Finally! M5 VS CLS55, STS-V in new Car and Driver!
12-10-2005, 06:37 AM
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Finally! M5 VS CLS55, STS-V in new Car and Driver!
The January issue of Car and Driver features a shootout between the M5, CLS55 and STS-V. They got some of the best numbers yet from the M5 as shown below.
M5:
0-60 4.2
0-100 9.4
0-150 20.7
1/4 Mile - 12.5 @ 118
Rolling 5-60: 4.6
Top Gear 30-50: 5.9
Top Gear 50-70: 7.8
CLS55:
0-60 4.2
0-100 9.8
0-150 24.9
1/4 Mile 12.6 @ 114
Rolling 5-60: 4.5
Top Gear 30-50: 2.2
Top Gear 50-70: 2.5
What a difference a transmission makes, look at the 0-150 numbers!
but then check out the top gear 30-50 and 50-70 numbers!
Of course, the M5 got 1st place, the BMW always does. The CLS55 placed third because they didnt like the rearward visibility.
M5:
0-60 4.2
0-100 9.4
0-150 20.7
1/4 Mile - 12.5 @ 118
Rolling 5-60: 4.6
Top Gear 30-50: 5.9
Top Gear 50-70: 7.8
CLS55:
0-60 4.2
0-100 9.8
0-150 24.9
1/4 Mile 12.6 @ 114
Rolling 5-60: 4.5
Top Gear 30-50: 2.2
Top Gear 50-70: 2.5
What a difference a transmission makes, look at the 0-150 numbers!
but then check out the top gear 30-50 and 50-70 numbers!
Of course, the M5 got 1st place, the BMW always does. The CLS55 placed third because they didnt like the rearward visibility.
Last edited by VelocitE55; 12-10-2005 at 06:40 AM.
12-10-2005, 01:22 PM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey/Brooklyn
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'99 C230 K
Originally Posted by VelocitE55
The January issue of Car and Driver features a shootout between the M5, CLS55 and STS-V. They got some of the best numbers yet from the M5 as shown below.
M5:
0-60 4.2
0-100 9.4
0-150 20.7
1/4 Mile - 12.5 @ 118
Rolling 5-60: 4.6
Top Gear 30-50: 5.9
Top Gear 50-70: 7.8
CLS55:
0-60 4.2
0-100 9.8
0-150 24.9
1/4 Mile 12.6 @ 114
Rolling 5-60: 4.5
Top Gear 30-50: 2.2
Top Gear 50-70: 2.5
What a difference a transmission makes, look at the 0-150 numbers!
but then check out the top gear 30-50 and 50-70 numbers!
Of course, the M5 got 1st place, the BMW always does. The CLS55 placed third because they didnt like the rearward visibility.
M5:
0-60 4.2
0-100 9.4
0-150 20.7
1/4 Mile - 12.5 @ 118
Rolling 5-60: 4.6
Top Gear 30-50: 5.9
Top Gear 50-70: 7.8
CLS55:
0-60 4.2
0-100 9.8
0-150 24.9
1/4 Mile 12.6 @ 114
Rolling 5-60: 4.5
Top Gear 30-50: 2.2
Top Gear 50-70: 2.5
What a difference a transmission makes, look at the 0-150 numbers!
but then check out the top gear 30-50 and 50-70 numbers!
Of course, the M5 got 1st place, the BMW always does. The CLS55 placed third because they didnt like the rearward visibility.
car and driver is BS! i hate that magazine, so baised against MB. The CLS is def a nicer car than M5 and 10000 Times nicer than that POS caddy.
car&driver = garbage
12-10-2005, 01:45 PM
#4
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago area (Plainfield)
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 E55 White
What the heck was GM thinking when they claimed 469 HP! Even though it is a smaller motor with less torque, it does have a nice 6 speed trans with great gearing. How could it be that slow? Either the HP way off or they have it set up so bad that it runs like ****. Does GM think that high-end buyers don't check out what they buy? GM will never recover market share until they do better work. Unbelievable.
12-10-2005, 01:57 PM
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Evil Duffman
car and driver is BS! i hate that magazine, so baised against MB. The CLS is def a nicer car than M5 and 10000 Times nicer than that POS caddy.
car&driver = garbage
car&driver = garbage
Have you driven ANY of the cars that were compared in the article?
12-10-2005, 02:10 PM
#6
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2005 E55
Car and Driver Got Paid!!
