Got beaten by a cts-v 2009.
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
s500, e39 m5, m6
Got beaten by a cts-v 2009.
I was with one of my friend, who was driving a c63 amg ofcourse. Suddenly we spotted a cts-v, and chased him, we had a chat and decided to race. He told my friend what speed you want to race from, and my friend said from a dig. 3honks and off we went, trust me guys the cts-v beat the hell out of c63 amg.. i never knew that car is so so fast. we then had a look at the interior, it was fully loaded with recaros, its amazing from inside too. i used to hate american cars, but trust me after knowing the cts-v in personal, i just love it, and hopefully buy it in the future. thanks folks.
#2
Member
ofcourse it will beat the c63 easy....too much of a power differential...now a modded e55 or an s55 would be a better race for sure.
Last edited by rockykhan; 09-15-2009 at 05:15 AM.
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
I was with one of my friend, who was driving a c63 amg ofcourse. Suddenly we spotted a cts-v, and chased him, we had a chat and decided to race. He told my friend what speed you want to race from, and my friend said from a dig. 3honks and off we went, trust me guys the cts-v beat the hell out of c63 amg.. i never knew that car is so so fast. we then had a look at the interior, it was fully loaded with recaros, its amazing from inside too. i used to hate american cars, but trust me after knowing the cts-v in personal, i just love it, and hopefully buy it in the future. thanks folks.
Ill take the C63 over the CTSV any day for many reasons...
1. It might say caddy but its still a GM.
2. Quality. Trust me. I had a CTSV and MANY GM's. They all fall apart.
3. Status. Nothing says I’ve made it like a MB.
4. Old man car. A Caddy is an old mans car.
5. Recognition. You can hardly tell the difference between the lines. The 6 cylinder looks almost exactly like the V in every way. Not so with the C63.
All that aside, ill be damned if im paying 60K+ for a GM. The best price I got on a CTSV with 200 miles on it with an employee discount was 58K.
If you got beat THAT badly from a dig against the caddy the guy didn’t know how to launch the C63. Im sure he just hammered it. The C63 is only 1-2 10ths slower to 60. Thats only like 1/2 - 1 car length.
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 38 Likes
on
33 Posts
96 and 08 911 turbos
The C63 stock is at the bottom of its engine potential. A K1 will put the C63 right next to a CTSV in the 1/4 mile.
Ill take the C63 over the CTSV any day for many reasons...
1. It might say caddy but its still a GM.
2. Quality. Trust me. I had a CTSV and MANY GM's. They all fall apart.
3. Status. Nothing says I’ve made it like a MB.
4. Old man car. A Caddy is an old mans car.
5. Recognition. You can hardly tell the difference between the lines. The 6 cylinder looks almost exactly like the V in every way. Not so with the C63.
Ill take the C63 over the CTSV any day for many reasons...
1. It might say caddy but its still a GM.
2. Quality. Trust me. I had a CTSV and MANY GM's. They all fall apart.
3. Status. Nothing says I’ve made it like a MB.
4. Old man car. A Caddy is an old mans car.
5. Recognition. You can hardly tell the difference between the lines. The 6 cylinder looks almost exactly like the V in every way. Not so with the C63.
1. Regardless of whether you think the C63 is at the "bottom of its engine potential", you are comparing it to a blown engine of the same capacity. The blown engine will make more power, mod for mod, any day of the week. If you want to get into modding, it will get ugly for the C63, very quickly.
2. Gm build a damn fine vehicle, and I'm sure you've noticed that MB isn't all that high in quality ratings either.
3. Maybe it used to be the case that nothing said I made it like an MB. Now any schmuck with $400 a month can get into a C-Class. Since non-car people have no idea of the difference between a C300 and a C63, I doubt you are having that "i've made it" impact. A new S63? then I'd agree with your point.
4. Ok, its an old man's car that can put the hurt on a boyracer C63. Whats your point?
5. disagree.
