Vs Car & Driver: M5 vs. CLS55 vs. STSV

[Zafiro]

First place:
The M5 won the test, they liked the engine, brakes, as-you-like-it performance adjustability and SMG in manualmode. They didnt like the automatic mode and MDrive is to advanced(same old same old).
The Verdict: When Max performance with four dours is objective, this is the one that has the right stuff. (I have no idea what this means?).

Second place
Cadillac STS-V, they thought the STS-V was more fun to drive, better steering feel, better brake feel, ride and price (16k less) than CLS 55.

Third place
CLS 55, Those who dont care to pay 10k more and dont care about 1 or 2 seconds around a track, the Benz might be more appeling than its BMW rivals.


M5 0-60 4.2 0-100 9.4 0-150 20.7 1/4mile 12.5@118 .
Lap times at Grattan M5 1:31.25 STS 1:33.55 CLS 1:32.55

(CLS55 was fast as M5 to 60mph but slower at higher speeds).

All info I have. I dont know but did Cadillac pay Car&Driver? or are these Cadillacs really that good. Anyone driven those performance Cadillacs?

 

[Alx]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

STS/CLS It always comes down to price, but still the real winner remains the M5!!! Sweet!

 

[GTA45E]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

Interesting, Just_me, could you post a direct link to the article.

 

[Zafiro]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

Interesting, Just_me, could you post a direct link to the article.

no there is noone. Apprantly its not out in the stores yet I just found it on internet.

 

[GTA45E]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

I`d be willing to bet the Caddy STS-V got second place because of it`s lower price. For that reason it should have gotton first place.

 

[Alx]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

I`d be willing to bet the Caddy STS-V got second place because of it`s lower price. For that reason it should have gotton first place.

Price was why it got second over the CLS, but overall the M5 is a much better car than both i think.

 

[GTA45E]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

Price was why it got second over the CLS, but overall the M5 is a much better car than both i think.

I`d like to see how much better the M5 is over the CLS55, I can`t seem to find the article.

In most tests I`ve seen between these two the overall performance was
about .5th`s of a difference anyway, thats until I herd MB will increase the CLS55`s top speed from 155MPH to 186MPH!

 

[Matt]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

American magazines are going to be partial to american cars just like Top Gear is partial and biased to British brands.

Also the magazine wont be available on the internet until next month. They usually dont debut the article on the internet until the month after the magazine appears for some reason.

 

[Matt]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

I`d be willing to bet the Caddy STS-V got second place because of it`s lower price. For that reason it should have gotton first place.

The CLS 55 is more expensive than an M5 base price. But with mark up Im sure the M5 would be more expensive.

 

[GTA45E]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

American magazines are going to be partial to american cars just like Top Gear is partial and biased to British brands.

Also the magazine wont be available on the internet until next month. They usually dont debut the article on the internet until the month after the magazine appears for some reason.

I agree with your first statement but how did Just_me get the article.

 

[Matt]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

It seems a little early but I do know that January articles come out in early december and the article online will come out in January. Dont ask me why it works this way.

 

[Deutsch]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

I just found it on internet.

You mean the M5 forum?

V series Caddy's are pretty cool, especially the CTS-V, and while I haven't gotten the chance to pound one into a corner, I can say the exhuast sounds pretty sweet... most definately a motivator to push the car hard and get wild!

 

[bmwrules]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

I subscribe to Car and Driver and I haven't gotten the new issue yet.

 

[Merc1]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

I subscribe to Car and Driver and I haven't gotten the new issue yet.

Me too, but I'm not sure I want to see this issue. Car and Driver needs to realize that people paying this much cars don't care about 10K one way or another. They act like they're auditioning for Consumer Reports or something. There is no way in hell a STS-V is better than the CLS55 AMG.

At this price point all people care about is what the best car is because none of them are cheap and if you can't afford 10K more on top of 70K car then you can't afford any of them.

M

 

[Matt]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

^agreed^ CTS-V should not have beaten the CLS. But then again I havent read the article yet so Ill wait and see what they have to say.

 

[Merc1]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

^agreed^ CTS-V should not have beaten the CLS. But then again I havent read the article yet so Ill wait and see what they have to say.

Oh I can tell you what they said......the CLS55 costs too much compared to the much cheaper Caddy which gets close to the same performance. Bet on it. This was the STS-V not the CTS-V.

Car and Driver is really fickle, glowing over the CLS55 just a few months back, only to rank it third in a comparo. Well all knew the M5 would win, even I don't disagree with that - its totally hardcore, but a Cadillac winning seemingly on price is ridiculous, but I'm not surprised. This is the same magazine that used that price BS to put a bunch of V8 cars in a comparo with a E350 and 530i earlier this year.

They need to stop trying to guess what buyers have in their pockets and just pick the best car, especially at this price level. These ain't Camry and Accord buyers!

M

 

[cawimmer430]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

As a long-time member of the Car and Driver Forums, I can tell you that they're very BMW-biased over there given their bias towards SPORTS SEDANS. The editors always pick BMW's over Mercedes and THINK that every car should drive like a sports sedan. In fact during all my time at Car and Driver, I've never seen the editors pick a Mercedes as a winner. In fact, Car and Driver seems to rank cars like this:

1st Place: usually the fastest 0-60 & 1/4 mile time / sportiest
2nd Place: second fastest 0-60 & 1/4 mile times / sporty

etc. etc.