Any moron knows those times are not accurate. Obviously, someone in the editor's office or "pocket" suggested the results. Maybe a representative from each manufacturer should provide a driver so that times will be guaranteed to be accurate. 
12-10-2005, 02:47 PM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey/Brooklyn
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'99 C230 K
Originally Posted by WayneE
Have you driven ANY of the cars that were compared in the article?
Trending Topics
12-10-2005, 03:04 PM
#8
Super Member
yes, but you'll appreciate that the CTS and STS, particularly the "V series" iterations, are very different cars; where the CTS is unabashedly claimed to be a rough-riding monstercar, the STS is claimed to be much more refined. I'm not trying to disabuse you of your opinions of GM, but basing your opinion of the STSV on having sat in/driven the CTSV is probably not accurate.
For comparison, think of getting into a 2002 C 240 sedan, with its Dodge Neon-esque interior design and quality (the dashboard, particularly on the beige-interiored models, is a prime example of this); would you think this was in the same line as an '02 CL55 or S500, with their leather dashboards and infinitely nicer design and materials?
Nobody's perfect, but the Cadillac people are working hard. For what it's worth, JD Power initial quality surveys going back a few years now show Lexus at #1, Cadillac at #2, and Merc somewhere around 10th. Like I said, for what it's worth (initial quality's one thing, real/longterm quality/reliability quite another, I know).
For the record, I've owned two Cadillacs, two Merc's and a host of other mfr's cars. I'd buy another Cadillac, provided they close the gap and make a car that feels as sexy as they look. Both my cadillacs were better cars from a reliability and maintenance standpoint than was my '01 SLK320, which gave me a lot of trouble in niggling little ways; the Cadillac dealer service experience was also far superior in every way to the treatment I've received by Mercedes dealers. On the other hand, the jury's still out on my e55 wagon, but so far it feels like a winner. Which only proves to me that these metrics are all fluid and from one or two years to another, things can change quite a bit if management is motivated and resourceful enough.
v
For comparison, think of getting into a 2002 C 240 sedan, with its Dodge Neon-esque interior design and quality (the dashboard, particularly on the beige-interiored models, is a prime example of this); would you think this was in the same line as an '02 CL55 or S500, with their leather dashboards and infinitely nicer design and materials?
Nobody's perfect, but the Cadillac people are working hard. For what it's worth, JD Power initial quality surveys going back a few years now show Lexus at #1, Cadillac at #2, and Merc somewhere around 10th. Like I said, for what it's worth (initial quality's one thing, real/longterm quality/reliability quite another, I know).
For the record, I've owned two Cadillacs, two Merc's and a host of other mfr's cars. I'd buy another Cadillac, provided they close the gap and make a car that feels as sexy as they look. Both my cadillacs were better cars from a reliability and maintenance standpoint than was my '01 SLK320, which gave me a lot of trouble in niggling little ways; the Cadillac dealer service experience was also far superior in every way to the treatment I've received by Mercedes dealers. On the other hand, the jury's still out on my e55 wagon, but so far it feels like a winner. Which only proves to me that these metrics are all fluid and from one or two years to another, things can change quite a bit if management is motivated and resourceful enough.
v
12-10-2005, 03:19 PM
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
The CLS55 also pulled higher Lateral Grip numbers at .93g vs .89 for the M5. I agree, the CLS55 has a lot more in it than they were able to extract.
12-10-2005, 03:20 PM
#10
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,631
Received 1,085 Likes
on
872 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
car&driver = garbage
12-10-2005, 03:27 PM
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey/Brooklyn
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'99 C230 K
Originally Posted by vixapphire
yes, but you'll appreciate that the CTS and STS, particularly the "V series" iterations, are very different cars; where the CTS is unabashedly claimed to be a rough-riding monstercar, the STS is claimed to be much more refined. I'm not trying to disabuse you of your opinions of GM, but basing your opinion of the STSV on having sat in/driven the CTSV is probably not accurate.
For comparison, think of getting into a 2002 C 240 sedan, with its Dodge Neon-esque interior design and quality (the dashboard, particularly on the beige-interiored models, is a prime example of this); would you think this was in the same line as an '02 CL55 or S500, with their leather dashboards and infinitely nicer design and materials?
Nobody's perfect, but the Cadillac people are working hard. For what it's worth, JD Power initial quality surveys going back a few years now show Lexus at #1, Cadillac at #2, and Merc somewhere around 10th. Like I said, for what it's worth (initial quality's one thing, real/longterm quality/reliability quite another, I know).
