2016 Cadillac CTS-V To Start At $84,990, Taking Orders Now

Priced about where you'd expect.  More than a Charger Hellcat, less than an M5.

Still much better price than the BMW and Benz. If it falls short anywhere it will be forgivable and if it leads in any area it will prove to be a bargain.

Hellcat? Sorry this is a complete package not a value car with an expensive engine that can not use all the power it makes.

I want one so bad!

Priced about where you'd expect.  More than a Charger Hellcat, less than an M5.

All your favorite Europeans (which are this car's direct competitors) are more than Hellcat and a regular Charger combined, what is your point? Anything to belittle Cadillac? If you have no nice things to type, don't type anything.

85,000 for a Cadillac - 75,000 for a Z-28...where's the little 'banging my head against a brick wall' emoticon?

I would be more disturbed by a Malibu nearing $40K and a Cruse nearing $30K.

Everyone wants to make more money but it just starts a viscous circle where you want to make more prepare to pay more.

We all can expect to be millionaires and still shop at Walmart.

I expect it will get only worse and the people in the pool able to buy a new car will only grow smaller or more in debt.

So the price of the CTS-V = E63 - six months of Benz depreciation

So the price of the CTS-V = E63 - six months of Benz depreciation

Not to stir the pot in yet another Cadillac thread (this is getting old), but have you seen this? Or looked up depreciation through a cost-to-own site such as KBB's? Or perused Cars.com or Autotrader listings for that matter? I think you'll see interesting things that may be slightly out of sync with what you want to see. Just saying...

ANYHOW, that pricing seems appropriate given the previous model's pricing and the lower rung models' pricing, new vs. old. Perfecto.

 

So the price of the CTS-V = E63 - six months of Benz depreciation

 

Not to stir the pot in yet another Cadillac thread (this is getting old), but have you seen this? Or looked up depreciation through a cost-to-own site such as KBB's? Or perused Cars.com or Autotrader listings for that matter? I think you'll see interesting things that may be slightly out of sync with what you want to see. Just saying...

 

ANYHOW, that pricing seems appropriate given the previous model's pricing and the lower rung models' pricing, new vs. old. Perfecto.

 

We'll it is the washington post, always a political point to be made. Do not trust them on anything related to the auto industry.

 

So the price of the CTS-V = E63 - six months of Benz depreciation

 

Not to stir the pot in yet another Cadillac thread (this is getting old), but have you seen this? Or looked up depreciation through a cost-to-own site such as KBB's? Or perused Cars.com or Autotrader listings for that matter? I think you'll see interesting things that may be slightly out of sync with what you want to see. Just saying...

 

ANYHOW, that pricing seems appropriate given the previous model's pricing and the lower rung models' pricing, new vs. old. Perfecto.

 

As we've all been told multiple times, the S-Class is the standard of the world. Even in your article, a Mercedes S-Class loses 32.4% of its value in the first year... or roughly $32,400.  Six months of depreciation is $16,200, so seeing as that was just a snarky guess on my part, it still seems to be pretty accurate.  

In absolute dollar terms, after 2 years of Benz ownership, you will have basically bought a CTS V-Sport with your depreciation. 

Using the percentages in that article

An E63 will be worth about $68,750, a loss of $32,950.

A CTS-V will be worth about $53,629, a loss of $31,361

After figuring for the opportunity costs and interest expense of spending an extra $16k on the Benz, the Cadillac is a much better deal.... and it will be at least an equally capable vehicle.

Percentages are fun to look at, but in the end, it comes down to actual dollars and sense. 

All expensive sedans depreciate quickly.  Sports cars hold value, cars like a 911 or Corvette.  Which I never got why someone would pay $60,000 for a 6 year old 911 when a new one is $85,000.

Cadillac really needs the CTS-V to sell on merit so they can build the brand image.  You don't want to have the image of "we're the discount luxury brand, buy our car because it is cheaper."  You want people to buy to buy your car because it is better or the brand image creates some emotional connection.  That is how Porsche gets fools to pay $800 for a carbon fiber rear window wiper.

All expensive sedans depreciate quickly.  Sports cars hold value, cars like a 911 or Corvette.  Which I never got why someone would pay $60,000 for a 6 year old 911 when a new one is $85,000.

 

Cadillac really needs the CTS-V to sell on merit so they can build the brand image.  You don't want to have the image of "we're the discount luxury brand, buy our car because it is cheaper."  You want people to buy to buy your car because it is better or the brand image creates some emotional connection.  That is how Porsche gets fools to pay $800 for a carbon fiber rear window wiper.

