http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2016-10best-cars-the-winners-features-photos-and-more-feature (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2016-10best-cars-the-winners-features-photos-and-more-feature)
lol at the Camaro, esp. the V6.
No real surprises.
FWIW I'd pick a 328i/330i (the 330i is already on sale here) over an M235i in the BMW range. Much more practical and just as fun IMO.
Both Mustang and Camaro are on the list. Has that ever happened before? WIN!
CTS V-Sport, eh?
Quote from: afty on November 19, 2015, 09:48:29 AM
CTS V-Sport, eh?
I expected the ATS-V, but the CTS V-Sport sounds pretty awesome too.
Huh. When did the CTS start looking so much like ass?
Quote from: Raza on November 23, 2015, 05:05:17 PM
Huh. When did the CTS start looking so much like ass?
1st generation.
Quote from: Raza on November 23, 2015, 05:05:17 PM
Huh. When did the CTS start looking so much like ass?
Chill chill. They look pretty good in person. Just not in 4x4 NE mom trim.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 23, 2015, 07:36:14 PM
Chill chill. They look pretty good in person. Just not in 4x4 NE mom trim.
Something about the treatment over the rear wheel is outrageously awful.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 19, 2015, 09:34:52 AM
Both Mustang and Camaro are on the list. Has that ever happened before? WIN!
I don't think so.
The CTS looks damn good in person. I'm not a fan of it in pictures though.
(http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/gallery/2014-cadillac-cts-v-sport-gets-sports-suspension-from-d3-photo-gallery_3.jpg)
(http://i.newsroom.bg/uploads/photo_assets/2014/2014-01-21/640_1-e915b210e8.JPG)
I like the looks of the CTS.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on November 24, 2015, 07:59:09 AM
I like the looks of the CTS.
Me too. Very distinctive and not a cookie-cutter rehash of all the other lux makes.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 24, 2015, 09:07:31 AM
Me too. Very distinctive and not a cookie-cutter rehash of all the other lux makes.
The V just went on sale here. It is priced only 6K below the M5. Also, on the M5 you can get discounts that take it a bit below the V in the real world.
Tough to get the V over the M5 at the same price. It probably drives and performs a bit better but the BMW is more luxurious and will likely depreciate less. (Overall both depreciate like a stone though).
The V has the option of a 5 year extended warranty while the BMW is 3 years only. That is attractive on this kind of expensive to maintain car.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 24, 2015, 09:07:31 AM
Me too. Very distinctive and not a cookie-cutter rehash of all the other lux makes.
Just a cookie-cutter rehash of every other Cadillac from the last decade or so...
Quote from: 68_427 on November 23, 2015, 10:16:07 PM
(http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/gallery/2014-cadillac-cts-v-sport-gets-sports-suspension-from-d3-photo-gallery_3.jpg)
(http://i.newsroom.bg/uploads/photo_assets/2014/2014-01-21/640_1-e915b210e8.JPG)
I'm with Raza. The front end has too much going on (ALL THE CREASES!), but the really awkward part is the profile of the rear windshield. They should have angled it down further, following the line of the back seat's window more closely, creating more of a trunk lid. The C-pillar is just too thick as is, IMO.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on November 24, 2015, 09:59:43 AM
The V just went on sale here. It is priced only 6K below the M5. Also, on the M5 you can get discounts that take it a bit below the V in the real world.
Tough to get the V over the M5 at the same price. It probably drives and performs a bit better but the BMW is more luxurious and will likely depreciate less. (Overall both depreciate like a stone though).
The V has the option of a 5 year extended warranty while the BMW is 3 years only. That is attractive on this kind of expensive to maintain car.
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.
IDK about that one man. I am seeing 2 year old M5s here in the high 50s. They start at 94 and have started in the 90s since their launch. I can't think of too many non luxury cars that lose almost half their value in 2 years.
IMO the CTS-V is best of everything in the class, and that includes looks.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 24, 2015, 02:24:11 PM
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.
The smaller cars hold their value better (M3, C63) but the larger ones do drop like stones.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on November 24, 2015, 05:06:37 PM
The smaller cars hold their value better (M3, C63) but the larger ones do drop like stones.
