: MT Test: 2010 CTS-V vs 2010 E63



CTS NV
01-06-10, 01:40 AM
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_1003_2010_cadillac_ctsv_2010_mercedes_benz_e63 _amg_comparison/index.html

Interesting read.

Very evenly matched in performance, but MT gave the subjective nod to the E63 for refinement and better ride (air suspension).

Still, it's impressive to see the V hanging with 90K+ cars.

idoitforv
01-06-10, 02:26 AM
I have an 2010 E350 (for the wife) n I use to own a 05 CTS-V and plan on gettin myself a V2 when I get back from Afghanistan but all I could say is my E350 is perfect in everyway other than the engine... so if you threw in a E63 engine in there I dont know if I would pick the CTS-V over it. Option'd out they're about $25K away from each other n if you could afford $70K you could prob afford $95K; ne ways dont knock the E63. I'll put it like this, if it could beat a V2 CTS-V it's got to be an amazin piece of machinery...

P.S. I'm still gettin a V2 when I get back. :lildevil:

Gotham CTS-V
01-06-10, 11:45 AM
Performance-wise, it may not beat a CTS-V, but it is obviously a superior car looking at it's technology, quality of materials used, and the ride. I am an AMG guy too, so I know this. I just can't afford a fully optioned out E63, plus I like a car with modding potential. The E55 had it but the E63...nope

Vrocks
01-06-10, 11:51 AM
Even though the new 2010 E63 came out on top, the CTS series has come a long, long way.

The main thing that bothers me with the magazines is; they're constantly changing their tune. One month, the CTS-V has a beautiful interior, the next, it's cheap and tacky. What's up with that? Or the endless comments on people's dissatifaction with the look of the latest E's interior. Calling it cheap... "looks like it's from a previous generation C class". Now, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread according to MT.

There are some techincal things about the E that I like. The wet clutch pack and 7spd auto... I wish the V had that - actually, I really wish it had the ZF 8spd DSG transmission :worship:.

Now, if what GM is promising to do starting with the Caddy A series is true; I think the next CTS and CTS-V will have the latest technologies.

clubracer6
01-06-10, 12:03 PM
Good article, thanks for sharing.

Bottom line - it's amazing what GM has been able to do with this car. The fact that they were so close in performance, but the caddy is $25k cheaper is awesome.

As far as people complaining about the looks, it's all subjective and everyone including the different journalists are going to have their own opinions.

Can anyone tell me more about this issue of people not liking the Recaro's because they feel curled forward at the top. I've read that before, but don't get it.

One point I found interesting, was that they needed the electronic nannies on in the AMG to get the best handling out of it. As one who always disables all of that in any car, right away, it's dissappointing.

Finally, Cadillac really has it right by offering this in proper 6 speed. Hopefully they will continue that and improve the automatic for those who chose to go that way.

Jpjr
01-06-10, 12:29 PM
I take issue with some of these views.

I have driven a 2010 E550 multiple times now, my co-worker owns it and he lets me take it when I ask.

1. There is no quality difference. Get it out of your heads. It's not there. His E550 has been in the shop once now compared to my V zero. That means nothing, just like the history of the companies mean nothing. These cars that are on the road today are substantially the same in quality.

2. His E550 does not ride better. It rides great, but not better. There is no difference. It is not there. If anything, my V handles much better but I am not considering that because he doesn't own the E63.

3. Why why why does price continue not to matter? Why isn't the V getting 50 points for objectively matching the Mercedes for significantly less money? Or, why are they not comparing the V to the E550?

(I know the answer why, I'm just making a point).

Rant off.

Z06ified
01-06-10, 12:41 PM
The E63 is a fine machine, but I don't agree with MT's assessment that it's worth $23k more than a CTS-V. The E63's primary advantages are it is *slightly* more refined, has a cushier ride, a better automatic, and has a larger back seat. Those advantages are worth $23k, or 37%??? Not from where I'm standing.

