Car and Driver CT4 Blackwing vs M3 Comp vs Giulia Quad

[565]

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a63181892/2024-alfa-romeo-giulia-quadrifoglio-2025-bmw-m3-competition-2025-cadillac-ct4-v-blackwing/

[GoCougs]

CT4-V Blackwing gets all this love from the auto press but no one buys it.

Cadillac had a opportunity to shoehorn in the LT2 providing a material differentiation and a fighting chance for sales relevancy. Would've been quite something else.

[r0tor]

Giulia still sounds like the most fun of the bunch

[565]

Giulia still sounds like the most fun of the bunch

It's tempting because you can get a used quad for under 40k, but would it immediately explode on the way home?

Anyway the time to get one used would be now, since when things end production they tend to appreciate a little.

[r0tor]

It's tempting because you can get a used quad for under 40k, but would it immediately explode on the way home?

Anyway the time to get one used would be now, since when things end production they tend to appreciate a little.

You can get a Mopar factory extended warranty up to 12 years old.

Overall they are not bad in a reliability sense.  Maintenance is expensive as the Ferrari derived engine has a long laundry list of services needed and most require taking half the front of the car off.  Plus Alfa dealers are closing at an alarming rate.


As a spare fun car to put a couple thousand miles on a year I think it looks pretty attractive.

[565]

Maintenance is expensive as the Ferrari derived engine has a long laundry list of services needed and most require taking half the front of the car off.  Plus Alfa dealers are closing at an alarming rate.

Jesus, say no more, I'm good... no longer tempted.

[r0tor]

Jesus, say no more, I'm good... no longer tempted.

But if it's just a pleasure car you are talking 5-10 years between hitting those services.  So much less of a deal.

[veeman]

Prior to the Catera (the Caddy that Zigs) in the 80s and most of the 90s Cadillac was a wealthy old person's car. They've been trying since the late 90s to capture some of the German luxury sports sedan market but have mostly failed.

Being known for decades as an old persons car, poor resale value, poor reliability, and Chevy grade interiors... it's too bad.  Just too much to overcome in a dwindling market.

[565]

Prior to the Catera (the Caddy that Zigs) in the 80s and most of the 90s Cadillac was a wealthy old person's car. They've been trying since the late 90s to capture some of the German luxury sports sedan market but have mostly failed.

Being known for decades as an old persons car, poor resale value, poor reliability, and Chevy grade interiors... it's too bad.  Just too much to overcome in a dwindling market.

The old customer base for Cadillac in general is true.  When I brought the Blackwing for service to get the parking sensors installed, the waiting room looked like a bingo hall.


However I don't think the resale and reliability thing is true for the V cars when compared against its peers, which are German performance sedans. Take a look at used 2nd gen CTS V and 3rd gen CTS V prices against E60 and F10 M5 prices.  You can get a E60 M5 in the teens and some F10 M5s down in the mid 20K mark, nicer F10s would be in the 30s or 40s, while most reasonable 2nd gen CTS Vs are 30s to 40s and 3rd gen CTS V are often around 50K still. Compared year to year and mileage to mileage, the V usually sells for a good chunk more than the M5. The ATS-V similarly holds value about as well as the F80 M3s that they've been contemporary with, especially manual models.

Most of that is actually down to reliability and running costs.  S65 V10 in the E60 was known to have rod bearing issues, the S63 V8 in the F10 M5 also had coolant resevior issues and conrod issues, which make owning both of those cars out of warranty a major investment. S55 in the F80 M3 had known crank hub issues.

Meantime the LSA, LT4, LF4 trio in the V products have been relatively trouble free by comparison and cost effective to maintain.

Despite poor sales when new, GM performance sedans usually do well on the used market usually due to low volume sales leading to rarity, relative simplicity and reliability. The Chevy SS is the perfect example.  Almost no one bought one when it was available new, but if you bought a manual one when dealers were massively discounting them, you could sell it today for what you paid for it.

[veeman]

The old customer base for Cadillac in general is true.  When I brought the Blackwing for service to get the parking sensors installed, the waiting room looked like a bingo hall.


However I don't think the resale and reliability thing is true for the V cars when compared against its peers, which are German performance sedans. Take a look at used 2nd gen CTS V and 3rd gen CTS V prices against E60 and F10 M5 prices.  You can get a E60 M5 in the teens and some F10 M5s down in the mid 20K mark, nicer F10s would be in the 30s or 40s, while most reasonable 2nd gen CTS Vs are 30s to 40s and 3rd gen CTS V are often around 50K still. Compared year to year and mileage to mileage, the V usually sells for a good chunk more than the M5. The ATS-V similarly holds value about as well as the F80 M3s that they've been contemporary with, especially manual models.

