Read the following: it states that the CL65 AMG is limited to a top speed of 155, without which it could top 200 mph.

Top speed, unlimited, of CL65 AMG:

Or this one:

Top speed unlimited: 208

Or this one, in Motor Trend, for the lower-horsepower CL55, wherein MT details how AMG had removed the 155 mph limiter for the test, and that the car has a *second* speed limiter which limited top speed to 187 mph!!

Motor Trend: even the CL55 will get there!

 

It's too bad they limited it then.

And what's it's 0-60 time again? Nuff said.

 

I've been trying to locate it online, but so far no luck. Still looking, though...

But the 2003 CL55 AMG, as tested by Motor Trend, tested at 0-60 in 4.27 seconds; the Z06, in the same test, got 4.29. Also from the same test, the two cars' 1/4 mile times:

CL55 AMG: 12.38@114.45
Z06: 12.44@116.54

And of course, the CL55 AMG has 493 horsepower, to the CL65's 617...so, let me think here: if the CL55 will run 4.27 seconds to 60 with 493, do ya think that maybe that thar CL65 AMG might do it a tad bit quicker with 120 or so more horsepower, bob?

Nuff said.

 

You keep comparing the CL65 to the older Z06. The 2005 model is coming with 95 extra horsepower, putting it at 500. The Ford GT which is 500 hp does 0-60 in 3.3 according to Car and Driver and 3.6 according to Motor Trend. Given the performance of the 405 hp Vette, it's safe to say that the 500 hp vette will be along the same lines as the Ford GT, ie. well below 4 seconds.

Nuff said!

 

bobs, just be nice in the benz forum.

You choose Cadillac because you think it's a better car.
We choose Mercedes because we think it's a better car.

how fast the car is isn't everything. You have to consider many other factors before you buy the car, such as, build quality, safety, etc.

 

Classic tactic for someone who's losing an argument: change the subject, eh, bob?

So, now that your original claim has been proven totally, irrevocably false, what do you do? Change it yet again, for about the fourth or fifth time.

The claim you made, you might recall, is right up there in the title of the thread: that the new cadillac cts-v will 'put our Benzes to shame!'.

So, several of us posted data that showed how full of it this claim was. Your response? Several attempts to change the subject, first by stating that one would have to spend "twice as much" as the cts-v to beat it (which I showed to be false), then by claiming the fact that the E55 is supercharged makes the comparison that you originally made "unfair", etc...

Finally, you walked away from the caddy entirely, and started a new red herring argument: the Z06. You also implied that we were lying with our claimed performance numbers for these cars. So, I showed that not only were our numbers accurate, but also that Motor Trend had tested one of your hated Benzes as faster than the Z06.

So, what is poor bob to do but grasp at another strawman argument? Well, since even the current Z06 has posted inferior numbers to the Benzes you so hate, by golly, we'll change the subect yet again, and talk about a car which hasn't even hit the market yet: the *upcoming* 500hp Z06, which is at least a year or two out! Shall we start discussing the upcoming Benzes too?

Recall, bob: the original topic was created by you. It was not about the Z06, it was about how the cts-v would supposedly put our cars to shame.

Well, as I have shown, it does not. Not even close. But like the energizer bunny of lame arguments, you keep coming up with new ones...

But wow, bob, the one-year-out Z06 has been rumored to have 500 hp? Pay attention, bob: the *current* Mercedes SLR has ****625**** horsepower. The *curent* Mercedes CL65 AMG has ****612**** horsepower. The following *current* AMG cars produce in excess of 500 crank horsepower, bone stock: E55, S55, SL55, S600, SL600, CL55, CL600 .

Can you please list ONE current GM production automobile which meets or exceeds 500 horsepower, bob? Uno? Ein?

Yes, these cars are rated at 493 hp, bob, but that is conservative: here is a link to a dyno test of a bone stock car: Dyno test of stock 2003 E55 AMG: . With an 18% driveline loss, this works out to 520 horspower, at the crank, in a *current* production Mercedes.

You can also run the math: to trap 116 in the 1/4, a 4300 pound car (E55) must have 520 crank...physically impossible to do this with the rated hp of 469. But Mercedes is conservative in their horsepower ratings, just as with their performance numbers. As opposed to chevy, which claimed 4.0 sec 0-60 for the 385 hp Z06, a figure that no US magazine was able to obtain.

But back to horsepower: I repeat: where is GM's *current* 500 hp car?

