Just configured one and with Premium plus package and some nicer wheels (Porsche always puts ugly wheels unless you upgrade) it comes out at ~$120K. A loaded S550 and 750 are about the same or marginally less, whereas a loaded A8 is thousands less. A loaded M5 comes out around $110K. You also have to remember that Porsche never negotiates whereas the others always do. Really have to wonder if the driving experience is good enough to justify the cost.

I've never driven a Panamera but i have driven a Cayenne V6 and it was dare I say boring. I like the stiff chassis and lightness but the steering was dead. I'd assume that the Panamera is also watered down compared to the Porsche sports cars.

 

It's a very different car from an S550 or 750. They would be my preference too, but this appeals to a buyer with different sensibilities.

 

I think if you are after the driving experience and insane power, the Cadillac CTS-V is the way to go. The interior and tech/screen isn't as good as the German cars, but then again its an $85,000 car vs $150k for a comparable Panamera turbo.

Also 650hp in the CTS-V, 550hp in the Panamera turbo. I'm sure the new Panamera will shame the Cadillac on the interior and it has the right badge, but I still contend the Cadillac is the better land speed missile, especially if you decide to modify it. The aftermarket for the GM LS engines is second to none and the Corvette guys did a great job on the CTS-V's chassis/handling.

 

Yeah pretty much. I got too caught up in my own preferences and didn't think much of the market as a whole. Those other cars cross-compete with one another whereas the Panamera is really a niche product. It's really more of an M5/M6 GC and RS7 competitor, making it priced pretty reasonably.

 

I have to question how long the CTS-V is going to be around. GM cannot for the life of it move any Cadillac off the lots not named Escalade or XT5. I really have to wonder if they're going to continue with this "out-BMW BMW" strategy that hasn't worked the past 13 years and is never going to. Sad thing is that with comparable options the CTS-V if tens of thousands of dollars cheaper than its immediate competition.

 

The CTS-V's main problem is that it simply costs too much. Its price tag (and that of similar German sports sedans) is simply absurd.


I agree with you on that point. Cadillac was most successful when they sold Fleetwoods. DeVilles, and other big, softly-sprung cush-mobiles. They basically tossed out their traditional customers....and, at least in the sedan part of their business (excluding SUVs), are paying the price.



As I stated just above, though, an argument can be made that both cost too much.

 

While I'm not a "fan" of Acura and Lincoln I really respect what they're doing. They are not aiming to compete with the big boys, they know their niche and know their customer, and are making vehicles that cater to them. Sit in an MDX or TLX for example; while they are no BMW to drive and no Audi as far as interior design and quality go, they are perfect for loyal Japanese buyers who want a reliable vehicle of good value.

There were ways for GM to inject some youth into the Cadillac brand without alienating their core customers, but it appears to be too late for that. The Escalade is an exception, as it is unapologetically large, unreliable, and nothing more than a dressed up Tahoe. Wealthy suburbanites love it despite all this because it is a real Cadillac.

 

I think Cadillac has been alienating their core customers since 1980 or so with crap products that are way outmoded by the competition(think late 2000's DTS and XTS vs the Lexus ES and LS), ugly, underpowered, unreliable crap when Buick and Oldsmobile made better cars(pretty much the whole lineup from 1981 to 1988), then to the 90's/early 00's which were great looking cars but once again unreliable money pits.

As for Cadillac's current problems moving their sedans, they're too expensive, the fit/finish/design on the interiors is crap, and their infotainment system FLAT OUT SUCKS. I don't think its a matter of "out BMWing BMW", and making sporty cars, its the fact that other than the great handling, there isn't much to love. And great handling doesn't really sell luxury cars as much as badge, technology and interior appointments. Once again, it gets back to product, and IMO mainly pricing. The 2nd gen CTS sold well, despite the fit/finish on the interior being 2nd rate IMO. The thing about that car, it was 5 series BMW space/size for 3 series BMW money, it represented a good value, had fresh styling, and drove/handled great.

 

looking at the sales of a lot of these "unreliable" cars, yeah, a lot of them simply don't give a damn

 

Porsche dealers will negotiate, even on cars ordered to spec. Just check any of our neighbor Porsche forums.

 

agreed, i checked too

 

Has anyone done a comparison between the Panamera Turbo S and the Benz S63 AMG? With how good this car looks I am seriously considering getting one.

 

Very nice!

 

I've driven the current Panamera Turbo and S63. They drive much differently- the Mercedes is way more concerned with being a luxury car. The S63 is far more cosseting but is dynamically inferior. Panamera for me at this age. Worth noting the Panny has a weak exhaust note in Turbo form, IMO.

Cant wait see how the new Turbo pans out.

 

i think the cts v is priced very competively to German sports sedans with similar power and the under powered GS F. The big issue is buyers' recollection and referencing the cts trim to C class, IS, 3 series and not comparing them to E class, GS, 5 series. Cadillac's cts trim was the smallest when they still produced the likes of DTS, STS, XTS. Now there is an ATS trim and buyers like myself have a hard time readjusting and accepting the class cts is comparable to. Speaking of the ATS and ATS-v, those are seriously over priced for what you get and design, especially a loaded ATS-v