Just wondering if anybody has found a road test between these two cars? I have a 2012 AMG Wagon and before that a 2012 CTS-V Wagon. The Amg feels like it pulls harder and pretty sure it is around 3 to 4 tenths faster in the quartermile. there was a motor trend test between these two cars with a half mile drag race and the AMG beat the CTS-V by a good 5 car lengths in a half mile. So we know the AMG is faster, but what about a road course?. In the motor trend test they took around some corners but did not pit the two cars against each other. I have the feeling the V might handle just a tad bit better based on my experience, but would the AMG's speed be enough to overcome the V's advantage in the corners? For all I know both cars might be just as fast in the corners in which case the AMG should easily beat the V. Anybody any info? Just curious. I do like the AMG wagon much better than my V wagon, more efficient, faster (just has a lot more raw power feel than the V) and I can fit a lot more in it due to a higher and wider cargo area. I also like the sound of the AMG much better and the higher quality materials, to me the AMG wins hands down even though most tests just seem to talk about performance and price, there is so much more to a car than just those two things. The electronics are much more advanced in the AMG too and it has a lot more bells and whistles.

 

Thanks for this. I've always wondered whether or not I made the right choice between the two. After 15 months I'm very pleased with car.

 

This may help you, but I think the E63 has a m156 engine. http://www.caranddriver.com/features...to-2012-page-8

 

Motor Trend comparo between the two in the mountain and air field...

2012 MB E63 Wagon vs 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Wagon

 

Yep, I've seen that video a few times, that's where I got that the AMG beat the CTS-V by around 5 lengths in the 1/2 mile. I wish they'd run a road course instead of just saying they thought the V handled a little bit better.

In the Car and Driver numbers the CLS 63 AMG is around 9/10's of a second slower on the road course than the CTS-V sedan but it does not say if the CLS had the P30 package and also the E 63 AMG is lighter and should be faster than the CLS, so still not sure how the E63 AMG would do on a road course in relation to the V other than it would be really close. Perhaps if the AMG had the Michelin Super Sport Tires it would be even faster around a road course, I think it would be and maybe give the AMG the real advantage. I think for anything the AMG lost in the corners it would more than make up for it on the straights with the TT engine.

The other thing about the E63 AMG over the V is much better engineering and build quality. The V's are having all kinds of crazy problems like Whining rear ends (I had to have mine replaced at 6000 miles, clicking wheels, alignment issues. Also the AMG is just so much more comfortable, the seats you can really get comfortable in, with the V I was constantly adjusting the seats and just could never get really comfortable.

 

I have owned both V sedan and currently 2012 E63.

The V is a much better handling car and was very surprised on my first test drive. Feels very flat through corners and just hugs the ground. I much more enojoyed taking the V on canyon runs compared to the AMG. AMG is big and heavy and is really a straight line car. V feels more like a coupe than sedan

The AMG of course is a much nicer car overall. Fit and finish is significantly better. I sold the V for the AMG


[

QUOTE=2012 merc amg;5741563]Just wondering if anybody has found a road test between these two cars? I have a 2012 AMG Wagon and before that a 2012 CTS-V Wagon. The Amg feels like it pulls harder and pretty sure it is around 3 to 4 tenths faster in the quartermile. there was a motor trend test between these two cars with a half mile drag race and the AMG beat the CTS-V by a good 5 car lengths in a half mile. So we know the AMG is faster, but what about a road course?. In the motor trend test they took around some corners but did not pit the two cars against each other. I have the feeling the V might handle just a tad bit better based on my experience, but would the AMG's speed be enough to overcome the V's advantage in the corners? For all I know both cars might be just as fast in the corners in which case the AMG should easily beat the V. Anybody any info? Just curious. I do like the AMG wagon much better than my V wagon, more efficient, faster (just has a lot more raw power feel than the V) and I can fit a lot more in it due to a higher and wider cargo area. I also like the sound of the AMG much better and the higher quality materials, to me the AMG wins hands down even though most tests just seem to talk about performance and price, there is so much more to a car than just those two things. The electronics are much more advanced in the AMG too and it has a lot more bells and whistles.[/QUOTE]

 

CTS-V Wagon in Diamond White has really caught my attention lately. Anyone have any additional comments good or bad?