Finally, its commonly recognized that 1/10th is 1 car length.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M-B GLE, Porsche 911 Turbo, Porsche Boxster (spouse)
But in addition to monster amounts of power, the Caddy must handle quite well too...you don't turn sub-8 minute laps at the Nürburgring without having a totally integrated package...HP, torque, chassis, tires, tranny, brakes, suspension, driver.
Trending Topics
#8
MBWorld Fanatic!
Sad that you suggest we have to run a modified M-B against a stock American "family" sedan (same engine cubes) to make it a "better" race.
But in addition to monster amounts of power, the Caddy must handle quite well too...you don't turn sub-8 minute laps at the Nürburgring without having a totally integrated package...HP, torque, chassis, tires, tranny, brakes, suspension, driver.
But in addition to monster amounts of power, the Caddy must handle quite well too...you don't turn sub-8 minute laps at the Nürburgring without having a totally integrated package...HP, torque, chassis, tires, tranny, brakes, suspension, driver.
Ill take the MB C63 for 52K. Throw the 6K that I saved buying her and destroy that "Family" sedan.
Yes, she does run quite well on Nurburgring. Id like to see the side by side with the C63 AMG PP though.
All in all the CTSV is a great machine. Not trying to down play her. I was going to get one. Im glad I didnt in the end. Out with the old and in with the new. The CTSV doesnt have anywhere near the same amount of appeal.
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
X3 and 2012 C coming soon
It achieved the the fastest time aroung the ring for a production sedan. Yeah, it did quite well. If only GM would put that much effort into all of their cars. The good news for used car buyers is how fast Caddys depreciate.
#10
I agree with you Propain. I sat in both during my pre-purchase research and was not thrilled with the CTS-V interior (or the fact that it was a GM product). It is a more a matter of personal taste for me. I was also turned off completely by how I was treated by the dealership that had the CTS-V. I got the C63 cheaper than I could the CTS-V (and I get the GM discount via a Hughes/GM tie) and I am very happy.
I know there are faster cars out there for maybe a few thousand more (CTS-V, Z06) but there is a stigma attached to them for me. I will take the nimble, torquey (is that a word) C63 every time.
I know there are faster cars out there for maybe a few thousand more (CTS-V, Z06) but there is a stigma attached to them for me. I will take the nimble, torquey (is that a word) C63 every time.
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
I agree with you Propain. I sat in both during my pre-purchase research and was not thrilled with the CTS-V interior (or the fact that it was a GM product). It is a more a matter of personal taste for me. I was also turned off completely by how I was treated by the dealership that had the CTS-V. I got the C63 cheaper than I could the CTS-V (and I get the GM discount via a Hughes/GM tie) and I am very happy.
I know there are faster cars out there for maybe a few thousand more (CTS-V, Z06) but there is a stigma attached to them for me. I will take the nimble, torquey (is that a word) C63 every time.
I know there are faster cars out there for maybe a few thousand more (CTS-V, Z06) but there is a stigma attached to them for me. I will take the nimble, torquey (is that a word) C63 every time.
MB, Quad pipes, better looking, AMG, sounds like a wild animal and a couple of 10ths slower before the ECU tune.
#12
#13
The C63 is anywhere from 3600 to 3900 lbs depending on who's figures you believe, and it does feel very nimble. I had a G35 that weighed less and it was not near as agile. I drove a G37 and found it to be even less agile than the G35 and it only weighted a couple hundred more pounds (about what the C63 is).
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
The C63 is anywhere from 3600 to 3900 lbs depending on who's figures you believe, and it does feel very nimble. I had a G35 that weighed less and it was not near as agile. I drove a G37 and found it to be even less agile than the G35 and it only weighted a couple hundred more pounds (about what the C63 is).
My car with me in it (I'm 180) and 1/4 tank of gas and no spear is 4080.
#18
MBWorld Fanatic!
Bottom line stock to stock the ctsv will beat it with out a problem. No if or but or this or that. It has 100 hp more that's it. The only way the ctsv will lose is if it full of ppl in the car andthe c63 driver is by him self.
