Comparison Test: BMW M5 vs. Cadillac CTS-V vs. Mercedes C63 AMG

[turbo200]

both amg c63 and the regular c has one of the best sedan designs inside and out, for me. i love it. inspected a mid or low level interior closely, the materials were first rate, sadly much better than CTS, everything had a strong substantial immovable feeling, more than can be said for some of the materials inside CTS. i like both, but I think the C is the most well rounded small sedan in looks alone.

[Drew Dowdell]

both amg c63 and the regular c has one of the best sedan designs inside and out, for me. i love it. inspected a mid or low level interior closely, the materials were first rate, sadly much better than CTS, everything had a strong substantial immovable feeling, more than can be said for some of the materials inside CTS. i like both, but I think the C is the most well rounded small sedan in looks alone.

I agree that the materials are first rate and solid. Pity they just didn't line up right.

My sample size is 1, however.

[Intrepidation]

I suppose I should have actually checked out a C-Class at the auto show buts kipped over Mercedes entirely.

I did get a chance to spend time in a CTS and even better, a black CTS-V. The interior to me is excellent, and everything was put together flawlessly. The V got lots of looks and compliments.

[turbo200]

to yet again defend my position as if i'm some boogeyman out to get GM as a whole, CTS has controls on the center stack in particular that feel dated and cheaper than the standards, BMW Audi MB...they are stylized as a whole on a level not yet seen within GM, which is a great thing. but there are still some tolerance levels and complacency within the CTS interior, last I checked. I'll assume nothing has changed. the controls on the center stack, the door panels, the dash panel quality all were not as good as an Audi, and now the new C-class.

I thought they were good enough to be in a luxury class. honestly, just barely good enough when compared with how far the competition sets the bar. the problem is the competition keeps setting the tone, and I have a great memory. other less discerning consumers, the average buyers Cadillac goes after anyways, won't care or know any better.

Edited December 9, 2008 by turbo200

[Intrepidation]

to yet again defend my position as if i'm some boogeyman out to get GM as a whole, CTS has controls on the center stack in particular that feel dated and cheaper than the standards, BMW Audi MB...they are stylized as a whole on a level not yet seen within GM, which is a great thing. but there are still some tolerance levels and complacency within the CTS interior, last I checked. I'll assume nothing has changed. the controls on the center stack, the door panels, the dash panel quality all were not as good as an Audi, and now the new C-class.

I thought they were good enough to be in a luxury class. honestly, just barely good enough when compared with how far the competition sets the bar. the problem is the competition keeps setting the tone, and I have a great memory. other less discerning consumers, the average buyers Cadillac goes after anyways, won't care or know any better.

Now, I'm not button anal retentive about how smoothly the dial turns or whatever. However certainly I know the difference between a button that when pushed is silent and feels well damped and one that makes a loud click, has no damping, and is wobbly. The CTS falls into the former category.

I sat in an Audi A5 and a 3 Series and certainly the buttons didn't feel 400,000,000,000,000 times better than the CTS's. In fact if they were any better it was by the narrowest of margins, certainly not enough for me to care about.

As far as the rest of the materials, again, I poked around every car I sat in, and none of them stood leaps and bounds over the other in terms of materials. My favorites for design was the CTS and XF.

But that's just my :twocents:

[Croc]

I have no problem with the CTS interior. Whatever miniscule deficiencies the buttons may have in tactile feel (never felt less-then-perfect to me), the CTS' ergonomics more than make up for it. M-B interiors are very user-unfriendly with button size and placement, and the CTS is very user-friendly.

I'll take a good layout and convenience any day over better-pushing buttons. They're all going to feel the same anyway after I've gotten In-N-Out grease all over them.

[CARBIZ]

to yet again defend my position as if i'm some boogeyman out to get GM as a whole, CTS has controls on the center stack in particular that feel dated and cheaper than the standards, BMW Audi MB...they are stylized as a whole on a level not yet seen within GM, which is a great thing. but there are still some tolerance levels and complacency within the CTS interior, last I checked. I'll assume nothing has changed. the controls on the center stack, the door panels, the dash panel quality all were not as good as an Audi, and now the new C-class.

