Get YA RED HOT CTS-V!!! Right Ova Here!!! Cadillac CTS-V Configurator is Up!!!

[Cmicasa the Great]

The Cadillac Take my Money Link

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cmicasa the Great]

Configed mine.. Loving this new color... $92K. Will go over $100K easy with some of the options. The Carbon Fiber and Lux package aren't my thing.. with the Lux package seeming to focus on the back seat riders.. Eff Em.. I wanted Recaros   

 

 

[smk4565]

I wonder why they didn't make ceramic brakes and option?  Not that I'd want them, but a lot of high end cars offer that.  Pretty good value on the pricing though considering an E63 starts at $101k which to me seems about $9k too much unless they are going to make driver assistance package and the Bang and Olufsen Stereo standard.

[Cmicasa the Great]

I wonder why they didn't make ceramic brakes and option?  Not that I'd want them, but a lot of high end cars offer that.  Pretty good value on the pricing though considering an E63 starts at $101k which to me seems about $9k too much unless they are going to make driver assistance package and the Bang and Olufsen Stereo standard.

 

I pretty sure Benz will up the price on the next E63 because it knows that suckers will ante up when they lay fat pipe in them.

 

To hear Cadillac talk about carbon-ceramic brakes, you'd think the nonmetallic rotors took the engineers' sisters out to a nice seafood dinner and never called them again. (As the company's line goes, there won't be an optional track package because "the CTS-V IS the track package.") Instead, the V makes do with tried-and-true iron brake rotors clasped by six-piston front and four-piston rear Brembo calipers.

 

Car and Driver

[Suaviloquent]

I absolutely love this car. Lickable cars like this don't come often; but when they do; they are mighty fine.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

I just built one with the luxury and carbon fiber package, sunroof and a few other options, and the price was $99,030.

 

 

 

Yikes.

[ccap41]

I wonder why they didn't make ceramic brakes and option?  Not that I'd want them, but a lot of high end cars offer that.  Pretty good value on the pricing though considering an E63 starts at $101k which to me seems about $9k too much unless they are going to make driver assistance package and the Bang and Olufsen Stereo standard.

The E63 is AWD though.. there is SOME of the 9k.. well in trucks that's usually a 4-5k option.

I absolutely love this car. Lickable cars like this don't come often; but when they do; they are mighty fine.

Yes.

I just built one with the luxury and carbon fiber package, sunroof and a few other options, and the price was $99,030.

 

 

 

Yikes.

Don't get the sunroof. lol Sorry I just hate sunroofs.. I see them as one of the largest wastes in automotive history. More things to go wrong, leaks, and added weight to the worst place possible.

[ccap41]

Configed mine.. Loving this new color... $92K. Will go over $100K easy with some of the options. The Carbon Fiber and Lux package aren't my thing.. with the Lux package seeming to focus on the back seat riders.. Eff Em.. I wanted Recaros   

 

 

F me, that looks fantastic. All it needs is some tinted windows.. and that's it. There aren't too many vehicles that I can say all they need is tinted windows but this is one. Black wheels, super metalic-y black paint..done.

 

Price is up there, but it is competitive on the poor man's side so that's fine.

 

I wonder why they didn't make ceramic brakes and option?  Not that I'd want them, but a lot of high end cars offer that.  Pretty good value on the pricing though considering an E63 starts at $101k which to me seems about $9k too much unless they are going to make driver assistance package and the Bang and Olufsen Stereo standard.

 

I pretty sure Benz will up the price on the next E63 because it knows that suckers will ante up when they lay fat pipe in them.

 

To hear Cadillac talk about carbon-ceramic brakes, you'd think the nonmetallic rotors took the engineers' sisters out to a nice seafood dinner and never called them again. (As the company's line goes, there won't be an optional track package because "the CTS-V IS the track package.") Instead, the V makes do with tried-and-true iron brake rotors clasped by six-piston front and four-piston rear Brembo calipers.

 

Car and Driver

 

LOL I thought you were quoting yourself..

[cp-the-nerd]

I just built one with the luxury and carbon fiber package, sunroof and a few other options, and the price was $99,030.

 

 

 

Yikes.

 

Are you implying that's overpriced?

 

This thing is basically a 4-door Corvette Z06 (same engine, same 8-speed automatic, same electronic LSD, same magnetic ride, etc). When you add the CF package, it's damn near Z07-level track prepped. World class performance doesn't come cheap. Can't afford it? There's an ATS-V or CTS Vsport for $60-70k. Can't afford that either? Then you need to choose between luxury OR performance, because you can't have both.

[surreal1272]

 

I just built one with the luxury and carbon fiber package, sunroof and a few other options, and the price was $99,030.

 

 

 

Yikes.

 

Are you implying that's overpriced?

 

This thing is basically a 4-door Corvette Z06 (same engine, same 8-speed automatic, same electronic LSD, same magnetic ride, etc). When you add the CF package, it's damn near Z07-level track prepped. World class performance doesn't come cheap. Can't afford it? There's an ATS-V or CTS Vsport for $60-70k. Can't afford that either? Then you need to choose between luxury OR performance, because you can't have both.

 

Could not have said it better myself. The price seems steep until you realize what it is and what it has while undercutting the competition by a substantial amount. 

Edited July 1, 2015 by surreal1272

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

I just built one with the luxury and carbon fiber package, sunroof and a few other options, and the price was $99,030.

 

 

 

Yikes.

 

Are you implying that's overpriced?

 

This thing is basically a 4-door Corvette Z06 (same engine, same 8-speed automatic, same electronic LSD, same magnetic ride, etc). When you add the CF package, it's damn near Z07-level track prepped. World class performance doesn't come cheap. Can't afford it? There's an ATS-V or CTS Vsport for $60-70k. Can't afford that either? Then you need to choose between luxury OR performance, because you can't have both.

 

Could not have said it better myself. The price seems steep until you realize what it is and what it has while undercutting the competition by a substantial amount. 

 

 

 

 

U folks don;t realize that what Wings wants is for us to enthusiasts to forgo the VSeries.. and go straight to the Fusion.. er.. MKZ

 

Don't get the sunroof. lol Sorry I just hate sunroofs.. I see them as one of the largest wastes in automotive history. More things to go wrong, leaks, and added weight to the worst place possible.

 

 

 

Yeah... Umm.. Caddy.. I'll take my VSeries in the Ultraview Sunroof option.. 

Edited July 2, 2015 by Cmicasa the Great

[El Kabong]

Excellence of execution ain't cheap. There are other brands for those who desire Costco luxury. Cadillac is going big with this car. Good for them.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

[Cmicasa the Great]

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

 

 

Not if they kno what the M5 and E63AMG cost. Then again.. they might be shocked in seeing that they are getting what seems to be a superior  super-sport-luxury for a much better price than they would be getting those aforementioned rides.

[El Kabong]

It's a screaming bargain, really.

[Cmicasa the Great]

It's a screaming bargain, really.

 

 

Not in the eyes of someone who thinks that the MKZ... is the alternative

[hyperv6]

Thanks I was just going to ask you can always go buy the Lincoln competitor of this car? That is if they ever build one.

 

My bosses new Z06 was priced about the same here so the claim is  true on pricing. The only real difference is one had two more doors and the other has ceramic brakes.

 

In this day and age where the average 4 cylinder sedan is over $35K this is still a good price for the segment. If you want cheaper there are the standard CTS and CTS V sports that are available. The V sport is a bargain of the segment.

[cp-the-nerd]

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

 

An ignorant person could say that, sure, but YOU said it because you're Wings and you can't say anything about GM without a passive aggressive comment or thinly veiled criticism. It's why you don't get banned, yet still have -40 reputation points accrued in a month.

[surreal1272]

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

When you seem to be pretty ignorant as to why it costs that kind of cash, yes.

[El Kabong]

We all know what's what, folks. Just let him sink.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

 

An ignorant person could say that, sure, but YOU said it because you're Wings and you can't say anything about GM without a passive aggressive comment or thinly veiled criticism. It's why you don't get banned, yet still have -40 reputation points accrued in a month.

 

really?

 

REALLY????

 

All I did was make a simple shocked statement on price.

All the rest is dust and nonsense for which you have contributed twice now.

 

As for my negative points, a mod confirmed that nearly all of them are from one person who adores me so much that he makes sure you subtracts in every one of my posts, regardless.

I will try to move on with my life though.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Wings4Life

[El Kabong]

Was that person the one who called you a disease elsewhere, or one of the three guys who've called you out here, or the guy who...

We all have ways of pointing out the obvious, is what I'm saying. You singling out one source of it just makes it funnier.

Now, onward: this Cadillac, being the best sport/luxury sedan in the world, has a price commensurate with its abilities. This is shocking how, exactly?

Edited July 2, 2015 by El Kabong

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

 

An ignorant person could say that, sure, but YOU said it because you're Wings and you can't say anything about GM without a passive aggressive comment or thinly veiled criticism. It's why you don't get banned, yet still have -40 reputation points accrued in a month.

 

really?

 

REALLY????

 

All I did was make a simple shocked statement on price.

All the rest is dust and nonsense for which you have contributed twice now.

 

As for my negative points, a mod confirmed that nearly all of them are from one person who adores me so much that he makes sure you subtracts in every one of my posts, regardless.

I will try to move on with my life though.

 

 

Cue the victim commentary. We've heard it before, over and over again. You're so surprised when people get tired of your 1-dimensional contributions. If you want to "move on with your life" why did you follow us to C&G? The internet is VAST, and you show up within a week of us migrating from MT.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

 

 

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

 

An ignorant person could say that, sure, but YOU said it because you're Wings and you can't say anything about GM without a passive aggressive comment or thinly veiled criticism. It's why you don't get banned, yet still have -40 reputation points accrued in a month.

 

really?

 

REALLY????

 

All I did was make a simple shocked statement on price.

All the rest is dust and nonsense for which you have contributed twice now.

 

As for my negative points, a mod confirmed that nearly all of them are from one person who adores me so much that he makes sure you subtracts in every one of my posts, regardless.

I will try to move on with my life though.

 

 

Cue the victim commentary. We've heard it before, over and over again. You're so surprised when people get tired of your 1-dimensional contributions. If you want to "move on with your life" why did you follow us to C&G? The internet is VAST, and you show up within a week of us migrating from MT.

 

Ahhh, the victim card is thrown, even though I started nothing.

 

 

Anyway, back to product and price.

I was surprised, and a title wave ensued, complete with accusations of ignorance.

Did I miss anything in between?

Nope

[El Kabong]

Don't get the sunroof. lol Sorry I just hate sunroofs.. I see them as one of the largest wastes in automotive history. More things to go wrong, leaks, and added weight to the worst place possible.

Sunroofs aren't that bad. I didn't have one in my Camaro because it ruined the double-bubble roofline. But I've had them in both my trucks and my old HHR and they were dead-nuts reliable.

[surreal1272]

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

 

An ignorant person could say that, sure, but YOU said it because you're Wings and you can't say anything about GM without a passive aggressive comment or thinly veiled criticism. It's why you don't get banned, yet still have -40 reputation points accrued in a month.

really?

