C63 v CTSV one statement says all you need to know
12-03-2010, 11:28 AM
#76
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Naples FL
Posts: 2,925
Received 167 Likes
on
133 Posts
2021 Porsche TTS
Wow, pretty amazing the kind of thought process some people get.
There are 2 cars on the forum showing 10s with just headers and tune (and minor other mods like weight savings) and it is not enough for gnxs.
Bottom line is that you can achieve 10s just like the CTSV. It may be cheaper but that was not my point.
Regarding the CTSV running 185 in the mile run. It was the 700hp car
http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/v700.html
Props to Hennessy but look at the list of mods to achieve that. Again, both cars can achieve high numbers, just a matter of how much money you want to throw at it.
Again, people miss my point: someone posted that the CTSV modded will beat a C modded and I am saying it depends.
Furthermore what aggravates me is that he states that it will pull bus lengths on the car. It all depends on the mods. I could have stated that Dad's car at the mile pulled bus lengths on the stock CTS that ran (182 vs 160) but that is not comparing apples to apples.
My bottom line again is that both are phenomenal but there is no clear easy performance winner once the modding starts.
There are 2 cars on the forum showing 10s with just headers and tune (and minor other mods like weight savings) and it is not enough for gnxs.
Bottom line is that you can achieve 10s just like the CTSV. It may be cheaper but that was not my point.
Regarding the CTSV running 185 in the mile run. It was the 700hp car
http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/v700.html
Props to Hennessy but look at the list of mods to achieve that. Again, both cars can achieve high numbers, just a matter of how much money you want to throw at it.
Again, people miss my point: someone posted that the CTSV modded will beat a C modded and I am saying it depends.
Furthermore what aggravates me is that he states that it will pull bus lengths on the car. It all depends on the mods. I could have stated that Dad's car at the mile pulled bus lengths on the stock CTS that ran (182 vs 160) but that is not comparing apples to apples.
My bottom line again is that both are phenomenal but there is no clear easy performance winner once the modding starts.
12-03-2010, 11:33 AM
#77
MBWorld Fanatic!
Wow, pretty amazing the kind of thought process some people get.
There are 2 cars on the forum showing 10s with just headers and tune (and minor other mods like weight savings) and it is not enough for gnxs.
Bottom line is that you can achieve 10s just like the CTSV. It may be cheaper but that was not my point.
Regarding the CTSV running 185 in the mile run. It was the 700hp car
http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/v700.html
Props to Hennessy but look at the list of mods to achieve that. Again, both cars can achieve high numbers, just a matter of how much money you want to throw at it.
Again, people miss my point: someone posted that the CTSV modded will beat a C modded and I am saying it depends.
Furthermore what aggravates me is that he states that it will pull bus lengths on the car. It all depends on the mods. I could have stated that Dad's car at the mile pulled bus lengths on the stock CTS that ran (182 vs 160) but that is not comparing apples to apples.
My bottom line again is that both are phenomenal but there is no clear easy performance winner once the modding starts.
There are 2 cars on the forum showing 10s with just headers and tune (and minor other mods like weight savings) and it is not enough for gnxs.
Bottom line is that you can achieve 10s just like the CTSV. It may be cheaper but that was not my point.
Regarding the CTSV running 185 in the mile run. It was the 700hp car
http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/v700.html
Props to Hennessy but look at the list of mods to achieve that. Again, both cars can achieve high numbers, just a matter of how much money you want to throw at it.
Again, people miss my point: someone posted that the CTSV modded will beat a C modded and I am saying it depends.
Furthermore what aggravates me is that he states that it will pull bus lengths on the car. It all depends on the mods. I could have stated that Dad's car at the mile pulled bus lengths on the stock CTS that ran (182 vs 160) but that is not comparing apples to apples.
My bottom line again is that both are phenomenal but there is no clear easy performance winner once the modding starts.
I'd have to disagree with that last statement.....Vette Doctors have a CTS-V running 10.30's...i think that would clearly be the performance winner
12-03-2010, 11:41 AM
#78
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NoVa
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 S55 (SOLD, miss it every day), 2009 GL550
ok, fine, I was going for inquiring. there, I said it.
So a C63 "handles very nice". Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks. Have you driven a CTS-V?
I thought I'd missed that post, but after going back and re-reading it, I find this:
Switching to wider R compound tires( I use R888's) lower, stiffer springs and adjusting the rear toe from severely in to nuetral makes an incredible difference.
