M5 vs CTS-V

[MovingTarget]

CTS all the way. Besides, 10years down the road, which is more likely to still be a daily driver and which a LeMons contender?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
CTS all the way. Besides, 10years down the road, which is more likely to still be a daily driver and which a LeMons contender?

There are plenty of ~2000 M5's still running perfectly fine, with interiors not falling apart, and as smooth and powerful as ever. That's not to say that a 2009 CTS-V will be decrepit in 2019 by any stretch, just that both are pretty badass (and solid) cars.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
CTS all the way. Besides, 10years down the road, which is more likely to still be a daily driver and which a LeMons contender?

There are plenty of ~2000 M5's still running perfectly fine, with interiors not falling apart, and as smooth and powerful as ever. That's not to say that a 2009 CTS-V will be decrepit in 2019 by any stretch, just that both are pretty badass (and solid) cars.

True, but where I was coming from was that it would be much easier to fix issues with the CTS than it would a BMW. With the relative simplicity of the Cadillac, one would expect it to be maintained road-worthy for a longer period of time.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I'd take the M5.

Well, you also drink tea, call crackers bicuits, and spell words like "color" wrong. 😉

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: JDub02
If someone else is paying, M5 all the way. If I'm paying (hypothetically, since I wouldn't actually pay for either), then it's the CTS-V hands-down. You just can't make the argument for the M5 over the CTS-V unless you're a brand whore.

thats got to be at least 50% of BMW sales alone. 😛


BMW

Wonder how many BMWs you see on the road are lease / CPO'd / business-write-offs... so the $30k difference isn't always really $30k. And those people aren't exactly the type to make a "value-for-your-dollar" decision comparing cars' feature lists.

It's obvious why when you discuss vehicles side by side on a forum, the majority will take the value for your dollar.

Typically on forums people pick either the more expensive option or the non American option.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
CTS all the way. Besides, 10years down the road, which is more likely to still be a daily driver and which a LeMons contender?

There are plenty of ~2000 M5's still running perfectly fine, with interiors not falling apart, and as smooth and powerful as ever. That's not to say that a 2009 CTS-V will be decrepit in 2019 by any stretch, just that both are pretty badass (and solid) cars.

Well a GM vehicle will be pretty good until a certain day and then things will creak, parts will droop and noises will abound, but it will still keep going. A 10 or 20 year old GM car my run like crap but it will run like crap forever. You don't see many if any older BMW's on the road as once they run like crap they're dead. No one will fix them and they just die.

 

[zerocool84]

Am I the only one surprised LOUISSSSS hasn't posted here yet?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
CTS all the way. Besides, 10years down the road, which is more likely to still be a daily driver and which a LeMons contender?

There are plenty of ~2000 M5's still running perfectly fine, with interiors not falling apart, and as smooth and powerful as ever. That's not to say that a 2009 CTS-V will be decrepit in 2019 by any stretch, just that both are pretty badass (and solid) cars.

Well a GM vehicle will be pretty good until a certain day and then things will creak, parts will droop and noises will abound, but it will still keep going. A 10 or 20 year old GM car my run like crap but it will run like crap forever. You don't see many if any older BMW's on the road as once they run like crap they're dead. No one will fix them and they just die.

Here in Dallas I see quite a few old BMW's on the road. Mostly E30 3-series, but there's a good peppering of 1980's 6-series, a good number of 845 and 850s, and so on, as far as cars that are ~20 years of age, more or less. BMW's that I don't see a whole lot of are pre-1989 5-series (might be due to low sales), or older 7-series (almost never see these anymore, and I know they sold quite a lot, as I used to see them a lot).

I chalk some of that up to : typical 7-series customer, one that can afford to throw $75-$120k down on a car, won't want to mess with the car after 2-3 years at most, and then as the car gets handed down to owners at a fraction of the original cost, the expensive maintenance (transmissions, gaskets, brakes, sensors, emissions work, etc are all $$ on those), the owners can't afford to keep them going. Not to mention they're not a 'fun' car to drive by any stretch. They're luxury barges, and when they are 100k+ miles and 10 years old, there's no point to their existence. This is a pretty big contrast to a classic 3-series, which can be fixed up for a lot less $$, and still be an entertaining and engaging car to drive.

