IL Track Tested: 2012 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Coupe vs. 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe

I vote neither. $69k for the Caddy is getting awfully close to the 997 911 territory, and Porsche dealers are known for offering 5-figure discounts to move leftover cars.

$81k for the C63? Are you kiddin' me? That IS the 2012 911 territory.

It's amazing how close the performance numbers are but the Caddy is a full $10k cheaper. This is a no-brainer, CTS-V all the way.

CTS-V, wagon. White on titanium wheels. With a stick.

That Mercedes is wearing very skinny boots compared to the Cadillac. Oh, and the Caddy has PS2s. Enough said.

Just wait six months and buy the Caddy at 50% off retail after someone takes the initial hit...

"Just wait six months and buy the Caddy at 50% off retail after someone takes the initial hit..."

You are nuts.

Check the prices for the slightly used CTS-V and see if you can find one at 50% off initial retail. When you do, let me know.

If this C63 AMG is already $81K, how much is the Black Series C63 going to be ?!?!

Need to take about $15K-$20K off the top of these cars to even be remotely successful.

"That Mercedes is wearing very skinny boots compared to the Cadillac. Oh, and the Caddy has PS2s. Enough said."

You're going to blame tires for the AMG coming second, all the while the Caddy still has to row through the gears? How about "if the Cadillac had a dual-clutch tranny, it would probably have beaten the AMG by two tenths to 60 instead of one."

RS5 for me up here in the snowbelt. Something tells me the CTS-V would be a touch to twitchy in the snow, even with winter tires. Otherwise, CTS-V. Wagon.

Its a no brainer, for such close performance, one would take the Cadillac, its also better styled...however that is a matter of personal tastes.

For me, Benzes are just too common, they are not exclusive enough, so I would not pay the high price they ask for.

Just buy a GT-R and blow both of these cars into the weeds.

I'd take the sedan version of both of these over the coupes.

The CTS-V Coupe is so ugly, and the C63 Coupe looks so boring.

bmwm1: "Just buy a GT-R and blow both of these cars into the weeds."
"I'd take the sedan version of both of these over the coupes."

So you'd "just buy" a GT-R ... No price and possibly not avail so why not an RS-8???

Then you would "take" the sedan versions of those cars? I don't get the comment? The car you would "just buy" for an undetermined price doesn't come in a sedan, does it? In fact, it's quite a suitcase, are you sure you'd still "just buy" one?

Just giving ya a hard time ... cuz if you think these cars are ugly and boring, why would you "take" one in any version????

I wouldn't "take" one or "just buy a GT-R, but that Caddy looks pretty kewl over the Merc, not too mention equal to and or greater than performance and price. Slightly better deal if you're in that market...

J. M. O... I could be wrong?

im guessing the Merc's acceleration advanteges are in its faster auto transmission and launch control mode?

i would take the caddy because of its infinently verieable dampers not only does it handle better but it is more confertable when you are done having your fun

I'm genuinely surprised by two things. First, that IL managed to find a C63 with $20K in options. Secondly, that the C is the equal of the CTS-V in nearly every regard. That really is a testament to how much weight comes into play at this level. The C63 has less power, a narrower track, and skinnier non-PS2 tires. By all measures the Caddy should have obliterated the C.

If it were up to me the decision would be easy: C63. That is purely because I find the CTS-V coupe to be one of the ugliest vehicles ever produced. I absolutely despise it. I will take the boring and generic C-Coupe to hideous any day. If we were talking sedans things would be different. I happen to love the way both look as sedans.

If I had $70,000 to spend on a car, I would purchase the Cadillac CTS-V Wagon. The Wagon has most of the performance of the coupe and sedan and gains tremendous room for daily living.

@e90_m3:
"$81k for the C63? Are you kiddin' me? That IS the 2012 911 territory"

Comparing the modern cars strictly based on their price and the past reputation of car's brands is not a very smart thing to do :-) How about we compare the features of the C63 and 2012 911? I'll start: the C63 still has the awesome hydraulic power steering which is perfectly appropriate for such car, whereas the new 2012 911 already has the awful electric power steering (just wait for future reviews of this car, you'll see what it exactly means) with no options of choosing the more conventional steering system instead.

I find the AMG the more appealing of these two monsters. I don't know what it is about Caddy styling, but they look great to me for a short time and then I grow tired of them quickly. The Benz isn't what I would call beautiful, but the classic coupe styling is far from offensive.

dizzi,

What I meant to say is that I would take the C63 sedan and CTS-V sedan over their coupe counterparts, no question. The CTS-V coupe is just too ugly looking, and the C63 coupe is just too plain. What I am trying to say is, the sedan versions look 1000x better. But, if I was forced to pick between the two, I would pick the C63 coupe. On the other hand, the GT-R would leave both of these in the dust for not that much more. An $81,000 C-Class? No thanks, that's almost E63 money.

The CTS-V coupe has odd proportions if you ask me. But I love how the wagon looks.

The Caddy wins by a $12,000 mark or what the sucker would pay for the Merc. Glad to see the American cars kicking some German butt. It takes a lot more money from Germany to beat out the American cars. Porsche needs $170,000 to beat the normal CTS-V in their Panamera turbo. Why don't they test the base model that is closer in price...because it would get spanked. The other day I just glanced at a car and thought Honda and then I take a closer look and its a bland BMW. German cars are not worth the money any more.

A true testament to American engineering (Engineers from MIT, Ann Arbor, Cal tech etc are just as smart as those in Germany :). Better performance, cheaper, more personality. I was not certain about the looks at first either...than I saw one in person, took a walk around it, and was sold!

Great article about CTS coupe in motortrend:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/1104_middle_east_cadillac_challenge/viewall.html#ixzz1dGiU2zrA

"But in Dubai, it's the looks that carry the water, and this is where the V-Coupe excels. The M3 looks like a small BMW. The C63 like a shrunken Mercedes-Benz. All Audis (save the R8) look like all other Audis and in UAE terms, the R8's getting long in the tooth. Making the aggressively creased and bling-chinned CTS-V Coupe stand out from the crowd in a big way. As we're driving down the ultra posh JBR (Jumeira Beach Road) past a parked all-carbon fiber Ferrari F430 and a couple of Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupes, the locals are whipping out their cameras to take pictures of the angular Caddy.

Which makes sense, as the CTS Coupe is one of the automotive world's strongest designs. Moreover, to the new-and-shiny-loving residents of the UAE, the V-Coupe is novel. And novel is very, very good. To a point. Remember, in the United Arab Emirates the BMW 7 Series outsells the 3 Series. The S-Class is as common over here as Accords and Camrys are back home. Meaning that Cadillac will be a niche luxury player until it plugs some pretty gaping gaps. This is true not only in the UAE, but throughout the luxury car-buying world."

+1 louiswei - the CTS-V holds its value well. I've been waiting for decent used examples to get down to $40k or so before picking one up. At present, nationwide it is tough to find good ones for much under $50k if you're lucky - and they tend to be basic models (which retailed for $60-65k new). That's pretty good value retention for a 2-3 year old luxury car, especially one named Cadillac.

The C63 AMG Coupe starts at $61K. Very well-equipped including the AMG Development Package it's $75K. So the price difference shown here is a little exaggerated, plus the cars aren't even the same model year.

My personal preference is for the C63 over the -V for a couple reasons- 1) I find the CTS coupe to be hideous with its dorky proportions, 2) the Benz's build quality is far better than the CTS' (at least sedan vs sedan), 3) the minor performance differences don't mean much in the real world, but I prefer the character of the AMG engine over the LS, 4) I could do European delivery with the C63.

For $70-80K I wouldn`t be buying any of these cars, but if I have to choose for the matters of this thread, give me the C63 AMG.

No doubt.

OH performance and price is american power the CAD.looks and style the Benz.

You wouldnt catch me in an accord coupe for $25k, no way in hell I'd pay $70k for one that LOOKS like an accord coupe, no matter how fast it is. Not even .0005% impressed by the c, but absolutely LOVE the CTS and V.

Love the CTS-V! Had a few chance to ride in my family's, fast as a bat shot out of hell and it has 4doors and a big trunk! The Recaro seats were very comfy, heated and ventilated...For the price/performance ratio, you can't beat CTS-V

Tired of seeing Inside Line do so-called comparisons of cars on different days. Weather & traction make a big difference in terms of the numbers. Also, when comparing driving dynamics & feel, I think you need to drive them back to back.

"Check the prices for the slightly used CTS-V and see if you can find one at 50% off initial retail. When you do, let me know." LOL +1

I looked for a CTS-V wagon. I know you really just have to special order them; but the few that are available new are optioned out to MSRP $70k. I found a couple of 2011 for between $50k to $60k in New England.

My math aint too good but that don't look like nowheres near 50% off, even after a whole YEAR.

@mercedesfan

You need $8100 for the Benz's LSD and H.O. motor to put up those numbers. And unless you're into black, white or red you'll need another $750-$1500 for paint. It's rather ridiculous for a car in this class to have a vinyl/plastic interior so that's another $2600 for leather. With just those 3 things it's still $3k over the CTS-V.

And even at that price you're still missing the Caddy's Nav, HID, telematics, parking sensors and keyless-go.

I strongly dislike the CTS coupe's styling, but the wagon and sedan are both good looking, especially the wagon. Interesting how much Cadilliac has improved its psychological presence in the minds of buyers, especially enthusiasts, as indicated by the number of favorable responses posted here when compared to an M-B product.

That CTS is no better looking than the XLR and the interior is straight out of the Chevy Astro van.

I would rather have the Merc AMG.

I believe the C63 starts at $64k
IL should make that clear that all C63's do not cost over $80k

They are pretty much in the same class based on price
BD

+10 to all the CTS-V wagon comments

@7driver,

I never argued the C wasn't considerably more expensive than the Caddy, I was just surprised they had one that was fully optioned. It is rare to find C63s that are fully loaded.

"I believe the C63 starts at $64k"

That includes leather. If you want MBTex you can delete the leather for a $2590 credit.

"the interior is straight out of the Chevy Astro van."

I'm no fan of the CTS interior but this is a rather ridiculous statement.

@7driver,

Oh, and I would skip the leather. MB-Tex is superior in pretty much every way. It lasts longer and requires no maintenance, it's grippier, and it feels just as good as the C's optional leather. Just my $0.02.

Wow, those stats look like they could have been made by the same car easily. Kind of looks like it wasn't the m3 that mercedes was benchmarking when they made this one!

"And unless you're into black, white or red you'll need another $750-$1500 for paint."

The CTS-V only offers 4 no-cost paint colors: silver, black, blue or "mocha". If you want red, white, gray or Black Diamond it will cost you an extra $995. On the C63 only Diamond White costs $1500. The other metallic paints are $720.

You get to choose from 10 paint colors vs. 8 and 7 leathers versus 3 (black or gray, or gray with yellow on the -V). The C63 also gives you a choice of 4 interior trims versus just the optional ($600) Midnight Sapele on the -V. You do get a lot more choices for your money on the Benz.

If the CTS-V sedan was developed to dethrone the M5 shouldn't the CTS-V coupe be against the M6 and E-Klasse coupe (AMG) if there is one? It seems the upcoming ATS would be a natural C and 3 Series competitor.

What I'm amazed at is how close acceleration is between these 2. I know the Caddy caries a couple of hundred pounds more but given its substantial advantage I thought it would cream the Benz! The Benz 6.2 must be quite a piece to run with something with diminish displacement AND a supercharger.

Virtual dead heat in every measure, yet the Benz has a lot less hp and torque. The C63 Black Series is going wipe the floor with the CTS-V Coupe. Car and Driver get the C63 to the 60 mph in 3.7 secs. Edmunds is always slower.

Have to give Cadillac credit though, they've built a true competitor wit the V series cars. Still would take the Benz though, better looking for me. None of the cheapness GM cars still have. Having driven the C63 Coupe though, I bet the Cadillac easily has a better ride. I can (for once) see why someone would take the Caddy. That in itself is a victory for GM.

M

Virtual dead heat in every measure, yet the Benz has a lot less hp and torque. The C63 Black Series is going wipe the floor with the CTS-V Coupe. Car and Driver get the C63 to the 60 mph in 3.7 secs. Edmunds is always slower.

Have to give Cadillac credit though, they've built a true competitor wit the V series cars. Still would take the Benz though, better looking for me. None of the cheapness GM cars still have. Having driven the C63 Coupe though, I bet the Cadillac easily has a better ride. I can (for once) see why someone would take the Caddy. That in itself is a victory for GM.

M

different drivers, different days, means comparo = crap sorry. We already knew they were about comparable, putting them head to head would've been exciting.

The CTSV coupe wins this one easily it just simply makes more sense....., I have to comment on e90 posts as it doesnt make sense......your comparing a Porsche 911 to the CTSV and C63 and saying these cars are too close in price to the 911????? That doesnt make sense on so many levels one both of these cars are faster than a 911 carrera S. Not to mention at $69,000 your talking about Cayman S or Boxster S money not 911 money spec either the 911 or Cayman or Boxster for that matter out to the CTS-Vs standard equip list and your talking about a $80,000+ Cayman and an almost $120,000 911 so your comment simply just doesn't make sense. Not too mention if your comparing performance numbers to get a 911 to perform where the CTSV you would have to get more than a carerra or carerra S or either a carerra S with the PDK.....Realistically the 911 is more a refinement of a retro styled icon that has built up its name more on its brand name and prestige than its anything. The 911 fails on many levels, and the GTR proves that buying such a compromised and fickle car isnt needed to achieve supercar levels of performance....

