C&D Ten Best 2016

[Raza]

Me too. Very distinctive and not a cookie-cutter rehash of all the other lux makes.

Yeah, just a rehash of the last two generations of CTS.   

[Raza]

Hmm, it does look better there.  Must be the angle they shot it.  The area between the rear wheel and the C-pillar is still awkward.  Something troubling about that overhang.  Also, it looks enormous.  Is it full on 5 series size now that they have the ATS?

[Raza]

Just a cookie-cutter rehash of every other Cadillac from the last decade or so...

Damn it!

[Raza]

The CTS-V drives better, performs better, is likely more reliable, looks better, costs less, and has a better warranty.  sounds like an easy choice to me.

On another note, everyone on here talks about how these lux performance sedans lose tehir value like a stone, but I have yet to see that.  Every time I check used car prices these performance variants (V, M, and AMG) all hold their value like no other.

Must be a market difference; they do drop quite a bit here. 

[12,000 RPM]

All short warranty lease specials are essentially worthless out of that period. It's OK though, I would still roll the dice on an out of warranty 335i.

[MX793]

Interesting. Surprised the 5th gen didn't make it on. Mustang has been on like 6 times across multiple generations.

I'm a little surprised as well.  C&D generally preferred the 5th gen Mustang to the 5th gen Camaro, but for 2010, at least, the Camaro was fresh and the faster car.  That said, C&D chose the 2010 Mustang over the 2010 Camaro in a comparo of the two (even without factoring their sometimes BS "Gotta Have It" factor).

This year marks the 10th appearance for a Mustang.  Mustangs made the list 3 times in the 80s ('83, '87, '88), then nothing until the 5th generation Mustang in 2005.

[afty]

The AMG E-Class seems to hold its value especially poorly. I've been tempted by some cheap E63s but I'm scared of the maintenance and repair costs.

[CaminoRacer]

I'm a little surprised as well.  C&D generally preferred the 5th gen Mustang to the 5th gen Camaro, but for 2010, at least, the Camaro was fresh and the faster car.  That said, C&D chose the 2010 Mustang over the 2010 Camaro in a comparo of the two (even without factoring their sometimes BS "Gotta Have It" factor).

This year marks the 10th appearance for a Mustang.  Mustangs made the list 3 times in the 80s ('83, '87, '88), then nothing until the 5th generation Mustang in 2005.

Helps that while the CamStang stepped up their game recently, every other car on the market is going downhill.

[12,000 RPM]

The AMG E-Class seems to hold its value especially poorly. I've been tempted by some cheap E63s but I'm scared of the maintenance and repair costs.

I kind of don't see the point of them over the base E350. Plenty fast on the street and way lower maintenance

[Raza]

I kind of don't see the point of them over the base E350. Plenty fast on the street and way lower maintenance

The E350 really isn't anything.  The E500/550 (when they made it) was a closer comparison.  302hp in the E350 doesn't go very far with all the weight it's carrying.  More than 4,000 curb weight.  4,001, to be exact.  It's like the old S500 my mom used to have, in power and weight, and a similar 6 seconds to 60 time.  But when you compare it to her CLS550, which is still not an AMG model, it feels a whole lot more special and alive than the S500 ever did, with 100hp more.  The CLS63 would likely be even more of a thrill.

But if you just want a relatively quick mattress with a badge, the E350 is a fine choice.  But if you want to enjoy it at all, it probably needs more engine and a sportier trim.  Let's not forget that the E350 lost to the CTS and the A6 in C&D's comparison (only besting the 535i xDrive35i, which is embarrassing for BMW).  But a Mercedes losing to a Cadillac?  And they even said the Cadillac's ride was good, which was the E350's party piece (they said it had an excellent ride, but no sportiness).   

[12,000 RPM]

The E350 really isn't anything.  The E500/550 (when they made it) was a closer comparison.  302hp in the E350 doesn't go very far with all the weight it's carrying.  More than 4,000 curb weight.  4,001, to be exact.  It's like the old S500 my mom used to have, in power and weight, and a similar 6 seconds to 60 time.  But when you compare it to her CLS550, which is still not an AMG model, it feels a whole lot more special and alive than the S500 ever did, with 100hp more.  The CLS63 would likely be even more of a thrill.

But if you just want a relatively quick mattress with a badge, the E350 is a fine choice.  But if you want to enjoy it at all, it probably needs more engine and a sportier trim.  Let's not forget that the E350 lost to the CTS and the A6 in C&D's comparison (only besting the 535i xDrive35i, which is embarrassing for BMW).  But a Mercedes losing to a Cadillac?  And they even said the Cadillac's ride was good, which was the E350's party piece (they said it had an excellent ride, but no sportiness).

Something as big and heavy as an E class can't be sporty IMO. So I figure it's not worth bothering. If I'm getting something like this, I would get the bigger engine just for more torque, and the sport package only for looks... though if the sport package rode rough (as they often do) I would skip it. If someone wants driving thrills, barring long dead exceptions like the E39 M5, 2 ton plus sedans are probably the worst place to look.

