View Full Version : Just drove a CTS-V
Short version: A thunderingly fast, amazingly competent sports sedan with a few minor flaws. Anyone who buys an E60 530i for the same money is a fucking idiot.
Somewhat longer version:
The interior of the CTS-V is pretty well executed. The gauges are large and very legible, and the controls for the radio/climate control are very intuitive and easy to use. Kudos, for example, for including a large volume knob and large tuning knob for the radio.
Little details are also well done. There are two stalks, like in European and Japanese cars, and they feel solid and precise--a far cry from the ancillary controls that GM use to employ, which felt brittle and cheap. There is a wealth of electronic information available, including the individual tire pressures of all four tires (like the E55), an electronic g-meter, and an electronic digital speedometer (in addition to the analog display).
There are some missteps. The parking brake, in the grand American tradition, is foot pedal operated, for some reason. The steering wheel doesn't telescope. It's hard to describe, but the ignition key/lock retains ghosts of the old GM interior feel, which isn't a good thing. And the interior plastic is not as nice as that found in the E39 or E46, though it is just as good (if not better) than the crap BMW is putting in the E60/65/63.
The seats are acceptable. Side bolstering is not as aggressive as I might like, though they are probably about as good as the non-adjustable seats I have in my E46. The Alcantara center section looks nice, and provides a sticky surface that holds you better than the slick Nappa in the M3.
What's the drive like?
Pulling away, the first thing you notice is the steering, which is quite light at low speeds. The steering wheel rim is thinner than the fat boy in the M3, but is actually probably about the right thickness. The engine is quiet and docile at idle, and the clutch takeup is surprisingly smooth and light for a driveline this powerful. There is some driveline snatch,* of a kind that will be familiar to M3 and M5 drivers, but if you concentrate a bit you can smooth your inputs and make it go away.
As the traffic opens, and you can give the engine its head, you realize that the LS6 is the dominating feature of this car. It has torque in a bottomless, inexhaustible stream, and as the engine gains revs it issues an unmistakable, hammering V8 cacophony. I've gotta say that I love the way that high performance American V8s sound, because no matter how much power they produce, they all retain a little bit of that industrial backbeat that calls to mind Woodward in its glory days.
And this car is very, very fast. It adds speed effortlessly, the way a buggy pulled by a Clydesdale on a cocaine binge might. But that's missing the point a bit, because it feels much more relaxed than the M3 does--the M3 is wound tight, whereas the CTS-V is rangy and loping. I can't speak to the axle tramp question, because I didn't push it hard from a standing start, but in everyday driving it handles the power with aplomb.
Throw it into a curve, and you can feel the weight. This car is clearly bigger than the E46, and it's agility suffers a bit for it. The steering firms up at speed, and while it remains lighter than the M3, it's no less communicative. Hitting a mid-corner bump reveals the stiffness of the damping, brought about in part by the F1 Supercar EMT tires; while the ride is generally very good and very smooth, sharp impacts can be transmitted through the chassis quite directly.
The shifter is workmanlike, but no one is ever going to write sonnets about it. It's a bit vague, and the dreaded Skip Shift feature rears its head when you are puttering about. It's fairly easy to override, but disconnecting it (if that can still be done) would be the first thing I would do when I got the car home. The shift throws are about average, and the gate is reasonably well laid out, though 6th is way over to the right. Oddly, reverse is up and to the right.
In terms of the overall driving gestalt, it's a bit unfair to compare this car to an E46. It's a bigger car, and its extra space and avoirdupois dictate that it will never have quite the same directness as the M3. It's much better to compare it to an M5, and here the CTS-V acquits itself very well. The things that the M5 does better than the CTS-V are...well, I suspect that there may be some, but I can't think of any at the moment. Wait, here's one: It impresses badge snobs better. Other than that, the CTS-V has the measure of the E39 M5.
And this is the really good bit: It does all of that for right about $50K. And that includes all manner of doo-dads that are either optional or not available on the E39 (or E60), such as nav, the electronic info center (transmission oil temp/g force gauge/tire pressure), XM radio, auto wipers, heated seats, OnStar, etc. etc. Like the Acura TL, the Cadillac comes loaded, and GM doesn't try and nickel and dime you to death with stupid option prices. I suppose that if you are looking for a stripped down club racer this is a bad thing, but if you are looking for a stripped down club racer and you are thinking either M5 or CTS-V you should have your head examined. For the type of driving this car is going to do, the options are nice to have.
