Thoughts: C63 vs CTS-V

[Newzchspy]

Originally Posted by 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. ....................and now with the P031 package officially coming in Dec 2009 for the C63, the race will even be closer with the C63 getting another 30-40 HP (ala DTM cars) and all other kinds of goodies!!!! Plus, even at a cost of $5,500 for the P031 package , aka Performance Plus Package, the c63 will still be a LOT less than the CTS-V. The CTS-V is the very nice car, BUt not in the same league as the C63 or E63.

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

[azlane]

Maybe MB is waiting to have their own challenge so they can stack it like they did on the CTS-V. They should have it somewhere that is 110+ degrees so the cars that get heatsoaked will go into limp mode.

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by Newzchspy

....................and now with the P031 package officially coming in Dec 2009 for the C63, the race will even be closer with the C63 getting another 30-40 HP (ala DTM cars) and all other kinds of goodies!!!! Plus, even at a cost of $5,500 for the P031 package , aka Performance Plus Package, the c63 will still be a LOT less than the CTS-V. The CTS-V is the very nice car, BUt not in the same league as the C63 or E63.

Yeah,... the P031 is definitely a step up,... no question. Things are about to get interesting. But if I understand it correctly, the P031 has deleted the two very things that would made the C63 competitive,... at least in that Caddy challenge everyone's talking about. They 86'ed the comp suspension AND the locking dif. Geez,... right in front of our eyes, the Benz is becoming more American. Big torquey power plant, a whallowing and muddy suspension, and all being propelled by just one wheel. Meanwhile, the Caddy is kickin' ass and taking names under Euro benchmarks and expectations. Wha da hell?

Question to the poster who posted the P031 details, I see they're going to at least make the locking dif available outside the package, but what about the suspension. Are they gonna kill it or make it a separate option like the dif?

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by mugatu22

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.

I own a 03 C32 AMG, and it is a washed in faux carbon fiber. I also own a 2nd Gen CTS-V, and I don't see all this cheapness you're talking about. Is the interior as luxurious as a Bentley or Rolls, 'course not. It's also doesn't deserve the rap you're giving it either. Might you have test driven and sat in a 1st gen V? At any rate, in late '09 and all of the '10 model year, Caddy has a wood trim option that replaces the piano black that many,... including you, are confusing for cheapness. BTW,... the wood is real,... unlike the wood trim in the non-AMG C Class lineup. Does the C63 even have a wood trim option? Incidently, my mom drives an '08 C Class with the Luxury trim and I can tell you,... it ain't wood.

[mugatu22]

Originally Posted by ericpd

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.

Where did you get the CTS-V's 0-60 time of 3.8? The best I've seen is 3.9, most auto media gets the V more realistically in the low 4's.

The Porsche Panamera Turbo clocked in at a mind bending 3.3sec 0-60 in Car & Driver, and at 3.4sec in Road & Track.

A 0.1-sec difference is negligible. A 0.5sec+ time difference, especially when getting that low (sub 4's) is massive. Again a tip of the cap to the P-car's AWD, plus some awesome engineering. It's a $130K car for god's sake, and I doubt ANY of us would turn down the opportunity to own a Panamera Turbo over a car costing 1/3 as much if all things were equal.

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.

GM/Cadillac got to choose who they allowed in, that part is true. Why MBZ wasn't there is anyone's guess. My "educated guess" is that MBZ knew their C & E-class cars wouldn't win the challenge on a road course against/the CTS-V, so why spend the resources to play against a stacked deck. If you're baiting someone w/this question to say that the V is a better road-course car than a C or E-Class MBZ, I'll bite--it is! It's still a Cadillac too

I'm a car enthusiast, not a brand whore. I like fast cars, nice cars, and high quality cars. The V is a beast. I tend to prefer the look & feel of MBZ AMG cars even if/when they aren't as quick around the Nordschleife or a fancy car club's track in NY

[Even Money]

The front end of that V is still hideous looking...

