surreal1272

Do you drive a manual or automatic?

Seriously? Fact. All truck manufacturers have made misleading ads for years. This is nothing new here and that is what that silly article fails to acknowledge. Seriously? All truck manufacturers have made misleading ads for years. This is nothing new here and that is what that silly article fails to acknowledge. (re-posted since this is the same thing that a "guest" said).

The S is the only one available now and it is almost $20K more than the V at base price.

hmmm, so my 'yikes' sticker shock surprise was a complete mistake on my part and completely unfounded and you have now proven that, through many attempts I might add, and as far as you are concerned, you have now "closed the case." Thank you surreal, it's not the same without you policing my thoughts and expressions......but, my 'yikes' remains. It remains for the V and any other sedan that doubles or triples in price over a very competent base luxury sedan. Deal with that. Don't flatter yourself as I was not the only one who pointed out your flawed argument, unless you think everyone else is policing your thoughts as well. Can't wait until the GT comes out in 2017 so that we try your "yikes" argument on a $400K Ford.

@Wings--And your simple point is 100% unfounded when you compare it against the competition. I have already shown you the big difference in package price. Of course now you say that they are all overpriced yet never any mention about a certain overpriced $400K Ford whenever those conversations come up. That is a "yikes" for another day though. And you actually didn't prove Casa wrong either, unless you are taking his word that his numbers were right in the first place. Of the top ten depreciating cars of the last tens years, the TOP two are MB AMG models with the only Cadillac being the now gone STS-V. No mention of ANY generation CTS-V. http://jalopnik.com/5982789/the-most-depreciated-cars-of-the-past-ten-years And like Casa, those depreciation values for the AMG really start to tumble after the first two years, coincidentally when that maintenance free warranty runs out on the Benz. Now the case is closed.

Well said. The maintenance costs on just about any MB far outpaces any Cadillac, something Wings seems to conveniently ignore or forgets entirely. an 8.5% difference is nothing, especially when the Benz buyer initially paid 40% more for their car... What makes it worse is that U had SUCH A HUGE ISSUE with the price of the Cadillac, but are sitting there defending the more expensive Benz. What U seem to miss also is that in YEAR 2.. the Benz depreciation starts to accelerate even more so. Well, considering it was hypothetical anyway, just wanted to point out you were wrong. And really, I don't think expressing surprise with the word 'yikes' is having "SUCH A HUGE ISSUE" , but I will try and remember all this and just how sensitive some GM fans can be, in the future. Of course you wanted to point out that he was wrong instead of realizing the error of only going by one factor such as depreciation while ignoring the MUCH higher cost of ownership involved with owning the Benz.

Except that you can't drive two of them at the same time! Well back in the 90s someone made a Cadillac Eldorado with a Northstar engine in the back, they lengthened the trunk a little bit to make it fit. But the end result was 600 hp and 4 wheel drive and terrible handling. So If you bought two MKS, and like welded them together some how you could have 8 wheel drive and 700 hp. Well there you go!! Sign me up! Oh wait, there is the problem with parking that thing. Screw it! Sign me up anyway!

Except that you can't drive two of them at the same time!

coupla points Dumbass... U are are attempting to justify your lunacy by bringing up the AWD system in the $102,000 E63AMG as a good reason as to why the starting at $84,000 CTS-V is worthy of a "gasp?" So AWD is worth $18,000??? Can someone get me the troll patrol cause this MOFO is toast? Coupla more points: Benz has 577HP and torque to 590 lb-ft Cadillac has 640HP and torque to 630 lb-ft Benz has AWD yes, but also has to push around 4,674 lbs. The VSeries is at 4,145 lbs, a 529lb deficit. Considering the ATS-V is pulling in 12.0/122mph 1/4 and 3.7sec "0-who cares" times I'm thinking that the CTS-V is gonna beat the E63's numbers by a few ticks. I predict the CTS-V to pull a 3.2-3.3 0-60 without AWD, and a mid 11 @125, beating the E63's 11.6 sec @ 121.8 mph and this BS depreciation $h! U came up with is hilarious. A $73K 2014 CTS-V Coupe with almost all the trimmings is now worth, with 12K on the odo, $54K.. a drop of $19K. A $102K Benz E63AMG Swith almost all the trimmings is now worth, with 12K on the odo, $80,500.. a drop of $21,500 Research first Bitch "Research first Bitch" According to the Dyno Pull of the V.. how much is it cranking??? The V is SAE rated isn't it? so it should be spot on 650, right? Yes they are SAE but what would it be if it was on the same dyno pull as the AMG? And yes, that car is old school muscle in a shiny new package (his is a 2009 though I believe).

