Our Mercedes C300 Sport vs. Our Cadillac CTS

Isn't your "List of Features" just dependent on what packages you get? I didn't think those were standard on the CTS...but I could be wrong.

I'm not sure that I agree about the styling. Both cars are quite handsome in my opinion, but beyond that, the Caddy wins for me pretty much hands down. Plus, the CTS strikes me as a better value from a size standpoint.

I've not driven either, but I prefer the CTS, from a looks and features standpoint. I was recently in the new C-Class and I thought the interior was fine with durable and classy materials, however, the CTS interior is superior with more attention to detail and style.

I've driven a C300 and it was not to my liking, though that came right after a drive in a 335i and a 135i. Since I haven't driven a CTS, I'd have to say that I'm indifferent. However, since the CTS is supposedly one of the best cars from Detroit recently, I'd give it a shot.

Still makes me scratch my head that every Benz sold here in America doesn't have standard heated seats. Not that everyone needs them, but I thought that pretty much any premium/luxury car had them as standard or in an option package that was almost impossible to avoid. In America MB is marketed as luxury and nothing else. It's not like we have the A class here, although I have seen a few of them in Metro Detroit that have migrated over from Canada. (Fugly)

EDIT **** B Class

I don't think it's fair to factor in features/content seeing as though the CTS is loaded while the C has fewer options and the smaller engines. I like the C class but the interior design still looks to old school. I've never liked MB interiors and this one is no different. I'm sure it's more functional that other MB layouts but it's too dark and drab. The CTS is a quite a big larger than the C which is a benefit in my book since I get good use out of a rear seat.

audisport - I am deciding between a few different cars, C-Class, A4, and CTS included. During my research (and I'm still early on), it seems like none of these cars have standard heated seats. Am I incorrect on this? I believe the C has them in the P1 package (with Sat Radio), Audi has them with the Premium Package (or Premium Plus, can't remember), and I know the CTS has them because of the review above. Also, what's the B Class?

Some may find this hard to believe given my username, but I would have a really hard time deciding between the two. I love everything about the CTS except for the way it looks, and I never put too much emphasis on exterior design. Likewise, I love everything about the C-Class except for the way the interior looks, but again that is something I could overlook. In the end if I was going to get a car this small I would probably have to go with the better ride and more comfortable seats because of the highway driving I do, thus the C300.

As an aside I think durability is actually a wash Scott. The Benz had a broken moonroof sunshade and the Caddy had broken power windows. Both are minor issues and neither would prevent me from buying either car.

C300 because it doesn't have squeaks and rattles.

I would go with the Mercedes simply because the nearly twenty-year old Mercedes I drive now doesn't have any squeaks or rattles, and feels solid as a rock. Are there any nearly 20year old Cadillacs still running? I know I know GM has improved their quality and Benz has unimproved theirs but still; 123 years of making some of the finest automobiles in the world vs. 101 years of parts bins, badge engineering, and cost cutting.

If you couldn't tell by my screen name, I am a fan of the Cadillac--and a current owner of a twin to the Edmund's LT car. In my case, I hated my '07 IS350 and cross-shopped the Caddy against the C350, 335I, and G35. In the end I leased the CTS. For me, it came down to the car I most enjoyed driving. Compared to my IS, the CTS almost has a personality-the Lexus might as well have been my dishwasher. I have nothing against the cars I didnt choose--in fact I was very impressed with all 3. The CTS just had "it" for me. Thus far, I have had zero problems--and look forward to many more Caddys in my future--and no, I am not 60 years old. I'm 31.

I'd hardly say that Cadillac has had 101 years of parts bin cars or badge engineering. I sure as heck would take a 1959 Cadillac over a 1959 Merc.

Meaning Mercedes, not Mercury, Ford fans.

Can we have the edit feature back, please? If we all get together and pitch in ten bucks to pay off Karl or something can we restore its honor to site?

It would be a toss-up for me. If you gave me either one I'd sell and buy something with RWD AND a clutch pedal.

Mercedes have always felt like old mans cars to me. Cadillacs did even more so in the past but not the CTS. Great car and an easy choice.

A CTS with the 6 speed manual.

slickersdrip I agree with you that during its golden age Cadillac was building cars that really set a standard for the world in terms of overall quality and innovation, but that still doesn't mean I would want one from that era. If I had a choice between a 1959 Cadillac Eldorado or a 1959 Mercedes-Benz 300SL (or 220S, or 220SE, etc) I'd go with the Benz.