[SVT666]

Every single person that has driven the CTS-V disagrees with you.

[12,000 RPM]

Would you buy a CTS-V over an ATS-V?

[SVT666]

Would you buy a CTS-V over an ATS-V?

Depends, but probably.  Aside from the manual transmission, consensus seems to be the CTS-V is a revelation.

[12,000 RPM]

A revelation for a 2 ton plus sedan. No thanks

[CaminoRacer]

So if you want a sporty family car, just get a Miata. Got it.

[SVT666]

A revelation for a 2 ton plus sedan. No thanks

You don't have kids yet.

[MrH]

So if you want a sporty family car, just get a Miata. Got it.

[12,000 RPM]

You don't have kids yet.

You can fit a rear facing infant seat, which is the hardest seat to fit, in an M3 or C63. What does the CTS-V have that those don't, besides hundreds of extra lbs of weight and ~100 more HP you will never be able to use on the street?

[CaminoRacer]

More room to bang all the chicks you're gonna pick up with your 500 hp.

[SVT666]

You can fit a rear facing infant seat, which is the hardest seat to fit, in an M3 or C63. What does the CTS-V have that those don't, besides hundreds of extra lbs of weight and ~100 more HP you will never be able to use on the street?

First of all, it's 200 more hp, and second of all, my kids are already uncomfortable in the back seat of our G because of legroom because both my wife and I are tall.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

You can fit a rear facing infant seat, which is the hardest seat to fit, in an M3 or C63. What does the CTS-V have that those don't, besides hundreds of extra lbs of weight and ~100 more HP you will never be able to use on the street?

Well some people just want a BIGGER car than the M3, ATS, C Class. They have Teenage kids or do a lot of commuting/traveling with adult passengers.

[Raza]

You can fit a rear facing infant seat, which is the hardest seat to fit, in an M3 or C63. What does the CTS-V have that those don't, besides hundreds of extra lbs of weight and ~100 more HP you will never be able to use on the street?

Kids don't stay in infant seats forever. Even for a 12 year old or similar, a long ride in the back of a car that size can be pretty miserable.

[12,000 RPM]

CTS-V doesn't have any more rear legroom than the C63/M3 and they are all equally fast at legal speeds. Performance wise I don't think you'd be getting anything more that you could actually use. But w/e.

[SJ_GTI]

Kids don't stay in infant seats forever. Even for a 12 year old or similar, a long ride in the back of a car that size can be pretty miserable.

A 12 year old (or an average sized adult for that matter) fits more easily/comfortably in to my back seat than a rear facing baby seat. Both fit FWIW, but for the rear facing baby seat I had to adjust my (drivers) seat a bit.

[SVT666]

I've always found arguing with people who don't have kids about vehicle requirements when you have kids to be exhausting.

[Raza]

A 12 year old (or an average sized adult for that matter) fits more easily/comfortably in to my back seat than a rear facing baby seat. Both fit FWIW, but for the rear facing baby seat I had to adjust my (drivers) seat a bit.

I've been in the back of a car exactly the same as yours for hours and it is not comfortable. Rear facing baby seats don't need legroom, it's not at all a similar comparison. And there are 12-15 year olds who are my height.

[Raza]

CTS-V doesn't have any more rear legroom than the C63/M3 and they are all equally fast at legal speeds. Performance wise I don't think you'd be getting anything more that you could actually use. But w/e.

Wow. I'll give you that. The CTS is 10" longer than the C class and has .2" more rear legroom. That is not a good use of space. It's 15" longer than the 3 series and only has .3" more rear legroom.

[SJ_GTI]

I've been in the back of a car exactly the same as yours for hours and it is not comfortable. Rear facing baby seats don't need legroom, it's not at all a similar comparison. And there are 12-15 year olds who are my height.

Well no back seat is comfortable for hours. I am thinking more along the lines of a 20 minute trip (going out to lunch or dinner with friends/family).

That being said, I have used my car to go to football games (90ish minute drive) and have never had complaints about the back seat. 

[MX793]

Wow. I'll give you that. The CTS is 10" longer than the C class and has .2" more rear legroom. That is not a good use of space. It's 15" longer than the 3 series and only has .3" more rear legroom.

Published legroom can be misleading because the SAE standard used to measure it leaves some room for manipulation.  The SAE standard for interior dimensions does not specify the position of the front seat when measuring rear legroom and lists two different possible positions for the front seat (all the back or far enough back to accommodate a 95th percentile male driver) for front legroom.  Most/many automakers will measure rear legroom with the front seat placed wherever it was when they measured the front legroom, but not all do.  Additionally, even combined legroom can't be trusted because some automakers will cite front legroom using the all the way back method, but rear legroom with the front seat set for a 95th percentile driver (which can add inches to the combined legroom).  Ford apparently does this on some (or all) vehicles, and I'm sure some others do as well.