IL Track Tested: 2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG vs. 2009 Cadillac CTS-V

I can't avoid the style of many Mercedes cars. Another good CTS-V contender (and a better looker IMO) may be the performance packaged:

http://www.insideline.com/mercedes-benz/c-class/photos/mercedes-benz_c-class_r34_ns_102209.html

Good comparison. My compliments to GM for the performance of the CTS-V.

What a monstrosity.

The CTS-V is like Zoolander, it can't turn right.

These cars are starting to look like eachother - both going for a bold, chunky look. Not my favorite style, but not terrible, either.

The Benz's 60-0 number is positively stunning. ;-)

In a perfect world it would be a tough choice for me. The AMG has the better engine but I would miss having a manual transmission. If the CTS-V had better build quality, interior/exterior styling and seats that appealed to me, and didn't come from such a horribly mismanaged company now receiving taxpayer support, I would have gotten an MT-equipped CTS-V by now. The Benz does have styling that appeals to me, a lovely interior, stellar build quality and endless tech. Since it's the real world I'll take the slight performance hit and gladly pay the price difference for the E63.

Have the testers ridden in a Mercedes lately? Sorry guys the Cadillac has much better build quality and the magnetic shocks work so well at giving the best of two worlds. Sorry this is not 1992 or 2002 for that matter the Cadillac is really a clear winner no matter how much you hype the Benz. Now the tax payer comment is so out of line can we just move on from that please!

Youre actually kind of insane if you'd pay 30k more for the Benz. I can understand ponying up the extra cabbage if you're upgrading to a Panamera or something insane like an Aston, but come on. The E's pricing is just out of sight.

I don't discredit the Benz at all. Kudos to the E63 AMG, but as much as I like it, good enough quality and better performance numbers for a better affordable value is what REAL people in the REAL world really look for, which is why I'd much rather prefer the CTS-V.

By getting the E63, you're payin almost an extra 40 grand for what? The NAME?....Please. Nowadays that's startin to become obsolete. A car that can dominate the Benz with all the same luxury features with the same warranties for almost $40,000 less, clearly makes much more sense and will bring in much more consumers for this class of vehicles. Ya'll can hype up the Benzo all you like, but the CTS-V is still the clear winner here, and is clearly a MUCH better buy.

what's better is the CTS-V won't be in the shop all the time. now i' m really waiting for Lexus to make a GS-F...

Well the CTS-V will probably be in the shop from time to time but it won't cost a third son's college tuition to fix the brakes or whatever

C63 AMG base price $57,350 compared to the Caddy @ $62,845.

The looks of the Caddy kills it for me whether its cheaper of more expensive than a similar Benz.

Both great cars... But, I don't understand why the E63 & M5 get compared to the CTS-V. Isn't Cadillac's CTS more comparable to the 3 series, C-class, and A4? I think the CTS-V should be compared to the M3, C63, and RS4...

The CTS-V looks terrific, and it is hard to argue with the numbers in terms of performance. The CTS and CTS-V are closer to the size of the 5-series so they get compared more often to these cars rather than to the smaller M3. I think a price-based comparison would be the 556 hp CTS-V, which starts at US$62K, (cadillac.com) and the 360 hp BMW 550i, which starts at US$60K (bmwusa.com), and the 382 hp E550 Sedan, starting at $56K (mbusa.com)

Edmunds most certainly gets it when these types of cars are compared. $102,245 Ha ha. No sir. Also if you option a C63 out to include the same features found on a CTS-V then the C63 cost more. The CTS-V simply compares to the larger cars because of size, power but make no mistake the CTS-V can easily take on all the much smaller C63s, RS4s, IS-Fs, and M3s.

@rayjht1-

I think the better question is have you ridden in a Benz lately? The build quality of the new E-Class is stunning (in fact that previous generation E was a standout too in its later years). That isn't to say the CTS-V isn't a truly quality automobile as well, but the E is undeniably better. You will probably call me biased because of my name, and I probably am seeing as my wife drives a previous generation E63, so let me avoid subjective cliches and phrase it this way: the CTS-V has basically the same interior as a $32K CTS, the E63 has basically the same interior as a $50K E350. The added cost translates to better materials. Are they $18K better? In the case of the CTS that is a definitive no (it really is a nice car), but they are better.

@bruceleroy81

Let me first say I agree with you, the Caddy is a much better value, but the E63 is loaded with technology that isn't offered on the CTS-V so the "all the same luxury features" comment isn't actually true.

Mercedes is like wearing Prada with a Gucci bag.

Cadillac is like wearing GAP and a Nike cap.

You definitely can tell who is nouveau riche or successful businessman. I'd take the mercedes thanks.

@mercedesfan

Woah let me just stop you there by saying the BASE CTS starts at $36,730 and not only does the interior look better than the $46,845 STS it also uses better materials. THEN you have the $50,460 CTS 3.6L V6 Premium. There's your comparible interior my friend. So for an extra 12k you get a world class super sedan with a world class interior that puts 30-40k expensive comparible cars to shame.

sassy_j, so you'd rather look like you're trying really hard to be accepted by trophy wives and dudes with names like Leonardo Fairchild-Rothcommon?

"No, you wouldn't enjoy the prestige and out-and-out refinement of a Mercedes, but this is IL Track Tested so we aren't smelling the leather or measuring the gap tolerances. Happy holidays."

Nice dig at Cadillac. They surely don't make nice cars with nice leather and good build quality. Only MB does that.

"About what I expected. The CTS-V is an absolute beast with capabilities few sedans will ever match. It certainly doesn't ride very comfortably (at least the one I rode in), but tradeoffs are necessary to achieve its amazing performance numbers."

I havent seen any reviews knocking the ride quality. The MR shocks basically guarantee a decent ride. I doubt there are any super V8 sedans that ride better than the Cadillac. Basically, there is no trade off if you chose the V over the E63- unless you inherently believe anything MB makes is automatically superior and more prestigious- as IL obviously believes.

Quick, someone tell Warren Buffet how Cadillac drivers are poseurs who can't afford a Mercedes.

"If the CTS-V had better build quality, interior/exterior styling and seats that appealed to me, and didn't come from such a horribly mismanaged company now receiving taxpayer support, I would have gotten an MT-equipped CTS-V by now. "

Its hard to take anyone seriously who includes bailout bashing in their commentary. That has nothing to do with the CTS-V and anyone who reads and comprehends understands that many of the players who ran the "mismanaged" GM are gone now. No sane person uses such criteria when deciding what car to buy. The CTS' interior is better than the MB's. The exteriors are about a tie. The CTS comes offers Recaros so inferring the seats are inferior makes zero sense to me. Also, the build quality is whats expected in a luxury car. If you have specific examples of how the car is poorly assembled I'd love to see it- not that I'm expecting anything. if you're name is "BimmerJay" I'd have to say I'm not surprised you'd go with the overpriced German product. Not exactly a shocker there. The E63 is a fine car, just not a car worth $30k more than the Cadillac. In fact, its not even worth $10k more. If the E63 was $80k loaded I would consider it until stepping into the T-square designed throwback interior that appears to have been lifted from a 90s era Benz.

"Have the testers ridden in a Mercedes lately? Sorry guys the Cadillac has much better build quality and the magnetic shocks work so well at giving the best of two worlds. Sorry "

i'm sure they have been in a MB lately but since this is IL you have to remember any given import is ALWAYS more prestigious, desirable and better engineered than any comparable American car. This thinking permeates everything they post on this site. That's why they noted the "pushrod" engine in the Cadillac as if the owner is making some sort of sacrifice if they get the inferior American car. The LSA is as well engineered as any brawny V8. GM uses a different method to get big power (and torque) because it allows them to deliver that power at a lower price point. That said, the engine is only ONE reason the CTS-V is cheaper. Its cheaper because MB knows it can afford to gauge people based on its reputation and the Benz is imported from Europe so the exchange rate forces MB to keep pricing high to make money on the car. The V is made in Michigan and has no such issues. To suggest that the $30k price gap is related to engineering or leather quality is short sighted.

I'd take the CTS-V without a doubt. Then I'd budget a few hundred dollars more to get rid of that tacky grille and black it out. I'm not a huge fan of how the MB looks on the outside either, but I prefer its interior.

Regardless of the difference in materials/build quality, the jump to the MB is just too much. I think if I really wanted the MB nameplate, I'd rather have the C63 as it starts cheaper then the Caddy I believe.

Still, the Cadillac's numbers are astonishing. Its also a great sleeper vehicle, if you're into that sort of thing.

"The looks of the Caddy kills it for me whether its cheaper of more expensive than a similar Benz. "

the looks of the E's interior kills it for me and I would guess most people under 60 years old. Every new E I have seen is driven by someone in the 60-70 range. Its a matter of age and personal tastes. If you like stodgy, conservative, unimaginative interiors that remind you of the good old days of MB interior design the E is for you. Since I'm well under 60 and think 80s German interiors look like they were designed in Cold War Russia the E's interior has ZERO appeal to me. The vertical surfaces and button fest center stack are totally out of step with modern luxury cars. CTS-V interior wins hands down.

"Isn't Cadillac's CTS more comparable to the 3 series, C-class, and A4? I think the CTS-V should be compared to the M3, C63, and RS4..."

The CTS is too heavy to really match up with the M3 or C63 although it can outrun both cars. In terms of performance and price its close to those two but the CTS-V is really the size and weight of the E63 and XF-R.

"You will probably call me biased because of my name, and I probably am seeing as my wife drives a previous generation E63, so let me avoid subjective cliches and phrase it this way: the CTS-V has basically the same interior as a $32K CTS, the E63 has basically the same interior as a $50K E350. "

The CTS starts at about $36k these days, it hasn't been $32k for 2 years. I haven't sat in the new E class yet but the design is a loser for me. That said, I have no issues with the design or build quality of the CTS so I really don't see how the 2010 E is really "better" in that regard. All modern Cadillacs and MBs have good build quality. I was recently in the SRX and GLK on the same day- no appreciable difference in build or material quality but a huge difference in style- you can guess which vehicle had more style and was more modern.

You can get MB level build quality in a $23k Jetta. You don't need to pay a fortune to get excellent build qulaity in 2009. I'm sure MB propaganda would have you believe otherwise.

sassy_j seems to know more about fashion than cars!

"You definitely can tell who is nouveau riche or successful businessman. I'd take the mercedes thanks."

Nouveau riche? cadillac has been around for about a century and was established here in the US long before MB products were known to American consumers. CAdillac has been associated with luxury for decades longer than brands like Lexus or Infiniti have even been in existence. Rich people were driving Cadillacs before Americans could even spell the word "Mercedes". BTW, in Europe MB makes a wide range of products and its not seen exclusively as luxury brand as it is here. There are MB taxis in Europe.