The Cadillacs were finely constructed but ostentatious, slow, took a football field to come to a compelte stop, and couldn't round a corner if your life depended on it. Meanwhile Benzes from this time were known for their performance credentials and quality.

http://www.arabaruyasi.com/data/media/8/1959-Cadillac-Eldorado-1024.jpg

or

http://www.heritageclassics.com/mercedes/59red300sl2/A.jpg

BMW 335i Sport 6MT.

If I couldn't quite afford such perfection, I'd be happy to drive a BMW 328i Sport. Followed by the C300 Sport w/manual, G35 Sport 6MT, and then the Volkswagen CC 2.0T.

I'd never buy a Cadillac.

I can't believe people are still duped into buying a Mercedes for their "123 years of making the finest..."
Mercedes roundfiled their history and traded it for chintzy, sub-par quality to make a buck off that "history of making the finest cars"

the interior of the C class is dreadful. Mounds of black plastic that would make a Chrysler 300 proud. It's not a nice place to spend time nor is the car a standout in any way.
Yeah I put my weight on the doors like the commercial- too bad that isn't a job requirement of the car.

The CTS stands out. Exterior styling blows away the Merc. It's only flaw is the busy rear end treatment.

The CTS is an interesting choice. It's unique and distinctive w/ some real premium feel inside and out. I am not a CTS buyer but I can certainly see the appeal.

The C-class is an average choice in a market filled with far better alternatives whether you are looking for value, performance, economy, interior design, exterior design or all of the above.

-I like the size of the C300 better as the CTS is a bit large and heavy for my tastes.

-Exterior styling is close as like both. However I do prefer the understated and less blingy approach with the C300.

-Interior..no contest, CTS wins here.

-Features per dollar, CTS.

-Drivetrain, CTS.

I tend to prefer vehicles that are less common, and here in Orange County the sections in the auto trader for BMW and Mercedes are larger than for Honda. I haven't driven either one, but just from this perspective I would definitely check out the CTS.

cruiserhead, you nailed it. Mercedes took at least a 15-year break from making quality vehicles (a gradual decline that started with the unreliable tank they called the '91 S-class and peaked with the unmitigated disaster that was the original M-class, though their quality has been at least inching forward in the past few years).

GM may have taken even more time off, but GM got trashed for it while to some people MB still has the bizarre mystique of being infallible (this includes certain Edmunds staff that seem to actively ignore the C-class's worst-in-class interior).

Until the past few years, I've been pretty consistently turned off by GM vehicles, but I've known enough people who have been burned by enough cars from just about every manufacturer that I know not to rely on any brand's reputation. The CTS is, simply, an unadulterated knockout, and I'd much rather pay for style *and* substance over laurel-resting from a company whose engineers haven't quite yet managed to beat back their marketing and accounting departments.

FWIW, I've also been in a CTS for 6+ hours at a time and considered the seats to be utterly comfortable.

I'd take the Caddy over the Benz.

Guess I'm in the minority but I think the Caddy is ugly. I've been in a few as well and thought the interior was as poor as ever.

C300 for me. It's not the best car in the segment, but it's no contest vs the CTS for me.

Given the choice...I choose Infiniti G. Mercedes does nothing for me and the G37 eats the Caddy's lunch.

And people wonder why GM is in trouble. This is proof that it doesn't matter what kind of products they produce, once you're the dog house, there's no escape.

For me, it really depends. If I have the money to go all out, I'll take the Caddy. The base model looks really cheap and senior-citizen like. But if you get the upgraded rims, red exterior, and the 300+hp engine, the CTS is a beast.

But if I am only planning on dropping -$35,000, I would take the Benz because it looks better cheaper. That is most likely because all of them look the same considering the differences from the Sport and Luxury Model (I prefer the Luxury Looks).

But if I was planning on spending less than $35,000, I would get a base A4. That thing is gorgeous.

Sticking strictly to the criteria of CTS or C300, I'd probably go with the CTS.
Outside of that, I'd take a 328i sport package, six-speed manual.

I don't think the base A4 comes with the LED day-time running lights. Other than those lights, I'd have a hard time telling the difference between a new 09 B8A4 and an older model. Can anyone comment on the navigation on the CTS? I used the C300's and it was really clean and easy to use. The A4, a little more of a challenge.

chavis10, what are you talking about? The vast majority of the people here are saying they'd pick the CTS over the Benz.

"Price: Mercedes (Cad costs nearly $7,000 more than our Benz.)"

And the statement is still made on the Caddy having a better list of features than the Merc, I wonder why???

Odd.

IMO, interior of the Caddy looks pretty disgusting. The last place I saw fake plastic chrome like that was on my matchbox cars. Most notably the chrome look around the analog clock and air vents.

The entire car, inside and out, looks very gaudy to me. Too much chrome for my taste, and that grille screams "i want to be an audi!!!!"

"chavis10, what are you talking about? The vast majority of the people here are saying they'd pick the CTS over the Benz."

Some people won't be happy until everyone is extolling the values of GM 24/7. Free speech is a sin.

"Some people won't be happy until everyone is extolling the values of GM 24/7. Free speech is a sin."

Haven't you heard? There's a huge insidious conspiracy between foreign automakers and car magazines to hide the fact that GM's vehicles are the best choice in EVERY market segment.

That said, I would consider a GM product- just as long as it hasn't been touched by a member of the UAW...

I would pick the CTS too. Easy decision.

Not that the C300 is bad, it's that the CTS is great. The only thing I love about the C300 are those AMG rims. Everything else is merely "good" or "OK."

For the record, that's 14 votes for the CTS, 5 votes for the C300 so far.

Neither, I enjoy DRIVING my cars, not admiring them from afar thinking how pretty they look sitting on top of a maintenance crane.

I'm going to have to go with the C300 (or another option, not sure yet), but I'd take it over the CTS. I'm 26 years old, and I feel like at my age, the Caddy isn't really too appealing. Granted, the car is very very nice, just not my cup of tea.

Benson2175 asked, "are there any nearly 20year old Cadillacs still running?" Yes. Mine, for one. My '91 Cadillac DeVille has more than 255,000 miles on it, and it runs great. Also very solid, with no squeaks or rattles. It's proven to be a very durable and dependable car, and I still see a lot of them on the road, most in good shape. I love the CTS, and will likely buy one used in a couple of years.

IMO, interior of the Caddy looks pretty disgusting. The last place I saw fake plastic chrome like that was on my matchbox cars. Most notably the chrome look around the analog clock and air vents.

The entire car, inside and out, looks very gaudy to me. Too much chrome for my taste, and that grille screams "i want to be an audi!!!!"

Strong wording, especially "disgusting." What standards are you comparing the CTS to? Not trying to flame, but I haven't seen anyone use the word "disgusting."

I think the Caddy is the better designed and engineered car. It is far more advanced in technology even in simple matters. Mercedes has a simple low tire pressure warning while the Caddy can tell you the pressure in each tire. Add to that Remote start a better integrated iPod kit, Onstar, Direct Injection etc. More importantly the time it spent in Detroit during extreme winter weather shows the durability of the Caddy. I don't remember any post about starting problems even after being buried in snow all night. And remember that Direct Injection is brand new to GM, no first year bugs (see GTR). To me the sign of a well engineered car is not how well it holds up under sunny Cali conditions but how well it handles something like a Detroit winter parked outside. It may be a Caddy but it doesn't care if you treat like an old Chevy. Park it outside in winter weather, no problem, don't wash it for a month, no problem, use it as a daily driver, no problem, jump in at anytime and drive half way across the country, no problem. Job well done GM and the same for Ford and the Flex, I think they finally figured out how to beat Toyota and Honda.

"123 years of making some of the finest automobiles in the world vs. 101 years of parts bins, badge engineering, and cost cutting. "

What an idiotic statement.

"Some people won't be happy until everyone is extolling the values of GM 24/7. Free speech is a sin."

I hope you arent serious but sadly I think you are. Chavis is likely talking about the fact that some people are so anti American car that they cant just admit the CTS is wholly competitive but they wont buy one because its a Cadillac. Instead, we have people saying the interior looks as cheap as ever and other such nonsense. That is what Chavis is referring too. Anyone claiming the CTS' interior represents no progress and is not on par with the best in this price class cannot be taken seriously.

"Neither, I enjoy DRIVING my cars, not admiring them from afar thinking how pretty they look sitting on top of a maintenance crane. "

What evidence do you have that either of these cars spends a lot of time in the shop? None. I tell you, Japanese car fans will not let go of the past and accept that almost all cars today few mechanical problems.