)And I'm not really interested in watching someone drive them, but that's an interesting thought. Thanks, but I just want the Cliff Notes version.
12-03-2010, 11:55 AM
#79
MBWorld Fanatic!
you remember the National Enquirer? and their slogan "enquiring minds want to know"? that kind of mind, in other words, mindless
ok, fine, I was going for inquiring. there, I said it.
So a C63 "handles very nice". Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks. Have you driven a CTS-V?
I thought I'd missed that post, but after going back and re-reading it, I find this:
I would put those changes under the heading "suspension modifications". I was hoping for a stock vs. stock comparison, not an "if I track prep my C63..." demonstration. I'm sure I could make my S55 handle quite well if I did enough to it. (ok, maybe not my Titanic-size S55, but you get the idea)
And I'm not really interested in watching someone drive them, but that's an interesting thought. Thanks, but I just want the Cliff Notes version.
ok, fine, I was going for inquiring. there, I said it.
So a C63 "handles very nice". Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks. Have you driven a CTS-V?
I thought I'd missed that post, but after going back and re-reading it, I find this:
I would put those changes under the heading "suspension modifications". I was hoping for a stock vs. stock comparison, not an "if I track prep my C63..." demonstration. I'm sure I could make my S55 handle quite well if I did enough to it. (ok, maybe not my Titanic-size S55, but you get the idea
)And I'm not really interested in watching someone drive them, but that's an interesting thought. Thanks, but I just want the Cliff Notes version.
Yes, very nice indeed. Ive driven in both. The CTSV in way more in touch with the road in my opinion. Where the C63 feels way more nimble. "Feels" more nimble is the word though. It really isn't. I enjoy the ride of the C63 a little more overall though. The visibility is much better in the C63 where the CTSV has many more blind spots.
12-03-2010, 12:27 PM
#80
MBWorld Fanatic!
Wow, pretty amazing the kind of thought process some people get.
There are 2 cars on the forum showing 10s with just headers and tune (and minor other mods like weight savings) and it is not enough for gnxs.
Bottom line is that you can achieve 10s just like the CTSV. It may be cheaper but that was not my point.
Regarding the CTSV running 185 in the mile run. It was the 700hp car
http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/v700.html
Props to Hennessy but look at the list of mods to achieve that. Again, both cars can achieve high numbers, just a matter of how much money you want to throw at it.
Again, people miss my point: someone posted that the CTSV modded will beat a C modded and I am saying it depends.
Furthermore what aggravates me is that he states that it will pull bus lengths on the car. It all depends on the mods. I could have stated that Dad's car at the mile pulled bus lengths on the stock CTS that ran (182 vs 160) but that is not comparing apples to apples.
My bottom line again is that both are phenomenal but there is no clear easy performance winner once the modding starts.
There are 2 cars on the forum showing 10s with just headers and tune (and minor other mods like weight savings) and it is not enough for gnxs.
Bottom line is that you can achieve 10s just like the CTSV. It may be cheaper but that was not my point.
Regarding the CTSV running 185 in the mile run. It was the 700hp car
http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/v700.html
Props to Hennessy but look at the list of mods to achieve that. Again, both cars can achieve high numbers, just a matter of how much money you want to throw at it.
Again, people miss my point: someone posted that the CTSV modded will beat a C modded and I am saying it depends.
Furthermore what aggravates me is that he states that it will pull bus lengths on the car. It all depends on the mods. I could have stated that Dad's car at the mile pulled bus lengths on the stock CTS that ran (182 vs 160) but that is not comparing apples to apples.
My bottom line again is that both are phenomenal but there is no clear easy performance winner once the modding starts.
Also, a good comparison will be the new TT AMG's vs the CTS-V. I can almost guarantee that AMG will be aiming for the kill this time.
Not disagreeing that the CTS-V could lose to a C63. I don't think Dad's car compared to a stock CTS-V is a fair comparison. Maybe Hennesy's car or LeftLane's or the VetteDoctor's CTS-V (without spray) or one of Jesse Bulb's cars vs Dad's C63 is more than fair since they probably have less $ invested in them anyway than Dad's car. That's if you want to do Mod for Mod. But again, you can't compare mod for mod really because the Caddy will always be faster since it has the supercharger and the C63 is n/a.
Fair enough?
12-03-2010, 02:02 PM
#81
MBWorld Fanatic!
How about this though...
The majority of both of these car owners is not putting in cams and increasing boost or throwing on headers or getting a tune. Lets just talk about the car itself fresh out of the factory.