I thought they were good enough to be in a luxury class. honestly, just barely good enough when compared with how far the competition sets the bar. the problem is the competition keeps setting the tone, and I have a great memory. other less discerning consumers, the average buyers Cadillac goes after anyways, won't care or know any better.

But that's assuming you like that Teutonic look. I don't. Never have. GM and Ford are better to steer their own course than trying to out-do the Germans. I've driven many BMWs and I am not impressed. The interior of the new CTS - now that impresses me, especially with the UltraView roof! Look at GM's pinnacle in the '60s - they weren't afraid to try different things in the interior. Some worked, some didn't - but they led, not followed. The '66 Pontiac dash is a good example, so is the Riviera and Toronado of the day.

The CTS is a good looking interior, but it's time to get rid of the hood over steering wheel look and forge their own course!

Edited December 9, 2008 by CARBIZ

[turbo200]

But that's assuming you like that Teutonic look. I don't. Never have. GM and Ford are better to steer their own course than trying to out-do the Germans. I've driven many BMWs and I am not impressed. The interior of the new CTS - now that impresses me, especially with the UltraView roof! Look at GM's pinnacle in the '60s - they weren't afraid to try different things in the interior. Some worked, some didn't - but they led, not followed. The '66 Pontiac dash is a good example, so is the Riviera and Toronado of the day.

The CTS is a good looking interior, but it's time to get rid of the hood over steering wheel look and forge their own course!

apparently you didn't read my post. i complimented the CTS' stylized interior. i dissed them on quality and focus, and emphasis on the little parts where excellence really shows its face or lack thereof.

[turbo200]

I have no problem with the CTS interior. Whatever miniscule deficiencies the buttons may have in tactile feel (never felt less-then-perfect to me), the CTS' ergonomics more than make up for it. M-B interiors are very user-unfriendly with button size and placement, and the CTS is very user-friendly.

I'll take a good layout and convenience any day over better-pushing buttons. They're all going to feel the same anyway after I've gotten In-N-Out grease all over them.

i thought my reply had come in earlier but i guess my faulty internet connection is to blame. my primary question to you was have you compared the cars I talked about, C-class and CTS. the C, along with S, GL, CL and GLK are the newest gen MBs....new design theme in and out. these have a classical arrangement, and the button design is cleaned up less cluttered less complex. they are beautiful interiors. i prefer elegant solutions like those to GM's one-way-works-for-all ergonomics that are simple, but so simple they are basic. i know most people here trumpet GM's controls and layouts, but i find them generally tacky and unappealing. i find them to be so simplistic as if lacking any flavor at all. i consider that we're in the age of the Iphone, and yet GM has not progressed from the traditional HVAC, radio, etc layout. they need to make the designs more interesting, and at least in the high end models, give their consumers more credit and make the layouts more elegant, and yes complex.

[Croc]

i thought my reply had come in earlier but i guess my faulty internet connection is to blame. my primary question to you was have you compared the cars I talked about, C-class and CTS. the C, along with S, GL, CL and GLK are the newest gen MBs....new design theme in and out. these have a classical arrangement, and the button design is cleaned up less cluttered less complex. they are beautiful interiors.

I have poured over the interiors of all the latest MBs and BMWs. I'm honestly not impressed. They might be better than my 2001 M-Class, but they still suffer from many of the same shortcomings IMO.

i prefer elegant solutions like those to GM's one-way-works-for-all ergonomics that are simple, but so simple they are basic. i know most people here trumpet GM's controls and layouts, but i find them generally tacky and unappealing. i find them to be so simplistic as if lacking any flavor at all. i consider that we're in the age of the Iphone, and yet GM has not progressed from the traditional HVAC, radio, etc layout. they need to make the designs more interesting, and at least in the high end models, give their consumers more credit and make the layouts more elegant, and yes complex.

I don't agree with this characterization at all. GM has several different radio designs, and yes, a couple of those are "premium." I still don't understand why you want complexity and consider it a virtue in high-end models--you are the only reviewer I've seen who extols this. Yes, I want complex functions...but radios can be capable of complex operations with a simple, user-friendly interface.

