they could have used just $3K of that additional $10K to upgrade materials in the inside to levels that not only exceeded Jag or Audi.. but visibly showed that Cadillac was in actuality back on par with Rolls in terms of Luxury.

The time for Cadillac being the affordable Luxo is no longer necessary with Buick coming up again.

Anyone else like the tail lights on the V on the test car?

I never knew the jag was that fast! I would never own one but still...

I agree... The issue at hand tho is that perception still leads many of these reviewers to not giving the Cadillac... an American luxo... the credit it deserves. The same thing happens every time with a Corvette comparison. PRICE, tho always mentioned, is never given the true attention it needs to be taken into account as to why these GM vehicles should be praised even more so. Truth is... GM could have charged a starting price of $69K for the CTS-V (hell tack on $5-10K on to the whole line) and still sold as many as they have. I would have certainly bought.. Then they could have used just $3K of that additional $10K to upgrade materials in the inside to levels that not only exceeded Jag or Audi.. but visibly showed that Cadillac was in actuality back on par with Rolls in terms of Luxury.

The time for Cadillac being the affordable Luxo is no longer necessary with Buick coming up again.

Excellent perspective in my opinion. Most of us were not price sensitive in selecting this vehicle. It was the performance that attracted me, captured me and made me an owner.

I have to admit that there is a bit of pride that it is an American product, and that it came with a 100,000 mile warranty. GM is KEWL in my mind!

Why get our panties in a bunch about this comparo?

We know they tested a 6MT when the auto is faster because the 6MT was the only press car available. I don't care who paid who, it's all entertainment to me, and nothing to be taken seriously. Some of you guys are treating this like the end of the world.

Don't forget how much positive press our V has gotten in the last two years....and even without that, the car is fabulous.

About to drive mine 40 miles tonight...have to drive 20 miles for a meeting, then another 20 miles home on empty roads at that time....suspension and tranny in "Sport Mode"....can't wait!

Bob

Just finished reading the article, at the end the author writes that that CTS V is catching up with "ze germans", I guess he hasn't see all the other magazines where V was better than M5 which always in the past beat AMG.
It is embarrassing when such a large car magazine allows such poor comparison of a preproduction car with manual to production model with auto and then ranks tranny and fit and finnish..
Have to wait for proper comparison by MT.
By the way the back of the E63 is nice copy of Hyundai, and tail pipes are quite tacky, just saw one on the street in Chicago.
I did like the break lights on the preproduction CTS V in the article.
Anyway, I never considered AMG product, since manual is not an option.

i dunno i drive a preproduction car nearly every day and it looks, feels and drives just like any production version we have here.


there are different levels of being preproduction. i would assume if gm is giving a vehicle to a magazine it must in for general public condition.

Just thought that possibly you might consider that since the ad pages are so few for MB...that the publication is trying to remedy that situation? Maybe they are being prospective in their approach rather than retrospective.

But I too agree it is probably not an attempt to drive ad pages...but every article does have ulterior motives...maybe it is the European market that is driving the MB slant...or possibly an attempt to garner as much attention from MB and Cadillac readers...possibly it is an attempt to rouse enough emotion to generate another article this time using an automatic...the possibilities are endless.

We should be very happy that the V2 is a wonderful vehicle...some will choose the MB over it...but that is exactly what they should do. We don't want them in our vehicle anyway!

If each of us had purchased a Jag, we would be up in arms about the test too...there is nothing that makes a person a more devout supporter than a purchase...the proof is in a year or two to see if we are seeking the successor, or moving to another vehicle...if things stay the same, I see a V2 coup and a V2 Wagon in my future...but as I have said before...I have never stayed in a Holliday Inn Express...and probably never will!

the cts-v is a great car, but in the world of selling mags you need to always be with what is the hottest thing. nd right now the cts-v is old compared to this new E63

I like both Benz and Bimmer, but I find the new E63's tail section VERY disappointing... Looks like a Korean car. Not a Benz.

the cts-v is a great car, but in the world of selling mags you need to always be with what is the hottest thing. nd right now the cts-v is old compared to this new E63

Covers sell magazines, not necessarily shootout results. It makes sense to have the E63 on the cover, but the winner isn't what sells the mag...it's the article itself. BTW the CTS-V is on the cover w/the MBZ too :highfive: