GAME OVER

[rubber_ducky]

Originally Posted by NewSong

That argument is very weird to me. So with 4 people in a sedan, do you expect to be using 500hp at any time? Seems to defeat the purpose of safety, and comfort if you're going to race with 4 people inside the car.

If you're going to buy a car for performance, buy a car that is 100% focused into it. If you're buying for utility, that can be had for way under $60,000. Plenty of cars have decent power, room, and comfort in the $25,000-$35,000. These $60,000-$100,000 500hp "sports sedans" seem like a waste of money to me, and are pretty ugly. Each their own, but I don't see the point of this car, the Porsche panamera, Maserati Quattroporte, most of them hideous and if you're just going to carry 4 people in a car, why would you need a 500hp engine that can do 0-60 in under 5 seconds?

I think a car that tries to satisfy too many requirements at once, doesn't end up being the best in any of them.

Your argument is weird to me...

Your car has 4 seats. Meaning it can carry 4 people. Do you use all of your power all of the time? What difference does the number of doors make? Do ferrari drivers with 2 doors and 2 seats take every corner at WOT?

Isn't the M3 available in a door door and a four door? Is that not a 100% focused performance car? I sure is, when you want it to be. Same is true with the CTS-V (or M5 for that matter).

[lyjw88]

I'll take M3

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by rubber_ducky

Your argument is weird to me...

Your car has 4 seats. Meaning it can carry 4 people. Do you use all of your power all of the time? What difference does the number of doors make? Do ferrari drivers with 2 doors and 2 seats take every corner at WOT?

Isn't the M3 available in a door door and a four door? Is that not a 100% focused performance car? I sure is, when you want it to be. Same is true with the CTS-V (or M5 for that matter).

My car didn't cost $60,000 either.

The weird part of your argument is that you didn't address the price point at all. You bring up M3's and Ferraris, but for those of us who are not Bill Gates, there are far better ways to spend your money. The M3 does come in a sedan version, but even with the M3 Sedan, there are better options for the money which have been covered in the general E90 discussion forum (335i sedan for instance). You save $10,000+ and get the utility of the M3 Sedan and even the performance. Again, when will you ever use the M3 suspension and power with 4 people in the seats? See where your argument went awry?

Again this is my personal opinion, and you're free to try and change my mind, but your argument till now is far from convincing.

[TK-421]

F10

[ScottyGams]

I have just signed the papers for a E92 M3. I will admit that that car will take a dump on my chest and leave, leaving me to wipe up the mess.

I am however, still happy with my decision as the world is not all about performance. The M3 is gorgeous. To own this car is like going out with the world's most powerful transvestite.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by ScottyGams

I have just signed the papers for a E92 M3. I will admit that that car will take a dump on my chest and leave, leaving me to wipe up the mess.

I am however, still happy with my decision as the world is not all about performance. The M3 is gorgeous. To own this car is like going out with the world's most powerful transvestite.

So you dated Hillary Clinton?

[rubber_ducky]

Originally Posted by NewSong

My car didn't cost $60,000 either.

The weird part of your argument is that you didn't address the price point at all. You bring up M3's and Ferraris, but for those of us who are not Bill Gates, there are far better ways to spend your money. The M3 does come in a sedan version, but even with the M3 Sedan, there are better options for the money which have been covered in the general E90 discussion forum (335i sedan for instance). You save $10,000+ and get the utility of the M3 Sedan and even the performance. Again, when will you ever use the M3 suspension and power with 4 people in the seats? See where your argument went awry?

Again this is my personal opinion, and you're free to try and change my mind, but your argument till now is far from convincing.

What did your car cost? And why should your personal threshold of when a car becomes too expensive be everybody's benchmark? Sounds as though you think $60k is too much, but the $49k that your car stickered at is just right?

I agree that there are better bargains out there than both the M3 and the 335. But for people that didn't stretch to buy a $50k bmw, $60k isn't really that far off. You get almost twice the power of a 335 that, with options, costs ~10k less. Read that again... nearly twice the power. Many people on this forum have much more than $10k invested in their 335s and still don't make the power that this car does and have voided their warranty along the way.

The reality is that the CTS-V, even though it stickers at $60k, is a bargain. Whether or not it's affordable depends on any potential buyer's personal financial situation. But the car is still a steal, given it's performance vs. that of it's competitors.

