C&D Ten Best 2016

[SVT666]

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.

Not to mention space under the seat to stick your feet.  The G doesn't have any room under the seat for more than your toes whereas you could shove your feet under the front seat of my Focus.

[12,000 RPM]

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

And yet, here you are

Combined front and rear legroom for the CTS-V is about 3" more than the M3/C63 so I guess if you need every last inch that is legit. For me those E class size cars are just too big and heavy.

[SVT666]

And yet, here you are

Combined front and rear legroom for the CTS-V is about 3" more than the M3/C63 so I guess if you need every last inch that is legit. For me those E class size cars are just too big and heavy.

Until your 12 year old is 6' tall.

[CaminoRacer]

Until your 12 year old is 6' tall.

Which I was.

What about trunk space?

[MX793]

Which I was.

What about trunk space?

Same size as a 3 series, C class (or Mustang).

[CJ]

The CTS does have a small backseat. I'm a short ass and it's too tight for me to be comfortable in. The ATS backseat is horrific.