Comparison Test: 2008 BMW M5 vs. 2009 Cadillac CTS-V vs. 2009 Mercedes-Benz C63

Honestly, one has to drive an e60 M5 to appreciate how awesome and precise it is. The new Caddy is also one hell of a piece of kit especially when you consider its weight. The Mercs.... they just seem too isolated. They don't communicate what's happening on the road. They also seem overpriced for what they are.

— GreenPlease (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 8:18:47 PM | | Votes: -2   

Really doesn't matter if the Caddy is the fastest...GM will be non-existent by 2009Q1

— labelexec (View Profile)

Posted on 12/3/2008 11:08:09 PM | | Votes: 0   

The Mercedes isn't overpriced. It's a beast of a car and it's a hammer blowing experience. It was at least when I test drove one. It's just not packed with 500+ horsepower like the CTS-V and the M5.

I'm a Merc fan but I can't ignore the the CTS-V or the M5. CTS-V = brilliant. M5 = despite it's interior I love the V10 growl. C63 = Wild, Posh, Fun.

— Agent63 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/4/2008 1:07:55 PM | | Votes: 4   

The CTS has been rear wheel drive.

— bestofallcad (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2008 2:16:58 PM | | Votes: 1   

You want some cheese with that whine? The M5 was the benchmark for the new CTS-V. That why it's in there. And the E63 didn't stand a chance.

— Bmw8ter (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 1:26:39 PM | | Votes: -1   

E63 didnt stand a chance?

— ThierryHenry14 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 1:39:33 PM | | Votes: 4   

I'm not disagreeing that Caddy considers the M5 the benchmark for the CTS-V. You're missing my point point. My argument is if EDMUNDS is going to agree and pit the two against each other and throw in a Benz for good measure, then than Benz should be an E63. Conversely If EDMUNDS is going to arbitrarily choose to use a C63 instead, and they never actually said why since the C63 is not an M5 competitor, then be fair about it and use an M3, not an M5. An M3 with M-DCT would have matched up much better with these two since it's in the same pricerange, and, you know, actually competes with the C63 (and whether Caddy wants to admit it or not there will be more CTS-V buyers cross shopping the $65k M3 than the $90k M5). And yes, while the M3 is smaller inside than the Caddy, so is the C63 (the M3 is actually more spacious than the Benz). It also outperforms the M5 and is a better "Value", which was a big part of the test procedure. So if they were going to use the C63, they should have also used the M3. Period.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 2:31:09 PM | | Votes: 2   

I was just bustin' your chops. I think just about every auto enthusiast on the planet wanted to see the M5 dethroned, so I think that's why it was thrown in there. Whereas the C63 was thrown in as a benchmark for value combined with performance and liveability. The M3 would have absolutely crushed them all being lighter, race inspired engine and tuning...everybody knows that. Just my take.

— Bmw8ter (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 3:05:24 PM | | Votes: 4   

I don' think so. On Car and Driver's lightning lap it beat the M3. I still think I like the M3 better, but that's pretty impressive. Btw, in the right hands, the manual in the CTS V should be even faster.

— golfer38 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 5:36:35 PM | | Votes: 4   

So it is Edmunds fault first for BMW pricing the M5 in the stratosphere of mortals, and second, CTS-v outstanding performance at any price. I guess it is Edmunds fault that the competing vehicles are 09 models and they couldn't get the current model M5. Oh, wait the 09 is basically the same model. Your logic is faulty at best. When the M5, any AMG models or S line compete on performance terms, then let the chips fall where they fall. No prisoners, no excuses. Be real.

— inspirion7 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/3/2008 1:34:42 PM | | Votes: 0   

"So it is Edmunds fault first for BMW pricing the M5 in the stratosphere of mortals, and second, CTS-v outstanding performance at any price."

Inspiron, I am not denying the CTS-V's credentials.

