[CVP33]

It's not "better enough" than a CTS-V to warrant the price. That's my opinion. Can't see paying $30,000 more for 1 inch more leg and shoulder room and an automatic.

 

[CVP33]

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...

Interesting. Uninformed but interesting.

 

[CVP33]

I doubt highly that anyone who owns a CTS-V bought it because it was a Cadillac. If anything the name plate was nearly a deterent. As for me, I bought a 4 door Corvette. And for the record it's far more than entry level. :lildevil:

 

[CVP33]

CTS-V is not the entry level Cadillac. In fact it's sticker of $51,395 is higher than every base Cadillac car with the exception of the XLR. Now if you mean the base CTS for $31,235 with it's V6, no NAV, no 6 speed etc. I'd have to agree.

Here's the facts:

'06 CTS-V $51,395
'06 STS $41,470
'06 DTS $41,190
'05 Deville $46,840
'06 SRX $39,995

Righting the wrongs of the uninformed once again.

 

[CVP33]

Actually, the base CTS has a 6 speed manual. You have to pay extra to get the automatic

I stand corrected. :histeric:

 

[CVP33]

Dave,

C'mon man you really can't be that dense. Please tell me which one of these options listed below actually help the V go faster.

Navigation
Two zone climate control
Bose Stereo
XM Radio
8 way power seats
Heated Seats
Memory Package
Full Leather interior
Leather Steering Wheel
Leather Shifter
Moon Roof
Homelink
Front, Side and Side Curtain Airbags
Fog Lamps and Driving Lights
Tire Pressure Monitor System
Full instrumentation - oil temp, water temp, oil pressure, rear diff temp
OnStar
Auto dimming rear view mirror
Tilt Wheel
Power Steering and Brakes
Alarm Theft Deterrent System
All Power Options
Cruise Control
Headlight Washers
Stability and Traction control
HID headlights


You're paying for speed and luxury. Now here's your homework. List all the luxury options available on the STS that are not available on the CTS-V. I hear crickets. Not very many huh?

Oh nevermind. I just noticed you're 18. I thought I knew everything when I was 18 too. Take care. :thumbsup:

 

[CVP33]

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.

Corrected again! Damnit~ :histeric:

 

[CVP33]

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 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.

I also noticed you have a Z06 coming. What dealer did you use? I'm waiting for GMS. $58,770 is much easier to swallow than $69K + $10K dealer market adjustments. :cookoo:

 

[CVP33]

I would never own a base CTS nor would I plunk down $77,000 for a s/c 4.4 liter STS. Just not enough car there to justify the price. I will bet that the market will bear this out.

While the CTS is an entry level Cadillac, the CTS-V is in a class by itself. It out performs and out handles all comers in it's class. The base CTS cannot make that claim. Nor can the the STS or STS-V.

I'm sorry fellas you're wrong again on all counts. Is the STS-V a better car than the CTS-V. It damn well better be for $26,000. Hell I can buy a 2006 LS2 equipped CTS-V and a GTO for that cash.

You can have your olive wood and parking assist, frankly I have no use for either. I know the old foggies love that shit though and that's why they're in there.

I bought the ANTI-Cadillac and I'm damned proud of it. I'll say it again, the Cadillac name plate is more of a deterrent to buying the V than a selling point. Case in point. The STS-V is exactly what I would expect from GM, under powered and over priced. The STS-V will get handled by the E55 and new M5. The CTS-V killed the C32, M3 and S4 and did it for thousands less. While the STS-V is thousands less than the E and M it lacks their performance.

I picked a winner, the STS-V unfortunately is a loser. That is of course if GM still claims it's a performance luxury sedan. If not. Than it's a pretty high priced option package.

And I apologize if this sounds condescending. It's not meant to but I know that some will take it that way. :highfive:

 

[CVP33]

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.

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.

The CTS-V isn't just a rebadge and a super charger like a Cobalt SS or STS-V. The entire drive train, suspension, body, wheels, brakes, options are changed. Comparing the STS-V to the Cobalt SS would be a better analogy if they actually gave the Cobalt a smaller motor before they supercharged it.

I know this is hard to take but anyway you judge the STS-V it just sucks. Compare it to cars in it's class and it get's owned on performance. Compare it to "lesser" M3's, S4's and CTS-V's and it becomes painfully overpriced. Sorry guys the STS-V is nobody's car. It's not a peformer and frankly it's not a value.

 

[CVP33]

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.)

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.

 

[CVP33]

You're not paying that $51k for a lot of luxury options, you're paying it for speed.

Tony,

You're mistaken again. My post was in response to David's above. We not only get the performance to best the cars in our class we also get the luxury options.

As for the negativity. I would label the term "entry level" as the first salvo among many. After that you and David both got what you deserved. A cold serving of truth and facts. Hard to swallow for some.

As for the 1/4 mile. That again was David's comment not ours. We claim that the CTS-V will kill the STS-V on the track because it already has. Nurburgring a bell? 11 seconds on a road course is a lifetime.

And as for my actions, I've not been rude. I've been honest.