First let me say that I love the AMG 6.2L V8 and like the E63 as well. But if it were my money, there is no way I could rationalize picking the E over the V. I just doesn't compute. I'm really not sacrificing any features (unless you count the active Big Brother systems included on the latest E) and the V performs better so what exactly am I getting? The interior of the old E looked better to me (albeit still very old and boring) while this new one lacks any imaginative effort whatsoever. BMW and MB are really behind in interior design if you ask me, with designs so boring and stark that you wonder where your money was spent. Lots of affordable cars have interesting interior designs but most MB and BMWs simply don't. Also, the myth that they are better made has been debunked numerous times even right here on this site (remember the 7 series shedding some of its wood panels?).

I mean, if you have an extra $30 hanging around then the choice is yours. But consider the V performs better with a tradiontal and likely bullet proof automatic with no need of fussy launch control algorithms or any of these new fangled technologies necessary to produce impressive acceleration times (i'm looking at you Panamera Turbo). Just brake torque and go. Plus, the output is simply unparalleled in the class. In a cars this heavy, the more torque the better. There's no need to wait to get into the powerband and nothing delivers torque as smooth as a torque converter. Those who want manual V are out of touch with reality. The only advantage it provides is a higher top speed which will likely never be realized in the real world.

"Sorry guys the Cadillac has much better build quality"

Rayjht1, Um no. Not to disrespect the CTS or Cadillac but it's NOT up to the same level as the E-Class. Sure, the actual design is a bit more interesting/desirable in the CTS but in terms of overall fit/finish and craftsmanship Mercedes is quite a few steps ahead of most all luxury manufacturers overall. It's the only luxury brand I've sampled that has that consistent "bank vault" level of solidity and that is evident in every Mercedes model from the bottom to the top.

In regards to exterior styling I like both but the Mercedes seems better finished as the front fascias of the CTS-V looks a bit aftermarket/downmarket.

In regards to performance, the CTS-V is obviously going to be the winner as it has quite a few advantages over its competition. Kudos to Cadillac in that regard and for the substantial upgrading of the current CTS vs the previous generation. Keep up the good work.

mercedesfan says: "Let me first say I agree with you, the Caddy is a much better value, but the E63 is loaded with technology that isn't offered on the CTS-V so the "all the same luxury features" comment isn't actually true."

Such as what exactly? I'll give you the automatic transmission in the E63 is technologically superior to the CTS-V's, given the lack of a torque converter and 7 vs. 6 speeds, although it doesn't seem to do anything performance-wise, or offer any other tangible benefit over the CTS-V's 6 speed auto. Also, the E63 should be nicked for the lack of a manual transmission option, which the CTS-V has.

Brake Assist is standard on the E63, which is not available on the CTS-V, which I guess you could consider as "technology," although I think it more of a driver nanny for those incompetent drivers, and more of a nuissance for good drivers.

As far as standard equipment goes, that's about the only technology the E63 offers that the CTS-V doesn't. On the other hang, the CTS-V has technology standard that the E63 doesn't have, even as an option. Foremost among these are the magnetic ride control suspension with a full multi-link front suspension (versus the E63's antiquated strut suspension up front), OnStar (before you knock it, you should really look into all it can do - it really is impressive technology, and a nice luxury service), and the XM NavTraffic system.

As far as optional equipment goes, the only items I see offered on the E63 that is not available on the CTS-V are: electronic trunk closer, rearview camera, driver assistance package (again for retarded people who can't drive), parking guidance, massage seats, split fold down rear seat, night view assist (the Cadillac DTS has had this available for 10 years now), rear-seat entertainment system, and carbon fiber trim.

So yeah, from an optional equipment standpoint, the E63 does have a lot of options available, but then again, you're talking in excess of $40k more than a fully loaded CTS-V at that point.
Everything else optional on the E63 (and there is a LOT) is also available on the CTS-V.

And the only useful options in that list, IMO, are the rearview camera, massage seats, and the split fold down rear seat. Everything else is either gimmicky, or next to useless.

So I really don't see all the technology that the E63 has, that the CTS-V doesn't. If I missed something, point it out to me.

"stellar build quality" Ummmm I dont think so. MB is getting better but not up to Japanese level yet. Cadillac is far below that but is getting better also. And all of the idiots that ran GM into the ground are not gone yet.

"No sane person uses such criteria when deciding what car to buy."

1487 you are the most obtuse ninny on this board....you simply cant stand the fact that GM bit the dust and millions of Americans dont like the fact that the US taxpayer bailed them out. Guess what? I would not buy a GM car until GM is not propped up by taxpayer money.....it is a matter of principle and ethics to me, not sanity. Yours and GMs massive arrogance is what brought them down and will do it again. I think their products are indeed getting better (especially Buick) but until Caddy gets out of the basement in quality ratings then for get them. Oh and dispute CR all you want but again millions of people believe in them ( I know you hate that also)

Jay, how does the Benz have a better engine?

I think price has little to do with a choice in these cars......someone who wants a AMG will spend what they want to get one because it is all about the name to some people (wich is silly)

Okay, so...cz75 says...

"Quick, someone tell Warren Buffet how Cadillac drivers are poseurs who can't afford a Mercedes-Benz."

Okay seriously. that's bogus, in every way. Cadillac, as well as every other luxury brand whether Japanese, American or German, is worthy for luxury respect, especially after decades of it's existence.

Most of ya'll have forgotten that this CTS-V is the same car that dethroned the mighty BMW M5 by comparison. To say some ransom BS like that poses as an insecure wanna be MB owner or Fan who can't accept the loss of competition of a comparison test like this.

FYI, for cz75...Regardless of built quality and engineering comparison, there's not an uglier, more disgusting feeling in the world than being embarrassed by a car on the street that cost less than the one you own. Trust me, I'll admit it. I've been there.

Although I'm a Nissan/Infiniti fan, for a car that proved itself to be the new king of luxury performance sedans, especially with better fuel efficiency than most in this class at the same time, as well as a slightly longer lasting warranty, you might as well consider that a win win choice.

The CTS-V still wins and still on top and is still the best performance sedan.

Okay, so...cz75 says...

"Quick, someone tell Warren Buffet how Cadillac drivers are poseurs who can't afford a Mercedes-Benz."

Okay seriously. that's bogus, in every way. Cadillac, as well as every other luxury brand whether Japanese, American or German, is worthy for luxury respect, especially after decades of it's existence.

Most of ya'll have forgotten that this CTS-V is the same car that dethroned the mighty BMW M5 by comparison. To say some ransom BS like that poses as an insecure wanna be MB owner or Fan who can't accept the loss of competition of a comparison test like this.

FYI, for cz75...Regardless of built quality and engineering comparison, there's not an uglier, more disgusting feeling in the world than being embarrassed by a car on the street that cost less than the one you own. Trust me, I'll admit it. I've been there.

Although I'm a Nissan/Infiniti fan, for a car that proved itself to be the new king of luxury performance sedans, especially with better fuel efficiency than most in this class at the same time, as well as a slightly longer lasting warranty, you might as well consider that a win win choice.

The CTS-V still wins and still on top and is still the best performance sedan.

"Woops" I did two Posts....My bad Ya'll...LOL

" bruceleroy81 says:

07:48 AM, 12/23/09

Okay, so...cz75 says...

"Quick, someone tell Warren Buffet how Cadillac drivers are poseurs who can't afford a Mercedes-Benz."

Okay seriously. that's bogus, in every way. Cadillac, as well as every other luxury brand whether Japanese, American or German, is worthy for luxury respect, especially after decades of it's existence."

bruceleroy81 - I think you misread cz75's comments. He was being sarcastic with his comment. I thought it was pretty good actually, and witty. What cz75 was saying is Warren Buffet drives a Cadillac, and is someone who is obviously one of the wealthiest men in the world, and someone who most consider highly intelligent. It was in response to some of the ignorant comments on this thread that Cadillac is an inferior luxury car to a Mercedes. Buffet can afford to drive any car he wants. He chooses to drive a Cadillac over a Mercedes. That says something.

LOL...Oh wow, nice. I'm actually glad you posted that. Good lesson for every hater to know. Thanks stingray.

"I think their products are indeed getting better (especially Buick) but until Caddy gets out of the basement in quality ratings then for get them."

bodyblue - where do you come up with this crap? Basement quality ratings? What planet do you live on?

Here is some real information (a/k/a facts) that you can chew on:

2009 JD Power Initial Quality Study (# of problems for new vehicle):

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2009108

Cadillac ranked #3, just behind Porsche and Lexus. Mercedes ranked 6th. The CTS ranked #2 in its segment.

2009 JD Power Dependability Study (# of problems for a 3 year old vehicle, built in 2006):

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2009043

Cadillac ranked 9th highest in dependability. Look who is #1 - another GM product: Buick. Mercedes ranked below average at #19.

Any other crow you would like to eat? Would you like some salt with that?

"Rayjht1, Um no. Not to disrespect the CTS or Cadillac but it's NOT up to the same level as the E-Class. Sure, the actual design is a bit more interesting/desirable in the CTS but in terms of overall fit/finish and craftsmanship Mercedes is quite a few steps ahead of most all luxury manufacturers overall. "

You cannot quantify anything stated above. its kind of like people who claim Toyota and Honda make the most efficient cars but can't really explain to you why they are not the class leaders in most categories. If you take a micrometer and measure panel gaps in the CTS and E class you are not going to find any serious differences. GM's standards for panel fit inside and out are on par with the best of their competitors. Good build quality is widespread and components can detach in ANY brand of car. The LT CTS, 370Z, 750 and M3 all had interior compoents detach from another surface. Build quality that can be judged on the showroom floor is just as good on the CTS as a Mercedes.

I want one, either one....Santa are you listening?

""stellar build quality" Ummmm I dont think so. MB is getting better but not up to Japanese level yet. Cadillac is far below that but is getting better also. And all of the idiots that ran GM into the ground are not gone yet."

wow, you know even less than I thought. first of all, German build quality has been a point of pride for decades- its not a recent development. German culture is about precision and their cars have long been well engineered and well built. You obviously don't know the difference between reliability and build quality. First of all, Japanese cars have only had great build quality for the last 10-15 years at the most. If you look at Toyota and Honda products from the 80s (if you can find one) or even early 90s you will see gaps between exterior panels that would embarass the laziest UAW worker. COversely, German cars from that same era shame Japanese and American cars in precision panel fit. The Japanese were better at reliability and THAT is what the GErmans had to improve to compete. American brands had to improve on both fronts and they have done so. Naturally you have no proof, no context or anything else to back up your claim that Cadillac is "far below" Mercedes in build quality. Then again, people that are quick to retort but have little industry knowledge don't worry about fact checking or accuracy, they just shoot from the hip. Go to the autoshow with the proper equipment and compare the panel gaps on Cadillac and Mercedes and Lexus products and get back to me. Unless you are prepared to do so please refrain from making ridiculous, unsupported statements.

BTW, one way you can judge gap tolerances is to look at the crack between the front door and front fender and see if you can see the door hinge hardware if you look closely. On numerous Japanese brand vehicles from the 90s and 2000s the gap is large enough to see the hinges. Try that on an Audi or Mercedes. The gap is so small it looks like it was drawn in with a pencil.

"1487 you are the most obtuse ninny on this board....you simply cant stand the fact that GM bit the dust and millions of Americans dont like the fact that the US taxpayer bailed them out. Guess what? I would not buy a GM car until GM is not propped up by taxpayer money.....it is a matter of principle and ethics to me, not sanity."

1. Obtuse ninny? sticks and stones.....
2. GM is still #1 in the US which suggests your "logic" is flawed. What a shock. Lets not confuse your warped views with the views of the average American. If Americans shared your views they would close their CitiBank accounts, dump their AIG policies and GM wouldn't sell a single vehicle.
3. I've noticed people that hate GM but don't know anything about cars can't stop talking about the bailout. Have you noticed that as well? The fact that Cadillac is part of a failed auto manufacturer and the CTS-V exceeds the E63 for $40k less is an embarassment for Mercedes. Imagine what the next gen model will be like. GM is increasing R&D spending and speeding up development of new models- makes you wonder how competitive the next gen of vehicles will be.

"I think their products are indeed getting better (especially Buick) but until Caddy gets out of the basement in quality ratings then for get them. Oh and dispute CR all you want but again millions of people believe in them ( I know you hate that also)"

As stingray has shown you- other metrics dispute CR's ratings of Cadillac products. I read that about 15% of consumers consider CR ratings before buying. GM has to worry about those 15% but the bottom line is that if CR's word was that important GM and Chrysler wouldnt sell a single car. In fact Americans would only buy Japanese brands because until 2-3 years ago those are the only cars CR recommended. By my calculations about 60% of the vehicles sold in the US are by non Japanese automakers which suggests CRs influence may not be as large as you would hope.

BTW, Acura and Infiniti have excellent quality ratings and trail Cadillac, MB and BMW in sales in spite of being rated better by CR. Acura and Infiniti are struglling big time right now in spite of quality ratings.

@stingray454-

No, you about covered it. It's just a difference in priorities. I think the Benz driver aids are pretty remarkable and require a level of technological prowess the Caddy doesn't have (of course the C63 doesn't either and it is really the direct competitor because of price considerations).

I will say, however, that MB TeleAid/mBrace is standard and was available well before GM had OnStar and they do pretty much the exact same thing. TeleAid/mBrace doesn't give you the option of getting driving directions, but it does something much more helpful from my standpoint: you can call it and get concierge service. I have used it multiple times when in unfamiliar cities to setup a hotel and restaraunt reservation. They do it all and just get back to you with the specifics. Plus, TeleAid was free and unlimited mileage, I think mBrace requires a yearly fee, though.

Also, the E has real-time traffic as well, but I'm not sure who the provider is.

The Caddy's only real standout feature is its MR shocks, and they are remarkable. I don't think they work as well as people gush about (it still rides very stiffly, more so than the prev-gen E63), but they are the fastest responding of the constantly adjustable variety I have ever seen. Truly kudos to GM because they do provide nearly the best of both worlds.

"So I really don't see all the technology that the E63 has, that the CTS-V doesn't. If I missed something, point it out to me. "

You missed that the Cadillac has remote start, superior stereo/nav features and a better warranty and recaro seats. E63 offers none of those.

"I will say, however, that MB TeleAid/mBrace is standard and was available well before GM had OnStar and they do pretty much the exact same thing."

1. TeleAid did not predate Onstar and it does not have the same capabilities. No other telematics system has the same capabilities.

2. The "driver aids" on the MB are superfluous and typical of the nanny-state overkill features being piled on luxury cars from Germany. No sports sedan buyer would skip the CTS-V because it lacks enough "diver aids". Many of the car magazines loathe all these computer assist systems that can intervene.

3. Reviews have stated the MR shocks are why the ride ISNT firm. In fact, C&D said the CTS-V has the BEST ride quality in its recent comparo in which the MB inexplicably came in 1st based on brand name and rear seat room. The MR shocks largely exist to allow great handling without a punishing ride. I am curious about what type of surface you rode on that yielded this harsh ride.

Your measure of quality is "panel gaps"? Ok. I guess reliability has nothing to do with it. Japanese cars have been carefully built since the 70s. You are too young to remember the first Accords....Car and Driver is the magazine that dubbed them the "Japanese Mercedes" In the late 90s is when Mercedes quality became an embarrassment.....

Consumer reports says Cadillac is far less reliable than Mercedes, dont believe it huh? Oh and I was comparing Lexus quality to Mercedes....so please unless you are prepared to offer other than that then please refrain from making rediculous, unsupported statements.

Oh and Stingray453 please get a life.....have you even heard of Consumer Reports? JD Power is an interesting company for sure but it is hardly independent. How is your crow now? For every report you post, I can find another to dispute it. How does that taste?

It is amazing how 1487 changes the subject....last month it was market share that made GM, now it is panel gaps that prove quality. I love posting things that dispute fanbois like stinkray and 1487...it proves how small a life they have if they get emotional over a car company that cares nothing for them. Who really cares witch car is the better....do you get something because of it??? Maybe a free T shirt? If you work for a company and have a stake in it then I can understand....if you dont then you have severe problems. And if you work for a company at least have the guts to admit that you are not being fair about your views.

Reliability is the end all measurement of car quality, period. Anybody that thinks otherwise is bankrupt......... ooooppss that is GM and 1487. Why do you think that Lexus is such a popular brand? Not the driving experience or the shocking good looks...it is quality that translates into resale value. That is something Cadillac is far far behind Mercedes in. Oh and that tastes yummy.

Who thinks that the Benz has more technology than the Cadillac? First off, the Cadillac engine is based on the ZR-1 Engine, which reads like who’s who on racing technology.
The CTS-V Interior is not the standard interior you get in CTS. Its upgraded to the Black Piano Interior with a full leather suite.. plus suede. The CTS V seats offer side bolstering with airbags that fill to give lateral support similar to the M5 .
A standard CTS interior is leather stitched and Cadillac’s technology suite is superior to Mercedes. The only thing Mercedes has over Cadillac is in the S class Nav Screen movie/nav split screen, and that is not available in North America.
When you look at the entire package, there is really nothing Mercedes has over this Cadillac. When you look at the braking the Cadillac mops the floor with the Merc.

Simply put, Cadillac is a superior product here. If you are drinking the “German engineering cool aid” too bad for you…

"Consumer reports says Cadillac is far less reliable than Mercedes, dont believe it huh? Oh and I was comparing Lexus quality to Mercedes....so please unless you are prepared to offer other than that then please refrain from making rediculous, unsupported statements."

You are in over your head here, trust me. Stingray already showed you that Cadillac's quality is better than MB per JD Power. The issue here is whether or not you are getting better quality by paying $40k more for a mercedes. There is no proof that you are getting that. You can mention CR all you want but you wont be able to explain why we should favor CR over JD Power. You bring up one and I can bring up the other- its pretty easy.

"Your measure of quality is "panel gaps"? Ok. I guess reliability has nothing to do with it. Japanese cars have been carefully built since the 70s. You are too young to remember the first Accords....Car and Driver is the magazine that dubbed them the "Japanese Mercedes" In the late 90s is when Mercedes quality became an embarrassment....."

Build quality was the issue here- go back and read some of the earlier posts and you may be able to catch up. If you want to determing how much thought and money was put into the assembly process you look at panel fit and panel gaps. Period. This is well known- except to you I suppose. Japanese cars were likely carefully build compared to Detroit iron and they may have even been competitive with German cars of the 70s. My point is that by the 80s and 90s German cars were better and they still are with regards to fit and finish. Go check out the gaps on the Tundra, Armada, FJ Cruiser, etc. and then get back to me about supposedly stellar Japanese gap tolerances. Stop living in the 70s, those days are long gone as is any build quality advantage held by the Japanese.

"It is amazing how 1487 changes the subject....last month it was market share that made GM, now it is panel gaps that prove quality. I love posting things that dispute fanbois like stinkray and 1487"

Ah yes, resorting to butchering screen names and insults. Can you explain why you post here and attack others if you claim that being here is a sign that one has no life? Do tell. As far as I can tell the fact that you continually post here trying to dispute people who obviously know more than you do about this subject matter would indicate you don't have a life. Or maybe its just me. also, I didn't change subject- you told me that Americans share your disdain for GM and don't want to buy from a company who has been mismanaged and bailed out. I simply said your argument didn't hold water because GM still sells more vehicles than the competition. Not quite changing the subject.

"Why do you think that Lexus is such a popular brand? "

How do you explain Acura and Infiniti? Both have excellent quality- both are routinely outsold by BMW, MB and Cadillac. CAre to explain? Of course you don't.

@1487,

You are correct. Onstar first became available for the 1997 model year, TeleAid didn't bow until 1999. In fact, MB offered OnStar on a few select models during that 2 year period before they debuted their own system. And yes, TeleAid lacked many features of OnStar, but seeing as it is isn't used anymore that is kind of irrelevant. mBrace does have all the capabilities of OnStar. Need your car unlocked? Done. Someone stole your car and you need it tracked? Done. Get in an accident and unable to call for help? mBrace does it for you. Lost and need driving directions? Done. Have a question about vehicle diagnostics? Done. Want concierge service? Done. Real time weather and traffice reports? Done. OnStar did it all first, but it's no longer the "most sophisticated". Others have caught up.

@stingray454,

I totally agree with you that Cadillac is building very quality cars these days, but referencing JD Power Dependability studies doesn't prove your point. That data is based on 3-year old 2006 models, which would include the previous-generation CTS. CR is actually the only one to provide any form of dependabilty information for 2008-2009 cars. I find their rating procedures flawed, but they do provide a unique service.

This is a great comparo. Unlike many folks posting, I actually OWN a 2009 CTS-V. I've had it for almost a year, have a bit over 8100 miles on it, and I have noted NO, repeat, NO quality issues with the car. It's only been to the dealer for its two oil changes. The interior is very good for an American car...high quality plastics, double-stitched dash and seats. I've bought Japanese for 20 years, so for me to say that indicates the level of positive impression I have for this car. I realize I took a risk in reliability as I read Consumer Reports and JD Powers reports like the rest of you. Honestly, Mercedes is not that much better in the rankings the last few years, though it is making a comeback.