It's simple. The M5 is priced to compete with the AMG E-class. The AMG E-class is priced to compete with the M5. BMW didn't price it "ridiculously high", it's priced to compete with cars BMW considers competitors. Trust me, if Cadillac could sell CTS-V's for $85-100k, which is M5, E63, RS6 money, they would do so in a heartbeat. Regardless, if Edmunds wants to do a comparison with the CTS-V and M5, that's fine. What I am saying is Edmunds shouldn't have stuck a C63 in there then. If their reasoning for including the C63 over the E63 was because it was similarly priced to the CTS-V, then use an M3. Don't hamstring the M5 and then wonder why it "lost". It's $25k more than either other car in the test, and larger than both as well, with similar performance. Surprise surprise, it lost. Based on this test an E63 would probably have lost as well, but we'll never know since they didn't include one, they used a C63. That also lost. Had they used an M3 based on price (which is why they chose the C63) the results may very well have been the same, but guess what? We don't know that either, because there was no continuity in the test vehicles chosen.

That's it. No disparaging any of the competitors, simply questioning the choice of vehicles. Edmunds basically stacked the deck by comparing the CTS-V with a larger, $25k more expensive BMW that only competes with the CTS-V in the eyes of GM, and a Mercedes that as great as it is has lost every comparison test I've seen to the BMW it competes directly against. I am 100% certain the CTS-V is an awesome vehicle, but they don't need to rig test results to prove it, and yes, I have a problem with that.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 12/4/2008 3:56:22 PM | | Votes: 1   

that was my point above. If you're going to stick the M5 in there, then include the E63. If you're going to use the C63 instead, then use the M3.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 1:26:38 PM | | Votes: 8   

JRob .. reason being is the M3 would have trumped them all. The M3 is the benchmark for the BMW performance sedans, not the M5. The M5 is a performance touring sedan with unbelieveable tact, feel and power, but it is nowhere near as abalanced as the M3.

— BMW4me4ever (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 1:29:44 PM | | Votes: 0   

Guys, its called pick and choose. You will not get a fair comparison with anything when the test is done, geared towards yielding a particular result.

In this case, they want to make a case for the CTS-V to play in the same ballpark as the German performance sedans, so they need to pick an M5, not the M3, because its not as agile and its a 3 year old car. They picked the C63 because its lacking over 100hp from the CTS-V, which makes it not as fast.

Its picking and choosing to get a desired result, and I have said it over and over again, that edmunds.com comparison results must be taken with a grain of salt!

— ThierryHenry14 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 1:45:24 PM | | Votes: 0   

"what a shock!!! a bunch of BMW fanboys defending the m3!!! never thought id see the day!!"

kaner, perhaps you need some assistance with reading comprehension. No one is "defending" the M3 -- there's nothing to defend, as it wasn't part of the test. It should have been, that's the argument.

Would it help you if we typed slower?

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 3:12:28 PM | | Votes: 0   

The Cts-v would not have crushed the M3 in acceleration, since most of the 0 to 60 times for the M3 have been 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.

— BMW4me4ever (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 1:45:43 PM | | Votes: 0   

no wrong, the M3 is actually than the rest of the M lineup, which doesnt make sense, but hey it its, it has the fastest 0-60 time of the M cars. But anyway the CTSV is amazing in one generation they have come from an also ran, to being a benchmark, a car priced against the compact performance luxury sedans, sized and intenteded to out perform the next classup amazing car, it and the ZR1 if these 2 cars dont convince people that GM can compete with the best than soemthing is wrong with them

— bmwdrvr (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 1:50:34 PM | | Votes: 0   

"aslo ran"? The last CTS-V outperformed the last M3 and last M5. Again, I know this from first hand experience.

If this result (and all others that are the same against any M or AMG before or to-come) is a surprise to anyone, it is because they are new to the enthusiast car genre or they have their head up thier German fanboy arses.

The CTS-V outperforms all other performance sedans on the market today.

Get used to being in 2nd (or 3rd or 4th or...) place, just like you were in 2004.