Most of that is actually down to reliability and running costs.  S65 V10 in the E60 was known to have rod bearing issues, the S63 V8 in the F10 M5 also had coolant resevior issues and conrod issues, which make owning both of those cars out of warranty a major investment. S55 in the F80 M3 had known crank hub issues.

Meantime the LSA, LT4, LF4 trio in the V products have been relatively trouble free by comparison and cost effective to maintain.

Despite poor sales when new, GM performance sedans usually do well on the used market usually due to low volume sales leading to rarity, relative simplicity and reliability. The Chevy SS is the perfect example.  Almost no one bought one when it was available new, but if you bought a manual one when dealers were massively discounting them, you could sell it today for what you paid for it.

Interesting. I thought "M" variant BMWs on the used car market held their value well, more so than Cadillac "V" models but I guess not.

Having owned a Cadillac Blackwing, do you feel the interior is noticeably subpar?  Like if you were test driving a German luxury sports sedan back to back with the Cadillac, would it be readily noticeable or do you think the auto mags make too much of it.

[565]

Just for more data on this.

Here is a website that tracks used car prices on their site by year and model/make.

I've listed all the years where both cars have data (M5 and CTS-V weren't made every model year).  There was also one year I listed of the 1st Gen CTS-V against the M5, but the first gen CTS-V was probably more a M3 fighter than M5 fighter in price, and honestly as a first effort wasn't as well loved as later examples.


2007:
https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2007-bmw-m5-vs-2007-cadillac-cts__v

M5 (E60 gen): 22,758 avg used price, 83,195 starting MSRP, 27.3% residual value after 18 years.

CTS-V (1st gen): 19,708 avg used price, 52,070 starting MSRP,37.8% residual value after 18 years

Either one car or another was missing data for years 2008, 2009

2010
https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2010-bmw-m5-vs-2010-cadillac-cts__v
M5 (E60 gen): 18,305 avg used price, 85,500 starting MSRP, 21.5% residual value after 15 years.

CTS-V (2nd gen): 35,431 avg used price, 60720 starting MSRP, 58.3% residual value after 15 years. 

Honestly a 58% residual value after 15 years for a large luxury sedan is really good.

E60 M5 production ended in 2010, next jump is to 2013 when the F10 M5 is released in the US

2013:
https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2013-bmw-m5-vs-2013-cadillac-cts__v

M5 (F10 gen): 30,331 avg used price, 89,900 starting MSRP, 33.7% residual value after 12 years.

CTS-V (2nd gen): 38,898 avg used price, 63215 starting MSRP, 61.5% residual value after 12 years. 


2014:
https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2014-bmw-m5-vs-2014-cadillac-cts__v

M5 (F10 gen): 32,895 avg used price, 92,900 starting MSRP, 35.4% residual value after 11 years.

CTS-V (2nd gen): 42,480 avg used price, 63600 starting MSRP, 66.8% residual value after 11 years.

2015:

This year seems to be an outlier with a CTS-V selling for 10.8k (must have been a wrecked one selling as is) that seems to have dragged down the average to less than previous years (usually much fewer CTS-Vs for sale so a single outlier makes a difference, still the % residual is higher than the M5).

https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2015-bmw-m5-vs-2015-cadillac-cts__v

M5 (F10 gen): 36,262 avg used price, 93,600 starting MSRP, 38.7% residual value after 10 years.

CTS-V (2nd gen): 29,886 avg used price (much lower than other years due to a car selling for 10K) , 69900 starting MSRP, 42.8% residual value after 10 years.

2016:
First year of the 3rd Gen CTS-V.

https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2016-bmw-m5-vs-2016-cadillac-cts__v

M5 (F10 gen): 39,976 avg used price, 94,100 starting MSRP, 42.5% residual value after 9 years.

CTS-V (3rd gen): 59,107 avg used price, 83,995 starting MSRP, 70.3% residual value after 9 years.

Then there was no 2017 M5, and the new F90 M5 debuted for the 2018 model year.

2018:
https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2018-bmw-m5-vs-2018-cadillac-cts__v

M5 (F90 gen):56,710 avg used price, 102,600 starting MSRP, 55.3% residual value after 7 years.

CTS-V (3rd gen): 68,373 avg used price, 86,495 starting MSRP, 79.0% residual value after 7 years.

