Road & Track, IS-F, M3, RS4, C63 Comparisons

[Hakkola]

Good review, I was laughing at the IS-F numbers awhile ago, but it actually has some impressive numbers going for it, all great cars, another good review.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6696

[syeve]

I would push my grandma down the stairs for any one of those cars.

[treg50]

Ah shiiiet! They did what I HOPED someone would do -- throw the RS4 (yellow no less, sweet) in the mix for the hell of it 09 model or not. I didn't think of this before but my new wish is for someone to throw a CTS-V in there. Good article, btw.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by syeve
I would push my grandma down the stairs for any one of those cars.
We have a massive flight of stairs available here at the dealership for your use.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2

We have a massive flight of stairs available here at the dealership for your use.

I don't have any grandparents left. Can I puch treg50 down the stairs?:D

[Inzane]

Originally posted by treg50
my new wish is for someone to throw a CTS-V in there.


Why? :dunno:


You already know it will come in last place.

[ZedMan]

"Any C63 owner who doesn't go through a set of rear tires in 5000 miles or less should turn his car in at the 'Weenie Depot.'":rofl: :burnout:

And the sound :love:

[civic_rida]

isf is sweet i wish lease and finance rates werent so high

[treg50]

Originally posted by Inzane
Why? :dunno:
For the same reason why I wanted the RS4 in there when no one was comparing the RS4 to the other three: it's a worthy competitor. Then again the new 2009 CTS-V due out late 2008 will be worth the wait and should provide stiffer competition.

[rmk]

Does anyone know what RS4's are fetching these days?

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by civic_rida
isf is sweet i wish lease and finance rates werent so high
6.3 % lease rate, not too bad, it's the low residual that causes the high payment more so than the rate.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by rmk
Does anyone know what RS4's are fetching these days?

Starts @ $94.2K + options.

The price is almost reason enough to exclude it. How can you compete @ $30K over the cheaper competitor and $10K over the legendary M3?

[syeve]

Originally posted by rmk
Does anyone know what RS4's are fetching these days?

For a used one? Don't even bother looking in Canada. You can get one with pretty low kms in the states for mid $60k's. Here the are high $70's but most are in the $80's.

[bart]

I watched that vid someone else posted of the ISF vs RS4, and buddy in the video said the RS4 stopped way faster from 80-0, however in the R&T results it scored lower in the 80-0mph test... hmm who to trust? :rolleyes:

[civic_rida]

i was under the impression that you could not bring over the rs4 from the states.

Also the isf what is the residual on it?

[Redlyne_mr2]

IIRC residual on a 48 month term is 38% of MSRP so on an A package that's about $24472 which is great if you plan to buy the car out at the end of 4 years.

[gpomp]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
IIRC residual on a 48 month term is 38% of MSRP so on an A package that's about $24472 which is great if you plan to buy the car out at the end of 4 years. That's crazy. BMW and Benz have residuals over 50%

[calgary350z]

put my deposit down on a C63 last week, cant wait to go thru my first set of tires. waiting for the 09 with the performance pck though

[civic_rida]

So whats the waiting list like on a c63

[max_boost]

LoneStar has a black/black C63 coming that they ordered. Go see them if you want it :D

Otherwise you might have better luck calling out dealers or maybe a specialty luxury dealer like kulu motor car.

[calgary350z]

I am getting mine from Regina from a friend that sells them, and I am not picking mine up till next spring. I can ask him if he can others.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
IIRC residual on a 48 month term is 38% of MSRP so on an A package that's about $24472 which is great if you plan to buy the car out at the end of 4 years.

But sucks if you try to ditch it and a higher monthly payments compare to C63.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by treg50

For the same reason :

it's a worthy competitor. Then again the new 2009 CTS-V due out late 2008 will be worth the wait and should provide stiffer competition.


IF it's good enough to tempt Europeans out of their Mercs, BMWs or Audis, then yes it's competitive. Otherwise, no not really. But I guess we'll see what happens.


One example: every recent Cadillac attempt has ultimately failed the Clarkson litmus test.

[treg50]

Originally posted by Inzane
IF it's good enough to tempt Europeans out of their Mercs, BMWs or Audis, then yes it's competitive. Otherwise, no not really. But I guess we'll see what happens.

