The Cadillac actually makes a much faster 0 - 60 about 3.9 I've done it in one and the owner of the car did it in 3.8. The car is still stock and has not broken down once, it is very impressive in the day to day and in race spec.
the CTS-V goes 0-60 in 4.0 when motortrend tested it up against the Jag. And the Cadillac official site says it's supposed to do 0-60 in 3.9. This test that CarandDriver did was VERY bad just because of how they treated Cadillac.
People don't seem to want to give credit where credit is due. I am more of a BMW fan than anything, but GM put out a monster of a car with the CTS-V line...One of the few cars where an automatic is a little quicker (but the manual is more fun imo). Why is it all the fan boys seem to go crazy over these videos and take serious offense when "their" car loses? Lol.
What's with the Cadillac fan-bois who can't accept that some people still prefer Mercedes or BMW. Cadillac produces one excellent vehicle and everyone is supposed fall on their knees? I don't think so.
I said "I think a car with more horsepower and torque that gets the same speed numbers just because its heavier (than the CTS-V) IS BETTER THAN a lighter car". 30k miles is roughly 3 years of driving. 8 years doesnt matter. It wasnt sold until 2006. And 2003-2006 CL55s were exactly the same. And it was quite a bit less than a new CTS-V, isnt slower, and is a hell of a lot nicer in every single way.
umm im sorry jaguar in 3rd place?? worse than a cadillac?? mercedes is questionable but the cadillac beat the jaguar?? it looked so good driving through those streets. jaguar in 3rd my god what is happening to the world :O
Because it is a Jag, lol. Personally I love them. They look better than anything and the interiors are nice. However when it comes to performance, an AMG would destroy a jag. As for the CTS-V....much respect to GM for making a very solid car that easily competes with the euro crowd.
the AMG is a nice car but it wastes so much of its power when it comes to a corner. it just cant keep the power down. in a strait line i agree with you though it is faster. top speed though i dont know about wit these 3? but 0-60 i would think that the mercedes is the faster of the 3. still i wouldn't say no to any of these cars. they are all brilliant
Cadillac beat both Mercedes and Jaguar. Its unique reomagnetic suspension (the same that Ferrari buys to GM), superior top speed, higher acceleration, cabin noise, wet handling etc Makes the Cadillac a the most advanced of three cars. But If I have to compare about it's elegance I take the Jagguar too.
@nootoons nearly forgot that... AMG's 6.2 is the most powerful N/A V8 in the world. The Caddy is supercharged (btw, the SLR Stirling Moss's engine packs 750hp while having LESS displacement than the Caddy V8).
CL55 Renntech. Didnt buy the car to get compliments, bought it because its massively powerful, looks great, sounds great, and has an amazing interior. Its really nice when people come up to you and think that your ONE IN FIVE HUNDRED MADE car is brand new and that you just bought it for over $120k. I dont need any compliments, the car makes me feel good just looking at it. But if someone comes and gives it one, Im sure going to enjoy it.
I know that my parents, who arent necessarily Europeans, work very hard and because of that they chose to drive what makes them happy, and in my mom's case, its an AMG. Yes the CTSV is cheaper, but neither of us think it looks, sounds, or feels as special.
FINALLY someone on here that makes sense. Although Id much rather have the E63 over the M5 still. American cars are just known for being budget cars. Good for people on a budget, not for people who want to splurge on something they earned.
I'm from the USA, and although I think the 0-60 times for the CTS-V are faster then whats displayed here, all these cars are nice. However, with pricing as the main factor, you cannot overlook a car that was 20k less then 3rd place, and damn near 40k less then 1st... That shouldn't be overlooked. Its the best bang for the buck. Period. With performance in mind, it blows both of the other 2 cars away on the nurburgring. Its a great car. And the looks of it really is in the eye of the beholder.
@200208195 Tires can play a big role, and the fact the E60 M5 did it on their production tires adds to the fact its a great car. From what I understood, the tires were not stock (or offered with the panamera), nor has there been any video proof of the actual time. Its the reason the commercials still say the CTS-V is the fastest production sedan around the nurburgring. Its like classifying the Zonda R against any of the other cars, when its not street legal.
Ok, I am an American and I this is my honest opinion. I actually like most European and British cars much better than almost any American vehicle. I have quite a few reasons of why I'd pick a Mercedes over a Cadillac. The qualities of the exterior and interior are absolutely incomparable. The AMG division has drastically improved since way back and they definitely know how to introduce performance. Another thing to mention are the impeccable safety features Mercedes implements in their cars.
They also said the rear seats were crampt and uncomfortable, and that the only difference between the CTS and CTS-V was the seats and steering wheel, and I personally would never buy a car with a suede steering wheel, even a Mercedes. It also got second because its slower to 60, and takes longer to brake. The Mercedes has a better interior with easier controls
Anyone that thinks the CTSV is ugly has never been next to one up close. I sat in one a few weeks ago. Anyone living close to me, I would be more than happy to bring them to see it. My sister's neighbor works for GM and I see all the new models when he brings them home. It is beautiful inside and out and the engine sounds freakin angry. I have heard that the 6 speed auto is quicker and faster than the stick. All I know is, the car is crazy fast and very comfortable and roomy inside.
No need for GM to worry about BMW and MB coming with TT V8s. The supercharger in the CTS-V is the TVS1900 and not the TVS2300 used in the ZR1. It would be easy to break 600 hp in the cadillac, but since it comes wit hthe best powertrain warranty, they decided not to push it too far. Also the CTS-V with the 6L90 auto is quicker and faster than the 6 speed manual.
@comlax22 what a silly comment, lets not forget that the CTS-V is a DETUNED ZR1 engine and its already supercharged. Any tuning you do to the E63 will produce twice the results on the CTS-V
same here in Germany; as said, the only place I see american oldies quite often is in Sweden, in Germany close to never. And in Germany you can also see 50 to 60 year old cars and trucks still running smooth and strong - so don't talk about Engines not lasting long :)
Ok, headliner. How much does the headliner in the CTS-V cost, and how much does the headliner in the E63 cost? And what are the specific differences between them? Why is the E63's headliner better?
@UFCextra ...the cockpit is a masterpiece: rich leather, brushed metal trim, designer controls, rear-seat room that makes the Caddy's pale in comparison." After reading that, how could you still say the CTS-V has a better interior? I already briefly touched on the CTS-V's power advantage, but, according to MT, "You'd expect the CTS-V to dispatch the E63 in a sprint. And you'd be mostly wrong...thanks to a [the E63's] vastly superior automatic transmission."
I wonder what the test results would have been if Cadillac made a $100,000 dollar Cadillac CTS-VR. A $30,000 dollar advantage says it all in this video.
I'd pick the CTS-V for the following reasons: Cheaper to maintain. Easier to repair. Goes just as fast as the other 2 for much less. Cheaper to modify/upgrade. Looks equally as good as the other 2 for much less. GM's pushrod engines are EXTREMELY durable & last forever. Has nearly as many features as the other 2 for much less. It's much lighter than the other 2 for much less.
We see 20, 30, 40, 50 and even 60 year old Cadillacs on the road in the states frequently. VERY few older German cars because their engines don't last as long as American engines. It is RARE to see an old German car here. You will be seeing more Cadillacs♥
@im1greatman ; just a bit of info for you ;) Frenchman Leon Levavasseur was a 39-year-old inventor in 1902 when he took out a patent for the first V-8 engine he called the Antoinette. The V8 since then has become the most reliable and efficient internal combustion engine to power automobiles and to see extensive use in power boats and early aircraft.
@xlrvlac M5 E60 was launched 6 years ago and in the autumn they're going to launch the new one and definitely it will be the king for a long time, technically and esthetically. And if you really want a fast sedan, buy an Audi RS6, put a MTM cheap-tuning for 2000$ and you'll have a 720hp rocket with 5 seats and 4 doors.
It's something that can't be explained to people who havent experienced it. It costs more for a reason. Germans dont just make $40k more on their cars.... it costs more to make. No matter how much I debate, I cant make people who think their CTS-V is amazing realize that the more expensive car is ACTUALLY BETTER.
@nootoons "And the Caddy has more airbags than all three of the cars listed here." That's good but that doesn't always make the car safer because it's the chasis and the safety cage that is responsible for making the entire car more crumple-free. Unless, you can prove otherwise.
I agreed with him taking a BMW over the CTS-V. But I already have the facts for myself. Cadillac has respect? You know the average age of a Cadillac owner is like 62?! Yeah, lots of respect there. Mercedes has the image of wealth and class. If you are one of those people who hate the rich, then it completely makes sense why you wouldnt like them.
"The CTS-V has the best ride of the group, with perfect balance between firmness and compliance." "The E63 and XFR exhibit high speed skittishness." "The CTS-V loses points for poor rear visibility." SO the CTS-V came in 2nd because of rear visikbility, and they said they'd like a rear view camera. Surprise! They've all had rear view cameras since 2010. My wagon has one too. So if they had tested an '11 model, for example, it would have won over the E63. Visibility was their only complaint.
The all new Cadillacs use premium Italian leather on both sides of the seats, the dashboard, and the door panels. On the XTS, imported Italian suede graces every inch of the interior ceiling. Cadillac is the most technologically advanced car ever introduced to the motoring public --------- regardless of price. You would pay $2,900.00/year to insure the BMW while the Cadillac would cost $1,200.00/year, on average. Cadillac is 4 times less expensive to repair too. Cadillac for the win!
@71CommodoreGSE I do respect your comments, But as the facts show, the CTS-V is still faster and much more stable on the road with superior handling at all speeds. While I do enjoy driving I have owned all three, Jag, Merc, and Caddy. I like all three. The top two are easily Benz & Caddy hands down. Peace my friend
If you can afford the Mercedes or the Jag in the first place, the parts dont matter. GM just makes fast cars for people with a lower budget. There is obviously a difference in the cars for the price.
@JoeCaliforniah I think you gotta reconsider Cadillac these days. Cadillac has rediscovered itself as a brand and is on the way up. Personally, I like the styling and interior of the Cadillac CTS-V far more than the German blandness of the Mercedes-Benz/BMW like. Also, being designed and built in Michigan, it makes me proud to support something from the USA that matches the best of the world.
@UFCextra i believe that, but here in Germany, many 70s Mercs are still used as daily drivers. There are at least 3 ones in my town (which isn't that big) which have > than 400k kilometers on the clock. Old Caddies were built solid, but modern Caddies aren't the pinnacle of reliability. I don't have much info on the new CTS, though, as it isn't currently on sale here (it's going to be in the next years).
The E63 have speed limiter. If not, it can easily beat the CTS-V. The E63 worth the price. It's good looking, comfortable, fast. It can beat a Audi R8 too. V8.
Left Mercedes or left AMG? I and the majority of AMG owners would never ever switch from an AMG to a Cadillac. I dont even like the E Class but I would rather have it than 100 CTS-Vs.
