2007 Infiniti G35 vs 2008 Cadillac CTS price

Maybe Brian would have appreciated the automatic version more throughout the LT test. I agree though, it is great value because you get a lot for a little. A 330 can't compete with it's performance, and a 335, while matching the performance, is $10,000 more

The G35 is definitely the value king of this segment.

Actually the CTS is more of a competitor to the M35 than G35.

The CTS is about as much of a competitor to the M35 as it is to the G35. The G is substantially bigger inside than the 3-series and very comparable to the CTS interior space-wise.
 
As for exterior size, the CTS is more in line with the M35/45.

Louiswel, I've never sat in the back of a 3-series, but if it's smaller than a G, that's insane. I love the G35, and almost bought one, but I needed a family car, and the very small backseat killed the deal for me. I crushed the salesman behind me when I adjusted the drivers seat.

The G is cheaper than most of the top tier players in this class. No news there. If you want the most performance for your buck its hard to beat. The CTS has more features and a better interior however. There is no comparison after sitting in both cars from a design and materials perspective.

just drove a G35x this past weekend, and had driven a 335xi each weekend for a month before. Have to say, the current-gen 3 series appears to have a ton more space in the backseat, at least compared to the last gen.
 
That being said, the G35x was far better but still not to my satisfaction. It was amusing to go back nearly all the way (I have long legs) and watch the salesman, who had been claiming "I've got tons of space" scramble to either switch sides or cross his legs. Either way, both cars are only truly enjoyable from the driver's seat

The G35 is a great car (especially now that the shifter and clutch have apparently been somewhat fixed) but like the Accord, for all its greatness I just can't bring myself to love it due to styling that I find unattractive. I don't know why, but I just can't get on board with Infiniti styling.

Does the CTS really have a ton more features? It looks better no question.

I generally appreciate the styling of Infiniti's current line, except for the tail end of the M, which....I don't even consider ugly...It's just really jarring and frightening.
 
That said, I'm really surprised by the price difference between these two cars. I love the new CTS, but a $9000.00 difference is pretty severe.

I always found the interiors of 3 series to be alarmingly small, both in front and back.
 
I agree the CTS is much better looking then the G. I've just never quite "gotten" the G styling.

Their CTS is fully loaded. A loaded G35 is about $41k. A loaded C350 or 335i is even more expensive than the CTS.
 
CTS has larger HD, pop up nav screen with larger screen, light pipes, interior ambient LED lights, power tilt telescope, remote start, cooled seats, onstar, stitching on the dash, ability to record live radio, 6 speed auto and likely some other things I am forgetting.
 
The G and M are too narrow. The front end of the G is totally dull. The G35 looks terrible with the too small 17" wheels and the greenhouse is too high. Those the issues I have with the styling. Its not a bad looking car but the CTS and 3 series look much better.

"Nice job, Infiniti. Now get the gear knob to stop vibrating!"
 
And while your at it, try and increase the less than stellar gas mileage (yeah, yeah; I know it's nitpicking, but it's a major concern for me.....)

1487- as much as you hate people nitpicking GM, I'm surprised to see you take a nitpicking standpoint to defend the CTS. And as valid as some of your points are, the $9000 price differential remains and the point that the CTS is not $9k better than the G35 likely remains despite the points you make.
 
As for the G - I sure hope that Infiniti introduces a G37 sedan alongside the G35 with more power and an uplevel interior package similar to what's offered on the EX. That car could be priced more in line with other offerings in the segment, and would allow the M35 to be phased out in favor of a more-expensive, more luxuriously-appointed and more comprehensively-equipped M37. It'd be an important step towards moving up the profit totem pole for Infiniti.

Why didn't the writer compare Civic SI sedan and G35 price after adding a few extra gadgets to Civic SI?
The CTS has $10K options including extra cost red paint. G35 doesn't have options such as ventilated seat, remote start, and more. It's possible to configure CTS to match price and option to G35. It's true that G35 is bargain, but not a good looking car.

Why not comparing Civic Si to the G35 you asked? Because the Si can't spank the G35 in performance like the way G35 can to the CTS.
 
Can you come up with anything more than the HD screen and ventilated seat that the CTS has but not the G35? How about the G35 has keyless entry and start STANDARD that you forgot to mention?