2019:
Final year of CTS-V data
https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2019-bmw-m5-vs-2019-cadillac-cts__v

M5 (F90 gen):65,041 avg used price, 102,700 starting MSRP, 63.3% residual value after 6 years.

CTS-V (3rd gen): 71,551 avg used price, 86,995 starting MSRP, 82.2% residual value after 6 years.


Unfortunately the site doesn't separate CT5 V Blackwing data from regular CT5 V (turbo V6 3.0) data, so for 2022, the CT5-V has a average used car price of 90.5K from a starting MSRP of 50K, which makes it difficult to calculate how much the Blackwings have depreciated, but seeing how the CT5 V Blackwing started at 87K in 2022, and this data includes CT5-V non blackwing listings mixed in, it's likely not much.


And for shits and giggles lets look at Chevy SS sedan data, so unloved and slow selling when it was new that it was discounted by 10-15k off MSRP to move them.

2014:
https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2014-bmw-m5-vs-2014-chevrolet-ss

M5 (F10 gen): 32,895 avg used price, 92,900 starting MSRP, 35.4% residual value after 11 years.

Chevy SS: 33,644 avg used price, 43475 starting MSRP, 77.4% residual value after 11 years.


2015:
https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2015-bmw-m5-vs-2015-chevrolet-ss

M5 (F10 gen): 36,262 avg used price, 93,600 starting MSRP, 38.7% residual value after 10 years.

Chevy SS: 38,407 avg used price, 45,745 starting MSRP, 84.0% residual value after 10 years.

2016:
https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2016-bmw-m5-vs-2016-chevrolet-ss
M5 (F10 gen): 39,976 avg used price, 94,100 starting MSRP, 42.5% residual value after 9 years.

Chevy SS: 41,170 avg used price, 46,575 starting MSRP, 88.4% residual value after 9 years.

2017:
No M5 data
https://www.iseecars.com/compare/2016-bmw-m5-vs-2017-chevrolet-ss

Chevy SS: 43,475 avg used price, 46,625 starting MSRP, 93.2% residual value after 8 years.

That's calculated off MSRP, which again no one paid for the SS back when it was new.

Anyway the reason why I bring up the SS is that the SS and the Blackwings have something in common.  They are the last of the line.  There were no more Chevy SS's afterwards.  If you missed your chance to get one at the fire sale, then tough luck.   The primary driving factor for depreciation for the prior Caddy V's was the existence of a new better V that came after.  For a while manual 2nd Gen V's held value ridiculously well, because the 3rd gen V was auto only.  However when the CT5 V Blacking brought the manual back, then the 2nd gen prices dropped. The 2nd gen manual wagon still holds value extremely well since there is no CT5 wagon and it was incredibly rare. GM has already announced that the current Blackwings are the last of the ICE manual line, the Lansing plant is already planned for something else. The writing is on the wall, The M3, CT4 V Blackwing, CT5 V Blackwing, are the last RWD manual sedans left on the planet.

My family hasn't let go of a car with less than 200K on it and about 15 years, so resale really is not a concern for me.  However I would be shocked if the resale on my CT5 V Blacking isn't pretty darn good a decade from now, especially once it goes out of production.

Usually the recipe of, loved by the automotive press, bought by no one, last of its kind, results in good resale values later on. Beyond the Chevy SS, think of the NSX, MK4 Supra Turbo, the R35 GT-R are skyrocketing in value.

[565]

Interesting. I thought "M" variant BMWs on the used car market held their value well, more so than Cadillac "V" models but I guess not.

Having owned a Cadillac Blackwing, do you feel the interior is noticeably subpar?  Like if you were test driving a German luxury sports sedan back to back with the Cadillac, would it be readily noticeable or do you think the auto mags make too much of it.

I get to compare the Blackwing interior to a BMW M interior on virtually a weekly basis since my wife's X3M Comp has a very similar interior to the M3/4. 

I think I'm gonna post a longer year in review for both cars later on, because I'm on paternity leave and have a lot of free time just rocking the baby right now.

But in terms of interior appearance, the BMW is for sure much prettier.  They offer more flashy colors (my wife's interior is Sakhir Orange, which is very striking) more stitching in various places.  In terms of actual material quality if you touch it, the differences are a lot less.  The doors have a soft touch pleather on the door sills, and leather under that, with hard plastics below. The dash is a pebbly injection molding type material.  I think here the BMW has to option for leather dash on the M3/4 for like 3k, that I'm sure makes it look and feel better. There is a lot of carbon fiber trim (Blackwing actually has more interior CF overall).  The nitpicks I have with the BMW are that the X3M and the M3 don't offer a power tilt and telescoping steering wheel, which cannot be understated how annoying it is.  This is because there is no memory function, so when I drive my wife's car I don't dare touch the steering wheel position or she will complain for the next month that she can't get it quite right like she used to.