Well, bob, I hate to break this to you, but there isn't one. Mercedes has NINE. That is 9-0, bob...a shutout. And do you suppose that just maybe, Mercedes might *also* have future models planned, and that they might have even *higher* horsepower than the current GM-thrashing models? Duh...come on, man...think!

Yes, the Ford GT is an amazing car, but what, exactly, does it have to do with your original topic? Oh, that's right: when you're losing an argument, you change the subject.

 

For the record, you changed the topic when you started discussing the SLK...if you go back and read you'll notice I didn't start discussing the corvette until you started discussing the slk...the original topic was about 4 door 5 seater cars, not two door two seaters. Since YOU changed the topic, I accomodated and began discussing 2 seater American cars.

You keep stressing the hp of various Benzes. Horsepower is only a means to an end (performance). If a more powerful car loses to a less powerful car, who cares which one has more or less hp? So yeah, no american production car has over 600 hp like the CL65, but there are a number of American production cars that can beat it.

You asked for a production American car that has over 500 hp? At a GM dealership in Calgary, AB I saw a limited production 585 hp supercharged Z06 Corvette for $90,000 Cdn.

We should really put this discussion to an end. I think you're spending waay too much time putting together lengthy replies. No offence, but I barely read your replies, just because they woudl take too long.

 

The cts-v is not the fastest caddy. Caddy has a race car equivalent to the clk gtr. Sorry but I get mad when you guys post thing without knowing anything about it.

 

the whole thing is a pissing contest anyway....

the CTS-V is a sweet car, i like the looks of it, i really want to drive it, but i like my CLK, thats why i invested into it....

the only Mercedes you can compare to the CTS-V is the C32 ///AMG....all these other comparisons are pointless....

"gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a ****..."

 

So, if you had said Here's an American car that'll put your four-door, five seater Benzes to shame, you would have a point. You did not; you said Here's an American car that'll put your Benzes to shame! So, I simply listed several Benzes that will thrash the cts-v. It was only after I listed these Benzes that will thrash the cts-v that you launched your little subject-changing campaign. Lying about it won't help you, bob, because the title of the thread is quite explicit, and anyone can follow your little derailed troll train of lies and evasion.

There are a number of American cars that'll beat the CL65 AMG, eh? The Viper? Possibly...we'll have to see what numbers the CL65 turns when it's tested here. The Ford GT will beat it, but those two are the only ones.

And an aftermarket car like the S/C'd corvette you mention doesn't count as production, bob...we are talking factory here, specifically, factory Benzes, the cars to which you compared your POS caddy, bob. Reminder: THE CARS YOU ARE USING FOR EXAMPLES NOW HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ORIGINAL TOPIC, BOB. STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT, IN PATHETIC ATTEMPTS TO WEASEL OUT OF YOU ORIGINAL BULLSH*T CLAIM!!

The fact is this: your original claim was bullsh*t, it was proven to be bullsh*t, and no amount of subject changing, evasion, or lying on your part will change this. That a cts-v will not put our Benzes to shame has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Is that clear enough for you, dumass? Get bent, and get a life, loser.

 

..

 

Like I said before, I figured it was implicit that I was obviously comparing it to four-door Benzes, and that I didn't have to explictly state so. Looks like I overestimated your intelligence.

 

..

 

Uh oh, looks like he's REALLY pissed off now!

 

Here are four-door, five-seater Benzes which will put the cts-v to shame:

E55, S55, S600

And, as pointed out earlier, the four-door, five-seater C32 ties it.

So, as before, your original claim is still BS!

As to my intelligence: you're the dumb*ss who was too stupid to read the road tests of the Benzes before coming here and cramming his foot in his mouth, bob.

 

Hey bobs, if you love the cts-v so much, why dob't you buy one?

 

hmmm the c32 is not 10g's more expensive then your precious caddy. AGAIN your wrong. can't you do math?
52g's - 48g's =4g's!!!!!!!!!!

what do you have to say to that?

the c32 and the cady and the m3 and the S4 are all in the same class
except for the m3 since YOU are comparing 4 door 5 seaters. correct?

so okay c32 is 4g's more, m3 is 2g's less!!! wow i think im gonna buy a cadilac instead of a mercedes or a bmw!!! bob you go ahead and do that then, i would NEVER want you to drive a european car.

FYI ford gt = 150g's and again its only purpose is built for speed while a CL55 for instance, you can do whatever you want with.