Funny, I was under the impression that the CTS was supposed to be a better car than the competition with more luxury goodies standard for less money. I know that the G35 might not have all of the equipment of the CTS, but it does seem like a bargain. Sure the CTS is cheaper than the Europeans, but it really should be since GM has a huge currency advantage to exploit and less warranty expenditures (Mercs and BMW's break more and BMW has full servicing to comply with the law) about which to worry. Infiniti offers 3 drive-line options (6m, 5a, and AWD 5a) all of which all share an engine, but the CTS has two engines (more overseas and a V8 coming) which is just dumb. There is no need for the non-DI model if the DI engine is more powerful and efficient at marginally greater cost (which through greater economies of scale can be overcome). Infiniti also makes options packages logical and simple, and it seems the GM is copying the Germans and not the Japanese on how to compete in the Marketplace. The CTS maybe a great car, but it is a stupid decision to buy one at that price with that much depreciation. GM could sell as many as they could build if they priced the car at or below the price of the G35. The new interior and chassis revisions can't cost that much, the G35 got a similar redo and kept the price inline even with a falling dollar. Even if there is a healthcare burden (there isn't due to lower corporate income tax), then the Domestic manufactures still can exploit the weak dollar to undercut the Imports. Price above the market (then having to put rebates on the hood to correct this) and you'll sell fewer cars.

I'm biased because I own a 2008 G35xS...but there is simply no better sport sedan value...considering I bought the S package version of the G35x right when the package came out AND still paid dealer invoice...I traded a 2006 A4 S-line Quattro 3.2 with EVERY option except nav and it doesn't stack up to the truly useable features of the G...or the performance...the G is one torquetastic BEAST! I love this car!

Along with the aforementioned significant feature advantages the new CTS has over the G35, the CTS, despite being larger, heavier, and having a higher drag coefficient and a larger, torquier engine, still gets better fuel economy than the G35 -- and does so on regular fuel, while the G35 requires premium.
  
Also not mentioned: the new CTS has standard turn-by-turn navigation, standard Bose audio system, an available 5.1 audio system with Dolby Digital/DTS (and DVD Video playback while in Park) better available iPod integration, available fold-down rear seats, a completely transparent keyless access system (the G35 still requires that you press a button to lock the car while the CTS can be set to automatically lock when you walk away, keeping you from ever having to wonder whether you locked your car or not), a 4-mode stability control system, an oil-life monitoring system, better adjustability for the front passenger seat (and substantially more comfortable seats, IMO), a more sophisticated tire pressure monitoring system with exact tire pressure display for each tire, remote vehicle diagnostics, available heated windshield washer fluid to melt ice, UltraView sunroof with over 70% of the roof area in glass, available RainSense wipers, a Northstar-esque "limp-home" mode that can shut down half the cylinders and swap between the two banks if the engine starts to overheat, standard heated side mirrors, a FAR quieter interior, and, yes, substantially more back seat room.
 
Yes, the G35 is less expensive. But an equally pointless comparison would be that It's less expensive than a BMW 535i too (which the CTS comes within 0.5" of in every dimension).

I really like the G35 a lot and this just makes me like the car more. It has been an underdog from the get go and has proved every point it has ever tried to make. People can say what they want about the looks but no one can deny that the G35 isn't a heck of a lot more fun to drive than the CTS. At the end of the day that is what is most important in this segment. The CTS is fine and all, but the G35 speaks to you on a deeper, more emotional level. The G35 is a real driver's car, and there just aren't enough of those anymore.

mercedesfan,
 
No one will deny that the G35 is more fun to drive? I'll deny it all day every day. The G35 has a choice of two sub-par transmissions (a manual that has all the problems that Edmunds has catalogued and an automatic that shifts constantly but never predictably), an engine note that sounds like a garbage disposal, an awful stability control system that completely shuts down the power to the car at the merest hint of slip (an incredibly dangerous feature when one is turning left across traffic, and one that I have never experienced with any other make besides Infiniti), electronic throttle response that's never completely predictable, and a suspension tuning that has neither as predictable handling (every single person who I've seen get into a CTS could drive it like a pro as soon as they sat down, while the G35 always requires an adjustment period), or as incredible of a ride as *any* of the three available CTS suspensions. And yes, I've driven a new G35 almost 1K miles and a couple of different new CTS's for a total of about 3K miles.
 
