Thoughts: C63 vs CTS-V
#476
I counted 7 out of the top 12 lap times were CTS-Vs, but you are right, the CTS-V is a very powerful car. I prefer the C63 and I am not sure the S/C engine of the CTS-V would do too well here in AZ anyway. I also got my C63 several thousand cheaper than I was quoted for the V (with the GM discount), so I am happy.
....................and now with the P031 package officially coming in Dec 2009 for the C63, the race will even be closer with the C63 getting another 30-40 HP (ala DTM cars) and all other kinds of goodies!!!! Plus, even at a cost of $5,500 for the P031 package , aka Performance Plus Package, the c63 will still be a LOT less than the CTS-V. The CTS-V is the very nice car, BUt not in the same league as the C63 or E63.
#477
Maybe MB is waiting to have their own challenge so they can stack it like they did on the CTS-V. They should have it somewhere that is 110+ degrees so the cars that get heatsoaked will go into limp mode.
#478
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
....................and now with the P031 package officially coming in Dec 2009 for the C63, the race will even be closer with the C63 getting another 30-40 HP (ala DTM cars) and all other kinds of goodies!!!! Plus, even at a cost of $5,500 for the P031 package , aka Performance Plus Package, the c63 will still be a LOT less than the CTS-V. The CTS-V is the very nice car, BUt not in the same league as the C63 or E63.
Question to the poster who posted the P031 details, I see they're going to at least make the locking dif available outside the package, but what about the suspension. Are they gonna kill it or make it a separate option like the dif?
#479
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
I don't agree. For the C63's $55K price point you receive the exact engine that's sold in other $160K cars. The dash isn't SL65ish but it's not cheap Cadillac US plastic and "laminate" sticker-coating carbon fiber crap like the CTS-V. That horrible carbon-fiber decal surface is one of the most egregious offenses in a Cadillac I've seen.
Last edited by ericpd; 11-07-2009 at 11:00 PM.
#480
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: So Cal
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
'15 E63S wagon
Oh how right you are. But I just got finished watching 'Test Drive' where they featured the Panamera. Only the Turbo with the fancy named boost is faster than the CTS-V with a 0-60 of 3.8,... the standard turbo comes in with a 0-60 time slower than the V's 3.9, and the N/A'ed S version is not even worth a mention when it comes to the 0-60 dash.
The Porsche Panamera Turbo clocked in at a mind bending 3.3sec 0-60 in Car & Driver, and at 3.4sec in Road & Track.
A 0.1-sec difference is negligible. A 0.5sec+ time difference, especially when getting that low (sub 4's) is massive. Again a tip of the cap to the P-car's AWD, plus some awesome engineering. It's a $130K car for god's sake, and I doubt ANY of us would turn down the opportunity to own a Panamera Turbo over a car costing 1/3 as much if all things were equal.
Has anyone come up with a reasonable explanation why the C and E AMG's wasn't present? I'm still waiting to hear that one. First they said the Caddy wouldn't allow them in, but I later learned that wasn't true. And all the rags are saying is that their absence was puzzling to them as well.
![Wink](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I'm a car enthusiast, not a brand *****. I like fast cars, nice cars, and high quality cars. The V is a beast. I tend to prefer the look & feel of MBZ AMG cars even if/when they aren't as quick around the Nordschleife or a fancy car club's track in NY
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#483
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
Where did you get the CTS-V's 0-60 time of 3.8? The best I've seen is 3.9, most auto media gets the V more realistically in the low 4's.
The Porsche Panamera Turbo clocked in at a mind bending 3.3sec 0-60 in Car & Driver, and at 3.4sec in Road & Track.
A 0.1-sec difference is negligible. A 0.5sec+ time difference, especially when getting that low (sub 4's) is massive. Again a tip of the cap to the P-car's AWD, plus some awesome engineering. It's a $130K car for god's sake, and I doubt ANY of us would turn down the opportunity to own a Panamera Turbo over a car costing 1/3 as much if all things were equal.
GM/Cadillac got to choose who they allowed in, that part is true. Why MBZ wasn't there is anyone's guess. My "educated guess" is that MBZ knew their C & E-class cars wouldn't win the challenge on a road course against/the CTS-V, so why spend the resources to play against a stacked deck. If you're baiting someone w/this question to say that the V is a better road-course car than a C or E-Class MBZ, I'll bite--it is! It's still a Cadillac too
I'm a car enthusiast, not a brand *****. I like fast cars, nice cars, and high quality cars. The V is a beast. I tend to prefer the look & feel of MBZ AMG cars even if/when they aren't as quick around the Nordschleife or a fancy car club's track in NY![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
The Porsche Panamera Turbo clocked in at a mind bending 3.3sec 0-60 in Car & Driver, and at 3.4sec in Road & Track.
