zam2000

R & T just had a midsize luxury/sport car test. What shock the car nut is that the new BMW 5 serie ranks 6 out of 7 cars being tested !!!!

The old 5 serie used to be a car where every manufacture go after, but none could beat. (As a former owner of the '98 528i, and current owner of W210 & W211, I can atest to that).

It is now a car everyone just step over left and right.

The new E320 ranks 2nd, can't disagree with it.

R & T Result

Article which they review the BMW E530

DWP

I would feel more smug about the W211's #2 rating if the #1 rating hadn't gone to the Cadillac CTS. No, not the CTS/V, the plain ol' CTS.

What's interesting about the R&T ratings is that the W211 greased all the competition in the objective tests of handling and braking, but finished down the pack in the subjective ratings of handling and braking feel. The moral, apparently, is that the W211 handles and brakes very well indeed - it just doesn't feel like it.

codex57

I agree. I look at the speedos and the other cars and I realize I'm traveling fast and have great handling. I just didn't notice cuz subjectively, the steering feels numb and there's no big push when I floor it.

I'm glad to see the magazine rate the BMW that low. The styling just isn't good. People defend it by saying, "oh, it looks great with a body kit." Well, that's the point of a body kit, to make it look better. But stock, it's just odd looking. The trunk is hideous. A car just shouldn't require you to "get used to" the looks. Plus, the interior took a big downgrade in quality feel and looks IMO. That's before the atrocity known as I-Drive. Even the magazine couldn't use BMW driving experience to offset all the flaws.

W210

Poor ergonomics and exterior styling. Criticism well deserved.

Even a discontinued A6 beat the brand new 530i hands down!

Otto

Cadillac CTS driving excitement 20 points?

I know banglized e60 is not pretty but it still looks better than CTS. (I think both exterior and interior of CTS are far from any German cars in R&T comparison list and I never think CTS can be the same level of W211 or E60. same thing for Chrysler 300 which should not be in this comparison list. )

I believe very few customers follow this list to shop "midsize luxury/sport" cars. (do you think a buyer who shop mb, mbw, and audi also shop chrysler 300 and cadillac cts?)

if price can obtain high points (34k car get 200 points and 43k car get 186.6 points, I think R&T should include G35 to this comparsion list -- I wonder why there is no japanese cars in this list)

NOTE
43k cts is near a full loaded one. (avg price is $39793)
50k e320 cannot even have a $3650 premium package.

this obviously is an apple to orange kind of comparison.

alewifebp

While I am not a fan of the e60 in any big way, I read with interest, but seeing the CTS way at the top made me discount the entire comparison. And as mentioned, what is the 300 doing in there?

While the BMW has gotten its fair share of negative press, I seriously doubt that the driving characterstics of the car warrant a near bottom finish, no matter how bad it looks.

Doesn't the CTS compete with the 3, C instead? And the Seville, upcoming STS compete in this range? Ill conceived comparison to say the least.

Silver_Lana

This may be a difficult concept guys, but those brands are moving upscale to compete with the likes of BMW, AUDI and our beloved Mercedes.
The simple fact is that the 300C is basically a W210 E class with the option of a really sweet Hemi V8 engine that will get it from 0-60 in about 5.3 seconds flat. Not too bad for a car below 40k.
DVD Nav, intgrated phone and other optional accessories make this car a true contender. If you cant see that, then MB marketing has done their job very well.

As for the Caddilac CTS, the car was initially designed to be a 3 series fighter - it was a tad large for that role so it passes more as a 5 series competitor. They were apparently quite successfull.
The car has crisp handling a decent engine and with the CTS-V a very nice if dated designed powerhouse. I know this since a friend has one and I have seen what it can do.

The bottom line is credit should be given where due not just because of a marquee. We would otherwise be as a herd of sheep led to the dealer to pay the MB/BMW/Audo tax every so often. I am very glad that the E class is being given its day in the sun since every performance minded person out there tries to badmouth it as an "old man's ride". I can't waif for the E350 review to come out. That should significantly fis those 0-60/1/4 mile times that the W211 lost points on.

Cheers!

nyca

i'm a bit surprised about the CTS. on the other hand, the upcoming STS looks to be a "contender" in its size category.

alot of new competition for this sector - new A6, STS, new M45, Acura RL.

alewifebp

Exactly, I see the STS as being the competition. And the new A6, M45, RL and GS when they come out.

codex57

But that's the same reason the G35 should have been included. It's a 3 series fighter like the CTS, but size-wise, it's also too big like the CTS. Same with the Acura TL.

Silver_Lana

I agree with you but here is the $1000 question.
Where do you really draw the line as an entry level car, mid level luxury car and then a high line luxury car?
I think thats the bigger picture here.
Companies like MB and BMW have based their lineups on that segregation of car sizes and equipment but the up and comers are smashing those barriers and offering products that span the gaps.
What's a corporation to do?

Blocktrader

Anyone notice that almost every tester chose the Merc as the car they liked best?

MidniteBluBenz

The 5-Series did not finish in 6th because if its styling, I-drive, or poor build quality. I placed 6th because of price. If you look at the point-totals before price was considered, the 530 finished 3rd.

The fact that the CTS was included in this comparison was disappointing. The fact that it won was disgraceful. I guess the next comparison will put the new STS against a 745i, S500, XJ8 and A8.

Moreover, the 300C and the E320 use more or less identical tranny's, but the 300C's was rated significantly lower. Comparisons like this are why its difficult to take american car magazines seriously.

Barry45RPM

Absolutely the truth! There's something not quite even here. The Caddy & Chrysler are not in the same league here...if they were, they'd be class leaders and they'd sell in big numbers. There would be a lot of "buzz". There isnt, they're not, and they don't.

Double Eagle

I got my issue today and was SHOCKED to see the CTS get first. I think Cadillac must have paid for more advertising with them to pull this off. Today, I was also at the Cadillac-GMC dealer to get my Yukon Denali serviced and a CTS owner was next to me. She liked the car's handling and acceleration but it was using a lot oil and had other quality related little problems. I agree with other posts thay our E's are FAR better than the CTS. It also appeared like many of the drivers preferred the E.

As an aside, I think the GMC Yukon Denali is a FAR better SUV than the MB-ML series. My MB Service Advisor agrees with me on this ranking.

PUZZ1

Does anyone have a link to the full article?