I would like to like the Cadillac. The interior is still cheap. Press on one of the plastic chrome rings surrounding the gauges. The whole gauge pod creaks and cracks. It sounds terrible. My japanese car doesn't do that. It doesn't make a sound at all anywhere that I press down, because it's built solid. You can say that that doesn't matter, you're not supposed to push there anyway, which might be true, but then don't wonder why the Cadillac is a rattle trap in 20,000 miles.

"The interior is still cheap."

While the CTS's interior design can be debated (vertical vents and analog clock...boo) I think the materials and build are great. They were good in the previous generation, and are really good in the current.

If we're going to praise a domestic for interior quality it has to be Ford. They have done an incredible job, and their newer models are up there with anyone. The new Lincolns put the CTS to shame. I'm not biased against domestics, GM is behind.

I'll even back off my original statement that GM interiors are as poor as ever, there has been improvement. I just don't think it's quality yet.

But as an aside, the DTS's interior at $80k or whatever it costs is the biggest joke ever.

"and that grille screams "i want to be an audi!!!!""

Ha! Never thought of that until you mentioned it, very true.

I really want to like the CTS. But as a young 20 something old, when I hear Caddy, I think white walls, white hair, and white pants. Maybe it's a generation gap, or quite possibly where I grew up...but I just think 'senior citizen' when I see one (despite the Kate Walsh commercial).

Glad to see the GM using the Direct Injection technology. Lose some of the tinsel and shiney chrome, make that dashboard look a little less busy and I'd be interested. $45+k is pretty steep for a GM built car, I feel anyway.

And GM has a long way to go as far as getting the consumer back to buying their autos. It's not that consumers are stubborn, but bad experiences with cars are usually never forgotten.

"By compliance on January 28, 2009 8:51 AM
I would like to like the Cadillac. The interior is still cheap."

compliance - sorry dude, but you have no sense of style or taste in fine automobiles at all if you think the CTS interior is cheap.

"I really want to like the CTS. But as a young 20 something old, when I hear Caddy, I think white walls, white hair, and white pants. Maybe it's a generation gap, or quite possibly where I grew up...but I just think 'senior citizen' when I see one (despite the Kate Walsh commercial)."

That's kind of funny coming from a 20 something. Most 20 somethings of the hip-hop and professional sports crowd, including the artists and athletes themselves LOVE Cadillacs, especially the Escalade. Forgot about that one, didn't ya?

I think the CTS-V has made quite a favorable impression on the younger generation too, although most can't afford one.

"By compliance on January 28, 2009 9:13 AM

But as an aside, the DTS's interior at $80k or whatever it costs is the biggest joke ever."

The DTS starts at $43k sticker, fully loaded about $50k. WAY less than your $80k you mentioned. Get your facts straight before you attempt to bash Cadillac or GM or American cars in general. And the DTS interior looks quite nice:

http://www.cardata.com/images/2008_new_cars/Cadillac/DTS%20interior.bmp

How is that a joke?

You're really looking foolish now.

I think Escalade is the exception for the 20-somethings that you refer to. I don't think I've seen an athlete or heard a rapper talk about any other model. The other models have been stereotyped for an older driver. Agreed the CTS-V is appealing for younger drivers, and also agreed that it's a lot harder to purchase for a younger driver.

"I would like to like the Cadillac. The interior is still cheap. Press on one of the plastic chrome rings surrounding the gauges. The whole gauge pod creaks and cracks. It sounds terrible. My japanese car doesn't do that. It doesn't make a sound at all anywhere that I press down, because it's built solid. You can say that that doesn't matter, you're not supposed to push there anyway, which might be true, but then don't wonder why the Cadillac is a rattle trap in 20,000 miles."

Yeah and I bet if you smashed the dashboard with a hammer it would crack too. That wouldnt happen in your Japanese car though. Damn GM build quality. Good thing you exposed this for us and prevented anyone from making mistake and buying a CTS.

"The new Lincolns put the CTS to shame. I'm not biased against domestics, GM is behind."

Behind who? Maybe Audi but not Toyota or Ford. Ford is just now rolling out ineteriors that clearly shame Toyota. GM's interiors have been showing marked improvement for at least 4 years. Check out the pickups/SUVs, Enclave/Acadia, DTS, SRX, etc.

