# Cadilac CTS-V or E60?



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

Cadilac CTS-V

According to the magazines I have been reading... 
1) 400 HP
2) 390 lb-ft TQ
3) Six speed manual
4) Limited slip differential
5) Brembo disc brakes
6) Tower brace
7) Est. 0-60 = 4.7 seconds
8) Est. 1/4 mile in low 13s
9) front brake ducts
10) on board computer gives tire pressure information and lateral g readings
11) ran laps at Nordscheife (northern loop of Nurburgring)quicker than M3 or M5
12) Has cup holders
13) Room to tune
14) 50K

I wished it would have come out 2 years ago. I would have bought it.


----------



## Ågent99 (Jan 7, 2002)

Malachi said:


> Cadilac CTS-V
> 
> According to the magazines I have been reading...
> 1) 400 HP
> ...


:wow: Sold! 

How are they holding up problem-wise thus far?

I won't need a new car until around 2006 I'm estimating so we'll see how things look then.

Chris


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

I like the CTS-V 

Over a 545i? Probably be better from a performance prespective, and will likely be a true classic. Doesn't have all the tech of the E60. But, it does have an LS6, LSD, Brembos, etc...


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

I would take a CTS-V over any E60 eqipped to the same price. No doubt about it. Versus the M5, things would be different.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2003)

Yup.

And the Caddy even LOOKS better.


----------



## Ågent99 (Jan 7, 2002)

TD said:


> Yup.
> 
> And the Caddy even LOOKS better.


:rofl: was waiting for you to say that.... :rofl:


----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

Jetfire said:


> I would take a CTS-V over any E60 eqipped to the same price. No doubt about it. Versus the M5, things would be different.


I :dunno: it costs about $25K less and does the same. In a tie or something close to a tie, I would buy American.


----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

Ågent99 said:


> :wow: Sold!
> 
> How are they holding up problem-wise thus far?
> 
> ...


As far as I know, they are not out yet.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

Malachi said:


> I :dunno: it costs about $25K less and does the same. In a tie or something close to a tie, I would buy American.


it does the same against the E39 M5, but I think Jetfire was referring to the E60 M5


----------



## LeucX3 (Dec 26, 2001)

You do realize the the CTS is about the same size as the 3-series, right? I'm not sold on any Cadillac product yet. While they're definitely making improvements, i doubt they're in BMW's league yet. But, i've only test driven a CTS manual, not the V of course.


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

The interior of the CTS is about as spacious as a 5-series. It's not as small as you might think.

And hell yes, the CTS looks great. I really dig it. :thumbup:


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

Leuc330Ci said:


> You do realize the the CTS is about the same size as the 3-series, right?


No it's not. The CTS is almost identical to the E39 in its exterior dimensions, and a bit larger than the E39 on the inside.


----------



## LeucX3 (Dec 26, 2001)

atyclb said:


> No it's not. The CTS is almost identical to the E39 in its exterior dimensions, and a bit larger than the E39 on the inside.


I never looked at the numbers on paper, but it just felt the same size or smaller than the 3 to me. Oh well...


----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

atyclb said:


> it does the same against the E39 M5, but I think Jetfire was referring to the E60 M5


I have not seen any performance data on the E60 M5 but, you are right in my earlier post I was referring to the E39 M5 which is awesome.


----------



## humanoid (Mar 31, 2002)

Yep Cad for sure over the e60 :thumbup: 

Seems to be a good bang for the buck and it's nice to see an american sedan that can compete with the euros.

Aren't they using the Z06 engines? Those engines are dayam nice :supdude:


----------



## Ethan (Oct 14, 2003)

*Caddy Baby!*

No doubt I'm going with the Caddy...Looks a lot better than E60 and not to mention the HP!!! And wait a minute...how much money will I be saving?
-Ethan


----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

humanoid said:


> Yep Cad for sure over the e60 :thumbup:
> 
> Aren't they using the Z06 engines? Those engines are dayam nice :supdude:


Yes, and the writer(s) mentioned since there is more space in the Caddy than the Vette, that they will be able to design better headers/exhaust systems. :freakdanc


----------



## jtg (Oct 9, 2003)

We have a 00' Escalade and its a piece of #$#%@%!