The C63 and the CTSV are very close in performance straight line. Pretty much identical with the every day driver.
The CTSV is better on the track but an even smaller percentage of people will actually see this benefit. A smaller percentage of the people who tune their cars actually bring them to the track. So imagine how small of a percentage of people with a stock CTSV will hit the track. The point is the every day Joe wont see this benefit at all.
So what do we have? 2 cars with equal straight line performance untouched out of the factory.
The build quality is also debatable but having owned many GM vehicles and owner a German build for a while as well I can easily say the build quality of the Germans is much better.
Appeal. Caddy has always been an old mans car. The MB has always sent a message of wealth. If I had to pick one car to pull up to an event with a lot of exposure, performance aside it would be a MB over a GM.
The majority of both of these car owners is not putting in cams and increasing boost or throwing on headers or getting a tune. Lets just talk about the car itself fresh out of the factory.
The C63 and the CTSV are very close in performance straight line. Pretty much identical with the every day driver.
The CTSV is better on the track but an even smaller percentage of people will actually see this benefit. A smaller percentage of the people who tune their cars actually bring them to the track. So imagine how small of a percentage of people with a stock CTSV will hit the track. The point is the every day Joe wont see this benefit at all.
So what do we have? 2 cars with equal straight line performance untouched out of the factory.
The build quality is also debatable but having owned many GM vehicles and owner a German build for a while as well I can easily say the build quality of the Germans is much better.
Appeal. Caddy has always been an old mans car. The MB has always sent a message of wealth. If I had to pick one car to pull up to an event with a lot of exposure, performance aside it would be a MB over a GM.
12-03-2010, 03:06 PM
#82
MBWorld Fanatic!
How about this though...
The majority of both of these car owners is not putting in cams and increasing boost or throwing on headers or getting a tune. Lets just talk about the car itself fresh out of the factory.
The C63 and the CTSV are very close in performance straight line. Pretty much identical with the every day driver.
The CTSV is better on the track but an even smaller percentage of people will actually see this benefit. A smaller percentage of the people who tune their cars actually bring them to the track. So imagine how small of a percentage of people with a stock CTSV will hit the track. The point is the every day Joe wont see this benefit at all.
So what do we have? 2 cars with equal straight line performance untouched out of the factory.
The build quality is also debatable but having owned many GM vehicles and owner a German build for a while as well I can easily say the build quality of the Germans is much better.
Appeal. Caddy has always been an old mans car. The MB has always sent a message of wealth. If I had to pick one car to pull up to an event with a lot of exposure, performance aside it would be a MB over a GM.
The majority of both of these car owners is not putting in cams and increasing boost or throwing on headers or getting a tune. Lets just talk about the car itself fresh out of the factory.
The C63 and the CTSV are very close in performance straight line. Pretty much identical with the every day driver.
The CTSV is better on the track but an even smaller percentage of people will actually see this benefit. A smaller percentage of the people who tune their cars actually bring them to the track. So imagine how small of a percentage of people with a stock CTSV will hit the track. The point is the every day Joe wont see this benefit at all.
So what do we have? 2 cars with equal straight line performance untouched out of the factory.
The build quality is also debatable but having owned many GM vehicles and owner a German build for a while as well I can easily say the build quality of the Germans is much better.
Appeal. Caddy has always been an old mans car. The MB has always sent a message of wealth. If I had to pick one car to pull up to an event with a lot of exposure, performance aside it would be a MB over a GM.
12-03-2010, 03:10 PM
#83
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NoVa
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 S55 (SOLD, miss it every day), 2009 GL550
NOT SO FAST!! you must be too young to remember purple El Dorados with chrome side pipes driven by young gentlemen wearing fur-lined, feathered Fedoras.
I disagree. E, S, CL, G, GL, M say "look at how much money I have"
C just says "this is the only Mercedes I could afford" (similarly, so does buying a 6-year-old S55
). Same thing for a 3-series bimmer (even though it may be the "ultimate driving machine"). Weirdly, I've never heard anyone say that about an Audi A4.
if the choice is between a C and a CTS-V i'd have to go with the CTS-V, C63 and a CTS-V would be a toss-up (only because *I* know what it is), and CTS-V and E (even non-AMG) I'd have to go the the E.