A huge disadvantage the E63 has it is automatic only. MT gave zero credit to the CTS-V for being offered with a manual transmission. I guess MT has forgotten that some of its readers are actually skilled drivers who enjoy manuals.

I also disagree that any part of the CTS-V's interior looks cheap. It's a gorgeous interior, and it has far more style than the E63's boring, stark, and plain interior. Yes, the glossy piano black trim on the console of the V isn't to everyone's liking, and it is a bit trendy, but it is fashionable today. Sounds like MT's testers aren't very fashion conscious. Still MT shouldn't confuse "I don't like that" with "cheap".

neuronbob
01-06-10, 01:37 PM
I read the article. I can afford an E63 and like German luxury sport cars as much as anyone else, but didn't bite. The money saved is in the bank being saved for my son's education. 'nuff said.

OldRoadDawg
01-06-10, 04:55 PM
Uh.... I'm sorry. Did you say Motor Trend magazine?
:histeric::histeric:

Move on people. Nothing to see here.

ericpd
01-06-10, 06:02 PM
I dunno,... I remember watching a youtube comparo where the CTS-V was pitted against the E63 and that new Jaguar. And while the V came in 2nd, it was a very close 2nd. But more importantly, they noted that the V was more stable at autobahn speeds, capable of greater lateral G's, better in straight line acceleration, and a smoother ride on not so perfect roadways, and displayed better braking stats. I personally think all those tests are suspect to a certain degree, and would bring with them better creds if they included a segment where each vehicle is piloted by the brand's driver of choice,... a private stig if you will, especially in the performance segments where the driver's skill and familiarity with a car is crucial. Sorta like the first CTS-V vs M5 comparo. MBW put Bill Auberlin (sp) behind their wheel and Caddy put John Heinricy behind their wheel,... then the press was allowed write about the event's outcome. But reading that the new E63 bested the V in the standard performance categories is a little unbelievable, especially with multiple MT drivers behind the wheels.

garfin
01-06-10, 06:09 PM
Uh.... I'm sorry. Did you say Motor Trend magazine?
:histeric::histeric:

Move on people. Nothing to see here.

+1 :thumbsup:

Personally, I find that MT and I are not usually on the same page and as a result, I tend to take what they say with a grain of a salt...
I find it very amusing when they call the interior "cheap looking" when in previous reviews they have praised the V's interior!!!

Now, I'm obviously biased (especially since I have a '10 V on order), but this article certainly reaffirms my decision for a number of reasons...

1) I'll save a ton of dough by getting the V while having virtually identical performance. (wonder if the manual V would be quicker around the road course than the Benz, since the auto V is only 0.1 sec slower - and we all can see just how much better the Benz's auto is than the V's auto is from reading the article! :worship:
2) I personally love the V's interior - all I know is that it's a huge step up from my wife's '99 STS, let alone my '98 Camaro SS!
3) Dayum! I still prefer using a clutch and rowing my own gears! (I am rapidly becoming an anachronism!) That on its own eliminates the Benz from my wish list!
4) Shite! Did y'all check out the powertrain warranties? 5 yr./100,000 mi on the V (at least in Canada) vs. 4 yr./50,000 mi. for the Benz! Wonder how much the extended warranty is on the Benz? Granted the Benz has no limitation on roadside assistance, but I can get that for the V for $60/year from AAA after the 4 years are up.
5) What's with the big criticism of the Caddy's backseat?!? 1" less headroom back there in the V, but there's an inch more headroom in the V's front seat (really useful when wearing a helmet! ) ...and the V actually has 0.1" more legroom in the rear!! Hardly a strong basis on which to form a criticism!
6) The biggest surprise to me though, are the comments about the ride: "The big Benz rides remarkably well too, thanks in part to air cushions in the rear suspension (the front suspension uses conventional steel springs for superior handling precision). You can cruise quite comfortably in the E63 when not driving commando-style, whereas the CTS-V always reminds you of its track-biased tuning."
... fascinating that in the Dec.'09 Car and Driver comparison between the same cars (and the XFR), one of the stated "highs" for the V is "superb ride, easy to drive at all speeds", while the "lows" for the Benz stipulates, "Punishing ride, supercar price, barely quicker than the previous model." WTF! Let's get our stories straight here, boys!:confused: According to the C&D test, the V actually had the best ride of the 3 - by far!
Oh yeah - and this is the last year for the 6.2 in the Benz (so get 'em while you can!!).
I certainly would not get into an argument about perhaps the quality of materials and some of the other subjective comparisons - they are simply not a priority to me, nor are they on my radar. The V simply rocks! Besides, I'd much prefer to drive a domestic vehicle. :thumbsup:

Best regards,

Elie

commander112
01-06-10, 08:28 PM
Guys stop reading the rubbish that is printed in the auto rags. I have a very good friend that is a brand manager for one of the big three and in a previous roll was the advertising manager for the same company with an $800 million budget for advertising and marketing. I was told point blank off the record that it is all about pay to play with the magazines. If you spend the bucks the articles take a better slant. As the spend decreases so do the glowing comments. No writer wants to trash a big spender. We all know that kind of thing tends to shorten one's professional life expectancy. I have always suspected this to be true because in my own business when we advertise we can always get good editorial coverage.

dvandentop
01-06-10, 08:39 PM
damn the e63 rear end styling is nasty, e55 is where it was at, too bad out of warranty cost will be insane

GM-4-LIFE
01-06-10, 08:45 PM
Guys stop reading the rubbish that is printed in the auto rags. I have a very good friend that is a brand manager for one of the big three and in a previous roll was the advertising manager for the same company with an $800 million budget for advertising and marketing. I was told point blank off the record that it is all about pay to play with the magazines. If you spend the bucks the articles take a better slant. As the spend decreases so do the glowing comments. No writer wants to trash a big spender. We all know that kind of thing tends to shorten one's professional life expectancy. I have always suspected this to be true because in my own business when we advertise we can always get good editorial coverage.

I agree 100%. The car mags are so biased, it is sick!

SG

Caroutisine
01-06-10, 10:58 PM
Good read, thanks for sharing. The part of the article I found funny was the comparison between the V's "force-feeding air via supercharger to yield a sensational, class-topping 556 horsepower at 6100 rpm (you'd expect nothing less from an engine that's a sibling to the Corvette ZR1's LS9). In contrast, the AMG's mill breathes air at whatever pressure Mother Nature is exhaling"

Maybe they were just stating a fact, but it reminds me of 10 years ago when the Mustang Cobra came out with the SC 4.6L and the LS1 in the Camaro was NA . Comparing stock for stock, you run what you bought :)

Besides, the AMG63 has 32 valves and the V-2 only has 16 :)

Both are great cars and it's good to see GM holding it's own against the world's best. Being compared to the E63 head to head says something impressive about the V2.

zevee
01-06-10, 11:01 PM
It is simple to me, if you love driving the car rather then steering it then there is no AMG car that will satisfy, NO MANUAL. And, yes the Sonata rear end is embarrassing .

Jpjr
01-07-10, 02:59 PM
In one defense of Motor Trend, I don't think they are overly bias on nameplate. Where their bias comes in is whichever car is NEW. They peddle to thier advertisers. Whenever a new car comes out it almost always wins. The only time it doesn't is if it is really bad, like Chrysler's recent vehicles.

GM won with the Malibu, CTS, CTS-V, .. even the GTO won until MT realized everyone hated it.

backup
01-07-10, 04:51 PM
Can AMG cars be purchased at a discount? The CTS-V is sold closer to $60k versus the MSRP of $70k. The AMG has a MSRP of $93k. If they are comparing prices, or using relative value as part of the analysis, I would like to see something close to a real-world selling price instead of MSRP. A $33k difference is roughly 50% of a CTS-V!