One example: every recent Cadillac attempt has ultimately failed the Clarkson litmus test.
:rofl: Clarkson? Dude please. The guy's a joke, the fact that you cite his 'opinion' says it all.

Besides that fuck Europe, LOL. This Canada, North America. Tempt them or not who cares! It doesn't matter to me what they're interested in --- I'm interested in the best for my interests and my money. If it's a Lexus, Audi, or Cadillac whatever, that's fine by me.

Past Cadillacs were not the greatest, but the new ones are surprisingly MUCH improved.

You probably missed this interesting article. CTS vs BMW 535xi:
http://forums.beyond.ca/st/211785/cadillac-cts-vs-bmw-535xi/

Another reason why I'm curious to seem a CTS-V, but that's just me.

[Moe Man]

Originally posted by Inzane



IF it's good enough to tempt Europeans out of their Mercs, BMWs or Audis, then yes it's competitive. Otherwise, no not really. But I guess we'll see what happens.


One example: every recent Cadillac attempt has ultimately failed the Clarkson litmus test.

what litmus test???? in a past thread he tested the CTS-V and the biggest complane was the chime when the door is open.

dude do your research before you talk. :guns:

[Inzane]

Originally posted by treg50
Besides that fuck Europe, LOL. This Canada, North America. Tempt them or not who cares! It doesn't matter to me what they're interested in ---

Clarkson was just ONE example. If you don't like him so what. He just happens to be a highly visible spokesperson in entertainment television.

That still leaves whole populations of people. Generally speaking Europeans tend to have better taste in cars than the average fat lazy north americans. That's very evident when over there (which I just was) and you SEE what populates the streets of major cities like London and Dublin. They vote with their wallets like any good consumers do and you don't see a lot of GM product over there.

Europeans generally hate American cars, and not just because they're snobs (well, maybe they are to a degree. heh) but for good reason.... because American cars 'generally' SUCK.

Maybe Cadillac is improving, but even if they are they have a lot of work ahead of them to PROVE that and win people over. If you like Cadillacs go ahead and buy one.

GM will never get any of my money.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by Moe Man


what litmus test???? in a past thread he tested the CTS-V and the biggest complane was the chime when the door is open.

dude do your research before you talk. :guns:

Watch it again. You probably didn't pay attention to all his comments during the review.

[Moe Man]

how about NO


ahahaha

[Inzane]

Ok, don't. :rofl:

I don't hide my anti-GM bias. In fact, I'm proud of it. :D

GM may be starting to improve in some areas, but they've produced so much shit product over the last ~20 years it'll take a LONG time for me to overlook the past and give them a fair consideration.

But that's ok, there are enough car brands out there making good cars already to choose from that I don't NEED GM to make a nice car for me. I could care less what they do really.

[pinoyhero]

Although its last place, in a close race I may opt for the Toyota product out of shear reliabiliy edge

[treg50]

^ :werd:

"Reliability, it's a good thing."

[blownz]

^ only a consideration if you are keeping it longer than the warranty period. And how many people here keep a car for more than 4 years?



Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
IIRC residual on a 48 month term is 38% of MSRP so on an A package that's about $24472 which is great if you plan to buy the car out at the end of 4 years.

Maybe it is not great if you plan on buying the car out in 4 years. Maybe Lexus just knows something about the true value of the car that we don't. lol

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by blownz
^ only a consideration if you are keeping it longer than the warranty period. And how many people here keep a car for more than 4 years?




Maybe it is not great if you plan on buying the car out in 4 years. Maybe Lexus just knows something about the true value of the car that we don't. lol
Lexus Canada hates seeing lease backs, until the whole drop in used car values they never had to deal with many lease back, most people just bought their Lexus's out because the residual put them in an equity position. I've been doing condition reports and sending RX's out to auction constantly which was originally unheard of. That low residual on the ISF will pretty much ensure that no one gives theirs back which will keep resale high.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by blownz
And how many people here keep a car for more than 4 years?

Given the price range of this category, those people hopefully are leasers if they tend to change in < 4 year cycles.

My next purchase will likely be one of a 3-series, G35, A4, etc. and I will definitely be keeping it for more than 4 years.

(And no, I won't be cross-shopping the CTS. hehe)

[blownz]

^ in which case they wouldn't lease this car.