[mugatu22]

Originally Posted by Even Money

The front end of that V is still hideous looking...

I think the entire car is kinda bulky and angular; as Jeremy Clarkson said of the original V1..."It looks like it was designed by someone who only had a ruler." LOL

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by mugatu22

Where did you get the CTS-V's 0-60 time of 3.8? The best I've seen is 3.9, most auto media gets the V more realistically in the low 4's.

The Porsche Panamera Turbo clocked in at a mind bending 3.3sec 0-60 in Car & Driver, and at 3.4sec in Road & Track.

A 0.1-sec difference is negligible. A 0.5sec+ time difference, especially when getting that low (sub 4's) is massive. Again a tip of the cap to the P-car's AWD, plus some awesome engineering. It's a $130K car for god's sake, and I doubt ANY of us would turn down the opportunity to own a Panamera Turbo over a car costing 1/3 as much if all things were equal.


GM/Cadillac got to choose who they allowed in, that part is true. Why MBZ wasn't there is anyone's guess. My "educated guess" is that MBZ knew their C & E-class cars wouldn't win the challenge on a road course against/the CTS-V, so why spend the resources to play against a stacked deck. If you're baiting someone w/this question to say that the V is a better road-course car than a C or E-Class MBZ, I'll bite--it is! It's still a Cadillac too

I'm a car enthusiast, not a brand whore. I like fast cars, nice cars, and high quality cars. The V is a beast. I tend to prefer the look & feel of MBZ AMG cars even if/when they aren't as quick around the Nordschleife or a fancy car club's track in NY

A lot of typos in that post,... I've corrected most. The V's 0-60 best time is 3.9. The Panamera Turbo with their cute little after burner option is 3.8. You're right, the average time for the V with guys like us behind the wheel settles in around 4.1 & 4.2.

I've heard of those Panamera 3.3's and 3.4's too, and they're in heavy dispute,... just like their record breaking Ring time. Porsche itself advertises the Panamera at 3.8 in their current literature.

No baiting,... honest question. As for being the better circuit runner, yeah, I think the V is better than the either of the two AMG's. In my opinion, they're kinda bloated and behave heavy. The Top Gear epidose where the C63 was pitted up against the M3 and the RS4 comes to mind. Powerful in a straight line but clumsy and left footed in the bends. Now that was before they offered the performance package which brought us a more intelligent differential AND a nicely tuned, albeit stiff suspension. Why they would take those two things out of the new "Performance Package" is beyond me. It's been my experience that a well thought out limited slip differential and a suspension tuned to altering a car's direction quickly and with minimum under/over steer are the cornerstones to ANY "Performance Package". I don't care what car the package is assembled for. Of course the other two cornerstones to ANY thing remotely called a Performance Package would be brakes and power. Well they improved on the power, and I'm glad to see they didn't remove the composite brakes from the new package. Those brakes are outstanding. but taking out the comp dif and comp suspension is just plain stupid. Hell,... I had problems with having to buy up to get the limited slip in the first place. When you buy ANYTHING with an AMG badge glued to it, you shouldn't have worry about spinning one rear wheel. With the CTS-V, as with the M's and the RS's, paying the premium to wear those badges if nothing else, guarantees you that when you plant your right foot into the floor board, you're gonna plant both of your rear wheels. With the Audi's you plant all four.

I too am an enthusiast. If you followed my path into the CTS-V, you'll see how torn I was in deciding which of these two monsters I would take home. I landed on the V precisely because I am an enthusiast and like you not a brand whore as you put it. If I were, I'd have an 03 Class AMG and an 09 C Class AMG in my garage. Now only if I could afford to stick a ZR1 in there. LOL! Don't think that's gonna happen any time soon.

[K-A]

Originally Posted by mugatu22

I think the entire car is kinda bulky and angular; as Jeremy Clarkson said of the original V1..."It looks like it was designed by someone who only had a ruler." LOL

I love Clarkson.

