Thoughts: C63 vs CTS-V

[FormulaZR]

Originally Posted by propain The LS9 is an amazing motor. Supercharger or not. Yes, remove the Supercharger and tune it to ZR1 specs and your looking at a 450HP Caddy. Still a fast caddy but slower than a C63, M3, M5 ect... Its obvious the reason Caddy put the SC on the car. Without it, it would have been at the bottom of the pack. Keeping within emissions they couldn’t squeeze any more HP out of the LS9 otherwise. Id love to be in the room when the decision was made to add the SC. Who knows, maybe it was part of the plan the whole time. Something tells me it came after they realized the LS9 couldn’t beat any of the Euro cars. CTS-V has an LSA, not LS9...but, the LS9 is in the ZR1...so how would you remove the supercharger and tune it to ZR1 specs???

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[FormulaZR]

Originally Posted by MikeS54

We need to stop all the ****ing arguement on this Forum ....its driving me nuts

Why can't we be more friendly to each other? I guess its just internet tough guys eh? I bet if all of these guys who argues here on this forum sees each other no one would dear to say ****.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-Wus...we_be_friends/

[propain]

Originally Posted by FormulaZR

CTS-V has an LSA, not LS9...but, the LS9 is in the ZR1...so how would you remove the supercharger and tune it to ZR1 specs???

I thought the CTSV had the LS9 also and was just detuned for the CTSV. Thats why I said, Tune the LS9 with the same tune as the ZR1 and remove the SC.

So instead... Do a tune on the LSA and remove the SC. Again.. Without the SC the car would have been much slower than the C63,M3,M5 ect.. So to fix that problem they SC it.

[FormulaZR]

Originally Posted by propain

I thought the CTSV had the LS9 also and was just detuned for the CTSV. Thats why I said, Tune the LS9 with the same tune as the ZR1 and remove the SC.

So instead... Do a tune on the LSA and remove the SC. Again.. Without the SC the car would have been much slower than the C63,M3,M5 ect.. So to fix that problem they SC it.

Somewhat true...BUT, the LSA only has 9.0:1 compression and would make a horrible N/A motor, that's what I was referring to earlier.

The LS3 is a 6.2L N/A engine and in stock form makes 436 hp in the Corvette. Chevrolet does have a knack, though, for detuning or underrating engines that would interfere with higher level models; so please don't take this to mean 436 is all it's capable of, even in stock form.

[JPEGXP]

Alright so my friends father took delivery of a 2010 C63 yesterday. Which is how I ended up here, I wanted to get a little more familiar with the car because I do have an appreciation for any AMG's. Car forums are a great thing.

Last week when my friend told me his father was eying the 63, my first response was "did he check out the V"? Which I don't think he actually did, and from what I understand he wanted a small sedan. My friend says the 63 is off the charts and insane, I don't doubt this and am really looking forward to getting a chance to drive it. All of us are essentially auto enthusiasts.

When I see an AMG on the road I usually think that the driver very clearly has good taste in cars and knows what he bought. The V also makes me think this. No way do most people walking in looking for a CTS or a C Class and walk out with the AMG or V versions.

From what I read on here it seems as if the C 63 is pretty good on reliability. I saw most have oil consumption issues, a piston sensor that throws the CEL and some tire pressure monitoring issues and some quirks with the nav/entertainment system. None of those things would really dissuade my purchase of the car.

To Eric very sad to hear about the sunroof issue. GM really can't get sunroofs right and I don't think they ever have or every will. Do you have to get the roof on the V?

For those who say "GM is crap" that is foolish. Their product is actually the best it's ever been hands down. Maybe that doesn't say much to some of you, but it is very clearly better than it ever was. Sucks for them because of the tarnished image of the company, it instantly transfers over to people thinking the cars are no good.

Every car maker brings something to the table. With that something comes the pros and cons of ownership. We all know the perfect automobile doesn't exist and probably never will. I am surprised some of you think that the 63 is so superior to the V? If you like cars and truly have any knowledge of them it is very easy to figure out both are exceptional cars. I doubt any of you would really regret owing either vehicle. Of course just my .02$ which I'm sure is deemed worthless around here. Read all 20 pages of this thread so I felt the need to chime in.