And I like the comment on the CTS. lol

I do hope you would at least take if for a drive even if you have already made up your mind. I usually end up driving a few cars that because of bias or whatever reason I know I won't buy but they are somewhat comparable and I find I am often surprised. Just like I am sometimes dissapointed with cars I am expecting to be so good and really looking forward to driving.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by treg50
Ah shiiiet! They did what I HOPED someone would do -- throw the RS4 (yellow no less, sweet) in the mix for the hell of it 09 model or not. I didn't think of this before but my new wish is for someone to throw a CTS-V in there. Good article, btw.

According to GM, the CTS-V is supposed to be competing with the likes of the M5, E63 AMG, Audi RS6, etc. I think it should be compared with what the manufactuer is targeting, not the M3 and such. I would bet money that it would come in last place against the German heavy weights, even if it out performed 1 or 2 of them in a straight line by 0.01 sec or whatever.

[blownz]

It is funny how when GM tries to build a car to compete with some high end German cars, the majority of people here don't think they have a chance. Yet when there is a thread about Hyndai trying to compete with the high end German stuff people seem to think they can do it even though they have never built anything remotely close to competeing in the past.

I'm not saying either of them can't compete. But I think GM has a way better chance at it than Hyndai.

[bspot]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


According to GM, the CTS-V is supposed to be competing with the likes of the M5, E63 AMG, Audi RS6, etc. I think it should be compared with what the manufactuer is targeting, not the M3 and such. I would bet money that it would come in last place against the German heavy weights, even if it out performed 1 or 2 of them in a straight line by 0.01 sec or whatever.

Isn't it usually American car bashers saying straight line speed doesn't matter because x car will get smoked in the corners?

Well stop bashing the fastest sedan to ever lap the ring ;)

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by bspot


Isn't it usually American car bashers saying straight line speed doesn't matter because x car will get smoked in the corners?

Well stop bashing the fastest sedan to ever lap the ring ;)

I'm not bashing american cars, I'm just saying what I think will happen if the CTS-V is compared against what it is trying to compete with. The Nurburgring lap time is impressive, no doubt. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. This is one fast caddy.

[treg50]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt

I'm not bashing american cars, I'm just saying what I think will happen if the CTS-V is compared against what it is trying to compete with. The Nurburgring lap time is impressive, no doubt. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. This is one fast caddy.
I'm not sure what you mean by when it's "compared against what it is trying to compete with" because compared to the M5, the CTS-V does a lot better.

Check out the Nurburgring laptimes in the other thread (http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&postid=2431169#post2431169) :

CTS-V = 7:59.32
BMW M5 E60 = 8:13

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by treg50

I'm not sure what you mean by when it's &quot;compared against what it is trying to compete with&quot; because compared to the M5, the CTS-V does a lot better.

Check out the Nurburgring laptimes in the other thread (http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&amp;postid=2431169#post2431169) :

CTS-V = 7:59.32
BMW M5 E60 = 8:13

Performance isn't everything. I sincerely doubt anyone would take one of those over an E63 AMG, for example. Or you can look at the other thread where several people who replied said something to the effect of "Nice car, bud I'd still take an M5 over it any day". Again, I'm not saying its a bad car, or that its slow, or whatever else - nobody is. I am just saying that in my opinion (and lots of other people's as well) it isn't on par with what it's trying to compete with. The Caddy's selling point is price, and lots of cars are faster than all of the above around the ring for the same or less money than the CTS-V or any of the big German cars.

If you gave all the car magazines, or top gear, the majority of the population, or whatever, a CTS-V and a E63 AMG, I can pretty much guarantee they would take the E63 every single time, regardless of exact performance figures.

[bspot]

Well I don't think the crappy interior argument holds up anymore either, so I think it's pretty much only going to be badge slaves saying they'd rather have the other car.

If so, these will sell in low numbers, and if Caddy continues their resurgence and is actually considered competition for BMW/Merc again, and 10 years the kids will be scouring for used CTS-V's in good shape ;)

[Inzane]

Originally posted by bspot
Well I don't think the crappy interior argument holds up anymore either, so I think it's pretty much only going to be badge slaves saying they'd rather have the other car.

There's still more. There's the driving experience, "refinement", styling (depending on your preference), etc.