Ooh, a whole $1000. It's actually $83,995 so you are wrong again and there is WAY more than a $10K difference. You even had to add a bunch of frivolous options to the V to get it to the price you had. I added wheels, carbon fiber, Red Brembos, and sunroof and only came out to $95K. Optioning out those same accessories on the AMG pushed it over $120K! The only thing that separates the AMG is the AWD while still having 70HP less than the V. Again there is a $22K difference in base prices and the difference increases when you option them out. The V is not overpriced unless you also think the Z06 is overpriced (which its not). The one thing here I will give the AMG is that while on paper it is down 70hp.. it is a Merc. It is so underrated it isn't even funny. "The pertinent facts of the case are thus: The 2014 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S Model is a monster. Under the bulging hood sits a nicely juiced-up version of the now-familiar M157 AMG engine. It's 5.5 liters in displacement, has two turbochargers fitted directly to the exhaust headers, and fills the combustion chamber with direct-injected gasoline at 2000 psi. Such a motor, especially in the new S Model tune, creates 577 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque. Of course those power numbers are GMFN, or German Minimum Fantasy Numbers. Meaning that we stuck this particular gray example on K&N Engineering's dynamometer and discovered that the M157 in this car churns out 541 wheel-horsepower and 508 lb-ft of torque. As the S Model E63 is AWD, and since you typically factor in a drivetrain loss for AWD cars of 20 percent (the transmission and drive shafts tend to suck a lot of power), the actual crank numbers on this car are much closer to 676 hp and 636 lb-ft of torque. That's enough to propel the 4511-pound sedan to 60 mph in a crazy quick 3.4 seconds and through the quarter mile in 11.6 seconds at 121.8 mph. That's one big hammer." Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1311_2014_mercedes_benz_e63_amg_s_vs_bmw_m5_competition_pack_comparison/#ixzz3eljx98UE Granted, I don't know wha tmotor is propelling the current E63, but I would assume they underrate it quite well like they always have. Them and BMW. Oh, I'm not knocking the performance. The owner of my shop has SL55 AMG that is a beast. You cannot keep those rear wheels planted and it "only" has 550HP. I pointed out the HP numbers because someone else remarked that HP numbers between the AMG and the V were "similar". A 70 HP difference does not make it similar IMO. Agreed that on paper 70hp is not similar, that's a big difference. But acording to the Dyno pull.. it makes more than the V. Have you gotten to drive that SL55??? I'm not a huge SL fan but I would still love to drive a roadster AMG. That's true but I have seen more than advertised HP out the Vette motors too. Oh and no I haven't driven that car. Rode with the boss in it and man it may be a high tech AMG but that back end throws loose like an old school muscle car. Almost too much motor for that car...almost

Ooh, a whole $1000. It's actually $83,995 so you are wrong again and there is WAY more than a $10K difference. You even had to add a bunch of frivolous options to the V to get it to the price you had. I added wheels, carbon fiber, Red Brembos, and sunroof and only came out to $95K. Optioning out those same accessories on the AMG pushed it over $120K! The only thing that separates the AMG is the AWD while still having 70HP less than the V. Again there is a $22K difference in base prices and the difference increases when you option them out. The V is not overpriced unless you also think the Z06 is overpriced (which its not). The one thing here I will give the AMG is that while on paper it is down 70hp.. it is a Merc. It is so underrated it isn't even funny. "The pertinent facts of the case are thus: The 2014 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S Model is a monster. Under the bulging hood sits a nicely juiced-up version of the now-familiar M157 AMG engine. It's 5.5 liters in displacement, has two turbochargers fitted directly to the exhaust headers, and fills the combustion chamber with direct-injected gasoline at 2000 psi. Such a motor, especially in the new S Model tune, creates 577 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque. Of course those power numbers are GMFN, or German Minimum Fantasy Numbers. Meaning that we stuck this particular gray example on K&N Engineering's dynamometer and discovered that the M157 in this car churns out 541 wheel-horsepower and 508 lb-ft of torque. As the S Model E63 is AWD, and since you typically factor in a drivetrain loss for AWD cars of 20 percent (the transmission and drive shafts tend to suck a lot of power), the actual crank numbers on this car are much closer to 676 hp and 636 lb-ft of torque. That's enough to propel the 4511-pound sedan to 60 mph in a crazy quick 3.4 seconds and through the quarter mile in 11.6 seconds at 121.8 mph. That's one big hammer." Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1311_2014_mercedes_benz_e63_amg_s_vs_bmw_m5_competition_pack_comparison/#ixzz3eljx98UE Granted, I don't know wha tmotor is propelling the current E63, but I would assume they underrate it quite well like they always have. Them and BMW. Oh, I'm not knocking the performance. The owner of my shop has SL55 AMG that is a beast. You cannot keep those rear wheels planted and it "only" has 550HP. I pointed out the HP numbers because someone else remarked that HP numbers between the AMG and the V were "similar". A 70 HP difference does not make it similar IMO.