Just a bit about me. I'm recently retired*cough*unemployed*cough* from a GM dealership. I'm a car person by nature and most likely will be ending up in a German auto dealership. By no means however will I be getting rid of my G8 GXP M6. This was what I could afford, 60k was too steep for me at this point in my life. My G8 was hard to get, only 1800 were made and for one year only. I was happy to find it out of state and happy that it didn't have the sunroof. Having 3 peddles was what was very important to me, something I wasn't willing to compromise. Surprised that didn't seem to be more of a factor for those of you who bought the V. Knowing that there was a chance I wouldn't get the GXP, I had seen that the regular C class was able to come in manual I believe. That was what was in my mind for a just in case scenario. While the Pontiac is no Benz for under 40k I get a full size sedan with the LS3 415/415. +the exclusiveness of the GXP brings many at stop lights just to ask what type of car it is. For those who still hate GM don't know what you define my car as? Built in the Holden Christy plant in Melbourne Australia and really doesn't have that GM feel or look to it.

I wish all of you on here my best and hope you all enjoy your cars. From reading many of your signatures seems like a lot of you have some seriously bad ass MB's. I think this is a good forum and I look forward to reading more on here.

[mugatu22]

I have a perception issue w/GM vehicles. The plastics, trim pieces, fake carbon-fiber stuff, buttons and overall "feel" of the cars simply feel cheap and low rent to me. Unfinished and over-valued.

MBZ and BMW on the other hand both exude class, refinement and the proper FEEL a car of their caliber should have. The stitched leather, the snappy controls and buttons/switches, the vault-like door seals.

I've sat in and driven a CTS-V, and while I loved the engine, the interior felt cheap and plasticky to me. The faux carbon fiber screen-printed trim pieces really rubbed me the wrong way. The arrogant salesmen weren't helping the cause either, acting as though I was looking at and testing out a $500,000 Bugatti.

The V just feels and looks overly cheap to me when compared to the C63 or E63 MBZ cars. Cool that their powerplants have improved. The CTS-V engine is a monster. Unfortunately the engine doesn't make up for the rest of the car, which feels cramped inside (I'm a tall guy), as well as cheap.

I'm no brand whore and would drive a CTS-V in a heartbeat if it had what I was looking for. I don't think it's possible though.

[Oliverk]

Originally Posted by mugatu22

MBZ and BMW on the other hand both exude class, refinement and the proper FEEL a car of their caliber should have. The stitched leather, the snappy controls and buttons/switches, the vault-like door seals.

I've sat in and driven a CTS-V, and while I loved the engine, the interior felt cheap and plasticky to me.

Seriously? Have you felt the dash of your C63. It is ROCK HARD and DIRT CHEAP plastic. Its embarrassing really for MB. Same goes for the a/c and radio controls.

Also, this thread shows that some people have a really poor understanding of engine dynamics and cars in general.

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by mugatu22

I have a perception issue w/GM vehicles. The plastics, trim pieces, fake carbon-fiber stuff, buttons and overall "feel" of the cars simply feel cheap and low rent to me. Unfinished and over-valued.

MBZ and BMW on the other hand both exude class, refinement and the proper FEEL a car of their caliber should have. The stitched leather, the snappy controls and buttons/switches, the vault-like door seals.

I've sat in and driven a CTS-V, and while I loved the engine, the interior felt cheap and plasticky to me. The faux carbon fiber screen-printed trim pieces really rubbed me the wrong way. The arrogant salesmen weren't helping the cause either, acting as though I was looking at and testing out a $500,000 Bugatti.

The V just feels and looks overly cheap to me when compared to the C63 or E63 MBZ cars. Cool that their powerplants have improved. The CTS-V engine is a monster. Unfortunately the engine doesn't make up for the rest of the car, which feels cramped inside (I'm a tall guy), as well as cheap.