I would drive (and have driven) a stripped-down rental edition new CTS before I'd drive a new G35 of any equipment level.

The G35/37 are phenomenal bargains. Check out the price of an IS350 for comparison. Not sure how this car relates to the CTS. They just seem like different cars that appeal to very different folks.
 
Doug, that's funny that you've never gotten the G style. I've never gotten the Caddy style (that includes all models.)

Saying "G35" rolls off my tongue far sexier than "CTS." "CTS" sounds like I'm angry and spitting at someone.
 
The G35's lines are smooth and sensuous compared to the businesslike crisp and folded CTS.
 
Therefore, I'd buy the G35 solely on those judgments.
 
I don't care about the techno-gobbly gook. If a car speaks to me, I'll get it....if I had the money.
 
I guess I'm not a car enthusiast then huh?

The G35 is so inexpensive because it's a filthy polluter, and a 5mph bump into a pole??????????? 10 THOUSAND DOLLARS.
 
Let's not get started on that V6 vibrator, coffee grinder all in one, and cheap interior.

"1487- as much as you hate people nitpicking GM, I'm surprised to see you take a nitpicking standpoint to defend the CTS. And as valid as some of your points are, the $9000 price differential remains and the point that the CTS is not $9k better than the G35 likely remains despite the points you make. "
 
Are the cars comparably equipped? NO. Since they are not its silly to say there is a $9k difference between the two cars. That is common sense. I dont know how else to make such a simple point. Their CTS is loaded and the G35 is not. The real difference between the two cars with all the options is closer to $6k. In terms of BASE PRICE the CTS is about the same price as the G35.

"Can you come up with anything more than the HD screen and ventilated seat that the CTS has but not the G35? How about the G35 has keyless entry and start STANDARD that you forgot to mention?"
 
If you bother to read before going on the offensive you would have noted that I named at least half dozen features the CTS has that the G35 lacks.
 
If you believe the G35 "spanks" the CTS in performance you are delusional. The G35 is about .5 secs faster to 60 and through the 1/4 mile but aside from that the two cars have similar performance. Only the CTS gives you that performance with more refinement and a superior interior. We understand you hate anything GM makes, but try to make your arguments somewhat rational. I know I'm asking a lot of you.

"People can say what they want about the looks but no one can deny that the G35 isn't a heck of a lot more fun to drive than the CTS. "
 
Actually anyone who has driven both cars could easily dispute what you said. Where do you get this stuff? Have you read anything about the CTS? everything I have read suggests the car is as fun to drive as anything of similar size in this class. Since you are speaking with such authority I will assume you have driven the new CTS.

"The G35's lines are smooth and sensuous compared to the businesslike crisp and folded CTS. "
 
If you are a fan of staid Japanese car design the G35 will appeal to you. As a fan of domestic and EUropean design I find the G35 to be stale. The front end has no character whatsoever as is the case with 90% of Japanese cars sold today. The clearance between the fenders and tires on the base car is more Buick than BMW and this takes away from the sportiness of the profile view. Curves and blob-like shapes have been done to death in auto design. The G35 isn't ugly, but its more of the same. The CTS stands out in any crowd, period. Cadillac is one of the few brands not afraid to have a straight surface on its cars.

Wow, I really didn't expect to get attacked for my post. 1487, no I have not driven a CTS, but we have clearly interpreted the articles we read in very different ways. From what I have read I got the general idea that the CTS is a really good performance car "for its size". The G35 on the other hand was heralded as an oustanding performance car in general. Having driven a G35 around a track, on back roads, and in daily driving situations I can attest to the greatness that is the G35.
 
But really, why attack me? I stated an opinion. I really don't like the CTS. There it is. My opinion cannot be wrong because it is just opinion. It is how I feel after being around the car. I would never attack you for liking the CTS.

"But really, why attack me? I stated an opinion. I really don't like the CTS. There it is. My opinion cannot be wrong because it is just opinion. It is how I feel after being around the car. I would never attack you for liking the CTS."
 