Again, ignoring certain facts. Fact #1, the CTS-V starts at $83K, undercutting that MB by $22K right off the bat. Fact #2, that MB when optioned to the nines (like you did with the V) is almost $30K more than the optioned out CTS-V. Fact #3, those model MBs drop like a rock as far as depreciation goes. So, to reiterate, you ignored the obvious facts to make a half baked "yikes" remark. Check your so called 'facts.' First of all, the V costs $84K. Second, the AMG comes fairly loaded, and with AWD, with very few options. And when you tally up the options, it is closer to a $10K difference. Hence my surprise. And yes, AMG and V both depreciate at an alarming rate, but the V far more so. And honestly, it's not as if Cadillac has NOT been in the news lately for over pricing their vehicles. Ooh, a whole $1000. It's actually $83,995 so you are wrong again and there is WAY more than a $10K difference. You even had to add a bunch of frivolous options to the V to get it to the price you had. I added wheels, carbon fiber, Red Brembos, and sunroof and only came out to $95K. Optioning out those same accessories on the AMG pushed it over $120K! The only thing that separates the AMG is the AWD while still having 70HP less than the V. Again there is a $22K difference in base prices and the difference increases when you option them out. The V is not overpriced unless you also think the Z06 is overpriced (which its not).

Oh and the V has 70 MORE horsepower, so that is not "similar" either/

Again, ignoring certain facts. Fact #1, the CTS-V starts at $83K, undercutting that MB by $22K right off the bat. Fact #2, that MB when optioned to the nines (like you did with the V) is almost $30K more than the optioned out CTS-V. Fact #3, those model MBs drop like a rock as far as depreciation goes. So, to reiterate, you ignored the obvious facts to make a half baked "yikes" remark.

An ignorant person could say that, sure, but YOU said it because you're Wings and you can't say anything about GM without a passive aggressive comment or thinly veiled criticism. It's why you don't get banned, yet still have -40 reputation points accrued in a month. really? REALLY???? All I did was make a simple shocked statement on price. All the rest is dust and nonsense for which you have contributed twice now. As for my negative points, a mod confirmed that nearly all of them are from one person who adores me so much that he makes sure you subtracts in every one of my posts, regardless. I will try to move on with my life though. Cue the victim commentary. We've heard it before, over and over again. You're so surprised when people get tired of your 1-dimensional contributions. If you want to "move on with your life" why did you follow us to C&G? The internet is VAST, and you show up within a week of us migrating from MT. Ahhh, the victim card is thrown, even though I started nothing. Anyway, back to product and price. I was surprised, and a title wave ensued, complete with accusations of ignorance. Did I miss anything in between? Nope Try the fact that while you go "yikes" you are completely ignoring the fact that it is substantially cheaper than the competition for one thing.

When you seem to be pretty ignorant as to why it costs that kind of cash, yes.

Are you implying that's overpriced? This thing is basically a 4-door Corvette Z06 (same engine, same 8-speed automatic, same electronic LSD, same magnetic ride, etc). When you add the CF package, it's damn near Z07-level track prepped. World class performance doesn't come cheap. Can't afford it? There's an ATS-V or CTS Vsport for $60-70k. Can't afford that either? Then you need to choose between luxury OR performance, because you can't have both. Could not have said it better myself. The price seems steep until you realize what it is and what it has while undercutting the competition by a substantial amount.

It got a bigger engine while losing 250lbs. It is fine as it is.

You completely missed the point. You slam Cadillac for four cylinders applications but pass out excuse after excuse for MB using four cylinders in even MORE models.

Because the CT8 is still a phantom that doesn't exist yet, and will probably arrive with a torqueless V6. Just like your over rated world best S series BS MB Garbage! Amazing how you will always move the goalpost and have a million excuses for MB but everyone else especially Cadillac you always have to state will fail. I will be the first one to both admit that I was wrong if your so called predictions come true but also will be the first to point out how your over rated German MB crap has become nothing more than an over rated Chevrolet product line with lower and lower quality as they whore out the MB luxury badge to increase profits for the few executives at the expense of quality. Already shows in most of MB products. Funny, there was a time when Mercedes shared a few things with a cheaper domestic brand. Maybe you've heard of them. I think they were called Chrysler. Daimler almost single handily destroyed Chrysler with their bean counting cheapness (Crossfire comes to mind here). Wonder if you gave them as much hell then as you are giving Cadillac now?

Because the CT8 is still a phantom that doesn't exist yet, and will probably arrive with a torqueless V6. That makes zero sense in relation to them spending so much time talking about unrelated trucks. You also know nothing about the powertrains for the CT8 but given that most of the competition also have torqueless motors, it makes your post even more irrelevant and trolling in nature.

You seem to be overlooking some key details about the SRX. It already HAS an active damping suspension, the interior goes up in quality with equipment levels, including real wood trim, and the kicker is that the SRX offers REAL torque-vectoring AWD with an eLSD. The black label Lincolns are nice, and so is the optional turbo V6, but don't sit here and tell us how inferior GM products are when you clearly didn't research them. If you compare the volume selling trim levels, you'll have equal 300+ hp engines, equally luxurious interiors, and trade back and forth on certain features. They also have a similar parking assist feature as well and someone seems to forget that the SRX is 6 years old so of course it will be lacking a certain newness compared to a 2016 MKX. It's redesign cannot come soon enough though because it just doesn't fit in with Cadillac's newer crop of cars.

How exactly did this go from the CT8 to pick ups?

Different size and class of car. People don't look past the price of a S class and then buy an E-Class because it is so much cheaper and the same would apply to Cadillac if they do it right.

They will not do that and it makes no sense to do that when Buick is killing the ever growing Asian market. That is just silliness.