Here's an interesting comparison article in MT...

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...an_comparison/

 

Butt Ugly vs. The Beast: I know ugly when I see it.STS-v

 

This should sum it up quite nicely. Caddy's numbers on the left and CLS's on the right.

Test Data
Acceleration to mph
0-30 1.9 sec 1.8 sec
0-40 2.7 2.4
0-50 3.7 3.2
0-60 4.8 4.3
0-70 6.3 5.3
0-80 8.0 6.5
0-90 9.8 8.1
0-100 11.9 9.8
Passing 45-65 mph 2.3 sec 2.0 sec
1/4 mile 13.3 sec @ 105.7 mph 12.5 sec @ 114.5 mph

MT fuel econ 17 mpg 18 mpg
Fuel capacity 17.5 gal 21.1 gal

In summary, the CLS is faster, has better fuel mileage, and has a larger fuel tank.

 

Huzzah! Great victory for Mercedes.

 

Dunno about butt ugly OR the beast. I'm not quite ready to consider the CLS as a beast quite yet and the Caddy's STS series has been one of the best looking American cars since it was introduced.

 

Who in their right mind will buy the Caddy over the Mercedes given the slight price difference? The Caddy is ugly as hell and slow compared to the CLS. The cars are not even in the same league. The pricing on the Caddy is way too high given there are much better cars in the same price range. I don't suspect they'll be selling too many new supercharged STS's. No wonder GM is in trouble if this is as good as they can do!!!!

 

It's too bad MB did NOT come up with an E55 to go head-to-head w/the UGLY STS-v... That would be an even better article for us E55 owners... How much heavier is the CLS55 vs E55?

 

As the second poster said, I know Ugly when I see Ugly. That caddy looks like ****. Needless to say, its the best looking one in the bunch within the Cadillac family, with the exception being the Escalade.

Would I buy a slower vehicle when I can spend a few grand more and get a much faster, more prestigious brand, and better performing car all around? No.

 

x2

 

Thank goodness for that fuel tank.

 

count me with jangy too.

i don't know why cadillac's fuel tanks are always so small nowadays. my 02 DTS was kind of annoying in that respect (then again, the tank in my '01 slk 320 was so small i felt the fuel economy was for ****e b/c i was always filling the damn thing up -- and i was getting around 20 mpg on average! (i'm lucky to get 11 now... )). i used to have a '91 fleetwood 60 frontwheeldrive (like the de ville's of their day) and it had a monumentally huge tank. to boot, the 4.9 v8 on that thing delivered 25 mpg on the freeways. if it weren't for a whiny, about-to-die tranny (no, i'm not talking about your girlfriend), i'd have kept that car forever.

i suspect for most people that aren't hyperperformance maniacs, and those who live in flyover country, the sts-v is going to be a great halo for cadillac/GM. a few 10ths of a second isn't so much to most folks, and the looks beat most japanese and american models. additionally, even in socal, i'd rather be driving an xlr (or better, an xlr-V) than an sl55 (notwithstanding the likely superior build of the merc) just for the fact that it's a headturner, whereas sl's are ubiquitous -- everyone and their mama has one in LA/BH. xlr's, although i hate the materials quality on the interior, really do stand out from the crowd on the streets here. if caddy brought a decent-looking station wagon version of the sts-v along, it would've been a nice alternative to consider to the e55. (note: i only said "consider", nothing more)

but the real question is, what's with the apparent preference for that ugly metallic burgundy color among people who buy cadillacs, anyway?

v

 

um, mercedes USA "couldn't come up with" an e55 for the comparo, so they instead sent over their few hundred pounds lighter alternative for comparison instead? puh-leez. sounds like a little running from a fight to me. it wouldn't be a surprise to me if the e55 loses a few tenths of a second to the cls55; at least that's what everyone on these mbworld forums has been saying since the cls55 streeted.

the way i look at it is this: cadillac now makes a car that poses a credible challenge to mercedes and bmw, for what, around $10-20k less? notwithstanding the price, which will be what it is for each brand depending on how effectively they market themselves and make customers believe that their cars are worth $x more, the performance challenge of "lesser brands" like cadillac will only force merc and bmw to reach for higher heights of excellence, lest they lose share to those folks who will begin to believe the differences in performance don't justify the chasm of price difference. this is only going to benefit the performance enthusiast community, i.e., us. to which i say, "bring it on, cadillac!" if the germans are ready for it, we all win. if not, we win anyway and cadillac will have earned its improved status. nothing wrong with that in my book.

 

The CLS is heavier than the E and I don't recall anyone saying that the CLS was running better 1/4 mile times or is quicker than the E55. The E55 would have beat the Caddy by an even larger margin than the CLS. I don't call close to 1 second behind at the end of the 1/4 mile a close race, puh-leez!

I think the XLR is about the only decent looking Caddy on the market but I know I'd choose the SL anyday over the XLR. Go ahead and get your XLR and let us know what it's worth in five or six years.

