CTS-V , Thoughts ?
#31
06-08-2011, 06:17 PM
Exactly! People are having to reach DEEP into their pockets to find a car that can match the overall package of GM's sleeper!
#32
06-08-2011, 06:34 PM
Awesome deal for one hell of a car!
Then again, I'm not sure I'd want to worry about buying a new motor off of warranty...
#33
06-08-2011, 07:09 PM
5) I wouldn't buy a Panamera Turbo or S at it's current price, but might consider it if it were priced closer to a CTS-V. Statement of a "real car guy" only choosing CTS-V over Panamera is idiotic. It's a PORSCHE. Cadillac doesn't have a fraction of the pedigree in this arena or racing if you want to go there.
(See Lexus LS, Maybach, Kia Optima, Maserati Quattroporte for reference)
*edit: I believe the Cadillac CTS-V has raced a LOT more than the Porsche Panamera. Does anybody race the Porsche?
Last edited by jaspergtr; 06-09-2011 at 05:46 AM.
#35
06-09-2011, 05:51 AM
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...794f21629b.pdf
Not sure what claims haven't been met. Both Car & Driver and Road & Track have tested the CTS-V (automatics) to 0-60 in 3.9s and 12.2s 1/4 mile times. Technically the CTS-V manuals have a top speed of 191mph. So it is still "faster" than a Panamera Turbo S's 190mph top speed (which also has a base price of over $100K more than a CTS-V). I guess the Bentley Flying Spur might have claim to the "fastest sedan" record, with a 200mph top speed. However, Cadillac qualified their claim by saying "fastest production sedan". Maybe they don't consider the Flying Spur to be a "production sedan", but I would think it is....
Tom
http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...794f21629b.pdf
Not sure what claims haven't been met. Both Car & Driver and Road & Track have tested the CTS-V (automatics) to 0-60 in 3.9s and 12.2s 1/4 mile times. Technically the CTS-V manuals have a top speed of 191mph. So it is still "faster" than a Panamera Turbo S's 190mph top speed (which also has a base price of over $100K more than a CTS-V). I guess the Bentley Flying Spur might have claim to the "fastest sedan" record, with a 200mph top speed. However, Cadillac qualified their claim by saying "fastest production sedan". Maybe they don't consider the Flying Spur to be a "production sedan", but I would think it is....
Tom
E60 M5
has been verified to run over 200mph w/o the limiter
#36
06-09-2011, 05:52 AM
Because now we're talking about modded cars.
#37
06-09-2011, 09:41 AM
Bingo! I didn't forget the M5. BMW chose to impose that speed limiter at the factory...as did MB and Audi. Although AMG offers the "Performance Package" option on most of their models now which raise the speed governors to 186mph on their most powerful models.
Tom
#38
06-09-2011, 09:55 AM
An S65 is a great car...and depending on the specific car...a great deal of a performance bargain. However, there are some hidden costs that need to be factored in.... what the mileage is on those sub-$50K S65's is going to skew the comparison. You can buy a used CTS-V with similar mileage to those S65 for even less money. Plus, the CTS-V will likely still have the remainder of the factory 6yr/100K mile powertrain warranty...the S65 likely will not. The S65 will likely also need the brakes done which is a $4-5K job from the stealership. The CTS-V brakes are less than half that price.
The ABC suspension on the 65's are a known issue. Unless you go out and buy an extended warranty, you will need to set aside a nice chunk of money to repair the ABC. Most aftermarket companies no longer warranty the V12TT MBs... and the ones that do are asking around $6K for the warranty (my CL65 had about $6K of ABC issues paid for by my aftermarket warranty which cost me $3K at the time when I purchased it, but that was while the manufacturer's warranty was still in effect).
One other thought is that an '06 S65 weighs about 200lbs more than my '05 CL65. That extra weight will not benefit the handling of the S65. My CTS-V is light years better suspension wise than the CL65 (both comfort and handling wise). I can only imagine how much worse the S65 handles with added weight.
Tom
The ABC suspension on the 65's are a known issue. Unless you go out and buy an extended warranty, you will need to set aside a nice chunk of money to repair the ABC. Most aftermarket companies no longer warranty the V12TT MBs... and the ones that do are asking around $6K for the warranty (my CL65 had about $6K of ABC issues paid for by my aftermarket warranty which cost me $3K at the time when I purchased it, but that was while the manufacturer's warranty was still in effect).
One other thought is that an '06 S65 weighs about 200lbs more than my '05 CL65. That extra weight will not benefit the handling of the S65. My CTS-V is light years better suspension wise than the CL65 (both comfort and handling wise). I can only imagine how much worse the S65 handles with added weight.
Tom
#39
06-09-2011, 12:05 PM
Tim
one point your forgetting. the v can 't even come close to seating 4 people in comfort. in reality, it's a 4 door 2-3 passenger car max. in the S65 you can fit 5 with still lot's of room for everyone. the ride in the s65 in general will be comfortable as well in everyday driving situations.
i do agree with many of the other points you've brought up. i owned a 05 cts-v back in the day(horrible car with lot's of issues)
On another point, whether it's the older body or newer body V i don't view them as great looking cars and they don't have much curb appeal.
p.s. your GT-R looks amazing!!
one point your forgetting. the v can 't even come close to seating 4 people in comfort. in reality, it's a 4 door 2-3 passenger car max. in the S65 you can fit 5 with still lot's of room for everyone. the ride in the s65 in general will be comfortable as well in everyday driving situations.
i do agree with many of the other points you've brought up. i owned a 05 cts-v back in the day(horrible car with lot's of issues)
On another point, whether it's the older body or newer body V i don't view them as great looking cars and they don't have much curb appeal.
p.s. your GT-R looks amazing!!