A 0.1-sec difference is negligible. A 0.5sec+ time difference, especially when getting that low (sub 4's) is massive. Again a tip of the cap to the P-car's AWD, plus some awesome engineering. It's a $130K car for god's sake, and I doubt ANY of us would turn down the opportunity to own a Panamera Turbo over a car costing 1/3 as much if all things were equal.
GM/Cadillac got to choose who they allowed in, that part is true. Why MBZ wasn't there is anyone's guess. My "educated guess" is that MBZ knew their C & E-class cars wouldn't win the challenge on a road course against/the CTS-V, so why spend the resources to play against a stacked deck. If you're baiting someone w/this question to say that the V is a better road-course car than a C or E-Class MBZ, I'll bite--it is! It's still a Cadillac too
![Wink](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I'm a car enthusiast, not a brand *****. I like fast cars, nice cars, and high quality cars. The V is a beast. I tend to prefer the look & feel of MBZ AMG cars even if/when they aren't as quick around the Nordschleife or a fancy car club's track in NY
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
I've heard of those Panamera 3.3's and 3.4's too, and they're in heavy dispute,... just like their record breaking Ring time. Porsche itself advertises the Panamera at 3.8 in their current literature.
No baiting,... honest question. As for being the better circuit runner, yeah, I think the V is better than the either of the two AMG's. In my opinion, they're kinda bloated and behave heavy. The Top Gear epidose where the C63 was pitted up against the M3 and the RS4 comes to mind. Powerful in a straight line but clumsy and left footed in the bends. Now that was before they offered the performance package which brought us a more intelligent differential AND a nicely tuned, albeit stiff suspension. Why they would take those two things out of the new "Performance Package" is beyond me. It's been my experience that a well thought out limited slip differential and a suspension tuned to altering a car's direction quickly and with minimum under/over steer are the cornerstones to ANY "Performance Package". I don't care what car the package is assembled for. Of course the other two cornerstones to ANY thing remotely called a Performance Package would be brakes and power. Well they improved on the power, and I'm glad to see they didn't remove the composite brakes from the new package. Those brakes are outstanding. but taking out the comp dif and comp suspension is just plain stupid. Hell,... I had problems with having to buy up to get the limited slip in the first place. When you buy ANYTHING with an AMG badge glued to it, you shouldn't have worry about spinning one rear wheel. With the CTS-V, as with the M's and the RS's, paying the premium to wear those badges if nothing else, guarantees you that when you plant your right foot into the floor board, you're gonna plant both of your rear wheels. With the Audi's you plant all four.
I too am an enthusiast. If you followed my path into the CTS-V, you'll see how torn I was in deciding which of these two monsters I would take home. I landed on the V precisely because I am an enthusiast and like you not a brand ***** as you put it. If I were, I'd have an 03 Class AMG and an 09 C Class AMG in my garage. Now only if I could afford to stick a ZR1 in there. LOL! Don't think that's gonna happen any time soon.
Last edited by ericpd; 11-08-2009 at 09:26 AM.
#484
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,557
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
18 Posts
Porsche Macan S SportDesign / Ex M-B's: 11 & 10 & 06 E350's, 02 S500
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
What's funny is to me the W212 E-Class looks like what the CTS SHOULD have looked like, a bit more conservative, a bit more sophisticated, and a bit more "together", a bit easier to swallow, however it looks similarly inspired, and from a similar "design family" in a sense, just with M-B gimmickery around it rather than Caddy. What's also funny to me is, although I don't like angular cars, and I think the CTS isn't truly easy on the eyes, I like it.
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
BTW the CTS got on the least Reliable list? That's a shame and very surprising, as GM have been churning out some reliable cars lately, and I assumed the CTS was at the tip. I've been thinking of getting one to replace my current second car as well.
About the interior, either you guys haven't sat in a CTS, or your radar is off. Anyone coming out of a C-Class should in no way feel anything other than that they just moved into a more "up-market" car when getting into one. The interior isn't amazing, but VERY good for GM, and even very strong for its class.