Indeed, I like the E63, too, no doubt, it is a powerful, fast, great-looking car.

I can afford an M5 or E63 but chose the Caddy. It was purely a "bang for the buck" comparison. With the M5 and E63, you are paying for the name and (arguably) higher interior quality. I certainly don't need what others call "prestigious" to complete myself. Besides, in my neck of the woods, plenty of successful people do drive Caddies. The money I could have spent on an M5 or E63 is now in my son's college fund.

Bottom line: while the rest of you are arguing over minor stuff, I am daily-driving my V and enjoying every single mile and every single (hard) press of the accelerator, the glorious sound of that exhaust, the sweet whine of the supercharger, and enjoying the great amenities inside the car, too. It is a GREAT ride. If GM keeps making stuff like this, it will get rid of gov't control in NO time.

"My point is that by the 80s and 90s German cars were better and they still are with regards to fit and finish. Go check out the gaps on the Tundra, Armada, FJ Cruiser, etc. and then get back to me about supposedly stellar Japanese gap tolerances."

A circular argument. Since there is only one German car that competes in the lower price field in American you cannot prove your argument. Please name the German competitor to the Tundra or FJ Cruiser, or Scion or Civic or Prius? Oh and please make sure those German cars are sold here in America. And please post the complete date regarding panel gaps between all the cars you have talked about on here. You claim I dont know what I am talking about when you have never said what your job in the auto industry is...please elaborate. I have been interested and actually worked on cars since I was a small child.....my family raced motorcycles and cars from bomber class to super stock and super modified. I grew up with gasoline in my blood and the smell of burnt rubber in my nose. That is where I learned the truth about cars......no one company or country has the best machines......I used to race Fords......but my buddies had Pontiacs and MOPARS. I learned to respect good engineering no matter what the brand and laughed at those who wore Chevy jammies and Dodge hats. Car companies dont care about anybody but those who buy their cars..and that is the way it should be. In no post do I find that you have more than a talking points level of intelligence regarding automobiles. When challenged in depth you change the subject or quit posting. You know your engine sizes and G forces but have you ever actually touched an engine or gotten dirty? I highly doubt it from your posting. I talk about what I know about and have experience in......

Consumer Reports is not perfect by any means but you reveal your ignorance and/or bias by totally dismissing them as a source of information. Just because you dont like what they say does not mean they are incorrect. They take responses from people that own the cars. Does it even occur to there is a reason for a companies reputation and those ratings? Deserved or not there is SOMETHING behind those ratings.

Care to retract your insulting comment that if one bases their car choice because GM went bust then got bailed out they must be insane? You are so arrogant and biased you cant even concede it should be a factor or that some people have different principles than you.

As for the two cars in this comparo.......I would probably get the Caddy if forced between the two. I do think Cadillac is getting better and better and I have never felt any need for a MB...and yes part of that is how they do business as a company and how they ruined and raped Chrysler then left them for dead.

I told myself I wasn't going to comment anymore because I have already wasted too much of my time at work today, but I guess I'm addicted.

@bodyblue,

I actually agree to an extent with most of what you said, but what is wrong with how MB does business? They pay their workers the highest wages of any automaker in the industry and offer the best health and vacation benefits, they treat MB owners with respect and courtesy, they stand behind their products and honor warranty claims most automakers would write off as "user-induced", and they are a hotbed of technological innovation. On top of that, they often work with smaller automakers who lack access to cutting-edge R&D departments to co-develop and share technology. Mercedes is lauded around the world as a truly ethical corporation. Say what you will about MB owners or individual dealerships, but the corporation is laudable. I will, however, agree with you that they totally mismanaged Chrysler. Schrempp should go down as one of the most incompetant businessmen who ever lived. He almost drove MB into the ground for goodness sake!

like neuronbob, i too own an '09 CTS-V and am very happy with it. the arguments can go on forever about styling/quality/interior/etc...but it really just boils down to personal preference. my wife and i were looking at getting an M3 in the summer but the larger interior, more bang for the buck, and performance numbers were too hard to pass up. my wife drives an '06 325i so i can compare first hand the build quality of the two.

yes, the caddy does seem to have larger tolerances for interior fit/finish compared to the bimmer but compared to previous cadillacs, the improvements are night and day. to plastics and surfaces are more upscale and definitely have a more solid feel to them...and they look great (the double cross-stitching is fantastic). also, the interior ambient lighting looks spectacular at night.

i haven't had any major problems...but i guess that's luck of the draw. i've seen postings on both the M3 and V forums on the numerous problems owners are having. seems to be bad luck for those with major issues. same with mercedes.

what is irritating are these fanbois that disparage other manufacturers just because they aren't BMW/MB/Jaguar/Lexus/etc without firsthand driving or ownership experience. cadillac seems to have a stigma of being the brand that poseurs/rappers/wannabe millionaires drive because they can't afford a german brand. that bias is unfounded considering infiniti and acura are similarly priced. anyway, i'm stepping off my soap box....fact is, all of these cars mentioned are awesome vehicles and we should all be so lucky to be able to drive one.

Congrats to the owners of the CTS-Vs on the forum. I hope to get a regular CTS at the end of 2010.

MB fan, it is addicting isnt it?? LOL

The rape of Chrysler was disgusting. They moved in and grabbed all of the cash and advanced production techniques then shortchanged it with stingy development money and chased out the top talent with thuggish antics. That is not an ethical corporation....maybe by German standards I guess. They dont "offer" the best benefits...they are forced too by the intrusive form of German government and thuggish labor unions. Imagine what they could produce and at what a great price it would be if not for all of that government interference?

I am sure that American MB dealers treat their customers very well as do Cadillac dealers. As we discussed in another thread, I find 100K for any car absolutely silly. But if you do pay that much I hope you enjoy your ride and get treated like gold at the dealer. I really do try and be pragmatic about cars but emotion is a factor in any buying decision I make. I dont like what the Germans did to MOPAR and even political decisions the German government has made and that factors in somewhat. That would not stop me from buying a VW (I like the diesel wagons a lot) but the VW reputation for only fair quality and atrocious rep of the dealers sure would.

" mercedesfan says:

09:07 AM, 12/23/09

@stingray454-

I will say, however, that MB TeleAid/mBrace is standard and was available well before GM had OnStar and they do pretty much the exact same thing. "

You're wrong - OnStar came out in 1996 by GM. Mercedes didn't come out with TeleAid until 1999 for the 2000 model S-Class. In fact, Mercedes offered OnStar under license from GM for a period before they came out with their TeleAid system. Also, TeleAid uses American designed technology, as both its hardware and software is purchased from Motorola.

Two nice features OnStar has that TeleAid doesn't: 1) ability to not only track a stolen vehicle, but also shut it down and disable it safely, 2) ability to send navigation instructions from MapQuest directly to your vehicle's NAV system.

"what is irritating are these fanbois that disparage other manufacturers just because they aren't BMW/MB/Jaguar/Lexus/etc without firsthand driving or ownership experience. cadillac seems to have a stigma of being the brand that poseurs/rappers/wannabe millionaires drive because they can't afford a german brand"

You are very correct: It is irritating to be a fanboy at all.....I find it pathetic actually. I think that the Cadillac stigma is partially correct except for the fact of not buying a German brand. I think that Cadillacs designs are rather garish and not very tasteful....and that is what attracts the rappers/posers etc. I dont like the Art and Design look and never will. But that is just me. I think MB designs on the outside are very handsome and far better looking than BMWs. The interiors are another thing. Even in warm colors they are cold and boring. In that respect Cadillac and Lincoln look and feel far better. The Bridge of Weir leather in Lincoln and Fords is the best around. I also find it offensive that some MB and BMW products come with vinyl as standard (oh sorry MBTex) at that price point give us leather, please.

@bodyblue-

Actually MB pays well above what the German government and unions require. Secondly, MB funneled considerably more money into Chrysler than it ever got out of it in the long run (although it did use a lot of Chrysler's profit to pay for the simply atrocious ML320 early on). I totally agree they fed them terrible products, but they nonetheless took a major loss on the deal (it was largely their own fault, though). Also, MB's production techniques/facilities were the most advanced in the industry, that is perhaps the only area where Chrysler benefited from the merger because they got access to that. Nonetheless I agree with your synopsis on DaimlerChrysler, but Schrempp has long since retired and most of the people in charge at that time have since been forced out by the share holders.

My belief in the ethical nature of MB comes from scholarly, peer-reviewed mechanical engineering and law journals that both my wife and I recieve, both of which hold Mercedes-Benz in very high regard. They have no reason to, they are American professional journals, so that is why I believe them.

@stingray454-

You literally wrote exactly what I said in a later post. However, I think it is important to note that most of Motorola's R&D is done in Asia, not the US. Also, TeleAid isn't even in use anymore now that they have mBrace, which does everything OnStar does. I already admitted I had been wrong.

My .02 on quality:

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/11/2009-annual-auto-reliability-survey-domestics-vs-the-imports.html

I like a good bang-for-the-buck car so as GM fixes some of its issues and repays loans I will continue to be interested in what they have to offer, like the Regal performance model. But I'll let GM's cars speak for themselves. There are enough other buyers to out there that will keep GM in business while they get back on their feet... like 1487 and Stingray ;)

...then GM can offer shares publicly and everyone is happy again.

" chavis10 says:

11:47 AM, 12/23/09

Congrats to the owners of the CTS-Vs on the forum."

Why thank you, chavis10 :) I am enjoying mine tremendously, although this snowy weather has been hindering my time in the car.

"I hope to get a regular CTS at the end of 2010."

A wise decision, and best of luck with it.

bodyblue is still dreaming of owning a car like this. Unfortunately, I think he's a bit too thick headed to ever bring himself to buy one. His loss.

1487 and Stingray....take a look at this and please give me some arguments about it...

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/auto-test/consumer-reports-car-reliability-faq-8-06/overview/0608_consumer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.htm

and use the link above inlinesix posted......1.4 million responses.....gee they must be all wrong.

And MGfan I agree with what you said but the story is backwards as regards to production techniques and R&D standard. MOPAR was developing amazing products at half the cost of other car makers....good example....the cloud cars, Status/Cirrus, cost 900 million to develop and the Contour/Mistique cost almost 2 Billion and the Fords were not as well received. The LH front wheel drive cars were regarded as the best engineered FWD cars produced in America and generally the best handling FWD cars ever. Look up the car mags from that era. Spotty build quality was the downfall for these cars. When MB snagged them MB was not producing cars that lived up to the MB reputation......many of us laughed when the mags at the time said MB could teach Chrysler about build quality. The advanced cross-functional teams, factory worker and supplier involvement, and world-class benchmarking were things that MB wanted badly. Want more on this then I recommend, http://www.allpar.com/history/lh-manufacturing.html.