For the record, I've owned two Cadillacs, two Merc's and a host of other mfr's cars. I'd buy another Cadillac, provided they close the gap and make a car that feels as sexy as they look. Both my cadillacs were better cars from a reliability and maintenance standpoint than was my '01 SLK320, which gave me a lot of trouble in niggling little ways; the Cadillac dealer service experience was also far superior in every way to the treatment I've received by Mercedes dealers. On the other hand, the jury's still out on my e55 wagon, but so far it feels like a winner. Which only proves to me that these metrics are all fluid and from one or two years to another, things can change quite a bit if management is motivated and resourceful enough.
v
For comparison, think of getting into a 2002 C 240 sedan, with its Dodge Neon-esque interior design and quality (the dashboard, particularly on the beige-interiored models, is a prime example of this); would you think this was in the same line as an '02 CL55 or S500, with their leather dashboards and infinitely nicer design and materials?
Nobody's perfect, but the Cadillac people are working hard. For what it's worth, JD Power initial quality surveys going back a few years now show Lexus at #1, Cadillac at #2, and Merc somewhere around 10th. Like I said, for what it's worth (initial quality's one thing, real/longterm quality/reliability quite another, I know).
For the record, I've owned two Cadillacs, two Merc's and a host of other mfr's cars. I'd buy another Cadillac, provided they close the gap and make a car that feels as sexy as they look. Both my cadillacs were better cars from a reliability and maintenance standpoint than was my '01 SLK320, which gave me a lot of trouble in niggling little ways; the Cadillac dealer service experience was also far superior in every way to the treatment I've received by Mercedes dealers. On the other hand, the jury's still out on my e55 wagon, but so far it feels like a winner. Which only proves to me that these metrics are all fluid and from one or two years to another, things can change quite a bit if management is motivated and resourceful enough.
v
at base price the CTS - $31,000, STS- $41,000. Thats not a big gap like C240 and S-430 as you imply. Yes the interior quality is slightly improved, but not by much. I agree MB has many problems with reliability, my dads ML is one POS, and the W203 is no upgrade from the W202. But to class the STS and CLS is retarded, first off the CLS is Coupe with 4-doors, the back seats are def not roomy. The camparison should of been with the E55 which is roomier and several grand cheaper. This review was biased in that aspect, that it placed a coupe with 2 sedans, and the coupe would still out class them based on performance alone(maybe not the M5 but it comes damn close).
Any car can give you problems, my dad used to be a huge pontiac fan, but the cars were terrible in the snow and the dealership gave us problems all the time, my dad then bought a volvo, overheated almost every other week and the dealership was very rude and unhelpful in fixing it. Maybe we just have bad luck with our cars. You cant use dealer service to compare cars, some dealers are good, some are terrible, some are down right ludacris. I also believe you get lucky with the cars you own, some people have problems some dont, people arent perfect, machines arent perfect, therefore no car is perfect in reliability.
12-10-2005, 06:48 PM
#12
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Evil Duffman
car and driver is BS! i hate that magazine, so baised against MB. The CLS is def a nicer car than M5 and 10000 Times nicer than that POS caddy.
car&driver = garbage
car&driver = garbage
If you took the time to research the new STS-V, you would gain an appreciation of what GM has created. In fact, for about half the cost of a K1 upgrade, this Caddy could run sub-12-second 1/4 mile times.
12-10-2005, 06:57 PM
#13
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Grumpy666
So, anyone who disagrees with your opinion is garbage? These kinds of generalized and uninformed comments add no value to any thread, and actually reflect your ignorance and maturity level. I'm guessing still in high school, right?
If you took the time to research the new STS-V, you would gain an appreciation of what GM has created. In fact, for about half the cost of a K1 upgrade, this Caddy could run sub-12-second 1/4 mile times.
If you took the time to research the new STS-V, you would gain an appreciation of what GM has created. In fact, for about half the cost of a K1 upgrade, this Caddy could run sub-12-second 1/4 mile times.
12-10-2005, 07:26 PM
#14
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MB - World
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top Gear 30-50: 5.9
Top Gear 50-70: 7.8
Top Gear 50-70: 7.8
Top Gear 30-50: 2.2
Top Gear 50-70: 2.5
Top Gear 50-70: 2.5
12-10-2005, 08:49 PM
#16
Super Member
the CLS is a coupe?!!! puh-leez...
Originally Posted by Evil Duffman
But to class the STS and CLS is retarded, first off the CLS is Coupe with 4-doors, the back seats are def not roomy. The camparison should of been with the E55 which is roomier and several grand cheaper. This review was biased in that aspect, that it placed a coupe with 2 sedans, and the coupe would still out class them based on performance alone(maybe not the M5 but it comes damn close).
