Interesting. Uninformed but interesting.davesdeville said:Like it or not, you CTS-V guys are driving a quick entry level Caddy. People with serious bank tend not to go for entry level.
Watch me get lynched by the CTS-V people...
I stand corrected. :histeric:bladehack said:Actually, the base CTS has a 6 speed manual. You have to pay extra to get the automatic
Corrected again! Damnit~ :histeric:93fleetwoodlowlow said:i got all those except for the tire pressure monitor and the navigation. entry level Cadillac... oh Luxury Sport nevermind. i got something you dont got though... WOODGRAIN!!!!!!! i didnt pay for speed.
You're right on with this. I doubt highly that any STS-V's will see track time. The E55's are not track animals either so that makes sense. As for the M5, those owners are missing out not doing a track event from time to time.Leloz said:If you want to get technical, we can compare the e36 M3 4 door to the e34 M5.... or a C55 vs. a E55...
I did notice something else today, my few friends who own an M5 or E55 are not true enthusiasts and have never seen any track time with their cars . However, the few I know with an M3 or CTS-V do take their cars to various track events. I wonder if this will be a similar trend with STS-V buyers.
You're on the right track but you're still missing it. The STS-V is the one that they added the super charger to not the CTS-V. The STS is the entry level sedan for future CTS-V owners. When a STS owner thinks they can step up to the power and handling they can move up to a CTS-V.Nocturn said:Price has nothing do with entry level.
The entry level aston martin cost 110K..(new V8 vantage I think...but I may be thinking of the DB9). The entry level Porshe cost 50K (boxter). The entry level Lambo cost 110K.
Entry level simply means its the cheapest, usually most common, most manufactored vehicle in a lineup.
Take Chevy for example. A base line cobalt is the cheapest car you can get from chevy (ignoring crap ass aveo), the SS SC cobalt cost up to 24K, and will blow a base cobalt away, but the point remains its still a cobalt and still the entry level car from chevy.
Look at the first three letters in CTSV...its still a CTS, which is still the entry level car for Cadillac, it's not a seperate model, but a trim level. Exactly like the M3, M5 and AMG cars.
A couple of quick questions David.davesdeville said:Oh I'm not rich don't get me wrong. I paid for my ETC with my own money from a job. If my parents were rich and paid for everything, I'd be driving a CTS-V now and an STS-V asap. BTW, the STS-V will indeed outrun a CTS-V in a straight line (and although autox and road racing is fun, 1/4 mile is what I do.) It's like I said, STS-V > CTS-V in every way except aftermarket support (and price.)
Tony,davesdeville said:You're not paying that $51k for a lot of luxury options, you're paying it for speed.
Big Jim,CVP33 said:A couple of quick questions David.
1) Which vehicle do you currently terrorize the quarter mile with? The eldorado or the seville? BTW, when you tire of going in a straight line you will then know the joy of truly driving a performance vehicle vs. aiming.
2) If by ">" you mean larger than you are correct. If ">" means better than you must define better. Is the STS-V a better car for it's targeted market? I don't think so. Is it a better value? I don't think so.
The STS-V is a slightly larger rebadged CTS (yes CTS) with a S/C 4.4 liter. Where else do you think they got those lines? See one on the road and you have to look damned hard to confirm it's an STS coming vs. a CTS. AND it damn well better be faster because from where I'm sittin' that's all its got going for it. It's slower than ALL it's competitors and will sadly get be killed within 2 years after GM realizes it's mistake.
Marketing, pricing and positioning of the STS-V is so far off base as to be laughable. I haven't seen a blunder like this since the Aztek.
Ain't that the truth!lawfive said:Only time will tell, but it's possible that the STS-V does have one feature that we CTS-V owners would kill for: a bullet-proof differential.
Great post. We've found more common ground here than you may have guessed. And I left out the one thing I didn't agree with.Tony Orlando said:Thank you! Someone finally heard me....
That comment was in regards to an earlier post in which someone said that the CTS-V was almost as much of a luxury car as the STS-V. You and I are actually agreeing, but the conversation has become a little muddled.....
The reason for my low post count is simple: I normally lurk in threads but refrain from commenting because the original discussion gets lost to bickering. (*ahem*) It doesn't matter if it's Miata.net, rx8club, whatever. Everyone knows for a fact that their car is better than everyone else's. I got involved in this discussion because I don't think a lot of people here are giving the STS-V a fair shake, and it irked me.
Yes, I'm an STS-V buyer. I've owned mostly sport coupes until the last few years when I built a Miata for SCCA competition. That allows me to get my track days in, while being able to move into a different consideration set of vehicles for my daily driver, since it no longer needs to see double duty on the street and track.