It will be interesting to see if in back to back testing the Caddy offers the same NVH, the same road feedback and steering feel, the same tactile sensation on the controls, etc. as the comparable Europeans.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
Performance isn't everything. I sincerely doubt anyone would take one of those over an E63 AMG, for example. Or you can look at the other thread where several people who replied said something to the effect of &quot;Nice car, bud I'd still take an M5 over it any day&quot;. Again, I'm not saying its a bad car, or that its slow, or whatever else - nobody is. I am just saying that in my opinion (and lots of other people's as well) it isn't on par with what it's trying to compete with. The Caddy's selling point is price, and lots of cars are faster than all of the above around the ring for the same or less money than the CTS-V or any of the big German cars.
99% of the owners never touch the cornering limits of any of these cars. Of the 1% that do such as myself, maybe 2000-4000 km's of track time. When it comes to straight line performance tho, I'll bet nearly everyone use it regularly. That's why straight line performance sells so well.

I've driven the CTS-V, M5, and E63, and lemme tell ya, nothing beats the E63. I beat around town in my boss's E63 this morning, and obliterate everything in sight haha. Didn't take a single corner hard, just ripped away from lights.

Both the CTS-V and M5 feel slow. Same thing is going to happen with the C63 vs the rest in it's class. That 6.2L motor and 7 speed tranny is a monster!

[SilverRex]

^^^

so what your telling me is i should get my butt out there to a mercedes dealership and without thinking twice hand them a 2500 non refundable deposit for the next available C63.

:D

[bspot]

Originally posted by rage2

99% of the owners never touch the cornering limits of any of these cars. Of the 1% that do such as myself, maybe 2000-4000 km's of track time. When it comes to straight line performance tho, I'll bet nearly everyone use it regularly. That's why straight line performance sells so well.

I've driven the CTS-V, M5, and E63, and lemme tell ya, nothing beats the E63. I beat around town in my boss's E63 this morning, and obliterate everything in sight haha. Didn't take a single corner hard, just ripped away from lights.

Both the CTS-V and M5 feel slow. Same thing is going to happen with the C63 vs the rest in it's class. That 6.2L motor and 7 speed tranny is a monster!

You are talking about the last generation of CTS-V though, correct? Huge difference.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by rage2

99% of the owners never touch the cornering limits of any of these cars. Of the 1% that do such as myself, maybe 2000-4000 km's of track time. When it comes to straight line performance tho, I'll bet nearly everyone use it regularly. That's why straight line performance sells so well.

I've driven the CTS-V, M5, and E63, and lemme tell ya, nothing beats the E63. I beat around town in my boss's E63 this morning, and obliterate everything in sight haha. Didn't take a single corner hard, just ripped away from lights.

I'm sensing deja-vu, like you've posted this before. :nut:

[rage2]

Originally posted by SilverRex
^^^

so what your telling me is i should get my butt out there to a mercedes dealership and without thinking twice hand them a 2500 non refundable deposit for the next available C63.

:D
I would without hesitation. The C63 is a fucking monster.


Originally posted by bspot
You are talking about the last generation of CTS-V though, correct? Huge difference.
Ya the 400hp one. I dont think the new one's out yet. My biggest complaint with the CTS-V is the manual transmission. Seriously, it's a sedan, not a sports car. The reason I'd buy that class of car is because I want comfy for 5 (auto/smg/dsg etc) but still be able to rape everyone. It's not a sports car first (manual) and family hauler second... primary purpose is to haul people.


Originally posted by Inzane
I'm sensing deja-vu, like you've posted this before. :nut:
Ya, cuz nobody listens to me haha.

[blownz]

^ Given the choice, I would personally choose a manual transmission in my family hauler every time. I don't even care if it might be slower than the auto version or not. I simply find them more engaging and therefore more fun.

That is the single biggest negative for the C63 and almost every benz for that matter imo. The new CTS-V is supposed to be available with both though so it will not only satisfy the people who have a pulse, can actually do more than one thing at a time, and enjoy shifting for themselves, but also the seniors with the bad hip that can't shift like you. :poosie:

[Inzane]

Originally posted by blownz
^ Given the choice, I would personally choose a manual transmission in my family hauler every time. I don't even care if it might be slower than the auto version or not. I simply find them more engaging and therefore more fun.

2nd!

Even my wife chose a manual for her DD family car (Altima 3.5SE)!

I can't believe all Rage seems to care about nowadays is stoplight-to-stoplight blasts. Are you never going to be taking any on/off ramps? Canyon carving in the mountains? etc.