I think people are angry because they thought the US was only good for making cars that go fast in a straight line. It took a 132K Porsche(All being recalled BTW) to beat the $69K CTS-V around the ring. The C6 Corvettes beat every BMW on their own track. The Viper kills the Enzo(670K+) on the ring and no BMW is within a mile of it.
Most of you and C&D too missed one critical point: The CTS-V is the ONLY car in this comparison that is available with a manual transmission. For those who really enjoy driving, and driving cars like this on a race track, like I do, a traditional manual transmission is the only way to go, and it's a ton of fun. The fact you can get a manual transmission in a car like this is phenomenal. The BMW M5 is the only other car in this segment that offers a traditional manual too. Automatics suck!!
HOLY SHIT! Cadillac is less expensive, out performs the others, has a better interior, costs less to insure, and has the HIGHEST resale value of any other car being sold on this earth! It's a no brainer. Cadillac for the win!!!
@69vettedude The new 2011 E63 is electronically limited to 155, with the performance option it is raised to 186mph and that is still limited electronically.
And Inside Line says the E63 does 4.4 0-60, and 4.3 for the CTS-V. Cadillac says 4.0 for the CTS-V, and good drivers on street tires have gotten 3.9 out of it. It's severely traction limited. With drag radials it does an easy 3.7 0-60. The point is that while the CTS-V is traction limited, the E63 is not. It can't do a 3.7 0-60 no matter what tires you put on it. That's why the CTS-V has a higher trap speed. Because it's faster. You should learn how this stuff works.
@LazBro123 Not really. The new XKRS has 550hp, and I'm sure its a bit more lightweight then the CTS-V. But the 0-60 time looks about the same, with the XKRS being a bit slower, and the CTS-V has 550ft-lbs torque, compared to 501 ft lbs torque, and that can win races in a straight line. Don't forget, however, this is a 2 door vs 4 door... If it were to go against the V Coupe, it would definitely get a run for its money, but it will not "own" anything.
I'm not saying the E63 is better than the other two but we do need to factor in the AUTOBAHN, something MB has plenty of access to, that may or may not justify the 100K price. I say this because if MB wants to assure the driver is comfortable while cruising at 150 mph, it must be engineered very well. Of course, outside of Germany, it won't see 150 but, just maybe, there might be somebody who will keep it for 15 years. Yes, I hear on the MB forums about drivers keeping them for a long time.
@TheSandman408 dude, trust me, u can look it up too. 0-60 in 3.9 is accepted by almost every major car mag. what doesnt make sense to me is that i get CAR AND DRIVER and it says 3.9, i dont know why it's different on here, could be the roads but i dont really know. but even go to cadillac's website and look at info on the engine. It also set a record for 4 door sedans at Nurburgring
The reasoning behind the warranty has nothing to do with the parts (and nothing to do with racing). GM increased it's warranty for competitive reasons, particularly because of it's own reliability failures and the public's perception that overall quality was lacking. The CTS-V is a terrific car and a great-bang-for-the-buck alternative, but the extra $35K you'll spend on the MB is most apparent in the materials used. If anything, in this instance, it's the Cadillac with the 'cheap' parts.
@69vettedude that's because all german cars have a limiter to 250km/h.. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, vw.. everything.. but if you remove the limiter your Cadillac will be along behind..
@drawne09 so youve sat in the Mercedes E63 AMG and the Cadillac CTS-V? ( I prefer CTS interior not V) youve sat in both these cars and tested the material? no you havent
Without Jaguar, Mercedes, and all of the European cars, the CTS-V would not exist.......... European brands inspired Cadillac to do what they are making today. I love all of them :D You cannot beat the CTS-V for the price. Even though it might not have as good of an interior as the other two compared in this test, it is still a bang for the buck.
Cadillac sales are picking up in Germany as well as Europe in general. Buick is the number one selling American import to China where Cadillac is doing well too. Cadillac has a better resale value now than Mercedes and Audi. The Cadillac CTS-V is on par with BMW. You will be seeing many more Cadillacs♥
@thecubanratio1 Remember... both Motor Trend and C&D based their decisions on preference of the vehicle layout and materials and not on performance. I won't argue that the Merc is a more refined machine (which is why the cost can be twice as much), but if the debate is strictly performance based the V does outperform the AMG (again check the speed channel's head to head competition where the V wins hands down).
@AutoEnthusiasts Well, MotorTrend conducted a comparison test between the E63 and CTS-V and ranked the E63 1st on account of not only being the better all-arounder, but the better performer as well. Even despite the CTS-V having the advantage in straight-line acceleration, the E63 was quicker around their figure-eight course and the road course. The CTS-V is the better bargain both in terms of performance and the car itself, but, to me, there's no doubt that the E63 is objectively the better car
Did anyone also notice that the Cadillac has, by far, the highest top speed, at 191 mph? Its definitely worth its price, the other two are way too expensive, and neither can top 162.
When it comes down to it, the Jag and E63 are both 20 and 40 grand more expensive respectively than the CTS-V. For that much money you could take any of the complaints you may have with the Caddy and fix them. Just like the Corvette gives you the best bang for the buck in the supercar realm, you can't touch value for price in the sports sedan world with the CTS-V. GM has something going there. And thats all she wrote my friends.
I drive an AMG and it's the most reliable out of these company's also have owned cts-v, benz hands down :) It will keep it's value the longest as well.
