http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101893

The BMW wins but the STS shows well. Both great cars. :thumbup:

I have not yet driven either one but from what I have seen at the auto shows I would take the STS hands-down. No I-Drive, better sheet metal, seemingly more solid construction, and an interior that IMO just blows the Bimmer away.....not to mention the promise of better reliability and electronics.

I have not yet driven either one but from what I have seen at the auto shows I would take the STS hands-down. No I-Drive, better sheet metal, seemingly more solid construction, and an interior that IMO just blows the Bimmer away.....not to mention the promise of better reliability and electronics.

:thumbup:

Me too.

Zero-to-60 came up in 5.63 seconds for the 545 vs. 6.27 for the Cadillac. Quarter-mile was 14.14 at 100.6 mph vs. 14.71 at 95.2. Times for 20 to 40, 40 to 60 and 60 to 80 were all BMW by a half-second or more.

Those numbers are impressive. The 545 - if it wasn't so ugly and unreliable - would top my list in the segment; but it is ugly and unreliable. So the STS wins in my book - despite the performance deficit.

M.

The 545 has an ugly behind and the Caddy has an ugly front. If I don't care about the reliabilty of my next car like my Lexus, I would pick the 545 because its performance over the Caddy.