Redpill me on both the ATS-V and the CTS-V

>>16365420
better than BMW m4 kek, just shows even muricans can produce better cars than those retarded bavarians. Mercedes still rules it though.

File: tmp_31774-1987-buick-grand-national-pic-60748-1600x12001915875151.jpg (141KB, 596x395px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 596x395px

>>16365420
ATS-V:
Modern Grand National
CTS-V:
Muscle car anyone can live with everyday

>>16365420
First-Gen CTS-V's are fun as fuck. They can hit the twisties like a madman, and lots of V8 torque so they're great from a dig. It's pretty much a luxury corvette.
My sister used to have one, I drove it every chance I got. Haven't heard much about the new ones, though.

File: Capture.png (178KB, 557x762px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 557x762px

Not that it's really a fair comparison, but it is a true luxury sports sedan.

>massive power
>massive speed
>not a BMW

>>16365440
I don't see any like between the ATS-V and the GN, except for the turbo V6. A Buick ATS-V focused on drag racing should be more of a GN thing though.

I also wouldn't consider the CTS-V a muscle car, because it's gotten way too expensive for that. Muscle-y super sedan? Budget M5/E63? 4 door Z06?

>>16365540
Nobody cares what you see or consider

>>16365429
>>16365522
>Costs 20k more than the M4
>Better than the M4
Really activates the almonds
If we're talking about being cars that are overall good (including driver feel and such) the M4 still lacks pretty hard, the M2 is great though.
>Mercedes
For the last decade all they do is the same thing as Lexus but worse and charge more for it. If we're talking a performance luxury car then both BMW and Cadillac are easily better choices.
M2 => ATS-V > CTS-V > M4 > AMG anything

I just wish kids would learn about specific cars before arguing instead of just fanboying random companies

>>16365540
Curb weight for a CTS-V is about the same as a Challenger, and the 1st gen was like... $80k? Just $10k over a Hellcat. I'd call it a muscle car, just because it's too heavy to be an actual sports sedan.

>>16365540
The engine makes the CTS-V a "muscle car". Note that I didn't say it was a muscle car.

>>16365569
To be fair the ATS-V and CTS-V are closer to babby supercar territory than "sports sedan." As meaningless of a term as it is, a sports sedan is something relatively low weight (by sedan standards) that's made for driver feels such as an WRX/STI

There should really be some category for cars like the ATS-V, CTS-V, M2, M3, M4 etc. They're not supercars, they're not "sports sedans" (especially when they're all available as coupes), they're not sports cars, GT might work but that term is also meaningless at this point.

>>16365569
>I'd call it a muscle car, just because it's too heavy to be an actual sports sedan.
According to C&D, the 2016 CTS-V weighs 4141lbs, E63 4M weighs 4431, and M5 weighs 4387. I'd qualify the latter of those as a sports sedan.

>>16365581
Muscle car = powerful engine + cheap car around said engine. The Caddy lacks the latter.

>>16365585
>There should really be some category for cars like the ATS-V, CTS-V, M2, M3, M4 etc.
It's called sports sedan: a sedan made to be as sporty as possible, despite it's limitations. Remember, the CTS-V/M5/E63/RS6 are also currently defined as sports sedans, just a higher segment than the classic C63/M3/RS4 trio.

I'd stop think about the WRX as a sports sedan. Think of it as a hot hatch with a trunk, and suddenly it makes a lot more sense, market wise.

>>16365557
>Comparing CTS-V with M4
The ATS-V competes with the M4. CTS-V is a M5 rival.

>>16365626
Both of the morons I quoted refused to even name any cars so I didn't have much to go on.

>>16365621
After reading up, the definition of "sports sedan" is a fucking mess, I was just extrapolating on what a sports car is defined as.

I just call it my grandad's 500hp Cadillac.

>>16365557
>For the last decade all they do is the same thing as Lexus but worse and charge more for it. If we're talking a performance luxury car then both BMW and Cadillac are easily better choices.
>I have never ridden in nor drove any recent Mercedes beyond a C class

>>16365636
Why would you choose the comparison that makes the least amount of sense?