Man, for the price paid. It was totally not worth it. Besides the leather, the interior looks so cheap. The buttons to and swtiches are they same style/material that you would find on a Malibu. Plus not to mention that we had to bring it in every single month for some kind of problem ever since 00'. Last week it was an oil leak. The only thing good about it is every time we bring it in , we get some other car to drive. We got the Deville last week and its nice. But look to blow about $80(cad/$50 US) gas every time you fill up> and you'll be filling like once a week.


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

IIRC, wasn't the '00 Escalade just a rebadged Tahoe? The Escalade from MY '01+ is the one that was idolized by the rap stars.


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

I find them both fugly-- but the Cadillac has some very appealing (and proven) hardware. Also, iIn this new world order of spectacular fugliness, the Cadillac is a beauty queen.


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

I am not in the market for either. And frankly, I'd take my 330i ZHP for 36K over the caddy at 50K. That said, it does sound impressive. It is no beauty, but given just how ugly the E60 is, you have to give the caddy the edge. I am not a fan of the stealth-fighter design philosophy, but if you were to take for granted the angular design concept, they actually did quite a decent job with it. 

Repairs, service, and parts ought to be MUCH cheaper than an 5er.


----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

mbr129 said:


> That said, it does sound impressive. It is no beauty, but given just how ugly the E60 is, you have to give the caddy the edge.


Kind of gives me mixed feelings, Cadilac CTS-V, American made, is an impressive car is in the absolute and is on its way up. While the 5er a perenial leader is on its way down relative to other car manufacturers and to itself in terms of style points and interior IMHO.

About a year or so ago, I posted a question on another forum asking the question:

"What has BMW been doing for the past 7 years?" The car really did not change much during that time. I was assuming that an awesome new model was being created, but we got the E60, can't figure that one out and how dissappointing. 

I got one ligitimate answer...they built the M5. :freakdanc

With the new M5 they have taken the heart of Mother Theresa and put into the body of _____________ (pick someone you find physically unattractive). Maybe some cosmetic surgery will help us see more of its inner beauty.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 14, 2003)

The inside of the CTS isn't quite as nice at the e39. But from all the pictures(haven't seen one in the flesh yet) the e60 interior isn't as nice as the e39 either.

While I think the CTS-V is not the best looking of the new Art & Science Cadillacs (I love the XLR and SRX), given the price and performance, I'd definitely consider it. Plus, you get much better aftermarket support than an e39 or e60 with the LS1/LS6 engine. check out http://www.motorsporttech.com for examples of what can be done in that area.

Now the regular CTS has another problem - going by MSRP, the CTS (at around 42K loaded is about 6K more than a comparably equipped Infiniti G35 (about 36K loaded).

Bottom line - I dig the CTS-V, and I like the regular 255 horsepower CTS if the dealers come down off sticker price enough to match G35 prices.
But a used e39 540 or M5 is definitely still an attractive competitor.


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

JohnG said:


> But a used e39 540 or M5 is definitely still an attractive competitor.


Without a doubt... but the thread is about the E60, and specifically the 545.


----------



## LeucX3 (Dec 26, 2001)

humanoid said:


> Seems to be a good bang for the buck and it's nice to see an american sedan that can compete with the euros.


I don't think people buy BMWs for the bang for their buck.


----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

Leuc330Ci said:


> I don't think people buy BMWs for the bang for their buck.


Why do you think people buy their BMWs?


----------



## JEM (May 3, 2003)

Malachi said:


> Why do you think people buy their BMWs?


The problem is fundamentally this: In the US, BMW represents a combination of features and characteristics that you can't get in many other vehicles. So, consequently, whether or not it's good value for money, you have to pay to play.

Outside the US, the proposition is somewhat different. Not only are there more choices of vehicle from other manufacturers, in many markets there's also a broader choice of BMWs. So BMW has more direct competition, and also offers models that are more 'cost-effective'.

