Cadillac Has Turned The Tables With The CTS-V So Who Needs An IS-F Or Even A M5?

I think they limit their claim to the fastest around the ring.

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 11:25:12 AM | | Votes: 5   

"These acceleration times are believed to be the fastest for any V-8-powered sedan currently in production."

in the above article...

— abupu (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 11:25:26 AM | | Votes: 3   

since when did the RS4 become the fastest sedan...its not even the fastest in its class...........maybe thats a typo...

— bmwdrvr (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 11:45:24 AM | | Votes: 7   

everything is speculative until someone other than Cadillac can prove their claims ... until then, I am fastes person on the planet and can leap over the highest buildings

— BMW4me4ever (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 2:17:08 PM | | Votes: -2   

BMW4...there is a video posted of the 'Ring run, and several auto journalists have ridden in the car as they proved their claims in Michigan...so...what exactly constitues validation for you?

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 3:36:51 PM | | Votes: 4   

since when does a video by Cadillac justify that the info is 100% correct. The journalists, in the articles just stated what Cadillac had printed for them already.

This is just like the IS-F, right before it debuted. Every lexus fan boy came out in droves to proclaim that the M3 is dead and the IS-F is the new supercar. That was until the " actual comparison test came out ", BMW M3 was still standing while the IS-F was picking up its parts since it had its doors blown off.

Just wait and see

— BMW4me4ever (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 5:24:21 PM | | Votes: -4   

BMW4me4ever,

Do you also negate all the GT-R buzz because only Nissan has driven it at speed on the Ring?

— 91z4me (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 5:33:38 PM | | Votes: 1   

For the record, I really like the new Cadillac a lot. They have improved tremendously in the past few years. I even (gasp!) test drove one.

— klipprand (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 6:23:58 PM | | Votes: 2   

91z4 - difference is that the GT-R has been tested by every magazine and has been proven to be everything that it was said to be. Huge difference

— BMW4me4ever (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 7:10:12 PM | | Votes: -1   

The RS4 has been reported to have clocked a best time of 7.55 around the "Ring." Don't hate the messenger as I'm not trying to downplay the CTS-V n anyway, I just read about the RS4's time & realized that it's indeed quicker than the CTS-V's time.

— MunichRob (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 8:57:11 PM | | Votes: -1   

MunichRob that was a possibly modified RS4 that also had slicks I believe. Think they might have been available stock, but I have seen much speculation that thing wasn't for sure fully stock.

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 10:25:57 PM | | Votes: 1   

BMW4, the video proves the lap time.

The journalists I am referring to rode along with the drivers as they ran 3.9 0-60's and 12 sec 1/4 miles at the Michigan proving grounds.

Non-GM people have validated both "claims" so therefore, they are true. I'm not sure what is so hard to see here...

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 8:39:25 AM | | Votes: 3   

bmw4me4ever

I usually agree with what you have to say but now you are way off. i own a bmw also, but in no way do i believe an m3 can be compared to the new CTS-V, the Cadi is in a different league. What dont you believe about the video?? After years of overstating performance figures, GM is now doing ther complete opposite. Look at the Vette ZR1, they said it was going to be rated at 600-620hp max, and the dyno showed almost 640hp, the numbers for trhe cts-v were supposed to 540-550max and there almost at 560.

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 11:08:30 AM | | Votes: 3   

Huh? The RS4 is awesome but it's definitely not the fastest sedan in the world. That happens to be the Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG at the moment.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 1:15:15 AM | | Votes: 2   

no its not........the STS-V is hence the 80,000+ asking price vs the CTS-V which cant be anymore than 60-65 grand the last one was in the high 40's-low 50's...Its just bigger than the other cars like the ES, G35 or TL is

— bmwdrvr (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 11:48:31 AM | | Votes: 4   

EL44- I guess some people just seem to not like a direct question. Why pander around? I just go out there and say what I think and let the chip fall as they may.

At least everyone knows my opinion, and hopefully if they differ or agree they express their own.

However Caddy has become a force to be considered. Many of our articles focus on BMW, Lexus, Merc, and sometimes Audi. Caddy rarely is mentioned as much, and maybe they should be.