What's funny is to me the W212 E-Class looks like what the CTS SHOULD have looked like, a bit more conservative, a bit more sophisticated, and a bit more "together", a bit easier to swallow, however it looks similarly inspired, and from a similar "design family" in a sense, just with M-B gimmickery around it rather than Caddy. What's also funny to me is, although I don't like angular cars, and I think the CTS isn't truly easy on the eyes, I like it. And although I believe the 212's design is nicer overall IMO, I don't like it.

BTW the CTS got on the least Reliable list? That's a shame and very surprising, as GM have been churning out some reliable cars lately, and I assumed the CTS was at the tip. I've been thinking of getting one to replace my current second car as well.

About the interior, either you guys haven't sat in a CTS, or your radar is off. Anyone coming out of a C-Class should in no way feel anything other than that they just moved into a more "up-market" car when getting into one. The interior isn't amazing, but VERY good for GM, and even very strong for its class.

[Razorecko]

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings...tings-by-brand

I have 10k on my '09 V. My only problem was that the ultra-view had to be re alligned. To go 10k miles on a new model car w/out a peep is impressive by any standard.....

any c63's in the 10's yet ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXbGV5FHqFk

[Cylinder Head]

Originally Posted by ericpd

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.

Porsche?? Manipulating 'ring results? I'm shocked.

Like when they threw a fit about the GTR's ring times (which were also probably fixed) so they bought one, threw some sandbags in the trunk and pushed it down the track to prove the GTR wasn't as quick as Nissan said it was?

They'd never be so unscrupulous.

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by K-A

I love Clarkson.

What's funny is to me the W212 E-Class looks like what the CTS SHOULD have looked like, a bit more conservative, a bit more sophisticated, and a bit more "together", a bit easier to swallow, however it looks similarly inspired, and from a similar "design family" in a sense, just with M-B gimmickery around it rather than Caddy. What's also funny to me is, although I don't like angular cars, and I think the CTS isn't truly easy on the eyes, I like it. And although I believe the 212's design is nicer overall IMO, I don't like it.

I totally disagree with that. Trying to look like the new E-Class or inspire conservativism should be the aspiration of the soon to be reborn DTS-V. Civilized aggression is the name of the game for the CTS-V, as it is also the theme for the M3 and the RS4. But not looking like the current E-Class in my opinion is an accomplishment that should be applauded. That rear quarter panel treatment reminds me of a 32 Chevy,... makes me gag. I mean why suggest in your design a bolt on fender? Anyway, your middle model is where you start to employ conservatism,... and you finish it in your flagship model,... ie, S65 AMG! But even that's changing,... Audi stopped RS'ing the 8 (if it ever really did), and BMW's 7 series Alpine has gone AWOL. Prolly won't be long before the E-Class will be the largest,... and most 'conservative' AMG you can put your hands on. Would be nice if they AMG'ed the E-Class coupé, but greed prevents that.

Originally Posted by K-A

BTW the CTS got on the least Reliable list? That's a shame and very surprising, as GM have been churning out some reliable cars lately, and I assumed the CTS was at the tip. I've been thinking of getting one to replace my current second car as well.

Yeah, I gotta admit, that one shocks and scares me too! But I'm thinking some of that has got to be leaking into the V1 era and does not accurately represent the V2's. They fixed a whole lot of stuff when they jumped from the 1st gen to the 2nd gen. The 2nd model year of the V2's are just now starting to hit the streets.

Originally Posted by K-A

About the interior, either you guys haven't sat in a CTS, or your radar is off. Anyone coming out of a C-Class should in no way feel anything other than that they just moved into a more "up-market" car when getting into one. The interior isn't amazing, but VERY good for GM, and even very strong for its class.