I believe you that those that ruined Chrysler are gone.....

I would probably kill myself if I had a CTS-V coming from a four cylinder engine.

In the US, BMW, MB and Audi (and VW to a lesser extint) fight an uphill battle with pricing. I could not come to grips with paying a premium for their products largely due to an unfavorable exchange rate. It seems people feel these vehicles cost more because they are made with some sort of proprietary technology that is exclusive to Germany when that is simply not the case. If that were true, you wouldn't see those companies scrambling to build more models here in the US in order to actually make some money.

I will give BMW some credit though for upping some of the standard equipment on certain vehicles but overall, their cars still simply cost too much. The price reduction that the current E received goes to show just outrageous the pricing was on the previous generation model. What exactly was special about the last gen E350 in standard form? Nothing.

Cadillac has now adopted a similar pricing schedule and I don't like it at all but at least they had incentives to lessen the blow. A standard CTS easily qualifies as a stripper and now cost $36k. But I have to give them credit though because buyers will subconsciously believe an item is worth what they pay in order to justify the acquisition. Afterall, you can't take on the competition if your claim to fame is the "budget" version of the real thing.

PS: Consumer Reports is a joke when it comes to cars.

"bodyblue is still dreaming of owning a car like this. Unfortunately, I think he's a bit too thick headed to ever bring himself to buy one. His loss."

Sorry, buddy but I never dream of cars. Cars are an interesting necessity in America. I enjoy driving and reading about cars and always have. But I have never cared what other people thought of what I drive. I have a way too stable personality to worry about what other people think. If your self worth is measured by your automobile then you really need to see a professional. I really cant see spending any more than about 45K on any car and that would be waaaaay more than I would want too. I choose to spend my money in and on other areas of interest to me and my family. I will send you some CTS-V jammies and John Z DeLorean mirror and razor blade for Christmas since you seem to be enamored of GM memorabilia.

"PS: Consumer Reports is a joke when it comes to cars. "

What an amazingly ignorant statement. Can you possibly back that up with any real facts?

Here are the FACTS

".2. How does CR's survey compare with other reliability surveys?
The timeframes used in collecting data also differ among surveys. J.D. Power's IQS is based on the first 90 days of ownership of new vehicles only, and its VDS (Vehicle Dependability Study) is exclusively based on 3-year-old vehicles. CR's survey asks about subscribers' experiences with their vehicles over the course of the previous 12 months and, starting with 2006, CR's survey now covers 10 model years—from brand-new models to models that are 10 years old, providing a more complete profile of the life of a model. Our Predicted Reliability, which forecasts how well a new model is likely to hold up, is based on the cumulative experiences of owners of the three latest model years."

Ok 1487 let 'er rip.......I know you have it in you to totally deny even the most basic facts. Now who is it that does not know what they are talking about? Oh and Stingray........how do you like your crow??? Hot or cold?

I used to subscribe to consumer reports and found their tone and arrogance to be juvenile and ridiculous. The manner in which they rate cars is a joke at best and pathetic at worst. They don't even present enough detail to let the reader know how they've arrived at such scores which can vary all over the map. As far as the reliability data is concerned, when someone can explain to me how badge engineered cookie cutter platform mates can achieve such great variance in reliability rating, then I will become a CR believer. As someone who has had a CR rated reliable car end up being a lemon, I am a firm believer in the luck of the draw. ANY car you buy has a chance to either be trouble free or a complete disaster. Are their trends, sure however if I like a car's attributes, I will buy it regardless of what CR publishes. If I am concerned that the car will be a dog after the initial warranty wears off, I will purchase an extended warranty. So as I said earlier, in my opinion, using CR to learn anything about cars is complete and utter waste of time. The only thing I respect about their automotive reporting is that their fuel economy numbers seem to reflect real world driving more so than these hopelessly optimistic figures dedicated car magazines achieve.

Chavis10:
Buyers/owners disagree with you.

Sringray:
Thickheaded is exactly what comes to mind when you write. You have some points but you bring them up like a malcontent high-school dropout. Don't be mad some people dislike your favorite car/brand. Deal with it. If you want your points to be taken, at least take the relevance of another post. Its not at all amazing that someone would not want to buy the CTS-V.

Chavis here you go.......now you are ready to be a CR believer.

"4.7. Why are there sometimes considerable differences in reliability between "related" or "twin" models?
Some variants of similar vehicles have different reliability results in our survey. Although you might expect that related vehicles, or "twin" models, would have very similar reliability histories, there are a number of factors that can lead owners to have different reliability experiences with these models.

Some differences can be attributed to different equipment, such as different suspension tuning, or power equipment.

Some related models may be manufactured in different plants. While their designs might be quite similar, by being built in separate facilities they may be subject to different manufacturing processes, such as differences in quality control.

Some model variants that share the same design but have different equipment level or body style can lead to differences in reliability. For example, the hatchback version of the Nissan Versa had average predicted reliability, but the sedan version had much below average reliability. The sedan had more brakes, power equipment and body hardware problems"

"So as I said earlier, in my opinion, using CR to learn anything about cars is complete and utter waste of time"

That is not what you said....you said "PS: Consumer Reports is a joke when it comes to cars. "

Both are pretty ignorant statements.

" bodyblue says:

12:55 PM, 12/23/09

But I have never cared what other people thought of what I drive."

Good - well there is ONE thing I agree with you on. I suspect perhaps the only thing.

I wish I had more time to reply to your Consumer Reports comments - they are seriously flawed, and I can prove it. But, I have far more important things to do than read and reply to all the crap on this thread.

I'm going to drive my new CTS-V. You can continue studying Consumer Reports. Have fun.

Too many childish comments on here coming from both sides of this disscussion. I hope everyone posting at this highschool level are actually in highschool. Im 18 a freshman in college and believe there is just too much BS being posted. People need to act like adults. Even when people have tried to make small humerous jokes some attack them like vultures.

As for the CTS-V to E63: I have been in a CTS-V and I have to say I was mighty impressed. The materials were top notch. They put the 550i's interior that I was in to shame along with the E550 coupe that I was in. I will say that pictures do E class no justice but there was still no comparison to the CTSs interior. The dash of the E550 coupe felt like my 06.5 Kia Optima not to mention some questionable plastics on the doors and along the bottom of the car between the front seats. I can easily say that the interior of the $40,000 2009 Hyundai Genesis V6 that I was in was most certainly a class above offering the suppleness of the LS460 that I was in. Rather than bash cars I go to every dealer lot, get in the car, and go from there instead of making random guesses about cars they may read about.

"I wish I had more time to reply to your Consumer Reports comments - they are seriously flawed, and I can prove it. But, I have far more important things to do than read and reply to all the crap on this thread."

Kind of hard to drive when your fingers are in your ears and you are saying "la la la la la la la"

Drive safely

take it easy guys...lol..some ppl take this stuff way too seriously. it still boggles me how easily these discussions end up morphing into insults and personal bashing. a car is a car...nothing more. it shouldn't be the basis of one's self esteem or self worth. i was sent to a performance driving school for work and wanted a car that was track ready, family sedan ready, and a good value...viola, CTS-V. like i said before, all of the vehicles in the super sport sedan class are tremendous automobiles....it just all depends on personal preference.

i agree that cadillac tends to lean towards a more chrome heavy garish design philosophy, but the germans have their stigmas too...the yuppie a-hole vs. the american chrome happy old man luxo barge. personally, i rather enjoy the fact that no one really knows what the V is.

I agree with ecorpuz12. Guys, take it easy, it's only the Internet. Anyone who owns either of these cars is lucky. I certainly feel so.

I subsribe to Consumer Reports, but I am concerned with the data collection, and how observed problems are rated. Are costly repair items given more weight, and also items that potentially leave you stranded? I hope so, but people are bizarre when they report problems. I had a friend who said her car was "great! No problems. Just one rattle by the door, but that's it. Oh, and sometimes the car doesn't start for like 30 minutes. My mechanic hasn't been able to diagnose the problem."

@bodyblue-

I misunderstood what you were saying. Mercedes definitely learned how to build things more cost effectively from Chrysler, but its factories were actually the most sophisticated of their time (and remain so to this day) with the finest robots and most strict tolerances. Chrysler's factories were considerably upgraded (technology-wise) during DaimlerChrysler, I remember reading about it in the New York Times. In essence, Chrysler got technology, MB finally figured out how to build cars at a competitive price, and that was an invaluable lesson. If that kind of mutual learning had been how the whole merger worked out things would be very different today.

Also, MB's quality was at an all-time high when the merger began. The W140, W202, and W210 were amongst the most highly regarded cars in the industry for quality and reliability (with the W210 dominating CR rankings, even besting the Lexus LS400). It was the all-new SLK and ML that were bringing quality ratings down at the time and those two cars were courtesy of Schrempp, what a great man he was.

@lexuslvr,

The E550 coupe and E550 sedan have totally different interiors, only the switchgear is the same. Either way, if your understanding of luxury is Lexus-plush (new Cadillacs fall under this category as well) you aren't ever going to like a German interior. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they just have different philosophies.

Jederino here you go....

"3.3. Are all problems considered equally serious?
Problems with the engine-major, cooling system, transmission-major, and driveline are more likely to take a car out of service and to be more expensive to repair than the other problem areas. Consequently, we weigh these areas more heavily in our calculations of Used Car Verdicts and Predicted Reliability. Problems in any area can be an expense and a bother, though, so we report them all in the Reliability History charts."

Hope this helps.

I'm just thankful that I'll soon be driving a 400 bhp German V8.
It's good to come home again...
:):):)

It's hilarious to see the fans meekly poo-poing the CTS-V as for the "nouveau riche" and not quite up to the standards of MB. Face it, the Cadillac beats the MB on all performance metrics, the MB costs 50% more, and the Cadillac is built better (check JD power, CR is a farce) and looks better to boot.

The only thing the MB buyer would show to the world is they have money to throw away, don't care about quality, believe in a brand's IMAGE and not reality, and cannot make a independent decision that would possibly offend their country club pals. Sounds like a class A loser to me.