Thx

 

I would not do it if I were you, I had a 2013 CTS-V Wagon and had all kinds of issues and lived at the gas station with the horrible gas mileage and small fuel tank. I like my MB E63 AMG wagon so much better even though I stepped down a year to a 2012 and payed an extra 20 grand it was well worth it. So much more room in the E63 wagon too, the CTS-V is very low in the back and you can't fit much stuff in the back. The build quality is so much better on the AMG too, you get what you pay for. I think my Amg handles great, especially with the new bridgestone Pole Position tires I had put on 5 K miles ago.

 

I can't wait to see what the '16 CTS-V is going to be like.

 

I have a 2012 Diamond white CTS-V wagon as a DD car, wich I also track and do some 1/4 mile drags with, so after 30 months and 23K I can say this is a great bang for the buck car that does almost everything well, even going through 3 cold Quebec winters.
Nothing ever broke (so far) and no warranty issues, all maintenance is free for 4 years.
The ride and handling is really fine and one of the best combo. On a prepped track I did a 1/4 mile in 12.02 at 115 6 mph all stock, and at the Mont-Tremblant track I can keep pace with Carrera 4S, Camaro SS, Boss 302 and 360 Ferrari, the G meeter reading from 1.0 up to 1.10 G. Drawbacks : Yes, the gas tank is small, exhaust too quiet, and on the track the brakes become the main weakness, but for $70 to 80K it offers a lot.
Having said this, I also feel that the E63 S is a better car in almost all aspects but it's also pricier. In the end you get what you pay for, and if you can afford it, the AMG is the one I'm now shopping for.

 

I have a 2014 E63s Renntech tuned to about 580 at the crank. I put some Hoosier R6 265/295 s on it. The 4 wheel drive is phenomenal . I ran in the advance group at PBIR, nobody but a Porsche GT3 passed me.

 

The 6-speed CTS-V sedan is faster and more enjoyable on a normal road course than the E63 AMG. Its not a knock on the E63... I love my E63pp wagon and wouldnt buy a <2014 CTS-V again (I have the Z for the track).

A couple things that soured ownership of the CTS-V...

1. In traffic, thats a heavy clutch. The LSA clutch gets really annoying after 1/2 an hour of stop/go traffic and the CTS-V automatic is terrible.

2. The mileage. Wow oh wow. I dont think I averaged over 12.5 in any normal commuting. The E63 is no champ, but the CTS-V drives like there a hole in the tank. The final drive ratio obviously has something to do with it.

3. Its a small car. One thing Im surprised no one has mentioned is the difference between the space in the CTS-V vs the E63 (especially the wagon). The CTS-V wagon is not an especially "cargo oriented" wagon. The E63 feels significantly more roomy and open inside.

One thing the CTS-V does miles better than the E63 is the variable suspension dampening. That Caddy could go from butter smooth to track hard at the flip of a switch. I'm not sure I've ever had a car with a more capable suspension, ever. The E63 varies between firm and almost track hard.

My E-wagon has options like distronic, fancy massaging seat, etc, etc, which the CTS-V never had, and I like those options a lot.

The CTS-V is an amazing $70k car, the E63 is an amazing $100k car.

 

Well said

 

I do agree about the comment on the suspension the CTS-V, it is amazing, I'm very surprised that Mercedes does not the Magnetic ride shocks. I'm not crazy at all about the air ride suspension on the benz, not all that good over the bumps and I just know it's gonna be problems down the road the way it is constantly cycling after the car is turned off and all. The CTS-V I had did ride a lot better than the Benz and ya, probably did handle a little bit better on the real tough stuff like hairpin turns going fast. I do like the feel of the MB though much better, the CTS-V felt very numb to me with no road feel. With the benz steering you get a better feel of the road conditions. I would never go back to Cadillac at this point, I don't care what they come out with. I had a 2012 CTS-V sedan and then the 2013 Wagon and I did not like either one of those cars much.

 

MB really needs to go to magnetic system, which a lot of makers are using, including Ferrari. Air bellows and all that hissings just don't sound right on a performance car.

The CTS-V, both sedan and wagon, does have a cramp feel. I think the actual interior dimensions are also smaller. But there is no denying that CTS-V is a great bang for the buck.

 

I guess that one of the biggest problems for the CTS-V with me, it is cramped, I'm a big guy, 6-3 and 230 lbs, the Benz is much more comfortable, I guess the V would be good for someone under 6 feet and 200 lbs though, kinda like the Camaro too.

 

Ferrari bought the rights to use the magnetic ride technology from GM.
If you cant beat them, join them !