 

REALLY????

 

All I did was make a simple shocked statement on price.

All the rest is dust and nonsense for which you have contributed twice now.

 

As for my negative points, a mod confirmed that nearly all of them are from one person who adores me so much that he makes sure you subtracts in every one of my posts, regardless.

I will try to move on with my life though.

 

Cue the victim commentary. We've heard it before, over and over again. You're so surprised when people get tired of your 1-dimensional contributions. If you want to "move on with your life" why did you follow us to C&G? The internet is VAST, and you show up within a week of us migrating from MT.

Ahhh, the victim card is thrown, even though I started nothing.

 

 

Anyway, back to product and price.

I was surprised, and a title wave ensued, complete with accusations of ignorance.

Did I miss anything in between?

Nope

Try the fact that while you go "yikes" you are completely ignoring the fact that it is substantially cheaper than the competition for one thing.

[El Kabong]

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Sorry, you guys can blame me all you like regarding my surprised remark, but that does not change the fact that an AMG E63 S offers AWD, similar power but with the Mercedes AMG legacy, experience and certainly value (V series tend to depreciate at an alarming rate) relative to the CTSV......and for not much more money.

 

Hence my surprise.

 

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/model/class-E/model-E63W4S

Edited July 2, 2015 by Wings4Life

[surreal1272]

Sorry, you guys can blame me all you like regarding my surprised remark, but that does not change the fact that an AMG E63 S offers AWD, similar power but with the Mercedes AMG legacy, experience and certainly value (V series tend to depreciate at an alarming rate) relative to the CTSV......and for not much more money.

 

Hence my surprise.

 

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/model/class-E/model-E63W4S

Again, ignoring certain facts. Fact #1, the CTS-V starts at $83K, undercutting that MB by $22K right off the bat. Fact #2, that MB when optioned to the nines (like you did with the V) is almost $30K more than the optioned out CTS-V. Fact #3, those model MBs drop like a rock as far as depreciation goes. So, to reiterate, you ignored the obvious facts to make a half baked "yikes" remark. 

Edited July 2, 2015 by surreal1272

[ccap41]

 

Don't get the sunroof. lol Sorry I just hate sunroofs.. I see them as one of the largest wastes in automotive history. More things to go wrong, leaks, and added weight to the worst place possible.

Sunroofs aren't that bad. I didn't have one in my Camaro because it ruined the double-bubble roofline. But I've had them in both my trucks and my old HHR and they were dead-nuts reliable.

 

I've never had one fail or leak on me but they are usually just sealed by "rubber" gaskets which if the sunroof was really used I would think would dry up sooner. I've actualll had three vehicles with them(Focus STV, MB C350, and my current Escape that has the panoramic moonroof - which is cool and all but nothing I would optionally pay for) and none of mine had any issues. They just aren't for me. Any I rarely see people use them that have them anyway. I have one friend who is in love with them for some stupid-ass reason. He had one installed on his '06 Altima as a graduation gift.. Stupid if you ask me.

[El Kabong]

Might be a geography thing. Right now we're getting 18 hours of sunlight a day Up here and the temps are still reasonable (low 80s). I'll take what I can get of that because winters are kinda sucky.

[surreal1272]

Sorry, you guys can blame me all you like regarding my surprised remark, but that does not change the fact that an AMG E63 S offers AWD, similar power but with the Mercedes AMG legacy, experience and certainly value (V series tend to depreciate at an alarming rate) relative to the CTSV......and for not much more money.

 

Hence my surprise.

 

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/model/class-E/model-E63W4S

Oh and the V has 70 MORE horsepower, so that is not "similar" either/

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

Sorry, you guys can blame me all you like regarding my surprised remark, but that does not change the fact that an AMG E63 S offers AWD, similar power but with the Mercedes AMG legacy, experience and certainly value (V series tend to depreciate at an alarming rate) relative to the CTSV......and for not much more money.

 

Hence my surprise.

 

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/model/class-E/model-E63W4S

Again, ignoring certain facts. Fact #1, the CTS-V starts at $83K, undercutting that MB by $22K right off the bat. Fact #2, that MB when optioned to the nines (like you did with the V) is almost $30K more than the optioned out CTS-V. Fact #3, those model MBs drop like a rock as far as depreciation goes. So, to reiterate, you ignored the obvious facts to make a half baked "yikes" remark. 

 

Check your so called 'facts.'

 

First of all, the V costs $84K.

Second, the AMG comes fairly loaded, and with AWD, with very few options. And when you tally up the options, it is closer to a $10K difference.

Hence my surprise.

 

And yes, AMG and V  both depreciate at an alarming rate, but the V far more so.

 

And honestly, it's not as if Cadillac has NOT been in the news lately for over pricing their vehicles.

[surreal1272]

 

 

Sorry, you guys can blame me all you like regarding my surprised remark, but that does not change the fact that an AMG E63 S offers AWD, similar power but with the Mercedes AMG legacy, experience and certainly value (V series tend to depreciate at an alarming rate) relative to the CTSV......and for not much more money.

 

Hence my surprise.

 

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/model/class-E/model-E63W4S

Again, ignoring certain facts. Fact #1, the CTS-V starts at $83K, undercutting that MB by $22K right off the bat. Fact #2, that MB when optioned to the nines (like you did with the V) is almost $30K more than the optioned out CTS-V. Fact #3, those model MBs drop like a rock as far as depreciation goes. So, to reiterate, you ignored the obvious facts to make a half baked "yikes" remark. 

 

Check your so called 'facts.'

 

First of all, the V costs $84K.