[gonzo]

..is in the pudding.
http://video.cardomain.com/Clip.aspx...28AD39C669D8BC

[ArmyBimmerDude]

Originally Posted by gonzo

I agree. The M5 is ugly.

+1

Also, those with E90's should think twice before calling other vehicles ugly. Looks are subjective.

[Spec 1]

Originally Posted by NewSong

That argument is very weird to me. So with 4 people in a sedan, do you expect to be using 500hp at any time? Seems to defeat the purpose of safety, and comfort if you're going to race with 4 people inside the car.

If you're going to buy a car for performance, buy a car that is 100% focused into it. If you're buying for utility, that can be had for way under $60,000. Plenty of cars have decent power, room, and comfort in the $25,000-$35,000. These $60,000-$100,000 500hp "sports sedans" seem like a waste of money to me, and are pretty ugly. Each their own, but I don't see the point of this car, the Porsche panamera, Maserati Quattroporte, most of them hideous and if you're just going to carry 4 people in a car, why would you need a 500hp engine that can do 0-60 in under 5 seconds?

I think a car that tries to satisfy too many requirements at once, doesn't end up being the best in any of them.

I think you're missing the point entirely. It's the fact that you can have all of those cars in one, for $60k. A luxury sedan? $40k, a 500hp sports car? $50k. Seperate = 2 garage spots and $90k. Or you can buy them both, take up half the space in your garage, and spend only $60k. This car is comparable to the M5 and ther's no way you can tell me the M5 has no point.

No, you probably wont be using all the power while stacked 4 deep. However, you probably will at times. You can take your friends to the track, drop them off, go flying at speeds of a Corvette, then pull off the track, load up your friends, turn on the air conditiones seats, pull up NAV for directions, and head home

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Spec 1

I think you're missing the point entirely. It's the fact that you can have all of those cars in one, for $60k. A luxury sedan? $40k, a 500hp sports car? $50k. Seperate = 2 garage spots and $90k. Or you can buy them both, take up half the space in your garage, and spend only $60k. This car is comparable to the M5 and ther's no way you can tell me the M5 has no point.

No, you probably wont be using all the power while stacked 4 deep. However, you probably will at times. You can take your friends to the track, drop them off, go flying at speeds of a Corvette, then pull off the track, load up your friends, turn on the air conditiones seats, pull up NAV for directions, and head home

+1, I'm failing to see his point.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by rubber_ducky

What did your car cost? And why should your personal threshold of when a car becomes too expensive be everybody's benchmark? Sounds as though you think $60k is too much, but the $49k that your car stickered at is just right?

I agree that there are better bargains out there than both the M3 and the 335. But for people that didn't stretch to buy a $50k bmw, $60k isn't really that far off. You get almost twice the power of a 335 that, with options, costs ~10k less. Read that again... nearly twice the power. Many people on this forum have much more than $10k invested in their 335s and still don't make the power that this car does and have voided their warranty along the way.

The reality is that the CTS-V, even though it stickers at $60k, is a bargain. Whether or not it's affordable depends on any potential buyer's personal financial situation. But the car is still a steal, given it's performance vs. that of it's competitors.

Umm, the E92 328i decently optioned is around $40,000 (not $50,000), that's over $20,000 less than the base CTS-V. Throw in some options and the CTS-V is around $70,000 easy.

As for twice the power, that brings me back to my original post; there are better cars for the price that provide way better performance and don't look as ugly.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by Spec 1

You can take your friends to the track, drop them off, go flying at speeds of a Corvette, then pull off the track, load up your friends, turn on the air conditiones seats, pull up NAV for directions, and head home

So basically you want to drive a 4-door 500HP bus?

I think the M5, for as good a car as it is, is pretty pointless. So is the Maserati Quattraporte, and all these other 500HP luxury saloons. I mean for crying out loud, spending $60,000-$100,000 for 4-door sports car wannabees? Each their own I guess. But if people are going to claim "I'm getting a 500HP sports sedan cause I want to get groceries, and pack my kids in", I'm going to literally pass out from laughter.

[gonzo]

Are you comparing the 328 coupe to a CTS-V?
I am completely lost. A loaded 335 can scratch at 60K can it not?

$59,995. $775 Destination.