"That data is based on 3-year old 2006 models, which would include the previous-generation CTS. CR is actually the only one to provide any form of dependabilty information for 2008-2009 cars. "

That is irrelevant. Why? Because CR was saying Cadillacs werent reliable in 2006 just as they are now. Since I can recall paying attention to CR reliability ratings few Cadillacs have even rated average in CR. And its not just the CTS, CR rates virtually every Cadillac poorly in reliability. I believe the last gen CTS may have been average at some point in its lifecycle. The bottom line is that CR's definition of "unreliable" is extremely broad. I believe you are the one who has said that MB's poor record in the magazine in the 90s and 2000s was mostly related to minor electrical glitches. If 10% of CTS models have issues related to sqeaks and rattles the car is going to be listed as "very unreliable"- I don't know if that is an accurate way to describe the problem.

"You claim I dont know what I am talking about when you have never said what your job in the auto industry is...please elaborate. "

LOL. Your lame arguments have been tried a million times before. I know a lot about the industry- I don't work in the industry. I live in Philly and there is are know industry jobs here except retail and repair jobs. Please elaborate on how you "discovered" that I work in the auto industry.

"Consumer Reports is not perfect by any means but you reveal your ignorance and/or bias by totally dismissing them as a source of information. Just because you dont like what they say does not mean they are incorrect. They take responses from people that own the cars. Does it even occur to there is a reason for a companies reputation and those ratings? Deserved or not there is SOMETHING behind those ratings."

CR is garbage but it takes a certain level of intelligence to understand why this is true. Their methodology is totally flawed and they refuse to explain why their data doesn't match up with other quality surveys. They dance around legitimate questions by saying "we don't take ad money" or "we have the largest sample size". Do you know ANYTHING about statistics? Do you realize that sample size is irrelevant when compiling accurate survey data? What's important is to capture a cross section of the group you want to survey. CR surveys the SAME people over and over again and surprisingly gets the SAME results. Sure Ford has done better as of late but overall their results are still the same- Japanese cars are flawless in terms of reliability and you take varying levels of risk by not buying Japanese. CR doesn't survey randomly because it would be expensive to do so and their sample size would be reduced. I guarantee you their reliability data would change if they sampled randomly or let ANYONE participate online even if they don't have a subsciption. Futhermore, the reliability issues that have been documented with Honda and Toyota in the past have NEVER materialized in CR's data. Why is that? In addition, CR presents data in order to pretend there are meaningful variations in quality when the gaps are miniscule. This is why they use the dot system instead of hard numbers. Furthermore, the standard for reliability shifts because its based on the overall reliability of the cars they collect data on in each year. In other words an American car that would've been rated reliable per 2000 MY standards may not be now becaue the average as shifted due to increasing quality across the board. It's all very complicated and I don't want to confuse you any futher- you just keep getting your recommendations from CR. Their results are irrelevant to auto enthusiasts or people capable of thinking for themselves.

"Chavis here you go.......now you are ready to be a CR believer."

I read that nonsense you posted defending the holes in CR's data. First of all, in many cases cars on the same platform are built in the same factory. In additon, various trim levels of any particular car are ALWAYS built at the same factory. CR's reasoning is not based in reality and they wont admit they can't explain why vehicles that are the same underneath the skin have different reliability ratings. I can explain it- its based on the owners perception of the car. CR also doesn't explain why vehicles that are identical except for engine get different reliability ratings. The example provided about the VErsa makes absolutely no sense at all. A car having a hatchback or trunk would not affect reliability. Both variants would share all electrical and mechanical systems and be built at the same factory. Saying one trim is rated differently because it has more standard equipment would ONLY make sense if the problem areas are related to that additional equipment. CR never made THAT claim which tells you there is no correlation between the additional equipment and the problem areas noted.

IN addition, the note about manufacturing methods differing at each factory is ridiculous. All automakers use the same processes at their plants and most factories use the same methods and technology these days. There was a time when Toyota and others may have had some advantages in this area but those days are over. The whole point of establishing efficient assembly techniques is to use them uniformly in all factories to acheive savings and equal quality. The idea that factory assembly quality is even related to mechanical reliability is dubious anyway. Most major components of a car are pre assembled and installed at the factory so these complete systems are in tact when they arrive at the plant and are merely bolted into place.

"Chavis10:
Buyers/owners disagree with you. "

How do they disagree? As I said, if Americans consulted CR before every purchase American and GErman automakers wouldn't even be in business here. If 60% of vehicles sold are NOT Japanese that tells me quite a few people aren't considering CR's ratings before purchasing.

"Ok 1487 let 'er rip.......I know you have it in you to totally deny even the most basic facts. Now who is it that does not know what they are talking about? Oh and Stingray........how do you like your crow??? Hot or cold?"

Um, nothing you posted about JD Power and CR is news to me or anyone else. What exactly where you trying to "expose" here? JD Power does a 3 year dependibility study because it makes sense to allow more than a few months before proclaiming you have accurate data on reliability. CR is already saying the INsight is reliable even though it had only been on sale for a few months by the time they collected their survey data. Sorry, but that is worthless data. You need more than 6 months to determine if a vehicle is reliable for the long haul. IN additon, their "predicted reliability" is garbage as evidenced by the fact they had to eat crow after recommending BRAND NEW Toyotas before collecting one bit of data. In additon, CR decides which automakers get automatic recommendations. Honda and Suburu vehicles still get automatic recommendations while Fords do not in spite of Fords reliability rating. If you are collecting data objectively you do not get to pick winners and losers and you do not get to predict reliability. If a Toyota or Honda product is on a brand new platform or has been extensively overhauled it makes no sense to give that model an automatic recommendation. CR stopped the practive for Toyota but continues it for other models. The 2010 Fusion was not predicted to be reliable even though its the same as the 2009 model mechanically and the 2006-2009 model had EXCELLENT reliability. can you explain that? Its called double standards.

"What an amazingly ignorant statement. Can you possibly back that up with any real facts?"

I just backed it up for him. In additon, CR never reveals how it scores cars but invariably Toyota and Honda vehicles typically score the highest in their segments. Every other magazine that uses numerical scores provides a chart explaining subjective and objective ratings and weighting. Not CR- they pull road test scores out of thin air and domestic models with identical performance to import models always score lower. They rated the 2010 Equinox far below the Forrester in a recent issue but when you look at the objective data they performed equally. As I said, its garbage.

"They pay their workers the highest wages of any automaker in the industry and offer the best health and vacation benefits, they treat MB owners with respect and courtesy, they stand behind their products and honor warranty claims most automakers would write off as "user-induced", and they are a hotbed of technological innovation. "

Mercedes:

I know you are a huge MB fan and believe they are unparalleled in every aspect of carmaking but you and I know you cannot substantiate your claim that MB honors warranty claims better than their competitors. If you have a way to back that claim I'd love to it for myself. All major automakers innovate and most pay their worker decent wages- at least the ones outside of Korea. I've never owned an MB but I've not had problems getting warranty claims honored thus far.

"The only thing the MB buyer would show to the world is they have money to throw away, don't care about quality, believe in a brand's IMAGE and not reality, and cannot make a independent decision that would possibly offend their country club pals. Sounds like a class A loser to me."

It always amazes me when people act like being well off means you LIKE wasting money or don't care about money. I have a relative with an S class (questionable quality but thats another story) and she is relatively frugal. You don't get rich (or upper middle class) by wasting money and I suspect there are many people who could find something else to do with $40k other than buy an E63 that cant outperform the CTS-V. If you are solely committed to Mercedes or think a Cadillac may embarrass you in front of pretentious friends the E63 makes a lot of sense- aside from that it doesn't. Even if I could afford an E63 I would still think $40k is a lot of money.

I must admit you did an outstanding job of disputing hard data with rhetoric. I will go example by example for you.

"LOL. Your lame arguments have been tried a million times before. I know a lot about the industry- I don't work in the industry. I live in Philly and there is are know industry jobs here except retail and repair jobs. Please elaborate on how you "discovered" that I work in the auto industry."

Re read my statement...you imply you work in the industry by stating you have info and superior knowledge about autos, yet you really only know the basic talking points of industry mags and trades. You have never even worked on a real car I assume....like I said...you are a poser.

"Do you realize that sample size is irrelevant when compiling accurate survey data?"

Ummm who told you that? You are showing your hand and there is nothing in it.

"CR is garbage but it takes a certain level of intelligence to understand why this is true."

Ahhhh now it is the old "You must not be smart enough to understand why I am right argument" You must be 17 or 18 years old to think that would work.

"Sure Ford has done better as of late but overall their results are still the same- Japanese cars are flawless in terms of reliability and you take varying levels of risk by not buying Japanese"

Again you are WRONG..the overall results are not the same...and Japanese cars are not flawless by any means...did you READ the entire article on how they get the results? I thought not.

"I guarantee you their reliability data would change if they sampled randomly '

How would you do that?

"Futhermore, the reliability issues that have been documented with Honda and Toyota in the past have NEVER materialized in CR's data"

PROVE THAT STATEMENT with facts right now...please provide the links to such data.....oooops you cant.

"If 10% of CTS models have issues related to sqeaks and rattles the car is going to be listed as "very unreliable"

Again you are incorrect and lie to prove your point...that is not what it says...jdo you always talk about things you dont know about? READ THE ARTICLE.

"Their methodology is totally flawed and they refuse to explain why their data doesn't match up with other quality surveys"

Prove it....please post a scientific survey with the source material to back up that statement. I am now calling you on all of your BS.....you cant get away with your propaganda any more.

"I read that nonsense you posted defending the holes in CR's data. First of all, in many cases cars on the same platform are built in the same factory."

I did not write it...it is CRs data. But not all cases are the cars built in the same factory.

"t's all very complicated and I don't want to confuse you any futher- you just keep getting your recommendations from CR. Their results are irrelevant to auto enthusiasts or people capable of thinking for themselves."

Your inability to admit you just might me wrong is only eclipsed by your lack of class and arrogance. How do you know the results are irrelevant? Have you talked to every auto enthusiast? How do you know I cant think for myself? Have you met me? Nope you just cant believe that somebody other than yourself can hold a different opinion than you.

"IN addition, the note about manufacturing methods differing at each factory is ridiculous. All automakers use the same processes at their plants and most factories use the same methods and technology these days"

But not all plants have the same workers. Yes the process is the same but there is still the human element...so you are wrong yet again.

"Most major components of a car are pre assembled and installed at the factory so these complete systems are in tact when they arrive at the plant and are merely bolted into place."

Your only correct point in this post....very good!

"The 2010 Fusion was not predicted to be reliable even though its the same as the 2009 model mechanically and the 2006-2009 model had EXCELLENT reliability. can you explain that? Its called double standard"

The 2010 is NOT exactly the same, close but not the same. Yes CR does hand out ratings based on past performance and that is a double standard. But they are impressed with Ford and they are changing the way they rate them. GM cars still are not up the the standard of Ford and that drives you crazy, I can tell because you become frantic in your efforts to distort and destroy other peoples opinions and facts.