Take care and save the lectures. :thehand:

 

[CVP33]

Crozier and Tony,

Once again, I don't own a Caddy. Never wanted to and don't now. I own a 4 door Corvette. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

As for emotionally bothered. Nah, that will be the poor bastard who plunks down $77K for an STS-V.

As for Car and Driver I could care less what the say about NVH. I put an X-pipe on my V to make it louder and faster. Headers and CAI for the same. I know it's impossible for non-V owners to understand but we don't embrace the Cadillac nameplate, we don't aspire to own a quiet and subtle car. Many of us are sacrificing ride quality to make the car handle better and giving up quiet for more power.

A $77,000 dollar loser doesn't resonate with CTS-V owners and quite frankly isn't on ANY enthusiasts radar that I've talked to. We find it impossible to understand why someone would spend $27,000 to be worst in class and slower. It just doesn't make sense to a CTS-V owner.

Think of it this way. How many giant foam fingers do you see at football games with 3 fingers raised. Who in the hell would brag about being 3rd?

 

[CVP33]

Damnit! I forgot the condescending and internet tough guy smilies that I always add.

:bouncy:

Name calling. Got to love it.

 

[CVP33]

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.

Big Jim,

I wouldn't look for any replies to direct questions. I'm still waiting for answers to this post.

I'd like the STS-V cheerleaders to help me with the following:

1) Do you agree that the STS-V is 1/4 mile stormer as stated by David? Or is it a road course warrior, allbeit 11 seconds slower than the CTS-V?

2) Do you feel that the $26,000 premium is warranted? Although it is cheaper than the M5 and E55.

3) Are you disappointed that the STS-V is slower than both the new M5 and E55? Or do you see this as a selling point?

4) Does it bother you that the STS and CTS look nearly identical to the untrained eye? And even for car enthusiasts it's a minimum of a double take?

5) If the goal of the STS-V is not to race and win 1/4 mile or road courses and it's OK to be bested by M5's and E55's why not just stay with the V8 STS and save the $12,000 bucks for something more practical?

I'd really like to hear from a true STS-V buyer. No more "if I had the money" or defenders of the faith or those with hurt feelings because some CTS-V owners won't tow the company line with regard to all Cadillac models. I'd like to know what the value equation of the STS-V buyer is. What are you looking for in a car, what do you hope to get out of the STS-V? You can PM me if you wish and take the conversation off-line.

I know somebody out there is as enthusiastic about the STS-V the way us early buyers of CTS-V's like Reed, Rick, Urby, Chris, Doug and others were. I'd like to hear from you.

 

[CVP33]

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.

Ain't that the truth!

And for the record I'm truly trying to understand who the STS-V buyer is. What attracted them to the model? What are they looking for? What other models did they consider? Etc. Maybe it's about buying an American car. The only issue with that is if that is the only reason, than your first trip (or trips) to the dealer will have you second guessing your decision.

The only reason I can withstand the trips to my dealer is because the payoff comes everytime I drive the V. There is no other car I'd rather be driving.

And T.O., just an observation. As a member from December of 2004 with 107 posts, I noticed that 7.5% of your posts or 8 so far are in this thread alone. This has obviously struck a nerve with you. Are you an STS-V buyer? Just curious. Again trying to understand. :hmm:

 

[CVP33]

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.

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.

 

[CVP33]

T.O.,

I'm done. :thumbsup:

Thanks for sharing your opinions and helping me understand.

 

[CVP33]

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.

I mostly stick to the V forums don't have much in common with the other makes/models.

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.

Stock for stock yes. Dollar for dollar not in my opinion.

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?

Your words not mine.

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.

Big Jim is our resident bully. If you can get past the delivery most times he's got pretty good information.

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.

Most likely you're correct. CTS-V wins the road, STS-V wins the track it will never see.

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.

Great comparison. Much better than the Cobalt SS analogy. Except it's a two door coupe. But you're getting closer.

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.

Nothing to reply to here. Maybe one of the CTS guys can chime in.

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.

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.

5. See #1.

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?

You're not just "not towing the line," you're talking shit about the car because you can't see past your CTS-V.

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.

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.

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.

 

[CVP33]

Well it's simple math. At $77,000 it's overpriced in my opinion. (my opinion)

As for performance we're in trouble:

BMW 4,050 lbs. 507HP/384TQ 0-100mph 10.0 secs 1/4 mile [email protected]
E55 4,237 lbs. 469HP/516TQ 0-100mph 9.9 secs 1/4 mile [email protected]
STS-V 4,295 469HP/430TQ ? ?

Here's the source btw http://www.fast-autos.net/list.html (great resource for bench racing :histeric: )

With the weight disadvantage, automatic transmission and missing TQ (vs. Mercedes) and HP (vs. BMW) I will estimate the STS-V will do 0-100mph in 11.0 seconds and the 1/4 mile in [email protected]. (and BTW these are both faster than our CTS-V's)

I will leave this post here and soon enough we'll find out if I was wrong. And I'm man enough to admit. :yup: