there's been a commercial for the past few days discussing this money back guarantee for what looks like all (or most) GM vehicles.

 

That is incredibly risky. I can see a lot of 2K mile Caddy's sitting on the lot for discounts soon. I guess Ill be getting a CTSV sooner than I thought.

If someone did this and returned it the car would have to be sold as used due to it being titled and registered. I guess well see if this is a good move soon.

 

i haven't read anything yet, but i know that this thread grows fast. thread was posted yesterday and it's 5 pages already, impressive.

6 actually

 

You really have issues with anyone who proves you wrong and/or doesn't agree with your views.

I'm actually pretty sure here the only troll is you. You are misinformed on 75% of what you've said...but that hasn't stopped you from saying it!

 

Holy ****! 6 pages already

 

Im curious, what view do you disagree with me on? The bad quality of GM vehicles? The idea that I saved 6K on the C63 and can use $1500 of that savings to have it be just as fast if not faster than the CTSV? That my 04 CTSV had monthly problems until I sold her? That the CTSV is faster than the C63? Im really not sure what your view or opinion is to be honest or how it differs from mine.

Obviously im not a CTSV expert and you have shed much light on things I didn’t know. Thank you.

Im willing to clear the air on this and stop the bickering. My opinion is simply the C63 is arguably better quality than a GM vehicle based on my personal experience with them. Its for sure better than my 04 CTSV. I got a MB C63 for 6K less than I could get the CTSV. The CTSV was priced with employee discount and it was as low as they would go on it. Its only slightly slower and with a minimal amount of money I can make her just as fast if not faster.

That’s pretty much it. In the end with an unlimited amount of money I don’t know who would win the mod war. I really don’t care either. I have my track cars and I would soon buy a faster car than sink tons of money into a C class. Staying within warranty though I can be just as fast and pay less money and feel the MB name is way better than the GM name.

Please tell me where my view differs from yours? Do you disagree with my assessments?

 

i said the same

 

Okay Porpain, where to start with all of your misinformation and biased one sided facts. Let us start with your quotes from the post concerning Alcohol shall we. I have underlined quotes that you wrote for easier comprehension my friend.

“Yes, running your car on a Non Ethanol blend is much better for gas mileage and heat. Ethanol burns very hot. This is why race cars run on Alcohol, it burns much cooler, though you do need more volume.”

Okay, so which one is it. On a side note of REAL information the specific heat content for the following is approximately:
Methanol = 64,000 BTU/Gallon
Ethanol = 80,000 BTU/Gallon
Typical Gas = 114, 000 BTU/Gallon

You do know that Ethanol is Alcohol and Alcohol can be Ethanol? Oh yeah, so is Methanol in case this is what you meant, but then again who the heck ever knows what you mean, including yourself I would wager. By the way IRL used to use Methanol

“We have noticed little changes so far in the Honda engine's performance with the new ethanol blend in 2006," said Jeff Horton, director of engineering for the Indy Car Series. "We expect similar performance in 2007."The transition between methanol and ethanol in our cars has been very smooth," said Phil Casey, IRL senior technical director. “

Your next little gem:

“Ethanol is essentially grain alcohol, they add Gas to it to make it a government legal fuel or you could drink it and get wasted!”

That’s interesting because at the Andretti camp they state “The Indy Car Series’ groundbreaking use 100 percent fuel-grade ethanol in its Honda Indy V-8” By the way, the words FUEL GRADE is why you cannot drink it, NOT the added gas as you stated. You are getting confused, AGAIN, with commercial gasoline which has added ethanol. This was in one of my links that I posted for your feeble mind to try and comprehend. Didn’t work did it? This is also like medical grade nitrous and commercial grade which they add Sox compounds to it so you cannot inhale it to get high.

Then you came back a second time on this argument with this quote

“As stated "My Friend" it’s not drinkable because they add gas to it.”

http://www.southridgeethanol.com/eth...cts.php”

By the way I fixed your grammar error. And your link stated the following information

Indy 500 Revs Up With Corn
For the first time in the race’s 95-year history, cars in the 2006 Indy 500 burned a fuel that is 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent methanol. In 2007, the league plans to switch permanently to 100 percent ethanol.

As your link clearly states 100% ethanol, no 10% gasoline blend my friend as you kept stating throughout this entire thread. On a side note, it really is only 98% ethanol starting in 07, unlike the 100% methanol of old, as they do add some impurities in it. That link really proved me wrong Einstein

Again one EASY question as to not over load any part of your cerebral cortex, just how old are you?

To the OP I am sorry for wasting band width attempting to explain rational thought to an irrational person.

 

I disagreed with some of your information regarding the current CTS-V, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.

You did ask why I was in this thread earlier...and it was NOT to bash on the C63 for anything, I'm sorry if it has appeared that way. I only posted in here (and the other CTS-V vs C63 thread) to provide a little information on the CTS-V to the people who don't have the background in the LSx based cars. GM has built a lot of cars that I would not own...the 04-06 GTO being one of those (I just have no desire to sink $4k into the suspension just to get it to where the factory should have).

I have absolutely no issue with the C63 and it's a very fine car. The reasons I don't want one have nothing to do with it, per se. One that is important to note: I would not disagree that many GM vehicles have a lower build quality than an MB...and for the price different, is anyone surprised? MB, honestly, is not without it's own quality issues either (ABC, IC Pumps, various electronics/creature comforts deciding to take the day off); but there is no car out there that doesn't suffer from it's own inherent issues, regardless of price or the country of origin. However, GM has come a long way in recent years to improve their build quality, especially regarding interiors and differentials. I just don't feel it's right to continue to hold the past against them when the current cars don't suffer from the issues of the older ones. GM engineering, especially in powerplants is actually pretty impressive. I will agree that their interiors are still largely the place where plastic goes to die. Yes, it's true that your C63 was cheaper than the CTS-V...but my point is that the C63 and CTS-V aren't really the same class of car. The CTS/CTS-V's are intended to be competitors with the E's and 5's of MB and BMW respectively. Performance wise, even the 1st gen CTS-V can be reliable (rear end wise), but it takes big $$$ to do that (the Madman Ford 9" rear diff conversion...for $10k). They had a lot of potential...but you are right, the build quality of those cars was very poor! I know you have (or did have) a 4th Gen F-body...so you'll know what I mean on this. The LS1 F-body is a very impressive car performance wise, but it is hampered by interior issues (window motors) and rear end issues (10 bolt glass rear end) but these cars have a cult following, and amazing aftermarket support, so it's overlooked by guys like me who don't leave it stock anyway. Does that excuse GM from those issues? No...but it just goes to show that you sometimes overlook the quality issues of the vehicles you love.

 

Yes, because all CTS-V owners will leave their car stock.

GM fanboi? I said I would already buy the C63 over the V.

I've owned it all(except Italian), and give respect when respect is due. A LS1 f-body can take down my CLK55, you don't see me crying or trying to convince to the world the CLK55 is better do you? The LS1 f-body may be the faster car, especially when you go to the mod game, same applies for the V vs the C63.

 

The entire conversation started with Fuel Grade government legal fuel that can be purchased WITHOUT Ethanol it in. Not racing fuel. Then we spun off into this bicker match where you stated like a dumbass that Ethanol is not drinkable. Sorry dummy, 100% Ethanol is 100% drinkable unless a toxin is added LIKE GAS.

http://www.aventinerei.com/pdfs/fuel_grade_spec.pdf

http://www.in.gov/oed/2364.htm

I really cant get an answer on this and im not quite sure but is E100 or 100% ethanol used by Indy really 100% or is it denatured in some way with trace amounts of GAS or toxin to make it not fit for human consumption? If not, let the party begin. Finally a reason to attend those redneck events!

Fuel Grade Ethanol just in cause your tiny brain cant seem to comprehend it means its been denatured with SOMETHING, commonly GAS, to make it not fit for human consumption. What the hell do you think it means you twit?

If we ever see government legal E100 fuel sold to the public you better believe it will have a toxin added to it like GAS or something else so people wont drink it.

You have referred to my age about 10 times now. How old are you? Ill bet about 50+ due to your incessant rambling about the age subject. Sorry grandpa, age doesn’t measure intelligence. You have proven that point time and again.

Grammar insults? LOL I wont even address that.

 

I agree. If the Caddy does it a tune then it will be ahead again. You keep missing the point sadly. That point is my opinion on quality and the cost factor.

Quality is subjective so there is no convincing anyone about it. But the price factor you cant dispute. The Caddy is overpriced for a GM and if I can get a MB for 6K cheaper and put $1500 of that into her to make her just as fast and still have $4500 in my pocket it sounds like a win win to me.

If the Caddy does a tune that will just increase the cost factor and even though she will still be faster in the end, Im now back to 6K in savings for a slightly slower vehicle.

 

^ I've had my '09 V2 for 9k miles already and outside of an ultraview sunroof noise that they adjusted and fixed I haven't had 1 single issue as to date. That says alot especially for a first year model.

 

Judging from your statements above, it is probably because you cannot write; as it is readily apparent you can’t read.

Go team C63, as we have another winner behind the wheel

PS: Where is this 600RWP C63 that you keep mentioning?

 

you guys want to start over? ahaha
and as of lately, GM's quality has skyrocketed!
great story and post pics if you do pick one up!

 

You are a complete and total moron. I have no more use for you. Nice try trying to change the subject. You can dance around it all you like.