Second, the AMG comes fairly loaded, and with AWD, with very few options. And when you tally up the options, it is closer to a $10K difference.

Hence my surprise.

 

And yes, AMG and V  both depreciate at an alarming rate, but the V far more so.

 

And honestly, it's not as if Cadillac has NOT been in the news lately for over pricing their vehicles.

 

Ooh, a whole $1000. It's actually $83,995 so you are wrong again and there is WAY more than a $10K difference. You even had to add a bunch of frivolous options to the V to get it to the price you had. I added wheels, carbon fiber, Red Brembos, and sunroof and only came out to $95K. Optioning out those same accessories on the AMG pushed it over $120K!  The only thing that separates the AMG is the AWD while still having 70HP less than the V. Again there is a $22K difference in base prices and the difference increases when you option them out. The V is not overpriced unless you also think the Z06 is overpriced (which its not). 

[ccap41]

 

 

Check your so called 'facts.'

 

First of all, the V costs $84K.

Second, the AMG comes fairly loaded, and with AWD, with very few options. And when you tally up the options, it is closer to a $10K difference.

Hence my surprise.

 

And yes, AMG and V  both depreciate at an alarming rate, but the V far more so.

 

And honestly, it's not as if Cadillac has NOT been in the news lately for over pricing their vehicles.

 

Ooh, a whole $1000. It's actually $83,995 so you are wrong again and there is WAY more than a $10K difference. You even had to add a bunch of frivolous options to the V to get it to the price you had. I added wheels, carbon fiber, Red Brembos, and sunroof and only came out to $95K. Optioning out those same accessories on the AMG pushed it over $120K!  The only thing that separates the AMG is the AWD while still having 70HP less than the V. Again there is a $22K difference in base prices and the difference increases when you option them out. The V is not overpriced unless you also think the Z06 is overpriced (which its not). 

 

The one thing here I will give the AMG is that while on paper it is down 70hp.. it is a Merc. It is so underrated it isn't even funny.

 

"The pertinent facts of the case are thus: The 2014 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S Model is a monster. Under the bulging hood sits a nicely juiced-up version of the now-familiar M157 AMG engine. It's 5.5 liters in displacement, has two turbochargers fitted directly to the exhaust headers, and fills the combustion chamber with direct-injected gasoline at 2000 psi. Such a motor, especially in the new S Model tune, creates 577 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque. Of course those power numbers are GMFN, or German Minimum Fantasy Numbers. Meaning that we stuck this particular gray example on K&N Engineering's dynamometer and discovered that the M157 in this car churns out 541 wheel-horsepower and 508 lb-ft of torque. As the S Model E63 is AWD, and since you typically factor in a drivetrain loss for AWD cars of 20 percent (the transmission and drive shafts tend to suck a lot of power), the actual crank numbers on this car are much closer to 676 hp and 636 lb-ft of torque. That's enough to propel the 4511-pound sedan to 60 mph in a crazy quick 3.4 seconds and through the quarter mile in 11.6 seconds at 121.8 mph. That's one big hammer."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1311_2014_mercedes_benz_e63_amg_s_vs_bmw_m5_competition_pack_comparison/#ixzz3eljx98UE

 

Granted, I don't know wha tmotor is propelling the current E63, but I would assume they underrate it quite well like they always have. Them and BMW.

Edited July 2, 2015 by ccap41

[surreal1272]

 

 

 

Check your so called 'facts.'

 

First of all, the V costs $84K.

Second, the AMG comes fairly loaded, and with AWD, with very few options. And when you tally up the options, it is closer to a $10K difference.

Hence my surprise.

 

And yes, AMG and V  both depreciate at an alarming rate, but the V far more so.

 

And honestly, it's not as if Cadillac has NOT been in the news lately for over pricing their vehicles.

 

Ooh, a whole $1000. It's actually $83,995 so you are wrong again and there is WAY more than a $10K difference. You even had to add a bunch of frivolous options to the V to get it to the price you had. I added wheels, carbon fiber, Red Brembos, and sunroof and only came out to $95K. Optioning out those same accessories on the AMG pushed it over $120K!  The only thing that separates the AMG is the AWD while still having 70HP less than the V. Again there is a $22K difference in base prices and the difference increases when you option them out. The V is not overpriced unless you also think the Z06 is overpriced (which its not). 

 

The one thing here I will give the AMG is that while on paper it is down 70hp.. it is a Merc. It is so underrated it isn't even funny.

 

"The pertinent facts of the case are thus: The 2014 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S Model is a monster. Under the bulging hood sits a nicely juiced-up version of the now-familiar M157 AMG engine. It's 5.5 liters in displacement, has two turbochargers fitted directly to the exhaust headers, and fills the combustion chamber with direct-injected gasoline at 2000 psi. Such a motor, especially in the new S Model tune, creates 577 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque. Of course those power numbers are GMFN, or German Minimum Fantasy Numbers. Meaning that we stuck this particular gray example on K&N Engineering's dynamometer and discovered that the M157 in this car churns out 541 wheel-horsepower and 508 lb-ft of torque. As the S Model E63 is AWD, and since you typically factor in a drivetrain loss for AWD cars of 20 percent (the transmission and drive shafts tend to suck a lot of power), the actual crank numbers on this car are much closer to 676 hp and 636 lb-ft of torque. That's enough to propel the 4511-pound sedan to 60 mph in a crazy quick 3.4 seconds and through the quarter mile in 11.6 seconds at 121.8 mph. That's one big hammer."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1311_2014_mercedes_benz_e63_amg_s_vs_bmw_m5_competition_pack_comparison/#ixzz3eljx98UE

 

Granted, I don't know wha tmotor is propelling the current E63, but I would assume they underrate it quite well like they always have. Them and BMW.