Why do you care so much anyway? Are you sure you are not 15 and sitting in your room full of Vette posters? Even if you are not you sure act that way. These past few posts have destroyed your last bit of credibility on here. You rant and rave at scientific data and dismiss things you dont agree with as irrelevent and stupid and people you dont agree with as the same. I decided to reply to your ejaculation of a post because I am on vacation, I love reading this blog and I am really enjoying taking each one of your points and responding with known facts, not just opinions. The fun part is that I really dont read that much into CR ratings at all. I do however dont think they are to be completely discounted....to do so is to use your word "insane". I could not resist drawing you out to show how completely unreasonable you can be.....thanks for the entertainment.....oh and I will be around all day if you feel like continuing to amuse me.

For a thinking person, CR provides no tangible benefit to the car shopper that he/she can't get anywhere else. It is so easy to pick up on their bias and slanted views that it's not even funny. Bottom line, if you like a car (and CR rates it unreliable), buy it. If a person has purchasd foreign cars for the last 20 years and buys a Fusion, they will hold it to a higher standard than a Camry. If a headlight goes out, they may fill out their CR survey to reflect problems with the electrical system since they will say, "The headlight in my old Camry lasted for 5 years. American cars are still crap." It's not that far fetched if you talk to a wide scoop of car buyers who refuse to even consider vehicles outside of one particular brand.

Back to the CTS-V vs E63 topic, let's examine the pricing here to demonstrate HOW overpriced the E really is.

For the base price of $85.750 you DO not get the following items included on a loaded CTS-V for $71k (including dest and gas guzzler charge w/automatic): navigation, music hard drive, voice control, keyless start, heated/cooled front seats, 19" wheels, limited slip dff, adaptive suspension, moonroof, adaptive forward lighting, and automatic hi-beams.

Does the E63 have additional options not available on the CTS-V? Sure, but in order to get the base E63 up to the equipment level of the loaded CTS-V, you have to spend thousands more before we can even get to the point of discussing E exclusive contents.

You can even make the case that the E uses better materials if you wish but for the difference in price, you cannot rationalize the E but for pure personal preference. Especially considering the V still spanks it in performance. Heck the limited diif, 19" rims, adaptive suspension, and suede steering wheel cost $8950 alone. All of those feautes are standard on the V except the steering wheel which only costs $300 on the V.

I'm certainly no fan of CR(they support Obamacare, for one thing) but I do think that CR's ratings aren't bad for measuring broad trends. It's when you look at specific models that things get fuzzy. For example, my 2004 X3 84k mile is unreliable according to CR, and it's needed just one unscheduled repair(an SRS sensor). In contrast, my "reliable" MS3 has required multiple trips to the dealer for everything from a blown LF strut to a bad turbo- all prior to 50,000 miles.

PS- if you've read the Car and Driver comparison you will see that they had a slower manual transmission Euro version of the V as it was the only V available in the area. Had this test been conducting in America where they would've had access to an automatic vehicle, the V would've outperformed the AMG and they really would've had to out right lie in order for the MB to be ranked 1st. The price difference between these vehicles is simply too large to ignore and the same goes for the M5.

roadburner I agree with your last post and my '05 Mazda3 was a dog so I got ride of it at 32k miles yet CR claims that model should've been reliable. As I keep saying, it's the luck of the draw. CR can show trends and nothing else. Using it to determine the purchase of a specific model is simply not sound judgement. If you pick the blue Corolla instead of the green one on the lot next to it, you may have just purchased a lemon as opposed to a problem free vehicle.

"Ummm who told you that? You are showing your hand and there is nothing in it."

Most trusted surveys you see referenced in the media poll a few thousands people at the most. Having a million pieces of data that are not garnered with sound methodology is worthless. Do you think there is a reason why political polls don't poll the same group of people every time they ask a question? If you happen to pick a sample group with a particular way of thinking you cannot get results representative of the country as a whole. CR is the only respected survey that I know of that doesn't randomly sample. Their data pool is limited to the people who pay for the magazine- invariably those are people who look to CR for guidance about what cars are best and worst.

"Ahhhh now it is the old "You must not be smart enough to understand why I am right argument" You must be 17 or 18 years old to think that would work."

Actually, I gave you about half dozen thoughtful reasons why their results are to be taken lightly. I think any intelligent person can understand the arguments I presented.

"Again you are WRONG..the overall results are not the same...and Japanese cars are not flawless by any means...did you READ the entire article on how they get the results? I thought not."

At least 90% of Japanese models are rated above average in reliability in CR and its been that way for some time. There have been a few exceptions like the Armada and Titan when they were new but overall CR's basic theory is unchanged- Asian cars are always the most reliable and in many cases they have the best road test scores. They even break down their reliabity results by area of origin and say Asian cars are the best, German cars are improving and are second and American cars are improving but are a distant third except for Ford. CR goes out of its way to dismiss claims of bias by finding ONE or TWO Asian vehicles that have less than excellent reliability as if that proves anything. I've never seen any explanation for why well noted reliability problems with Toyotas never show up in their results.

"Prove it....please post a scientific survey with the source material to back up that statement. I am now calling you on all of your BS.....you cant get away with your propaganda any more."

Stingray already provided links to JD Power results that dont line up with CR reliability ratings. You responded by posting CR's own defense of their survey- you didnt actually dispute anything he said. I'm not reposting links that have already been provided. JD Power is scientific because they survey vehicle owners chosen at random. Their sample size isnt as large but they have to incur costs to survey so they cant match CR's captive sample of millions of subsribers. You aren't "calling me" on squat- you don't even understand what I'm talking about here.

"I did not write it...it is CRs data. But not all cases are the cars built in the same factory."

Amongst American cars platform mates are ALWAYS built at the same factory. I challenge you to find exceptions. There is slightly more variation amongst Asian automakers because they have more flexible plants but various trim levels of the SAME car are always built on the same assembly line regardless of manufacturer. CR is famous for recommending one trim or engine and not recommending another with no sound explanation for the variation.

"How do you know the results are irrelevant? Have you talked to every auto enthusiast? How do you know I cant think for myself? Have you met me? Nope you just cant believe that somebody other than yourself can hold a different opinion than you."

The results are irrelevant to people who see cars as more than appliances. CR doesn't consider styling, price or overall design when rating cars. MAny of the cars they rate the highest get mediocre reviews from other sources because those vehicles are boring.

"But not all plants have the same workers. Yes the process is the same but there is still the human element...so you are wrong yet again."

HAve you seen any video of a modern auto plant? Apparently not. In today's world workers basically bolt the dashboard and doors in place and do quality checks. Robots do the rest genius. Do you think some companies have better robots than others? There is little room for error in today's assembly plants due to automation. This isn't 1965. Please get educated on how cars are built before telling me I'm wrong. I've watched programs about auto plants run by GM and MB and others and the processes are VERY similar at every plant.

"The 2010 is NOT exactly the same, close but not the same. Yes CR does hand out ratings based on past performance and that is a double standard. But they are impressed with Ford and they are changing the way they rate them. GM cars still are not up the the standard of Ford and that drives you crazy, I can tell because you become frantic in your efforts to distort and destroy other peoples opinions and facts.
"

Ford has a proven track record at this point and the Fusion has rated highly for four years and yet they stil say they cannot make assumptions about the 2010 model. But Hondas and other brands get automatic recommendations based on past history. They have not given out any automatic endorsements on ANY new Ford models in spite of all their praise for Ford. Since its arbitrary there is no way for Ford to know when they might earn the rights that Honda and Suburu enjoy. GM's standing in CR really doesnt change the flawed methodology. All of the domestic automakers have slashed warranty claims and increased warranty coverage in the last few years. Long terms tests I've read of GM and Chrysler vehicles have shown quality to be on par with the competition and yet CR continues to claim they lag in quality. MT had a LT CTS and had no unscheduled stops but CR says the car has poor reliability. Even Edmunds car had minor issues that didnt affect operation of the car or cause unscheduled visits. Is that the mark of an unreliable car? I guess so per CR's standards. When you spend decades telling people that companies A and B make inferior products its kind of hard for your subscribers to have a favorable impression of those products. Now that CR has taken to endorsing Ford products I expect reliability ratings for Ford will stay high- it may be a long time before we see any change for GM or Chrysler products.

"These past few posts have destroyed your last bit of credibility on here"

This from the authority on credibility? are you serious?

"The fun part is that I really dont read that much into CR ratings at all."

Finally we agree on something. Good to know you share by views on their ratings. Makes me wonder why you wasted so much time acting like you didn't understand my point. The reason why CRs results are pointless is that the variation between "reliable" and "unreliable" is small in 2009. In other words, their recommendations are worthless because by historical standards all cars are reliable today. They simply parse data to make people believe otherwise.

chavis:

I think the primary issue comes down to owner expectations and what people consider a problem. For example, if you read the owner comments on the 2008/09 Accord you will see LOTS of complaining about the brake noises, premature break wear and wind noise. To my knowledge the Accord still gets the best possible reliability rating from CR. What does that tell me? That loyal CR readers are sold on Honda quality and don't associate the Accord issues with poor quality. Considering that at least 1/3 of the commenters on edmunds complain about the brakes there is NO way that issue shouldn't lower the Accord's reliability ranking in CR and yet there is no sign of it. Similarly, if someone got the 3 and read all the great reviews they may have ignored minor issues and anything short of a breakdown wasn't going to be reported on a CR review. Since cars are mass produced and there is so little room for human error or deviation in parts quality I believe the issues aren't likely to be confined to a small % of a particular model- I think minor issues aren't going to get the attention of a driver who generally enamored with their car. I had a sunshade rattle fixed on my car that likely wouldn't have been noticed by most Aura owners.

"For a thinking person, CR provides no tangible benefit to the car shopper that he/she can't get anywhere else."

A thinking person uses ALL of the tools available to them to make an informed choice, dont you think? Saying CR provides NO benefits is untrue. In your post above you make valid points about perceptions of cars however. Roadburner is correct...broad trends are the best way to use CR....Discounting something or someone because one does not agree with that point of view is completely silly...as shown above. I have always driven American cars (wife had the Prius when we met) and always had good luck with them...even my current Dodge. I buy what I like and think will serve me well, no matter what anybody or any magazine thinks. I am looking at a couple of Asian cars this time as I like several of them.....will I buy one? Maybe. I will look at CR for the broad trend of the brand, not model of the car I like as one facet of my decision process.