Now on this I totally agree,... 110%! When I sat in both, it was clear that the CTS-V had outclassed the C63 in this category. Someone earlier talked about cheap plastic,... well the C63 has an ocean of that hard stuff all over the place. At the time, the only trim available on the V was 'Piano Black' which was done in plastic, but nicely done. Piano black is not suppose to be supple and soft to the touch, it's hard, glassy and glossy by definition. I think a lot of folks were confusing that as substituting leather for plastic. Now on the other hand, MB just plain replaced stuff that's traditionally either wood or leather with plastic designed to mimic wood and leather. Big difference. Bottom line,... it easier to do a believable job emulating a thick coat of black lacquer with plastic than it is to do a believable job of faking the grain of wood and the subtle texture of leather with plastic. I think it was a brilliant move on the part of Caddy. They got to deploy the cheaper plastic, yet do it in a manner that doesn't transparently cheapen the car. Let me remind you,... Piano Black trim is a trim option on the 2010 7 Series BMW, however, you have buy up to BMW's "Individual Composition" level to get it. It's not available on the standard 7 Series trim chart, you gotta pay and extra 4 grand to get it, and I doubt if it's old wood smathered with multiple coats of black lacquer. So let's stop suggesting that Caddy's Piano Black trim is somehow naked cheap! Using plastic to invoke leather and wood is naked cheap. I posted an image of BMW's Individual Composition Only Paino Black trim option along side Caddy's use of the Piano Black. I challenge you to accuse the Beamer of being cheap because they offered an upscale ÁLL PLASTIC' Piano Black trim alongside their more traditional REAL wood upscale trim levels. I wish I could have found a pic of this trim with Caddy's Light Titanium Leather, as the contrast makes the Piano Black really pop. BTW, Caddy now offers a wood trim which eradicates a lot of the plastic,... and guess what, the wood is real. I just read that the C63's new P031 package ups the leather, but it looks like the only thing that gets an added dose of leather is the steering wheel. Uhmmm! Maybe I'm missing something or musta read it wrong.

Now,... am I bashing the AMG? No! I'm just defending the V. I own both, and each gives me pride.

[azlane]

Reviewed the Consumer Reports article again and I believe the CTS V6 version is the main, or only reason it made the list.

It was also interesting that about a third of the 34 cars listed as unreliable were GM products. Mostly Chevy's, with a couple of Caddys (DTS and CTS) a Pontiac, three GMCs and a couple of Saturn's. The MB GL and R class made the list as well, but the GLK made the most reliable. The BMW X5 and 535i made the unreliable list as well.

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by azlane

Reviewed the Consumer Reports article again and I believe the CTS V6 version is the main, or only reason it made the list.

It was also interesting that about a third of the 34 cars listed as unreliable were GM products. Mostly Chevy's, with a couple of Caddys (DTS and CTS) a Pontiac, three GMCs and a couple of Saturn's. The MB GL and R class made the list as well, but the GLK made the most reliable. The BMW X5 and 535i made the unreliable list as well.

Again,... it sounds like two things are going on here. One, the slightest sneeze or cough will put you on this list. And two, they're talking about early 1st Gen CTS entries. If they're including Pontiac on this list, the list is not taking into account the improvements and new commitments coming out of GM. If I'm not mistakened, MB had to deal with this about a decade or so ago. They tried their hand at passing on junk to the consumers,... but to their credit, that experiment with greed was a brief one.

Like Razor, I've only had issues with my UltraView, and after that was fixed,... not a whimper! Hey what's up Raz? Qué tal.

Well wait, I have had one major problem other than the UltraView,... maybe the V does belong on that list. My rear tires (PS2's) were defective. It's really strange though, the front tires were just fine, but the rear tires were obviously defective and just plain American made junk. They didn't last two months after I took delivery of the CTS-V. There ought to be a law to protect us consumers from auto makers putting such junk on the rear end of our cars. Clowns! I'm putting my V up on Ebay right now!

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by azlane

Reviewed the Consumer Reports article again and I believe the CTS V6 version is the main, or only reason it made the list.