If I lived in Australia, for instance, I'd have a hard time justifying owning new BMWs. Both because the Aussies tax the crap out of expensive imports, and because Ford and GM Holden build home-market cars that, if not quite screwed together to BMW standards, are still pretty decent and go down the road very well. Hell, if Ford would ship a BA Falcon GT to the US, I'd happily trade the 540i for one, though probably not the M5.

If I lived in Europe I might well own a BMW, but since most EU states' tax policy defecates on gasoline consumers from a very high place, it might well be something more like a 330d.

As an American, I'll be very pleased to see more competition in the good-car end of the market in the US. GM has the new GTO (Holden Monaro) and the CTS-V both hitting the showrooms soon. I know the Monaro is a very nice piece of hardware, and I expect the CTS-V to be quite good also, and while I don't expect either to be up to BMW material-quality specs (the GTO probably a little better than the Cadillac) their pricetags reflect this pretty well. In fact, if you'd asked me to sit down and make a list of the features and components that I'd want in a sedan, it'd be a nice conservative list of proven stuff with usable real-world capabilities - exactly like the CTS-V. I'm not convinced I want a 9000RPM V10 if it's got no more midrange torque than the S62.

GM, however, seems to be the *only* domestic willing to play in that space in the short run; damn-quick but nose-heavy Cobra aside, Ford's passenger-car plans look fundamentally uninteresting to anyone but corporate/rental fleet buyers (the 2005 Mustang gets a stick axle! Whoopeee! *NOT*) and while Chrysler's got nice new engines and an interesting-on-paper new 300 sedan pending, it's a little too big for me to care.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 14, 2003)

JEM said:


> The problem is fundamentally this: In the US, BMW represents a combination of features and characteristics that you can't get in many other vehicles. So, consequently, whether or not it's good value for money, you have to pay to play.


Agree with that - a BMW is almost always more expensive than it's competitors, and the competitors will have a better level of equipment and 20-40 more horsepower. But the BMW sells because it just feels right when you get in and drive it - so you pay the premium.

The CTS-V promises to be a Cadillac that feels right when you get in and drive, with an interior that is on par with the E60. It stickers a much cheaper price than a 545, and offers more performance.

There's just something about slinging a bold, brash, "in your face" Cadillac down the highway at a high rate of speed that puts an big grin on my face 

Competition improves the breed, and the V10 M5 will be out beyond the current CTS-V. But by that time, will the new 3 valve Chevy V8 be avaialble in the CTS with a 50-75-100 horsepower boost? Horsepower war


----------



## FosterE39 (Aug 28, 2003)

I could never buy the Cadillac--the seatbelts located in the seats are NOT height adjustable (another GM good idea) and are extremely UNCOMFORTABLE. This applies to all Cadillac models, even the new SRX, XLR, and Escalade with the exception of the Seville (err SLS & STS). When GM incorporates a height adjustable seatbelt--I would then consider it. But I guess it still is better than the door mounted seatbelts of the late 80's up until the mid 90's that GM produced.


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

FosterE39 said:


> I could never buy the Cadillac--the seatbelts located in the seats are NOT height adjustable (another GM good idea) and are extremely UNCOMFORTABLE. This applies to all Cadillac models, even the new SRX, XLR, and Escalade with the exception of the Seville (err SLS & STS). When GM incorporates a height adjustable seatbelt--I would then consider it. But I guess it still is better than the door mounted seatbelts of the late 80's up until the mid 90's that GM produced.


 Are you sure about that? My '00 Pontiac had height adjustable belts, as has just about every GM car I've seen in the last 5-10 years.


----------



## FosterE39 (Aug 28, 2003)

I am positive about the seatbelt positions on the new Cadillac models. Your Pontiac has the seatbelt built into the 'B' pillar and NOT into the seat, in that case it IS height adjustable. Any seatbelt built into the seat that GM is producing in the new Cadillacs is NOT height adjustable, with the exception of the Seville (err SLS, STS). If you check out the new Caddys in the dealer lot you will see what I am talking about. 

What shattered my interest in the CTS was the lack of a seatbelt height adjustment. The seatbelt comfort was very uncomfortable for me.