I'm no brand whore and would drive a CTS-V in a heartbeat if it had what I was looking for. I don't think it's possible though.

+1. Exactly the way I felt when I test drove the new CTS-V, right down the arrogant sales mgr...and no real discounts or financing programs on the CTS-V either. GM...WE, the taxpayers, bail them out, and then they still don't really want to compete and sell cars to us...*******s!

[GBlansten]

Originally Posted by Oliverk

Seriously? Have you felt the dash of your C63. It is ROCK HARD and DIRT CHEAP plastic. Its embarrassing really for MB. Same goes for the a/c and radio controls.

Also, this thread shows that some people have a really poor understanding of engine dynamics and cars in general.

I love the interior of my C63 ACG and I'm too busy listening to the sound of that 5.2 liter V6 to notice the cheap dash.

[SebringSilver]

Originally Posted by GBlansten

I love the interior of my C63 ACG and I'm too busy listening to the sound of that 5.2 liter V6 to notice the cheap dash.

Man, I love those 5.2 litre V6s, especially when paired with the SMG-tronic Speedshift 8-speed gearbox.

[GBlansten]

Originally Posted by SebringSilver

Man, I love those 5.2 litre V6s, especially when paired with the SMG-tronic Speedshift 8-speed gearbox.

If that's the one with four reverse gear ratios then I love it too. I'm still waiting to have my keyless backup camera installed.

[SebringSilver]

Originally Posted by GBlansten

If that's the one with four reverse gear ratios then I love it too. I'm still waiting to have my keyless backup camera installed.

But I thought that option wasn't available in Uzbekistan.

[GBlansten]

Originally Posted by SebringSilver

But I thought that option wasn't available in Uzbekistan.

You pretty much have to laugh any time Uzbekistan is used in a post.

[mugatu22]

Originally Posted by Oliverk

Seriously? Have you felt the dash of your C63. It is ROCK HARD and DIRT CHEAP plastic. Its embarrassing really for MB. Same goes for the a/c and radio controls.

I don't agree. For the C63's $55K price point you receive the exact engine that's sold in other $160K cars. The dash isn't SL65ish but it's not cheap Cadillac US plastic and "laminate" sticker-coating carbon fiber crap like the CTS-V. That horrible carbon-fiber decal surface is one of the most egregious offenses in a Cadillac I've seen.

Also, this thread shows that some people have a really poor understanding of engine dynamics and cars in general.

Well at least you're humble.

[hhughes1]

And predictable.

[Cylinder Head]

Originally Posted by SebringSilver

But I thought that option wasn't available in Uzbekistan.

Originally Posted by GBlansten

You pretty much have to laugh any time Uzbekistan is used in a post.

I love you guys. Even though GBlansten is a party pooper sometimes.

Anyway, this thread exemplifies the utterly douchetastic tendencies of the brand whores that populate MB and BMW forums. The most reliable cars that have ever sat in my driveway have by far and away been GM products (with the exception of my M5 which has never really had a problem and is admittedly a factory freak at 80,000 miles and counting in 3 years of hard use). GM, especially Chevrolet and Caddy make great cars and stand behind their product. Yes the interiors can be pretty crappy, but all indications show that they're on the right track.

Given this is my personal experience, but seriously is a C-Class interior really that much more "plush" and "stitched" than a CTS-V's? No. The C-Class has just as much, if not more plastic and I don't see any suede inserts or Recaro seats.

This entire thread has been unabashedly biased and filled with enough ignorance to re-create a meeting of the UN Security Council. It should be locked and everyone who participated should be required to re-take Automobiles 101.

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by JPEGXP

Alright so my friends father took delivery of a 2010 C63 yesterday. Which is how I ended up here, I wanted to get a little more familiar with the car because I do have an appreciation for any AMG's. Car forums are a great thing.

Last week when my friend told me his father was eying the 63, my first response was "did he check out the V"? Which I don't think he actually did, and from what I understand he wanted a small sedan. My friend says the 63 is off the charts and insane, I don't doubt this and am really looking forward to getting a chance to drive it. All of us are essentially auto enthusiasts.