Comparing the CTS-V to a 400 hp M5 makes sense. Comparing it to the BMW you can actually buy for the same money (a moderately well equipped 530) is just stupid. The Cadillac has 175 more hp, a performance advantage that makes the BMW look laughably slow and overpriced, and comes with a vast range of additional equipment. It also (to me) looks better, though the very worst you can say about the styling of the Cadillac is that even if you dislike it, it's honestly no more polarizing than Bangle's bullshit.
In the end, the only relevant question is whether, having driven a CTS-V, I would buy one. The answer is unequivocally yes. The minor flaws are meaningless compared to the impressive package that Cadillac has put together. Because the M3 is smaller and lighter, I'm not impressed *enough* with the Cadillac to end the lease on my M early. But when it's time for the M3 to go back, the CTS-V is going to be the first car on my shopping list.
________
* Heh heh. He said "snatch."
clyde
03-27-2004, 12:28 PM
when it's time for the M3 to go back, the CTS-V is going to be the first car on my shopping list.
12 more months. Ugh.
I'm surprised that you didn't just trade on the spot. But it's probably a smart idea to wait a little while, anyway, for some of the inevitable bugs to be worked out. I think the only major issue I would have with the car is its weight; however, considering its size, it's not *that* much of a problem IMO.
To me, the CTS-V is one of those cars that would be well complemented with something like a real M3 parked next to it. Something like that (or any E30-ish car, really) would talk to your need for agility and lightness in a way that few modern cars could. And meanwhile, you have a car that could kick its and just about another other car's ass any day of the week.
Another reason why I wish you'd just driven it home: I would have a chance to drive one myself. :p
12 more months. Ugh.
:wutblau:
To me, the CTS-V is one of those cars that would be well complemented with something like a real M3 parked next to it. Something like that (or any E30-ish car, really) would talk to your need for agility and lightness in a way that few modern cars could.
Something like a WRX?
12 more months. Ugh.
:wutblau:
To me, the CTS-V is one of those cars that would be well complemented with something like a real M3 parked next to it. Something like that (or any E30-ish car, really) would talk to your need for agility and lightness in a way that few modern cars could.
Something like a WRX?Yeah, like a WRX, sorta. I still believe in RWD when it comes to true driving fun. While the STi is certainly a different animal, my experience with autocrossing one is one of predominant understeer.
clyde
03-27-2004, 03:28 PM
While the STi is certainly a different animal, my experience with autocrossing one is one of predominant understeer.
If you don't lift/brake at the right time, EVERY car understeers. If anything the STi is more prone to it than others because it gets you to that point of no return quicker than expected.
clyde
03-27-2004, 03:38 PM
I think the only major issue I would have with the car is its weight; however, considering its size, it's not *that* much of a problem IMO.
Weight is not an issue at all in a car like the CTS-V...at least in terms of it's intended market and how it will be used by 99% of its drivers. For real world driving, weight is not all bad. Just the weight itself will make a car feel more solid and stable (which are inexorably linked to "quality" in the minds of most people)...and if the weight is well designed it's like a force multiplier in that regard.
Remember, the CTS-V isn't meant for autocrossing, or open track challenges. it's meant for impressing business associates, urban commuting/warfare, lapping up Interstate miles at high speed with a sporty, yet unobtrusive feel and general transportation duty. With that in mind, I don't see a problem with the weight.
I think the only major issue I would have with the car is its weight; however, considering its size, it's not *that* much of a problem IMO.
Weight is not an issue at all in a car like the CTS-V...at least in terms of it's intended market and how it will be used by 99% of its drivers. For real world driving, weight is not all bad. Just the weight itself will make a car feel more solid and stable (which are inexorably linked to "quality" in the minds of most people)...and if the weight is well designed it's like a force multiplier in that regard.
Remember, the CTS-V isn't meant for autocrossing, or open track challenges. it's meant for impressing business associates, urban commuting/warfare, lapping up Interstate miles at high speed with a sporty, yet unobtrusive feel and general transportation duty. With that in mind, I don't see a problem with the weight.The M5 isn't meant for those things either. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't want it lighter or stiffer. The target demographic for these cars obviously won't mind the weight, and may even see it as an asset...but I think it's fair to say that you, JST, and I don't really fall into that group just yet.
