[s-cars] Quattro - What Don't I get?

[Theodore Chen]

--- Taka Mizutani <t44tqtro at gmail.com> wrote:

> You guys really like the CTS-V that much?!? I guess I have to drive
> one sometime.

the CTS-V is a fantastic car.  the interior is a little bit low-rent,
i agree, but it's not bad.  more around the level of a $30k infiniti G35
than a $50k german sedan.  on the other hand, the BMW E60's interior is
awful, and i would take the CTS-V's interior over the current 5-series.
for example, take a look at the plastic interior door latches the next
time you sit in a $65k 545i.  then look at the chromed metal door latches
in a $15k VW jetta.  you might also look at the door grab handles in the
E46 M3 the next time you sit in one, and notice that on the driver's side,
there's a small knob at the top of the armrest/grab handle for the power 
mirror adjustment.  then look at the passenger side, and notice a plastic
blanking plate where there isn't a knob, because BMW uses this for right-hand
drive cars and couldn't be bothered to specify a different part for left-hand
drive cars.  that's pretty chintzy for a $50k (base price) car if you ask me.

i'm not wild about the interior of the CTS-V, but it holds its own compared
to what BMW's doing lately.  i'd take audi's interiors any day of the week.

> I'd rather get the GTO for $23k, drop in a 427 upgrade, do some
> suspension tuning and have a much faster car. Tweaked CTSes are going
> to be in the supercharged AMG Mercedes price range.

the CTS-V is a faster car out of the box.  significantly better handling.
better, more expensive chassis with aluminum bits instead of stamped steel.
14" front brakes with brembo 4-piston calipers.  laps the nurburgring faster
than the E39 M5.

i have driven the CTS-V hard on an autocross course (at a GM driving event),
back to back with a corvette C6, pontiac GTO, and cadillac XLR and i came 
away mightily impressed.  the CTS-V compared favorably with the corvette.
obviously it's a bigger, heavier car, but it wasn't much slower.  the GTO
was relatively soft, and had a surprising amount of dive, squat, and roll 
when pushed hard.  and the ride wasn't as good as the cadillac's.  that's
what happens when you have a better suspension design with less unsprung
weight.  you don't have to run as stiff springs or damping to get good
handling.

that's not to say that a hot-rodded GTO wouldn't have a lot of potential,
but out of the box, the CTS-V is more of a driver's car.  it has a lot of
torque, and accelerates almost like a corvette.

my friend traded his E39 M5 for his friend's CTS-V for a few hours, and
really liked the CTS-V although it's not as refined as the M5.

even the regular CTS 3.6 is a terrific car.  i drove that one back to back
with an E60 530i, and i thought the CTS was noticeably better on the autox
course.  better feedback, sharper handling.  both cars had sport packages.
while the BMW had high limits, it was hard to tell what the car was doing.
when i turned the steering wheel, i was never quite sure how much the car
was going to turn.  a couple of times, the car caught me by surprise with
a sharp tail wag, and i had to correct with some steering and more gas.
i really dislike the active steering and roll stabilization.  i think 
BMW has lost its way.  too many @$#! gadgets, and most unforgivably, gadgets
that interfere with driving.

one more reason to like the cadillac and corvette: they have stability control
systems that actually help you go faster, instead of intervening dramatically
and cutting power at the first sign of enthusiastic driving, like BMW's does.
the BMW's sharp reduction in power makes it very hard to use the gas to
catch a sliding tail.

if i owned the CTS-V, i'd probably never turn off the stability control.

one more factor: price.  you can get a CTS-V for $45k.  an E60 530i starts
at $46k stripped, and goes for $50k-$57k with a decent option package.

here's another interesting car: mercedes E320 CDI turbodiesel.  although
the rating is only 201 hp, it makes 369 lb-ft of torque across a broad
RPM range.  this thing is a torque monster.  on the autox course, when
you come around the corner and stand on the gas, you wait for a fraction
of a second for the turbo to spool, and then it's like pulling the trigger.
the car just explodes out of the corners.  within the limited confines of
an autox course, i thought it was faster than the E500.  and the E320 CDI
gets 40 mpg on the freeway.  have your cake and eat it too.

> Too bad Audi really has nothing that interesting in the current model
> range.

i was thinking the same thing.  the V8 S6 doesn't even come close.  it
is more of a highway terror than a slice-and-dice corner carver.  doesn't
seem like audi will be returning to true high-performance cars any time soon.
the V8 S4 is nice, but too small to play in the sports sedan market.

> I may consider a B6 chassis A4 Avant for hauling duty- allroad
> is too gadget-ridden, A6 has no manual transmission option (otherwise
> an A6 3.0 would be fine). Still leaning toward a Ford Lightning, don't
> know if I can get snows for it, though. :-)

the ford lightning goes out of production soon.

-teddy


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com