The BMW M3 in this test had the carbon buckets, which are basically unlivable unless you have the perfect body type for it (thin thighs).  It's actually comical on Bimmerpost how many people torture themselves to get these seats because of how awesome they look. They have to hop over the bolster and fall into the chair every time and their wives can't get out at all.  The other option are the sports seats which are the same seats in the X3M Comp. These seats look great too, but are not nearly as comfortable as the seats in the Blackwing.

In terms of squeaks and rattles, there are more in the BMW, the cars now have nearly identical miles (20K).  This may be due to the ride being harsher in the BMW.

I hate to be a C&D fanboy, but I think C&D got it bang on in their conclusion for the interiors during this test. I think C&D is the best car magazine in the world because they tell it like it is.

""Still, you get the idea that the BMW interior is meant to impress in the showroom, but the Cadillac is designed to complement the driving experience over a span of years."

The BMW interior for sure looks better. You will impress your passengers way more.  But having put 20K of seat time in both (my wife's commute is 0.6 miles so I put most of the miles on her car), I'd 100% rather be sitting in the Blackwing.

[GoCougs]

The old customer base for Cadillac in general is true.  When I brought the Blackwing for service to get the parking sensors installed, the waiting room looked like a bingo hall.


However I don't think the resale and reliability thing is true for the V cars when compared against its peers, which are German performance sedans. Take a look at used 2nd gen CTS V and 3rd gen CTS V prices against E60 and F10 M5 prices.  You can get a E60 M5 in the teens and some F10 M5s down in the mid 20K mark, nicer F10s would be in the 30s or 40s, while most reasonable 2nd gen CTS Vs are 30s to 40s and 3rd gen CTS V are often around 50K still. Compared year to year and mileage to mileage, the V usually sells for a good chunk more than the M5. The ATS-V similarly holds value about as well as the F80 M3s that they've been contemporary with, especially manual models.

Most of that is actually down to reliability and running costs.  S65 V10 in the E60 was known to have rod bearing issues, the S63 V8 in the F10 M5 also had coolant resevior issues and conrod issues, which make owning both of those cars out of warranty a major investment. S55 in the F80 M3 had known crank hub issues.

Meantime the LSA, LT4, LF4 trio in the V products have been relatively trouble free by comparison and cost effective to maintain.

Despite poor sales when new, GM performance sedans usually do well on the used market usually due to low volume sales leading to rarity, relative simplicity and reliability. The Chevy SS is the perfect example.  Almost no one bought one when it was available new, but if you bought a manual one when dealers were massively discounting them, you could sell it today for what you paid for it.

The Holy Grail is the second gen CTS-V Wagon with M/T. The SS sedan with M/T is indeed also mega. Honorable mention for both the first gen CTS-V and G8 GXP with M/T. Great performance vehicles not really appreciated in their time.

Detroit, esp. GM, has almost always built a better performance motor than the Germans, and that's most  of it IMO (and M/T availability helps too!): smaller, lighter, equal/more power, better power band, more reliable, much less complicated and vastly easier to repair/modify with one of the one the most extreme/comical examples being the 505 hp pooprod LS7 vs. the contemporary M5's 500 hp V10.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

The Holy Grail is the second gen CTS-V Wagon with M/T. The SS sedan with M/T is indeed also mega. Honorable mention for both the first gen CTS-V and G8 GXP with M/T. Great performance vehicles not really appreciated in their time.

Detroit, esp. GM, has almost always built a better performance motor than the Germans, and that's most  of it IMO (and M/T availability helps too!): smaller, lighter, equal/more power, better power band, more reliable, much less complicated and vastly easier to repair/modify with one of the one the most extreme/comical examples being the 505 hp pooprod LS7 vs. the contemporary M5's 500 hp V10.

   

[MrH]

I have probably 1k or 1.5k miles in an SS with a manual.  I honestly didn't like it much, is that weird?

[r0tor]

The biggest issue with the black wing is the non-V cars are pretty awful and there is only so big of a market for a 500ish hp rwd sedan.

With a base Giulia, 95% outside of the engine is shared with a base Giulia.  A BMW 340 is further away from an M3 than the Alfa.  The caddy is a light-year away

[Eye of the Tiger]

I have probably 1k or 1.5k miles in an SS with a manual.  I honestly didn't like it much, is that weird?

Unthusiast