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 12:55:16 PM | | Votes: 4   

I repeat it again Agent009. This Caddy seems to be a great car. I personnaly like the new shape of Caddy's. I have told just directly what i thougt about the title.

— EL44 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 1:02:29 PM | | Votes: 2   

bmwdrvr, the STS-V may cost more but it's much less of a car. It's actually the size of a 7 Series for a 5 Series price, and has about 470hp. The CTS-V is a much better comparison to the M5 because it's a similar size, but with more power.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 1:18:50 AM | | Votes: 1   

Pull up next to it in your car and tell the driver that and see what happens...I really hope you are being sarcastic.

So what?! So it doesn't rev to 8300rpm, with all that supercharged low-end grunt, you don't need a high revving motor to get the desired power. It's a different kind of motor....

The s2000 has a redline in the 8k-9k range (depending on year) but has no torque....given it's a tiny motor to begin with, it HAS to rev that high.

The CTS-V does not need to. Accept it.

— jeeka715 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 12:00:59 PM | | Votes: 14   

"I really hope you are being sarcastic."

No, jeeka, I was completely serious when I said 6200rpm is impressive for a 'modern' engine.

I have no problems with the CTS-V, it will be a damn fast car at a great price - good job Caddy. Personally, I prefer engines that inspire and excite; high revving, high strung motors come to mind. Of course, we all have our preferences. This FI V8 doesn't seem like the type that makes car enthusiasts go wild.

And thanks for the silly lecture on torque/rpms/hp. You can save that for your 9th grade science class show and tell.

— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 12:43:55 PM | | Votes: -9   

Henbmw

Out of this amazing article, you manage to mention the 6200 rpm redline?? You like engines that "Inspire and excite" Let me put it in the simplest way for you. An engines main job is to provide propulsion. The measure of this is is effiecency and speed. If you have a cadiallac that hits the querter mile in under 12 seconds and a BMW that does it close to 13 seconds, the Caddialc is much faster thus to most people that equels more excitement. My 335i destroys my friends honda s2000, yet the fact that the s2000 revs about 2000 rpms more per minute than my 335 offers him nothing more in terms of excitement, except watching me fly by while his car is eating more gas and going slower. So what the F@#$ are you talking about? be a lil more objective and poeple will take you more seriuosly.

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 11:29:03 AM | | Votes: 1   

Grabbing for straws, I see.

Love the M3. Saw a white M3 sedan in the city today--really, beautiful. But they can't be compared. Don't embarrass yourself.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 1:20:06 AM | | Votes: 2   

Common- Take me more seriously? Your naivety is painful to read but let me attempt to enlighten you (however impossible that may be).

It is quite apparent from your idiotic post that you have no clue what makes a car exciting. A FAST car does not equal a FUN car in any way or form. A Mercedes AMG SL65 is stupid fast but most people will say that an Exige, R8, 911 Turbo etc would be more FUN to drive.

WHY are these cars more fun??? Because everything in them is more sports driven; THE ENGINE BEING THE MOST ESSENTIAL PART. Rather than the lazy torque that the AMG produces, the others create power in ways that allow the driver to pull it from the engine, rewarding them in ways the AMG does not.

I must say that your argument that "my 335i is faster than a S2000 and therefor more exciting" is one of the more disturbingly retarded fallacies I have ever heard on this site. You would honestly have to be out of your mind to believe that a 335i can equal to fun factor of a S2000.

I certainly hope your name isn't meant to refer to yourself.

— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 6/15/2008 1:56:44 PM | | Votes: 1   

I don't think people look at mileage in this class.

— MtlMotors (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 1:23:16 PM | | Votes: 17   

Actually I think the CTS will get better mileage. All the torque from the pushrod V8 will allow a super tall 6th gear like the vette. Rather than closely spaced gear ratios, the torque of the engine will compensate allowwing 5th and 6th to be taller

— 85bmw745i (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 7:19:09 PM | | Votes: 3   

and a Honda Fit get more mpg than an IS-f, you buying one?

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 11:30:03 AM | | Votes: 4   

You think the CTS-V looks better than an M5????? Even more you think the M5 is ugly????? WOW!

