Edmunds Comparo: CTS-v vs. C63 AMG vs. M5
12-02-08, 04:44 AM
#1
Speaks French in Russian
Thread Starter
Edmunds Comparo: CTS-v vs. C63 AMG vs. M5
1st: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V - Best performance, lowest price, most comprehensive feature content puts Cadillac atop the sport sedan pedestal.
2nd: 2009 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG - Good things come in small packages, and the C63 uses this to its advantage, scoring within 1.6 points of the CTS-V.
3rd: 2008 BMW M5 - Once the undisputed super-sedan benchmark, the four-year-old M5 is still a great sport sedan, just not the best.
If you're looking for the short answer, here it is; the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V is undeniably faster, more nimble and between $27,000 and $32,000 less expensive than the BMW M5 it was designed to beat. The M5's price/performance ratio really penalizes it in this comparison.
Is the CTS-V really better than the C63 AMG? Well, once you look at the score cards, you'll find one 1st-place score in the M5's column (earned in our evaluation category), three 1sts for the CTS-V (features, performance and price), and two for the C63 (editors' personal and recommended picks). The winner would seem a forgone conclusion then. But have a look at the 2nd- and 3rd-place scores.
The C63 snatched four 2nd-place scores to the CTS-V's three 3rds. Because of the way we weight the final scores, the Cadillac ekes out a 1.6-point margin over the Mercedes-Benz. We've declared such close scores an effective tie in the past, but the Cadillac's dominance in measured performance tests plus its uncommon comfort, comprehensive list of features and even best observed fuel economy of this trio combine to earn it our fullest endorsement as the winner of this comparison.
"Sport Sedan Standard of the World" now wears a Cadillac wreath and crest.
Is the CTS-V really better than the C63 AMG? Well, once you look at the score cards, you'll find one 1st-place score in the M5's column (earned in our evaluation category), three 1sts for the CTS-V (features, performance and price), and two for the C63 (editors' personal and recommended picks). The winner would seem a forgone conclusion then. But have a look at the 2nd- and 3rd-place scores.
The C63 snatched four 2nd-place scores to the CTS-V's three 3rds. Because of the way we weight the final scores, the Cadillac ekes out a 1.6-point margin over the Mercedes-Benz. We've declared such close scores an effective tie in the past, but the Cadillac's dominance in measured performance tests plus its uncommon comfort, comprehensive list of features and even best observed fuel economy of this trio combine to earn it our fullest endorsement as the winner of this comparison.
"Sport Sedan Standard of the World" now wears a Cadillac wreath and crest.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...panel..1.*#122
12-02-08, 05:22 AM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C63 technically competes with the M3/RS4/IS-F, so not sure what it's doing in this comparo. The CTS-V it seems was included with the M5 because GM said it competes with the M5. I doubt though that M5 buyers will be cross shopping the CTS-V, or that either buyers will cross-shop a C63.
12-02-08, 05:35 AM
#4
Pole Position
The C63 technically competes with the M3/RS4/IS-F, so not sure what it's doing in this comparo. The CTS-V it seems was included with the M5 because GM said it competes with the M5. I doubt though that M5 buyers will be cross shopping the CTS-V, or that either buyers will cross-shop a C63.
If I was in a market for super sports sedan I think CTS would be the one by wide margin, even new XF-R that will have 500+ hp will still cost close to $80 so Caddy really has some segment for itself. Maybe it was a smart move from Lexus for not making GS-F as they would probably not be able to match CTS-V in value and probably performance.
12-02-08, 07:15 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. Edmunds disregarded that these cars are in different classes, and that it's unlikely these 3 will be cross shopped together.
12-02-08, 11:39 AM
#7
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: California
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a wierd comparison. Size-wise CTS and M5 are in the same class but not price-wise. C63 AMG and CTS are in the same class price-wise but not size-wise. The BMW and the Benz are not direct competitors in both considerations. Although performance-wise they could be competed against one another.
Trending Topics
12-02-08, 11:49 AM
#8
it's getting harder and harder to compare cars these days it seems.
i mean if u wanna go size wise, u can't compare the accord to the camry anymore cuz the accord grew the the size of the avalon.
but w/e
i mean if u wanna go size wise, u can't compare the accord to the camry anymore cuz the accord grew the the size of the avalon.
but w/e
12-02-08, 03:45 PM
#10
Lexus Test Driver
Yeah, and it doesn't quite work; they tested these cars together almost entirely based on price. Using that logic they should have thrown in an M3 or IS-F in the comparison too as they are quite close on price . Edmunds disregarded that these cars are in different classes, and that it's unlikely these 3 will be cross shopped together.
