Well thank you. I guess this means a disagreement actually *ended* in an internet forum???
Alert the media!
Alert the media!
STS-V Pricing is $77K!!!
pricing just announced.
XLR-V is $100K
So much for value pricing.
Caddy really dropped the ball on pricing the new V's.
XLR-V is $100K
So much for value pricing.
Caddy really dropped the ball on pricing the new V's.
101 - 120 of 199 Posts
T.O.,
I'm done. :thumbsup:
Thanks for sharing your opinions and helping me understand.
I'm done. :thumbsup:
Thanks for sharing your opinions and helping me understand.
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. RightI 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.
Well, we'll just wait and see what numbers it puts up when it's released. You can't go around saying it's not up to par without it even being released yet, and that's what you've been doing.
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:
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:
I can't believe I just read 6 pages of V vs. V. Maybe because it was entertaining. Maybe because I wanted to see the outcome. However there was no outcome.
At the end the way I see it, the STS-V owners have what they wanted, the "V" style to make it look fast, improved performance numbers over the stock STS, news that the STS might be a contender in its class, and yet the proposed buyers for these cars are buying it for the luxury because their main use for the car is not for performance. :tisk:
On the other hand, what was attempted many times to be explained by CTS-V owners, in my opinion, was why CTS-V owners could justify the purchase of the V over a stock CTS. Yes it makes a lot of sense. The CTS-V is a performance car. Buying a V is what that means.
It doesn't mean that you can slap a V emblem on another vehicle and not follow what the initial goal accomplished with the CTS-V. So that is why, I think most of us CTS-V owners are upset. It's not because we think you guys are above us. How could we, we're faster and still have luxury implemented in our cars. It's because there's some ignorance coming from the STS-V fans on identifying the cars real purpose.
Seeing a V emblem go on a vehicle with all the tools it should have except the automatic tranny and seeing it still suffer performing top in its class. It's shameful for the STS-V owners and for Cadillac. Cadillac is only now to my eyes, trying to make a profit on it and what I'm seeing now is, they're losing that passion they had when they developed the CTS-V.
So we should all be upset with Cadillac and not really with the proposed buyers for this car. All we can do is give them a wave by and feel sorry they didn't get what we current "V" owners know they deserved when we blow by them. :burn:
At the end the way I see it, the STS-V owners have what they wanted, the "V" style to make it look fast, improved performance numbers over the stock STS, news that the STS might be a contender in its class, and yet the proposed buyers for these cars are buying it for the luxury because their main use for the car is not for performance. :tisk:
On the other hand, what was attempted many times to be explained by CTS-V owners, in my opinion, was why CTS-V owners could justify the purchase of the V over a stock CTS. Yes it makes a lot of sense. The CTS-V is a performance car. Buying a V is what that means.
It doesn't mean that you can slap a V emblem on another vehicle and not follow what the initial goal accomplished with the CTS-V. So that is why, I think most of us CTS-V owners are upset. It's not because we think you guys are above us. How could we, we're faster and still have luxury implemented in our cars. It's because there's some ignorance coming from the STS-V fans on identifying the cars real purpose.
Seeing a V emblem go on a vehicle with all the tools it should have except the automatic tranny and seeing it still suffer performing top in its class. It's shameful for the STS-V owners and for Cadillac. Cadillac is only now to my eyes, trying to make a profit on it and what I'm seeing now is, they're losing that passion they had when they developed the CTS-V.
So we should all be upset with Cadillac and not really with the proposed buyers for this car. All we can do is give them a wave by and feel sorry they didn't get what we current "V" owners know they deserved when we blow by them. :burn:
Quick let's all go argue about the XLR-V. That's over priced too. And at 440 hp will simply NOT perform.
Here's one area where we have a LONG way to go. And for the record I think BMW interiors suck as well.
Here's my ranking:
1) Mercedes
2) Audi
3) Infiniti
4) Lexus
5) Volkswagen (Phaeton only)
I left out the obvious Bentley, Aston Martin, etc. because obviously they're in a league by themselves.