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 3:07:31 PM | | Votes: -10   

If I thought the M5 looked better, then I'd be on acid right about now. how on earth does it even look better than the cts-v? please elaborate. it looks more asian than asian cars themselves, even if it has the BMW badge.

— Htay7500 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 4:20:45 PM | | Votes: 4   

The CTS-V looks like an advertisement for "pimp my ride" while the M5 is design masterpiece. I don't know where the confusion is.

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 4:54:54 PM | | Votes: -10   

um masterpiece? wouldn't that be a ferrari? just because it has the BMW badge doesn't really make it beautiful.

— Htay7500 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 5:28:44 PM | | Votes: 4   

Not all Ferraris are design masterpieces and of course not all BMWs. This has nothing to do with the badge. I would never say the X3 is a design masterpiece but the M5 is simply gorgeous. 5-6 years from now you will see that I'm right. The current M5 is going to be a classic and the CTS-V is just going to look cheap and dated.

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 6:13:53 PM | | Votes: -5   

Actually, I really love the way the E60 M5 looks... Something about it so sinister but so elegant. Maybe a tad too subtle in dark colors.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 1:21:09 AM | | Votes: 2   

The CTS-V and M5 are BOTH gorgeous cars. There. I said it.

— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 6/15/2008 10:52:48 PM | | Votes: 1   

damnit! keyboard sucks!

— jeeka715 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 1:45:59 PM | | Votes: -1   

Yes, the Americans have had some recent successes. The Z06, CTS-V, G8, 'Stang are all world class cars. But lets not get ahead of ourselves. Japanese and Europeans still create the best cars on the planet.

— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 6/15/2008 10:56:22 PM | | Votes: 1   

In that case change your name from AutoPro to AutoHoe

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 11:32:21 AM | | Votes: 6   

Well, if you still think American cars suck, consider this the exception. What's not to like? It looks stunning, has a well-made and attractive interior, an incredible engine, great handling, the heritage of a Vette and what will most likely be a good price.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 1:23:13 AM | | Votes: 3   

Well said. To bad people have hate towards something without having a clue about its true capabilities. these people dont seem like Auto enthusiast, rather marketing reps for auto companies.

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 3:01:54 AM | | Votes: 2   

True... but Cadillac is making a concious effort to increase the perceived value and prestige of their brand. That means NOT playing the value card, and using prestige pricing.

They started with the XLR (more expensive than SC430), and continued with the 2007 Escalade (more expensive than GL450). I think CTS-V is an appropriate place to take it to the next level. It's the type of car that enthusiastic customers will pay premiums for anyway.

Hopefully, in ten years or so, people will be used to the idea of Cadillacs commanding the same price as MB or BMW. It's hard to be truly prestigious when your customers come into your showroom in search of a relative bargain.

Everybody knows, if you want a Benz, it's going to cost you dearly. Cadillac would like to be the same.

And considering the horspower gap and larger interior space, the CTS-V is still a relative bargain.

— pushrod27 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 8:06:38 PM | | Votes: 4   

pushrod - I know the XLR was more expensive, but drive a few years old and it rattles and shakes like it was put together with glue. As compared to a Mercedes SL or BMW 6-series, those vehicles are rock solid even after a few years to 10 years.

CTS-V is a bargain, but so is the M3 sedan. M3 sedan is a heck of a buy. pound for pound the best on the planet. I sat in the new CTS, I am 6'2", and although it is larger than the predessor it is not as big inside as a 5-series or E-class. Actually, shoulder room is alot less ( 3" in the rear and over 1" up front ) than even the M3. It also has less headroom in the rear seats than the M3. It really is a 3-series, Audi A4 , Mercedes C-class competitor ...

— BMW4me4ever (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 8:38:12 PM | | Votes: -3   

So what JRobUSC is saying is that he is a follower and not a leader. He can only buy a car the pack has defined as the most desirable. He is a BADGE WHORE!

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 11:12:20 PM | | Votes: 1   

As for BMW4me4ever the CTS has near identical dimensions to the 5. The smaller shoulder and headroom is simply a by product of the more extreme design of the CTS with more tumblehome and more couped out aft roof line.