When I see an AMG on the road I usually think that the driver very clearly has good taste in cars and knows what he bought. The V also makes me think this. No way do most people walking in looking for a CTS or a C Class and walk out with the AMG or V versions.

From what I read on here it seems as if the C 63 is pretty good on reliability. I saw most have oil consumption issues, a piston sensor that throws the CEL and some tire pressure monitoring issues and some quirks with the nav/entertainment system. None of those things would really dissuade my purchase of the car.

To Eric very sad to hear about the sunroof issue. GM really can't get sunroofs right and I don't think they ever have or every will. Do you have to get the roof on the V?

For those who say "GM is crap" that is foolish. Their product is actually the best it's ever been hands down. Maybe that doesn't say much to some of you, but it is very clearly better than it ever was. Sucks for them because of the tarnished image of the company, it instantly transfers over to people thinking the cars are no good.

Every car maker brings something to the table. With that something comes the pros and cons of ownership. We all know the perfect automobile doesn't exist and probably never will. I am surprised some of you think that the 63 is so superior to the V? If you like cars and truly have any knowledge of them it is very easy to figure out both are exceptional cars. I doubt any of you would really regret owing either vehicle. Of course just my .02$ which I'm sure is deemed worthless around here. Read all 20 pages of this thread so I felt the need to chime in.

Just a bit about me. I'm recently retired*cough*unemployed*cough* from a GM dealership. I'm a car person by nature and most likely will be ending up in a German auto dealership. By no means however will I be getting rid of my G8 GXP M6. This was what I could afford, 60k was too steep for me at this point in my life. My G8 was hard to get, only 1800 were made and for one year only. I was happy to find it out of state and happy that it didn't have the sunroof. Having 3 peddles was what was very important to me, something I wasn't willing to compromise. Surprised that didn't seem to be more of a factor for those of you who bought the V. Knowing that there was a chance I wouldn't get the GXP, I had seen that the regular C class was able to come in manual I believe. That was what was in my mind for a just in case scenario. While the Pontiac is no Benz for under 40k I get a full size sedan with the LS3 415/415. +the exclusiveness of the GXP brings many at stop lights just to ask what type of car it is. For those who still hate GM don't know what you define my car as? Built in the Holden Christy plant in Melbourne Australia and really doesn't have that GM feel or look to it.

I wish all of you on here my best and hope you all enjoy your cars. From reading many of your signatures seems like a lot of you have some seriously bad ass MB's. I think this is a good forum and I look forward to reading more on here.

They replaced the UltraView assembly way back in April or something like that. Haven't heard a peep from it since. Aside from a strange clicking in the front wheel area, I haven't experienced any problems beyond the UltraView,... still going strong. The dealer says the clicking has something to do with the ABS senors. Don't know whether that's true or not, but it's not as obtrusive now, OR, I've gotten used to it and just don't hear it any longer.

As for the argument I reported having with the C63 some time back, it turns out it was more me than the V. Got a few lessons on how to manage the 6 manual gears, and some tips on launching, and where the fault was quickly became clear. By me only rarely acting like a 12 year old behind the wheel, I can't say anything about heat soak. I do know what heat soak can do to a SC'ed car,... it would absolutely castrate my C32. On two occasions, the C32's intercooler pump died, and each time it felt like I was driving a '62 Bettle (my 1st car). Bottom line, I've never experienced that feeling with the V. The owner of the C63 (now a relatively close friend), and I have revisited that debate on a few occasions over the past summer, and the V's 3rd gear has simply turned out to be poison to the C63,... very toxic to them in their stock form. After 3rd, it's all academic. Fact is, 3rd will get you well into 'go to jail' speeds in less time than it takes your sphincter muscles to relax after a good fart. Haven't had the pleasure of holding a debating with a tuned C63 yet. Frankly, not looking forward to such a debate as I understand a well tuned C flurts with defying the laws of physics. No estoy interesado en ese concurso. Still, I got spanked by that AMG initially.