It was also interesting that about a third of the 34 cars listed as unreliable were GM products. Mostly Chevy's, with a couple of Caddys (DTS and CTS) a Pontiac, three GMCs and a couple of Saturn's. The MB GL and R class made the list as well, but the GLK made the most reliable. The BMW X5 and 535i made the unreliable list as well.

Strange. Just hit 30k mi. on our '08 GL450 and not one single issue so far.

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by sflgator

Strange. Just hit 30k mi. on our '08 GL450 and not one single issue so far.

Again, sounds as if relying on that list is just as suspect as relying on a jail house snitch. A family member owns one of those Diesel GL's, and I've yet to hear of him having any problems. They're nice rides,... way more room than I thought it would have.

[DaGS1800]

WoW I cant believe this thread is still going, havent look on the forum in a lil while...

Anyway, the new Performance Package for the C63 is awesome and is def a big step up as far as stock performance. With this package the C63 is even more desirable over the CTS-V than it already was... The CTS-V is def a fun car to drive, I was able to drive one recently and I did have a good time, but honstly the feel of the car which is great while driving isnt superior to the C63 despite the difference in HP.

[DaGS1800]

BTW I have seen the Black Trim in the BMW compared to the Black Trim in the CTS-V and the BMW trim seems to look nicer. The shade of black and the amount of gloss is different when compared. This is a minor fact and something 99% of people would never realize however I did...

[transferred]

Originally Posted by ericpd

Civilized aggression is the name of the game for the CTS-V, as it is also the theme for the M3 and the RS4. But not looking like the current E-Class in my opinion is an accomplishment that should be applauded. That rear quarter panel treatment reminds me of a 32 Chevy,... makes me gag. I mean why suggest in your design a bolt on fender? Anyway, your middle model is where you start to employ conservatism,... and you finish it in your flagship model,... ie, S65 AMG! But even that's changing,... Audi stopped RS'ing the 8 (if it ever really did), and BMW's 7 series Alpine has gone AWOL. Prolly won't be long before the E-Class will be the largest,... and most 'conservative' AMG you can put your hands on. Would be nice if they AMG'ed the E-Class coupé, but greed prevents that.

.

I think the CTS-V is far more conservative looking than the M3 or RS4.

It's Alpina, and they've had no chance with the new 7 yet.

Greed would cause more and more AMGs, not less. Pretty simple, stuff big brakes and the 6.2 V8 in there and charge a huge premium.

Finally, CTS V interior is nice for a Caddy, but not comparable as regards quality to well specced Es and 5s...it's just a little over done for my taste.

C32 and CTS v are a nice stable...i love fast sedans

-Rob

[K-A]

Here's the funny thing about CTS's and CTS V's, they get compared to E's and 5'ers a lot, and realistically are supposed to compete with C's and 3's. I think that says a lot about the car personally.

[AMGC60-3]

ZzZzZzZzZzZz.............

[Jae Duk]

I wonder how much of ericpd's 316 post came from this topic
Does it matter which car is better or anything? Can't believe this topic is still going on. Okay congrats ericpd you got your cts-v and we got our c63. We get the picture you love your car as much as we love ours. But honestly, the stuff you're posting...on mbworld...it's like if I went to to the m3 boards and said how good the c63 was. You're looking for something to happen. And I highly doubt that you make commission from GM to keep trying to sell us a cts-v

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by DaGS1800

WoW I cant believe this thread is still going, havent look on the forum in a lil while...

Anyway, the new Performance Package for the C63 is awesome and is def a big step up as far as stock performance. With this package the C63 is even more desirable over the CTS-V than it already was... The CTS-V is def a fun car to drive, I was able to drive one recently and I did have a good time, but honstly the feel of the car which is great while driving isnt superior to the C63 despite the difference in HP.

Hey DaGS,... what's up? Long time no see. Yeah,... I couldn't believe it either until I got an activity alert in my inbox some days back. So I thought I'd come take a look-see! I actually forgot all about the thread, much less subscribing to it.