Here's my ranking:
1) Mercedes
2) Audi
3) Infiniti
4) Lexus
5) Volkswagen (Phaeton only)
I left out the obvious Bentley, Aston Martin, etc. because obviously they're in a league by themselves.
paste from the XLR-V forum...CVP33 said:Quick let's all go argue about the XLR-V. That's over priced too. And at 440 hp will simply NOT perform.
"People will complain, but they are not considering the long-term goal of the "V" cars. Cadillac is NOT and should NOT be about "Value Pricing." If Cadillac were about value pricing, then what is to distinguish it from a Buick? (compared to a Deville, for example) What would give it more status and recognition? That's right, price is a big factor in determining "exclusivity." If you want the name and technology, you have to pay for it and you get the "status" in the process. In the first post there he makes a good point about what you get for the money, and the fact it is 25K less than the AMG. Good bargain? Yes. If one is lucky enough to be able to buy one, others will know they have something special. That's the main goal for an ultra-status vehicle like the XLR-V, and being seen behind the wheel.
Thanks to the "V" series from Cadillac, it has already propelled Cadillac far above Lincoln and many others, and now Cadillac has a good shot at aiming for the top, and that means "Standard of the World" once again. THAT'S the reward.
Much like the Veyron, the goal will not be to sell these on a mass scale. They will sell a limited number of them to allow Cadillac to get the recognition they need to get back on top."
and I disagree, because they ARE designed to perform, and 440 hp is nothing to sneeze at!
Pasted from my reply in the XLR-V thread.
It's not enough to move the price up. GM must move the content up. I have no issue right now with the features GM is offering. Magnetic Selective Ride suspension, Night Vision, Adaptive Cruise, GM has some very robust technology in our cars. But right now our packaging just sucks. Paint work, body seams, plastic quality and overall fit and finish needs to move up with the price.
Look at my post on the STS-V thread regarding the interior. My god the STS-V's interior looks positively austere when compared to Audi, Mercedes, Infiniti and Lexus. The radio portion of the center stack would be at home in the Cobalt or Malibu. Hardly the stuff of $77,000 and $100,000 dollar luxury automobiles. The GM faithful deserve better.
It's not enough to move the price up. GM must move the content up. I have no issue right now with the features GM is offering. Magnetic Selective Ride suspension, Night Vision, Adaptive Cruise, GM has some very robust technology in our cars. But right now our packaging just sucks. Paint work, body seams, plastic quality and overall fit and finish needs to move up with the price.
Look at my post on the STS-V thread regarding the interior. My god the STS-V's interior looks positively austere when compared to Audi, Mercedes, Infiniti and Lexus. The radio portion of the center stack would be at home in the Cobalt or Malibu. Hardly the stuff of $77,000 and $100,000 dollar luxury automobiles. The GM faithful deserve better.
Even some of your fellow CTS-V owners recognize the STS-V is gonna be quicker on acceleration. Which, btw, is why I see the need to pick up an STS-V over a STS V8 - the CTS-V crowd are the enthusiasts who will take their car to the road course and dragstrip, the STS-V owners are less likely to do that but everybody pulls up at a stoplight now and then.VELOSE said:How could we, we're faster and still have luxury implemented in our cars. It's because there's some ignorance coming from the STS-V fans on identifying the cars real purpose.
Yup, I answered there about interiors, etc.CVP33 said:Pasted from my reply in the XLR-V thread.
It's not enough to move the price up. GM must move the content up. I have no issue right now with the features GM is offering. Magnetic Selective Ride suspension, Night Vision, Adaptive Cruise, GM has some very robust technology in our cars. But right now our packaging just sucks. Paint work, body seams, plastic quality and overall fit and finish needs to move up with the price.