Keep going with your Ethug behavior. Gotta love the anonymity of the internet. I hope you don’t act like this much of a douche in public as im sure you wouldn’t have many teeth left in your mouth.

 

Yeah im done with that fool.

I dont think you can say GM's quality has skyrocketed. I agree Buick and Caddy have seen MAJOR improvements. I can see GM coming out of this mess a much stronger company and Caddy and Buick seem to be leading the charge.

GM just needs to dump a lot of its ****ty models like the Hummer.

 

I completely agree...for example i have a 2005 escalade that im looking to get rid of since no one uses it anymore. However, i just had to have alot of parts fixed such as the passenger seat motor, sunroof, power window switches, shaking parts on the dash, etc....the list was endless.
but now when i ride in the new escalade the build quality is noticeably better. I guess from my experience with GM cars from 2000 on is what leads me to say it has "skyrocketed." Sold the H2 almost a year ago...thing was just falling apart

 

GM is selling Hummer. If the transaction hasn't already been made it will be soon. The H2 was just a rebodied 3/4 ton version of a Tahoe. The H3, actually, was one helluva great offroader; just underpowered with the exception of the H3 Alpha.

 

No good has ever come out of a CTS-V discussion in this C63 forum.

 

I drove a CTS-V at Monticello Raceway in NY - I thought it was pretty darn nice - I had a great time driving it around the track - I only bought my C63 because I liked the way it looked a little bit more, but I sure wouldn't turn a CTS-V away. The one I drove was a standard, very predictable and nice to drive right to the limit. The brakes were lacking just a little bit in comparison to the C63. Pulled strong right to the limiter which I bounced off, only because I kept expecting it to fall off and let me know I was geeting close to the limiter, but it pulled all the way - Real nice car over all.

 

It depends what you want. I just priced them out. And the Caddy has a cheaper MSRP. Both are pretty much fully loaded, i skipped out on the carbon fiber package for the Benz, and skipped out on the stupid moonroof upgrade for the V.

This is how I would want them.

CTS-V

Options:
Navigation package
Recaro Package
Engine Block heater
Diamond White (1k option)

MSRP: $67,340
Invoice: $62,984

C63

Options:
I-pod Kit
PP
P2
Multimedia Kit
White was no charge

MSRP: $68,600
Invoice: $63,859

With the options I selected they all pretty much share the same features and decked out pretty similar. However, MB rapes you on their options. Given these two examples your price theory is shot out of the window.

Of course you can argue that the benz was getting huge discounts, but come on, the caddy is a GM, it's only a matter of time before the discounts hit the V.

 

Good points. I was using both cars discounted. The CTSV best price was 58K and I got the C63 for 52K. I never pay MSRP, but the C63 was priced very low in this case.

The 09 V's are done already. The only reason I was able to get the discount offered that I did was because I got a GMS code from a friend. Otherwise they were only dropping the car to about 62K and that was without the Recaro's. Yeah White Diamond paint is a crazy up charge. I got it on my 08 Buick Enclave. I was like "How much???" It does look good though.

A good compare would be what we can get the 2010's for. How much can a 2010 C63 be bought for and a 2010 CTSV. Which brings it back to the GM vs MB fight. The Caddy is faster, but its still a GM. MB has a better service record than GM also. Perceived quality. Resale value. ect.. All things being equal in price I think I would still get the C63.

 

Okay, once again you have to resort name calling for your defense. Oh well just goes to show the proper use of my tax dollars and your high school education. I on the other hand still do have some use for you, as in the form of entertainment.

After all of our back and forth posts, you have yet to answer a single question that I have raised. While I on the other hand have given you web addresses, and other factual documentation that is easy to verify. What truly is hilarious about the whole issue is your stats shows you are into computers, and yet you posted previously you couldn’t find the information on the web. Hey, nice career counseling going on in your home town.

My subject matter NEVER changed as it was always taken directly from your posts. I am starting to understand you better now as not only do you have issues with literary skills, but I am also guessing a little ADD.

The final injury to insult my friend is you calling me the EThug, which was your comment and spelling. Coming from the very individual that has verbally abused numerous members on this board for either disagreeing or proving you wrong. Then you resort to threatening me with violence as you are incapable of defending yourself or point of view in a civilize fashion, getting the picture here Darwin. As far as my teeth yes they are all intact, and no I do not act like you in public as many members’ hare can attest to.

Oh well recess is probably over in your school so please for the sake of our forum get back to class.

Sorry members, please return to your usual debate. And as I said before, BOTH are nice cars. I personaly would take the C63 simply because it is a MB. If I was planning on racing either one, it would be a different story.

 

I am curious when this tread is going to reach the Holy Number.. 63 it is!