 

i agree that the caddy was plenty slower, but i could've sworn people on the forum were talking about the cls' lighter weight. so i was wrong, in which case yeah, the e55 would be even more brutal to the sts than the cls was.

still, close to 1 second or not, "puh-leez", i can say from experience that the visceral thrill of performance that i get in my e55 was equally present in ordinary non-track everyday city and *****-out freeway driving when i had my 2003 s type R jaguar. the jag had way less hp and torque, and is by any measure smoked like herring by any blown amg, so there it is. in any event, i'd reckon that faced with a $20k price difference ("priced with options", wherein merc charges $5k extra for everything), many ordinary non-performance-freak people would test drive both, figure they could put the $20k in their retirement accounts and take home the sts-v. that goes double if gm leans into those ridiculous giveaway incentives on the V cars. that leaves the rest of us, for whom owning a merc is its own reward. i loved my cadillacs, but i've felt more passionate about my merc's.

as for the xlr-v and what it's worth in 5 years, no need to get hostile! the allante's a fine benchmark for the worthlessness of cadillacs after drive-off. then again, you can get a minty clean 2002 SL500 with low miles (like a silver arrow) for well under $40k now, those having been $80-90k cars... memo: in 5 years, nothing's worth a damn automotive-wise. personally, i'd wait the 3-5 years and buy up one of the cleaner models, xlr, sl, whatever, for the depreciated price and enjoy it for the duration. that's the plan with my e55 wagon, although i bought it new (rarity dictated the big spend) - i plan to have that thing for at least 10 years, after which point it'll be more hassle to sell than to keep on driving.

of course, in 5 years, an xlr will look as awfully sharp-edged and dated as, say, the current 5-series bimmer (or the z4) will, and who's going to want any of that?!!!

best,
v

 

I considered this car, but in the end, I didn't like the image. I really don't think it holds a candle to the E55, but I it clearly has a good engine and plenty of creature comforts.

However, while the MSRP is about $15,000 less than a comparably equipped E55, it actually turns out to be MORE expensive on a leased basis, especially considering that there's limited disounting available on the Caddy (because it's new), and factoring in last month's lease promo. However, it does look like GM is supporting their lease program with a low lease rate (about 3.5%?), and a high residual (55% for 48 months/12,000 miles/year compared to MB's current residual on the E55 for 48 months/12,000 miles of 49%).

With no money down, I am actually paying less per month on a $97K+ MSRP E55 than I would have to pay if I had leased the STS-V. So, it's not even close....still, it's good to know that the E55 is indeed considerably faster.

 

The author of this article goofed. (maybe on purpose, to make the Caddy look equal which it is not) They quoted that both cars weigh ~4300 pounds. This changes the power to weight ratio quoted in the article also. The CLS55 is virtually the same weight as the E55, 4000 lbs. The specs they use are for the CL55. So much for unbiased reporting.

 

like all cadillacs, though, depending on how build quality endures after initial quality (which is rated quite high for cadillacs - higher so than merc's as of a couple years ago), if one's taste can tolerate the appearance, the sts-v (and all cadillacs) are wonderful cars to buy second hand. their owners are usually a little older, they take a huge depreciation bath after initial sale, and parts and service are plentiful and cheap. i've only ever bought caddy's secondhand, so i should've qualified my earlier comments; i do think that the cadillac is probably the best secondhand value going. on the other hand, when one factors in all the computer-techno gadgetry in the newer models, it's not as clear whether they'll enjoy a tangible advantage on costs-to-repair after the warranty expires; if not, it all gets tossed up again...

 

These AMG cars sure take a huge depresciation hit, after the sale, and on and on.

Notably, the Cadillac lease uses a higher residual value (lower depreciation rate) on the STS-V than MB does on the E55.

 

As a former CTS-V owner, I'm biased against the STS-V. Caddy went the wrong direction by moving away from the Corvette powerplants. The notion of a 500 HP N/A pushrod V8 in a sedan under the Cadillac brand is far more interesting to me than this STS-V package.

The E55 would have trounced this thing even harder than the CLS did. Nearly a full second in the quarter is so extreme a difference that it is pointless to compare the two cars. That's really an absurd difference in speed to put them in the same category.

Now if GM managed to stuff the new Z06 powerplant into a refined CTS-V type car, they'd have something to write about. Assuming they can fix the wheel hop and differential breakage, of course. But the STS-V is a step backwards from the CTS-V IMO. Less mod-able, more expenisve and (I'm guessing) high-maintenance, and clearly not keeping with a platform that has been around almost unchanged since 2003...

Skeeter

 

you raise in interesting point, and perhaps i'm taking this too far off-topic, but i always thought the current STS, which is what, an '05 (or '04?) model, was pretty novel all the way under the skin. is it true then, that instead it's a replay of the 98 onwards chassis and drivetrain, reskinned plus maybe the magnetic ride suspension? i was of the impression that the northstar's been reworked (not just the blown "v" version) and the tranny's new too.

in light of this "getting their feet wet in this marketspace" maneuvre, it's hard to fault cadillac for going with the blown northstar over the z06 ballbreaker (although it would be fun if they made it available as an option); isn't it a universe removed when it comes to the sound/feel of the engines' idle, etc? the smoother-edged motor comports with the idea that the sts is "more mature" than the cts, for what the marketing dept. at GM thinks it's worth...

v