coladin

I briefly considered a CTS-V wagon, with 5 kids and a hockey prodigy to boot ( only in his mind lol), I think it is the best looking of the three models. Problem is the exhaust. I don't think any CTS-V can be truly happy with the delivery truck exhaust sound. That is all I have to say bad about the car. Love the styling, inside and out. Apparently, they are well built, not sure if up to European standards but by all accounts pretty darn close.

Has anyone who has posted in here defending the CTS-V (or educating as one put it) changed their exhausts?

fast car for sure, the CTS-V...but i stuck with the C63 coming soon, would have loved the wagon version!

VCA_AMG

Right on. Don't forget the Caddy's 550TQ rating either, which is substantial.
I know of many guys on the forums here that would kill to have an extra 100HP in their 6.3MBZ engines from the factory, let's not act like it's just a few extra HP. It takes a lot of $$$$ to get another 100HP out of our engines. The Caddy starts at 551 warrantied from the factory and it just goes up from there QUICKLY with very little money. It's simply a faster car. I still won't own one though.

gonzales25

I think the whole mother name calling is very immature!!! Thats all I will say about that..

From exeprience my E63 was very well built, but I guess I just wanted something a little less sedan like. Thats why I got the coupe plus the supercharger is a big bonus I actually thought about getting an E55 but I couldnt justify to myself going into an older car model when I could get into something brand new with awesome mod potential.

I do agree that my exhaust on the E63 was truely amazing (2nd cat and resonator delete with x-pipe) but the supercharger whine makes up for it

black-clk500

I actually was at a Caddie dealer this week (looking to replace the wife's car) and they had two coupes there.
I didn't drive the car but I gave it a quick look over and sat in it.
The interior was actually nice.
I don't know how it would hold up, but it looked nice for an American car.
For me, I just prefer German styling, the sleeper styling appeals to me--no one is going to miss that caddie going down the road.
On styling alone, the caddie just doesn't do for me at all, I don't care how many tenths faster it is--I never thought once about trading my car in for the caddie while I was sitting in it.
Some one said it right, garish.
My .02

Quadcammer

This thread went about as expected.

ignorant comments
followed by name calling
followed by AMG owners getting owned and resorting to statements like "oh well GM needed a supercharger" (right because the LS7 doesn't make 505bhp while being smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient than the 6.2l amg engine).

What made me laugh the most was melman's stupid posts and the guy claiming that the GM's brakes were revoltingly ugly...because they didn't have holes or slots.

pathetic...as usual.

JeffDL

I wasn't going to post in this thread but how is an LS7 smaller? it's a 7.0 427ci small block. that is definitely bigger then the 6.2's we get. but then why are we talking about an LS7 anyway?

gnxs

I think he's referring to the physical dimensions of the motor.

Follow the thread from earlier on and you'll see why he posted that comment. he was responding to an inference that GM might not be able to produce a quality, naturally-aspirated powerplant.

EDITED

JeffDL

really? Now I almost want to read the rest of this thread. What do physical dimensions of a motor have to do with anything? actually I don't want to know. I'll just read.

gnxs

You'll probably regret that.

coladin

Like I am sure that if you went to a CTS-V forum the same thing does not happen right? Except they might add some WWII talk...

Quadcammer

smaller engines allow you to mount the engine lower and further back in the vehicle, creating better weight balance. Also, the LS7 is extremely simple and reliable. It simply proves that pushrods work and work well. GM drivetrain engineers are some of the best in the business.

and? I'm sure some epicly stupid comments are made on CTS-V forums...but I don't post on them...I post on this one and ignorance is ignorance...it tends to bother me.

hhughes1

There are one or two in every crowd and as usual you are attempting to paint a broad stroke with a tiny brush. I still don't see why you are so determined to stereotype the entire C63 ownership group each time you come across some ignorant ramblings posted by a single or few individuals. And BTW your analysis of the C6 Z06 motor was almost as off base as the original "if it didn't have a supercharger" comment.

JeffDL

Ok. but CTS-V doesn't have an LS7. I'll just go back and read the nonsense.

gnxs

C5 Z06?

melmanc55

Did someone call her a name? If so it wasn't me... Re read the post you guys. I never called her anything.

What i meant to say was how well do you think that engine would perform in the car without the supercharger? It is the same liter size as the one in our C63s. Do you think the car would still pull it's performance numbers without it? I don't think so. My point is without the supercharger how "fast" do you think the car would be with almost the same weight in the car.....Oh something else...RELAX!

The CTS-V coupe engine is 6.2 liters isn't it?

hhughes1

Fixed

coladin

I can see why after 2,592 posts!

Quadcammer

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Based on this forum, C63 owners seem to be mustang and camaro owners with slightly higher salaries, but about as much car knowledge and lack of self control. Are all C63 owners like this? probably not, but this forum paints a very poor picture of them.

And please, please elaborate on my analysis of the LS7. I'd love to hear what you think about it.

It doesn't. Point being, if GM wanted a naturally aspirated engine to make 550bhp in the CTS-V, it would have one.

So you're asking us to take an engine built for a supercharger, remove the blower, and then see how it performs? Thats not how it works.

As I said above, if GM wanted a high hp NA engine in there, there would be one. Its simply two ways of making power...neither is cheating, and you need to run what your brung.

Jons95c36amg

You guys think a stock 556hp ctsv can run with a tuned C63? Well in the real world ctsv got owned. Alberts e63 could attest to that.

melmanc55

Honestly at this point I’m just going to tell you to relax. It's a hypothetical question moron.... obviously you have a bias towards the CTS-V no matter what. Nothing wrong with that (mine is the C63 ). Oh and by the way great job on the 96 Porsche turbo. It's one of the best made IMHO

gnxs

Even with all the BS posted in this thread I think you are the first person to mention comparing a stock CTS-V with a modded C63. The point being?

melmanc55

True but count yourself into the "bs" group

gonzales25

This thread keeps pulling me back to look at it like a car accident, why are we comparing stock vs. tuned we can "what if" all day. What I want to see is the S/C on a C63 or E63 and see the real world gains at the track.

Jons95c36amg

My point is a stock ctsv traps 118+ and a tuned c63 traps the same. So why does the ctsv get raped? Over and over? 556hp ctsv-

gnxs

Get back to me when you comprehend the point OliverK is making.