----------



## e39540i6 (Oct 9, 2003)

CTS=stripper mobile.
I wouldn't buy it. Too many girls that I know have them.
Oh yeah some of them are strippers.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

I haven't driven either one, so who knows?

But I will say this; I was at the BMW dealer the other day, and the sticker on a moderately well-equipped 530 was pushing 50K. The Caddy offers M5 performance for a couple of grand more. Seems like a no brainer, if it drives as well as everyone is saying that it does. 

Plus, the little touches (six lug wheels, giant, giant brakes, temp guage from the transmission, etc.) that convince GM is serious about this one. 

That, and the 'ring time that beats the M cars.


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

After looking at several E60s in person today, I must say that I like the new styling quite a bit. It's actually rather attractive IMO, although the interior is definitely not as pleasing to me as the E39's. BMW of Sterling currently has an E60 530i parked next to an E39 M5 in their showroom, and I definitely think that the exterior of the E60 is attractive.


----------



## sb540 (Jan 25, 2002)

JST said:


> I haven't driven either one, so who knows?
> 
> But I will say this; I was at the BMW dealer the other day, and the sticker on a moderately well-equipped 530 was pushing 50K. The Caddy offers M5 performance for a couple of grand more. Seems like a no brainer, if it drives as well as everyone is saying that it does.
> 
> ...


I agree with your take on all counts. Putting aside the appearance issue, where both cars could be prettier, how much is a 545/6 with the good options going to sticker at? I honestly don't know, but it has to be $70K or so, right? And at that price you still don't get the "little touches" that you mention on the Caddy. I agree that the E60 M5 will probably whip the CTS, but that car will sticker at what, $90K? That is nearly twice the money. It is wierd for me to say, but the CTS-V is looking like a real possiblity in a couple years.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

:yikes: 

I'm shocked and stunned that ANYONE thinks the CTS is better looking than the E60. 

I mean, c'mon, really. The CTS is Aztek-ugly. At worst, the E60 is a bit boring. The CTS has been beaten with an uglystick the size of Florida.

That being said, those performance and spec numbers are impressive.


----------



## AK (Jan 19, 2002)

Plaz said:


> :yikes:
> 
> I mean, c'mon, really. The CTS is Aztek-ugly. At worst, the E60 is a bit boring. The CTS has been beaten with an uglystick the size of Florida.


Well, you know what they say.... Opinions are like a-holes.... 

I like the looks of the CTS-V moreso than that of the E60 (stupid Subaru taillights) and hope GM is successful with this model. I, like many others on this board, will be watching closely.

AK
'99 540i6 w/ 70K miles and sporting a new A/C compressor (thank gawd for CPO)


----------



## humanoid (Mar 31, 2002)

To be honest both cars are not very good looking and each person has his/her opinions. Nothing personal.

Some minor changes to the 5 would of sufficed but, that didn't happen. 

The e60 looks like the 7's baby brother :bawling: 

Since we are choosing between these two cars I'm going with the "V" with all the performance and you wont catch me in the turns or in the straights :bigpimp:


----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

Plaz said:


> :yikes:
> 
> I'm shocked and stunned that ANYONE thinks the CTS is better looking than the E60.
> 
> ...


I for one think the CTS-V is better looking and performs better. I think/hoping that it delivers all that is promised. If it does, it will be like the Vette, the best value in its class.

BTW, as I wrote that, I wonder if the "V" stands for as in Vette Engine. :dunno:


----------



## 2004onyx330xi (Sep 22, 2003)

jtg said:


> We have a 00' Escalade and its a piece of #$#%@%!
> 
> Man, for the price paid. It was totally not worth it. Besides the leather, the interior looks so cheap. The buttons to and swtiches are they same style/material that you would find on a Malibu. Plus not to mention that we had to bring it in every single month for some kind of problem ever since 00'. Last week it was an oil leak. The only thing good about it is every time we bring it in , we get some other car to drive. We got the Deville last week and its nice. But look to blow about $80(cad/$50 US) gas every time you fill up> and you'll be filling like once a week.