Of course you dont like the CTS which explains your initial comment. You have a right to not like the car but to make false assertions about its handling simply because you don't care for the car is uncalled for. The G35 and CTS are about the same size, the true difference is in mass. The CTS is 300lbs heavier but that weight doesn't seem to have much of an impact on handling. The CTS is a great handling car for a midsizer, period. Same can be said for the G35. If you have not read up on the CTS and have not driven one I am lost as to how you have discerned that the G35 is clearly a superior vehicle in the handling department. The CTS records nearly .9gs on the skidpad which is as good or better than what I've seen from the G35. That, along with subjective praise from auto writers tells me the CTS is every bit as capable as the G.

"That, along with subjective praise from auto writers tells me the CTS is every bit as capable as the G."
 
That's not what I read.
 
I agree with the other poster that the impression I got from all the reviews is that the CTS is a good handling car for its size and decent in its class but the G35 on the other hand is almost the benchmark of the segment.
 
The only way to settle this is bringing both the CTS and G35 to track day!!

"I agree with the other poster that the impression I got from all the reviews is that the CTS is a good handling car for its size and decent in its class but the G35 on the other hand is almost the benchmark of the segment. "
 
Show us where you saw that. CTS made 10best but G35 did not. That kind of indicates to me that the CTS is seen as the better car by C&D. The CTS came in 3rd in a recent test and they said it was primarily due to the manual transmission, not the handling. The g35's undeniable advantage is in price, not handling. This is why it beat the CTS and 335i in the IL comparo last year. I have read nothing that indicates the G35 is a clearly superior car handling wise when matched up vs the CTS. again, if you have an article to back your statement please share with us.

Dude, seriouly, you can spin it anyway you want but your "the CTS handles as good as the G35" is just not going to fly around here.
 
PERIOD!

"Dude, seriouly, you can spin it anyway you want but your "the CTS handles as good as the G35" is just not going to fly around here.
  
PREIOD!"
 
the facts remain the same. Typing in all caps doesn't change anything. You have no proof (as usual) and now you are upset. I'm only concerned with whats true and untrue, not what's "going to fly around here".

mercedesfan,
 
LOL, "for its size"? Again, the CTS is within 0.5" of the BMW 5-series (the gold standard for sports sedans for at least the past decade) in every dimension, so to say the new CTS handles well for its size is spectacularly high praise. And since you have admitted never having driven a CTS, even the prior CTS was universally lauded for its driving dynamics, just not for its interior design. The new CTS is a completely no-compromises, best-in-class car, as evidenced by the fact that, yes, it did replace the G35 on C&D's 10 Best list. The G35 may be a good car for the price, but the CTS is the better car in every regard save for off-the-line acceleration.

"but the CTS is the better car in every regard save for off-the-line acceleration."
 
You got facts to back that up or should there be an "IMO" at the end of that sentence?
 
"I'm only concerned with whats true and untrue"
 
I am glad to hear that. Then please provide some cold hard fact that shows the CTS is a better handler and has better driving dynamics than the G35. Let me give you a hint: Any comparo that involved the G35 and CTS would do.

louiswei, have you driven both cars in order to provide an informed opinion otherwise? I've driven both extensively. As has C&D, and they agree with me. I'm not sure what part of dumping the G35 off the 10 Best list in favor of the CTS you don't understand.
 
And BTW, only people who don't have the experience to subjectively assess driving quality will rate one car over another based on "facts" (I assume you mean specs -- i.e., why car magazines will often rate BMWs over vehicles that spec better on paper, and why C&D dumped the G35 off their 10-best list and replaced it with the CTS, despite the CTS being more expensive and not being quite as quick off the line).
 
In fact, the phenomenon of a car being subjectively comparatively amazing to drive despite not having astonishing specs should be known as The Miata Principle.
 
Buying a car based on how it specs is every bit as silly as buying a camera based on megapixels.

First of all, I don't know about you but I'll definitely get the camera with 8.1 MP over the one with 6...
 
Second, did C&D bump the G35 off the 10-best list because it "performs" worse than the CTS? Maybe overall the CTS is a better car with more luxurious touch and better gadgets but that's not what I am arguing here. What I am saying is that based on the "professional reviews and comparos" the CTS is not a better performer than the G35.
 