 

Oh, I'm not knocking the performance. The owner of my shop has SL55 AMG that is a beast. You cannot keep those rear wheels planted and it "only" has 550HP. I pointed out the HP numbers because someone else remarked that HP numbers between the AMG and the V were "similar". A 70 HP difference does not make it similar IMO.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

 

An ignorant person could say that, sure, but YOU said it because you're Wings and you can't say anything about GM without a passive aggressive comment or thinly veiled criticism. It's why you don't get banned, yet still have -40 reputation points accrued in a month.

 

really?

 

REALLY????

 

All I did was make a simple shocked statement on price.

All the rest is dust and nonsense for which you have contributed twice now.

 

As for my negative points, a mod confirmed that nearly all of them are from one person who adores me so much that he makes sure you subtracts in every one of my posts, regardless.

I will try to move on with my life though.

 

 

 

 

This^^^ This is the reason why U get on my *** nerves.. U thin for some reason I got these guys over here away from MT to help in your ever continuing need for free online psychotherapy. No one really gives a $h! about your opinion in these threads.. because for

 

1)  U are biased as a muthf**ka. I'm talking even more than me in that U ignore the reality of things and live in some crazy world where white is black and black is rainbow.

 

2) have no interest in these types of cars.. RWD, non-turbo V6 or 4cylinder, or luxury because.. well..  U're a Ford fan. 

 

3) are just a GM hater.. despite them putting food on your ***king table and sending U to school 

 

3) 

[ccap41]

 

 

 

 

Check your so called 'facts.'

 

First of all, the V costs $84K.

Second, the AMG comes fairly loaded, and with AWD, with very few options. And when you tally up the options, it is closer to a $10K difference.

Hence my surprise.

 

And yes, AMG and V  both depreciate at an alarming rate, but the V far more so.

 

And honestly, it's not as if Cadillac has NOT been in the news lately for over pricing their vehicles.

 

Ooh, a whole $1000. It's actually $83,995 so you are wrong again and there is WAY more than a $10K difference. You even had to add a bunch of frivolous options to the V to get it to the price you had. I added wheels, carbon fiber, Red Brembos, and sunroof and only came out to $95K. Optioning out those same accessories on the AMG pushed it over $120K!  The only thing that separates the AMG is the AWD while still having 70HP less than the V. Again there is a $22K difference in base prices and the difference increases when you option them out. The V is not overpriced unless you also think the Z06 is overpriced (which its not). 

 

The one thing here I will give the AMG is that while on paper it is down 70hp.. it is a Merc. It is so underrated it isn't even funny.

 

"The pertinent facts of the case are thus: The 2014 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S Model is a monster. Under the bulging hood sits a nicely juiced-up version of the now-familiar M157 AMG engine. It's 5.5 liters in displacement, has two turbochargers fitted directly to the exhaust headers, and fills the combustion chamber with direct-injected gasoline at 2000 psi. Such a motor, especially in the new S Model tune, creates 577 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque. Of course those power numbers are GMFN, or German Minimum Fantasy Numbers. Meaning that we stuck this particular gray example on K&N Engineering's dynamometer and discovered that the M157 in this car churns out 541 wheel-horsepower and 508 lb-ft of torque. As the S Model E63 is AWD, and since you typically factor in a drivetrain loss for AWD cars of 20 percent (the transmission and drive shafts tend to suck a lot of power), the actual crank numbers on this car are much closer to 676 hp and 636 lb-ft of torque. That's enough to propel the 4511-pound sedan to 60 mph in a crazy quick 3.4 seconds and through the quarter mile in 11.6 seconds at 121.8 mph. That's one big hammer."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1311_2014_mercedes_benz_e63_amg_s_vs_bmw_m5_competition_pack_comparison/#ixzz3eljx98UE

 

Granted, I don't know wha tmotor is propelling the current E63, but I would assume they underrate it quite well like they always have. Them and BMW.

 

Oh, I'm not knocking the performance. The owner of my shop has SL55 AMG that is a beast. You cannot keep those rear wheels planted and it "only" has 550HP. I pointed out the HP numbers because someone else remarked that HP numbers between the AMG and the V were "similar". A 70 HP difference does not make it similar IMO.

 

Agreed that on paper 70hp is not similar, that's a big difference.

But acording to the Dyno pull.. it makes more than the V.

 

Have you gotten to drive that SL55??? I'm not a huge SL fan but I would still love to drive a roadster AMG.

[surreal1272]

 

 

 

 

 

Check your so called 'facts.'

 

First of all, the V costs $84K.

Second, the AMG comes fairly loaded, and with AWD, with very few options. And when you tally up the options, it is closer to a $10K difference.

Hence my surprise.

 

And yes, AMG and V  both depreciate at an alarming rate, but the V far more so.

 

And honestly, it's not as if Cadillac has NOT been in the news lately for over pricing their vehicles.

 

Ooh, a whole $1000. It's actually $83,995 so you are wrong again and there is WAY more than a $10K difference. You even had to add a bunch of frivolous options to the V to get it to the price you had. I added wheels, carbon fiber, Red Brembos, and sunroof and only came out to $95K. Optioning out those same accessories on the AMG pushed it over $120K!  The only thing that separates the AMG is the AWD while still having 70HP less than the V. Again there is a $22K difference in base prices and the difference increases when you option them out. The V is not overpriced unless you also think the Z06 is overpriced (which its not). 

 

The one thing here I will give the AMG is that while on paper it is down 70hp.. it is a Merc. It is so underrated it isn't even funny.

