Too bad it's ugly and cheap.

 

The Caddy isn't supercharged either. The E55 is not a fair comparison since it costs $20,000 extra. As for interior, I've sat in my friend's S430, and didn't find a Benz's interior any better than my STS. If you really want to compare unreleased cars, GM's new 2005 Z06 will have 500 hp, so that'll spank the SLK 55 you made reference to.

 

I'd rather have the Z28, for real

But I'm comparing the CTS-V since it's a four-door luxury car, whereas the Z28 is not.

 

I didn't mean to offend anyone with my posts...just trying to have fun and see your views towards American cars.

I'm looking forward to the day I can come up along your Benz at a stop light and beat you in a race...even if your car is nicer, mine will still have the classic Firebird logo engraved on the hood

 

And anyway, whether or not it is supercharged is not the point: you made the comparison to *Benzes*, when you said Here's an American car that'll put your Benzes to shame!, and then later said okay, I know it doesn't literally put them to shame, but it performs better than just about any Benz that isn't double it's price. You did not say "nonsupercharged Benzes", now did you?

As I pointed out, correctly, at $75K, the supercharged E55 costs well below $96K, and will show the caddy the door any day of the week, as will the SLK55, at $55K. Which shows your second claim, as well as your first claim, were both false.

As to the Z06: this is a red herring argument, unrelated to your original arguments, which I reprinted above. Usually, people resort to red herring arguments to change the subject when they know they are losing, which you are.

However, here's another one backatcha: why don't you list the products made, or upcoming, by caddy and/or chevy which will outrun either of the following *currently* in-production Mercedes:

1) the 612 horsepower CL65 AMG;

2) the 617 horsepower SLR

Face it: American manufacturers are behind, and are playing catchup. The only cars they've made with world-class numbers for years have been the corvettes and the vipers. In everything else, they have been getting their clocks cleaned.

Finally, your claim that the interior of the cadillac is on a par with Mercedes' is 1) subjective, and 2) flies in the face of every publication's review I've seen to date. In every case where I've seen the two compared, the reviewers have unfailingly picked the Benzes' interior as superior.

 

Right, and when I pointed out that the E55 and SLK55 both will stomp the caddy for far, far less than double its price, you brought up the non-four-door, non-luxury-car Z06 corvette.

Is a little consistency too much to ask?

Also, you dodged completely the main point of my argument in this reply, but...

Anyway, if you'd rather have the Z28, there are plenty of them available in the low-mid teens. Enjoy!

 

Honestly, I almost bought me a camaro ss, when choosing what car I should get. I test drove it 3 times, really loved the car. I liked how it was half the price as the CLK430 and performed better. But the reason I did not buy it in the end was, after going into many domestic forums, everyone was complaining how the quality was horrible and after 60,000 miles many things had gone wrong and needed replacement. I really liked how the CLK had esp, and 2 more air bags than the camaro. The caddy has these features also, but I'd still pick a benz over a caddy, because the benz has higher prestige. People see a benz and are like: "DAMM its a benz" they might not know what kind of benz, but they know that this car ownz them. If you roll in a caddy, people see it and are like: "nice car". For some this might be enough recognition, but if you where to drive where the elite (rich) people of the city are, such as a golf club, they could give you more respect in a benz. Just my 0.02$

 

Daimler Chrysler owns DODGE so technicaly the only "american" owned cars that can even compete are the vette and the ctsv

lets take a look at how many different cars amg has
c32 amg 349hp msrp 52g's
E55 amg 469hp msrp 78g's
S55 amg 493hp msrp 110g's
CLK55 amg 362hp msrp 70g's
Cl55 amg 493hp msrp 117g's
SLK55 amg 349hp msrp 56g's
SL55 amg 493hp msrp 120g's
G55 amg 349hp msrp 93g's
mclaren slr 617hp msrp around 350g's

all you have is the vette and the cadilac.
the vette is a great car but i just dont see how it can compare with any benz
the vette's sould purpose is performance, its no luxury car, its no grocery getter, all you can fit is 1 skinny person in the car, the interior was crap(they tried to make it better in the upcoming one and did a good job)
but every mercedes is built as an all around daily driver car.
also i think its quit pathetic how everyone complains about not have a manual car in a daily driveable car but i think its sadder how the "vette" has a 4 speed automatic tranny. i mean come on!!! the v8 benzes have 7!!!! and im sorry but clarify this for me

if the ctsv is like .1 to .2 seconds quicker. Does that really matter to you? .1 to .2 second? and i guarantee your average driver wont even be able to come closeto those figures on the street. But with a mercedes, thanks to the auto, its a lot easier to get consitent times.
so yeah the viper is part of the mercedes name, so dont even try that. all you "american" cars have are huge **** SUV's and pick up trucks! im just did the same thing you did to us.
you said it puts BENZES to shame, i say "MERCEDES" and the rest of the european cars puts "American" cars to shame

 

Nothing is a fair comparison then; the Caddy is trying to compensate in performance and price what it lacks in looks, interior comfort, style, and reputation.

Wanna talk unreleased cars? How about the S65, I think that'll kill ANY car your beloved Cadillac will release.

Yeah, good luck with that.
Just a hint: pick the MB carefully (don't pull up to a new SLR.)

EDIT/ I think the S65 is already out in Europe.

 

Improvis: I'm inconsistent?? I have three words for you: pot, kettle, black. I raised the issue of the Z06 not as a red herring argument, but since you began comparing 2 seater 2 door benzes (SLK). When I initially posted about benzes being slower within double the price of a cts-v, I did not explicitly say I was referring to 4-doors, but I figured that would be a given. As for your "backatcha", the 612 hp CL65 may be more powerful than a 405 hp vette, but is still slower (0-60 in 4.3 seconds & 1/4 mile of 12.8 vs. 0-60 in 4.2 seconds & 1/4 mile of 12.6). Given that, I don't think I even need to mention the stats of the Dodge Viper, Ford GT or the upcoming 500 hp Z06 in comparison to the CL65.

It's truly amusing to see some people get so angry over a few of my words!

 

I've had waaaay more mechanical problems with my BMW than with my Trans Am, even though they both have about the same mileage.

 

2003 Mercedes-Benz CL55 AMG 5.4L V8 S/C 493 12.38 114.45 MT
2002 Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG 5.4L V8 S/C 469 12.39 116.21 MT
2003 Mercedes-Benz SL55 AMG 5.4L V8 S/C 469 12.5 116.1 MT
2002 Mercedes-Benz SLK32 AMG 3.2L V6 S/C 349 13.0 105.2 CD
2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK55 5.5L V8 362 13.24 107.41 MT
2003 Mercedes-Benz C32 AMG 3.2L V6 S/C 349 13.24 106.86 CD
2004 Maybach 57 5.5L V12 T/C 543 13.4 106.4 RT
2001 Mercedes-Benz CLK55 AMG 5.4L V8 349 13.6 105.6 CD
2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK500 5.0L V8 302 14.0 102.5 MT


2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 LS6 350 V8 385 12.81 111.19 MT
2002 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 LS6 350 V8 405 12.29 116 CD

if the cl55 amg has 493hp and the cl65 has 617 thats 123 more hp. so im sure it will be way into the 11 second 1/4 mile. So dont even try that.

te 2002 z06 times are not right considering the 2002 only have 20 more hp then the 2001. but it was timed by car and driver and not motor trend
so im going to go with your 12.6 seconds. meaning the CL55, SL55 and E55 both put your vette to SHAME!


http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

 

the cts-v can't even compete. its at 13.1 in te quarter mile, thats .14 faster then the c32. Wow, anyone who buys the ctsv because its .14 faster is a moron. if thats their only reason to buy it over the c32 or audi s4 or m3

 

www.fantasycars.com/sedans/html/ctsv.html

 

www.engine-power.com/mercedes-benz/cl65_amg.html

0-60 in 4.2

 

Earlier I did read 0-60 in 4.3 and 1/4 mile in 12.8 before posting it. If I find the link again I'll post it.

 

i think i trust motor trend more then wherever you got your information. dont you have anything to say to what we have been telling you? does .1 seconds really matter to you enough to base your decision on a car and does acceleration alone judge what car you buy?

 

I just looked up the specs for some of AMG's cars on www.fantasycars.com/derek

Specifically, the CL55, CLK55, E55, S55, and SLK55. Their specs are nowhere near what many on this board have been claiming.

 

.1 seconds alone does not, however if the car that is .1 seconds slower also costs $10,000 more, even though they are both 4-door higher end luxury cars, then yes that's enough for me to base my decision on.

 

Yes, you are inconsistent:

1) you start the thread by claiming the cts-v will put our Benzes to shame;

2) when pointed out that there are several Benzes available that will thrash it, you change your argument by saying okay, I know it doesn't literally put them to shame, but it performs better than just about any Benz that isn't double it's price.;

3) when pointed out that the $75K E55K and $55K SLK55 (and, FYI, the SLK32, which is also $55K) will thrash it, and cost far less than double the cost of the caddy, you change your argument yet again by saying The Caddy isn't supercharged either. The E55 is not a fair comparison since it costs $20,000 extra.