Last edited by BOOMER7; 06-09-2011 at 12:36 PM.
#40
06-09-2011, 01:03 PM
FWIW I traded my 05 Turbo S Cab on an 11 CTS V Coupe and (for me) I could not be happier with the trade. I loved my Porsche for sure, but I get FAR more compliments at the pump on the V than I ever did on the P-Car.
Performance wise, ( I ) cant corner the caddy as well as I could the porsche, but other than that, the V is more impressive to me.
My Cab had an exhaust and tune and was pushing 550hp, after coming back from Lingenfelter, my V is pushing 630 and delivers it with zero drama, it's just one long unreal pull that never stops.
To each his own and I'll admit to always have been a muscle car freak over the more 'refined?" euro cars, but I'll stick with my V, thanks :-)
Performance wise, ( I ) cant corner the caddy as well as I could the porsche, but other than that, the V is more impressive to me.
My Cab had an exhaust and tune and was pushing 550hp, after coming back from Lingenfelter, my V is pushing 630 and delivers it with zero drama, it's just one long unreal pull that never stops.
To each his own and I'll admit to always have been a muscle car freak over the more 'refined?" euro cars, but I'll stick with my V, thanks :-)
#41
06-09-2011, 01:47 PM
Tim
one point your forgetting. the v can 't even come close to seating 4 people in comfort. in reality, it's a 4 door 2-3 passenger car max. in the S65 you can fit 5 with still lot's of room for everyone. the ride in the s65 in general will be comfortable as well in everyday driving situations.
i do agree with many of the other points you've brought up. i owned a 05 cts-v back in the day(horrible car with lot's of issues)
On another point, whether it's the older body or newer body V i don't view them as great looking cars and they don't have much curb appeal.
p.s. your GT-R looks amazing!!
one point your forgetting. the v can 't even come close to seating 4 people in comfort. in reality, it's a 4 door 2-3 passenger car max. in the S65 you can fit 5 with still lot's of room for everyone. the ride in the s65 in general will be comfortable as well in everyday driving situations.
i do agree with many of the other points you've brought up. i owned a 05 cts-v back in the day(horrible car with lot's of issues)
On another point, whether it's the older body or newer body V i don't view them as great looking cars and they don't have much curb appeal.
p.s. your GT-R looks amazing!!
)I have a CTS-V sedan. The car is defintely comfortable for 4 people (including driver). I don't think I have ever had the need to stuff 5 people in the CTS-V...so to me the S65's extra space is a waste ...especially when it comes at a cost of 500+lbs over the CTS-V.
People's personal preference on the looks...is just that...personal preference. I personally love the aggressive lines of the CTS-V... others don't.... so to each their own!
Tom
#42
06-09-2011, 04:50 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Florida Runway's
Posts: 413
Rep Power: 33 
I've had 3 chicks in the back seat of a 2nd gen V(legal chicks-) and one in the front,...if you need more room then that, your on some serious drugs, and you probably shoudn't be driving in the first place. 
I have also had to larger adults in the back of both gen CTS-V's,,,, easily possible, not at all uncomfortable...
I have also had to larger adults in the back of both gen CTS-V's,,,, easily possible, not at all uncomfortable...
#43
06-12-2011, 04:57 AM
Fact follow-up from my previous "here-say" of posted #'s comes from the road test summary in the July 2011 Road & Track: CTS-V coupe & wagon having identical weight (surprising) ran 4.3 0-60, 9.9 0-100 and 12.6 in the quarter. Panamera Turbo (not S) ran 3.4, 8.4 and 11.7, so in these particular tests, my "left for dead" statement is dead-on accurate. Your mileage may vary ...
#44
06-12-2011, 06:01 AM
Fact follow-up from my previous "here-say" of posted #'s comes from the road test summary in the July 2011 Road & Track: CTS-V coupe & wagon having identical weight (surprising) ran 4.3 0-60, 9.9 0-100 and 12.6 in the quarter. Panamera Turbo (not S) ran 3.4, 8.4 and 11.7, so in these particular tests, my "left for dead" statement is dead-on accurate. Your mileage may vary ...
#45
06-12-2011, 06:15 AM
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kuwait
Posts: 68
Rep Power: 16
Sorry for delay Gents , here's what happened !!!
I went to the dealer , had a seat , talked about the car ( CTS-V ) while the others was checking My M6 , and here's the shock
The CTS-V prices : $89,197.945
and they give my M6 a crappy price
: $40,000
besides no discounts on the CTS-V and no higher price for my M6 !!!
What's the problem ?? don't you wanna sell the car ?? so i left and forgot about the CTS-V after this stealer's crappy prices
Tomorrow my M6 will be sold for $54,000 for a friend
I went to the dealer , had a seat , talked about the car ( CTS-V ) while the others was checking My M6 , and here's the shock
The CTS-V prices : $89,197.945
and they give my M6 a crappy price
: $40,000 besides no discounts on the CTS-V and no higher price for my M6 !!!
What's the problem ?? don't you wanna sell the car ?? so i left and forgot about the CTS-V after this stealer's crappy prices
Tomorrow my M6 will be sold for $54,000 for a friend