To a point. They might lose 50% of their value in the first 2 years, but after that they stay at that level for a long time. Try finding a 2nd gen CTS-V or same year M3 for anywhere near affordable prices that doesn't have a shit ton of mileage on the clock.
Quote from: ifcar on November 24, 2015, 01:06:22 PM
Just a cookie-cutter rehash of every other Cadillac from the last decade or so...
Jeez, that can be said of any marque.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 24, 2015, 01:29:50 PM
I'm with Raza. The front end has too much going on (ALL THE CREASES!), but the really awkward part is the profile of the rear windshield. They should have angled it down further, following the line of the back seat's window more closely, creating more of a trunk lid. The C-pillar is just too thick as is, IMO.
Disagree. The C-pillar is a strong design element, and greatly sets the overall style of the car. Everything else in this class employs the overused Hoffmeister (sp?) kink... the Caddy's treatment is strong and elegant.
Has the Camaro ever been on the C&D Ten Best?
Maybe 1994. I'm not sure.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 26, 2015, 05:52:01 AM
Disagree. The C-pillar is a strong design element, and greatly sets the overall style of the car. Everything else in this class employs the overused Hoffmeister (sp?) kink... the Caddy's treatment is strong and elegant.
Not Audi or Mercedes.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 26, 2015, 08:44:19 PM
Has the Camaro ever been on the C&D Ten Best?
1985 IROC-Z was the one and only previous time a Camaro has made the list since it started back in '83.
Interesting. Surprised the 5th gen didn't make it on. Mustang has been on like 6 times across multiple generations.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 24, 2015, 09:07:31 AM
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. :devil:
Quote from: 68_427 on November 23, 2015, 10:16:07 PM
(http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/gallery/2014-cadillac-cts-v-sport-gets-sports-suspension-from-d3-photo-gallery_3.jpg)
(http://i.newsroom.bg/uploads/photo_assets/2014/2014-01-21/640_1-e915b210e8.JPG)
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?
Quote from: ifcar on November 24, 2015, 01:06:22 PM
Just a cookie-cutter rehash of every other Cadillac from the last decade or so...
Damn it!
Quote from: SVT666 on November 24, 2015, 02:24:11 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 27, 2015, 01:12:37 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: MX793 on November 27, 2015, 02:49:06 PM
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.
Quote from: afty on November 27, 2015, 03:35:00 PM
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
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 27, 2015, 05:05:59 PM
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).
Quote from: Raza on December 02, 2015, 10:46:33 PM
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.
Every single person that has driven the CTS-V disagrees with you.
Would you buy a CTS-V over an ATS-V?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2015, 11:20:10 AM
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.
A revelation for a 2 ton plus sedan. No thanks
So if you want a sporty family car, just get a Miata. Got it.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2015, 12:21:44 PM
A revelation for a 2 ton plus sedan. No thanks
You don't have kids yet.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on December 03, 2015, 12:33:12 PM
So if you want a sporty family car, just get a Miata. Got it.
:lol:
Quote from: SVT666 on December 03, 2015, 12:37:39 PM
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?
More room to bang all the chicks you're gonna pick up with your 500 hp.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2015, 01:09:25 PM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2015, 01:09:25 PM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2015, 01:09:25 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Raza on December 03, 2015, 03:12:11 PM
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.
I've always found arguing with people who don't have kids about vehicle requirements when you have kids to be exhausting.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on December 04, 2015, 06:40:51 AM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 04, 2015, 05:46:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Raza on December 04, 2015, 08:45:46 AM
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. :huh:
Quote from: Raza on December 04, 2015, 08:51:31 AM
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.
Quote from: MX793 on December 04, 2015, 09:36:29 AM
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 04, 2015, 08:27:40 AM
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 :lol:
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 04, 2015, 10:49:52 AM
And yet, here you are :lol:
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 04, 2015, 10:58:25 AM
Until your 12 year old is 6' tall.
Which I was.
What about trunk space?
Quote from: CaminoRacer on December 04, 2015, 11:03:04 AM
Which I was.
What about trunk space?
Same size as a 3 series, C class (or Mustang).
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.