Traded in my CTS-V Coupe for a Focus RS today. How'd I do /o/?

>>17427409
Any reason why?

>>17427421
Right now I have a mk6 GTI for a second car and I'm moving to a place with only 1 parking spot. The CTS-V doesn't work well for me as an only car and the mk6 gti is too boring for an only car.
The CTS was a pretty awesome car though and I will definitely miss it. Focus RS is a ton of fun too though, at least so far.

>>17427437
I'm guessing the CTS sedan wasn't an option?

>>17427409
>How'd I do /o/?

Poorly, I was not impressed with the Focus RS I drove. Steering feel was nonexistent, visibility was bad, the shifter was rubbery and the interior was shit (aside from the Recaro seats which were pretty nice), and overall, despite being plenty fast, it just wasn't fun to drive. It's like driving a pimped out econobox because that's what it is. It's like a more powerful and AWD Genesis, it can go fast but it lacks everything else that makes a sportscar good. If you need a fast family car it would be great, but as a 2nd car for fun there are many better choices.

>>17427440
I need a hatchback for my dog and for road trips.
If I had a CTS-V wagon I'd be keeping it but I'm not gonna go search one out because they're too rare for a manual and I'm ready for something new anyway.

>>17427453
>overall, despite being plenty fast, it just wasn't fun to drive
Really? Did they actually let you take it out to some decent roads?
That's exactly how I felt about the GLA45 AMG and the Golf R but I can't imagine feeling that way about the focus RS. The interior and visibility are definitely not great but it is a ton of fun to drive.

>>17427409
You fucked up big time what the FUCK?

Anything that has an electronically controlled throttlebody is going to be shit to drive with purpose.

>>17427964
>Anything that has an electronically controlled throttlebody is going to be shit to drive with purpose.
>I can only afford old shitboxes

>>17428001
>not modifying your car with ITBs
>implying new cars aren't oversaturated with safety features leaving them heavy as fuck

You don't belong here anon.

>>17427409
U dun good

Ok I guess.
I have issues with the RS, but you do you.

>gm
avoided a bullet

lot of assmad gm fangirl itt

>>17430015
I don't care one way or another about GM but the CTS-V is a fucking fantastic vehicle*

*as long as you're under warranty

File: IMG_20170603_112059~2.jpg (2MB, 3570x2073px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3570x2073px

I remember your previous thread. Congrats. I love the CTS-V but I would get rid of it too since it was autotragic.

File: 1463447786743.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>17430037
>gm
>fantastic
ctsv overheats and can't turn

>>17430049
>can't turn
lmao whoever says this shit can't drive

it whips around corners like a fucking sultan considering its weight and size. If James May can tear up a mountain road with it anyone can

>traded V8 for 4cyl
C U C K
U
C
K

>>17430072
>whips around corners
maybe due to the oil spilling underneath the car

>>17430090
https://youtu.be/mGaW1HPr3jo

Beats porsches and Ferraris on a Hill climb lol

>>17430015
It was a great car and I'd be keeping it if I still had 2 parking spots at my new place.
The circle jerking over manufacturers or brands is just dumb. Look at the specific cars they make not the badge on it.
>>17430037
Didn't really ever have any issues with it other than a foggy headlamp which was luckily replaced under warranty considering it was like $2k.
>>17430040
CTS-V was a 6MT. Only issue with it was it wasn't a great only car
>>17430049
2nd gen has 0 issues. 3rd gen is automatic only so its useless as a performance car anyway.

File: 7529096.jpg (52KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 250x250px

>>17427409
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

from godfather to high-school ricer real quick.

>>17430193
5.7 to 60, 15.9 for 1/4? That's like a 2007 Civic SI (which does a 1/4 in 15 flat).

File: 1425855235283.jpg (1MB, 2048x1901px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1901px

>>17430341
3rd gen overheats like the shitvette
>>17430367
lol

>>17430417
The fuck are you talking about. The CTSV is 4 seconds, 12 second quarter miles

>>17427409
You fucked up BAD. That's a hell of a step down.

>>17427409
should've gotten a ctsv wagon