I test drove an XF (not the XFR) and the only reason I did't get it was the touch screen satnav. the buttons on the screen were way too small and I couldn't deal with it. also it's not available without shift paddles
We did. Just look at consumer reports. The infiniti's I had were much more reliable. I just bought a GLK anyway though lol. They are better to look at/ more fun to drive. I'll cope with a few more trips to the shop
Yes I actually have seen one. They look boring. The only interesting one is the Coupe. The seats just look weird and bulky, the navigation screen looks out of place, and the whole car lacks a special appearance. If you think it looks cool, good for you. For me, you are getting a whole lot more for your money, whether its the plain looks of the car, the design of the seats, the elegance of the navigation screen, or the BADGE. And the badge itself it worth more than the whole CTSV.
I have the XF & test drove the standard cts.The XF doesn't have poor finish. The top of the dash & the wheel is leather. The seats are a soft leather. Some of the dash is plastic but it doesn't feel to bad. The cts is all plastic & the seats were a very rough leather. The whole interior felt cheap.The merc has a great interior, but It's for people who have money to burn & don't car about bang for the buck.
I recently read some where that people think that the reason that we still would purchase bmw or merc over the Caddy is because of the badge... Well your right, if you look at history (just past 40 or so years) they've done they're freaking homework... unlike some car co. which they weren't out there on the racetrack trying to prove there product (not just making left turns all day)... they freaking earn there freaking badge plain freaking simple.. they earned it the hard way...
Cadillac made one car thats equally as good as ONE Mercedes, and thats putting them in their place? Mercedes competes with much higher up companies than Cadillac. They dont waste a second thinking about Cadillac. Just because there is a car cheaper out there doesnt mean that their customers are going to leave and go buy it. Cadillac vs. Mercedes. Old American vs Wealthy German. Wonder which most people would rather have...
@71CommodoreGSE You are wrong about the SLR Sterling Moss 722. It only has 640 hp NOT 750. Only 209 MPH top speed. Sad for a full blown sports car. Cadillac is a 4 door family car Top speed 205 MPH.
Car & Driver did have some bias in their rankings. I think the pros and cons of the Cadillac vs Mercedes were basically equal, so if you factor in the price gap, Cadillac has to have a slight edge. As a 2009 CTS-V owner, I am biased too I suppose.
@DroidNoid actually i have 2 cars with ls blocks, one stock ls1 with over 150k miles and no problems ever. Other is an modified lsx with 75k miles driven very hard as a road track and autox car and no engine gasket problems. The only time i hear of head gaskets going on the ls, is from user error ( over heating the aluminum block or just not taking care of it).
Personal preference is one thing, but you said in terms of handling and comfort you would take the M5. But the CTS-V is better in those departments - proven objectively better across many head to head tests - so really what you're saying is that you'd take the M5 despite the fact that it's not as good. And that's your choice, just be clear that is what you're actually saying. Also you said I can't say you haven't driven a CTS - but have you driven a CTS-V?
I like the one that is the FASTEST around the most demanding track in the world - Nurburgring. It's also the fastest 4 door luxury sedan on the market overall. It's the most car for your money. It's the Cadillac CTS-V. But if you need to continue thinking "inside-the-box" and succumb to over-priced pompous-mobiles, stick with the Euros.
Personally I like the CTS-V's interior much more than the M5. Now this is something that does come down to personal preference. I find the M5's interior a little too spartan, and I don't really like the flow of the dashboard. And just to be clear, the CTS-V is a different animal entirely than the regular CTS. Different engine, different suspension, different brakes, different seats, nearly everything is different. The CTS is more just a regular car, the V is a track-eating monster.
If you can't afford the E63, get the CTS-V. Mercedes-Benz buyers are not cross shopping a $110,000 E63 and a $60,000 Cadillac. Plus the Benz is twice the car the Cadillac will ever be, hence the almost double price tag
I drove an E63 AMG at Mercedes World its absolutely epic. The engine and noise is something else. Obviously I'd take the Merc no question
The Cadillac actually makes a much faster 0 - 60 about 3.9 I've done it in one and the owner of the car did it in 3.8. The car is still stock and has not broken down once, it is very impressive in the day to day and in race spec.
Love the taillights on the Jag. Makes me think of the Aston.
the CTS-V goes 0-60 in 4.0 when motortrend tested it up against the Jag. And the Cadillac official site says it's supposed to do 0-60 in 3.9. This test that CarandDriver did was VERY bad just because of how they treated Cadillac.
You guys are pros at taking best cars and create a freaking boring video.
Cut them some slack bro. It was 2009 😅
I have a 2011 AMG E63 and it's a real life Bad Ass!
John Iannuzzi yea but its butt fucking ugly probably the worst looking E class ever followed by the c class before the face lift
People don't seem to want to give credit where credit is due. I am more of a BMW fan than anything, but GM put out a monster of a car with the CTS-V line...One of the few cars where an automatic is a little quicker (but the manual is more fun imo). Why is it all the fan boys seem to go crazy over these videos and take serious offense when "their" car loses? Lol.
@SgtKanyo I think the jag is the best one there.....What do you think? Which one do you think is the best one?
What's with the Cadillac fan-bois who can't accept that some people still prefer Mercedes or BMW. Cadillac produces one excellent vehicle and everyone is supposed fall on their knees? I don't think so.
$50k is less than the CTSV! And it gets way more compliments and makes me feel way better than having a Cadillac would.
The Merc is a better ride because of the mix of comfort and sport. Balanced sports car.