Last but not least, to answer your question, no I haven't driven the CTS yet but I had butt times in both the current and last gen G35S.

louiswei,
 
First, when has Car & Driver (of all magazines) given a gadget-ier car honors over a car that they preferred to drive? I can't think of a single time in history.
 
Second:
"I don't know about you but I'll definitely get the camera with 8.1 MP over the one with 6..."
 
Somehow that doesn't surprise me.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html
 
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
 
http://www.megapixelmyth.com/
 
I'll take the camera that takes better pictures. And I rest my case.

Allow me to inject some rationality into this argument. Driving dynamics are highly subjective and how one responds to them is dependent upon preferences. To some, the CTS' composure and refined nature at the limit make it a standout. It gives the Caddy the feeling of a much more expensive (aka European) car. To others, the G35's razor sharp precision and lack of refinement make it a blast in the same vein as a sports car. Both cars return very similar performance numbers, but give their drivers very different feelings.
 
I loved driving my friend's G35. I imagine I would also enjoy driving the CTS because of its European flair. At the end of the day both perform admirably and it will depend on who you ask as to which performs "better".

wow.
can you imagine if we all met, and had a discussion about these blogs ?
now THAT would be interesting.
anyone else agree ?

mercedesfan, your comments regarding driving dynamics are on the money, with the exception of one detail: drive a CTS back to back with a BMW (especially one with run-flat tires) or an Audi, and you'll no longer believe that the Europeans set the benchmark for refinement. The CTS is THAT good, and you really do have to drive it to believe it. It removes every last trace of crash-through and harshness from road irregularities of any size (note that this is not the same as completely smothering them like Cadillacs of old, or, say, the Lexus LS460), which in and of itself is not a particularly noteworthy accomplishment, but it does it with such grace (lack of float, dive, roll, squat) that the result is nothing short of astonishing. I literally can't remember the last time I was so impressed with a suspension (with the possible exception of the Mazda RX-8).

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6147
  
"'The chassis is not quite as agile-feeling as the G35's,' noted Bornhop, 'but it needs to make no apologies on a twisty road, which is an amazing thing to say about a Cadillac.'"
  
"In transitions, it more seamlessly flows from one corner to the next, in a way the CTS approaches but can't quite match."
  
"'More willing to change direction at a moment's notice...its (G35) handling has no real vices,' opined Bornhop."

As a potential buyer, I've driven the both cars. (So I maybe biased, but not as much as someone in this blog.) I agree with most of professional comparison test reviews. G35 performance is better than CTS, but CTS offers better ride quality, quiet cabin, and rich feel. G35 gave me more straight line power but also artificially managed feel where I felt more directly attached to CTS though it's definitely heavy. The bottom line is G35 (Having started as performance sedan Skyline in Japan)is a performance car with luxury. CTS is a luxury car with performance. If you compare the invoice prices, the difference is about $7k and It's the matter of personal preference. I prefer better features and style over slightly better performance with 7k because, living in California, cooled seat and remote start features are much more valuable than .5 sec faster acceleration in traffic and rising gas price. Do I really want performance for money? Then I'll think about Civic SI, Mazdaspeed 3 or Lancer Evo X.

"wow.
can you imagine if we all met, and had a discussion about these blogs ?
now THAT would be interesting"
  
Paper headline next day: IL blogers meet, chaos ensues.
  
The story continues: Several philadelphians armed with nothing but vitriol incite mass riots...
  
;-)

I guess it all comes down to personal preference as each car mentioned above lays down similar performance numbers yet delivers that performance in different ways.
 
Both the CTS and G35 are great cars and both offer different characteristics, different levels of refinement, different levels of performance, different levels of driver feedback, and different levels of luxury.
 
Personally (this is MY opinion), BMW still offers the best combination of refinement, performance and luxury.

Carfreak-- It would be a disaster and here's why. A lot of people are entrenched in ther ideas and conceptions about automakers and of other bloggers here. There are also people here that make sure that their opinion overrides others and nullify other's opinions just because they don't have any "enthusiast" credentials or numbers backing it up. Basically, the enthusiasts would run the common people out of the room because they are "biased" and "uninformed."
 
