2005 BMW 330i, 05 Cadillac CTS, and Infiniti G35

[BMWDave]

Link to Article

This is a summary:

The CTS doesnt look flashy compared to the other two; it has the most relaxed drive; interior doesnt look so nice and its appearance is that of plastic.  The clutch is a little mushy, and the shifter has light but somewhat vague action and long throws.  Also got the slowest 0-60 time.

The G35 is the performance bargain.  However, materials inside were deemed cheap.

The 3er is simply the best performer overall, and the extra money is worth it.

[TBR]

No surprises there, though the 330i still isn't worth 10k more than the G35 imho.

[Raza]

No surprises there, though the 330i still isn't worth 10k more than the G35 imho.

Good thing it doesn't cost 10K more.  Comparably equipped they're only 4 grand or so apart.  

[FlatBlackCaddy]

Personally i'd probobly get a G35 Coupe, out of the cars listed.

[Fire It Up]

The G35 is all ate up with motor.

[TBR]

No surprises there, though the 330i still isn't worth 10k more than the G35 imho.

Good thing it doesn't cost 10K more.  Comparably equipped they're only 4 grand or so apart.

Actually, the difference isn't 10k (that was an exaggeration), but it isn't 4k either. Try $7000 more for as comparably equipped cars as you can get (the Infiniti still has more stuff).

[Raza]

No surprises there, though the 330i still isn't worth 10k more than the G35 imho.

Good thing it doesn't cost 10K more.  Comparably equipped they're only 4 grand or so apart.

Actually, the difference isn't 10k (that was an exaggeration), but it isn't 4k either. Try $7000 more for as comparably equipped cars as you can get (the Infiniti still has more stuff).

Well, from my experience, a G35 coupe equipped the way I want it runs about 37K, and the 330i the way I want it runs about 41K.  That's where I grabbed my number.

[TBR]

The G35c is more expensive than the sedan is, just like the 330ci was more expensive than the E46 sedan is.

[Raza]

The G35c is more expensive than the sedan is, just like the 330ci was more expensive than the E46 sedan is.

True, but only by a little.  Less than a thousand, isn't it?

[TBR]

There is a $2000 difference and the price difference between the G35 sedan and 330i is actually larger than I said, I selected a G35 automatic instead of the 6mt so the real difference is $8000.

[Raza]

There is a $2000 difference and the price difference between the G35 sedan and 330i is actually larger than I said, I selected a G35 automatic instead of the 6mt so the real difference is $8000.

Yowza.

[TBR]

There is a $2000 difference and the price difference between the G35 sedan and 330i is actually larger than I said, I selected a G35 automatic instead of the 6mt so the real difference is $8000.

Yowza.

Exactly my point, $8000 is a lot  for some extra feel.

[SJ_GTI]

There is a $2000 difference and the price difference between the G35 sedan and 330i is actually larger than I said, I selected a G35 automatic instead of the 6mt so the real difference is $8000.

Yowza.

Exactly my point, $8000 is a lot  for some extra feel.

Its not that simple.

First i have to ask myself: Would I rather own a 325i or a G35 sedan?

Based on prior experience, I would take the 325i.

Other than going fast in a straight line it does practically everything better than the G35. Better shifter, better steering, better braking, better handling (special note: handling does not equate to maximum lateral equip).

Then I would have to decide if the extra 5-6k for a 330i is worth it over a 325i. That would be a tougher choice for me.

[TBR]

I understand that it isn't simple, I would have to take extensive test drives myself to decide if the 330i really is worth $8000 more than the G35 is,  but it is a lot of money.

[ifcar]

The 325i is finally capably quick, to the point where I'd see no reason to pay the extra $6,000 for the 330i for some more of an already-present quality.  

[Raza]

The 325i is finally capably quick, to the point where I'd see no reason to pay the extra $6,000 for the 330i for some more of an already-present quality.

If quick is enough, quicker's even better.  But then again, your dream car would be some sort of mesh, a sick love child between the Avalon and Sienna.  

:D  

[ifcar]

The 325i is finally capably quick, to the point where I'd see no reason to pay the extra $6,000 for the 330i for some more of an already-present quality.

If quick is enough, quicker's even better.  But then again, your dream car would be some sort of mesh, a sick love child between the Avalon and Sienna.  

:D

Quicker is definitely better, but I couldn't see it being $6,000 worth of better.