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 6/12/2008 11:19:49 PM | | Votes: 1   

jasaero, if you want to call me names that's fine. I said I thought the CTS-V would sell, and I like the car. HOWEVER, if it's my money and I am spending the same for the Caddy as I would for a BMW, Benz, or Audi (and when the CTS-V coupe comes out, you can add Porsche), I'd rather have one of those. That's just life, those are higher end brands than Cadillac and if money is the same, most people will choose them. You called me a follower instead of a leader. Well, when it comes to cars I want to DRIVE the leader, not BE one. I'll happily play "follow the leader" if it gets me the better vehicle, and those other cars ARE the leaders in the segment. But it's your money, do what you want with it. Just do yourself a few favors so people will take you more seriously:

1) Don't confuse "leader" with "rebel". Going against the norm just because you want to be different doesn't make you a leader.

2) Don't make excuses for the CTS's interior dimensions -- tumblehome and couped out roof? No. There's nothing coupe-like about the CTS sedan, it's just small inside considering how big it is outside.

3) Don't use the XLR as some kind of statement for how great Cadillac has become. The XLR is a sales disaster, the reviews are poor, and after a few years they rattle, creak, and groan like they're about to fall apart. That's not the car that's going to convince anyone Caddy is on the same playing field as "ze Germans", if anything it does the opposite.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 7:54:36 AM | | Votes: 4   

JROBUSC

You are an auto enthusiast in disguise. "BUT for the same money, I'd rather drive one of the German cars if for no other reason than they're more prestigious" Who CARES?? I own a 335i just because its a faster and better car than a g35. A year ago i wouldnt even consider a 330i over a g35, just because it was a worse performer. WHY should cadillac charge less than a m3???? Performace wise, the CTS-v Blows it out of the water, interior is MUCH NICER. The interior in my 335 is like a sad funeral home, where as the cadillacs and infinitis is much more exciting. A Co-worker of mine just pruchased the 300 hp cts, the guy owned last owned an a8 and then a 530i for the last 3 years. It took me 3 weeks to convince to go test drive one, and it took him one day after driving it, to decide to purchase it, the main resaon is his wife is also a Doctor, and her ego couldnt allow herself to jump from the german marks to Cadi. Once they drove it and their combined ignorance was overcome, they couldnt be happier with their dicision. I get thank yous everyday for opening there eyes.

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 11:21:15 AM | | Votes: 4   

"nocommonsense" "I own a 335i just because its a faster and better car than a g35. A year ago i wouldnt even consider a 330i over a g35"

Those two sentences show that you are simply clueless when it comes to cars. If the reason you bought your BMW is because of the numbers , you bought it for the wrong reasons. The 330i is just as fabulous as the 335i, only slower. Slower doesn't mean is less of a car. The 330i is still a much better car than any Infiniti. The 328i is a much better car than the G37. Yes, the G37 is faster but so is the Pontiac G8. Does that make the Pontiac a better car than the BMW?
You are nothing but another living proof that the American car buyer is absolutely clueless when it comes to cars. CLULESS!

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 12:00:55 PM | | Votes: -1   

"bulldogz",

I own three cars and one of them is a BMW 335i. Is a great car just like most of the cars made by BMW but so are the 328i and 330i models. They are practically the same car only with slower straight line acceleration. Are you so foolish to believe that the fact that they accelerate slower makes them bad cars?
Why are you here on these forums? Do you really enjoy showing of your ignorance every time you post?

Anyway, it appears that you intend to leave the forums so ...what can I say: don't let the door hit you on the way out.

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 2:51:46 PM | | Votes: -3   

Star

Unfortunatly for you, my sentence shows exactly why i am pretty on point when it comes to automobiles and you on the other hand have lost a chromosome somewhere on this journey we call life.