#19
Not if you believe that Frank Stippler pulled a 7:58 in an RS4
#20
Super Member
Oh yeah... its just a simple "family" sedan with the same engine cubes. Its a 65K supercharged monster!! Who are you kidding??
Ill take the MB C63 for 52K. Throw the 6K that I saved buying her and destroy that "Family" sedan.
Yes, she does run quite well on Nurburgring. Id like to see the side by side with the C63 AMG PP though.
All in all the CTSV is a great machine. Not trying to down play her. I was going to get one. Im glad I didnt in the end. Out with the old and in with the new. The CTSV doesnt have anywhere near the same amount of appeal.
Ill take the MB C63 for 52K. Throw the 6K that I saved buying her and destroy that "Family" sedan.
Yes, she does run quite well on Nurburgring. Id like to see the side by side with the C63 AMG PP though.
All in all the CTSV is a great machine. Not trying to down play her. I was going to get one. Im glad I didnt in the end. Out with the old and in with the new. The CTSV doesnt have anywhere near the same amount of appeal.
LOL...MB depreciation is sickening! I bought my 03 CL for about the same price as an 04 CTS-V with similiar miles. I know they are a year apart...but the CL was over double MSRP.
Last edited by FormulaZR; 09-15-2009 at 01:27 PM.
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
the ctsv is the fastest prodution 4door car in the states
490rw stock 6speed. 490/4200=8.57 rwh per lb.
The stock Dyno # were from hennessy
automatic # are 470rw
490rw stock 6speed. 490/4200=8.57 rwh per lb.
The stock Dyno # were from hennessy
automatic # are 470rw
Last edited by mthis; 09-15-2009 at 01:33 PM.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hoboken,NJ
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 Eurocharged C63 AMG
Few things.
1. Regardless of whether you think the C63 is at the "bottom of its engine potential", you are comparing it to a blown engine of the same capacity. The blown engine will make more power, mod for mod, any day of the week. If you want to get into modding, it will get ugly for the C63, very quickly.
2. Gm build a damn fine vehicle, and I'm sure you've noticed that MB isn't all that high in quality ratings either.
3. Maybe it used to be the case that nothing said I made it like an MB. Now any schmuck with $400 a month can get into a C-Class. Since non-car people have no idea of the difference between a C300 and a C63, I doubt you are having that "i've made it" impact. A new S63? then I'd agree with your point.
4. Ok, its an old man's car that can put the hurt on a boyracer C63. Whats your point?
5. disagree.
Finally, its commonly recognized that 1/10th is 1 car length.
1. Regardless of whether you think the C63 is at the "bottom of its engine potential", you are comparing it to a blown engine of the same capacity. The blown engine will make more power, mod for mod, any day of the week. If you want to get into modding, it will get ugly for the C63, very quickly.
2. Gm build a damn fine vehicle, and I'm sure you've noticed that MB isn't all that high in quality ratings either.
3. Maybe it used to be the case that nothing said I made it like an MB. Now any schmuck with $400 a month can get into a C-Class. Since non-car people have no idea of the difference between a C300 and a C63, I doubt you are having that "i've made it" impact. A new S63? then I'd agree with your point.
4. Ok, its an old man's car that can put the hurt on a boyracer C63. Whats your point?
5. disagree.
Finally, its commonly recognized that 1/10th is 1 car length.
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Never mind the exhaust note!! The CTSV has to much whine... From the moment I started the C63 I knew I wanted her. The cold start on this beast is something to write home about.
MB, Quad pipes, better looking, AMG, sounds like a wild animal and a couple of 10ths slower before the ECU tune.
MB, Quad pipes, better looking, AMG, sounds like a wild animal and a couple of 10ths slower before the ECU tune.
Last edited by sflgator; 09-15-2009 at 01:47 PM.
#24
i got beat by one and i got a stock c63 we kept doing pulls and he would always get me by a half a car to a car
but reasons why mb is better, it will hold its resale value better
but reasons why mb is better, it will hold its resale value better