#485
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings...tings-by-brand
I have 10k on my '09 V. My only problem was that the ultra-view had to be re alligned. To go 10k miles on a new model car w/out a peep is impressive by any standard.....
any c63's in the 10's yet ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXbGV5FHqFk
I have 10k on my '09 V. My only problem was that the ultra-view had to be re alligned. To go 10k miles on a new model car w/out a peep is impressive by any standard.....
any c63's in the 10's yet ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXbGV5FHqFk
#486
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,727
Received 559 Likes
on
369 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
Oh how right you are. But I just got finished watching 'Test Drive' where they featured the Panamera. Only the Turbo with the fancy named boost is faster than the CTS-V with a 0-60 of 3.8,... the standard turbo comes in with a 0-60 time slower than the V's 3.9, and the N/A'ed S version is not even worth a mention when it comes to the 0-60 dash.
I had heard that the Panamera had broken the V's Ring time, so I did a google and that's partially true. The conditions weren't official and were highly suspect. So those numbers can't honestly be used in a rational argument. I'm sure if Porsche thought that their car could easily break the V's back, they'd set that up under the rules and scrutiny of the Ring officials in a heart beat. But they haven't. So until they clear up the hanky-panky, and come back and do it again, I'm stickin' with the V as the King of the Ring.
Has anyone come up with a reasonable explanation why the C and E AMG's wasn't present? I'm still waiting to hear that one. First they said the Caddy wouldn't allow them in, but I later learned that wasn't true. And all the rags are saying is that their absence was puzzling to them as well.
I had heard that the Panamera had broken the V's Ring time, so I did a google and that's partially true. The conditions weren't official and were highly suspect. So those numbers can't honestly be used in a rational argument. I'm sure if Porsche thought that their car could easily break the V's back, they'd set that up under the rules and scrutiny of the Ring officials in a heart beat. But they haven't. So until they clear up the hanky-panky, and come back and do it again, I'm stickin' with the V as the King of the Ring.
Has anyone come up with a reasonable explanation why the C and E AMG's wasn't present? I'm still waiting to hear that one. First they said the Caddy wouldn't allow them in, but I later learned that wasn't true. And all the rags are saying is that their absence was puzzling to them as well.
Porsche?? Manipulating 'ring results? I'm shocked.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Like when they threw a fit about the GTR's ring times (which were also probably fixed) so they bought one, threw some sandbags in the trunk and pushed it down the track to prove the GTR wasn't as quick as Nissan said it was?
They'd never be so unscrupulous.
#487
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
What's funny is to me the W212 E-Class looks like what the CTS SHOULD have looked like, a bit more conservative, a bit more sophisticated, and a bit more "together", a bit easier to swallow, however it looks similarly inspired, and from a similar "design family" in a sense, just with M-B gimmickery around it rather than Caddy. What's also funny to me is, although I don't like angular cars, and I think the CTS isn't truly easy on the eyes, I like it.
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
About the interior, either you guys haven't sat in a CTS, or your radar is off. Anyone coming out of a C-Class should in no way feel anything other than that they just moved into a more "up-market" car when getting into one. The interior isn't amazing, but VERY good for GM, and even very strong for its class.
Now,... am I bashing the AMG? No! I'm just defending the V. I own both, and each gives me pride.
Last edited by ericpd; 11-08-2009 at 01:17 PM.
#488
Reviewed the Consumer Reports article again and I believe the CTS V6 version is the main, or only reason it made the list.
It was also interesting that about a third of the 34 cars listed as unreliable were GM products. Mostly Chevy's, with a couple of Caddys (DTS and CTS) a Pontiac, three GMCs and a couple of Saturn's. The MB GL and R class made the list as well, but the GLK made the most reliable. The BMW X5 and 535i made the unreliable list as well.
It was also interesting that about a third of the 34 cars listed as unreliable were GM products. Mostly Chevy's, with a couple of Caddys (DTS and CTS) a Pontiac, three GMCs and a couple of Saturn's. The MB GL and R class made the list as well, but the GLK made the most reliable. The BMW X5 and 535i made the unreliable list as well.
#489
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
Reviewed the Consumer Reports article again and I believe the CTS V6 version is the main, or only reason it made the list.
It was also interesting that about a third of the 34 cars listed as unreliable were GM products. Mostly Chevy's, with a couple of Caddys (DTS and CTS) a Pontiac, three GMCs and a couple of Saturn's. The MB GL and R class made the list as well, but the GLK made the most reliable. The BMW X5 and 535i made the unreliable list as well.
It was also interesting that about a third of the 34 cars listed as unreliable were GM products. Mostly Chevy's, with a couple of Caddys (DTS and CTS) a Pontiac, three GMCs and a couple of Saturn's. The MB GL and R class made the list as well, but the GLK made the most reliable. The BMW X5 and 535i made the unreliable list as well.