By the way, I wonder how many female bloggers there are here. Would it be a room of all men?

altimadude00,
  
wanna know a secret ?
i'm only 13 years-old.
so i think it would pretty interesting to see everyone's face when they realize a 13 year-old reads this website and comments.
but i'm not sure how many female bloggers there are..
we will just have to wait until we all gather together in a room.
;)
  
and lvranger,
that's pretty funny.
:D

if we all meet, all the cars would break down.
 
the import guys would scream the domestics suck. While the domestic guys would scream, your cars suck to.
 
no one would know about vw though, it would have electrical problems and not start :-p

I wonder if everyone will be this uptight after April 15th?
 
I haven't driven the current CTS, but I did have the pleasure of driving a CTS-V. I won't try to discern how the new generation compares to the last, but I can provide some insight. The CTS-V was a great car and a real spark for Cadillac. The power was awesome (too much for the chassis, imo) and it still rode like a luxury car (albeit a lot firmer). Downsizing to a V6 is the best thing Caddy could have done. The V8 was too torquey for the rear end. The front tires gripped well but the rears couldn't keep up.
 
I've ridden in a G35, but I've never driven one, so I'll keep those comments to myself.
 
====
 
If IL bloggers got together, we'd need boxing gloves. Or Nerf toys.

"I am glad to hear that. Then please provide some cold hard fact that shows the CTS is a better handler and has better driving dynamics than the G35. Let me give you a hint: Any comparo that involved the G35 and CTS would do."
 
You are so angry that you are confusing yourself. I never said the CTS was a better handling car, I disputed the comment about the G35 clearly being a better handling car. I am arguing that the CTS is as capable as the G35. Rankings in a comparison test take many factors into account. In C&D the CTS came in third because they hated the manual transmission, not because of handling deficiences. They clearly stated the styling and interior design was top notch as was the handling. Its hard for the CTS to beat the G35 when price is considered. If it was compared to the more expensive M35 or 535 it's price would not be a handicap. Since you are certain that the G has a definitive handling advantage why don't you provide some quotes to back that up.

"Personally (this is MY opinion), BMW still offers the best combination of refinement, performance and luxury."
 
As long as you are willing to pay top dollar. The 535 is more expensive than the CTS in the same way the CTS is more than the G35.
 
The G35 has been criticized (in both generations) for lacking refinement. While some may argue that having a little more sound and vibration adds to the excitement I think we need to remember than we are talking luxury cars and not sports compacts. I cant see engine noise and vibration being seen as nice in the CTS so I don't think its something the G35 should be given a pass on. The bottom line is the G35 is so cheap that its hard to rank it below the CTS in a comparo even if it is less refined and that is Infinitis strategy. If you want the most gadgets and performance for your money the G35 is your car. If you think it makes the CTS looks expensives try comparing it to German cars.

You want quotes? Here ya go...
 
"Put simply, the 2007 Infiniti G35 wins this test because it's outstanding to drive and it gives you the most car for your money"
 
"The G's five-speed tranny not only responds quickest to the throttle, but also has the sharpest, most aggressive gearchanges (with rev-matched downshifts) of any automatic we've ever driven"
 
"But driven with a purpose, the Infiniti is the most capable car in this test when it comes to handling"
 
"Our track numbers confirm this with a best-in-test performance on the skid pad with a 0.89g mark and in the slalom with a 69.4-mph mark"
 
Oh and by the way, did someone say that the CTS is almost 5-series size but not the G35?
 
"This is the most spacious car in this test with 99.0 cubic feet of passenger volume, rear-seat legroom measures 34.7 inches and rear-seat headroom is 37.7 inches"
 
Looks like we can put that argument to rest for a while...
 
PS. The cars presented in this comparo are: 335i, G35, CTS DI, IS350 and C350.
 
Source: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=123235

"Looks like we can put that argument to rest for a while... "
 
I'm sure thats what you think. Your quotes didn't adress your claims that the G35 was prounounced a clearly superior car in the handling department. Considering the weight advantage it has over the CTS it is likely that some drivers feel it handles better but the true advantage it offers is value. The quotes prove that the G35 offers the most sports sedan for your money which is what I have said about 3 times thus far. Nothing new there. Also, no one ever said the CTS wasn't close to the size of the G35. What has been said is that the CTS is closer to the size of the 5 series and shouldnt be compared to the 3 series. The CTS and G35 are larger than the 3 series. when people justify the price premiums of German vehicles they talk about the "feel", refinement and interior quality that is lacking on cheaper Japanese competitors. The same applies here to the CTS vs the G35. There is nothing wrong with the G but the CTS is simply a more expensive car that feels more expensive. Close the doors on both cars and you will see what I mean.