(TD seems to be dangerously close.)
lemming
03-27-2004, 04:19 PM
Hi.
:smile:
thanks for the writeup on the CTS-V!
i've just recently driven one me-self. i love it. it's not the focused sports car that i would want, which is the only thing that keeps me from outright buying one --that said, i find it to be incredible. i mean, i didn't expect THIS from GM!?!?!
i was floored.
i'm in love with the LS6 engine.
lemming
03-29-2004, 09:21 AM
just wanted to add that the shifter is "okay"; i think BMW in the M coupe and the z4 with the shorter throw are far better. i think the clutch takeup is amazingly light and the brakes are shockingly good.
i'm accustomed to the spongy feel of GM vehicles before the brake booster activates. soggy. but not here. rather nice.
for all of the complaining about the CTS-v interior, since the new 645 is fresh in my mind, i have no idea what "people" are complaining about. for starters, all of you who think the CTS interior is not up to snuff, please reset your internal measuring stick by going to a dealership, looking at the sticker of a 645, sit inside, ponder the cheapass materials, get out and look at the sticker again, and then complain about the CTS-v.
um, i never ran into the 1-4 skipshift feature. :-)
i think of the CTS-V as hershel walker doing ballet whereas the E46M3 is jerry rice doing ballet. two very different approaches.
p.s. lot easier to drive the GM iron in its homestate. f*cking impossible to get a decent drive in the V-series locally.
just wanted to add that the shifter is "okay"; i think BMW in the M coupe and the z4 with the shorter throw are far better. i think the clutch takeup is amazingly light and the brakes are shockingly good.
i'm accustomed to the spongy feel of GM vehicles before the brake booster activates. soggy. but not here. rather nice.
for all of the complaining about the CTS-v interior, since the new 645 is fresh in my mind, i have no idea what "people" are complaining about. for starters, all of you who think the CTS interior is not up to snuff, please reset your internal measuring stick by going to a dealership, looking at the sticker of a 645, sit inside, ponder the cheapass materials, get out and look at the sticker again, and then complain about the CTS-v.
um, i never ran into the 1-4 skipshift feature. :-)
i think of the CTS-V as hershel walker doing ballet whereas the E46M3 is jerry rice doing ballet. two very different approaches.
p.s. lot easier to drive the GM iron in its homestate. f*cking impossible to get a decent drive in the V-series locally.
I just got back from my test drive at the local dealer this afternoon. There is nothing I can say that already be said above. HOLY SHIT, this is a nice car. I seriously concidered it and I have NEVER owned or NEVER wanted a four door. It's THAT good. It took me 20 minutes to get back in my car. The exaust note and engine sound at WOT is to die for. I have not felt that giddy since havig my 71 GTO way back in the day. Got to take some serious corners in the car and the drift was very predictable and controlled. I kinda freaked the second saleman in the back seat. The second one came along because he had not been out in it yet.
Everyone sould get out and at least test drive this car.
Now for the bad part. It had a $20K markup on the window!!! :jawdrop:
I know that won't last but holy crap. Anyway, it was a great way to spend part of my sunny 75 degree plus weather Saturday. :thumbup:
Not to resurrect a really old thread, but saw this:
http://autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=autofile&content_code=02223916&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=2127613&record=1
Gushing.
The stat that caught my eye was speed through the slalom. CTS-V? 46.2 mph. E46 M3? 46.0 mph. :shock:
FWIW, the article gets one thing wrong--comparably equipped, the CTS-V is actually about 3K less than a new E46 M3. CTS-V message boarders are reporting that some dealers are backing off MSRP now, as well.
Anyone who thinks I am not getting one of these hasn't been paying attention.
lemming
05-24-2004, 04:35 PM
Not to resurrect a really old thread, but saw this:
http://autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=autofile&content_code=02223916&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=2127613&record=1
Gushing.
The stat that caught my eye was speed through the slalom. CTS-V? 46.2 mph. E46 M3? 46.0 mph. :shock:
FWIW, the article gets one thing wrong--comparably equipped, the CTS-V is actually about 3K less than a new E46 M3. CTS-V message boarders are reporting that some dealers are backing off MSRP now, as well.
Anyone who thinks I am not getting one of these hasn't been paying attention.
i am pondering getting one when dealers will actually sell them at sub-MSRP or at GMS pricing.
the downside is the entire interior "thing" but i'm past that. the upside is the torque that i am addicted to having in a relatively inconspicous car that is not too expensive but can still humble my driving abilities as well as many many other cars on any given day.
