IS-F vs anything Cadillac
05-04-11, 06:43 PM
#1
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alabama
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IS-F vs anything Cadillac
I still am getting grieve from some of my GM "buddies" over at some of the GM forums about buying my IS-F. They want to compare it to a CTS-V. I have always said to them that the CTS-V in no doubt faster than an IS-F. But to me, it is the overall driving experience, quality, and just flat out better interior of my IS-F that makes it an overall better car. Am I right or wrong about this?
05-04-11, 06:50 PM
#2
The CTS-V is in a whole other class, it's more comparable to the M5 and Corvette ZR1..... That's almost like comparing an apple to an orange in my opinion. Lol
No doubt the ISF is "NICER" on the inside, I personally think it's better looking overall. It's just a personal preference.
No doubt the ISF is "NICER" on the inside, I personally think it's better looking overall. It's just a personal preference.
05-04-11, 07:57 PM
#5
Have you guys rode in the CTS-V (new model, not previous iterations)? GM has done everything right with this car, imo.
The forum knows that I love my IS350 and the ISF, but if I had the opportunity to own a CTS-V sedan or coupe, I would take it in a heartbeat.
Two different classes of vehicles, definitely, but let's not let our Lexus-tinted sunglasses cloud our objectiveness.
The forum knows that I love my IS350 and the ISF, but if I had the opportunity to own a CTS-V sedan or coupe, I would take it in a heartbeat.
Two different classes of vehicles, definitely, but let's not let our Lexus-tinted sunglasses cloud our objectiveness.
05-04-11, 08:11 PM
#6
The CTS-V, both in sedan and coupe form, are great beasts on the road. They look ferocious and have some major power to back it up. But this shouldn't be a thread about which is better. Different strokes for different folks. I would still pick the F over the V, even though it's got lets power and doesn't come in coupe form. But Cadillac sure produced one hell of a vehicle with this one!
Trending Topics
05-04-11, 10:10 PM
#9
I actually was deciding between the V and F before I pulled the trigger on the F. It's actually an easy comparison.
The CTS-V started in 04-07. First two years it was a 5.7 liter, the last two of the first gen was a 6.0. Both were rated 400ish hp, the 6.0 had a better tq curve.
It drove nice and smooth with great tq, but it was still floaty, crap shifter, whiny rear end, bad squeaky suspension bushings and the interior was bland-boring trash. The buttons were pealing or rubbing off, the touch screen had bad visual wear and the fit and finish was fading fast in/out(06'). Bluetooth? Forget about it. Under 100ms paddle shift auto? Forget about that too.
The first gen was definitely a car for the owner who doesn't mind getting their hands dirty. Stock it was only at best a low 13 sec car. Even with a Maggie SC it was at best a mid 12 sec car. My F ran a mid 12 stock with a 5 liter engine.
To sum it all up, the first gen CTS-V was crap with truck interior compared to the likes of the IS-F. To be fair the 07' goes for around 30k, so about 10k less than a decent F.
They skipped 08 and started the 2nd gen with the 09' and that's where they finally updated the rest of the car. The interior is real nice, on par with the IS-F, the power train is even better than the original with an SC. It handles awesome too. Seems like they finally figured it out. you could also get an auto or manual trans. The kicker is the cheapest I saw was 45k for a crappy color and higher miles. The good colors were starting at 50k. Depreciation on the CTS-V is pretty bad, and 04 can be had in the mid to high teens but it seems like the IS-F is bad too. If you want to spend 55 on a nice loaded 09 CTS-V, what's to say you can't afford a used 09 GTR(55-65k), unless you really need 4 doors...
When I saw the F in the high 30's low 40's, then test drove one I knew it was it. Legendary Lexus reliability, cutting edge tech; why pay more in the hopes The GM CTS-V would hold up over time. Not a chance I was willing to take. I got my F for 38+tax 46k miles.
New vs New, that depends on the styling preferences and budget. The V is a bit more but not by alot. Get a extended warranty on the Cadi, it is after all blown.
~Dv8
The CTS-V started in 04-07. First two years it was a 5.7 liter, the last two of the first gen was a 6.0. Both were rated 400ish hp, the 6.0 had a better tq curve.
It drove nice and smooth with great tq, but it was still floaty, crap shifter, whiny rear end, bad squeaky suspension bushings and the interior was bland-boring trash. The buttons were pealing or rubbing off, the touch screen had bad visual wear and the fit and finish was fading fast in/out(06'). Bluetooth? Forget about it. Under 100ms paddle shift auto? Forget about that too.
The first gen was definitely a car for the owner who doesn't mind getting their hands dirty. Stock it was only at best a low 13 sec car. Even with a Maggie SC it was at best a mid 12 sec car. My F ran a mid 12 stock with a 5 liter engine.
To sum it all up, the first gen CTS-V was crap with truck interior compared to the likes of the IS-F. To be fair the 07' goes for around 30k, so about 10k less than a decent F.
They skipped 08 and started the 2nd gen with the 09' and that's where they finally updated the rest of the car. The interior is real nice, on par with the IS-F, the power train is even better than the original with an SC. It handles awesome too. Seems like they finally figured it out. you could also get an auto or manual trans. The kicker is the cheapest I saw was 45k for a crappy color and higher miles. The good colors were starting at 50k. Depreciation on the CTS-V is pretty bad, and 04 can be had in the mid to high teens but it seems like the IS-F is bad too. If you want to spend 55 on a nice loaded 09 CTS-V, what's to say you can't afford a used 09 GTR(55-65k), unless you really need 4 doors...