Look at my post on the STS-V thread regarding the interior. My god the STS-V's interior looks positively austere when compared to Audi, Mercedes, Infiniti and Lexus. The radio portion of the center stack would be at home in the Cobalt or Malibu. Hardly the stuff of $77,000 and $100,000 dollar luxury automobiles. The GM faithful deserve better.
The STS-V had better be faster than the CTS-V or more than a few buyers will cry foul. And I predict the STS-V will be by a few tics.davesdeville said:Even some of your fellow CTS-V owners recognize the STS-V is gonna be quicker on acceleration. Which, btw, is why I see the need to pick up an STS-V over a STS V8 - the CTS-V crowd are the enthusiasts who will take their car to the road course and dragstrip, the STS-V owners are less likely to do that but everybody pulls up at a stoplight now and then.
I want to start off by saying this thread has been a good read.
Its been said before and I'll say it again: CTS-V has the NA LS6, 6-speed manual, its louder, thus it was built for a completely different target customer (especially the tranny). The STS-V with its relatively small SC Northstar was a mistake IMO by GM. It needs some serious balls with its price tag and target customer.
Its been said before and I'll say it again: CTS-V has the NA LS6, 6-speed manual, its louder, thus it was built for a completely different target customer (especially the tranny). The STS-V with its relatively small SC Northstar was a mistake IMO by GM. It needs some serious balls with its price tag and target customer.
I think we should leave the discussion of "Who's faster?" until we get some third party empirical test results under our belts. We're all whistling in the dark right now. But some guys just like to argue for no good reason, I guess. Fallaciously, sometimes. (No, I'm not saying anyone's gay...)
I wouldn't be at all surprised if an STS-V tuner pops out of the woodwork down the road, offering small tweaks to up the power. (Smaller pulley? K&N? CAI? Exhaust? And beyond?) I can see it now: "You've spent a bazillion bucks and still can't catch that M5, not to mention LawFive's 585 horsies and 547... torquies? Well, just give us $___ and one week. When we're done, you'll at least be able to catch the M5!"
Another comment buried in what's now this six page thread resonates with me: I don't recall when the STS guys have ever come into our forum and peed on us, or our car, e.g. "Your CTS-V interior is cheaper and sucks more than ours!" "No, it doesn't!" "Yes, it does!" "No, it doesn't!" (actually: yes, it does). So CTS-V guys play nice, stay objective, and remember this:
I wouldn't be at all surprised if an STS-V tuner pops out of the woodwork down the road, offering small tweaks to up the power. (Smaller pulley? K&N? CAI? Exhaust? And beyond?) I can see it now: "You've spent a bazillion bucks and still can't catch that M5, not to mention LawFive's 585 horsies and 547... torquies? Well, just give us $___ and one week. When we're done, you'll at least be able to catch the M5!"
Another comment buried in what's now this six page thread resonates with me: I don't recall when the STS guys have ever come into our forum and peed on us, or our car, e.g. "Your CTS-V interior is cheaper and sucks more than ours!" "No, it doesn't!" "Yes, it does!" "No, it doesn't!" (actually: yes, it does). So CTS-V guys play nice, stay objective, and remember this:
Every dollar the STS-V guys spend over cost is a dollar that GM can plow into the upcoming redesign of the CTS-V. Assuming GM survives that long.
People are assuming a lot about the STS V. It may wheel hop, shift lazily (it is aimed at the luxury driver) and it may have the rear end that was supposed to be made for the 69 less HP CTS V.
I wouldn't criticize CTS V drivers for being rude. A non CTS V driver did say that if we had "serious bank", we wouldn't have bought a CTS V. Unforntunately since he is 18, most of us probably have 3-4 times more "serious bank" then he does now.
Notice that most ************ didn't criticize the STS V. We just don't see paying $25k more for a car that has a few more useless options.
I wouldn't also comment about the reviews the CTS V got if I was a STS owner. Even the STS finished 6 out of 8 cars a few months back (the Malibu like interior was one reason).