. Edmunds disregarded that these cars are in different classes, and that it's unlikely these 3 will be cross shopped together.
This is a wierd comparison. Size-wise CTS and M5 are in the same class but not price-wise. C63 AMG and CTS are in the same class price-wise but not size-wise. The BMW and the Benz are not direct competitors in both considerations. Although performance-wise they could be competed against one another.
12-02-08, 06:03 PM
#12
Super Moderator
This is a wierd comparison. Size-wise CTS and M5 are in the same class but not price-wise. C63 AMG and CTS are in the same class price-wise but not size-wise. The BMW and the Benz are not direct competitors in both considerations. Although performance-wise they could be competed against one another.
12-02-08, 06:31 PM
#13
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edmunds is crap! Those guys don't know what they are doing!
(sorry, just trying to fit in with the CL crowd when their favorite car does not win a comparo...)
j/k - sort of...
IMHO, the CTS-V competes with the M5. They are the same size and have nice big engines. I do expect them to be cross shopped and if Caddy has its refinement up they will take some M5 sales away (for sure now as the car is hot). Still this is a slow selling segment.
To me, I just don't see the CTS-V and the M3 being cross shopped - one is a torque monster (and heavy), the other is a lightweight (comparatively speaking) high revving machine. Alas, the price point is an excellent one (the point that the CTS-V and M3 do share a similar price point).
Of course... in the R&T track comparo, the M5 and CTS-V were about the exact same in terms of road course timings and well, I sort of would expect the CTS-V to have done better because of its power advantage (yea, that's me digging at the competition
)
(sorry, just trying to fit in with the CL crowd when their favorite car does not win a comparo...)
j/k - sort of...
IMHO, the CTS-V competes with the M5. They are the same size and have nice big engines. I do expect them to be cross shopped and if Caddy has its refinement up they will take some M5 sales away (for sure now as the car is hot). Still this is a slow selling segment.
To me, I just don't see the CTS-V and the M3 being cross shopped - one is a torque monster (and heavy), the other is a lightweight (comparatively speaking) high revving machine. Alas, the price point is an excellent one (the point that the CTS-V and M3 do share a similar price point).
Of course... in the R&T track comparo, the M5 and CTS-V were about the exact same in terms of road course timings and well, I sort of would expect the CTS-V to have done better because of its power advantage (yea, that's me digging at the competition
)
12-02-08, 08:00 PM
#14
Speaks French in Russian
Thread Starter
I did read the comparison, and it still makes no real sense.
This is a rather dumb comparison because as you pointed out, the price doesn't work with the M5 in the mix, the size doesn't work because of the C63 (technically ish), and the C63 and the M5 aren't even in the same class no matter how you put it.
This is a rather dumb comparison because as you pointed out, the price doesn't work with the M5 in the mix, the size doesn't work because of the C63 (technically ish), and the C63 and the M5 aren't even in the same class no matter how you put it.
Ok. So what does the CTS-V work with then? M3, IS-F, XF V8, RS4, E63??
12-02-08, 08:14 PM
#15
Speaks French in Russian
Thread Starter
This is a CTS-v vs. Comparison. They are not necessarily comparing the C63 to the M5. The focus is on the Caddy. Caddillac said they built the CTS-V to compete against the M5, E63, RS6. That was the benchmark. Plus the power, weight, and dimensions are more comparable to the M5. So obviously since that was the benchmark for the CTSv, it would only be right to have a comparison with the M5 (and you will see plenty more CTS-V comparisons like this one in the future). They also clearly acknowledged that the M5 is not in the same price category. Thus the reason for the C63...
The C63 is there because it is the next most powerful car, plus the price is more comparable.
To be completely honest, the CTS-V has no direct competitor from a performance and price standpoint. They wanted something with comparable performance (M5) and comparable price (C63).
Maybe it would have been more interesting to see the M3 instead of the C63, but two BMW's in one comparison test is boring IMO.
The review IMO shows how good of a performance value the Caddy really is.
The C63 is there because it is the next most powerful car, plus the price is more comparable.
To be completely honest, the CTS-V has no direct competitor from a performance and price standpoint. They wanted something with comparable performance (M5) and comparable price (C63).
Maybe it would have been more interesting to see the M3 instead of the C63, but two BMW's in one comparison test is boring IMO.
The review IMO shows how good of a performance value the Caddy really is.