"But as an aside, the DTS's interior at $80k or whatever it costs is the biggest joke ever."

Since you cant even get the price right I will assume you have never sat in one. The interior looks, feels and smells as good as any Lexus sedan. Plush leather, real wood trim, chrome accents, tight tolerances. Just like a Lexus.

"That's kind of funny coming from a 20 something. Most 20 somethings of the hip-hop and professional sports crowd, including the artists and athletes themselves LOVE Cadillacs, especially the Escalade. Forgot about that one, didn't ya?"

I hear where you're coming from as far as professional athletes and hip-hop artists giving the Escalade that image. But I couldn't name one person I know, personally, in their 20's that owns a Cadillac. I don't believe that it's due to income constraints as much as it's due personal taste and preference.

But at the end of the day....to each his own.

I sat in the DTS at the LA car show. I'm sure it was loaded up with all kinds of stuff and I'm only going by what I remember the sticker on the window said. Maybe it was only $60k. I don't really care. The interior was trash.

Don't we all remember this post?

"It's been about three months since I've been in our Long Term 2008 Cadillac CTS and I think that it's spent that entire time being driven over cobblestones. Even with the radio on, the slightest road imperfection causes the CTS to erupt with noise."

http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/2008/08/2008-cadillac-cts-v6-di-noisy.html

I don't think I'd take either. The C300 is too slow for me and I really dislike the CTS's interior that's awash in plasti-chrome and at least on the V the reflective and fingerprint-catching piano black plastic trim. Is it really necessary to have so much chrome everywhere? And the moto nav screen in the car I was in sounded like there was sand in the mechanism.

For me it would come down to a choice between the C63 AMG and the CTS-V. Having driven the V but not the AMG I can't call it, but the CTS's interior and exterior styling really turns me off. The plus of the CTS-V is I could get a manual transmission. Tone down the overblown interior and shrink the grilles by 33% and I'd consider.

I drove a CTS for a week and sat in a MB C63 recently, but didn't drive the Mercedes. The Mercedes interior isn't in the same league as the CTS... it's just not even close. I recall the A/C dials were flimsy and bendy. Although cool to play with, the motorized nav lid looked like something you'd see on a kitchen garbage can. There's a lack of good design to it, and I was unimpressed. The Cadillac on the other hand wasn't perfect, but damn close.

bimmerjay, regardless of the fact that you already advertise your bias in your screen name, you're just absolutely grasping for straws in trying to criticize the CTS interior. It's by far the best interior in its class (and I consider that to be the 5-series and the E-class despite them both being dramatically more expensive, since the CTS is dimensionally within 0.5" of the 5-series in every exterior measure).

As evidence, you won't find any auto writer more biased against American cars than Jeremy Clarkson, but even he can't stop gushing about the CTS-V, suggesting the interior was outfitted by the same people who do the Bugatti Veyron:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article4920262.ece

In comparison with the CTS, about the best that can be said about the 5-series interior would be that it's inoffensive; the best that can be said about the E-class interior is that the panels sort of fit. Though as I mentioned before, the pictures of the upcoming E-class suggest the interior may actually be quality again (though, uncharacteristically for MB, the exterior is laughably awful).

The C-class interior just isn't even in the running -- it doesn't even compare favorably with a loaded Malibu or Accord.

esoterica, Jeremy Clarkson was not suggesting that the car was outfitted by the same people who do the Bugatti Veyron, the interior supplier is in fact the same one that outfits materials to Bugatti. That, however, does not suggest that they are the same materials because they are not. It should also be noted that the $60K CTS-V is outfitted with completely different materials than the base car, thus comparing its interior to the $30K C300 is uneven.

Also, I have to respectfully disagree with your comments. The CTS interior is without question one of the nicest in its class, but it cannot compare to a 5-Series or E-Class in overall execution. Those cars offer better fit and finish and use more premium materials (real wood vs faux wood in the CTS, for example). Get inside a 6 year old E or 5 and you won't hear a squeak or rattle while the CTS has some right out of the gate. Lastly, the C-Class interior is extremely well put together even though I agree not all materials justify the premium price. The car feels like it was hewed from one solid block, no Malibu or Accord has that feeling.

None of this means that the CTS isn't comparable with the best cars in its price point, which it clearly is, but get above that and the differences become clear.

