Most of your arguement is opinion...which means jack to me. I'll give you the fact that 300 has a better interior, but I think the exterior aesthetics are hideous. A poor decision...not quite.

 

check this out...

CTS beats BMW, MB, and Audi. 300 is also in there and places ahead of BMW and Audi

 

I see your point, but I think Chrysler would be happy to takes sales from anyone, Cadillac included.

The GTO compared to the 6-series from BMW is not realistic because a 6-coupe costs more than twice as much as a GTO ... that's not particularly fair, and for that reason alone, I wouldn't compare the two. I don't think GM currently offers anything that comapres to a 6-coupe. Maybe a STS coupe could do the job in the future if they felt the need?

Now, the 300C on the other hand, costs virtually the same as a CTS.

Also, I am definately not suggesting Cadillac offer anything at a lower price point than CTS, and I would not lower the price of CTS either, though over it's short life it quickly slipped away from it's original $29,990 base price by a few GRAND, I think $30k has to be the floor level for the Cadillac makeover.

 

An insanely optioned 300 is around $10K cheaper than a comparable CTS. The 300C is nearly $15-20K less expensive than the CTSv. I'd say that the new Chrysler is spectacular value

Even if Cadillac threw in the $9,950 1SC Package for free, the CTS would still represent lousy value in the near-luxury segment.

The 300C represents the same sort of quantum leap that Lexus made with the original LS400 over 15 years ago. Daimler-Chrysler has done a great job in differentiating the 300 from the E-class. Better yet, they have cracked the styling formula for making a high-beltline car looking right. Instead of another 3-series clone, they built a genuine American car.

The viciously aggressive pricing just seals the deal. On the flip side, the laughable MSRP on the CTS brings into question just how serious GM really is.

 

Good point redzed.

The CTSv has got to be my favorite GM product. I like more than the 300C. Do I like it $20,000 more than the 300C?

Nope.

 

I'd say that a used BMW or Honda is a rotten value. When the price of a used car is too close to a new one, you've got to have a head full of rocks to buy used.

The only 1-3 year old used vehicles that make sense are the high depreciation American, Korean and lesser Japanese products.

 

I thought you were here not too long ago bashing the 300's styling?

 

If you read what I typed, you'd see I said the 300C (read the "C", it's important) and the CTS (do not read the "V", because I didn't type it) are virtually the same in price... and they are.


What makes CTS a "lousy value"??!? What are you not getting that you do get from BMW or Mercedes? (This should be good...)

I like the 300C... I think I made that pretty clear so far, so I won't say this is wrong, though I'll wait to see if this will be the latest car to "save" a Chrysler Company.


There's nothing laughable about CTS's pricing... it's pretty much right where it should be, and since CTS is still selling way above where GM expected it to, maybe they should RAISE the price more?!?! Probably not, but you just don't look at the big picture because of your odd view on most subjects that involve GM products.

 

look at the price of the 300 in that RT run down. Thats 35k for a v6 model.

 

Agreed from a standpoint that a Cadillac should be expensive the way a BMW should be expensive.

I'd have to disagree from a position and quality standpoint. 300C represents the best Chrysler, and it happens to be in the same area of the best GM at the moment, the CTSv. But you have demonstrated that comparing the 2 is dicey because there isn't a base Cadillac CTS going for $23,000. Heck, even I'm comparing the midlevel 300 to an Impala!

I think perhaps the 300 series should be compared to vehicles like the Mercury Grand Marquis, Buick Park Avenue & Pontiac Bonneville since they are in the same price range in top trim. But then again, if a mid-grade 300 is a better deal than a loaded Impala, it certainly turns out a far better deal (and even smaller still) next to those cars.

As far as comparing it to a loaded Grand Prix GTP... fugetaboutit!


But it does bring up the question: With both cars seemingly of similar quality and the $32K Chrysler running about as quick as the $50K CTSv (at least to 60 mph) is the 300C a steal or are CTS buyers simply paying for a Cadillac name.

 

Is a loaded 300C about $32k

I was building one on chrysler's site and it was damned near 40...

 

MSRP for the 300C is $32,995. Magnum R/T is $29,995.

 

Chrysler really nailed it down with this car. The styling is like nothing else on the road.

They also created a new segment in the market, there is nothing that directly competes with it right now. Name another LARGE RWD car that ranges from $25K-$35K. Grand Marquis and Crown Vics are much larger cars that do not have the power or handling of the 300. Not to mention they look really boring when compared to the 300. The CTS is a much smaller and sportier car, made to compete with other small sedans like the G35, 3-Series, etc.

 

We were at the Chrysler driving event and drove a 300C.

Lots of 300 and 300c models there, all with stickers. There were SEVERAL 300C models with stickers of $32-33k. The most expensive one was $37k. There was a base V6 with a sticker of $23k. Didn't see a 3.5 model.

The stickers are real, and they are a shocker--as in reverse sticker shock. The cars look like they should cost a LOT more--not something you can say about a CTS.

The idea of a $10K option package on the CTS makes me want to throw up. GM would do very, very, very well to take a long, hard look at this example.

 

No, you missed my link.
Road and Track posted the price of the 300 with the 3.5 at 35k. Thats with the 3.5 V6. Like someone said, its probably over 40k full loaded with the Hemi.