I can attest to what you say about GM's being tough in certain configurations. It all comes down to models and drivetrains though. I see LOADS of old GM's with the 3800 or 5.7L motors still trucking after a ridiculous amount of miles, even taking into consideration the plethora of those which were sold. Truly impressive. OTOH, vehicles with GM 4-bangers, or the 2.8 and 3.1L 6-bangers, are notably less robust, with the exception of the 4-tech motor (not the Quad-4) which will probably still run even after nuclear holocaust, providing the initial means of transportation for irradiated superintelligent cockroaches. Heaps of millions of Cadavaliers, V6 Blazers, Luminas, Berettas, etc, were sold, and relatively few of them are still ticking. This isn't a totally fair judgment either though, as many of them probably saw service into the ~200k range but just aren't worth fixing of any major issue when a decent $1k cash car will save time and probably last longer.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
CTS all the way. Besides, 10years down the road, which is more likely to still be a daily driver and which a LeMons contender?

There are plenty of ~2000 M5's still running perfectly fine, with interiors not falling apart, and as smooth and powerful as ever. That's not to say that a 2009 CTS-V will be decrepit in 2019 by any stretch, just that both are pretty badass (and solid) cars.

True, but where I was coming from was that it would be much easier to fix issues with the CTS than it would a BMW. With the relative simplicity of the Cadillac, one would expect it to be maintained road-worthy for a longer period of time.

It really comes down to the owners. As opposed to your run-of-the-mill 528i, you generally get people buying E39 M5's who know what they're getting into. I'd imagine the CTS-V and M5 to have the same general longevity, but each repair item on the BMW *will* cost more, sometimes quite a lot more. This will weed out a lot of the cars like the 528s, 530s, etc, as putting a tranny in a 10-year old midrange 5-series probably isn't worth it to the type of person who buys one of those, so the car rightfully goes to the scrap heap. But take the guy who pays $20k for the M5, even if he can't afford to fix it, someone will scoop it up for a significant discount, as the thing is definitely worth getting back on the road. Unless the car is wrecked or beat all to hell, //M cars are usually kept going, as they are dramatically more rare than the usual BMW.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I think the 'brand whore' comments are pretty childish. Who really thinks that someone shopping for cars at this performance level is going to say to themselves, 'Yeah, this car drives better, is built better, looks better, but I'm going for the one with the cooler badge.'. This sort of comment just screams of immaturity or like a class war clarion call, like 'real men buy cheap fast cars, pussies buy exotics'. #

Basically I don't buy it. I know plenty of people with fast cars and most of them buy them for the car, the soul of the car, not to flash a keyring or brag. In fact the guys with the fast cars will be the last one in a group to pipe up about them...

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I think the 'brand whore' comments are pretty childish. Who really thinks that someone shopping for cars at this performance level is going to say to themselves, 'Yeah, this car drives better, is built better, looks better, but I'm going for the one with the cooler badge.'. This sort of comment just screams of immaturity or like a class war clarion call, like 'real men buy cheap fast cars, pussies buy exotics'. #

Basically I don't buy it. I know plenty of people with fast cars and most of them buy them for the car, the soul of the car, not to flash a keyring or brag. In fact the guys with the fast cars will be the last one in a group to pipe up about them...

Define "soul".

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I think the 'brand whore' comments are pretty childish. Who really thinks that someone shopping for cars at this performance level is going to say to themselves, 'Yeah, this car drives better, is built better, looks better, but I'm going for the one with the cooler badge.'. This sort of comment just screams of immaturity or like a class war clarion call, like 'real men buy cheap fast cars, pussies buy exotics'. #

Basically I don't buy it. I know plenty of people with fast cars and most of them buy them for the car, the soul of the car, not to flash a keyring or brag. In fact the guys with the fast cars will be the last one in a group to pipe up about them...

Yep, there's a definite place for both of these icons.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I think the 'brand whore' comments are pretty childish. Who really thinks that someone shopping for cars at this performance level is going to say to themselves, 'Yeah, this car drives better, is built better, looks better, but I'm going for the one with the cooler badge.'. This sort of comment just screams of immaturity or like a class war clarion call, like 'real men buy cheap fast cars, pussies buy exotics'. #

Basically I don't buy it. I know plenty of people with fast cars and most of them buy them for the car, the soul of the car, not to flash a keyring or brag. In fact the guys with the fast cars will be the last one in a group to pipe up about them...