This one really is a no brainer, between the two CTS-V has to be it, while you can't find one for 30K yet you could possibly pick one up for say 45K, that's almost half the price of the Merc and not to mention the repair costs of anything German is going to astronomical compared to the Caddy, and I love the lines on the Caddy too,I can't however disagree for the money I would buy a GT-R, mabye even a second hand GT-R. You really are just getting more car for the money. Mercedes is just a name now, it has no where near the following it had 50 years ago. They are still where to go to get your future tech ( the money they spend on R&D, they should have put a car on the moon by now). But I wait, just like always and the tech trickles down to rest of the market.

Kind of interesting how people seem to either love or hate the CTS-V styling - there is no middle ground. That's actually a confirmation of a good design. Designs that aren't polarizing, and are non-offensive tend to be bland, boring, and forgettable.

Anyway, as nice as the C63 is, there is one major deal killer for me: the transmission. Mercedes just refuses to put a traditional manual in their cars, and for that, shame on them! I'm really enjoying my '10 CTS-V, and one of the things that I enjoy the most is the manual transmission. Sure it would be fun with an automatic too, but not nearly as much, and not nearly as involving to drive. And pulling flappy paddles in "manual mode" on the C63 just doesn't cut it.

The price doesn't help the C63 either. Pay more, and get less? WTF?

Although it is implied that Mercedes maintenance should be expensive, I love how a bunch of people who have never owned a Cadillac claim how it's dirt cheap to maintain.

As for different drivers,etc. - I don't suppose you expect any car mag to re-test a car every time a new comparison is drawn up, do you?

BTW, I don't get the comparisons with the GT-R. The GT-R costs north of $90k now, so it's far more expensive than either of these cars. Also, the GT-R is NOT a luxury car by any stretch of the imagination. It rides much harsher, and has far fewer features and creature comforts than either of these two luxury performance beasts.

The performance luxury segment is not about going the fastest for the least amount of coin. It's the luxury part of the equation that will always make these types of cars lose a bang-for-the-buck contest.

i thought the -v couple was one of the most hideous designs ever penned until i saw one in person. it's crazy, aggressive, technical -- i wouldn't call it beautiful. 'brawny' is suitable. it's not a woman you'd date. she's the somewhat intimidating highschool all-state shotputter that's obviously cockblocking you from the svelte shorty with the boots on over in the corner.

As a person who likes getting the most bang for his buck, I'd choose the CTS-V; it's cheaper, just as much fun to drive, and classifies as a luxury vehicle.

But if money was no object, I would wholeheartedly choose the C63. It looks classier, offers a much better dealership experience, and has far more international brand cachet.

Baby got back! Pick the CTS-V if you like big butts. But C63 got a prettier face and a sweeter voice.

The "$6,050 AMG Development package" raises the top speed from 155 to 174 - it still doesn't remove the speed limiter, and the car is still under- and crappy-tired. With every new generation, we hear that AMG finally is about more than going fast in a straight line, but these skinny 18s are in fact the only wheel/tire package offered on the car.

I know - if you want handling, that's what the Black Series is for - so if you want good tires, you go beyond the AMG C63, the AMG C63 with AMG Development Package, to the AMG C63 Black Series OR...the AMG C63 Black Series DTM.

Can the AMG C63 Black Series DTM Cubic Zirconia model be far behind? And are you gonna want leather or a nav system with that? Because if you do...yeah, that'll be extra.

Back to this model, though - they put in a crank, rods and pistons from an SLS - but since the're hand-building these engines to order anyway, and no extra labor is involved in installing those items vs. the "regular" ones, it's pure profit...and if the parts are currently on the shelf and being installed in SLSs now, how is this a "Development Package", unless the red paint for the calipers is still under development - ?

It's just so when you're hanging out at cars n' coffee, wearing your $1,200 leather with your silver-haired buddies, you have bragging rights.

Maybe Cadillac should set the rev limiter at 6k and install skinny all-seasons, then charge an extra five thousand dollars to raise the limiter back up and put the fat PS2s on it - ?

As for the acceleration, everyone knows a 7-speed automanual is inherently faster than a 6M. And everyone knows that the 6-speed slushbox available for the V is faster than the manual.

The CTS V edges out the MD in performance and cost much less. Caddie all the way.

On a side note...... Mike Magrath should be punched in the face for refering to a Mercedes as a Merc... If you are a car enthusiast you wouldn't dare.

sniperruff, because so many parts on the Caddy are general GM parts (especially under the skin), they are relatively cheap to work on (given that a Caddy dealer will probably charge more for labor simply because they are a "luxury" car dealer).

For example, the automatic transmission (which is in about 80-90% of the CTS-Vs sold if the 10-12 a month I see at the shop are any indication) is shared with many other GM vehicles. It is common, well understood and relatively inexpensive (also very durable). The engine computer (code E67) is also used in myriad other GM vehicles across the lineup and brands. As you go through the car you'll find a number of parts/systems that are mass utilized across GM. This is good for cost, if not for brand cachet when people realize it.