Nutz
01-08-10, 09:42 AM
Ya think the designer of the engine cover was a "Trekkie"??


:hmm:

http://image.motortrend.com/f/31811637+w750/2010-mercedes-benz-e63-AMG-engine.jpg

dg144
01-08-10, 10:17 AM
I have driven the e63 prior to the arrival of my ordered v, I almost cancelled my order, it is an awesome car!!! I am glad I didn't change my mind as I love my caddy, just as much as the M5 I just turned in and I have 40K more in the wallet now.

wfo
01-08-10, 05:11 PM
You've got to consider the politics involved in reviews too. Getting cars to review particularly in a "shoot-out" scenario is brazen. It does take relationships with the companies. If a car company feels you're gonna rag on every nuance of their product they might tend to be less incined in getting you a car to review. Instead relying on their Marketing Dept to work it's magic with TV and magazine campaigns. Get you into the dealerships and test drive the product. Reviews can hurt a great car, putting an unecessary issue in your head. Just my .0002

Luna.
01-08-10, 05:24 PM
3. Why why why does price continue not to matter? Why isn't the V getting 50 points for objectively matching the Mercedes for significantly less money? Or, why are they not comparing the V to the E550?


Yeah, I find the value card MUCH more important than they are weighing it.



The main thing that bothers me with the magazines is; they're constantly changing their tune. One month, the CTS-V has a beautiful interior, the next, it's cheap and tacky. What's up with that? Or the endless comments on people's dissatifaction with the look of the latest E's interior. Calling it cheap... "looks like it's from a previous generation C class". Now, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread according to MT.

There are some techincal things about the E that I like. The wet clutch pack and 7spd auto... I wish the V had that - actually, I really wish it had the ZF 8spd DSG transmission :worship:.


:yeah:


The E63 is a fine machine, but I don't agree with MT's assessment that it's worth $23k more than a CTS-V. The E63's primary advantages are it is *slightly* more refined, has a cushier ride, a better automatic, and has a larger back seat. Those advantages are worth $23k, or 37%??? Not from where I'm standing.

A huge disadvantage the E63 has it is automatic only. MT gave zero credit to the CTS-V for being offered with a manual transmission. I guess MT has forgotten that some of its readers are actually skilled drivers who enjoy manuals.

I also disagree that any part of the CTS-V's interior looks cheap. It's a gorgeous interior, and it has far more style than the E63's boring, stark, and plain interior. Yes, the glossy piano black trim on the console of the V isn't to everyone's liking, and it is a bit trendy, but it is fashionable today. Sounds like MT's testers aren't very fashion conscious. Still MT shouldn't confuse "I don't like that" with "cheap".

VERY well said, sir


I read the article. I can afford an E63 and like German luxury sport cars as much as anyone else, but didn't bite. The money saved is in the bank being saved for my son's education. 'nuff said.

Again, VERY well said, sir

CIWS
01-12-10, 08:55 AM
Ya think the designer of the engine cover was a "Trekkie"??


:hmm:

http://image.motortrend.com/f/31811637+w750/2010-mercedes-benz-e63-AMG-engine.jpg

Holy Crap, that engine can achieve Warp :eek:

2Vast4U
01-12-10, 03:23 PM
Nice comparison of some sweet rides.

The E63 and the new F10 M5 are great news for the CTS-V because it's just going to make Cadillac more competitive. I agree with the review that the Cadillac's touch screen is dated, they need to update the controls to something like BMW's new iDrive.

Gotham CTS-V
01-12-10, 04:42 PM
Nice comparison of some sweet rides.

The E63 and the new F10 M5 are great news for the CTS-V because it's just going to make Cadillac more competitive. I agree with the review that the Cadillac's touch screen is dated, they need to update the controls to something like BMW's new iDrive.

Thank God GM didn't give it an iDrive-like computer. I hated iDrive. Glitchy, complex, and a pain in the ass to do the most basic things. I don't have any problems with the navi in my Caddy.