Any car can give you problems, my dad used to be a huge pontiac fan, but the cars were terrible in the snow and the dealership gave us problems all the time, my dad then bought a volvo, overheated almost every other week and the dealership was very rude and unhelpful in fixing it. Maybe we just have bad luck with our cars. You cant use dealer service to compare cars, some dealers are good, some are terrible, some are down right ludacris. I also believe you get lucky with the cars you own, some people have problems some dont, people arent perfect, machines arent perfect, therefore no car is perfect in reliability.
Any car can give you problems, my dad used to be a huge pontiac fan, but the cars were terrible in the snow and the dealership gave us problems all the time, my dad then bought a volvo, overheated almost every other week and the dealership was very rude and unhelpful in fixing it. Maybe we just have bad luck with our cars. You cant use dealer service to compare cars, some dealers are good, some are terrible, some are down right ludacris. I also believe you get lucky with the cars you own, some people have problems some dont, people arent perfect, machines arent perfect, therefore no car is perfect in reliability.
But, a larger gripe (and nothing personal, b/c everyone seems to be doing it these days): I don't understand this whole "the CLS is a coupe" thing. A coupe is by definition a 2-door car, isn't it? The fact that Merc puts out a chop-top car and its marketing people tell everyone that this is a "4-door coupe" is just a load of bollocks. When I hear someone other than a paid Mercedes flak talk about how the CLS shouldn't be compared to other 4-door sedans because it's really a 4-door coupe - a category Merc is self-consciously trying to invent as they seek more ways to monetize their E-chassis - it makes me think that they'd probably justify their choice of paper towel purchase in a serious conversation by saying that "it's the quicker picker upper".
Jeez, already. turn off the fargin' television and tell the marketers to pfack off for awhile!!!!!
12-10-2005, 10:57 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 Brilliant Silver E55
Originally Posted by Evil Duffman
based on their prior road tests they barely rank mercedes above 4th in any test. i based it on the magazine not driving experience. however....considering your point would be since i dont own those cars i dont know how they would handle?? Ive been in a CLS 55 and that **** STS doesnt even compare in interior quality. I tested a CTS a while back to consider possibly replacing my low end MB, but its ride was horrible. I felt like i was driving a hooptie. The gap between MB and Caddy is wider than you think.
12-10-2005, 11:28 PM
#18
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Evil Duffman
considering your point would be since i dont own those cars i dont know how they would handle?? Ive been in a CLS 55 and that **** STS doesnt even compare in interior quality. I tested a CTS a while back to consider possibly replacing my low end MB, but its ride was horrible. I felt like i was driving a hooptie. The gap between MB and Caddy is wider than you think.
You claim a C&D bias against MB, but you're blindly claiming the CLS55 is so much nicer than the M5 or STS-V, but you haven't driven ANY of them, having only ridden in the CLS55.
That is my entire point.
Get some seat time in the cars and come back when you can intelligently debate which is better, based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.
12-11-2005, 10:01 AM
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey/Brooklyn
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'99 C230 K
Originally Posted by Grumpy666
So, anyone who disagrees with your opinion is garbage? These kinds of generalized and uninformed comments add no value to any thread, and actually reflect your ignorance and maturity level. I'm guessing still in high school, right?
If you took the time to research the new STS-V, you would gain an appreciation of what GM has created. In fact, for about half the cost of a K1 upgrade, this Caddy could run sub-12-second 1/4 mile times.
If you took the time to research the new STS-V, you would gain an appreciation of what GM has created. In fact, for about half the cost of a K1 upgrade, this Caddy could run sub-12-second 1/4 mile times.
actually noobie im in college if you looked at my profile youd know that I am 20 years old. and if youd read my other posts youd know exactly my view point. why dont you go hang out with the other seven dwarves cheif
ignorant ha! im not the one defending a company at the verge of bankruptcy, that just recently let go over 30,000 workers. GM has no class. If Rick Wagoner had the time to take his head out of his *** maybe he could still save his company.
Last edited by Evil Duffman; 12-11-2005 at 10:17 AM.
12-11-2005, 10:10 AM
#20
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey/Brooklyn
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'99 C230 K
Originally Posted by WayneE
You claim a C&D bias against MB, but you're blindly claiming the CLS55 is so much nicer than the M5 or STS-V, but you haven't driven ANY of them, having only ridden in the CLS55.