Make no mistake, some things, such as the magnetic suspension option, or the interior pieces (Recaro seats) are relatively unique to the GM lineup and can be very expensive to replace, but overall a Caddy should have significant cost savings when maintenance comes due.

LOL - love that first pic of the Caddy. It has the same outline as a constipated cat trying to take a dump.

roscoe108 - funny!

Even more funny b/c when you take the "outline" of either car, they look the darn near the same.

Kevin

Mind you the $81K is "as tested," not base. The C63 starts at $61K, so IL got a car with $20K in options.

On these 2, I'm going to choose Caddy based on just ONE thing alone: LOOKS.
The C Coupe just looks too... 'blah'

But since the money factor always plays a role, for over $70k, these 2 vehicles are not at the top of my list...

church123:

While it is true that the CTS may share a good number of components with other GM products, dealerships are free to mark up the parts as Cadillac parts.

Surely I have never owned a Cadillac so I don't know how much the parts are priced, but if I'm a GM exec, I'd mark up both parts + labor just because it's a Cadillac. I also do not expect most people with $90k to spend on a car to service their cars in a back alley garage.

"I love how a bunch of people who have never owned a Cadillac claim how it's dirt cheap to maintain. "

I do own a '10 CTS-V, and in comparison to German cars, it is dirt cheap to maintain. The biggest expense by far is tires. $2,000 for all 4 installed with tax and shipping, every 15-20k miles if you really DRIVE the car. But that tire expense is not unique to the CTS-V. While I haven't replaced them yet, I know the brake pads and rotors aren't cheap being Brembos and huge, but they do seem to last a reasonably long time. The rest of the car doesn't need much more regular maintenance than an ordinary family sedan. I think that says a lot considering it's performance.

They could mark up, but on the cross platform stuff, they really don't. Price out an O2 sensor, ECU, etc. and you'll see that the pricing is relatively consistent. As I said, I see 10-12 of these things a month passing through my hands and as such have become quite familiar with them. Platform sharing definitely has some disadvantages, but Caddy has managed to hide most of those while still reaping most of the benefits. The CTS-V, along with the Corvette and GMT900 platform trucks/SUVs, continues to be a crowning achievement for GM et al.

OKBeartoy: what are you smoking? I am afraid you will be sorely disappointed if you think you can wait six months and get 50% off a CTS-V. Yes, it will be cheaper. But not by a lot. So either one of two things are true: you know someone who is a Cadillac Dealer, or you know something else that I don't (please share, if this is the case). The CTS-V is going to retain most of its residual value. When it gets older, it is going to be a rare car given limited production numbers, and likely to increase in value, especially the coupe. The long and the short of it is that you will likely never find one of these cheap. Sure, there is the initial drop in value, but not like it would be for a standard CTS. 'Nuff said on that.

Now when it comes to which one of these two vehicles I would buy, its the Cadillac all the way for me. For one, the CTS-V has a far more distinctive appearance that sets it apart from its "standard" CTS brethren. The Merc, to me looks a bit too much like a standard C-coupe from a distance, but this will please some buyers looking to have a "sleeper." To me, buying such a car is not just buying a vehicle, but an investment to keep for the long haul, given its aforementioned limited production. Secondly, I would do no mofications to keep it pure....its already lots of fun just how it comes. Nuff said.

Bodyblues: agreed, lower maintanence costs for the Caddy. That would be another reason I would chose it. Coupe or sedan, stick. all the way.

racerhead says: "That CTS ...interior is straight out of the Chevy Astro van."

What are you smoking, you troll? Google pics and lay off the drugs for a while.

@stingray454: Try the Hankook Ventus V12. Half the price of the PS2s and 85% of the performance (unless you take it on the track).

"Anyway, as nice as the C63 is, there is one major deal killer for me: the transmission. Mercedes just refuses to put a traditional manual in their cars, and for that, shame on them!"

That's a good point. I wouldn't want an automatic, DCT or otherwise, so it would be hard for me to buy the C63. I guess that's probably why I bought one of its competitors.

Reading the responses to this post it is obvious that these are mostly fan boys stating extremes.

1. Someone compared a CTS-V to a Panamera Turbo, they are not competitors in any sense and the reason why the Porsche costs as much as it does is not to just attain its level of performance. The Panamera Turbo is a competitor to the Rapide, S65, and Alpina B7. The price argument the GM fan boys are making is the same as a corvette vs a 911.