Are you blind?
 
"But driven with a purpose, the Infiniti is the most capable car in this test when it comes to handling"
  
"Our track numbers confirm this with a best-in-test performance on the skid pad with a 0.89g mark and in the slalom with a 69.4-mph mark"
 
If the above 2 quotes didn't tell you that the G35 is the superior car in performance then I don't know what will.
 
If the CTS is closer to the 5-series in size then according to that comparo the G35 is even closer. Hence we shouldn't compare the G35 to the 3-series as well right?
 
Face it, the G35 is about the same size (with a bigger interior) as the CTS but offers better performance. Spin it anyway you want that you just can't spin the facts.

"If the CTS is closer to the 5-series in size then according to that comparo the G35 is even closer. Hence we shouldn't compare the G35 to the 3-series as well right? "
 
I dont have a problem with that but the G isnt handicapped by weight since it weighs about the same as the 335i in spite of being larger. If you want to compare cars based on interior volumes the 3 shouldnt be compared with the G or CTS.
 
"Face it, the G35 is about the same size (with a bigger interior) as the CTS but offers better performance. Spin it anyway you want that you just can't spin the facts."
 
The fact of the matter is that ONE comparo said the G was the best handling car of that group. C&D believes the 3 series is the best handling of that group. If the G has a small handling advantage it is at the expense of ride quality and refinement and many would not be comfortable with that compromise. The facts are that the G has a small acceleration and absolute handling advtantage that wouldn't be noticeable to most drivers and the CTS has a styling, refinement, equipment, warranty and interior quality advantage that would be noticed by any driver. If I could not afford a CTS I may well consider a G35.

Okay, then the question is, why does the CTS weigh so much more than the G35 while the two are so close in size?
 
At the end of the day it's whatever floats your boat. For better handling with a luxurious value it's the G35. For a luxury sedan with all the gizmos then it's the CTS.

The CTS weighs more because its on a more rigid chassis. Nissans are always lighter than American and German cars of similar size. You would have to ask them how they achieve those weight savings. The 5 series is a good 200lbs more than the G35 in spite of being similar size. I can tell you that the doors on the G35 feel like they belong on a Sentra while the doors on the CTS sound like they came from a Benz. I would assume lack of sound deadening also contributes to the G35s reputation for being a little loud and unrefined as well as reducing the cars weight.
 
BTW, the G35 RWD is nearly $42k with all the goodies. So much for the $9k price difference that started this whole conversation. Seems like $4k to me. Less than that when you factor in the features on the CTS that arent on the G35.

Saw this yesterday and had to take a pic... a caddy with a vinyl roof:
 

 
People still do this? Wasn't this a phase from the 70s and 80s? The driver had to be about 50 which means she was in her 20s/30s when this was popular. Did she think it was cool then?

I love 1487 for the simple fact that you guys just cannot get a hold of him.
 
Every time someone comes in with an emotional (and heavily loaded) assertion about an American car; he just sails in with the facts and this makes a thread blow up.
 
You're doing yeoman service my friend.
 
Let us all get this straight:
 
In some circles, social insecurities dictate that one should not buy anything domestic. That is the animus that drives many commenters here. Period.
 
So let us not pretend otherwise shall we?
 
(Who am I kidding? Do what you like. Who am I to stand in the way of some people's psychological needs.)
 
I will now sit back and wait for the obligatory (desperately pleading) argument that somehow, someway there is something not right about this or that domestic model. I won't even bother with a disclaimer (about whether or not I own a domestic or not). Many of you are so predictable and so old. Why not have another go at assumptions.

"In some circles, social insecurities dictate that one should not buy anything domestic. That is the animus that drives many commenters here. Period. "
 
exactly. Such a simple truth but one that is rarely uttered around here. When will folks stop acting like their disinterest in driving a non-import is strictly based on objective measures? If GM built the perfect car most of these critics wouldn't give a chance because of the manufacturer.