But I understand the C class AMG is getting an sorely needed makeover. Received a newsletter in my inbox from AMG Private Lounge that spoke about internal engine mods that ups the HP and Torque a little. I think I read by some 30 HP's. Still shy of the 500 HP mark,... but still nice. Now all MB has to do is to get those roller skate like 18 inchers off and placed with some 19" wheels, and stop selling performance cars that only spin one wheel. If that ain't the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. A locking dif should an automatic, when jumping from let's say a 4matic to an AMG. "Would you like a locking dif with this order?" is a question we should have to answer, much less asked of us. You don't stuff 450+ horses and massive amounts of torque under a cars hood then glue badges to it that read Abarth, M, V or AMG to it's quarter panels and send it out spinning one wheel. What da hell are you thinking? Those are the same kinda tricks that got Caddy the rep they're trying so desperately to shake off their backs now.

I'm quickly approaching the 1 year mark and I'm just as pleased with the car now as I was the day I took delivery. My only complaint/advice would be to not get the suede option. That stuff on the steering wheel doesn't hold up well to body oil. Oh,... and if you can afford it, do get the polished wheels,... I've heard of peeling with the painted wheels.

[K-A]

C63 is a cool car and all, but I gazed through some "interior" talk, and no offense intended toward anyone, but I think the W204 has one of the worst piece of crap interiors, especially for a Benz, or any car in its class IMO. I really hope M-B tends to it like they did the W203 during its face lift. In fact, the F.L 203's interior is at a whole different level (higher) than the current 204's.

I've spent lots of time driving regular W204's, maybe the 63's are a bit different inside, but besides seats, etc. I doubt enough to change my opinion.

To me, it's no contest interior wise, CTS beats it handily. I like the exterior of the C63 better though. Performance wise: CTS-V takes it. If I were in the market for one, it would be a tough call.

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by K-A

C63 is a cool car and all, but I gazed through some "interior" talk, and no offense intended toward anyone, but I think the W204 has one of the worst piece of crap interiors, especially for a Benz, or any car in its class IMO. I really hope M-B tends to it like they did the W203 during its face lift. In fact, the F.L 203's interior is at a whole different level (higher) than the current 204's.

I've spent lots of time driving regular W204's, maybe the 63's are a bit different inside, but besides seats, etc. I doubt enough to change my opinion.

To me, it's no contest interior wise, CTS beats it handily. I like the exterior of the C63 better though. Performance wise: CTS-V takes it. If I were in the market for one, it would be a tough call.

Isn't replacing some plastic with leather one of the goodies included with the P31 package? I thought I read that somewhere in the Lounge. According the thread, there prolly be some other lux stuff done in en effort to shake that taxi rep that's been haunting the C63. Caddy is sure on it's way shaking that "Planned Obsolecence" rep that's been haunting it!

For me, it was just nice not having to pay $2000 for a locking dif,... it came with the V, or extra for a proper manual trans or extra for 19" wheels, or extra for heated AND ventilated front seats,... they too came with the V, or etc, etc. etc. The 7:59 NR time didn't hurt either. Hell, when I was shopping, I was told that the 19" wheels weren't even available for the C63,... I had to live in Canada, Europe or the Middle East to get those.

If nothing else, I think the V has shaken awake both MB and BMW. They're looking at stepping things up as a result of the V's success. That can only be a good thing. I'm hearing the next gen M3 AND M5 will sport the same new 4.4 liter TT plant delivering 550+ hp and monster torque numbers. Let's see what MB does. Quick Question: does the 2010 C63 have MB's new DCT trans? It would be nice if it did. Loosing the Torque converter would be a step forward.

[azlane]

Did anybody catch that the CTS made the recent Consumer Reports "Least Reliable Car" list? I know it includes the regular CTS as well as the few Vs, but not a good list to be on.