@UFCextra Your comparison of Maybach to Cadillac shows how well you understand the automotive industry, let alone the economics of the world.
7 years later and you can scoop an E63 for $28k
ImYoutubing247 more like 18-25 lol
Yes. We have owned it for 18 months and have no problems with it whatsoever.
Cadillac!! Yeahhh!!
I said "I think a car with more horsepower and torque that gets the same speed numbers just because its heavier (than the CTS-V) IS BETTER THAN a lighter car".
30k miles is roughly 3 years of driving. 8 years doesnt matter. It wasnt sold until 2006.
And 2003-2006 CL55s were exactly the same.
And it was quite a bit less than a new CTS-V, isnt slower, and is a hell of a lot nicer in every single way.
umm im sorry jaguar in 3rd place?? worse than a cadillac?? mercedes is questionable but the cadillac beat the jaguar?? it looked so good driving through those streets. jaguar in 3rd my god what is happening to the world :O
Maybe because they're shit you fucking idiot. Finally learning the hard way.
you dont even have a licence yet. what the fuck do you know??
Because it is a Jag, lol. Personally I love them. They look better than anything and the interiors are nice. However when it comes to performance, an AMG would destroy a jag. As for the CTS-V....much respect to GM for making a very solid car that easily competes with the euro crowd.
the AMG is a nice car but it wastes so much of its power when it comes to a corner. it just cant keep the power down. in a strait line i agree with you though it is faster. top speed though i dont know about wit these 3? but 0-60 i would think that the mercedes is the faster of the 3. still i wouldn't say no to any of these cars. they are all brilliant
Cadillac beat both Mercedes and Jaguar. Its unique reomagnetic suspension (the same that Ferrari buys to GM), superior top speed, higher acceleration, cabin noise, wet handling etc Makes the Cadillac a the most advanced of three cars. But If I have to compare about it's elegance I take the Jagguar too.
@nootoons nearly forgot that... AMG's 6.2 is the most powerful N/A V8 in the world. The Caddy is supercharged (btw, the SLR Stirling Moss's engine packs 750hp while having LESS displacement than the Caddy V8).
Mercedes Benz best car ever made !!!!
CL55 Renntech. Didnt buy the car to get compliments, bought it because its massively powerful, looks great, sounds great, and has an amazing interior. Its really nice when people come up to you and think that your ONE IN FIVE HUNDRED MADE car is brand new and that you just bought it for over $120k. I dont need any compliments, the car makes me feel good just looking at it. But if someone comes and gives it one, Im sure going to enjoy it.
your comparing apples to oranges. Cadillac and Jaguar are no where near the quality and plateau of a mercedes benz. Germans>america
+Kyle Haggerty --mercedes has no quality, for quality get a toyota. heck Cadillac is more reliable!!!!!!!!
I know that my parents, who arent necessarily Europeans, work very hard and because of that they chose to drive what makes them happy, and in my mom's case, its an AMG. Yes the CTSV is cheaper, but neither of us think it looks, sounds, or feels as special.
The Cadillac CTS-V is the best 4 door sedan ever made.
LOL, probably not.
For it's price....
Johnny Barrett not even close
FINALLY someone on here that makes sense. Although Id much rather have the E63 over the M5 still. American cars are just known for being budget cars. Good for people on a budget, not for people who want to splurge on something they earned.
wow, that E63 boat does the 60mph run in 4 seconds. amazing.
I'm from the USA, and although I think the 0-60 times for the CTS-V are faster then whats displayed here, all these cars are nice. However, with pricing as the main factor, you cannot overlook a car that was 20k less then 3rd place, and damn near 40k less then 1st... That shouldn't be overlooked. Its the best bang for the buck. Period. With performance in mind, it blows both of the other 2 cars away on the nurburgring. Its a great car. And the looks of it really is in the eye of the beholder.
@200208195 Tires can play a big role, and the fact the E60 M5 did it on their production tires adds to the fact its a great car. From what I understood, the tires were not stock (or offered with the panamera), nor has there been any video proof of the actual time. Its the reason the commercials still say the CTS-V is the fastest production sedan around the nurburgring. Its like classifying the Zonda R against any of the other cars, when its not street legal.
Ok, I am an American and I this is my honest opinion.
I actually like most European and British cars much better than almost any American vehicle.
I have quite a few reasons of why I'd pick a Mercedes over a Cadillac. The qualities of the exterior and interior are absolutely incomparable. The AMG division has drastically improved since way back and they definitely know how to introduce performance. Another thing to mention are the impeccable safety features Mercedes implements in their cars.
It just passes each test with glory. It's really the ultimate in car making. E63
They also said the rear seats were crampt and uncomfortable, and that the only difference between the CTS and CTS-V was the seats and steering wheel, and I personally would never buy a car with a suede steering wheel, even a Mercedes.
It also got second because its slower to 60, and takes longer to brake. The Mercedes has a better interior with easier controls
Anyone that thinks the CTSV is ugly has never been next to one up close. I sat in one a few weeks ago. Anyone living close to me, I would be more than happy to bring them to see it. My sister's neighbor works for GM and I see all the new models when he brings them home. It is beautiful inside and out and the engine sounds freakin angry. I have heard that the 6 speed auto is quicker and faster than the stick. All I know is, the car is crazy fast and very comfortable and roomy inside.
No need for GM to worry about BMW and MB coming with TT V8s. The supercharger in the CTS-V is the TVS1900 and not the TVS2300 used in the ZR1. It would be easy to break 600 hp in the cadillac, but since it comes wit hthe best powertrain warranty, they decided not to push it too far. Also the CTS-V with the 6L90 auto is quicker and faster than the 6 speed manual.