2. The price difference between the CTS V and C63 comparably equipped is not as drastic as this loaded example.

3. The reason you are paying more is for the level of build and interior quality, and cutting edge tech that you get in the 2012 C63 which is not at the same level in the CTS.

4. Yes I have driven both extensively and yes the CTS does have a slightly better ride because of the adjustable dampers but the 2012 C63s ride is also greatly improved from the pre-face lift sedan.

5. They even stated in this test that the Benzes performance was compromised by the tires. With the same tires, PS2s, the C63 should be able to match or even surpass the Cadillac's handling limits because of its lighter weight and smaller size.

6. Car and driver got 3.7 to 60 for the Benz, the best I have seen for the Caddy is 3.9.

7. The CTS-V is a great car but it is not the messiah, untouchable that GM fan boys have made it out to be. If the C63 with 70 less hp was able to match its performance I am excited to see how the forth coming black series will raise the bar.

8. Sure the Cadillac may be something exotic in a place like Dubai, but here, in the US, their image is in the process of being rebuilt compared to Mercedes.

Really panamera4? You do know that the automatic CTS-V is a bit faster in a straight line race than the manual, right? And despite the slower manual shifts, once both cars got out of traction limited sub 60 mph speeds, the CTS-V started walking away (meaning the C63 will not match its accleration). And what cutting edge tech do you think you are getting in a base C63 that you aren't in a Caddy CTS-V?

Finally, the Caddy is using last generation Michelin tires against current generation Continentals on the C63. Now, I'll give you that the Benz might (probably will) handle better with PS2s, but if the reviews are any indication, it would also ride worse. I'm all for equalizing variables (tire brand), but if Benz chooses to put tiny 255 rear tires on a 500 hp car, that's just a bad decision on their part, regardless of compound.

For actual owners, in long term ownership costs (maintenance & depreciation), I'm pretty sure the CTS-V has the C63 beat. We are talking GM here, so the 73K MSRP of a CTS-V with all options is really more like 68-69 after invoice based deals, incentives, etc. Mercs on the other hand, depending on the market, are expected to sell at full MSRP with a slight discount.

I'd hate to see what Maintenance B on a C63 runs.

CTS-V interior is really starting to show it's age with the parts bin little gray buttons and the hard shiny black plastic (that will show ever little scratch when someone brushes up against it).

I'd be happy with either car, but I will be shopping for a CTS-V wagon next summer ... hopefully. Plus, finding a C63 on anyone's lot seems impossible. Plenty of CTS-Vs (even wagons) to be had.

@allinmyhead

My 2009 CTS-V sedan stickered at 69,870. It had every single option available, including and automatic and Recaro seats. I negotiated the final price at 61,999. I then got 0% financing for 72 months.

Nobody can touch the performance of this car for that price. NOBODY!

FYI, I would have bought the wagon if it were available two years ago.

Yes church really.

Yes, I do realize the auto is slightly faster, I also realize that I posted the quickest 0-60 time that I have seen for the CTS-V which should negate that argument because it is still slower than what C&D got from the C63. Also C&D acceleration times were posted with the sub standard tires on the Benz. Sure a .1 or so sec difference and 1mph or so at the quarter mile is a huge deal! (I should have stated "pretty much" match the performance). Obviously raw horsepower will prevail over weight at the top end, the Caddy gets 70hp over the Benz so that is inevitable.

The tech I'm thinking about is all of the Mercedes propitiatory innovations that costs millions to develop and are absent on their competitors such as pre-safe, attention assist, adaptive high beam assist, etc. On top of that the C63 has a multifunction, large, full color, adjustable information display inside the speedometer vs the CTS' tiny limited monochromatic read out, lane change assist which is not available on the Cadillac, a panoramic sliding roof versus the Caddy's regular sized tilt only sunroof, 11 airbags vs 6 in the CTS, and of course the MCT tranny vs a regular auto.

Also please do not try to down play the effectiveness of the PS2s they were regarded as the best most versatile performance tires on the market.

And to make matters even more interesting, the Benz starts at $61,430 while the CTS-V starts at $63,215 so it is possible to get one cheaper also.

Coupes? Plain simple: MB C-63. The CTS-V coupe is an ugly car. The CTS-V sedan or wagon are far better options.

The Cadillac is UGLY, the end

The manual puts the Caddy of the top for sure.

panamera - 0-60 time isn't what wins a race, time to distance is what is more important. 0-60 in cars of this power level is purely a level of traction question. The CTS-V is clearly pulling away, even in manual trim. 2-3 mph (projected diff for the auto CTS-V vs. C63) at the quarter mile mark is walking away.

I agreed that the C63 would probably return better objective handling numbers with PS2s, but the Conti 5Ps are not chump tires. And in either case, the new Michelin Pilot SS would beat either one.