 

"The pertinent facts of the case are thus: The 2014 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S Model is a monster. Under the bulging hood sits a nicely juiced-up version of the now-familiar M157 AMG engine. It's 5.5 liters in displacement, has two turbochargers fitted directly to the exhaust headers, and fills the combustion chamber with direct-injected gasoline at 2000 psi. Such a motor, especially in the new S Model tune, creates 577 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque. Of course those power numbers are GMFN, or German Minimum Fantasy Numbers. Meaning that we stuck this particular gray example on K&N Engineering's dynamometer and discovered that the M157 in this car churns out 541 wheel-horsepower and 508 lb-ft of torque. As the S Model E63 is AWD, and since you typically factor in a drivetrain loss for AWD cars of 20 percent (the transmission and drive shafts tend to suck a lot of power), the actual crank numbers on this car are much closer to 676 hp and 636 lb-ft of torque. That's enough to propel the 4511-pound sedan to 60 mph in a crazy quick 3.4 seconds and through the quarter mile in 11.6 seconds at 121.8 mph. That's one big hammer."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1311_2014_mercedes_benz_e63_amg_s_vs_bmw_m5_competition_pack_comparison/#ixzz3eljx98UE

 

Granted, I don't know wha tmotor is propelling the current E63, but I would assume they underrate it quite well like they always have. Them and BMW.

 

Oh, I'm not knocking the performance. The owner of my shop has SL55 AMG that is a beast. You cannot keep those rear wheels planted and it "only" has 550HP. I pointed out the HP numbers because someone else remarked that HP numbers between the AMG and the V were "similar". A 70 HP difference does not make it similar IMO.

 

Agreed that on paper 70hp is not similar, that's a big difference.

But acording to the Dyno pull.. it makes more than the V.

 

Have you gotten to drive that SL55??? I'm not a huge SL fan but I would still love to drive a roadster AMG.

 

That's true but I have seen more than advertised HP out the Vette motors too. Oh and no I haven't driven that car. Rode with the boss in it and man it may be a high tech AMG but that back end throws loose like an old school muscle car. Almost too much motor for that car...almost  

[El Kabong]

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

 

An ignorant person could say that, sure, but YOU said it because you're Wings and you can't say anything about GM without a passive aggressive comment or thinly veiled criticism. It's why you don't get banned, yet still have -40 reputation points accrued in a month.

really?

 

REALLY????

 

All I did was make a simple shocked statement on price.

All the rest is dust and nonsense for which you have contributed twice now.

 

As for my negative points, a mod confirmed that nearly all of them are from one person who adores me so much that he makes sure you subtracts in every one of my posts, regardless.

I will try to move on with my life though.

 

 

 

This^^^ This is the reason why U get on my *** nerves.. U thin for some reason I got these guys over here away from MT to help in your ever continuing need for free online psychotherapy. No one really gives a $h! about your opinion in these threads.. because for

 

1)  U are biased as a muthf**ka. I'm talking even more than me in that U ignore the reality of things and live in some crazy world where white is black and black is rainbow.

 

2) have no interest in these types of cars.. RWD, non-turbo V6 or 4cylinder, or luxury because.. well..  U're a Ford fan. 

 

3) are just a GM hater.. despite them putting food on your ***king table and sending U to school 

 

3)

It is what it is man. Like I said earlier, just let him sink.

So, you're pretty serious about getting a CTS-V, I take it

[Cmicasa the Great]

Sorry, you guys can blame me all you like regarding my surprised remark, but that does not change the fact that an AMG E63 S offers AWD, similar power but with the Mercedes AMG legacy, experience and certainly value (V series tend to depreciate at an alarming rate) relative to the CTSV......and for not much more money.

 

Hence my surprise.

 

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/model/class-E/model-E63W4S

 

 

coupla points Dumbass... U are are attempting to justify your lunacy by bringing up the AWD system in the $102,000 E63AMG as a good reason as to why the starting at $84,000 CTS-V is worthy of a "gasp?"

 

So AWD is worth $18,000??? Can someone get me the troll patrol cause this MOFO is toast?

 

Coupla more points:

 

Benz has  577HP and torque to 590 lb-ft  Cadillac has  640HP and torque to 630 lb-ft 

 

Benz has AWD yes, but also has to push around 4,674 lbs. The VSeries is at 4,145 lbs, a 529lb deficit. 

 

Considering the ATS-V is pulling in 12.0/122mph 1/4 and 3.7sec "0-who cares" times I'm thinking that the CTS-V is gonna beat the E63's numbers by a few ticks. I predict the CTS-V to pull a 3.2-3.3 0-60 without AWD, and a mid 11 @125, beating the E63's 11.6 sec @ 121.8 mph

 

 

and this BS depreciation $h! U came up with is hilarious.

 

A $73K 2014 CTS-V Coupe with almost all the trimmings is now worth, with 12K on the odo, $54K.. a drop of $19K.  

 

A $102K Benz E63AMG Swith almost all the trimmings is now worth, with 12K on the odo, $80,500.. a drop of $21,500

 

Research first Bitch

[ccap41]

 

 

 

 

Ooh, a whole $1000. It's actually $83,995 so you are wrong again and there is WAY more than a $10K difference. You even had to add a bunch of frivolous options to the V to get it to the price you had. I added wheels, carbon fiber, Red Brembos, and sunroof and only came out to $95K. Optioning out those same accessories on the AMG pushed it over $120K!  The only thing that separates the AMG is the AWD while still having 70HP less than the V. Again there is a $22K difference in base prices and the difference increases when you option them out. The V is not overpriced unless you also think the Z06 is overpriced (which its not). 