@comlax22 what a silly comment, lets not forget that the CTS-V is a DETUNED ZR1 engine and its already supercharged. Any tuning you do to the E63 will produce twice the results on the CTS-V
same here in Germany; as said, the only place I see american oldies quite often is in Sweden, in Germany close to never. And in Germany you can also see 50 to 60 year old cars and trucks still running smooth and strong - so don't talk about Engines not lasting long :)
Ok, headliner. How much does the headliner in the CTS-V cost, and how much does the headliner in the E63 cost? And what are the specific differences between them? Why is the E63's headliner better?
@UFCextra ...the cockpit is a masterpiece: rich leather, brushed metal trim, designer controls, rear-seat room that makes the Caddy's pale in comparison." After reading that, how could you still say the CTS-V has a better interior? I already briefly touched on the CTS-V's power advantage, but, according to MT, "You'd expect the CTS-V to dispatch the E63 in a sprint. And you'd be mostly wrong...thanks to a [the E63's] vastly superior automatic transmission."
I wonder what the test results would have been if Cadillac made a $100,000 dollar Cadillac CTS-VR.
A $30,000 dollar advantage says it all in this video.
Cadillac CTSV: 60 months 100,000 miles
BMW M5: 48 months 50,000 miles
Mercedes E63 AMG: 48 months 50,000 miles
Audi S6: 48 months 50,000 miles
I'd pick the CTS-V for the following reasons:
Cheaper to maintain.
Easier to repair.
Goes just as fast as the other 2 for much less.
Cheaper to modify/upgrade.
Looks equally as good as the other 2 for much less.
GM's pushrod engines are EXTREMELY durable & last forever.
Has nearly as many features as the other 2 for much less.
It's much lighter than the other 2 for much less.
We see 20, 30, 40, 50 and even 60 year old Cadillacs on the road in the states frequently. VERY few older German cars because their engines don't last as long as American engines. It is RARE to see an old German car here.
You will be seeing more Cadillacs♥
To me Cadillac is the boss in every level. I'm German but I love Cadillac so much!
@im1greatman ; just a bit of info for you ;)
Frenchman Leon Levavasseur was a 39-year-old inventor in 1902 when he took out a patent for the first V-8 engine he called the Antoinette. The V8 since then has become the most reliable and efficient internal combustion engine to power automobiles and to see extensive use in power boats and early aircraft.
I've never been a fan of Cadillac's designs - too conservative for my taste, but I got to drive my aunt's CTS and it was amazing!
two cars for the price of two made me chuckle. thanks for the test!
@xlrvlac M5 E60 was launched 6 years ago and in the autumn they're going to launch the new one and definitely it will be the king for a long time, technically and esthetically. And if you really want a fast sedan, buy an Audi RS6, put a MTM cheap-tuning for 2000$ and you'll have a 720hp rocket with 5 seats and 4 doors.
It's something that can't be explained to people who havent experienced it. It costs more for a reason. Germans dont just make $40k more on their cars.... it costs more to make.
No matter how much I debate, I cant make people who think their CTS-V is amazing realize that the more expensive car is ACTUALLY BETTER.
@nootoons "And the Caddy has more airbags than all three of the cars listed here."
That's good but that doesn't always make the car safer because it's the chasis and the safety cage that is responsible for making the entire car more crumple-free. Unless, you can prove otherwise.
I agreed with him taking a BMW over the CTS-V. But I already have the facts for myself.
Cadillac has respect? You know the average age of a Cadillac owner is like 62?! Yeah, lots of respect there. Mercedes has the image of wealth and class. If you are one of those people who hate the rich, then it completely makes sense why you wouldnt like them.
"The CTS-V has the best ride of the group, with perfect balance between firmness and compliance." "The E63 and XFR exhibit high speed skittishness." "The CTS-V loses points for poor rear visibility."
SO the CTS-V came in 2nd because of rear visikbility, and they said they'd like a rear view camera. Surprise! They've all had rear view cameras since 2010. My wagon has one too. So if they had tested an '11 model, for example, it would have won over the E63.
Visibility was their only complaint.
The all new Cadillacs use premium Italian leather on both sides of the seats, the dashboard, and the door panels. On the XTS, imported Italian suede graces every inch of the interior ceiling. Cadillac is the most technologically advanced car ever introduced to the motoring public --------- regardless of price. You would pay $2,900.00/year to insure the BMW while the Cadillac would cost $1,200.00/year, on average. Cadillac is 4 times less expensive to repair too.
Cadillac for the win!
@71CommodoreGSE I do respect your comments, But as the facts show, the CTS-V is still faster and much more stable on the road with superior handling at all speeds. While I do enjoy driving I have owned all three, Jag, Merc, and Caddy. I like all three. The top two are easily Benz & Caddy hands down. Peace my friend
If you can afford the Mercedes or the Jag in the first place, the parts dont matter. GM just makes fast cars for people with a lower budget. There is obviously a difference in the cars for the price.
@JoeCaliforniah
I think you gotta reconsider Cadillac these days. Cadillac has rediscovered itself as a brand and is on the way up. Personally, I like the styling and interior of the Cadillac CTS-V far more than the German blandness of the Mercedes-Benz/BMW like. Also, being designed and built in Michigan, it makes me proud to support something from the USA that matches the best of the world.