Like Razor, I've only had issues with my UltraView, and after that was fixed,... not a whimper! Hey what's up Raz? Qué tal.
Well wait, I have had one major problem other than the UltraView,... maybe the V does belong on that list. My rear tires (PS2's) were defective. It's really strange though, the front tires were just fine, but the rear tires were obviously defective and just plain American made junk. They didn't last two months after I took delivery of the CTS-V. There ought to be a law to protect us consumers from auto makers putting such junk on the rear end of our cars. Clowns! I'm putting my V up on Ebay right now!
Last edited by ericpd; 11-08-2009 at 11:52 AM.
#490
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Reviewed the Consumer Reports article again and I believe the CTS V6 version is the main, or only reason it made the list.
It was also interesting that about a third of the 34 cars listed as unreliable were GM products. Mostly Chevy's, with a couple of Caddys (DTS and CTS) a Pontiac, three GMCs and a couple of Saturn's. The MB GL and R class made the list as well, but the GLK made the most reliable. The BMW X5 and 535i made the unreliable list as well.
It was also interesting that about a third of the 34 cars listed as unreliable were GM products. Mostly Chevy's, with a couple of Caddys (DTS and CTS) a Pontiac, three GMCs and a couple of Saturn's. The MB GL and R class made the list as well, but the GLK made the most reliable. The BMW X5 and 535i made the unreliable list as well.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#491
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
Again, sounds as if relying on that list is just as suspect as relying on a jail house snitch. A family member owns one of those Diesel GL's, and I've yet to hear of him having any problems. They're nice rides,... way more room than I thought it would have.
#492
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09' C63 AMG
WoW I cant believe this thread is still going, havent look on the forum in a lil while...
Anyway, the new Performance Package for the C63 is awesome and is def a big step up as far as stock performance. With this package the C63 is even more desirable over the CTS-V than it already was... The CTS-V is def a fun car to drive, I was able to drive one recently and I did have a good time, but honstly the feel of the car which is great while driving isnt superior to the C63 despite the difference in HP.
Anyway, the new Performance Package for the C63 is awesome and is def a big step up as far as stock performance. With this package the C63 is even more desirable over the CTS-V than it already was... The CTS-V is def a fun car to drive, I was able to drive one recently and I did have a good time, but honstly the feel of the car which is great while driving isnt superior to the C63 despite the difference in HP.
#493
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09' C63 AMG
BTW I have seen the Black Trim in the BMW compared to the Black Trim in the CTS-V and the BMW trim seems to look nicer. The shade of black and the amount of gloss is different when compared. This is a minor fact and something 99% of people would never realize however I did...
#494
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
Civilized aggression is the name of the game for the CTS-V, as it is also the theme for the M3 and the RS4. But not looking like the current E-Class in my opinion is an accomplishment that should be applauded. That rear quarter panel treatment reminds me of a 32 Chevy,... makes me gag. I mean why suggest in your design a bolt on fender? Anyway, your middle model is where you start to employ conservatism,... and you finish it in your flagship model,... ie, S65 AMG! But even that's changing,... Audi stopped RS'ing the 8 (if it ever really did), and BMW's 7 series Alpine has gone AWOL. Prolly won't be long before the E-Class will be the largest,... and most 'conservative' AMG you can put your hands on. Would be nice if they AMG'ed the E-Class coupé, but greed prevents that.
.
.
It's Alpina, and they've had no chance with the new 7 yet.
Greed would cause more and more AMGs, not less. Pretty simple, stuff big brakes and the 6.2 V8 in there and charge a huge premium.
Finally, CTS V interior is nice for a Caddy, but not comparable as regards quality to well specced Es and 5s...it's just a little over done for my taste.
C32 and CTS v are a nice stable...i love fast sedans
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
-Rob
#495
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,557
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
18 Posts
Porsche Macan S SportDesign / Ex M-B's: 11 & 10 & 06 E350's, 02 S500
Here's the funny thing about CTS's and CTS V's, they get compared to E's and 5'ers a lot, and realistically are supposed to compete with C's and 3's. I think that says a lot about the car personally.
#497
MBWorld Fanatic!