"The 330i is still a much better car than any Infiniti" Really? let me inform you of somethings. the difference between the 335i and the 328 is not only speed. First the choice of transmission that are avalaible between the ZF and the Getreg. The suspensions are different. The wheels and tires are different. So essentially all the major componenets somehow differ, the engine, the transmissions, suspensions and tires!!!! Now if you have ever driven a g37 with a limited slip differential, you would understand what the F@#$ is going on. I buy my cars for dynamic capabilities and outright speed. I come out of corners in my 335i and CANT PUT THE POWER DOWN!!! because one wheels spins, wtf???? Yes the 325, had decent handling but who cares when it takes me 20 seconds to merge onto the highway or becuase i cant switch lanes to make the next turn becuase the house wife in her 4.0 liter dodge minivan decided to give it some gas f rom a stopligh, the later happened to my friend with me in the car. Have you seen the interior of the g? Infinitis have features i actually want to use. When i purchased my FX in 05, it had rearview camera, no keys needed to start the car, birds eye nav that put our companies BMW 750li to shame, better handling, more power and better looks than a 3.0 x5. Mean while the bmw delear was flaunting the x5 3.0's 150 mph capable autobahn windshield wipers, to bad he didnt know the car tops out at like 129. Just so you realize, more than half of the people on e90 post.com who own 335i never considering purchasing a bmw previous to that, Why? your ignorant ass asks? because of the ability to modify the twin turbos and extract huge hp and torque figures for around 1000 dollars. What does that mean, they want power. Yes bmw's have a great trade of between handling and smoothness, but enthusiast dont care about that, 2500 dollars will turn most cars cars into 1.0 g handlin machines, more than any BMW. So if you really think a week ass 325 with no features, fake leather and 16 inch wheels was better than the old generation g35, or that the overpriced 328 can hang with a new g35, when it comes to dynamic perforamnce combined with a huge difference in straightline speed, then your on crack. I say no to the weaker, less reliable, no technology whatsoever, more expensive 328.

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 7:00:15 PM | | Votes: 0   

P.S Love the "nocommonsense", really clever.

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 7:08:23 PM | | Votes: 1   

"The wheels and tires are different. So essentially all the major componenets somehow differ, the engine, the transmissions, suspensions and tires"

LOL....are you for real? I cannot stop laughing. Wheels and tires are different? Ha, ha, ha...Wheels and tires??? I'm not even going into that.
The engine is the SAME only turbocharged. Also, only the automatic transmission is different but then again what car enthusiasts buys a BMW with automatic transmission? Suspension?????? Ha, ha, ha...try again. It is absolutely identical buddy.
So I repeat the only difference between a 335i and a 328i or 330i is straight line speed. In fact the handling is slightly better in the 328i because the car weights less. I love it. Some of you guys really like to embarrass yourself on car forums.
By the way, you are welcome.

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 7:49:05 PM | | Votes: -1   

JRob, how are you defining higher end was my point?? Nothing makes them higher end other than the herd of premium buyers and their brand preference. To me, high end is more the level of the product itself. The materials used and quality stadands they are built too. Along with refinement and performance of the produt. Ignoring brand image nonsense, Cadillac now IS a high end brand with a product like the new CTS and CTS-V in my book. I own a 2004 CTS-V and can't really call it a high end product, but I have driven a new CTS and that was a High end product, BAR NONE! Maybe not for everyones tastes, but at the same level performance, refinement, material, and quality wise as BMW, MB, or any of the other players. IT IS HIGH END!

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 8:14:36 PM | | Votes: 1   

Star


Wow. That whole paragraph you have managed to say nothing, except "HAHAH and LOLLL". REALLY??? your like a 12 year old school girl giggling at her new internet sexual predatore friend. Let me speak in terms that are more familiar to you. A naturally aspirated engine(less lol when drving) and a turbo engine (more lol) ARE NOT the same thing. Thats like saying a lancer and a lancer evolution have the same engine. Whats wrong with you? Then to answer your moronic question, The type of Auto enthusiast that buys a 335 with a automatic, is the one who wants to go faster than someone with a 6 speed manual (especially fater then someone with a big ego and cant shift anyway). But i love your spin on it. First you say nothing differs, now a N/A engine and a turbo is the same thing. And according to you a Getreg and a ZF is the same thing. Wheels and tires?? yes im seriuos, if you ever tracked your car, you would understand how important that is, espcially when you are on the brink of adhesion. Wheels and tires prob make the most difference, but you propably dont know anything about putting power to the ground. A propper wheel and tire package can easily add .04g's on the skidpad or a couple of miles to the slalom speed ( All of this is not so loll to you now , is it? Then to answer another one of your ignorant blurbs, the 335i has certain components in the control arm that differentiate it from the lesser 3's.