Anyway,... I agree with you on the new P031. Still say, they shouldn't have taken out the LSD though. But they did make it available as a separate option,... and if you really stop and think about it (which I didn't do the 1st time I commented on the topic), that might not be a bad idea. This way you don't have to buy all the other stuff like the comp suspension and composite brakes just to be able to pound both wheels into the asphalt. I still think the ANYTHING with an AMG badge glued to it should come out the birth canal spinning both wheels. You wanna spin one wheel? Don't buy an AMG,... or a V, or an M, or an R, or an RS, or an Abarth,... etc. That's just my take. Felt that way when I spent over 1,200 buck putting a LSD on the C32 way back in 04,... and I feel that way now.

I also had a few ops to drive the C63 (P030) over this past summer, and again, I agree with you. There are too many areas where each of these cars outshines the other,... which makes calling one 'overall superior' is an elusive and subjective animal.

Which V did you drive,... the auto or the manual?

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by DaGS1800

BTW I have seen the Black Trim in the BMW compared to the Black Trim in the CTS-V and the BMW trim seems to look nicer. The shade of black and the amount of gloss is different when compared. This is a minor fact and something 99% of people would never realize however I did...

Oh yeah,... the BMW Individual Composition 7 series interior absolutely look nicer. No question. Never in a million years would I even suggest otherwise. It's just that so many confuse the V's Piano Black as an indicator of old-school GM cheapness, when in reality, the deployment of Piano Black is considered upscale. I used BMW's deployment of Piano Black in their VERY MUCH upscale 'Individual Composition' trim option to make the point. I don't doubt at all that BMW's rendition of Piano Black is better looking than Caddy's rendition. Not for one moment. Just that it'll cost you an extra 7 grand to get it in BMW's flagship 7 over the cost of their authentic natural wood trim. And as good as BMW's Piano Black looks,... it's still plastic, just like Caddy's. It is not wood covered with multiple layers of black lacquer. Real Piano Black is prolly outlawed in this day and time. I know it is in the construction industry. It's toxic,... even after drying.

[ericpd]

Originally Posted by transferred

I think the CTS-V is far more conservative looking than the M3 or RS4.

It's Alpina, and they've had no chance with the new 7 yet.

Greed would cause more and more AMGs, not less. Pretty simple, stuff big brakes and the 6.2 V8 in there and charge a huge premium.

Finally, CTS V interior is nice for a Caddy, but not comparable as regards quality to well specced Es and 5s...it's just a little over done for my taste.

C32 and CTS v are a nice stable...i love fast sedans

-Rob

Yeah,.... well many! A bit of a subjective call. Let's see,... hood, grill, front facia, splitter, brakes, exhaust, wheels and tire size. Yeah, that's about it. Those are the only things beside badge work that differentiates it from a standard CTS. About the same with the C63 vs C and M vs 3 series. There's less to differentiate the RS4 from the S4.

Yeah I know,.... it's Alpina. Don't what was going on in the brain/finger things when I typed that. I think I'll use it was late and I was tired as an excuse.

Actually, I forgot what point I was trying to make when I said greed. I think it had something to do with why there there wasn't a E coupé from AMG. yeah,... that's what it was. No AMG E Class coupé because there's that 4-door coupé AMG still out on the streets. I think that was the point I was trying to make.

You're right, the V's interior in no way could stand up to the E Class and the 5 series,.... especially the new E. I look inside that thing and it's gorgeous. The V's not even in the same class. Unlike the rags, and even GM themselves, I try to keep the comparisons confined to the C63 and the M3,... as it is Caddy's smallest and entry body platform. And let's not even talk about the DTS and STS,.... those boats don't even come close.

Thanks Rob,... but a better stable would be a C63 and a V. Or even better yet, an S65 AMG and a V. Or even still the SLS 63 AMG and the V,.... yeah, like that's gonna happen. But I still love the ole girl,... prolly would never give it up at this point. As long as I'm blessed with the cash to keep her tight, I will always enjoy her. And trust me,... she still speak up for herself,.... quite well.