SO ANSWER THIS BOB, THE CTSV IS 4G'S LESS AND .1 SECONDS FASTER IN THE 1/4 MILE. you said that mercedes has nothing that can compete with the cadilac within 10g's but your wrong!!! what do you have to say about that? huh? come on pleaseeeee tell me!

 

Cadillac, with the exception of the Escalade, will never appeal to the younger market.

 

IMO, the CTS and especially CTS-V do indeed appeal to the younger market, much moreso than anything else they sell other than the overpriced denali....i mean escalade...

 

it's still a Cadillac...

 

You might want to have a look...they have a road test of the cts-v, which you said will "put our Benzes to shame". Turn to page 81, where you will see the following road test results for the cts-v:

0-60: 5.0 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.4@109

Now, flash back in time for a minute, to March 2000: they tested the 1999 Mercedes E55 (previous generation, 350 horsepower, no supercharger). Here are its road test results:

0-60: 5.1 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.6@106

Wow. Congratulations, bob: the brand new caddy, with a pro at the wheel (good luck duplicating those numbers), barely eeks out a win over a four year old Mercedes (actually five; the E55 was released in 1999). So, five years later, caddy catches up...IF you have a pro driving.

Only one problem: time marches on...in September 2003, Road & Track tested the *new* E55:

0-60: 4.2 seconds
1/4 mile: 12.4@116.4

Which, well, beats the cts-v by one full second, which translates to about ten carlengths in a 1/4 mile run. Kind of puts it to shame, wouldn't you say, bob?

Oh, and the current issue of Road & Track also has a first drive of the Mercedes SLR. Here's what they have to say about its performance:

By Mercedes' reckoning, you'll be at 60 mph in 3.8 seconds....it's said that you could get to 207 mph with the SLR.

They also have data for the new 500 hp Viper, which I believe you claimed was faster, in the road test summary section:

0-60: 4.1 seconds
top speed: 190

Who is shaming whom?

 

Why "dob't" you learn how to spell first? (Just kidding!)

Personally, I prefer a sports car that looks like one, and therefore you also feel like you're driving a real sports car, which none of the four-door cars can provide. Therefore, I drive my Trans Am when I want power, and my Cadillac STS when I'm just in the mood for comfort, such as during the winter, or during long trips. Regardless of how fast any four-door car is, they will never look like a real sports car.

 

It's more than obvious that R&T is biased towards European cars.

And I wasn't comparing the Ford GT to any Benz, I simply quoted its performance in order to give a ballpark of what the 500 hp Z06 will do, since the specs aren't out on it yet.

 

By the way, the Cadillac STS will outperform ANY Benz within THREE TIMES it's price!!!

 

I didn't post any opinions of R&T about the car, merely road test data, 0-60 and so forth. In fact, before dismissing the review, you might want to actually read it: it does speak quite favorably about the car.

Unfortunately for you, it also proves you wrong!

Yes, the Ford GT's 3.8 second 0-60 time (Road & Track) is impressive, a match for the Mercedes SLR's manufacturer time. However, as pointed out before, Mercedes is often conservative in their ratings; for example, prior to the release of the new E55, they claimed 4.7 seconds 0-60 for it; it has been tested at 4.2 to 4.3.

As you pointed out earlier, horsepower alone isn't enough: we must look at weight/horspower. To get an idea of the SLR's performance potential, let's compare its weight/horsepower to that of the Ford GT, and a guesstimate of the next Z06's numbers using 500 horsepower and the current weight of 3150 pounds (assuming it won't gain any weight):

Ford GT: 3390/500 = 6.78 pounds/horsepower.
Corvette Z06: 3150/500 = 6.3 pounds/horsepower
Mercedes SLR: 3800/625 = 6.08 pounds/horsepower.

Hmm, seems like the SLR has got them beat, bob, by about an 11% margin over the Ford GT, and by a 5% margin over the one-year-away Corvette, *if* it really does have 500 horsepower & does't gain any weight.

So, even your unreleased car doesn't have enough weight/hp to match, let alone overcome, the current SLR, even if we assume that the rumored 500 horsepower is accurate and the car doesn't gain weight! It might give the SLR a good race, assuming Mercedes doesn't decide to up the horsepower before then (ya know, Europeans can increase horsepower too, bob).

I hate to break this to you, but your only hope is if Euro manufacturers suddenly cease their R&D operations and allow the Americans to catch up, bob.