I wonder how much of ericpd's 316 post came from this topic ![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Does it matter which car is better or anything? Can't believe this topic is still going on. Okay congrats ericpd you got your cts-v and we got our c63. We get the picture you love your car as much as we love ours. But honestly, the stuff you're posting...on mbworld...it's like if I went to to the m3 boards and said how good the c63 was. You're looking for something to happen. And I highly doubt that you make commission from GM to keep trying to sell us a cts-v
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Does it matter which car is better or anything? Can't believe this topic is still going on. Okay congrats ericpd you got your cts-v and we got our c63. We get the picture you love your car as much as we love ours. But honestly, the stuff you're posting...on mbworld...it's like if I went to to the m3 boards and said how good the c63 was. You're looking for something to happen. And I highly doubt that you make commission from GM to keep trying to sell us a cts-v
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
#498
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
WoW I cant believe this thread is still going, havent look on the forum in a lil while...
Anyway, the new Performance Package for the C63 is awesome and is def a big step up as far as stock performance. With this package the C63 is even more desirable over the CTS-V than it already was... The CTS-V is def a fun car to drive, I was able to drive one recently and I did have a good time, but honstly the feel of the car which is great while driving isnt superior to the C63 despite the difference in HP.
Anyway, the new Performance Package for the C63 is awesome and is def a big step up as far as stock performance. With this package the C63 is even more desirable over the CTS-V than it already was... The CTS-V is def a fun car to drive, I was able to drive one recently and I did have a good time, but honstly the feel of the car which is great while driving isnt superior to the C63 despite the difference in HP.
Anyway,... I agree with you on the new P031. Still say, they shouldn't have taken out the LSD though. But they did make it available as a separate option,... and if you really stop and think about it (which I didn't do the 1st time I commented on the topic), that might not be a bad idea. This way you don't have to buy all the other stuff like the comp suspension and composite brakes just to be able to pound both wheels into the asphalt. I still think the ANYTHING with an AMG badge glued to it should come out the birth canal spinning both wheels. You wanna spin one wheel? Don't buy an AMG,... or a V, or an M, or an R, or an RS, or an Abarth,... etc. That's just my take. Felt that way when I spent over 1,200 buck putting a LSD on the C32 way back in 04,... and I feel that way now.
I also had a few ops to drive the C63 (P030) over this past summer, and again, I agree with you. There are too many areas where each of these cars outshines the other,... which makes calling one 'overall superior' is an elusive and subjective animal.
Which V did you drive,... the auto or the manual?
#499
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
BTW I have seen the Black Trim in the BMW compared to the Black Trim in the CTS-V and the BMW trim seems to look nicer. The shade of black and the amount of gloss is different when compared. This is a minor fact and something 99% of people would never realize however I did...
#500
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
I think the CTS-V is far more conservative looking than the M3 or RS4.
It's Alpina, and they've had no chance with the new 7 yet.
Greed would cause more and more AMGs, not less. Pretty simple, stuff big brakes and the 6.2 V8 in there and charge a huge premium.
Finally, CTS V interior is nice for a Caddy, but not comparable as regards quality to well specced Es and 5s...it's just a little over done for my taste.
C32 and CTS v are a nice stable...i love fast sedans![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
-Rob
It's Alpina, and they've had no chance with the new 7 yet.
Greed would cause more and more AMGs, not less. Pretty simple, stuff big brakes and the 6.2 V8 in there and charge a huge premium.
Finally, CTS V interior is nice for a Caddy, but not comparable as regards quality to well specced Es and 5s...it's just a little over done for my taste.
C32 and CTS v are a nice stable...i love fast sedans
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
-Rob
Yeah I know,.... it's Alpina. Don't what was going on in the brain/finger things when I typed that. I think I'll use it was late and I was tired as an excuse.
Actually, I forgot what point I was trying to make when I said greed. I think it had something to do with why there there wasn't a E coupé from AMG. yeah,... that's what it was. No AMG E Class coupé because there's that 4-door coupé AMG still out on the streets. I think that was the point I was trying to make.
You're right, the V's interior in no way could stand up to the E Class and the 5 series,.... especially the new E. I look inside that thing and it's gorgeous. The V's not even in the same class. Unlike the rags, and even GM themselves, I try to keep the comparisons confined to the C63 and the M3,... as it is Caddy's smallest and entry body platform. And let's not even talk about the DTS and STS,.... those boats don't even come close.
Thanks Rob,... but a better stable would be a C63 and a V. Or even better yet, an S65 AMG and a V. Or even still the SLS 63 AMG and the V,.... yeah, like that's gonna happen. But I still love the ole girl,... prolly would never give it up at this point. As long as I'm blessed with the cash to keep her tight, I will always enjoy her. And trust me,... she still speak up for herself,.... quite well.