Not a fair comarison?? Excuse me, but wasn't it YOU who made the comparison in the first place, in starting this thread??

4) finally, realizing that you were dead wrong, and that there are actually several Benzes which will thrash the sh*t out of the caddy, you pull out the red herring: the not-even-released Z06.

As to the CL65: that 4.3 is the manufacturers' figure, NOT to 60 mph, but to 100km/h (62mph); the vehicle has already been tested in Europe at 3.9 seconds 0-60. Unlike American manufacturers who routinely exaggerate their cars' performance (how many of the original 385 hp Z06's were tested at 4.0 seconds 0-60, Chevy's original claim??), the European manufacturers tend to be a bit conservative. And if you ever bothered to read any of the auto mags (obviously, you do not, or you'd never have been dumb enough to claim a 13.1 sec 1/4 would "shame" Benzes' performance), you'd know that the CL55 AMG, which is rated at 493 hp, over 100 less than the CL65 AMG, ran a 4.27 second 0-60 in this Motortrend comparo . Which, you will also be pleased to know, is faster than the 0-60 time turned by the Corvette Z06 you're bragging about in the same comparison test (the Z06 got 4.29). And interestingly enough, the CL55 also whipped the Z06 in the 1/4, running a 12.38 to the 'vette's 12.44.

So, if you believe that the CL65, with 612 horsepower, will be slower than the CL55, then I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you...and btw, Mercedes gives the CL55's 0-60 time as 4.6 seconds...as I said, conservative.

Btw, I love how you selectively quote: I provided TWO cars for your perusal: the CL65 AMG *and* the SLR. I notice that you just ignore that one, because there is *no* American manufacturer producing anything close to that. 0-60 in about 3.3, top speed over 200...yeah. Lots of American cars can hang with that...not.

So, yes, you are inconsistent, a poor debater, and a big fan of sh*tty American cars. Good for you.

 

Cool down Improviz! You obviously didn't read my earlier post where I asked to open a dictionary to the "e" section and look up "exaggeration". Putting to "shame" and the comparison to any Benz "within double its price" were both just exaggerations.

While others have noted that the cts-v is only .1 seconds faster than the cl32, you're now bragging that some of those amg cars are within 0.05 seconds faster than a Vette??!

 

Also interesting, given that *none* of the *current* Mercedes' AMG test data is given, with the exception of the '03 SL55.

But you want test data? Ve got test data!! Here you go, bob: feast your eyes:

2003 CL55 AMG test from Motor Trend: beats the Z06!

Road & Track's test data for 2003 E55: 4.2 0-60, 12.4@116.4 mph 1/4 mile

Car & Driver's test of '03 E55: 4.3 0-60, 12.5@116 1/4 mile

Motor Trend tests '03 E55 AMG: 4.2 0-60, 12.39@116.2 1/4:

All of which are waaaay faster than your silly caddy...and even in the same pricerange as the caddy, the Benzes do just fine:

Motor Trend tests the SLK32 AMG: 4.62 0-60, 13.06@108.74 1/4

Motor Trend tests 2003 C32 AMG: 4.77 0-60, 13.24@106 1/4

And you quote what for the CTS-V? 4.7 seconds 0-60, and a 13.1 1/4? So, of the Benzes listed above, all will beat the caddy except one...and that one is a tie to 60, with a 0.1 sec margin win in the 1/4 for the caddy.

Put to shame, eh? Whatever...

 

...just want to keep the facts straight here.

I'm bragging? No, just correcting you...you claimed a few times that the Z06 would beat the Benzes; I showed test data where the results were exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Not bragging, just presenting the facts.

And I notice that even after I pointed it out twice now, you still won't touch the SLR with a ten foot pole, because you're obviously aware that there are no American cars that come close to it, including the Viper and Z06.

OK, so you were exaggerating; so perhaps you'd be good enough to clarify: what, exactly, was your point, then??

 

Improvis, if you read one of my earlier posts, I said that I am "just trying to have fun and see your views toward American cars." So to answer your question, that was my point.

I have yet to read a credible source indicating the CL65 is faster than the specs I posted. Even if it is, it still can't compare to a viper, gt40, or the 500 hp z06, each of which have 0-60 times below 4 seconds and top speeds over 200 mph.

 

OK, now I'm really confused. A manual is a bad thing, being quicker is a bad thing, but costing more is a good thing?

Bob really does get to you defensive Benz owners way too easily. Seems like some of you should drink some hot tea and just take a 10-minute time out.