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 2:59:00 AM | | Votes: 2   

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm saying it again. The only difference between a 328/330 and 335i is straight line speed. The rest are cosmetic differences. Everything is the same suspension, transmission(manual), engine(of course, the engine is modified how else would be faster in a straight line).
Same car with a modified(twin-turbocharged engine), nothing else. When it comes to the automatic we can agree that the difference is clear between the slushbox in the 328i and the "automatic manual"in the 335i.

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 10:27:25 AM | | Votes: 1   

Anyway, I did choose the 335i over the 328i just based on the insane performance of the twin-turbocharged engine. Just wanted to clarify for you that there are no other differences(except cosmetic or standard equipment of course)between the two cars. A claim like 328i or 330i are bad and 335i is great is at the least ridiculous. Same car, different amount of horsepower. That's all.

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 10:44:05 AM | | Votes: 1   

None of which are supercharged or turbocharged...

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 1:26:09 AM | | Votes: 5   

Actually, you'll probably have to wait about 4 years. The first CTS-V was selling for up to $10,000 OVER sticker when they first came out (NOT a good buying decision in my book). I got mine for $11,000 under sticker when they had been in showrooms for 1.5 years...a 20.7% discount off sticker (it was a '04 "leftover" in a somewhat rural Caddy dealer). Great deal! I would not pay sticker for ANY car, BTW...that is just not effective buying.

The high mileage '04 CTS-V's are selling for 1/2 sticker in 2008, so there's your 50% off. Start shopping '09s in 2013. : )

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 8:53:06 AM | | Votes: 3   

Anyone who pays over MSRP for an American car is a fool. People were paying over MSRP for that weird truck/Vette SSR thing a few ago, now you can't give one away. And high mileage 2004 CTS-V's selling for 50% of MSRP four years later? You are out of your damn mind. Pass me some of whatever you're smoking, or tell me where you live so I can buy a bunch of high mile 2004 CTS-V's for $14k from the Manheim auctions and resell them in the dreamworld you live in for $25k. I'll come out there and start my own dealership selling nothing but high mile 2004 CTS-V's if people are stupid enough to pay 50% of MSRP there. FYI, 2007 CTS-V's with 9k miles are bringing about 66% of MSRP. Anyone who is willing to buy a high mile 2004 for $8000 less is an absolute moron.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 9:17:28 AM | | Votes: -2   

by the way, I work in the automotive industry. So while I appreciate your advice ("you'll probably have to wait four years..."), you can't make it outrageously fictional and over the top because I'm going to be able to recognize hyberbole. High mile 2004's for 50% of MSRP... that was a good one.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 9:25:41 AM | | Votes: -2   

Ok, Mr "I work in the industry". Here's a clue for ya', Scooby. Look at selling prices on, oh...say maybe EBAY? and you will see 2004 and 05 CTS-V's selling from $20,000 to $26,000. Obviously they don't ALL sell for that, and I apologize if I didn't research exact mileage and asking prices, and if my over-generalization offended your superior intellect in the used car market,but here's an example of what I was referring to:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cars-Trucks___2004-Cadillac-CTS-V-Silver-Black-7yr-100K-mile-wrnty_W0QQitemZ330239546436QQddnZCarsQ20Q26Q20TrucksQQddiZ2282QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item330239546436&

Nobody said the car buying public didn't include morons, but I think the "industry" may have a few also.

And anyone who pays over MSRP for ANY car American or otherwise, with rare, limited production exceptionsis a fool.


My statement, generailzed or not, is WAY more accurate than your "I'll buy a one year old CTS-V for 50% of the original price" crap.

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 11:11:34 AM | | Votes: 1   

Buddy, that's a Certified 2004 model with 19k miles you pasted in there. You can try to skew it any way you want, but you said high mile 2004's were selling for 50% of MSRP and you were wrong. Even that extremely LOW mile, CERTIFIED 2004 didn't bring 50%. High mile 2004's are selling for roughly 28% of MSRP. 28% < 50%. I can play the copy and paste game too if you want to see Manheim figures.

