Ummm...didn't GM make a car costing less than half as much that hit 12's like 7 years ago?

GTO's will hang with SRT-8's as well.

 

Guy, I know. But I like the CTSv better.

Off topic: I put an entry form in the window of one at the mall one day and then about 3 months later I got a call saying that I was in the final 10 names and they just wanted to verify my info. I got all happy before I realized it was just to verify where to send my junk mail to...

 

What is that...like $50/month extra for a car that handles hella better. Also, I don't think there's a gas guzzler tax for the CTSv is there?

 

Any knucklehead that passes up a CTS-V because it's $3000 more than an SRT-8 deserves what he's gonna get...

Which is a$$-packed by CTS-V's on a semi-regular basis.

Can you get an SRT-8 with a manual?

Apart from my belief that the Cadillac is roughly 10 times the car, the lack of a manual would be a deal breaker for me... but I'm weird that way.

Kudos to DCX for build a big old barge of a car that's as quick as the LS1 F-cars though. There is no denying that the SRT-8 is one heck of a machine.

In my opinion, it just highlights how much better the Cadillac really is though.

 

Don't discout the handling of the SRT-8. The last comparison done by MT, it actually beat CTS-V in slalom speeds, if I remember correctly.

 

If everything was the same, and both cars went for...say.... $35,000, I'd probally buy the Cadillac too. Although both are roughly the same size (The Chrysler only LOOKS bigger, but is actually shorter than an Impala....the current Impala ) and are both tops in the track. But the CTSv has the manual so the CTSv wins even by my guidelines.

BUT....... I can't ignore that Chrysler got a chassis that pretty much does the same thing at a price point that makes the Cadillac seem extremely overpriced. I (or anyone else for that matter) also can't ignore the 300's looks.

The CTS is a great car. It's one of those rare times when GM gambled on design and hit a home run, Didn't design a suspension to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and broke through the ranks on quality.

But asking over $30,000 and even over $40,000 for a car with a V6 engine is insane. Charging another $8-10,000 for an engine that's cheaper to make seems kind of odd. And finally, is there really 10K worth of suspension parts on the CTSV?

That's what tips the scales back to Chrysler's 300C SRT-8. Sure it has an automatic, but at $39K, it's also a superior deal. Especially considering it's as agressive around the track, accelerates at least as quickly, has a higher top speed, and still has at least equal star power.

For the extra 10 grand, I can put a nice deposit on a house or condo,.... or buy another B4C.

 

Guy, surely you realize that there are at least a few other cars with V6 (or I6) power in the 30 and 40 grand price range. Of course, that means that (for me) they are all too pricey. I'm not saying the CTS should not be less than 40 grand; I'm just saying that is not out of the norm cars in that class

The 300C is sort of a bargain in that regard, but is size and weight make it a little less sporting than a 3 or 5 series, or a CTS, G35, etc. And yes, in overall length it isn't HUGE, but the 120 inch wheelbase and the weight means it will drive like a big car, regardless of overall length. [EDIT, for clarity: previous statements based on my perception and what I've read; I've driven the CTS, CTS six speed, and the CTS-V, but I've not driven an LX car - only rode in a Magnum 3.5L] I always found it funny how people call the S-Class and 7 Series 'huge' cars. Sure they are, compared to a nimble 3 series or C-Class. But in overall length, they aren't much longer than an Intrepid, Impala, Avalon, etc. But they drive kinda big, because they have huge wheelbases (to get all that backseat room) and lots of pork.

Anyway, the 300C SRT8 is a pretty cool cat, besides the ugly factor and the no-manual factor. I'd take a CTS-V anyday, but realistically both are too expensive (for me). I think a CTS sport pkg with the six speed and the 3.6 would be quite nice if I were in the market for a sports sedan.

 

Well said Guy.

I love the CTSv. It's probably my favorite GM product....if I were not concerned about cost. But of course in real life, cost is a concern.
And you're right, the LS6 costs less than the HF V6. How much less? I don't know, but it's substantial.

In my eyes, the 300C SRT-8 is a better value than the CTSv. The couple thousand dollar cheaper Charger SRT-8 will be an even better value.

If you could get a Charger R/T with a manual trans for around $30K....now that would hit the bullseye! *








*Chevrolet understands this.

 

I just checked Chrysler's site and for '06 they list the SRT-8 as $42,695 base (no nav) and with options almost $48,000.

Right now the CTS-V is listing base $46,353 (nav included) and fully loaded under GMS pricing as $48,292.

Seems pretty comparable right now

Chris

Chris

 

That's the entire point. The SRT-8 is NOT appreciably cheaper, and it's NOT a Cadillac (which really does mean something, a Cadillac buyer is treated very differently than a Chevrolet or Pontiac or Buick buyer), and it's NOT built but one of the top 3 plants in North America.

The CTS-V is hands down a much, much better car.

 

I would still like to see a vid of this run. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I would like a bit of proof it did. You know what I mean?

 

where?

 

I meant that there are those who understand that now. The implication is that this understanding will be applied to a product on the way.

 

how far away is it.

 

I'm not sure. Maybe even before our coupe.