 

 

 

The one thing here I will give the AMG is that while on paper it is down 70hp.. it is a Merc. It is so underrated it isn't even funny.

 

"The pertinent facts of the case are thus: The 2014 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S Model is a monster. Under the bulging hood sits a nicely juiced-up version of the now-familiar M157 AMG engine. It's 5.5 liters in displacement, has two turbochargers fitted directly to the exhaust headers, and fills the combustion chamber with direct-injected gasoline at 2000 psi. Such a motor, especially in the new S Model tune, creates 577 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque. Of course those power numbers are GMFN, or German Minimum Fantasy Numbers. Meaning that we stuck this particular gray example on K&N Engineering's dynamometer and discovered that the M157 in this car churns out 541 wheel-horsepower and 508 lb-ft of torque. As the S Model E63 is AWD, and since you typically factor in a drivetrain loss for AWD cars of 20 percent (the transmission and drive shafts tend to suck a lot of power), the actual crank numbers on this car are much closer to 676 hp and 636 lb-ft of torque. That's enough to propel the 4511-pound sedan to 60 mph in a crazy quick 3.4 seconds and through the quarter mile in 11.6 seconds at 121.8 mph. That's one big hammer."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1311_2014_mercedes_benz_e63_amg_s_vs_bmw_m5_competition_pack_comparison/#ixzz3eljx98UE

 

Granted, I don't know wha tmotor is propelling the current E63, but I would assume they underrate it quite well like they always have. Them and BMW.

 

Oh, I'm not knocking the performance. The owner of my shop has SL55 AMG that is a beast. You cannot keep those rear wheels planted and it "only" has 550HP. I pointed out the HP numbers because someone else remarked that HP numbers between the AMG and the V were "similar". A 70 HP difference does not make it similar IMO.

 

Agreed that on paper 70hp is not similar, that's a big difference.

But acording to the Dyno pull.. it makes more than the V.

 

Have you gotten to drive that SL55??? I'm not a huge SL fan but I would still love to drive a roadster AMG.

 

That's true but I have seen more than advertised HP out the Vette motors too. Oh and no I haven't driven that car. Rode with the boss in it and man it may be a high tech AMG but that back end throws loose like an old school muscle car. Almost too much motor for that car...almost  

 

Aren't all of GM's engines SAE rated now though?

 

That's what I hear about AMGs and why I love them so much! They still have that old school muscle and V8(even though those are becoming fewer and fewer now) and nose heavy.. they give the impression of still being a raw straight line car(as raw as 100+k can be lol).

[Cmicasa the Great]

Agreed that on paper 70hp is not similar, that's a big difference.

 

But acording to the Dyno pull.. it makes more than the V.

 

 

 

According to the Dyno Pull of the V.. how much is it cranking??? 

[ccap41]

 

Sorry, you guys can blame me all you like regarding my surprised remark, but that does not change the fact that an AMG E63 S offers AWD, similar power but with the Mercedes AMG legacy, experience and certainly value (V series tend to depreciate at an alarming rate) relative to the CTSV......and for not much more money.

 

Hence my surprise.

 

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/model/class-E/model-E63W4S

 

 

coupla points Dumbass... U are are attempting to justify your lunacy by bringing up the AWD system in the $102,000 E63AMG as a good reason as to why the starting at $84,000 CTS-V is worthy of a "gasp?"

 

So AWD is worth $18,000??? Can someone get me the troll patrol cause this MOFO is toast?

 

Coupla more points:

 

Benz has  577HP and torque to 590 lb-ft  Cadillac has  640HP and torque to 630 lb-ft 

 

Benz has AWD yes, but also has to push around 4,674 lbs. The VSeries is at 4,145 lbs, a 529lb deficit. 

 

Considering the ATS-V is pulling in 12.0/122mph 1/4 and 3.7sec "0-who cares" times I'm thinking that the CTS-V is gonna beat the E63's numbers by a few ticks. I predict the CTS-V to pull a 3.2-3.3 0-60 without AWD, and a mid 11 @125, beating the E63's 11.6 sec @ 121.8 mph

 

 

and this BS depreciation $h! U came up with is hilarious.

 

A $73K 2014 CTS-V Coupe with almost all the trimmings is now worth, with 12K on the odo, $54K.. a drop of $19K.  

 

A $102K Benz E63AMG Swith almost all the trimmings is now worth, with 12K on the odo, $80,500.. a drop of $21,500

 

Research first Bitch

 

"Research first Bitch"  

 

Agreed that on paper 70hp is not similar, that's a big difference.

 

But acording to the Dyno pull.. it makes more than the V.

 

 

 

According to the Dyno Pull of the V.. how much is it cranking??? 

 

The V is SAE rated isn't it? so it should be spot on 650, right?

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

 

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

 

An ignorant person could say that, sure, but YOU said it because you're Wings and you can't say anything about GM without a passive aggressive comment or thinly veiled criticism. It's why you don't get banned, yet still have -40 reputation points accrued in a month.

really?

 

REALLY????

 

All I did was make a simple shocked statement on price.

All the rest is dust and nonsense for which you have contributed twice now.

 

As for my negative points, a mod confirmed that nearly all of them are from one person who adores me so much that he makes sure you subtracts in every one of my posts, regardless.

I will try to move on with my life though.

 

 

 

This^^^ This is the reason why U get on my *** nerves.. U thin for some reason I got these guys over here away from MT to help in your ever continuing need for free online psychotherapy. No one really gives a $h! about your opinion in these threads.. because for

 

1)  U are biased as a muthf**ka. I'm talking even more than me in that U ignore the reality of things and live in some crazy world where white is black and black is rainbow.