I don't even know what to make of the last statement.  <_<  

[SJ_GTI]

I would tend to agree with Ifcar. Seriously I am quite happy with my 8 second to 60 A4. the 325i with 6MT supposedly runs a 6.7 to 60, which is pretty darn fast in comparison.

[TBR]

Well, imho I would only look at the 330i simply because I don't particularly like the styling of the E90 so why sacrifice speed as well? On the otherhand, I am perfectly willing to forgive the A4 2.0t for its 6.5-6.6 time simply because I love everything else about it.

[Raza]

The 325i is finally capably quick, to the point where I'd see no reason to pay the extra $6,000 for the 330i for some more of an already-present quality.

If quick is enough, quicker's even better.  But then again, your dream car would be some sort of mesh, a sick love child between the Avalon and Sienna.  

:D

Quicker is definitely better, but I couldn't see it being $6,000 worth of better.

I don't even know what to make of the last statement.  <_<

I used a smiley to insure that you took it lightly.

Well, we all have our priorities.  If I can get faster, I'll get faster.

[Raza]

I would tend to agree with Ifcar. Seriously I am quite happy with my 8 second to 60 A4. the 325i with 6MT supposedly runs a 6.7 to 60, which is pretty darn fast in comparison.

My Passat's only a few ticks or so behind your car, and compared to the E320 (7 seconds or so) it's an eternity.  It feels ridiculously slow.

[SJ_GTI]

Well, imho I would only look at the 330i simply because I don't particularly like the styling of the E90 so why sacrifice speed as well? On the otherhand, I am perfectly willing to forgive the A4 2.0t for its 6.5-6.6 time simply because I love everything else about it.

6.5-6.6 seconds? The 2.0T is not that fast. Heck, the A4 3.2 is probably not even that fast...

In edmunds comparison to the 330i the A4 2.0TQ with 6MT ran 7.7 seconds 0-60, which is pretty reasonable given its power, AWD, and weight. I could see it maybe getting into the low sevens on a very good day but 6.5 would be nearly impossible for that car.

[ifcar]

Well, imho I would only look at the 330i simply because I don't particularly like the styling of the E90 so why sacrifice speed as well? On the otherhand, I am perfectly willing to forgive the A4 2.0t for its 6.5-6.6 time simply because I love everything else about it.

6.5-6.6 seconds? The 2.0T is not that fast. Heck, the A4 3.2 is probably not even that fast...

In edmunds comparison to the 330i the A4 2.0TQ with 6MT ran 7.7 seconds 0-60, which is pretty reasonable given its power, AWD, and weight. I could see it maybe getting into the low sevens on a very good day but 6.5 would be nearly impossible for that car.

Edmunds always gets slow times. I believe the Audi-released 0-60 for a manual 2.0T is close to TBR's number.  

[SJ_GTI]

Well, imho I would only look at the 330i simply because I don't particularly like the styling of the E90 so why sacrifice speed as well? On the otherhand, I am perfectly willing to forgive the A4 2.0t for its 6.5-6.6 time simply because I love everything else about it.

6.5-6.6 seconds? The 2.0T is not that fast. Heck, the A4 3.2 is probably not even that fast...

In edmunds comparison to the 330i the A4 2.0TQ with 6MT ran 7.7 seconds 0-60, which is pretty reasonable given its power, AWD, and weight. I could see it maybe getting into the low sevens on a very good day but 6.5 would be nearly impossible for that car.

Edmunds always gets slow times. I believe the Audi-released 0-60 for a manual 2.0T is close to TBR's number.

I checked C&D and they got 7.2 seconds.

[ifcar]

I couldn't find the manufacturer figure again, but I was pretty sure it was around 6.7. Consumer Guide got 6.8, BTW.

[TBR]

R&T got 6.4 seconds and I tend to trust that number more so than I do C/D's because their review came out a month later and historically their numbers have always been lower.  

[SJ_GTI]

Well if I am wrong, congrats to Audi. But not sure then why you would have to "forgive" a 6.5 second 0-60. That is really fast.

[TBR]

By itself a 6.5 second number is impressive, but it isn't when you compare it to the acceleration numbers of its competitors.

[SJ_GTI]

By itself a 6.5 second number is impressive, but it isn't when you compare it to the acceleration numbers of its competitors.

Whatever you say. I wish you good luck when buying your car because you obviuously have very high standards, since about 90% of the cars on the road will never go 0-60 in 6.5 seconds.

[TBR]

My standards are perfectly reasonable for a sports sedan