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 3:07:58 PM | | Votes: -1   

please go away i just praised and complimented the CTS-V and you sendme some idiotic response about how im some german fan boy, why dont you learn how to read....and again stay off my post!!!, the last CTS-V wasnt a great car it was a cadillac with a vette engine, trouble taking off, and poor interior other than looking good and being fast it wasnt that good of a car...the new one is far from that it is a benchmark, stay off my post, or at least read them first jerk

— bmwdrvr (View Profile)

Posted on 12/3/2008 1:51:19 AM | | Votes: 1   

and the M3 for those that dont know is the fastest of the M cars, check times....

— bmwdrvr (View Profile)

Posted on 12/3/2008 1:52:37 AM | | Votes: 1   

"Stay off my post"? Really??? lol

The '04 CTS-V was not an also ran, and it out-ran the last M3 and M5.

I didn't mean to offend you by adding other points to the reply, I should have posted it separately.

Group hug! lol

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 12/3/2008 9:03:12 AM | | Votes: 1   

you wear pleated pants don't you?

— scorpio (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 2:56:59 PM | | Votes: -1   

What the junk bin luxury class?

— veyron1001 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 5:48:59 PM | | Votes: -4   

actually, they did make a 4-door M3 in the mid 90's, based off of the e36 platform. They also had it with an auto, if you happened to be a soccer mom who wanted great performance without spilling your latte. Pretty rare car now (4 door M3), but the autoboxes are not particularly desirable.

— altdude (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 9:05:10 PM | | Votes: -2   

"blah blah blah."

That's my brief synopsis of what you just said, just to save everyone else the hassle of reading it. We get it, you don't like advanced, high RPM engines. You're a NASCAR guy, not an F1 guy. That's fine, but you don't have to bring it up every time you post, especially when the majority of what you say is wrong anyway. The M engines are "weak in power and torque"? Have you ever even BEEN in an M? Listen, imagine a new M3 and M5/M6. Now strip the car away and just think about the engine for a second, pretend it doesn't have "BMW M" written all over the engine cover, and just admire the specifications of the engines themselves. You know what other brand's engines are most similar to those? It's a little company called Ferrari, perhaps you've heard of them? High RPM, high horsepower, high driver engagement, high technology. Those BMW M engines are as advanced as anything in a road going car today that doesn't have a prancing horse on the hood. And FYI, the fact that the AMG 6.2L V8 is lighter than BMW's M3 4.0L V8 doesn't make it more advanced, it just makes it lighter. That's it, period. So quit bringing it up, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Anyway, let's ignore the MB homerism you like to constantly display, because I happen to really like Benzes, especially the AMG's, and my reply to your post has nothing to do with that. BMW M and MB AMG have, until now, simply gone about accomplishing a similar goal (making fast luxury cars) two different ways. Neither is right or wrong, both work quite well, and I'd argue that they both fit the "nature" of the manufacturers and their buyers perfectly.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 7:18:58 PM | | Votes: -1   

Um Sailor? The 6.2-l engine in the C63 AMG is a homage to the legendary 300SEL 6.3 racing S class of the late 1960s and early 1970s. And its large displacement is great for extra torque. No need to make it sound like this engine is "outdated". The AMG philosophy has always been oriented around large displacement engines or forced induction. Doesn't mean their motors are "less advanced" than BMW M. Different philosophies.

And who cares if the M3 is the better performance car than the C63 AMG? The C63 AMG is probably the best-handling car AMG has ever developed together with the old CLK55 AMG / CLK63 AMG / CLK63 AMG Black Series / DTM. Every test of the C63 AMG has praised it for its handling, which is GOOD. You can drive it hard on the track and it will cope easily.

— Willis (View Profile)

Posted on 12/3/2008 7:33:01 AM | | Votes: 2   

The CTS-V > S6. I admit it, however, it should be interesting to see how it compares to the RS6 saloon.

CTS-V > E63 > S6 > M5

RS6 > CTS-V > E63 > M5

— AudiNewEngland (View Profile)

Posted on 12/2/2008 8:55:17 PM | | Votes: 0   

Then you are either 12 or just don't understand how business works.

I'm a DYED IN THE WOOL self-proclaimed BMW fanboy with a picture of Chris Bangle in my office. I'm a BMW owner and fanatic.