"bimmerjay, regardless of the fact that you already advertise your bias in your screen name, you're just absolutely grasping for straws in trying to criticize the CTS interior. It's by far the best interior in its class"

I'm not sure how my screen name would indicate any bias for or against the CTS-V compared to the C63. Are you assuming that because I like BMWs that I therefore have to dislike everything else? Or just American cars, as seems to be the popular stereotype around here.

As a potential customer of the CTS-V it is my prerogative to criticize it. And I've never heard that its interior is "by far" the best in class. Many of its competitors still offer higher quality materials and switchgear. Design is subjective and I think it's just overdone. I don't like chrome but I like really high quality materials, fit, and switchgear. I don't think that's too much to ask for in the $60k+ price class, and I think the CTS-V falls slightly short of its competitors like the high-end C or E Class or the top-drawer 3 and 5 Series. I've actually spent some time in all of these cars - on tracks no less (except for the C-Class). Most of the posters on here probably haven't even sat in them.

mercedesfan, your opinions are a bit weary when you misrepresent the facts that you use to form them.

First, the C300 starts at $33775, not "$30K." The CTS starts at $37,240, including more standard equipment and a more powerful engine. Hardly a substantial difference. And in fact, the C63 AMG, which has essentially the same dreary, cheap interior as the C300, costs more than the CTS-V when comparably equipped.

Second, the CTS-V is IDENTICAL inside to the non-V CTS with the exceptions of piano black trim instead of clear-coated silver, and the sueded inserts on the seats (with optional Recaros). Contrasting it with the comparably-priced C-class interior is a no-brainer.

Third, the CTS absolutely uses real wood inside. And if you want to nitpick, the E-class uses lots more hard, hollow-sounding plastic than the CTS does, not to mention a low-rent navigation system, lots of cheap feeling buttons, and substantial gaps between many panels (like between the center stack and its side panels). More pros for the CTS: interior ambient lighting (only in the S-class for MB), fantastically well-designed iPod integration, hard disk to rip CDs or copy MP3s to from a flash drive, performance mode for the stability control, OnStar, swiveling headlamps, remote start (with automatic activation of heated/cooled seats), and a Top Safety Pick from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Oh and the CTS 3.6DI makes 36 more horsepower than the E350 while getting better fuel economy and running on regular unleaded. And all while costing with every option less than the E350 does stripped. No, IMO, the CTS not only competes with the E-class, it unequivocally trounces it.

Fourth, I have several acquaintances with 2004-2006 era 5-series and E-classes and to suggest they don't rattle is just silly. A particular friend's 2004 530i sport package with about 70K miles on it is one of the rattliest cars I've been in in recent memory.

Fifth, you must not have driven a new Malibu (or Accord). The Malibu in particular is insanely quiet, easily the quietest car in its class, and the interior is top-shelf, with better materials than the C-class, equal build quality, and dramatically better design.

The last good E-class was in 1995. The new one may be good (too bad about the looks). The C-class is just pathetic.

esoterica, not that this would matter to you seeing that you refuse to accept any other opinion but your own, but my wife and I happen to own an E63 AMG so I have spent plenty of time in E-Classes to know that they are beautifully constructed cars.

As to your quality argument the CTS uses vinyl on its dashboard and faux wood (GM's CTS supplier does not deal in real wood). The E-Class on the other hand uses soft, pliable foam/plastic for its dashboard and real wood. Both cars have equal tolerances for interior execution but the E uses more expensive materials, thus the lack of rattles. The E-Class is also quieter inside (based on edmunds info) and in my opinion rides smoother because the suspension tuning is more sophisticated.

The CTS offers loads more technology that is easier to use, but the E-Class is 7 years old so it's not really a fair comparison.

Lastly, I have ridden in a new Malibu and it was a great family sedan, but like all of them it used hard plastic on the dash and doors as well as cheap feeling switchgear. Suggesting that it is better than a C-Class proves that you have never been in a new C. I am NOT attacking the CTS, it is one of my FAVORITE entry-level luxury cars, but it is just that ENTRY-level.

why are we comparing a gm to a benz?? this is ridiculous. next!

mercedesfan, that you can, I assume with a straight face, suggest the MB "plastic" is superior to the CTS "vinyl" is funny both because you obviously don't know what vinyl is and because the CTS dashboard is absolutely soft-touch and lower-gloss than the E-class (even the original CTS used virtually all soft-touch plastics, though it somehow managed to look like it didn't).