So SMK, in summary you are saying Cadillac cannot be standard of the world until it starts fooling the customers, even if it offers value, dynamics, performance, technology at par or superior than its competitors at a lower price. Got it!!

No, I am not saying they need to fool customers.  I am just saying Cadillac shouldn't aspire to be the value luxury brand, they need to promote the product more than the price.  If this car is better than an M5, I'm sure Cadillac would like to price it at $95,000 base and pocket and extra $10k in profit.   But I'd imagine their pricing analysts don't see them getting enough volume if it were M5 money.  That perceived value or brand image is where the luxury brands make their profit. 

 

 

So the price of the CTS-V = E63 - six months of Benz depreciation

 

Not to stir the pot in yet another Cadillac thread (this is getting old), but have you seen this? Or looked up depreciation through a cost-to-own site such as KBB's? Or perused Cars.com or Autotrader listings for that matter? I think you'll see interesting things that may be slightly out of sync with what you want to see. Just saying...

 

ANYHOW, that pricing seems appropriate given the previous model's pricing and the lower rung models' pricing, new vs. old. Perfecto.

 

 

As we've all been told multiple times, the S-Class is the standard of the world. Even in your article, a Mercedes S-Class loses 32.4% of its value in the first year... or roughly $32,400.  Six months of depreciation is $16,200, so seeing as that was just a snarky guess on my part, it still seems to be pretty accurate.  

 

In absolute dollar terms, after 2 years of Benz ownership, you will have basically bought a CTS V-Sport with your depreciation. 

 

Using the percentages in that article

An E63 will be worth about $68,750, a loss of $32,950.

A CTS-V will be worth about $53,629, a loss of $31,361

After figuring for the opportunity costs and interest expense of spending an extra $16k on the Benz, the Cadillac is a much better deal.... and it will be at least an equally capable vehicle.

 

Percentages are fun to look at, but in the end, it comes down to actual dollars and sense. 

 

It is true that you will still save money with the CTS-V, even taking into account the listed MSRP for the E63 is actually $94.5k for non S models. According to my (by all means, rough; no Ins or EPA data to use) calculations, the 5 year cost-to-own for the CTS-V may undercut the E63 by a bit, on top of the purchase price difference. 

Still, ignoring the snark... E-class depreciation =/= S-class depreciation < CTS depreciation, regardless.

Caddy shoud not be allowing pics of the V cars in white.  Check out the ATS V writeup on C/D website.  It has the dark gray ATS V coupe.  Stunning and expensive looking, the white ruins it.

 

 

 

So the price of the CTS-V = E63 - six months of Benz depreciation

 

Not to stir the pot in yet another Cadillac thread (this is getting old), but have you seen this? Or looked up depreciation through a cost-to-own site such as KBB's? Or perused Cars.com or Autotrader listings for that matter? I think you'll see interesting things that may be slightly out of sync with what you want to see. Just saying...

 

ANYHOW, that pricing seems appropriate given the previous model's pricing and the lower rung models' pricing, new vs. old. Perfecto.

 

 

As we've all been told multiple times, the S-Class is the standard of the world. Even in your article, a Mercedes S-Class loses 32.4% of its value in the first year... or roughly $32,400.  Six months of depreciation is $16,200, so seeing as that was just a snarky guess on my part, it still seems to be pretty accurate.  

 

In absolute dollar terms, after 2 years of Benz ownership, you will have basically bought a CTS V-Sport with your depreciation. 

 

Using the percentages in that article

An E63 will be worth about $68,750, a loss of $32,950.

A CTS-V will be worth about $53,629, a loss of $31,361

After figuring for the opportunity costs and interest expense of spending an extra $16k on the Benz, the Cadillac is a much better deal.... and it will be at least an equally capable vehicle.

 

Percentages are fun to look at, but in the end, it comes down to actual dollars and sense. 

 

 

It is true that you will still save money with the CTS-V, even taking into account the listed MSRP for the E63 is actually $94.5k for non S models. According to my (by all means, rough; no Ins or EPA data to use) calculations, the 5 year cost-to-own for the CTS-V may undercut the E63 by a bit, on top of the purchase price difference. 

 

Still, ignoring the snark... E-class depreciation =/= S-class depreciation < CTS depreciation, regardless.

 

CTS depreciation of late.. as in 2014 models has more to do with the overproduction that Cadillac is correcting than anything else.

In terms of VSeries, versus say AMG.. the depreciation factor is in the Cadillac owner's favor.

My 2012 VCoupe with 20K on the ODO is worth $42K after I paid $73K OTD, or a loss of 43%

A '12 AMG E63 with same features and mileage is at  $58K, paid OTD $130K, or a loss of 55%