I disagree. E, S, CL, G, GL, M say "look at how much money I have"
C just says "this is the only Mercedes I could afford" (similarly, so does buying a 6-year-old S55
). Same thing for a 3-series bimmer (even though it may be the "ultimate driving machine"). Weirdly, I've never heard anyone say that about an Audi A4. if the choice is between a C and a CTS-V i'd have to go with the CTS-V, C63 and a CTS-V would be a toss-up (only because *I* know what it is), and CTS-V and E (even non-AMG) I'd have to go the the E.
12-03-2010, 04:31 PM
#86
MBWorld Fanatic!
NOT SO FAST!! you must be too young to remember purple El Dorados with chrome side pipes driven by young gentlemen wearing fur-lined, feathered Fedoras.
In the 60's you mean? Those pimps were in their mid 40's.
I disagree. E, S, CL, G, GL, M say "look at how much money I have"
C just says "this is the only Mercedes I could afford" (similarly, so does buying a 6-year-old S55 ). Same thing for a 3-series bimmer (even though it may be the "ultimate driving machine"). Weirdly, I've never heard anyone say that about an Audi A4.
I agree the C is the bottom but the AMG changes that quick. MB along with other brands have created bottom of the line cars to help get their sales up and get the brand out there more to the regular Joe's. C280's ect.
The AMG however is a different story. My wife tells me stories all the time when her co-workers ask what kind of car I drive and she tell the guys perk right up and say "Thats like a 90K car!" lol
The caddy never got that reaction. It also doesnt get as much respect among the MB, BMW and Porsche community.
if the choice is between a C and a CTS-V i'd have to go with the CTS-V, C63 and a CTS-V would be a toss-up (only because *I* know what it is), and CTS-V and E (even non-AMG) I'd have to go the the E.
I was going to also but I changed my mind to the C63 and was really happy I did for the many reasons ive mentioned.
I wouldnt take an E over a CTSV.
In the 60's you mean? Those pimps were in their mid 40's.
I disagree. E, S, CL, G, GL, M say "look at how much money I have"
C just says "this is the only Mercedes I could afford" (similarly, so does buying a 6-year-old S55
). Same thing for a 3-series bimmer (even though it may be the "ultimate driving machine"). Weirdly, I've never heard anyone say that about an Audi A4. I agree the C is the bottom but the AMG changes that quick. MB along with other brands have created bottom of the line cars to help get their sales up and get the brand out there more to the regular Joe's. C280's ect.
The AMG however is a different story. My wife tells me stories all the time when her co-workers ask what kind of car I drive and she tell the guys perk right up and say "Thats like a 90K car!" lol
The caddy never got that reaction. It also doesnt get as much respect among the MB, BMW and Porsche community.
if the choice is between a C and a CTS-V i'd have to go with the CTS-V, C63 and a CTS-V would be a toss-up (only because *I* know what it is), and CTS-V and E (even non-AMG) I'd have to go the the E.
I was going to also but I changed my mind to the C63 and was really happy I did for the many reasons ive mentioned.
I wouldnt take an E over a CTSV.
12-03-2010, 07:21 PM
#87
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C63 AMG(sold), 2009 CL550, 2010 S550 Majestic Black, 2010 ML550, 2006 C230, 2009 Venza
Not really. More like just the S, CL and the G wagon. Last time I checked you don't need to be making more than 50k a year to own an E, M, or GL. So your implying a C63 is basically just a C class so it doesn't compete in the "Look how much money I have" list. I guess we can also say that for the M5 is simply a 5 series although it cost $100,000 brand new, No?
12-03-2010, 10:11 PM
#88
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NoVa
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 S55 (SOLD, miss it every day), 2009 GL550
Not really. More like just the S, CL and the G wagon. Last time I checked you don't need to be making more than 50k a year to own an E, M, or GL. So your implying a C63 is basically just a C class so it doesn't compete in the "Look how much money I have" list. I guess we can also say that for the M5 is simply a 5 series although it cost $100,000 brand new, No?
You think I am implying that a C63 is "just a C". I'm not sure how you made that connection, but I know what a C63 is, and it's no ordinary car, and it would give my S55 a hard time. I also know that it looks a lot like a C-Class. Why is that?
Hint: it's the same reason why my S55 looks a lot like an S-Class. Because it is an S-Class. Also, because you know, you think everyone knows what a "2-digit AMG" really is. 99% (my estimate) of the people that see a C63 only see a C-Class. That same 99% see "only" an E-Class or S-Class or 5-Series when they see an AMG or ///M. I hope that clarified my point a bit.