Not that the CLS is better than the M5. The M5 is no doubt the undisputed king of sports sedans and is good at what it was designed to do. The CLS55, like most AMG's, is a high performance cruising machine and is good at what it does.

It sickens me how sports biased they are. When they were comparing "economy cars", the winner was of course the "fastest" (least fuel efficient too!) car etc. I mean, who really gives a sh*t about 0-60 in an economy car? They should have picked the winners based on value and what you get. When it comes to economy cars, VALUE is the thing most buyers consider. But Car and Driver is so sports biased...

Anyway kudos to the M5. I would have ranked it in 1st place too. It doesn't really bother me that the CLS is in 3rd place. It's the editors opinions after all and I've just explained that they're not very kind to Benzes.

 

[Merc1]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

Yeah that is somewhat true, but Mercedes have won tests before with them. I just can't stand how fickle they are. I almost always agreed with them for a few notable exceptions. That recent comparo of mid-size luxury sedans should have been all V8s, but they turned around and complained about 5-7K for a E500 or 545i and instead put a 530i and E350 in the test with all V8 competitors from everyone else. That was just plain BS. You can be so smart to the point where you're actually pretty stupid, which is their problem at times.

Now this most recent comparo I've got to read about it. Even without reading it I can pretty much predict how much they ranted about the price of the CLS while a Cadillac isn't worth anywhere near the price they're asking for the STS-V. On build alone no derivative of a STS, V or not is worth anything over 55K.

I can see it now. They'll drive the S550 and proclaim to be the best car in the world, just like they did with W220 S500, but in a comparo they'll rank the S450 mid-pack, just like they did the S430 in its first comparo. Watch and see, I'll bet anyone here that this is exactly what they'll do.

They always save certain cars from an arse whipping by hiding behind that girly-man price crap. In the 7 years the W220 S500 was on the market they never compared it to anything. In the 12 years the R129 SL500 was on the market they never compared it to anything. Yet they compared a R129 300SL to a V12 Jaguar XJS and a V8 Cadillac Allante and guess what? The 300SL came second because of engine power compared to the Caddy, yet in a sidebar they stated that the 500SL would easily beat the Allante. They also stated that the 300SL was a better car, but it was just too slow to win.

So you see this price mess is nothing new with them. I've had a love/hate relationship with C&D since I got my first issue in the mail in 1986.

M

 

[Zafiro]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

Since you say you would rank M5 as no1, then why cant C&D do the same?
If they base cars by sportiness then its natural that BMW win the battle cause thats what M are about. If C&D ranked comfort and easy-to-operate then the CLS55 would win but you said it yourself, sportines comes first. Then its natural they favor M's

 

[cawimmer430]

Re: Car&Driver: M5 vs CLS 55 vs STS-V

Yeah that is somewhat true, but Mercedes have won tests before with them. I just can't stand how fickle they are. I almost always agreed with them for a few notable exceptions. That recent comparo of mid-size luxury sedans should have been all V8s, but they turned around and complained about 5-7K for a E500 or 545i and instead put a 530i and E350 in the test with all V8 competitors from everyone else. That was just plain BS. You can be so smart to the point where you're actually pretty stupid, which is their problem at times.

Now this most recent comparo I've got to read about it. Even without reading it I can pretty much predict how much they ranted about the price of the CLS while a Cadillac isn't worth anywhere near the price they're asking for the STS-V. On build alone no derivative of a STS, V or not is worth anything over 55K.

I can see it now. They'll drive the S550 and proclaim to be the best car in the world, just like they did with W220 S500, but in a comparo they'll rank the S450 mid-pack, just like they did the S430 in its first comparo. Watch and see, I'll bet anyone here that this is exactly what they'll do.

They always save certain cars from an arse whipping by hiding behind that girly-man price crap. In the 7 years the W220 S500 was on the market they never compared it to anything. In the 12 years the R129 SL500 was on the market they never compared it to anything. Yet they compared a R129 300SL to a V12 Jaguar XJS and a V8 Cadillac Allante and guess what? The 300SL came second because of engine power compared to the Caddy, yet in a sidebar they stated that the 500SL would easily beat the Allante. They also stated that the 300SL was a better car, but it was just too slow to win.

So you see this price mess is nothing new with them. I've had a love/hate relationship with C&D since I got my first issue in the mail in 1986.

M

Oh I'll be looking out for that.

Mercedes has won a few comparisons at C&D, but very few. I remember they also tested the Honda Accord / Civic Coupe against the Mercedes CLK and wanted to know which car is better value (eh...hello!?). The Honda won in the end because it was quicker than the CLK320 and of course, better value. A retard could tell you that the Honda is better value overall. The fact that the CLK320 was slower to 60 is irrelevant IMO. Most CLK buyers buy the car for the comfy driving experience and cruising abilities. Not to trash some Honda at the stoplight.