"HAve you seen any video of a modern auto plant? Apparently not. In today's world workers basically bolt the dashboard and doors in place and do quality checks. Robots do the rest genius. Do you think some companies have better robots than others? There is little room for error in today's assembly plants due to automation. This isn't 1965. Please get educated on how cars are built before telling me I'm wrong. I've watched programs about auto plants run by GM and MB and others and the processes are VERY similar at every plant."

Then there are no differences in cars at all,.......thanks for clearing that up for all of us "geniuses" out there. I hope you enjoyed your program on Sesame Street......

Not letting you off on this one "Their methodology is totally flawed and they refuse to explain why their data doesn't match up with other quality surveys"
..
Again....PROVE that statement.....saying "Stingray already provided links to JD Power results that dont line up with CR reliability ratings. You responded by posting CR's own defense of their survey- you didnt actually dispute anything he said. I'm not reposting links that have already been provided. JD Power is scientific because they survey vehicle owners chosen at random. etc" Does not prove your statement. Provide facts and info PROVING their methodology is flawed..Posting another mag stats proves nothing.

"The results are irrelevant to people who see cars as more than appliances. CR doesn't consider styling, price or overall design when rating cars. MAny of the cars they rate the highest get mediocre reviews from other sources because those vehicles are boring."

Finally a valid and thought out statement! If you would post things like that, you would not be held in such ridicule. Making emotional and outrageous statements gets you no respect.

"Amongst American cars platform mates are ALWAYS built at the same factory. I challenge you to find exceptions. There is slightly more variation amongst Asian automakers because they have more flexible plants"

If you actually knew as much as you say you do about auto plants then you would know that Chrysler actually has the most versatile plants. The plant that makes the Caliber/Compass/Patriot is a perfect example......and probably why there is some differences in quality. When a plant changes lines it promotes uneven quality......I can provide links to this plant if you like.

"Most trusted surveys you see referenced in the media poll a few thousands people at the most"

Name them.....and post the link to them.

"Having a million pieces of data that are not garnered with sound methodology is worthless"

Untrue. Just because you do not AGREE with the methodology does not mean it is flawed or worthless. Again all of your arguments are based on the fact that you dont like how the ratings are formulated....you dont like it, fine......but dont make statements you cannot back up, like saying all of their results are garbage. You cannot have a true discussion about facts if you dont provide any to back up your side of the story. You post your opinions and blanket statements then attack by saying I am not smart because I dont agree with you. How could I agree with you if you dont provide any links, studys or facts? Can you at least see that point? I had forgotten how obtuse you can be sometimes.

Obtuse=difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

"I had a sunshade rattle fixed on my car that likely wouldn't have been noticed by most Aura owners. "

Would you consider the steering wheel plastic that came off over and over on the LT Aura to be a minor problem if it could not be fixed and required several trips to the dealer to be fixed? Would you rate that as "minor"? The part itself is "minor" but the time and effort to get it repaired was "major" dont you think?

Really duders the troof is all cars have a moderate risk of experiencing some kind of problem. They're complex machines with a trillion parts.

What CR doesn't really account for — nor can anything outside of a hands-on long term test — is owner responsibility. For example, Chryslers get pretty bad reliability ratings, but Chryslers are statistically, more popular with lower-income and/or younger buyers. While those demographics won't as a rule take shit care of their cars, they're far less likely to maintain them as well as a BMW owner or Lexus owner.

Coming from a poor family, I have some firsthand experience with this. My parents let those lights burn out because more often than not, the money just wasn't there to fix them.

Also I think it's kind of absurd to compare the reliability of an Aveo to a 5-series or Lexus or something. Not only is there 40k separating the cars, you're looking at completely different owner profiles.

So the way CR parses data to determine reliability ratings is actually kind of flawed since it can't account for some things.

What I think we can all agree is that the best way to judge a car's reliability is to study the long-term logs from sites like IL and C/D. I like reading the writers' opinions, and outside of test-driving the car yourself, it's the best way of getting an idea as to what a car is like and how reliable it is.

Overall CR vs. JD Power can be disputed all day. I work in market research/analysis and almost every study has its own methodology. JD Power doesn't put any specific Cadillac or Mercedes model in the top 10 anyway. If you're looking for a pattern, both reports back each other up to an extent. American cars are leading IN CERTAIN MODELS and in general are getting MUCH better. Buick has consistently ranked very, very well with JDP.

I keep seeing "owners expectations" brought up about reliability rating etc... Is that suggesting that different owners, at different times, in different states, all forgive problems with a Civic but don't for a Cobalt? I'm not buying that. Maybe the owners of these Japanese cars in CR really like them and dependability is part of it. Don't knock the opinions of owners, its a good trend to review.

inlinesix, I gotta disagree with you. Reputation forgives a lot of faults. If something breaks off on a 7-series you're not going to make sweeping generalizations about the BMW brand. Considering Toyota in particular lives off the strength of its image, I don't see how this is so hard to understand.

I had to post something so we could make it to 100 comments.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

I'll make it 101 then with some far more brilliant

80085

Wrinklebump:

That was a rhetorical question by the way. Brand preference in reporting is not enough to say dependability ratings are off to a degree that they reach the wrong conclusion. Chrysler owners don't report more problems than Buick owners because Buick owners have a stronger brand preference for Buick. Especially in the first few years of ownership. I don't see how thats so hard to understand.

I don't have time to persuade you. If you understand...good. If not...oh well.

"If you look at Toyota and Honda products from the 80s (if you can find one) or even early 90s"

Uh, 99% of said 80's cars ARE Hondas and Toyotas.

Are you serious with that statement? If I had a dime for every time I see 15-25 yr old Honda out on the road daily, I'd be a rich man.

Just relax guys, remember this is the guy who frowns upon us because we would rather drive a 3-series than a Taurus SHO.

And also, why, WHY are we only getting Track tests of these?

How about a full comparo.

First it was the S550 vs. 750Li, then the LS460 Sport v. 750Li, and now this?

Can we get a full, thorough comparison here?

Those types of comparisons are what I live for!

"Does not prove your statement. Provide facts and info PROVING their methodology is flawed..Posting another mag stats proves nothing"

its quite apparent everything I am trying to explain to you is over your head. You do not sample the same people over and over in ANY survey. NO OTHER SURVEY OPERATES LIKE CR's RELIABILITY SURVEY. None. If you want to gather data you sample a random group of people that represents the overall population. JD Power gets owner surveys from randomly selected participants and their results differ from CR's. Coincidentally, JD Power isn't in the business of ranking cars and thus really doesn't have to worry about their opinions of cars influencing results. CR ranks cars and provides reliability data and SHOCKINGLY many of the cars they rate well get great reliability scores. What a coincidence? Also- the brands they rate the highest (with a few exceptions like VW or MB) tend to get the best reliability ratings while the brands they criticize (Chrysler, some GM products) tend to get the worst reliability ratings. Seems like a pretty significant coicidence to me.

"Finally a valid and thought out statement! If you would post things like that, you would not be held in such ridicule. Making emotional and outrageous statements gets you no respect."

My goal in life is to get your acceptance and respect. Thank you sir for that pat on the head. If I could ever be considered an undisputed authority on cars like you are my life will be complete.

"Name them.....and post the link to them."

Any political or opinion poll. Also, read a statistics book and perhaps you will have some clue as to what I'm talking about. Get educated about how statistical sampling works and then come back and see if we can have a productive conversation. You don't understand why CR's results are tainted because you don't know anything about collecting trustworthy data. If CR only offered subsriptions to employees of the Big 3 and their families do you think the reliability results would be the same? See if you can wrap your head around that and then you might understand what I'm trying to explain to you. When you poll the SAME people you get the SAME results.

"Untrue. Just because you do not AGREE with the methodology does not mean it is flawed or worthless."

Wrong. See above. Using your logic I could say robbing a bank isn't wrong if I personally don't think its wrong. The methodology is flawed and this is why CR is always trying to brag about how large their sample is every year. They avoid talking about who gives them the data or the demographics of their subsribers and just focus on size.

"The part itself is "minor" but the time and effort to get it repaired was "major" dont you think?"

No. Problems that do not prevent safe and effective operation of the car are not major in my book. Problems that can be addressed at an oil change are not "major". When all major systems of a car are functioning and the car starts every day its reliable in my book. In addition, where did you get the idea that they spent a "major" amount of time getting the steering column housing reattached? My recollection is that they got it fixed twice at the most and the last fix was permanent. Sorry, but that is not a reliability problem- that is an annoyance.

I can't think of a reason that any sane person would buy the AMG over the CTS-V. The V slightly outperforms the Benz, but that doesn't even matter. If the Benz was only $10k more than the CTS-V, I would choose the Benz. Why? Because I like the styling alot better, and the E class is more comfortable than the CTS (IMO), but with pricing as tested, You would have to be insane to pick the Benz, whether you have the money to blow or not. $100k is alot of money for any car, and considering that you can buy a two year old AMG for under $60k, I would never pay $100k+ for any E class.

I'm not sure why anybody wants RWD 4 door sedans with 500hp. It just doesn't make sense to me.

It's too much power and torque running through just the rear wheels.

I guess folks want to slide down the road sideways as they spin out of control.

But hey, I've got 521 hp!

You better get your checkbook out buying a used AMG MB. Talk about expensive repairs.

Okay, so ya'll might as well consider the E63 AMG the most luxurious performance sedan in the world. By design, it may look better to some viewers, but I give both cars, on a scale of 1-10, a 10 on looks, IMO.

But...but...ya'll can talk all that quality luxury comparison crap all you want, even after over 100 comments of this article, LOL. That still doesn't change the fact that the Cadillac CTS-V...is still...King of luxury performance sedans, until the next comparison between this car and the 2011 BMW M5. An epic battle for king that I just can't wait to see.

In a lot of ways these vehicles appeal to different buyers. The CTS-V is basically a 4-door Corvette with a nice interior. The E63 is far classier and more luxurious than the Caddy and it combines that refinement with a high-tech V8 and a capable chassis to boot. While the Benz does cost more than the CTS-V - it's going to hold its value better. Plus, GM's negative perception doesn't help the Caddy either. No matter what though, you're not going to get a bad vehicle whichever you choose.

@1487
You're kidding, right. Your tireless rant for the past couple of days is nauseating. The old wisdom, " You get what you pay for." has never been more true when it comes to vehicles. True, some companies manage to creat a decent product, that is a real value, but better than the Benz the Caddy is not. Despite your upturned nose at the House of Mercedes, the fact remains that there is a reason that Cadillac doesn't charge over $100,000 for it's attempt. Benz provides better quality. Right down to the plastic used for the valve covers on the tires. "Slightly" better performance and discount leather will not make the CTS-V a better product.