@UFCextra i believe that, but here in Germany, many 70s Mercs are still used as daily drivers. There are at least 3 ones in my town (which isn't that big) which have > than 400k kilometers on the clock.
Old Caddies were built solid, but modern Caddies aren't the pinnacle of reliability. I don't have much info on the new CTS, though, as it isn't currently on sale here (it's going to be in the next years).
The E63 have speed limiter. If not, it can easily beat the CTS-V. The E63 worth the price. It's good looking, comfortable, fast. It can beat a Audi R8 too. V8.
Left Mercedes or left AMG? I and the majority of AMG owners would never ever switch from an AMG to a Cadillac. I dont even like the E Class but I would rather have it than 100 CTS-Vs.
I think people are angry because they thought the US was only good for making cars that go fast in a straight line. It took a 132K Porsche(All being recalled BTW) to beat the $69K CTS-V around the ring. The C6 Corvettes beat every BMW on their own track. The Viper kills the Enzo(670K+) on the ring and no BMW is within a mile of it.
Most of you and C&D too missed one critical point: The CTS-V is the ONLY car in this comparison that is available with a manual transmission. For those who really enjoy driving, and driving cars like this on a race track, like I do, a traditional manual transmission is the only way to go, and it's a ton of fun. The fact you can get a manual transmission in a car like this is phenomenal. The BMW M5 is the only other car in this segment that offers a traditional manual too. Automatics suck!!
i love the looks of CTS-v! much much sharper than the other 2 cars
HOLY SHIT! Cadillac is less expensive, out performs the others, has a better interior, costs less to insure, and has the HIGHEST resale value of any other car being sold on this earth!
It's a no brainer. Cadillac for the win!!!
Car and Driver makes a killer magazine, but this channel has no comparison to Top Gear. Not even close.
The E63 (or any Merc *63) sounds beautiful. Perhaps one of the nicest car sounds ever.
@69vettedude The new 2011 E63 is electronically limited to 155, with the performance option it is raised to 186mph and that is still limited electronically.
And Inside Line says the E63 does 4.4 0-60, and 4.3 for the CTS-V. Cadillac says 4.0 for the CTS-V, and good drivers on street tires have gotten 3.9 out of it. It's severely traction limited. With drag radials it does an easy 3.7 0-60. The point is that while the CTS-V is traction limited, the E63 is not. It can't do a 3.7 0-60 no matter what tires you put on it.
That's why the CTS-V has a higher trap speed. Because it's faster. You should learn how this stuff works.
@LazBro123 Not really. The new XKRS has 550hp, and I'm sure its a bit more lightweight then the CTS-V. But the 0-60 time looks about the same, with the XKRS being a bit slower, and the CTS-V has 550ft-lbs torque, compared to 501 ft lbs torque, and that can win races in a straight line. Don't forget, however, this is a 2 door vs 4 door... If it were to go against the V Coupe, it would definitely get a run for its money, but it will not "own" anything.
I'm not saying the E63 is better than the other two but we do need to factor in the AUTOBAHN, something MB has plenty of access to, that may or may not justify the 100K price. I say this because if MB wants to assure the driver is comfortable while cruising at 150 mph, it must be engineered very well. Of course, outside of Germany, it won't see 150 but, just maybe, there might be somebody who will keep it for 15 years. Yes, I hear on the MB forums about drivers keeping them for a long time.
@TheSandman408 dude, trust me, u can look it up too. 0-60 in 3.9 is accepted by almost every major car mag. what doesnt make sense to me is that i get CAR AND DRIVER and it says 3.9, i dont know why it's different on here, could be the roads but i dont really know. but even go to cadillac's website and look at info on the engine. It also set a record for 4 door sedans at Nurburgring
The reasoning behind the warranty has nothing to do with the parts (and nothing to do with racing). GM increased it's warranty for competitive reasons, particularly because of it's own reliability failures and the public's perception that overall quality was lacking.
The CTS-V is a terrific car and a great-bang-for-the-buck alternative, but the extra $35K you'll spend on the MB is most apparent in the materials used. If anything, in this instance, it's the Cadillac with the 'cheap' parts.
You think what you want about me. Im not here to make judgements about other people, just cars.
@Daml661 I think you have it wrong I think the XFR doesn't play in the same class as the CTS-V and E63 AMG.
@69vettedude that's because all german cars have a limiter to 250km/h.. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, vw.. everything.. but if you remove the limiter your Cadillac will be along behind..
@drawne09 so youve sat in the Mercedes E63 AMG and the Cadillac CTS-V? ( I prefer CTS interior not V) youve sat in both these cars and tested the material? no you havent
Without Jaguar, Mercedes, and all of the European cars, the CTS-V would not exist.......... European brands inspired Cadillac to do what they are making today. I love all of them :D You cannot beat the CTS-V for the price. Even though it might not have as good of an interior as the other two compared in this test, it is still a bang for the buck.
Cadillac sales are picking up in Germany as well as Europe in general. Buick is the number one selling American import to China where Cadillac is doing well too. Cadillac has a better resale value now than Mercedes and Audi. The Cadillac CTS-V is on par with BMW.
You will be seeing many more Cadillacs♥
@thecubanratio1 Remember... both Motor Trend and C&D based their decisions on preference of the vehicle layout and materials and not on performance. I won't argue that the Merc is a more refined machine (which is why the cost can be twice as much), but if the debate is strictly performance based the V does outperform the AMG (again check the speed channel's head to head competition where the V wins hands down).
@UFCextra hey what kind of cars do you own?