The 2009 Cadillac CTS-V will be equipped with a 556-hp supercharged 6.2-liter V8 engine. A new six-speed automatic transmission with steering-wheel-mounted shift buttons will be a no-cost option. Expect to pay $3,400 for the optional 14-way-adjustable Recaro performance seats, which will be bundled with metal pedals. An Ultra View sunroof adds another $900, brighter 19-inch wheels are priced at $800, microfiber accents on the steering wheel and shift knob add another $300 and a navigation system adds $2,145.

I don't think I would order any of these options. Maybe the sunroof but still less than $62,000. Granted it will not have Nav that a loaded 335 would but still.....
Pretty much a no brain-er for me personally. And it has done a sub 4 second 0-60 in one test. Yes, that is a selling point for me.

[NewSong]

I'm not comparing my E92 to the CTS-V, I'm just saying my car wasn't $50,000 like was claimed. My car cost $20,000+ less than the BASE CTS-V, and I can do what I need with the car and get to any place just as fast. Plus I have $20,000 in the bank, and I can actually look at my car and not be embarrassed by the way it looks. A 500+ HP grocery getter, sure I guess I can see that. Seems lame, but to each their own. So far I haven't read a convincing argument that would sway me to say, "Hey these 500 HP sedans are awesome and totally worth it." But keep trying.

p.s - The CTS-V is pretty hideous.

[gonzo]

Well. You could have kept even more money in the bank with something along these lines. They get you where you need to go too. I am failing to see your point regarding someone wanting to own a fast and well handling sedan.
The 328 is a great automobile but not for me because of it's lack of torque. Too each their own as you wrote earlier.

[sageashton]

I agree that the m5 has a demographic that it's suited to. Likewise the CTS-v will have it's fans.

However personally, I would be in line for a M3 for the money, hands down, no question.

Straight power is useless unless everything else it tuned correctly, a sore spot for the CTS when I last drove one (first gen).

Also, the question arises (to me at least) about how efficiently it produces the power...

But that is just me...

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by NewSong

I'm not comparing my E92 to the CTS-V, I'm just saying my car wasn't $50,000 like was claimed. My car cost $20,000+ less than the BASE CTS-V, and I can do what I need with the car and get to any place just as fast. Plus I have $20,000 in the bank, and I can actually look at my car and not be embarrassed by the way it looks. A 500+ HP grocery getter, sure I guess I can see that. Seems lame, but to each their own. So far I haven't read a convincing argument that would sway me to say, "Hey these 500 HP sedans are awesome and totally worth it." But keep trying.

p.s - The CTS-V is pretty hideous.

There's no argument to be made other than some people have the money to do it and let them do with it what they want.

You don't need an e92. You could easily make due with an Altima/Accord/Camry. You have the money to afford a nicer, RWD, sporty coupe and you chose to buy one. Some people have more money, and want the same, but a little more. I don't see what it is that you want to hear. What's the point of a 599? No point. There's dedicated track cars, and luxury cars. Why have a mix. What the point of a Continental GT? None. It's luxo-sportiness is completely unnecessary. Astons are huge compromises. The GTR is a compromise. Your argument doesn't hold much water either.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by sageashton

I agree that the m5 has a demographic that it's suited to. Likewise the CTS-v will have it's fans.

However personally, I would be in line for a M3 for the money, hands down, no question.

Straight power is useless unless everything else it tuned correctly, a sore spot for the CTS when I last drove one (first gen).

Also, the question arises (to me at least) about how efficiently it produces the power...

But that is just me...

The M3 would be a far better buy than the CTS-V. Why would you spend $60,000 on something that looks that ugly?

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Well. You could have kept even more money in the bank with something along these lines. They get you where you need to go too. I am failing to see your point regarding someone wanting to own a fast and well handling sedan.
The 328 is a great automobile but not for me because of it's lack of torque. Too each their own as you wrote earlier.

Are you seriously comparing the looks of a Suzuki econo car to an E92? Looks play a big part in purchase decisions. That's why I wouldn't spend $60,000 on that ugly 500HP Caddy.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

There's no argument to be made other than some people have the money to do it and let them do with it what they want.

You don't need an e92. You could easily make due with an Altima/Accord/Camry.

Umm, have you seen how an Altima/Accord/Camry look? Point proven.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by NewSong

Umm, have you seen how an Altima/Accord/Camry look? Point proven.

so your argument is based on looks then.