I'll tell you what, I'll throw you a bone here so you don't pop a blood vessel defending the incorrect statement you made -- we were both wrong. I can't get a one year old one for 50% off, I was exaggerating. But I sure as hell won't have to wait four years and buy a high mile one at that to get it either.

Is that fair enough for you?

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 12:25:24 PM | | Votes: -1   

By the way, one year old CTS-V's with mileages in the 30's in average condition are bringing 45-50% of MSRP. A below average condition one even went through with only 8900 miles for 54% of MSRP. So I COULD get a one year old one for half off. It definitely would not take four years.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 12:45:24 PM | | Votes: 0   

Whatever, dude. You talk about what stuff I'm smoking and being out of my damn mind and I'M the one popping a blood vessel.

I made an overgeneralization based on the selling price of my own vehicle that was 3.75 years old (for $26,000...go figure) and you go off on me when you're statement was equally BS.

My error, looking back, was in mistating "high" mileage. Sorry. Whatever.

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 1:56:31 PM | | Votes: 1   

the difference being that my statement wasn't BS, while yours was. A 2007 CTS-V with 8898 miles in below average condition went for $27k, or 54% of MSRP. A 2007 CTS-V with 23036 miles went for $22800, or 45.6% of MSRP. A 2007 CTS-V in better condition with 30357 miles went for $27500, or 55% of MSRP.

One year old, half off. Thank you for playing.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 2:08:49 PM | | Votes: 0   

Dude, WTF? Unwad your panties. I already stated several times I was wrong. Are you happy? Does it matter? Where are these deals you mention happening? Here, I'll type one too...

A 2004 CTS-V with 27,000 miles went for $26,000, and a 2005 with 16 miles went for $32,000.

What's your problem? You give me $hit and you spend 6 posts repeatedly trying to make what point because I gave some back?

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 2:40:25 PM | | Votes: 1   

I'm getting mine from the Manheim Market Report (MMR). Walk into any car dealer nationwide, they can pull up exactly what I just gave you.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 2:51:49 PM | | Votes: -1   

What is that? Auction prices or sales to end users? Does it show the location of the sale?

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 3:05:15 PM | | Votes: 0   

it's a national wholesale listing of sale prices through Manheim auctions, including locations (Manheim being the largest vehicle auction network in the country). It's like eBay only access is restricted to people who are allowed to buy and sell cars through them.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 3:12:10 PM | | Votes: -1   

Well, that's part of the "problem" then...I am talking about people buying cars at market value. Ebay is a relatively low-price reference, but wholesale is probably even less. YOU might be able to get a 1 yr old V for 50% off, but could average Joe do it? Probably not.

Our Pontiac dealer is using that Manheim thing to give be a $15,000 trade-in value on our Solstice...funny how he thinks a new one is worth $36,000 because they added wheels and a spoiler...

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 4:06:47 PM | | Votes: 0   

well, my original statement was "I'll buy a one year old CTS-V for 50% of the original price", as in me personally. I didn't say anything about everyone else.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 4:35:46 PM | | Votes: -2   

JRob you are a piece of work! Using wholesale auction prices to suggest market value of a used car is a bit underhanded. Also you seem to forget that ALL CTS-V's up until this latest 2009 version are MANUAL ONLY!!! That hurts resale BIG time as they are totally unsalable to the non-enthusiast or person who needs a wife to be able to drive their car and such. Not to mention the 08+ CTS and 09+ CTS-V are much more "High End" hardware than the 07 and prior cars. You are obviously a bit brand snobish or whorish and unable to give the new Cadillac hardware itself credit, when credit is due.

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 8:45:08 PM | | Votes: 1   

BTW JRob, I don't work for Cadillac just like to quell brand snobbery. BMW's and MB's are fine cars in their own right, but they aren't perfect.