 

2) have no interest in these types of cars.. RWD, non-turbo V6 or 4cylinder, or luxury because.. well..  U're a Ford fan. 

 

3) are just a GM hater.. despite them putting food on your ***king table and sending U to school 

 

3)

It is what it is man. Like I said earlier, just let him sink.

So, you're pretty serious about getting a CTS-V, I take it

 

 

 

Look for me to start getting the title outta the files for my '12 around Feb, March. Its pretty much the time I buy all of my non-essential vehicles, with the essential ones normally being purchased in summer. Its an accounting thing.  

 

The config I posted in post #2 is the one I am seriously sweet on. I do like the red too tho.. but it may get the past because of the already Big Red Catherina in my garage. Haven't had a Black Cadillac in 7 years almost  

[El Kabong]

Good times, good times... I'm going through a financially sensible period right now so I'll sit on the sidelines and applaud.

[Cmicasa the Great]

The V is SAE rated isn't it? so it should be spot on 650, right?

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah.. tell it to a stock Stingray that is kicking out dyno power that indicates that it is actually making about 500

Good times, good times... I'm going through a financially sensible period right now so I'll sit on the sidelines and applaud.

 

 

I hear U.. and it is part of the reason why I decided that after 3 new vehicles in 2014, I would sit '15 out from buying anything. Sensibility. 

[surreal1272]

 

 

Sorry, you guys can blame me all you like regarding my surprised remark, but that does not change the fact that an AMG E63 S offers AWD, similar power but with the Mercedes AMG legacy, experience and certainly value (V series tend to depreciate at an alarming rate) relative to the CTSV......and for not much more money.

 

Hence my surprise.

 

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/model/class-E/model-E63W4S

 

 

coupla points Dumbass... U are are attempting to justify your lunacy by bringing up the AWD system in the $102,000 E63AMG as a good reason as to why the starting at $84,000 CTS-V is worthy of a "gasp?"

 

So AWD is worth $18,000??? Can someone get me the troll patrol cause this MOFO is toast?

 

Coupla more points:

 

Benz has  577HP and torque to 590 lb-ft  Cadillac has  640HP and torque to 630 lb-ft 

 

Benz has AWD yes, but also has to push around 4,674 lbs. The VSeries is at 4,145 lbs, a 529lb deficit. 

 

Considering the ATS-V is pulling in 12.0/122mph 1/4 and 3.7sec "0-who cares" times I'm thinking that the CTS-V is gonna beat the E63's numbers by a few ticks. I predict the CTS-V to pull a 3.2-3.3 0-60 without AWD, and a mid 11 @125, beating the E63's 11.6 sec @ 121.8 mph

 

 

and this BS depreciation $h! U came up with is hilarious.

 

A $73K 2014 CTS-V Coupe with almost all the trimmings is now worth, with 12K on the odo, $54K.. a drop of $19K.  

 

A $102K Benz E63AMG Swith almost all the trimmings is now worth, with 12K on the odo, $80,500.. a drop of $21,500

 

Research first Bitch

 

"Research first Bitch"  

 

Agreed that on paper 70hp is not similar, that's a big difference.

 

But acording to the Dyno pull.. it makes more than the V.

 

 

 

According to the Dyno Pull of the V.. how much is it cranking??? 

 

The V is SAE rated isn't it? so it should be spot on 650, right?

 

Yes they are SAE but what would it be if it was on the same dyno pull as the AMG? And yes, that car is old school muscle in a shiny new package (his is a 2009 though I believe).

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

 

 

ummm, all these supposed devious accusations and implications is lame.

Can't a person just be genuinely shocked at the $100K price of a CTS.  Regardless of engine.

 

An ignorant person could say that, sure, but YOU said it because you're Wings and you can't say anything about GM without a passive aggressive comment or thinly veiled criticism. It's why you don't get banned, yet still have -40 reputation points accrued in a month.

 

really?

 

REALLY????

 

All I did was make a simple shocked statement on price.

All the rest is dust and nonsense for which you have contributed twice now.

 

As for my negative points, a mod confirmed that nearly all of them are from one person who adores me so much that he makes sure you subtracts in every one of my posts, regardless.

I will try to move on with my life though.

 

 

 

 

This^^^ This is the reason why U get on my *** nerves.. U thin for some reason I got these guys over here away from MT to help in your ever continuing need for free online psychotherapy. No one really gives a $h! about your opinion in these threads.. because for

 

1)  U are biased as a muthf**ka. I'm talking even more than me in that U ignore the reality of things and live in some crazy world where white is black and black is rainbow.

 

2) have no interest in these types of cars.. RWD, non-turbo V6 or 4cylinder, or luxury because.. well..  U're a Ford fan. 

 

3) are just a GM hater.. despite them putting food on your ***king table and sending U to school 

 

3) 

 

Casa, did you just call me biased?

 

That's all I got out of all that.

[smk4565]

The E63 does 0-60 in 3.5 seconds according to Mercedes, 3.4 seconds by some magazines, the AWD system gives it the acceleration, so it might beat the CTS-V in 0-60 despite the power to weight ratio disadvantage, but it will be close either way.   I think the E63 is a little over priced because an S550 is $95k, to me an E63 shouldn't be about $94k, especially since the driver assist package and Bang an Olufsen stereo are options.   When you load up the E63 you are up to about $115k, and now you are at SL550 money and $15k away from AMG GT money.   New E63 is on the way next year though, so we'll see what they do.

 

If you want real value though, you can get two Lincoln MKS for the price of one CTS-V.  And that gives you over 700 hp.