Who cares if you beat a guy off a light? Is that really why a person buys a luxury sports sedan anyway? :dunno:

[962 kid]

Originally posted by Inzane


2nd!

Even my wife chose a manual for her DD family car (Altima 3.5SE)!

I can't believe all Rage seems to care about nowadays is stoplight-to-stoplight blasts. Are you never going to be taking any on/off ramps? Canyon carving in the mountains? etc.

Who cares if you beat a guy off a light? Is that really why a person buys a luxury sports sedan anyway? :dunno:

Since when was on/off ramps or canyon carving ever close to the limits of handling lol? Even on a track you'll never directly race anywhere other than in a straight line so why bother with a manual? Benz automatics are faster than a manual, easier to live with every day and just as fun as a manual - I much prefer them to SMG even.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Inzane
I can't believe all Rage seems to care about nowadays is stoplight-to-stoplight blasts. Are you never going to be taking any on/off ramps? Canyon carving in the mountains? etc.
I do it all the time. I find it more engaging in a SMG/paddle auto than a manual. Take lines much much cleaner, especially ones where you have to downshift mid corner (long increasing radius corners).

The problem is when I "drive enthusiastically" with others on off ramps, it takes 1 corner to pull 10 car lengths on them. It stops being fun after a while.

I was in an auto benz on 1a with 215hp (SLK320) on a beyond cruise. By the end of the twisties, I had to wait 15 mins for everyone to catch up. I lost the next fastest car after 3 turns.

So really, there's no point. I can take a Yaris and beat 95% of the drivers out there. I drive my Yaris way harder in corners than my other cars because it's actually a challenge with 90hp or something.

[CokerRat]

As you point out, the issue here is driver skill. Anyone who's done a few hundred laps on the track has a different appreciation of a car's limits and smooth inputs. From that standpoint, the differences between the cars are negligible -- except for the one way that two idiots can both run the car's at 10/10ths -- in a straight line.

The 2nd gen CTS is leaps and bounds better than the 1st gen car and frankly I think it deserves comparison against its competitors -- G35, 328, etc. But a CTS-V is something else entirely and I'm not convinced it really competes against M5's and stuff... I just can't imagine someone cross shopping that way. Call me elitist. :P

[treg50]

Originally posted by CokerRat
As you point out, the issue here is driver skill. Anyone who's done a few hundred laps on the track has a different appreciation of a car's limits and smooth inputs. From that standpoint, the differences between the cars are negligible -- except for the one way that two idiots can both run the car's at 10/10ths -- in a straight line. ...
I'm not trying to convince anyone, but if the earth is actually round, well hey it's round. Whatcha gonna do?

But reallly, driver skill? Should we pull the "driver skill" card on every single laptime, on every single car that's ever driven on the Nurburgring... I'm positive that when BMW setup that M5 run they had everything set the way they wanted for a regulation production car: BMW probably even had their best driver.

It's hilarious, I'm pretty sure NO ONE questioned the M5's laptime or the driver's skill... UNTIL now, because the new CTS-V layed down this insane new laptime.

:thumbsup:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by treg50

I'm not trying to convince anyone, but if the earth is actually round, well hey it's round. Whatcha gonna do?

But reallly, driver skill? Should we pull the &quot;driver skill&quot; card on every single laptime, on every single car that's ever driven on the Nurburgring... I'm positive that when BMW setup that M5 run they had everything set the way they wanted for a regulation production car: BMW probably even had their best driver.

It's hilarious, I'm pretty sure NO ONE questioned the M5's laptime or the driver's skill... UNTIL now, because the new CTS-V layed down this insane new laptime.

:thumbsup:

If all you care about is lap times, why aren't you talking about all of the cars that can go around the ring WAY faster for similar or less money? How many people are going to drive any of these cars near their limits? Not a single person here has said the caddy is slow, but it seems to be in almost unanimous agreement that it is not a competetor of things like the E63 AMG, which GM has targeted.

[blownz]

Originally posted by 962 kid

so why bother with a manual?

I think we have both mentioned why the manual. To us they are more fun. I personally can't see how you would think an auto is more fun. Granted there are lots of people that can't drive a manual very well so that is a big part of it.