Define "soul".

Haha, are you serious?

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: swtethan
cts-v, cheaper, faster, better mpg, better warranty, lower rpm @ cruising,

Cheaper to maintain, cheaper to modify, far easier to get any meaningful improvement in power, etc.

I'd be tempted to trade the wife's E60 M5 in for a CTS-V.

 

[thegimp03]

Originally posted by: JDub02
If someone else is paying, M5 all the way. If I'm paying (hypothetically, since I wouldn't actually pay for either), then it's the CTS-V hands-down. You just can't make the argument for the M5 over the CTS-V unless you're a brand whore.

Agreed, but in the area I live in, it seems like a lot of drug dealer types drive the black CTS-Vs with black tinted windows and chrome wheels.

 

[KentState]

After taking in my CTS to the dealer after someone rear ended me on my morning commute, I checked out the CTS-V in person and was really impressed by the look. The look is very muscular in how an Audi looks pretty sharp in regular trim, but even more so in S or R version.

BTW, don't be fooled into thinking that Cadillac's are much cheaper to repair. The parts are more expensive and just unique enough that they are different from the standard GM flare.

 

[DVad3r]

I saw a CTS-V and sat in it at the dealer, really nice car. I would get one if not for the fact that GM is having issues. And wasn't the GM high performance division cut? That means no more research and development for current V models? Not a safe buy to me atm, BMW it is for now 🙂

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I think the 'brand whore' comments are pretty childish. Who really thinks that someone shopping for cars at this performance level is going to say to themselves, 'Yeah, this car drives better, is built better, looks better, but I'm going for the one with the cooler badge.'. This sort of comment just screams of immaturity or like a class war clarion call, like 'real men buy cheap fast cars, pussies buy exotics'. #

Basically I don't buy it. I know plenty of people with fast cars and most of them buy them for the car, the soul of the car, not to flash a keyring or brag. In fact the guys with the fast cars will be the last one in a group to pipe up about them...

Define "soul".

Haha, are you serious?

Uh yes? If the car is good, it's good. Soul is just another word to justify that extra $30k.

 

[punjabiplaya]

http://www.topgear.com/us/feat...exiles-on-main-street/

more

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Neither.

BMW M3 sedan please:

Space Gray Metallic
Fox Red Novillo Leather
Blue-gray Brushed Aluminium Trim
Cold Weather Package
Premium Package
19" Forged and polished Double Spoke wheels (Style 220M)
Electronic Damping Control
Moonroof
Park Distance Control (rear only)

(6-Speed MT and NO iDrive/NAV)

Total: $62,825

I'd go one step beyond, screw the e92. Here's what I'd do:

e46 M3 coupe with an e92 transplant, boosted. (Of course your usual cosmetic upgrades apply here too)

Done!

It'd be faster, and I'd enjoy it a lot more than both of those can ever please me.

 

[Kadarin]

Even if you come up with technical reasons as to why the CTS-V is a better car (if it is), you simply can't change the fact that it is hideous.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Even if you come up with technical reasons as to why the CTS-V is a better car (if it is), you simply can't change the fact that it is hideous.

It's not my cup of tea either but it's performance sure does make up for it.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Saw a CTS-V yesterday at a stoplight. That car looked mean. It wasn't in black though (silver). I've seen a couple of M5s and they do not have the presence the CTS-V has.

Disagree almost entirely. The CTS-V looks pretty ugly, while the M5 is a little less ugly, it still has presence. I want the next gen ones to come out already, I hear they'll be a V8 twin turbo, but some people are saying a twin turbo V10 :shocked:

It'll be rubbish to have a V8 TT in the next gen M5. You want a beasty V10. The M3 now has a V8 but yeah it's not TT.

It'll be interesting to see what it looks like!

Mate has a E39 M5, it's SAVAGE. Just puals and pulls. Very cool, but it does feel like a bit of a fatty on the roads though (duh!).

Koing

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Even if you come up with technical reasons as to why the CTS-V is a better car (if it is), you simply can't change the fact that it is hideous.

Uh oh! It seems like the new BMW driver here is placing his opinions as facts now. Say it isn't so!

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Even if you come up with technical reasons as to why the CTS-V is a better car (if it is), you simply can't change the fact that it is hideous.

I think the new CTS looks great. I liked the last gen CTS, but this new one looks far better.