I'm going to buy a CTS-V. I've had more than a few people go "...but it's a Cadillac".

Yeah. A Caddy that beat the M5 around the 'Ring with a talented, yet non-racing driver and a slushbox transmission. And not because of just straight line power either..although it sure helps.

A Caddy with a slick interior. Recaro seats?

A Caddy that can hit 190's with the manual transmission. A pulley here and exhaust there... You've got a car that can put you in the exclusive 200mph club.

And thanks to GM's situation, a Caddy who's price difference between the M5 (what was my previous heart throb) is 30k+.

I was the same as you. I hated Caddy and put them in the same category as Buick and Lexus. But things change. The Japanese make one of the best TRUCKS, there's a real Korean threat in Hyundai, Jag is owned by the Indians and...get this...not only is some Black dude President of the USA, I hear he's pretty smart too!

Things change, dude. This your daddy's Caddy. Heck, it isn't even a Caddy from your Older brother. Go test drive one. Pay close attention to the interior fit and finish. Look for those gaps or loose pieces. Try to make it feel unsettled when driving it.

Good luck on either. I'm as shocked as anyone that this car is so good. As an F1 fan and BMW fanatic, I wanted a piece of the glory V10 days in the M5. I still do. But right now, 556hp and 551 torque in a package over $30k less more than makes up for it.

Don't take my word for it. Go to YouTube and search for 'Top Gear CTS-V ZR1' and hit the first result.

*Unless it's a badge thing with you. If that's the case, there's nothing the car could do to win you over, is it?

— beetee (View Profile)

Posted on 12/4/2008 10:05:07 PM | | Votes: 2   

DTS is no CTS. A dated vehicle that is closer to a land yacht comparatively speaking. You are comparing apples and watermelons.

— inspirion7 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/3/2008 1:09:45 PM | | Votes: 1   

Sailor, I think you have your Caddys confused. The BLS is the Saab clone, only sold in Europe IIRC. The DTS a massive, floaty, FWD old-guy sedan along the lines of the Lincoln Town Car. Formerly known as the Deville.

MPowerDK, simply put, you CANNOT EVER drive a DTS and then formulate an opinion on how the CTS drives. The DTS is the WORST Cadillac to drive, and that includes the Escalade. The CTS is RWD, smaller, sharper, with a real suspension and the nicest interior GM makes.

That's like driving an X5 3.0si and saying the M5 is slow because you drove a slow BMW.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2008 5:56:45 PM | | Votes: 1   

But is still doesn't do away with the fact that a Cadillac has better performance numbers than the iconic M5. No one wants to ADMIT this simple FACT. You can dance around it, pretend it not the elephant in the room, or the bully that has taken your lunch money, or what ever comparison you wish to use. A Cadillac has triumph almost every performance ICON on the market. Period.

— inspirion7 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2008 9:46:34 AM | | Votes: 4   

"Most importantly and this definitely can’t be overlooked, it isn't owned by a company a month away from bankruptcy."

Know what, WeaponX? That is definitely a concern. But what does bankruptcy mean in 2009? Look at Delta Airlines. They went bankrupt and missed nary a beat, save elimination of some routes.

With today's Debtor In Possession or DIP rules, I doubt that a Chapter 11 bankruptcy would disrupt much on the consumer side. The only problem I could see would be from the UAW.

Then again, I could be wrong about the whole thing. Guess I'll lease that CTS-V instead... ;-)

— beetee (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2008 3:24:48 PM | | Votes: 2   

"If I wanted an AMG, I would spring for the E63 or CLS63. Both look nicer, and more menacing presence on the road."

The C63 AMG is far more menacing than the E63 AMG on the road. I don't know how you could get a different impression just from looking at pictures. The C63 is also a handling revelation, and not just a straight line performer like other AMGs. Don't let that fool you--it's still quicker than any other AMG sedan. And it's a relative steal.

I think you know which one I would choose. :)

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2008 6:01:20 PM | | Votes: 1