The F10 will be fierce competition for sure. You can guarantee that it will be the new benchmark for the sports sedan segment. And just imagine the potential of that Modified V8TT. :worship:

Z06ified
01-12-10, 05:16 PM
And just imagine the potential of that Modified V8TT. :worship:

I don't think the mod potential will be better than the V's. It depends how they build it and the rest of the drivetrain. Put it this way: variants of that TTV8 engine have been in production for over a year now, yet I don't recall seeing any modded ones running in the 10's, like the CTS-V has already.

Gotham CTS-V
01-12-10, 05:24 PM
I don't think the mod potential will be better than the V's. It depends how they build it and the rest of the drivetrain. Put it this way: variants of that TTV8 engine have been in production for over a year now, yet I don't recall seeing any modded ones running in the 10's, like the CTS-V has already.

Well, maybe the turbo housing can be easily modded. Maybe a simple ECU flash will give it 100hp+. The regular 335i has come a long way and has run 11's without turbo work. I'm sure some basic turbo work (like what's done with 911 turbos) will put this car well into the 10's. And turbos are more efficient than superchargers. Plus you can't forget the superior transmission that will be coupled to it. The latest generation dual clutch paddle shift which makes our auto look ancient.

Don't worry, with some mods we'll be fine, but I'm just saying I think this will be the next benchmark. I think BMW is getting embarassed and it's time for them to up their game.

Mercedes AMG is also supposed to come out with a new twin turbo 5.5l V8 in the next generation CLS55 AMG. Should be even more powerful than the BMW (BMW's are always lacking in torque compared to the AMG's).

Z06ified
01-12-10, 05:45 PM
Don't get me wrong - I prefer twin turbos to superchargers too. I wish our V's were twin turbo instead of supercharged.

I'm just saying while turbos *can* be easy to modify, not all of them are easy, and they're not necessarily easier to modify than supercharged engines. Once you have an engine built for forced induction, it's pretty easy to crank the boost up no matter what the induction method.

The other major factor when you start getting to these high horsepower levels, is how robust the rest of the drivetrain is, particularly the transmission and the differential. While SMG's and DSG's have high shift speeds, very few of them are known to be able to handle highly modified power levels without substantial and expensive upgrades. Some are damned near fragile. Even BMW's manual transmissions aren't nearly as robust as the Tremec TR6060 in the V. The torque in the stock V's engine would tear the current M5's manual transmission apart.

Gotham CTS-V
01-12-10, 06:01 PM
Very true my friend. Look at the GT-R. It can't handle a stock launch without falling apart. And I have read about failures on the new M3 tranny as well.

Our Tremec Manuals and the auto they gave us seem to be proven for high torque applications.

The M5 tranny could be it's weak point. On my E60 M5, my tranny needed to be replaced. A reason I would never want to get a SMG/DSG/MCT, etc tranny again. Give me a stick-shift or a good old auto and I'll feel happy and safe.

But I am still thinking that with the base 570ish hp the M5 will make, a simple ECU mod and some exhaust work will bring it to the 700hp level.

I guess it's still nothing we can't match though.


Don't get me wrong - I prefer twin turbos to superchargers too. I wish our V's were twin turbo instead of supercharged.

I'm just saying while turbos *can* be easy to modify, not all of them are easy, and they're not necessarily easier to modify than supercharged engines. Once you have an engine built for forced induction, it's pretty easy to crank the boost up no matter what the induction method.

The other major factor when you start getting to these high horsepower levels, is how robust the rest of the drivetrain is, particularly the transmission and the differential. While SMG's and DSG's have high shift speeds, very few of them are known to be able to handle highly modified power levels without substantial and expensive upgrades. Some are damned near fragile. Even BMW's manual transmissions aren't nearly as robust as the Tremec TR6060 in the V. The torque in the stock V's engine would tear the current M5's manual transmission apart.