CTS

C-Class

Sorry, but I find the C-Class interior to look very cheesy, and not particularly luxurious, and certainly not more so than the CTS interior.

Functionally, it seems Mercedes still has the same fetish with a sea of identically-sized and -spaced tiny buttons across the radio faceplate. Just like in my 2001 M-Class. The Cadillac's are sized differently, and some are more recessed than others so it's easier to find them.

I also see the M-B doesn't have automatic climate control yet, so I hope it works a lot better than the unit in my 2001. Defog was never its strong suit. CTS has a pretty straight-forward auto climate control. Nice, pretty much what a vehicle of this class should come with. And dual-zoned to boot!

Edited December 10, 2008 by Croc

[Intrepidation]

i thought my reply had come in earlier but i guess my faulty internet connection is to blame. my primary question to you was have you compared the cars I talked about, C-class and CTS. the C, along with S, GL, CL and GLK are the newest gen MBs....new design theme in and out. these have a classical arrangement, and the button design is cleaned up less cluttered less complex. they are beautiful interiors. i prefer elegant solutions like those to GM's one-way-works-for-all ergonomics that are simple, but so simple they are basic. i know most people here trumpet GM's controls and layouts, but i find them generally tacky and unappealing. i find them to be so simplistic as if lacking any flavor at all. i consider that we're in the age of the Iphone, and yet GM has not progressed from the traditional HVAC, radio, etc layout. they need to make the designs more interesting, and at least in the high end models, give their consumers more credit and make the layouts more elegant, and yes complex.

Having actually sat in a 3 Series, G35/37, CTS and IS I will again say their button layouts aren't any better IMHO. They're all good, and they all have a quality feel to them as well as the entire interior, although the IS was a bit of a disappointment, it's still pretty good. In addition, I found nothing basic or unappealing about the CTS' controls. They were easy to use and logical, but they were also laid out nicely.

I have not sat in the C-Class but it's interior looks stark and boring. I'm sure it's good quality and all, however I do recall more than one comparison of the C-lass and CTS favoring the quality of the CTS' interior.

[The O.C.]

Having actually sat in a 3 Series, G35/37, CTS and IS I will again say their button layouts aren't any better IMHO. They're all good, and they all have a quality feel to them as well as the entire interior, although the IS was a bit of a disappointment, it's still pretty good. In addition, I found nothing basic or unappealing about the CTS' controls. They were easy to use and logical, but they were also laid out nicely.

I have not sat in the C-Class but it's interior looks stark and boring. I'm sure it's good quality and all, however I do recall more than one comparison of the C-lass and CTS favoring the quality of the CTS' interior.

If I were to rank these cars on overall satisfaction with the interior (design, fit-and-finish, material quality, tactile quality of controls)....the whole she-bang....I'd probably rate them as:

BMW 3-Series/Audi A4 (tie)

CTS

C-Class

Infiniti G

To me, I'll admit the 3-series interior is a pretty bland design.....but bland can be good. For me, the BMW has a solidity about everything in the interior that truly makes it feel luxurious to me....regardless of the lack of flash in the interior styling. Really little for me to complain about.

Always have been an Audi interior fan.

CTS is right up there. Unfortunately there are small fit-and-finish woes seen in just about every CTS that bug me....and it just doesn't feel as solid as the Germans (you can move the flexy IP cluster with your hand pretty easily.) However, it's stylish design and attention to things such as the dash stitching and comfortable seats put it ahead of the C-Class and G for me. I find most of the controls to have a solid, weighty precision.....most....

C-Class interior screams "cheap" to me....even if upon closer inspection it's almost as solidly put-together as the BMW and Audi. I really don't like their pick of materials, or the design of the center stack.

Infiniti has always seemed like the bargain-basement interior. I know it's not......but when a Honda or Acura interior (not to mention Lexus) seems to have a more upmarket feel....that spells "bad" for Infiniti. When I think of the G, all I can remember is the cheesy moveable IP/steering column, downmarket "orange" backlighting, and cheesy Japanese "paper" metallic trim.

[regfootball]

g series infiniti cars flat out suck.

the M35/45 is alright. but the G35/37 whatever is a pathetic car.