As for tech and features (since I don't consider things like a sunroof or a color IP display "tech"), the standard C63 doesn't give you the 1) higher hp engine 2) a limited slip differential 3) leather seats 4) remote start 5) Navigation, etc. And it certainly doesn't give you the optional stuff like lane change assist, etc without paying lots more. On the other hand, all those items are standard on the CTS-V (coupe or otherwise) and you also get blind spot monitoring, probably the best competitive driving vehicle dynamics system this side of Ferrari and cooled seats. In fact, the only major options on the CTS-V coupe are the Recaro seats and the automatic transmission.

I'm not trying to say that Cadillac is all over MB in terms of feature set. There is give and take across the spectrum. But to get similar features and maximum performance out of the C63, you've got to spend a lot more - both up front and if history serves as an indicator, throughout the ownership experience. It's the standard auto sales tactic - entice you with the top spec model in the ads, but hit you with the entry level price that's missing out on so many key things (power, limited slip, leather - cmon, in a $60k car that's pushing it).

The CTS-V is really excellent. Absolute performance, bang for the buck, reliable, unique looking (at least in coupe and wagon form - unique != attractive to all, but you won't miss it), plenty of standard features. About the only place that Caddy really falls down at present IMO is in brand cachet. And then there's the aftermarket which is positively huge in favor of the CTS-V - they have to be one of the most modified lux sedans by percentage out there.

p.s. - I had 13 airbags for C63 vs. 8 for the Caddy coupe. Either way, not all that big a deal IMO.

CTS-V would be perfect except for 2 major faults.

1. Huge Ass
2. Visibility so poor they might as well remove the windows.

#1 is subjective. #2 is not. Work on that first.

On a minor fault level, the interior is too bling and "big". You feel like a little boy when you get in it. It doesn't feel sporty at all.

Wow they are both hideous, but a CTS-V sedan instead, or better yet save your money and buy a used AMG CLS preferably those used CLs63 go for about 55-60K under 20K miles.

CTS-V is an american guy with a big.... hp.... that doesn't know what to do with it.

Seems like germans can always extract more usable power/speed from the same hp numbers. Just look at anemic (on paper) M3 with its pathetic 290lb tq and 414hp. Mustang needs 100 extra lb tq just to keep up with it.

A formula to compare european to american engines in terms of speed:

American = European x 1.25

More like Euro car makers under rate their motors. Give me an American or Asian engine any day. Euro cars are just like the EU.....they run nice when new but when they break they are expensive to fix and maintain.

A few things to clear up...

1) The C63 they test literally has every option selected. That is why it is $81k. $70k-$75k will do just fine in either car as the base price for the CTS-V Coupe is $63,xxx and the C63 Coupe is $61,xxx.

2) NO ONE is a getting a 991 911 for $80k. Sure, a base Carerra starts at $82,100 but you will need at least $90k-$95k to get anything decent on it. About $100k would get a 911 equipped like either of these cars for $75k. And the base 911 won't even perform any better then either of these cars.

Here is my counter argument to these cars;
Audi S4 - From $47,300 (compared to $61k and $63k for these cars)
4.4 to 60 (compared to 4.2 to 60 for these cars)
12.9 1/4 mile (compared to 12.2/12.3 1/4 mile for these cars)
18/28mpg (compared to 13/19mpg for these cars)
AND
4-Doors, 5-Seats, Standard Quattro AWD, and an Audi Quality interior...

I know that the Cadi and Merc offer slightly more performance cars but for the real world the S4 offers more value in a better package for significantly less money. And heck, $5k would even allow for APR Stage 2/3 which will get you right about 390whp. That should make up the 2/10's to 60 and the half second 1/4....

That is where my $60k is going FOR SURE.

As for these cars, M3 for me, until the RS5 makes it here...

So many other cars I'd rather have instead of the C63 at $80k like a base 911, Cayman, Z06, M3. In short the Benz is way over priced.

I think I would rate magnetorheologic suspension as more significant a technological development than I would the various Mercedes nanny-assists, helpful though those may be.

It's a much more significant performance development, for sure - Ferrari sure thinks so.

I was surprised to see the power diff and the Benz being so close to the beatly CTS-V. Also, when looking at tire size, the C63 with the same setup ...you can extrapolate that it would be superior. The tires on the C63 are skinng but th 19s don't help much. I have a 2011 sedan and they are still the same width, 235, 255 rear. A lot of C63 drivers are able to go up to 275 on the same rim and report much better traction and cornering. I think that AMG likes a car that will change direction quickly which is maybe why they all seem slightly undertired.