JFJr
01-12-10, 10:11 PM
I guess it's still nothing we can't match though. Well said, Anything BMW can do Cadillac can do better!

richeic77
01-13-10, 01:25 AM
Sorry. I prefer the SC engine to the Turbo engine unless it's a very well done Sequential combo. If not, then for road racing....forget trying it with modified turbo's. When the boost kicks in, it'll kick the back-end out too much to be safely controlled. That's why they nickname GT2 Porsche's "Doctor Killers". The linerar/flat output of the SC is way more conducive to road-racing than a turbo engine.

But for drag racing, or flat out runs like the Texas Mile, Oh yeah. Give me Turbo's!! They can make more power than a SC for sure. And definitely more efficiently.

Not so sure about the 700 # out of the new M5. I'd have to see more about the engine to know if it can do that. If the turbo's are too small, then it'll reach the #, but way outside it's efficiency window which means it just makes more heat vs pressure.

verbs
01-17-10, 03:58 PM
Don't get your panties in a bunch. We all know that car isn't worth the premium. The reason the car hung with the Caddy off the line is because the Caddy can't apply all it's power to the ground. From a roll the caddy would pull the E63 nicely.....as you can see even though the cars hit 60mph from a stop in the same time, the Caddy is going 3.5mph faster through the traps at the 1/4 mile. That's a good sign that the Caddy is the faster car, especially up top. The Mercedes is able to overcome some of these power differences with a higher redline and superior automatic transmission.

I am stunned this car ran around a track just as fast as the Caddy, though my guess is there weren't a lot of straight aways where Caddy could stretch its legs.

I don't buy this noticable difference in rear room, or better ride quality in the E63. Magazines are like politicians, flip flopping as they see fit.

caddynoob
01-17-10, 06:36 PM
Very true my friend. Look at the GT-R. It can't handle a stock launch without falling apart. And I have read about failures on the new M3 tranny as well.

Our Tremec Manuals and the auto they gave us seem to be proven for high torque applications.

The M5 tranny could be it's weak point. On my E60 M5, my tranny needed to be replaced. A reason I would never want to get a SMG/DSG/MCT, etc tranny again. Give me a stick-shift or a good old auto and I'll feel happy and safe.

But I am still thinking that with the base 570ish hp the M5 will make, a simple ECU mod and some exhaust work will bring it to the 700hp level.

I guess it's still nothing we can't match though.

I am actually not as optimistic as you on that. Looks that they will use a variant of the 555hp 4.4L V8 (S63) from the X5M/X6M. It's already pushing 126hp/L. Not sure if there is much left without some major upgrade, 700hp will be a 26% increase in power. I can see maybe a 15-20% increase from a tune with voided warranty. The F10 M5 will be a fantastic car no doubt, but probably not a tuner's dream. The less aggressive N63B44 has a lot more room to for tuning IMHO. Some tuners are quoting 620hp out of that motor for a expensive price tag.

The irony is that I just cannot stop LOL at some BMW fanboy that criticized force induction and large displacement motor on BMW boards years back. GM LS family were inefficient to them, and the AMG 55 Kompressor were down right cheating. I give BMW credit for developing the V10 for the M5, it certainly makes the M5 a bit more exotic. Now BMW is pushing turbo into its line up as well as into the Rolls Royce Ghost. How times have changed in the BMW world...

raulam65
01-18-10, 09:02 AM
I was leaving BikePalooza at Palm Beach motor speedway yesterday when I ran up against an e63 amg. Since my wife was in the car with me, I could only get it up to 145 before she started getting nauseous and asking me to slow down; however, he was definitely pulling away from me. When he saw that I slowed down, he waited for me to come up by him. My first question was "what did you do to it". He told me that he'd pulled some sort of charcoal filter and done some other work through "Rinspeed?" Not sure about that, but his car was tight. He also told me that the V was his favorite car and he knew he could mod the crap out if it. I told him that I was doing the Lingenfelter pulley upgrade to get to 643 bhp, and he whooped it up. I'm sure I could have kept up with him a litle better without wifey on board, but there you have it.