As an owner of 2 GM products, I can say that GM has a long way to go to overcome product reliability, as well as fit and finish with there products. Although they are headed in the right direction, it will quite some time before they can match the Japanese, i.e. Toyota/Honda. 
As far as gas milage for the CTS-V with an LS-1 based engine. The gas mileage should be in the 18 city/27 highway range...not too shaby for that kind of horsepower and torque.


----------



## AK (Jan 19, 2002)

GM quality might not be up there with Toyota/Honda but it at least equals that of BMW. All I can say is thank gawd my '99 540i was a CPO car. I'm sporting a new A/C compressor as of yesterday.

AK


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2003)

Plaz said:


> :yikes:
> 
> I'm shocked and stunned that ANYONE thinks the CTS is better looking than the E60.
> 
> ...


 Honest. I think the CTS-V is MUCH better looking than the E60.


----------



## Ågent99 (Jan 7, 2002)

AK said:


> GM quality might not be up there with Toyota/Honda but it at least equals that of BMW. All I can say is thank gawd my '99 540i was a CPO car. I'm sporting a new A/C compressor as of yesterday.
> 
> AK


...and it looks mighty fine on you, Andrew! 

Chris


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

TD said:


> Honest. I think the CTS-V is MUCH better looking than the E60.


Well, I know we've never seen eye-to-eye on these issues, but that really boggles my mind. :dunno:


----------



## beware_phog (Mar 7, 2003)

Don't like CTS looks at all. In the Matrix I was hoping they'd blow the thing up.


----------



## humanoid (Mar 31, 2002)

beware_phog said:


> Don't like CTS looks at all. In the Matrix I was hoping they'd blow the thing up.


I didn't think that scene was ever going to end


----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

Below is a link to some pics and some more information on the CTS-V
Cadilac CTS-V


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)




----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

Plaz said:


>





Plaz said:


> Well, I know we've never seen eye-to-eye on these issues, but that really boggles my mind. :


I think you said it best...  but I am on the other side of that thought. I have yet to see any visual beauty by looking at the E60. I not saying that the CTS-V is a wonderfully beautiful car, but I think it looks better than the E-60 and performs significantly better.


----------



## Aye Chingow! (Oct 6, 2003)

I was going through this thread and surprised not to see anybody mention one big downside to the CTS/CTS-V or any Cadillac for that matter...

Every Gangsta Rappa will have one too!!! :bang:

Then a few years down the road all the wannabe white kids will be cruizin in em with their upside down sun visors and 22" chrome wheels with "spinners". :jack:

Nope I grew up in LA and don't want to be associated. It's not Cadi's fault, but Bimmers just have more class, even the E60 IMHO. Maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on "perceived image", but besides being the best driving car I have ever owned, thats one reason I bought a BMW in the first place (and I am on my second one now).


----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

Aye Chingow! said:


> I was going through this thread and surprised not to see anybody mention one big downside to the CTS/CTS-V or any Cadillac for that matter...
> 
> Every Gangsta Rappa will have one too!!! :bang:
> 
> Nope I grew up in LA and don't want to be associated. It's not Cadi's fault, but Bimmers just have more class, even the E60 IMHO. Maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on "perceived image", but besides being the best driving car I have ever owned, thats one reason I bought a BMW in the first place (and I am on my second one now).


Socialogically interesting, those thoughts never crossed my mind  . I lived most of my life in Texas now in Oklahoma. Just wondering if that is a common perception. :dunno:


----------



## guest082316 (Aug 26, 2003)

I highly doubt all the Gangsta Rappers will flock to it. If I remember correctly, the CTS-V is only available with a 6 speed manual. Rappers usually go with "Cruiser" cars, or cars that can be had with an automatic (Escalade, F-360, Vanquish, Bentley, ect.)

Also, I really dont see anything wrong with the Cadillac's styling. Its completely original, so I tip my hat to GM for having the balls to enter this segment without trying to copy BMW, Audi, ect.

My pick: CTS-V. Hopefully Ill be able to call one my own in a couple years.


----------



## Ågent99 (Jan 7, 2002)

Here are more pics I scavenged off a quick :google: search.


----------