I don't care if the STS-V is a few 10ths slower than an M5 or E55. I'm not taking it drag racing. I think Mercedes and BMW are the most overrated pieces of crap on the road, as evidenced by their abysmal customer satisfaction ratings. Any company that has to pledge to remove several hundred electronic features from a car because of glitches is NOT making a good product.
I also don't care if the CTS-V is faster around a track (which it is). I'm not racing any CTS-Vs, and if I did from a stoplight, I'd probably win unless I was up against one of the 2 people who can launch that car without wheel hop. I've driven a CTS-V about 40 times, including on a track, and it's a great enthusiast muscle car with some luxury.
Just as you CTS-V guys say, you really can't understand until you have one. The little things like never fishing my key out of my pocket to get in and having the car lock behind me automatically are great. I've repurchased all my favorite CD's in 5.1, because the STS's sound system is the best I've ever heard. And dammit, when I spend Cadillac money for a car, I want to look around the interior and feel like I'm in a Cadillac. Being able to mash the gas and do 60 in less than 5 seconds with no wheel hop, shifting or effort is the icing on the cake.
Let me put it another way: The STS-V is a luxury car 24/7, but when you floor it, it's suddenly, almost magically bad ass. You can even shift if you want to.
The CTS-V on the other hand, is a muscle car 24/7, but when you drive it gently, it doesn't magically turn into a luxury car. It's still loud, it still rides firm, and you still have to shift it. Not that that's bad, but that's just the way it is.
Hopefully, this sheds some light on why I'm buying this car.
I mostly stick to the V forums don't have much in common with the other makes/models.davesdeville said:1. I don't have a Seville, read my name. I run my ETC at the track once in awhille. Like I said, going fast in a curvy line, "driving" as you call it, is fun. I autocrossed my ETC last Friday. I'll post the video of it tomorrow in the Kills/Racing video section. You can harass me there if you wish to talk about what I drive, rather than in the STS-V forum which neither of us drive.
Stock for stock yes. Dollar for dollar not in my opinion.davesdeville said:2. The STS-V, stock for stock, is a better car than the CTS-V in my eyes. And I'm sure a few thousand people who have the cash will agree with me.
Your words not mine.davesdeville said:The CTS was the first car with the new art&science styling. The SRX, DTS, Escalade, STS, hell even BLS have similar styling. So you're saying they're all CTS clones?
Big Jim is our resident bully. If you can get past the delivery most times he's got pretty good information.davesdeville said:Yeah, I live in NM so I must be stupid. Right I haven't seen a production STS-V run the 1/4 but I would bet money it will beat a CTS-V. Especially when you blow your rear all over the track. Maybe try some tact next time you post in here.
Most likely you're correct. CTS-V wins the road, STS-V wins the track it will never see.davesdeville said:Let me try this one.
1. For a big luxury car it is indeed a road course warrior. And like I said, the STS-V will finish the 1/4 quicker than the CTS-V stock for stock.
Great comparison. Much better than the Cobalt SS analogy. Except it's a two door coupe. But you're getting closer.davesdeville said:2. Is the CTS-V really worth the price when you could pick up a GTO and save yourself damn near $20k? Yeah? Well for similar reasons plenty of people should think the STS-V is worth the extra.
Nothing to reply to here. Maybe one of the CTS guys can chime in.davesdeville said:3. But I thought you CTS guys were arguing that we hadn't seen any real performance numbers from the STS-V? Jim was. Oh, I get it, it only matters if the STS-V is slower than an E55 and M5 but not if it's faster than your precious CTS.
I believe Car and Driver called the STS a less edgy CTS. And said "that's not a bad thing". They do look alike. That's a fact.davesdeville said:4. The driver sure as hell can tell the difference. That's what counts because that's who pays. I learned to tell them apart the first week the STS was out. Not my fault you can't see.
So your answer to this would be yes. The goal of the STS-V is to be slower than it's competitors. Now you do understand that the CTS-V is not a competitor of the STS-V, right?davesdeville said:5. See #1.
Interesting comment. Please post the non-factual comments that I made. I will be glad to explain them. I will gladly post the inaccuracies of your posts.davesdeville said:You're not just "not towing the line," you're talking shit about the car because you can't see past your CTS-V.
Again your words here not mine. Never called the STS-V crap. Never said it needed a chevy motor or a manual. Just trying to understand why someone would want the car finishing third in it's class. Who know's maybe once the magazines can do a test of performance (unsubjective) and styling/luxury (subjective) the STS-V will beat out the quicker E55 and M5's. If it does it will be a performance bargain. If it doesn't, well than we still have unanswered questions.davesdeville said:You don't understand the fact that the STS-V isn't designed to be an enthusiast car like the CTS-V is. If it were, it would have a Chevy motor and a manual. You're an enthusiast so you think it's a piece of crap. I'm an enthusiast but I think it's more practical to have a stock daily and a fast weekend car so I can appreciate the refinement of the STS-V.