All of these cars are nice. I'll take the IS-F tho.
Really? I for one am shocked... j/k.
I went C63. It looks better than the M3 sedan, the IS-F exterior body kit still doesn't sit right enough with me to want one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottycameron
The other 2 are just that, the other 2.I would take the V on looks alone over the F. That car looks like a catfish with downs syndrome who is wearing a costume made by a vtec forum webmaster.
The 63 is just a make no appologies, grunting beast of a car that will smoke anything on the road.
The high revving V8 from the M would be a very close second.
The other 2 are just that, the other 2.I would take the V on looks alone over the F. That car looks like a catfish with downs syndrome who is wearing a costume made by a vtec forum webmaster.
Do you need a pilots liscence to fly...err, drive the V?
__________________ Gripping the wheel, his knuckles went white with desire! The wheels of his Camaro exploding on the highway like a slug from a .45. True death: 426 horsepower of maximum performance piercing the night... This is black sunshine.
__________________
A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.
CTS-V weighs 4,200 lbs????? Holy fuck! That is a big no-no!!! It's definitely off my list of dream sports sedans. Weight is anti-performance. They can up the horsepower to 700 or more, but an increase in weight undoubtedly decreases performance. This is very disappointing. I'd rather they put a smaller (albeit still supercharged) engine, and made other efforts to reduce weight, so that it'd be more tossable. As it stands, this thing would easily melt its tires from a standstill, but I'm pretty sure it won't be nearly as nimble as the M3 or IS-F in the twisties.
For me, the IS-F is #1, then the C63, RS4 (hopefully the newer version would be hotter and quickly climb to #1), and then the M3. I would not pay this much money for a GM product (maybe I'd consider it for $30K, slightly used).
CTS-V weighs 4,200 lbs????? Holy fuck! That is a big no-no!!! It's definitely off my list of dream sports sedans. Weight is anti-performance. They can up the horsepower to 700 or more, but an increase in weight undoubtedly decreases performance. This is very disappointing. I'd rather they put a smaller (albeit still supercharged) engine, and made other efforts to reduce weight, so that it'd be more tossable. As it stands, this thing would easily melt its tires from a standstill, but I'm pretty sure it won't be nearly as nimble as the M3 or IS-F in the twisties.
For me, the IS-F is #1, then the C63, RS4 (hopefully the newer version would be hotter and quickly climb to #1), and then the M3. I would not pay this much money for a GM product (maybe I'd consider it for $30K, slightly used).
First off. Step into the real world. You seem to think that the CTS-V will lose half its value in 1 year, that is not going to happen.
The CTS-V still has the best power-to-weight ratio of the group. As seen from videos, the C63 isn't that nimble either...so the CTS-V vs the C63 and Cadillac has a compelling case.
__________________
A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.
First off. Step into the real world. You seem to think that the CTS-V will lose half its value in 1 year, that is not going to happen.
The CTS-V still has the best power-to-weight ratio of the group. As seen from videos, the C63 isn't that nimble either...so the CTS-V vs the C63 and Cadillac has a compelling case.
Dude, I never said it will depreciate nearly 50% in the first year. I just said I wouldn't pay more than that for it. Power to weight ratio is important, but you can't defy the laws of physics. In the world of performance, weight is an enemy. Why do you think the Lotus Elise/Exige holds its own with much more powerful/expensive cars??? How the Caddy does in comparison to the others on the track remains to be seen. I'm quite sure it'll be as fast or faster than the fastest car of the bunch, the C63, from 0-60 mph - and I wouldn't expect any less, since it has the most powerful engine. But it seems like it won't be much more than an American muscle car, that's fast to 60, but suffers from excessive weight in the twisties. This is all just speculation, based on some known facts...real-world performance comparisons will decide.
Last edited by hasanazhar : 01-25-2008 at 01:44 PM.
What are you guys talking about, they all have very similar number of buttons except for the BMW.
Maybe someone should actually count them? I bet they differ by 3-4
Interior based on looks, not quality of the materials.
CTS-V
IS-F C63
BMW - looks like something out of the '80s
It's not about the quantity, it's about the presentation. Just because a 6'1" supermodel weighs the same as a 5'1" housewife doesn't mean they are equal.
You honestly cannot tell me the V does not look overwhelming and complicated compared to the other three cars. I seriously got a headache just looking at it, like they are trying too hard to show how much technology the car has. Like a 7 year old girl who got into her mom's makeup and is trying to look like an adult.
__________________ Gripping the wheel, his knuckles went white with desire! The wheels of his Camaro exploding on the highway like a slug from a .45. True death: 426 horsepower of maximum performance piercing the night... This is black sunshine.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
» Wheel & Tire Center
j/k.