When I saw the F in the high 30's low 40's, then test drove one I knew it was it. Legendary Lexus reliability, cutting edge tech; why pay more in the hopes The GM CTS-V would hold up over time. Not a chance I was willing to take. I got my F for 38+tax 46k miles.
New vs New, that depends on the styling preferences and budget. The V is a bit more but not by alot. Get a extended warranty on the Cadi, it is after all blown.
~Dv8
Last edited by Dv8tion388; 05-04-11 at 10:17 PM.
05-04-11, 11:33 PM
#10
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NV
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also believe they're just not in the same class. I was between the C63, F, M3, and CTS-V. It was pretty easy to eliminate the C63 and CTS-V because of the price difference and (as mentioned above) the gas guzzler tax.
In the end, I went with an F because it's a Lexus. It has plenty of power and looks amazing while keeping the classic reliability, comfort, and drive of a Lexus.
P.S. I wonder if the GS-F will be in the same category as the CTS-V, M5, etc.
In the end, I went with an F because it's a Lexus. It has plenty of power and looks amazing while keeping the classic reliability, comfort, and drive of a Lexus.
P.S. I wonder if the GS-F will be in the same category as the CTS-V, M5, etc.
05-05-11, 06:37 AM
#11
I still am getting grieve from some of my GM "buddies" over at some of the GM forums about buying my IS-F. They want to compare it to a CTS-V. I have always said to them that the CTS-V in no doubt faster than an IS-F. But to me, it is the overall driving experience, quality, and just flat out better interior of my IS-F that makes it an overall better car. Am I right or wrong about this?
I would cut and paste Dv8tion's statement, place it in their forum, and say "shhh".
When GM finally constructs a Caddy that holds up over time mechanically and resale-wise and retains a quality reputation like Lexus, then they can finally begin to talk.
Sure the CST-V is an absolute beast out of the blocks, but 3 years from now, how is that car holding up? We just don't know yet, but history is not on their side.
05-05-11, 09:14 AM
#13
Test drove the latest CTS-V sedan, auto transmission, 2 months ago, and overall performance-wise, I would put it above the ISF in all areas. Currently own a 2008 ISF, stock.
- Acceleration is noticeably quicker. I know that on paper, obviously the CTS-V will be faster, 556hp vs 416hp. But it is much different to experience it first hand than just reading about someones review. It is in a completely different league, esp. when giving it full throttle from 60-1xx mph.
- Suspension tuning is much better than the ISF (don't know about the revised suspension in the 2011 ISF's.) The damping of the suspension easily soaks up bumps and imperfections of the road but is also firm at the same time and doesn't really upset the balance of the car. Difference in the ISF is that moderate to rough road conditions do upset the balance of the car. At freeway speeds (80mph), I've managed to hit my head against the ceiling a couple of times on the 91 freeway here in Southern CA. Just from feel, I think the ISF's suspension travel is short thus it needs to be harsh/firm.
- Interior: The new CTS-V does look pretty decent as far as design and material feel. In my opinion, it makes the ISF dash look slightly dated.
- Quality: Not sure about this one as both cars/drivetrains are still under 4 years old. I haven't had any mechanical issues, just electrical.
The ISF is a better balance as far as performance vs maintenance costs vs gas mileage. The CTS-V has better performance all-around if one doesn't factor in gas guzzler tax/registration fees/mileage/possible perceived bad GM quality. But for me, a brand new CTS-V will be ~$68k after TTL; that's slightly used GTR territory.
- Acceleration is noticeably quicker. I know that on paper, obviously the CTS-V will be faster, 556hp vs 416hp. But it is much different to experience it first hand than just reading about someones review. It is in a completely different league, esp. when giving it full throttle from 60-1xx mph.
- Suspension tuning is much better than the ISF (don't know about the revised suspension in the 2011 ISF's.) The damping of the suspension easily soaks up bumps and imperfections of the road but is also firm at the same time and doesn't really upset the balance of the car. Difference in the ISF is that moderate to rough road conditions do upset the balance of the car. At freeway speeds (80mph), I've managed to hit my head against the ceiling a couple of times on the 91 freeway here in Southern CA. Just from feel, I think the ISF's suspension travel is short thus it needs to be harsh/firm.
- Interior: The new CTS-V does look pretty decent as far as design and material feel. In my opinion, it makes the ISF dash look slightly dated.
- Quality: Not sure about this one as both cars/drivetrains are still under 4 years old. I haven't had any mechanical issues, just electrical.
The ISF is a better balance as far as performance vs maintenance costs vs gas mileage. The CTS-V has better performance all-around if one doesn't factor in gas guzzler tax/registration fees/mileage/possible perceived bad GM quality. But for me, a brand new CTS-V will be ~$68k after TTL; that's slightly used GTR territory.
05-05-11, 01:37 PM
#14
I'm sure the CTS-V is a great car but for the people saying it looks ferocious and vicious are mistaken. I've seen a couple CTS-V and you have to look for the badge to realize it is a CTS-V, or else it looks like any ordinary CTS.
You made the right choice OP, cars aren't all about 0-60.
You made the right choice OP, cars aren't all about 0-60.
05-05-11, 02:03 PM
#15
I can't get past the tail of the V, especially the coupe. It looks like the designers gave up on it, or had a hot date and had to leave before the job was done. Just not my cup of tea, then there is the reliability of the Caddy's, I too would suggest an extended warranty with the V.