Also thought I would see more chatter on the staged "CTS-V challenge" on here. Supposedly over 150 applicants and they end up with something like 2/3 of the cars being CTS-Vs? As someone said, it would have been an obvious no-win situation for MB if there had been one in the challenge. Impressed that a BMW made the top 5 against the obviously stacked competition.

[Chris420]

wouldnt the panamera turbo beat it around the track? thats a sedan...i was so surprised when i saw that the 0-60 times for that is 3.3 seconds!!

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by azlane

Did anybody catch that the CTS made the recent Consumer Reports "Least Reliable Car" list? I know it includes the regular CTS as well as the few Vs, but not a good list to be on.

Also thought I would see more chatter on the staged "CTS-V challenge" on here. Supposedly over 150 applicants and they end up with something like 2/3 of the cars being CTS-Vs? As someone said, it would have been an obvious no-win situation for MB if there had been one in the challenge. Impressed that a BMW made the top 5 against the obviously stacked competition.

Wow, you're right,... that's definitely a list you don't wanna be on. I've cruising the V forums and haven't seen any real organized complaints focused on reliability. And trust me, if there were some systemic and frequent problems swirling around, that's were you'd hear about it. For me, my UltraView problem was it. After that it was clear sailing,... unlike my 03 C32.

Yeah,... the challenge was pretty stacked, wasn't it. But let's face it,... in it's stock form, the C63 really isn't at home on a circuit like Monticello. I seriously doubt if it would have posted better times than the M3, much less an M5. Now if the challenge was a 1/4 mile or even a 1/2 dash,... that's a different story. Now you're in C63 and M5 country. Actually I believe there were 4 V on the field. One was a late entry to take the place of the Jag that punked out. But that driver ended up doing the challenge in an Evo I think, which turned out to be a wet rag.

[mugatu22]

Originally Posted by Chris420

wouldnt the panamera turbo beat it around the track? thats a sedan...i was so surprised when i saw that the 0-60 times for that is 3.3 seconds!!

At nearly 3x the price of the CTS-V, yes the Panamera Turbo is faster. It also has all wheel drive, and is in a much different class of cars than the CTS-V.

The Cadillac Challenge was brilliant marketing for GM. They stacked the field, it was THEIR party so they could stack it how they wanted, and the CTS-V rose to the occasion. It's a great car, no car enthusiast can say it's not. It's just not some people's cup 'o tea.

[azlane]

I counted 7 out of the top 12 lap times were CTS-Vs, but you are right, the CTS-V is a very powerful car. I prefer the C63 and I am not sure the S/C engine of the CTS-V would do too well here in AZ anyway. I also got my C63 several thousand cheaper than I was quoted for the V (with the GM discount), so I am happy.

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by mugatu22

At nearly 3x the price of the CTS-V, yes the Panamera Turbo is faster. It also has all wheel drive, and is in a much different class of cars than the CTS-V.

The Cadillac Challenge was brilliant marketing for GM. They stacked the field, it was THEIR party so they could stack it how they wanted, and the CTS-V rose to the occasion. It's a great car, no car enthusiast can say it's not. It's just not some people's cup 'o tea.

Oh how right you are. But I just got finished watching 'Test Drive' where they featured the Panamera. Only the Turbo with the fancy named boost is faster than the CTS-V with a 0-60 of 3.8,... the standard turbo comes in with a 0-60 time slower than the V's 3.9, and the N/A'ed S version is not even worth a mention when it comes to the 0-60 dash.

I had heard that the Panamera had broken the V's Ring time, so I did a google and that's partially true. The conditions weren't official and were highly suspect. So those numbers can't honestly be used in a rational argument. I'm sure if Porsche thought that their car could easily break the V's back, they'd set that up under the rules and scrutiny of the Ring officials in a heart beat. But they haven't. So until they clear up the hanky-panky, and come back and do it again, I'm stickin' with the V as the King of the Ring.

Has anyone come up with a reasonable explanation why the C and E AMG's wasn't present? I'm still waiting to hear that one. First they said the Caddy wouldn't allow them in, but I later learned that wasn't true. And all the rags are saying is that their absence was puzzling to them as well.