This is a car to own, no doubt. Quick everyone, buy them so that I can have my pick from the used market.
This is a car to own, no doubt. Quick everyone, buy them so that I can have my pick from the used market.
Awesome car indeed. I wonder how it compares to an S4.
Too bad both are too expensive for me even if had not yet bought my 330i. Again, for 36K, I think even today my car was a good deal.
This is a car to own, no doubt. Quick everyone, buy them so that I can have my pick from the used market.
Awesome car indeed. I wonder how it compares to an S4.
Too bad both are too expensive for me even if had not yet bought my 330i. Again, for 36K, I think even today my car was a good deal.
Other than the lack of AWD, the CTS-V spanks the S4. Badly. In every category.
Look at the evidence--it has more power, less driveline loss, substantially more space, weighs the same or less, and is quite a bit faster.
I can't imagine buying an S4 over a CTS-V, unless I lived in Moose Jaw or only had one car.
One thought I did have about the CTS, though. With six lug wheels, I can only imagine that the aftermarket wheel fitments are limited, which might make snow tires an issue. OTOH, there probably won't be many people trying to take your wheels.
That is an interesting question- I wonder how the CTS-V does compare with an S4. The S4 is smaller and has, what, 60 fewer HP. But the $ is the same.
While I do appreciate the Caddy's contrarian styling, the S4 is a beautiful car, IMO. And the interior is much better. But it sounds like the Caddy would kill the S4 in a straight line and maybe even edge it out through the turns.
Interesting dilemma.
This is a car to own, no doubt. Quick everyone, buy them so that I can have my pick from the used market.
Awesome car indeed. I wonder how it compares to an S4.
Too bad both are too expensive for me even if had not yet bought my 330i. Again, for 36K, I think even today my car was a good deal.
Other than the lack of AWD, the CTS-V spanks the S4. Badly. In every category.
Look at the evidence--it has more power, less driveline loss, substantially more space, weighs the same or less, and is quite a bit faster.
I can't imagine buying an S4 over a CTS-V, unless I lived in Moose Jaw or only had one car.
One thought I did have about the CTS, though. With six lug wheels, I can only imagine that the aftermarket wheel fitments are limited, which might make snow tires an issue. OTOH, there probably won't be many people trying to take your wheels.
You beat me to the reply.
This may all be true. We'll have to do a comparo at some point after you get the CTS-V and I get the S4.
This is a car to own, no doubt. Quick everyone, buy them so that I can have my pick from the used market.
Awesome car indeed. I wonder how it compares to an S4.
Too bad both are too expensive for me even if had not yet bought my 330i. Again, for 36K, I think even today my car was a good deal.
Other than the lack of AWD, the CTS-V spanks the S4. Badly. In every category.
Look at the evidence--it has more power, less driveline loss, substantially more space, weighs the same or less, and is quite a bit faster.
I can't imagine buying an S4 over a CTS-V, unless I lived in Moose Jaw or only had one car.
One thought I did have about the CTS, though. With six lug wheels, I can only imagine that the aftermarket wheel fitments are limited, which might make snow tires an issue. OTOH, there probably won't be many people trying to take your wheels.
You beat me to the reply.
This may all be true. We'll have to do a comparo at some point after you get the CTS-V and I get the S4.
Of course, if you want an Avant, the S4 is the only choice.
I have yet to drive a new S4, but the A4 3.0 impressed me enough that I suspect I would find the S4 very satisfactory. I just can't get past the porkyness of that car--for what it is, it's sooo heavy. I like the styling of the S4, but the 2nd gen A4 has never done it for me the way the first gen did, and I actually prefer the extroverted CTS-V styling.
Your idea of a comparo is a good one.
What would be kinda neat is a lowered SRX-V. With a 6-speed.
lemming
05-24-2004, 08:55 PM
given the choice between the 4.2 litre dohc v8 or the 5.7L ohv'er, after driving the ohv'er regularly now, i prefer the ohv engine.
the dohc v8s, after driving a bunch, feel soft to me off the line. they obviously breathe a lot better and specific output is better....but i don't see any of them getting 28mpg on the highway, either,cruising at 75mph.
in fact, my suspicion is that the new 4.6litre SC'd V series will supplant the LS6 CTS-V, and again, i'd prefer that drivetrain to the 4.2 dohc from audi. no softness off the line plus breathing at higher rpms.