@AutoEnthusiasts Well, MotorTrend conducted a comparison test between the E63 and CTS-V and ranked the E63 1st on account of not only being the better all-arounder, but the better performer as well. Even despite the CTS-V having the advantage in straight-line acceleration, the E63 was quicker around their figure-eight course and the road course. The CTS-V is the better bargain both in terms of performance and the car itself, but, to me, there's no doubt that the E63 is objectively the better car
cant decide which ones better
are people forgetting the fact the the merc cost over 100k? cadillac is the real winner here because you can actually afford it
Did anyone also notice that the Cadillac has, by far, the highest top speed, at 191 mph? Its definitely worth its price, the other two are way too expensive, and neither can top 162.
When it comes down to it, the Jag and E63 are both 20 and 40 grand more expensive respectively than the CTS-V. For that much money you could take any of the complaints you may have with the Caddy and fix them. Just like the Corvette gives you the best bang for the buck in the supercar realm, you can't touch value for price in the sports sedan world with the CTS-V. GM has something going there. And thats all she wrote my friends.
I drive an AMG and it's the most reliable out of these company's also have owned cts-v, benz hands down :)
It will keep it's value the longest as well.
@UFCextra How can you tell the difference between a german and an American when your driving down the street?
I test drove an XF (not the XFR) and the only reason I did't get it was the touch screen satnav. the buttons on the screen were way too small and I couldn't deal with it. also it's not available without shift paddles
We did. Just look at consumer reports. The infiniti's I had were much more reliable. I just bought a GLK anyway though lol. They are better to look at/ more fun to drive. I'll cope with a few more trips to the shop
@ZefreyLove
Mercedes stole from general motors? what kind of technology they taken from?
Yes I actually have seen one. They look boring. The only interesting one is the Coupe. The seats just look weird and bulky, the navigation screen looks out of place, and the whole car lacks a special appearance. If you think it looks cool, good for you. For me, you are getting a whole lot more for your money, whether its the plain looks of the car, the design of the seats, the elegance of the navigation screen, or the BADGE. And the badge itself it worth more than the whole CTSV.
I have the XF & test drove the standard cts.The XF doesn't have poor finish. The top of the dash & the wheel is leather. The seats are a soft leather. Some of the dash is plastic but it doesn't feel to bad. The cts is all plastic & the seats were a very rough leather. The whole interior felt cheap.The merc has a great interior, but It's for people who have money to burn & don't car about bang for the buck.
I recently read some where that people think that the reason that we still would purchase bmw or merc over the Caddy is because of the badge... Well your right, if you look at history (just past 40 or so years) they've done they're freaking homework... unlike some car co. which they weren't out there on the racetrack trying to prove there product (not just making left turns all day)... they freaking earn there freaking badge plain freaking simple.. they earned it the hard way...
Cadillac made one car thats equally as good as ONE Mercedes, and thats putting them in their place? Mercedes competes with much higher up companies than Cadillac. They dont waste a second thinking about Cadillac. Just because there is a car cheaper out there doesnt mean that their customers are going to leave and go buy it. Cadillac vs. Mercedes. Old American vs Wealthy German. Wonder which most people would rather have...
@71CommodoreGSE You are wrong about the SLR Sterling Moss 722. It only has 640 hp NOT 750. Only 209 MPH top speed. Sad for a full blown sports car. Cadillac is a 4 door family car Top speed 205 MPH.
@MrSpartan92 - huh? Most tests actually reckon that the XF is the best-riding, best-handling and best-built class in its sector...
Car & Driver did have some bias in their rankings. I think the pros and cons of the Cadillac vs Mercedes were basically equal, so if you factor in the price gap, Cadillac has to have a slight edge. As a 2009 CTS-V owner, I am biased too I suppose.
@DroidNoid actually i have 2 cars with ls blocks, one stock ls1 with over 150k miles and no problems ever. Other is an modified lsx with 75k miles driven very hard as a road track and autox car and no engine gasket problems. The only time i hear of head gaskets going on the ls, is from user error ( over heating the aluminum block or just not taking care of it).
@seb4774
is it 40k better than the CTS?
Personal preference is one thing, but you said in terms of handling and comfort you would take the M5. But the CTS-V is better in those departments - proven objectively better across many head to head tests - so really what you're saying is that you'd take the M5 despite the fact that it's not as good. And that's your choice, just be clear that is what you're actually saying.
Also you said I can't say you haven't driven a CTS - but have you driven a CTS-V?
I like the one that is the FASTEST around the most demanding track in the world - Nurburgring. It's also the fastest 4 door luxury sedan on the market overall. It's the most car for your money. It's the Cadillac CTS-V.
But if you need to continue thinking "inside-the-box" and succumb to over-priced pompous-mobiles, stick with the Euros.
Personally I like the CTS-V's interior much more than the M5. Now this is something that does come down to personal preference. I find the M5's interior a little too spartan, and I don't really like the flow of the dashboard. And just to be clear, the CTS-V is a different animal entirely than the regular CTS. Different engine, different suspension, different brakes, different seats, nearly everything is different. The CTS is more just a regular car, the V is a track-eating monster.
cts-v is the best of the 3...its the cheapest, fastest, looks amazing, sounds the best, and actually looks sporty...it handles the best too..
If you can't afford the E63, get the CTS-V. Mercedes-Benz buyers are not cross shopping a $110,000 E63 and a $60,000 Cadillac. Plus the Benz is twice the car the Cadillac will ever be, hence the almost double price tag