That is my entire point.
Get some seat time in the cars and come back when you can intelligently debate which is better, based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.
That is my entire point.
Get some seat time in the cars and come back when you can intelligently debate which is better, based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.
link to Car and Driver Article and thread its funny how in this thread more people seem to believe there is a bias, i guess i made the wrong comment in the wrong thread.
12-11-2005, 10:35 AM
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey/Brooklyn
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'99 C230 K
[QUOTE=Grumpy666]So, anyone who disagrees with your opinion is garbage? These kinds of generalized and uninformed comments add no value to any thread, and actually reflect your ignorance and maturity level. I'm guessing still in high school, right? [QUOTE]
you made a similar statement about the maturity levels of the members in this thread? trying to establish youself, you dont like peoples opinions because you find them offense to the car you drive( im guessing you do drive a caddy)? Its a MB forum, not english class, if i dont want to post an informative response i dont have to. that doesnt make me immature or any of the other members immature. I know all about the trouble of GM, trust me, Ive lived in a family of GM cars till I was 17. I dont care for them, they had ****ty transmission back then and still do now. Im not biased towards MB, hell the whole reason I went to test drive the damn CTS was cause I felt like Caddy was finally coming around, but I was wrong, next time I go into their dealership ill make sure to drive the STS-v so i can make all of you happy.
you made a similar statement about the maturity levels of the members in this thread? trying to establish youself, you dont like peoples opinions because you find them offense to the car you drive( im guessing you do drive a caddy)? Its a MB forum, not english class, if i dont want to post an informative response i dont have to. that doesnt make me immature or any of the other members immature. I know all about the trouble of GM, trust me, Ive lived in a family of GM cars till I was 17. I dont care for them, they had ****ty transmission back then and still do now. Im not biased towards MB, hell the whole reason I went to test drive the damn CTS was cause I felt like Caddy was finally coming around, but I was wrong, next time I go into their dealership ill make sure to drive the STS-v so i can make all of you happy.
12-11-2005, 10:47 AM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Naples, FL
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2018 GLS63 AMG
Originally Posted by Evil Duffman
I dont care for them, they had ****ty transmission back then and still do now. Im not biased towards MB, hell the whole reason I went to test drive the damn CTS was cause I felt like Caddy was finally coming around, but I was wrong, next time I go into their dealership ill make sure to drive the STS-v so i can make all of you happy.
12-11-2005, 01:26 PM
#23
Super Member
Evil Duffman, what do you know about GM transmissions? The fact that a properly driven 4L60E transmission can last an easy 200k miles without any problems?
Or the same transmission in my car has lasted 75k miles and counting, including heavy abuse, daily races, burnouts and manual shifting all day long? I just had the oil changed in the transmission for the first time at 70k miles, and the shop owner said there were NO debris in the filter or oil.
Or how about the same transmission handling over 700HP in a local clubmember's 96 Chevy Impala?
Should I start elaborating about how reliably the GM 4L80E transmission is handling the massive HP a particular twin turbo Impala is putting out, while running 10.9 @ 133 mph in the 1/4?
Get your facts straight before you run your mouth. I second the notion you should drive the cars you are attempting to bash.
Then again, I don't think dealers would let kids like you get behind the wheel.
VelocitE55, sorry for the flame war and thank you for posting the info from the article. I am still waiting for my issue in the mail.
Or the same transmission in my car has lasted 75k miles and counting, including heavy abuse, daily races, burnouts and manual shifting all day long? I just had the oil changed in the transmission for the first time at 70k miles, and the shop owner said there were NO debris in the filter or oil.
Or how about the same transmission handling over 700HP in a local clubmember's 96 Chevy Impala?
Should I start elaborating about how reliably the GM 4L80E transmission is handling the massive HP a particular twin turbo Impala is putting out, while running 10.9 @ 133 mph in the 1/4?
Get your facts straight before you run your mouth. I second the notion you should drive the cars you are attempting to bash.
Then again, I don't think dealers would let kids like you get behind the wheel.
VelocitE55, sorry for the flame war and thank you for posting the info from the article. I am still waiting for my issue in the mail.
Last edited by Roupin; 12-11-2005 at 01:28 PM.
12-12-2005, 05:19 PM
#25
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2005 E55 Delivered 01/07/05
Originally Posted by Evil Duffman
car and driver is BS! i hate that magazine, so baised against MB. The CLS is def a nicer car than M5 and 10000 Times nicer than that POS caddy.
car&driver = garbage
car&driver = garbage