GM is coming around. just you watch.
clyde
05-24-2004, 09:56 PM
Anyone who thinks I am not getting one of these hasn't been paying attention.
Musttang
given the choice between the 4.2 litre dohc v8 or the 5.7L ohv'er, after driving the ohv'er regularly now, i prefer the ohv engine.
the dohc v8s, after driving a bunch, feel soft to me off the line. they obviously breathe a lot better and specific output is better....but i don't see any of them getting 28mpg on the highway, either,cruising at 75mph.
in fact, my suspicion is that the new 4.6litre SC'd V series will supplant the LS6 CTS-V, and again, i'd prefer that drivetrain to the 4.2 dohc from audi. no softness off the line plus breathing at higher rpms.
GM is coming around. just you watch.
4.2L is just too small for a 3800-4000 lb car, no matter how many valves it has. Couple that with AWD (increased parasitic loss, no way to break traction to get the engine into the upper rev range) and you have a car that's much better at autobahning than stop light grands prix.
4.2L is just too small for a 3800-4000 lb car, no matter how many valves it has. Couple that with AWD (increased parasitic loss, no way to break traction to get the engine into the upper rev range) and you have a car that's much better at autobahning than stop light grands prix.
I'm glad my S4 comment sparked discussion (I've had no internet at home for days... had to re-image my system).
Anyway, my comment wasn't aimed strictly at performance. I assumed the CTS-V would be a better performer than the S4. HOWEVER, there are other factors that coem into play. Is it worth giving up some performance for arguably better looks and quality in and out, AWD, etc?
I expect C&D and the rest of the crowd to do a comparo soon.
lemming
05-25-2004, 08:57 AM
4.2L is just too small for a 3800-4000 lb car, no matter how many valves it has. Couple that with AWD (increased parasitic loss, no way to break traction to get the engine into the upper rev range) and you have a car that's much better at autobahning than stop light grands prix.
I'm glad my S4 comment sparked discussion (I've had no internet at home for days... had to re-image my system).
Anyway, my comment wasn't aimed strictly at performance. I assumed the CTS-V would be a better performer than the S4. HOWEVER, there are other factors that coem into play. Is it worth giving up some performance for arguably better looks and quality in and out, AWD, etc?
I expect C&D and the rest of the crowd to do a comparo soon.
R&T just did a 6 cylinder comparison. strange. i understand that magazine less and less. they chose the 3.6litre 260hp CTS as the winner over all comers including the e320, the S type 3.0, the 530 (finished second to last), and the s80.
iDrive and controversial styling are just excuses now for the professional corps or car people to unload on the "new" BMW.
4.2L is just too small for a 3800-4000 lb car, no matter how many valves it has. Couple that with AWD (increased parasitic loss, no way to break traction to get the engine into the upper rev range) and you have a car that's much better at autobahning than stop light grands prix.
I'm glad my S4 comment sparked discussion (I've had no internet at home for days... had to re-image my system).
Anyway, my comment wasn't aimed strictly at performance. I assumed the CTS-V would be a better performer than the S4. HOWEVER, there are other factors that coem into play. Is it worth giving up some performance for arguably better looks and quality in and out, AWD, etc?
I expect C&D and the rest of the crowd to do a comparo soon.
I'd buy the CTS-V over the S4. The ONLY reason I can see going for the S4 would be for its availability as a wagon. I also have the GM supplier discount available to me so that plays a part as well. Of course, all of this dreaming is for nothing; I won't be buying a car for a long time. They'll probably have rocket-powered Cadillacs by the time I pay off my school loans.
4.2L is just too small for a 3800-4000 lb car, no matter how many valves it has. Couple that with AWD (increased parasitic loss, no way to break traction to get the engine into the upper rev range) and you have a car that's much better at autobahning than stop light grands prix.
I'm glad my S4 comment sparked discussion (I've had no internet at home for days... had to re-image my system).
Anyway, my comment wasn't aimed strictly at performance. I assumed the CTS-V would be a better performer than the S4. HOWEVER, there are other factors that coem into play. Is it worth giving up some performance for arguably better looks and quality in and out, AWD, etc?