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 9:19:13 PM | | Votes: 1   

EL44,

What YOU think is not that important since you are not a car guy. The Germans are untouchable when it comes to making premium cars. Every car enthusiast knows that.
The level of engineering in German cars is so superior to the one in Japanese or American cars that is almost ridiculous to compare the two sides. Sure you can compare them when it comes to numbers but numbers don't mean much in the eyes of the elite car enthusiasts. For ALL these car enthusiasts German cars have no competition. Only in the minds of the clueless car buyer such comparison can be made.

I do understand what the little, clueless guy wants. He wants "Rocky" to win against Apollo's incredible skill. Always, always wishing that the underdog will win. The problem is this "ain't" a movie folks. The superiority always wins and the superiority in car making belongs to the Germans. Again this is not arrogance, is just recognition of the GERMAN SUPERIOR ENGINEERING by the people who KNOW cars.

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 3:10:17 PM | | Votes: -4   

Hey Star...Cadillac was once the Apollo, so don't you think for a minute that BMW can't become the Rocky.

The arrogance and unwillingness to consider the competition as competition will be their downfall.

When I sat in and opened the glovebox of an M3, it was pretty clear what was and wasn't superior. Yes, it is a minor bit of the car, but watch it spread as sales go down and profitability is threatened...I think it is just the beginning...

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 4:09:54 PM | | Votes: 3   

09CTSVforMe,

Don't get me wrong I do like what Cadillac did with this car. What I don't like is to see the haters claim that a car they never drove is without doubt better than the current benchmark in this class, the M3 just based on a press release from Cadillac. 2-3 years from now we will be able to make an accurate observation of how this new CTS-V stands against the competition not only when it comes to performance numbers but also built quality, reliability and resale value.

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/13/2008 8:00:25 PM | | Votes: 0   

It adds excitement. Who else spews statements like
"yeah even if that car is a million times better, i wont drive it becuase its American or because its not prestigious enough" One guy claims that the 318ti is better than any infiniti product, which i guess includes the GTR and the other is even more dilusional. Let em stay and make asses of themselves.

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 2:36:20 AM | | Votes: 0   

s4retard,

STFU Audi whore. Out of the blue you just come in the middle of a discussion and call people trolls? The biggest idiot on this site...YOU, calling other people idiots because they know cars? What IS WRONG with YOU? Why are you on these forums anyway? I never, NEVER read one interesting comment made by you. Not ONE. All you do is express your disapproval for the posters who don't rave about your POS Audi and want them to be banned. People who know about cars don't particularly like Audi. Suck it up.

I really, really dislike you in particular fossil, I always did. I always find hard to resist taking your pathetic posts apart but I resist this urge because you are not worth the effort. There are a few idiots here that don't know anything other than use insults instead of real arguments but they are still not as perverted as you are. You are nothing but a miserable loser who just reached the lowest level possible by repeatedly trying to get people banned from this site for having an opinion. Why don't YOU leave this site? Nobody needs you, nobody wants to hear your comments about how great Audi is in threads in which Audi is not even part of the subject. YOU are the biggest troll on this site. Do you understand that? Either GO AWAY or for one time in your pathetic life do the right thing. That means stop trolling and hating other people because they make you feel inferior. Whatever you do on this site, make sure that you don't ever ask for anybody to be banned again, that in the case you want to be respected. Just because you've been here long, doesn't mean that you should force the people who keep this site alive to ban users just to give you personal satisfaction.

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 9:51:49 AM | | Votes: -5   

Star, it's people like you who give this site such a bad name. That's all I'm saying. I don't know if you're just a big joke, doing it all tongue-in-cheek, or if you are a real person who believes in what you post. If it's the latter I feel sorry for you.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 11:56:37 PM | | Votes: 2   

That 6.2L engine is probably dimensionally smaller AND lighter than the 5.0L V10 in the M5 EVEN with a supercharger and intercooler and such. The LS7 that is 7.0L and an earlier derivative of this 6.2L supercharged engine makes similar power, has gobs more torque, is MUCH lighter/smaller and would probably suck less fuel than the 5.0L in the M5. To suck less fuel you would probably need to change the gearing a bit, but the extra torque would allow that without degrading performance.

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 6/14/2008 11:05:32 AM | | Votes: 1   

My point is that it is a smaller engine! Just not smaller in displacement. That should count for something?

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 2:35:20 PM | | Votes: 1