Like I mentioned before, I couldn't even care less if the manual is slower than the auto (which for the most part still, that is not the case) I would still choose the manual because I feel more connected to the car. I will drive an auto when I am too old and frail to do it myself. :thumbsup:

[rage2]

Originally posted by blownz
I think we have both mentioned why the manual. To us they are more fun. I personally can't see how you would think an auto is more fun. Granted there are lots of people that can't drive a manual very well so that is a big part of it.
As someone that can out drive most people in a manual car, I find semi autos (meaning I choose what gear I want) to be more fun because it allows me to concentrate more on late/trail braking and lines that just can't be done in a manual (without risking a spin anyways).

Fuck I sound like an old broken record lol.

Seriously, I've been driving manual cars longer than some of you kids have been alive. Semi-autos and Automated Manuals removed the clutch portion of shifting. I dunno how using a clutch makes you feel more "connected". It's just bragging rights for those that can do it IMO.

[blownz]

^ I am not arguing with you about which you prefer. I was poking a bit of fun at it with the senior/can't-do-more-than-one-thing-at-a-time comments, but I do agree with the benefits you mention.

I am posting mainly to the people who say stuff like 'why bother with a manual'. Unfortunately 90+% of the auto drivers out there are driving one because either a) they are too lazy or b) they just can't drive a manual (or not well). Not to mention on the majority of autos out there they suck up a lot of power and even if they have manual controls, they aren't very good and definitely aren't too 'sporty'.

[rage2]

Originally posted by blownz
Not to mention on the majority of autos out there they suck up a lot of power and even if they have manual controls, they aren't very good and definitely aren't too 'sporty'.
None of the "autos" in this comparison has that problem. Seriously, I think some of you have to give these new transmissions a try before you make judgement.

[blownz]

^ I'm not refering to the cars here. ("the majority of autos out there...")

And the only 'good' auto transmission I have driven personally is the SMG in an 05 M3 and I still wouldn't take it over the manual.

Maybe if I spent most of my time on the track and I could take advantage of the benefits you mentioned it would be worth it, but as a daily driver with the odd track time, like I mentioned, given the choice I would still take the manual.

That isn't to say one day I will look at a car and compare both and go 'auto' but for now, I'll stick with what I find more fun.

[rage2]

Really? That's pretty weird. Maybe I need to show u what the SMG can do on the street haha. Everyone I've showed and let try the car, they just love it.

DSG is way better tho ;).

[Aleks]

I have driven manual cars for 10+ yrs. I drove both the standard GTi and the DSG one. There is no way I would buy the manual one over the twin clutch. After 5 months its still fun.

This doesn't mean I wouldn't buy another manual car ever, it would just be hard to buy one if that car's model was available in dual clutch auto man as well.

[treg50]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
If all you care about is lap times, why aren't you talking about all of the cars that can go around the ring WAY faster for similar or less money? How many people are going to drive any of these cars near their limits? Not a single person here has said the caddy is slow, but it seems to be in almost unanimous agreement that it is not a competetor of things like the E63 AMG, which GM has targeted.
CokerRat was talking about the M5. I don't bring up faster or cheaper cars because we were talking about big sedans (CTS-V, E63 AMG, M5, RS6, etc.). We were talking about the best of the big sedans.

It's not all I care about but I think laptimes are a good indicator of how well rounded a car is --- for a car to be the best on the 'ring it's got to be doing everything extremely well. As to whether it can now compete with the E63 AMG, since dispatching the M5, we'll have to see. I'm interested to see what time the E63 can do around the 'ring.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by rage2
Seriously, I think some of you have to give these new
transmissions a try before you make judgement.

I'm not saying I can't ever be convinced. It's just that my starting position is that I see this simply as one of those cases of "fixing what ain't broke". IMO.

I've seen too many of those in recent years, it tends to make me bitter at times.

[rage2]

Originally posted by treg50
It's not all I care about but I think laptimes are a good indicator of how well rounded a car is --- for a car to be the best on the 'ring it's got to be doing everything extremely well. As to whether it can now compete with the E63 AMG, since dispatching the M5, we'll have to see. I'm interested to see what time the E63 can do around the 'ring.
I can tell you that the E63 probably won't do too well at the ring. But I would still choose the E63 lol.

When I bought my M3, I remembered the first week how amazing it handled. Ya, that got boring after 2 weeks, and I still rant about how I wish it had more power. When I bought my SLK32, I remembered the first week how amazing it was everytime I dropped the hammer. To this day, I still miss that car. The handling wasn't as good as the M3's, but it was good enough to kick a lot of ass at the track. That to me, is well rounded.