Also, your continually repeating that the CTS doesn't use real wood when proof otherwise is readily available makes you simply look like you're purposely remaining ignorant.

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/po_package.jsp?showAllStdOpt=all&model=cts&trim=CTS%203.6L%20Direct%20Injection&year=2009&package=CTS%203.6L%20Direct%20Injection§ion=Collections

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2007/10/cts_answering_y_1.html

Not only is it real wood, but it's sustainably grown.

Legal precedent was set around 20 years ago when Nissan lost a lawsuit for calling their seats "leather" when they were only *partially* upholstered in real leather (hence the common term now "leather seating surfaces" or the even more vague "leather upholstery"), so you'd better bet that GM wouldn't make the mistake of calling their trim "wood" if it weren't real at all.

I will give you that the E-class (barring the E63 which manages to neither ride nor handle particularly well for its class) may ride marginally smoother than either of the CTS's sport packages), but the non-sport CTS manages to ride better still and yet still manages to be substantially more fun to drive.

esoterica, I will admit that I was wrong. I did not think Cadillac had an option package for authentic wood trim. That is very rare at this price point. "Wood trim" is loosely defined and does not necessarily mean authentic. Lexus, for example, uses fake stuff in its lower end models.

As an aside, having spent seat time in the M5 and S6 I can tell you with certainty that the E63 is the smoothest riding car in its class, although it certainly isn't the sportiest. The CTS-V with Magentic Ride control is probably better still, but my wife would never be caught dead driving a Cadillac (her issue, not mine).

Lastly, I never said the CTS interior was not soft touch. I just meant that vinyl is less expensive than plasti-foam. It was a brilliant idea on GM's part. It gives the CTS a truly luxury ambience for not much money; MB on the other hand chose hard-plastic for the C dashboard which was not a good idea. I was just making the point that the E is more expensive to manufacture with more expensive materials, not that those materials necessarily make it feel much more luxurious.

Oh, and bimmerjay, this is who said the CTS has a world-beating interior:

http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?revid=52657&indcriteria=ASSET_TYPE-Affiliate+Review%2CBuying+Guide%2CVehicle+Profile%7CM-_8_%7CD-_6128_%7CY-_2008_%7CresultStructure-combined&makeid=8&modelid=6128&year=2008&myid=&revlogtype=19§ion=reviews&mode=&aff=national

Being the only Pulitzer Prize winning automotive journalist (and being the reviewer who lambasted the Pontiac G6 so caustically that GM in retaliation for a period pulled all of their advertising from the L.A. Times), he knew that unlike most automotive journalists at the time, he wouldn't be laughed out of town for declaring that Cadillac had finally made a better car than any of their rivals.

yes their rivals being lincoln and chrysler.

esoterica - Thank you for wasting 2 hours of your life looking up articles that no one cares about.

"Oh, and bimmerjay, this is who said the CTS has a world-beating interior:"

Great, one person thinks so. I really don't care that much. I experienced the car and as a potential customer I really don't care for certain aspects of it, enough that I wouldn't buy it. That's my personal preference. And there are multiple others posting on this blog as well as the other 300 or so automotive publications you didn't quote that might agree with me.

I shopped this class 2-years-ago, 4-years-ago, and will shop this class again next year. Each of the previous times I chose a C class Mercedes, and likely will the next time as well.

I drive approximately 45,000 miles per year, and no car has better seats than a Mercedes-Benz. The other reason is solidity. My 09 C300 Sport has 70,000 miles on it, and still looks and feels brand new. Not a squeak, rattle, or anything else to show its age other than slightly better fuel economy as the miles pile on. Went from average of 24 MPG (mostly highway) to 26 MPG with no change in driving patterns.

Actually, this current car with its lack of any problems whatsoever and excellent real-world fuel economy is one of the most economical cars I've ever owned. Build quality is much better than my 03 or 06 C class, and is so good that at this rate, I might just keep it beyond my usual 100,000 miles. NEVER before have I driven any car 70,000 miles and had it still feel every bit as solid as new.

I can also say its not gradual degradation that is too subtle to notice, as last week while I was having my car serviced I had a 2011 C300 as a loaner car. That car had only 1300 miles on it, and felt exactly the same as mine in its structure and handling, though it also felt a bit slower, likely on account of my engine being properly broken-in.