Checked out the new CTS-V and...
05-20-2009, 09:11 AM
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
I would agree with that, but you left off two important words. Those two words: 'people yet'! The sentence should have read, "CTS-V and IS-F = Nice try but not quite impressing people yet!
Then again,... I'm not sure I'd lump the CTS-V with the IS-F. Both are demanding entry into the club, but are using very different approaches. One is using gadgetry and technology to liven up it's application and the other is relying on making brut force and attention to keeping its feet on the ground to strengthen its application. The impression I'm left with is that the IS-F has in its cross-hairs the Audi, while the CTS-V targets the M and AMG tuners!
Then again,... I'm not sure I'd lump the CTS-V with the IS-F. Both are demanding entry into the club, but are using very different approaches. One is using gadgetry and technology to liven up it's application and the other is relying on making brut force and attention to keeping its feet on the ground to strengthen its application. The impression I'm left with is that the IS-F has in its cross-hairs the Audi, while the CTS-V targets the M and AMG tuners!
05-20-2009, 07:05 PM
#77
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STi
This American build super car isn't all that bad. I would take this thing over any other super car.
http://www.shelbysupercars.com/car-specs.php
1287 hp and 1114 tq
27xx lbs
2.78 second 0-60mph
9.9 @ 144 mph in a quarter mile
256.16 mph top speed
8 piston front and 6 piston rear brakes
I guess American can built very nice car too?
http://www.shelbysupercars.com/car-specs.php
1287 hp and 1114 tq
27xx lbs
2.78 second 0-60mph
9.9 @ 144 mph in a quarter mile
256.16 mph top speed
8 piston front and 6 piston rear brakes
I guess American can built very nice car too?
Last edited by bluert; 05-20-2009 at 07:16 PM.
05-20-2009, 08:36 PM
#79
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STi
05-21-2009, 12:46 AM
#80
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09' C63 AMG
05-21-2009, 01:01 AM
#81
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09' C63 AMG
You've got to be kidding us. C'mon DaGS,... you oughta know better than that! I may have to re-evaluate my impression of you being a knowledgeable car enthusiast. True, those cars you named do have paddle shifters, but those paddles are sending shift instructions to manual transmissions not automatics with torque converters and planetary gears. Think SMG (Sequential Manual Gearbox),... something else MB doesn't seem to recognize the need to offer. There's a big difference between a manual transmission behind a multiple-clutch assembly and fitted with an electronic shifter operated from the steering wheel, and a regular old slush box fitted with paddle shifters designed to only give the driver the illusion of sequential manual up and down shifting. A HUGE difference. My aunt's Kia Sorento has nothing less than what the C63 sports,... only difference is she does her pseudo manual shifts using the same stick on the floor she normally uses to go from Park to Drive, while you do the same very thing with plastic paddles on your steering wheel. Many enthusiasts consider paddle shifters married to an automatic nothing more than a shameless marketing ploy. Hell, the Edsel did the same thing with buttons,... so did Desoto. However,... I did read somewhere that MB was experimenting with a box that replaces the torque converter with an oil filled clutch assembly, but whatever strides made with this strategy is totally neutralized by the continued use of internal planetary gears. The box still operates as an automatic,... and what's up with flooding a component with oil where friction is the primary objective. What's up wit dat?
I didn't hear Razor say he bought the V simply and ONLY because it offered a manual transmission. I heard him say something entirely different. As for me, the manual option offered on the CTS-V was only ONE FACTOR I considered in making my decision,... although an important factor, but still only one.
Do a little more reading before you set off making comments about what cars like the Ferrari and Lambo does, and does not have. And above all, make an effort to understand and fully grasp what you read. Comparing the paddle shifters on the C63 to the paddle shifters on those cars, even the paddle shifters on the less exotic M3, is nothing more than you screaming loudly to all of us here that you know not what you're talking about.
I didn't hear Razor say he bought the V simply and ONLY because it offered a manual transmission. I heard him say something entirely different. As for me, the manual option offered on the CTS-V was only ONE FACTOR I considered in making my decision,... although an important factor, but still only one.
Do a little more reading before you set off making comments about what cars like the Ferrari and Lambo does, and does not have. And above all, make an effort to understand and fully grasp what you read. Comparing the paddle shifters on the C63 to the paddle shifters on those cars, even the paddle shifters on the less exotic M3, is nothing more than you screaming loudly to all of us here that you know not what you're talking about.
I will say it again, I was NOT comparing the C63 and SMG type tranny, I was just simply stating that even cars of THOSE calibers do NOT offer a stick shift. Why don’t you try comprehending while reading, before you speak and make a ridiculous comment and embarrass yourself. You're the fool, and clearly you don’t know what you're talking about either when you can’t understand a simple comparison, which has happened on more than one occasion now (as stated above)
AND Razor DID say he likes driving a stick shift which is why he got the CTS-V over the C63, so why don’t you try reading his post and mine again then try again with another more educated response after you fully understand what was said and how it was directed in the argument/point.
05-21-2009, 01:07 AM
#82
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09' C63 AMG
I would agree with that, but you left off two important words. Those two words: 'people yet'! The sentence should have read, "CTS-V and IS-F = Nice try but not quite impressing people yet!
Then again,... I'm not sure I'd lump the CTS-V with the IS-F. Both are demanding entry into the club, but are using very different approaches. One is using gadgetry and technology to liven up it's application and the other is relying on making brut force and attention to keeping its feet on the ground to strengthen its application. The impression I'm left with is that the IS-F has in its cross-hairs the Audi, while the CTS-V targets the M and AMG tuners!
Then again,... I'm not sure I'd lump the CTS-V with the IS-F. Both are demanding entry into the club, but are using very different approaches. One is using gadgetry and technology to liven up it's application and the other is relying on making brut force and attention to keeping its feet on the ground to strengthen its application. The impression I'm left with is that the IS-F has in its cross-hairs the Audi, while the CTS-V targets the M and AMG tuners!
05-21-2009, 06:31 AM
#83
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STi
It has all that I am looking in ultra high performance super car, it has the looks and performance. The only thing it doesn't have is that famous badge - Ferrari, Porche, MB, BMW... that's ok by me, I judge them on looks/performance/price. I am on the side of - the new kid on the block, the underdog.
What other production car that's faster than this thing?
That's my perference. No wrong or right.
05-21-2009, 08:50 AM
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
Bro you think you're so smart... You really think I don’t know the difference between the C63 tranny and SMG or Ferrari trannys.... My POINT was that regardless of that difference they are NOT stick shifts... PERIOD. I am not getting into a ridiculous argument with you about things I didn’t even imply. You seem to bring up these ridiculous points a bunch of times now. I think you're the one who should do the reading since you are mistaken EVERYTIME, another example of your stupidity would be the physics debate we had over a similar engine in a smaller car would be faster than the larger car... remember that one, when you brought in complete obscured points that had nothing to do with the argument I was making. Well this is very similar. I don’t need you to lecture me on the difference between the trannys, because that was not the point, and believe me I probably know much more than you do about them.
I will say it again, I was NOT comparing the C63 and SMG type tranny, I was just simply stating that even cars of THOSE calibers do NOT offer a stick shift. Why don’t you try comprehending while reading, before you speak and make a ridiculous comment and embarrass yourself. You're the fool, and clearly you don’t know what you're talking about either when you can’t understand a simple comparison, which has happened on more than one occasion now (as stated above)
AND Razor DID say he likes driving a stick shift which is why he got the CTS-V over the C63, so why don’t you try reading his post and mine again then try again with another more educated response after you fully understand what was said and how it was directed in the argument/point.
I will say it again, I was NOT comparing the C63 and SMG type tranny, I was just simply stating that even cars of THOSE calibers do NOT offer a stick shift. Why don’t you try comprehending while reading, before you speak and make a ridiculous comment and embarrass yourself. You're the fool, and clearly you don’t know what you're talking about either when you can’t understand a simple comparison, which has happened on more than one occasion now (as stated above)
AND Razor DID say he likes driving a stick shift which is why he got the CTS-V over the C63, so why don’t you try reading his post and mine again then try again with another more educated response after you fully understand what was said and how it was directed in the argument/point.
Last edited by ericpd; 05-21-2009 at 10:33 AM.
05-21-2009, 10:37 AM
#85
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wasnt just the stick shift that swayed me. Things like the ventilated seats on a black on black car in chicago summers def made a difference. The very intelligent nav system. Etc etc. The c63 is pretty base inside. Its a mean looking ******* but when seeing it in person I found it actually a little too small for my taste also. Off topic if you C guys are looking for new tires i'd seriously look into the nitto invos' - they grip alot better than the ps2's that i had. I chirped every shift all the way up until 4th but never broke any traction yesterday. Even with trac off. They dont handle as sharply as the ps2's but it was nothing a few extra lbs of air couldnt fix
Last edited by Razorecko; 05-21-2009 at 10:41 AM.
05-21-2009, 12:33 PM
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
It wasnt just the stick shift that swayed me. Things like the ventilated seats on a black on black car in chicago summers def made a difference. The very intelligent nav system. Etc etc. The c63 is pretty base inside. Its a mean looking ******* but when seeing it in person I found it actually a little too small for my taste also. Off topic if you C guys are looking for new tires i'd seriously look into the nitto invos' - they grip alot better than the ps2's that i had. I chirped every shift all the way up until 4th but never broke any traction yesterday. Even with trac off. They dont handle as sharply as the ps2's but it was nothing a few extra lbs of air couldnt fix
Last edited by ericpd; 05-21-2009 at 09:03 PM.
05-21-2009, 09:39 PM
#87
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Shanghai, Long Island(NY)
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63
It wasnt just the stick shift that swayed me. Things like the ventilated seats on a black on black car in chicago summers def made a difference. The very intelligent nav system. Etc etc. The c63 is pretty base inside. Its a mean looking ******* but when seeing it in person I found it actually a little too small for my taste also. Off topic if you C guys are looking for new tires i'd seriously look into the nitto invos' - they grip alot better than the ps2's that i had. I chirped every shift all the way up until 4th but never broke any traction yesterday. Even with trac off. They dont handle as sharply as the ps2's but it was nothing a few extra lbs of air couldnt fix
05-22-2009, 05:32 AM
#88
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: So Cal
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
'15 E63S wagon
The CTS-V has my interest but I'm still not on-board.
BTW objectively speaking, the CTS-V I sat in & drove felt claustrophobic to me. The total interior volume may be as big or larger than a C63 but it certainly didn't feel like it to me. Caddy's design team seemed to want an enveloping, wrap-around style cabin, and cool if that's your style...it just didn't work for me. I felt like thing were too close, too much of a cockpit style. And don't get me started on the plastics
BTW objectively speaking, the CTS-V I sat in & drove felt claustrophobic to me. The total interior volume may be as big or larger than a C63 but it certainly didn't feel like it to me. Caddy's design team seemed to want an enveloping, wrap-around style cabin, and cool if that's your style...it just didn't work for me. I felt like thing were too close, too much of a cockpit style. And don't get me started on the plastics
05-22-2009, 12:20 PM
#90
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 Porsche Cayenne Turbo
What point are you trying to make? All GM cars are small? Huh? My Cayenne SUV has smaller back seat space than my '05 CTSV had and the front seat area is just as tight as about every single other vehicle I have ever rode in - American or foreign. Really man, you're just starting to say off the wall stuff for no reason.
05-22-2009, 12:25 PM
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 C63 K1
What point are you trying to make? All GM cars are small? Huh? My Cayenne SUV has smaller back seat space than my '05 CTSV had and the front seat area is just as tight as about every single other vehicle I have ever rode in - American or foreign. Really man, you're just starting to say off the wall stuff for no reason.
05-22-2009, 12:25 PM
#92
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 Porsche Cayenne Turbo
Why is it that everyone gets so hung up on dissing the plastics in American cars? On every single car forum I belong to this happens. Have you sat in the equivalent price Honda, Subaru, Mitsubishi or Toyota lately? Cheap, cheap, cheap interior plastics. Nobody bashes them for it... I'd say the average priced American car made by GM right now has better interior plastics and layouts than the Japanese competition. I won't include the German cars b/c their interiors are better executed. Then again, most are $10-50k more in price so that isn't really fair anyway.
05-22-2009, 03:21 PM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
The CTS-V has my interest but I'm still not on-board.
BTW objectively speaking, the CTS-V I sat in & drove felt claustrophobic to me. The total interior volume may be as big or larger than a C63 but it certainly didn't feel like it to me. Caddy's design team seemed to want an enveloping, wrap-around style cabin, and cool if that's your style...it just didn't work for me. I felt like thing were too close, too much of a cockpit style. And don't get me started on the plastics
BTW objectively speaking, the CTS-V I sat in & drove felt claustrophobic to me. The total interior volume may be as big or larger than a C63 but it certainly didn't feel like it to me. Caddy's design team seemed to want an enveloping, wrap-around style cabin, and cool if that's your style...it just didn't work for me. I felt like thing were too close, too much of a cockpit style. And don't get me started on the plastics
You're right,... Caddy did designed the cockpit to kinda give you that wrap-around feel. I notice it especially while driving at night. I guess liking the feeling is subjective thing like you say,... I kinda like it. But as with the plastic, this too quickly falls way down on the list of likes-n-dislikes,... so fast you quickly forget about it. What does stick to your ribs is that NASA like feeling when you try punching holes in your floorboard with your right foot. You'll never get used to that. You'll discover some bonuses too the longer you have it. I've discovered GM has included an option to encourage quite. When riding with the wife, and she's justa yappin' be it about her sister, her day at work, I left my socks on the floor,... whatever, I just slam down on the gas pedal and she gets quiet real quick. All the yappin' stops! My only fear is she'll one day put a hole in the passenger side floor board tryin' to put on brakes!
Whatever you get,... have fun, be proud of it, and drive safely while driving it like you stole it!
05-22-2009, 04:41 PM
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 C63 K1
I did not specifically mention the CTS-V. I am talking about the company that manufactured the car not the actual car. Hey, the CTS-V is nice, fast and handles well. So is the Corvette, both very nice cars.
The concern for me is that they are backed by a mismanaged company and that scared the crap out of me when considering spending $70-80k. Especially since the future of the company is so uncertain. I do not expect you to have the same concerns and I encourage anyone without those concerns to buy American. Heck, it is good for our economy when people buy American.
The concern for me is that they are backed by a mismanaged company and that scared the crap out of me when considering spending $70-80k. Especially since the future of the company is so uncertain. I do not expect you to have the same concerns and I encourage anyone without those concerns to buy American. Heck, it is good for our economy when people buy American.
05-22-2009, 07:30 PM
#96
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09' C63 AMG
No,... you re-read your words. And do it before tryin' to launch a defense for them. Otherwise that defense will come out weak and transparent,... as is the case here. If you got from Razor's comment that he prefers a "stick" to literally mean a metal rod coming out of the floor, then it's clear you left public school too soon. Razor's comment was about his preference between automatic vs manual,... not the location of the shifting controls. You should give up if you perceived any differently.
05-22-2009, 07:35 PM
#97
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09' C63 AMG
When riding with the wife, and she's justa yappin' be it about her sister, her day at work, I left my socks on the floor,... whatever, I just slam down on the gas pedal and she gets quiet real quick. All the yappin' stops! My only fear is she'll one day put a hole in the passenger side floor board tryin' to put on brakes!
05-23-2009, 07:46 AM
#98
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: So Cal
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
'15 E63S wagon
My wife's $35K German car dashboard is so tight in every single area, you couldn't wedge a credit card between any of the seams no matter how hard you try. Try this with an American car, even a $50K+ one, and you'll fit a stack of credit cards in some places. It's sad.
05-23-2009, 02:43 PM
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C32 AMG & 2009 CTS-V
05-24-2009, 01:45 PM
#100
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is simply my point. The American car plastics IMO are inferior due to fit & finish, feel and overall quality. I'll admit I'm hung up on the new CTS-V's plasticky fake carbon fiber trim. It pisses me off that a vehicle that nice, fast and powerful has that type of crap installed. It's insulting that GM thinks they can get away with that and no one will notice.
My wife's $35K German car dashboard is so tight in every single area, you couldn't wedge a credit card between any of the seams no matter how hard you try. Try this with an American car, even a $50K+ one, and you'll fit a stack of credit cards in some places. It's sad.
My wife's $35K German car dashboard is so tight in every single area, you couldn't wedge a credit card between any of the seams no matter how hard you try. Try this with an American car, even a $50K+ one, and you'll fit a stack of credit cards in some places. It's sad.