And the CTS V has plenty of luxury. Please stay away from Corvettes and simiiar cars if you think the V is not luxurious. The rumble from the LS7 might give you guys a migrane headache while it'll give most ************ a bunch of smiles.
The performance quotes are almost a joke. First the STS V is a better performer car than the CTS V, until I mentioned the track. All of the sudden the STS V driver wouldn't go to the track so it doesn't matter. Then it all depends how the CTS V driver controls wheel hop. Which is it guys?
And yes the CTS V did kill the S4, even on British TV where they seem to be pro European.
The CTS V wasn't built to be like the Cadillac's before it. The CTS series has changed Cadillac around financially. I know I wouldn't have considered a Cadillac if it wasn't for the CTS.
C&D doesn't know crap about cars unless it says Toyota, Honda or Nissan on it. At least with the CTS V I don't have to worry about looking at another car from a different company that looks like my car.
I wouldn't criticize CTS V drivers for being rude. A non CTS V driver did say that if we had "serious bank", we wouldn't have bought a CTS V. Unforntunately since he is 18, most of us probably have 3-4 times more "serious bank" then he does now.
Notice that most ************ didn't criticize the STS V. We just don't see paying $25k more for a car that has a few more useless options.
I wouldn't also comment about the reviews the CTS V got if I was a STS owner. Even the STS finished 6 out of 8 cars a few months back (the Malibu like interior was one reason).
And the CTS V has plenty of luxury. Please stay away from Corvettes and simiiar cars if you think the V is not luxurious. The rumble from the LS7 might give you guys a migrane headache while it'll give most ************ a bunch of smiles.
The performance quotes are almost a joke. First the STS V is a better performer car than the CTS V, until I mentioned the track. All of the sudden the STS V driver wouldn't go to the track so it doesn't matter. Then it all depends how the CTS V driver controls wheel hop. Which is it guys?
And yes the CTS V did kill the S4, even on British TV where they seem to be pro European.
The CTS V wasn't built to be like the Cadillac's before it. The CTS series has changed Cadillac around financially. I know I wouldn't have considered a Cadillac if it wasn't for the CTS.
C&D doesn't know crap about cars unless it says Toyota, Honda or Nissan on it. At least with the CTS V I don't have to worry about looking at another car from a different company that looks like my car.
Oh man..
remember a year ago I strated a thread " V versus V"
Here it is!!
remember a year ago I strated a thread " V versus V"
Here it is!!
Keep thinking that the STS-V is going to be faster than a stock CTS-V at the light. When a stock CTS-V smokes you tell us all about how you got killed. However, if the CTS-V gets smoked, we'll make the playing field even. Meaning, a supercharged CTS-V against your supercharged STS-V. Obviously STS-V will be no contest. So in the long run, CTS-V has more potential if you want to get into a stoplight contest.davesdeville said:Even some of your fellow CTS-V owners recognize the STS-V is gonna be quicker on acceleration. Which, btw, is why I see the need to pick up an STS-V over a STS V8 - the CTS-V crowd are the enthusiasts who will take their car to the road course and dragstrip, the STS-V owners are less likely to do that but everybody pulls up at a stoplight now and then.
Update:
Actual MSRP is $77,090.
Availablity is late 2005.
I for one wish that the CTS had better NVH.
A few decibels knocked off in engine and road noise would be appreciated.
I bought the SRX because I felt like it had 1 more generation in improvements over the CTS.
Actual MSRP is $77,090.
Availablity is late 2005.
I for one wish that the CTS had better NVH.
A few decibels knocked off in engine and road noise would be appreciated.
I bought the SRX because I felt like it had 1 more generation in improvements over the CTS.
101 - 120 of 199 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Cadillac Owners Forum
Cadillac Forums is the perfect place to go to talk about your favorite Caddys including the ATS, CTS, SRX and Escalade.
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
hightech-guy
352 Replies
NorthernSRX
332 Replies
Jimpilot
213 Replies
Recommended Communities