Ring laptimes and is just bragging rights for bench racers, and guys who's cars lose out on the street cuz it's underpowered... it's up there with the HP/L statistic :).


Originally posted by Inzane
I'm not saying I can't ever be convinced. It's just that my starting position is that I see this simply as one of those cases of &quot;fixing what ain't broke&quot;. IMO.
But it was broken in the first place. An average schmoe like me won't make perfect shifts 100% of the time at the track. And of course, there's a chance for money shift blowing the whole car up. IMO, that's a huge flaw that we've just accepted over time.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by rage2
But it was broken in the first place. An average schmoe like me won't make perfect shifts 100% of the time at the track. And of course, there's a chance for money shift blowing the whole car up. IMO, that's a huge flaw that we've just accepted over time.

You seem to be constantly flipping between a street racing viewpoint and a track racing viewpoint. Which is it?

Obviously the common theme here seems to be racing. Is that all you care about in the cars you buy? That you're always "kicking ass" on the street or on a track (regardless of whether you're shifting for yourself or not)?

For a car that's your toy/sunday driver/track rat I could see that, but your daily driver has to be faster than everything else too? There's no other reason to choose one car over another? (if that was the case for everyone, than I guess EVERYONE spending ~$25k-ish on a new car a couple years ago should've bought an SRT-4, period.)

[rage2]

Originally posted by Inzane
You seem to be constantly flipping between a street racing viewpoint and a track racing viewpoint. Which is it?
I try to enjoy my driving regardless if I'm on the street or at the track ;).


Originally posted by Inzane
Obviously the common theme here seems to be racing. Is that all you care about in the cars you buy? That you're always &quot;kicking ass&quot; on the street or on a track (regardless of whether you're shifting for yourself or not)?
Honestly? Ya :rofl:. You obviously haven't seen me at a beyond cruise lol. Even in the Yaris I have to be first to Banff or Drumheller haha. It's a disease.


Originally posted by Inzane
For a car that's your toy/sunday driver/track rat I could see that, but your daily driver has to be faster than everything else too? There's no other reason to choose one car over another? (if that was the case for everyone, than I guess EVERYONE spending ~$25k-ish on a new car a couple years ago should've bought an SRT-4, period.)
Pretty much ya lol. I would've bought a SRT-4, but it's manual only :rofl:.

[CokerRat]

Originally posted by Inzane
For a car that's your toy/sunday driver/track rat I could see that, but your daily driver has to be faster than everything else too?
Agree.... there's a lot for a DD to live up to. As for track rats, I used to curse the E46 M3's that would slowly but surely pull away from me on track days but I think if I was going to build a dedicated track car it would be off something less powerful and with lower limits, like an E36 M3. That would seriously be a lot more fun than hitting 210-220 at the end of the front straight simply because you have insane power under the hood.

[treg50]

Originally posted by rage2

I can tell you that the E63 probably won't do too well at the ring. But I would still choose the E63 lol.

When I bought my M3, I remembered the first week how amazing it handled. Ya, that got boring after 2 weeks, and I still rant about how I wish it had more power. When I bought my SLK32, I remembered the first week how amazing it was everytime I dropped the hammer. To this day, I still miss that car. The handling wasn't as good as the M3's, but it was good enough to kick a lot of ass at the track. That to me, is well rounded.

Ring laptimes and is just bragging rights for bench racers, and guys who's cars lose out on the street cuz it's underpowered... it's up there with the HP/L statistic :).
Good point(s) that make sense and some I would've said myself. I'm just pointing out that those ring laptimes were the refuge and exclusive realm of the "finest" European makers, an achievement to lend to their caché. I just think it's awesome to see the CTS-V (and GT-R) reach and surpass those fabled marks and that they can be held in those regards.

Laptimes are way more important than what hp/l an engine can get. Laptimes tell you the level of everything in the car (ie. engine, suspension, weight dist., braking, etc.). HP/L is just a statistic about the engine, which doesn't say anything about the rest of the car.

I hear ya about basic power. I say the same thing, there will always be something about raw HP and straightline ability, that the best all-around performing cars may not have. I'd love to have C6 Z06 black on black with just a catback, looks hot, sounds hot and pulls.