I expect C&D and the rest of the crowd to do a comparo soon.I think the only big objective difference betweeen the two cars is AWD/RWD. That's definitely a big difference. As far as styling goes, I happen to think the CTS-V looks better than the S4, but I think you'll find people split pretty evenly on that topic. I wouldn't worry too much about reliability, either. The CTS chassis has been around for a few years, and the model itself has had a few years to work itself out. The parts that are unique to the CTS-V have been used in the Corvette for some time now as well. From what I can tell, interior fit and finish is excellent in the new Caddy. Whether you like the way it's styled is another matter, and although I generally like, it, there's no doubt that Audi is a class leader in interior treatment.
lemming
05-25-2004, 09:01 AM
4.2L is just too small for a 3800-4000 lb car, no matter how many valves it has. Couple that with AWD (increased parasitic loss, no way to break traction to get the engine into the upper rev range) and you have a car that's much better at autobahning than stop light grands prix.
I'm glad my S4 comment sparked discussion (I've had no internet at home for days... had to re-image my system).
Anyway, my comment wasn't aimed strictly at performance. I assumed the CTS-V would be a better performer than the S4. HOWEVER, there are other factors that coem into play. Is it worth giving up some performance for arguably better looks and quality in and out, AWD, etc?
I expect C&D and the rest of the crowd to do a comparo soon.
I'd buy the CTS-V over the S4. The ONLY reason I can see going for the S4 would be for its availability as a wagon. I also have the GM supplier discount available to me so that plays a part as well. Of course, all of this dreaming is for nothing; I won't be buying a car for a long time. They'll probably have rocket-powered Cadillacs by the time I pay off my school loans.
LOL.
i think the e36m3 is a lot more tossable.
4.2L is just too small for a 3800-4000 lb car, no matter how many valves it has. Couple that with AWD (increased parasitic loss, no way to break traction to get the engine into the upper rev range) and you have a car that's much better at autobahning than stop light grands prix.
I'm glad my S4 comment sparked discussion (I've had no internet at home for days... had to re-image my system).
Anyway, my comment wasn't aimed strictly at performance. I assumed the CTS-V would be a better performer than the S4. HOWEVER, there are other factors that coem into play. Is it worth giving up some performance for arguably better looks and quality in and out, AWD, etc?
I expect C&D and the rest of the crowd to do a comparo soon.
What is the etc.? As far as I can tell, other than the Avant, the only thing that the S4 has over the CTS-V is arguably better looks and AWD (VW and esp. S4 quality is not something to write home about). And the AWD comes at a stiff price, given the nose-heavy weight balance yielded by the way forward engine mount in the S4. If you absolutely must have AWD or a wagon, I suppose the S4 is the only choice, but in every other respect the Cadillac seems like the obvious call.
clyde
05-25-2004, 09:53 AM
What is the etc.? As far as I can tell, other than the Avant, the only thing that the S4 has over the CTS-V is arguably better looks and AWD....[I]n every other respect the Cadillac seems like the obvious call.
You are forgetting a very important "etc." The snobbish anti-American car mentality or sentiment held by some people that don't care to dig a little deeper than the superficiality of the badge on the hood.
You are forgetting a very important "etc." The snobbish anti-American car mentality or sentiment held by some people that don't care to dig a little deeper than the superficiality of the badge on the hood.
Exactly. the "etc" is the snob/yuppie factor.
To me it doesn't matter. If I ever were in the market, I'd test drive them and see how much of a difference AWD is and make my decision based on that alone.
Much like when I made the decision to buy the 330i, as an only car, I am not willing to carry the weight of AWD and lesser performance year round for a few snow storms.
But if I had a nice-weather performance car, then AWD would play a bigger role. So, to me, perhaps counterintuitively, as an only car, I'd lean towards the CTS-V, but if I had a nice-weather performance car, I'd get the S4 for the rainy days and winter commutes.
lemming
05-25-2004, 10:18 AM
What is the etc.? As far as I can tell, other than the Avant, the only thing that the S4 has over the CTS-V is arguably better looks and AWD....[I]n every other respect the Cadillac seems like the obvious call.
You are forgetting a very important "etc." The snobbish anti-American car mentality or sentiment held by some people that don't care to dig a little deeper than the superficiality of the badge on the hood.
well, everyone who is ANYONE knows jap cars are slow and have no soul and german cars are more reliable than cadillacs.....aren't they? :lol:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.