>>16365671
>I have no argument so I'm going to resort to ad hom and moving goalposts
You've obviously never driven an equivalent Lexus if we're playing this game. You can order a MB badge off ebay to put on a superior Lexus if that's what you're worried about

>>16365636
No need to call me a moron, mate. Soothe yourself.

>>16365675
To be fair I went a little retard, also to be fair I was responding to retard.,
>>16365713
No need to call me mate, buddy. Sooth yourself.

>>16365585
In some countries in Europe, they're known as supersedans and superstations (looking at you, E61 M5 and RS6 avant)

File: tmp_8981478287217729277147614.png (282KB, 558x730px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 558x730px

>>16365452

>redpill me

what the fuck are you saying

are you seriously making a matrix reference???

how fucking out of touch are you

>>16365826
Fake post

>>16365845
lol, sure

>>16365739
>Retard
>To one of the people in the thread that's actually driven one extensively
Neat

>>16365569
cadillacs are very light idiot

File: 112-0305+matrix-reloaded-cadillac-cadillac-cts+front-grill-view.jpg (43KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 660x495px

Redpill me on the first gen. Looking at the later ones with the LS2. They still pretty good? I'm reading that they make 5 less torques because of a different header design to fit in the engine bay. Is space going to be an issue with mods?

>>16366072
can't redpill you cadillacs from first gen cts and newer are awesome

>>16366050
Is this bait? A 1st gen CTS-V weighs a little over 4,100 pounds.

>>16366015
I fail to see how that makes you not-retarded but sure.

File: Screenshot_20161223-135838.png (164KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1080x1920px

>>16366112
Hmmm

File: 7E6323B1-5077-4366-BB27-F30FB1C68FAD-247-000000ACF8CA2C0A_tmp.jpg (6KB, 215x133px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 215x133px

>>16365420
>tfw no 556hp vee-ate wagonfu

>>16366298
why even live :(

File: 1482535928043.jpg (56KB, 644x363px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 644x363px

>>16365557
>For the last decade all they do is the same thing as Lexus but worse and charge more for it. If we're talking a performance luxury car then both BMW and Cadillac are easily better choices.
M2 => ATS-V > CTS-V > M4 > AMG anything

Then explain to me how after all these years BMW can't build a competitor for this.
AMG> everything
I rest my case get back to shitposting somewhere else if you are gonna spew your autism everywhere.

>>16366560
>I'm retarded and can't read or format posts properly
- You

>>16366573
>autismo increases
you, just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean that every little 'fact' in your narrow minded brain is true.
Merc>Americans>BMW

>>16366584
>Continues to prove he knows nothing about specific cars and just fanboys brands by how good /o/ him the badge was

>>16366592
Damn an/o/n you really showed that other anon who's boss I think he'll never return to /o/. like the other anon said you're a complete autist and should fuck off back to /b/

I'm glad /o/ hasn't devolved into mindless shitposting like some of the other boards

>>16365420
Drive better thang the m3/m4, but aren't as nice inside. CUE apparently sucks

File: 1449899645681.jpg (820KB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 2250x1500px

>>16366050
>Cadillacs are very light
lol, no.

otherwise they would be able to turn

>>16365440
>CTS-V:
>Muscle car anyone can live with everyday
You know it has the same POS engine the ZO6 has, right?

>>16365452
> 1 8 8 4 k g
> 4 1 5 4 l b s
How do Americans do it?

>>16368631
it has quite inovative chassis design

ATS-V is a nightmare to work on and has a lot of reliability problems, especially with electronics, according to an ex-tech I know.
It's gorgeous though.

>>16368421
stupid shitposters have to destroy every half decent thread now...

>>16368631

that's lighter than any of the german competitors

>>16370986
Does the CTS-V compete with M5s? I never got the impression that they do because of the price differences. M5s go after E-class AMGs, Porsche Panameras and Audi S6s and shit like that.

>>16371002

>price differences

that's called a 'strength' in competitions

>>16370952
stay btfo

>>16371002
>gm
>compete

>>16371010
A Cadillac XTS is a big soft car but it doesn't compete with an E-class.

And actually I'm retarded, a CTS-V has a base price of $87K these days which is within $10K of an M5. For some reason I thought the CTS-Vs were in still in the mid $60K range.