They are both great cars. I never truly considered a CTS-V but I wholeheartedly respect it. To each their own on styling but having driven a ZR1, that motor is pretty amazing in the CTS-V. I don't think it will stimulate your emotions quite like the AMg with that amazing V8 sound but it is still quite good. I did not get the perf pack but by all accounts, it only amounts to a .2 diff in times or so. You can easily get a C63 without and on the track I was hardpressed to tell the difference between a perf pack and standard C63.

Why would anyone come in here and say "the Audi S4 is my choice" and note that is has 4 drs and seating for 5 as an advantage. We're talking about coupes here. Both Benz and Caddy offer 4 dour versions of these cars if you want to do a sedan comparo.

And while we're at it, you're going to spend close to $55k to get an S4 equipped remotely like these cars, and you're still going to be short a whole heaping helping of power while you have almost no weight advantage over the V8s.

And here's a little tip - Cars that trap in the 117-118 mph range in the quarter have a whole lot more than a "slight" performance advantage over cars that trap in the 108-109 range like the S4. The only reason an S4 would even be in the same zipcode is because for the first 60 ft AWD is a big help. After that, these V8 cars run away and hide.

The S4 is a nice car, probably the best car in its class, but it's no C63, CTS-V, or even M3. Whole different league there.

Oh, and if you want to get into mods, for the $5k you'd spend on the S4, that would get you an intake/headers/exhaust/pulley/intercooler upgrade and tune on the Caddy netting well over 600 whp. Really not a comparison you want to make, nor would Audi. Not fair to them at all.

I have to give credit to GM for the CTS-V, it is a really attractive and very powerful, highly engineered sports coupe that can compete with anything the Germans can throw at it. Nevertheless I can never understand why would anyone buy a performance car that was never engineered for performance in the first place. The CTS coupe is an entry level luxury car and that is what it was made for, same goes for the C-Class coupe. If you want a real performance machine that all intended purpose is for performance and speed, one could simply buy a 2012 Nissan GT-R or a Porsche 911 Carrera for about the same price range. If you rather have a loud, high-torque V8 engine just buy a Corvette Z06. If I really wanted luxury, performance, looks and versatility I would put my money on another Mercedes, the CLS63 AMG. Gorgeous looking, four door, coupe like styled with a huge V8 and awesome engine note.

The Merc is over 81 grand because its a merc...that is expected. German vehicles are naturally pricey. However that C63 did pretty good even though the caddy has a super charger & more torque and horsepower

Honestly...After reading some of these posts, why are people so obsessed with buy a CTS V.... wagon? The sedan looks 10 times better and cooler. I find any wagon so corny like a family singing together all the way to Disney World. Sure you get a little more cargo if that is the reason. I saw the sedan the other day, beautiful looking car except it being white and an auto.

70k for a CTS-V hits me with a little sticker shock. But somehow, I am okay with that. 81k for a C-class, which looks like any other c-class, is a non-starter. I've been in a number of C-class sedans, and they don't feel like they are on the same level as a comparable Audi, BMW, CTS, or even other Mercedes. The CTS-V is such a well respected car today, that no one that buys one has to make excuses.

"I find any wagon so corny like a family singing together all the way to Disney World. "

rsxs,

I think that's part of the appeal of the CTS-V wagon. That you can sing with your family all the way to Disney World, very rapidly. Same thing can be said about the S4 or RS6 Avant. There's something cool about a wagon that can blow away Porsches and Ferraris.

ne1butu2,

Thanks for your response and not barking back like most posts here do. I guess I was a little blunt with the Disney World comment but I just wanted to get some response back as of why people are so into a wagons. For me, its the image thing. I have a wife and two kids but I'm not even remotely close of buying a wagon(or minivan). A sedan would do just fine and does not scream out soccer mom or dad. People who know their cars(and most people don't) will say a CTSV wagon is sweet, but others will think(to me) of it as a larger cargo vehicle for the family when they walk by it.

This is not your grandfather's Cadillac. And that's not a compliment, by the way.

It's a amazing to me from car buffs the amount of brand bashing . You have to look at it for what it really is ... a world class car in speed and performance CTS-V for not world class money , You can't compare a CTS-V to high end AMG's and porsches etc with fit and finish and interior materials you can only compare performance . I have driven several V's and CTS's 4 performance model 300hp ,, Their really great cars but compared to used depreciated 100,000 dollars AMG porsches ,, their's no comparsion. As a owner of a 2006 CLS 55 030 car modded their nothing like a high end AMG at the right price .. I like the black series C63 coupe over the base coupe , I agreed to plain for that money , CTS-V coupe is nice and u don't see them every day like the other V's... Buy what u like ,, and "HAPPY Driving "
Badm

CTS-V Wagon all the way. "I just get a GT-R instead" Yeah, sure you would.