Article Comments - Comparison Test: 2007-2008 Sport Sedans

475 messages, Last post on Jul 25, 2008 at 4:41 PM

You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Cadillac CTS, BMW 3 Series, Infiniti G35, Mercedes-Benz 350-Class, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Car Comparisons, Sedan

Comparison Test: 2007-2008 Sport Sedans - This is exactly why we gathered this group of sport sedans. That is, to find out if the 2008 Cadillac CTS, 2007 Infiniti G35 Sport, 2008 Lexus IS 350 or 2008 Mercedes-Benz C350 Sport can topple the Bavarian champ — the 2007 BMW 335i. In the spirit of the segment, each car in the test is outfitted with sport package hardware — usually a stiffer suspension and bigger wheels and tires — and an automatic transmission. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 40 of 48: 1; ...; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; ...; 48; Prev; Next; Last

#387 of 475 And this is the problem by pat HOST Dec 09, 2007 (2:37 am)
with the "one last" correction/comment, whatever. Everyone always has one more last one of 'em. Let's stop now and get back on topic - please.
#388 of 475 C350 by cbauer71 Dec 09, 2007 (8:50 am)
I find it funny when automotive writers describe a 0 - 60 time of 5.9 sec as "lazy" even when it is qualified by using "for this crowd." Give me a break. The IS350 does 0 - 60 in 5.3 sec. In the REAL WORLD, a tick over 1/2 a second difference is barely noticable, if at all. It doesn't seem like that long ago that when a car broke the 8 second to 60 mph barrier it was considered "blazing quick" or "lighting fast." I understand the standards have changed, but a .6 second differnce shouldn't be considered "lazy." Just a thought. Replies to this message: habitat1 (Dec 09, 2007 12:58 pm)
#389 of 475 Re: Real-world winners & allegiances [drtravel] by cbauer71 Dec 09, 2007 (9:23 am)
Replying to: drtravel (Nov 13, 2007 10:10 am) Take a look at this link! http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12514/2007-infiniti-g35-sport-vs-2007-bm- w-328i.html link title Replies to this message: kdshapiro (Dec 09, 2007 10:18 am)
#390 of 475 Re: Real-world winners & allegiances [cbauer71] by kdshapiro Dec 09, 2007 (10:18 am)
Replying to: cbauer71 (Dec 09, 2007 9:23 am) That was one of the more interesting comparos, bottom line is more horsepower is not necessarily better. However, these comparos are just all opinions and in the end the opinion of the buying public is what matters most.
#391 of 475 CTS weight problems by albook Dec 09, 2007 (11:59 am)
I hate in comparison tests when these vehicles are compared and the CTS is said to be overwieght compared to the others. This is a vehicle that should be compared to BMW 5's and MB E classes, and M's and GS's- not their smaller siblings. The only reason CTS is in this test is because of its low price. Replies to this message: habitat1 (Dec 09, 2007 1:10 pm) lonestar2 (Dec 09, 2007 3:34 pm) habitat1 (Dec 10, 2007 2:52 am) and 6 more...
#392 of 475 Re: C350 [cbauer71] by habitat1 Dec 09, 2007 (12:58 pm)
Replying to: cbauer71 (Dec 09, 2007 8:50 am) In the REAL WORLD, a tick over 1/2 a second difference is barely noticable, if at all. It doesn't seem like that long ago that when a car broke the 8 second to 60 mph barrier it was considered "blazing quick" or "lighting fast." I agree that performance - at least in terms of acceleration - has increased significantly over the past 25 years. My 1984 Toyota Supra, a highly regarded "sports car" was only capable of 0-60 in 8.3 seconds. That wouldn't get you noticed in a comparison of 7 passenger SUV's today. But I don't think that 0.6 seconds is "barely noticable". That's the difference between a 911S and a Boxster S, which I can tell you from 1st hand experience, is huge. If anything, the fact that all acceleration times have improved, makes 0.6 seconds, relatively speaking, a greater difference than it was 20 or 30 years ago. The fact that my old Datsun 1978 B210GX might have been 0.6 seconds quicker to 60 than a comparable Toyota Corolla was nearly imperceptible. Both would have had a tough time breaking 15 seconds. So in absolute terms, while 5.9 seconds certainly isn't slow, it will feel a lot slower than a car capable of 5.3 seconds.
#393 of 475 Re: CTS weight problems [albook] by habitat1 Dec 09, 2007 (1:10 pm)
Replying to: albook (Dec 09, 2007 11:59 am) I hate in comparison tests when these vehicles are compared and the CTS is said to be overwieght compared to the others. This is a vehicle that should be compared to BMW 5's and MB E classes, and M's and GS's- not their smaller siblings. Say what? Although exterior dimensions are larger, the 2008 CTS has 1" less in rear shoulder room than a 3-series. And over 3" less than a 5-series: CTS: 54.1" 3-series: 55.1" 5-series: 57.3 And yet, the CTS weighs nearly 300 lbs more than the 335i and over 400 lbs more than the 2007 530i (2008 535i weight not listed in Edmunds). It even weighs more than the V8 550i: CTS: 3,874 lbs 335i: 3,594 lbs 530i: 3,472 lbs 550i: 3,803 lbs. Sorry, but you can put as much lipstick as Jeffifer Love Hewitt has in her cosmetic bag on that CTS, but it's still a PIG. Period. Replies to this message: lonestar2 (Dec 09, 2007 3:34 pm) habitat1 (Dec 10, 2007 2:52 am) circlew (Dec 10, 2007 5:28 am) and 1 more... lonestar2 (Dec 10, 2007 2:08 pm) and 3 more...
#394 of 475 Re: CTS weight problems [habitat1] by lonestar2 Dec 09, 2007 (3:34 pm)
Replying to: habitat1 (Dec 09, 2007 1:10 pm) "Putting lipstick on pig" reference to CTS is out of line. I'm a current Bimmer owner - have an 03 330i, sport/premium, man.trans., and am considering the CTS. Looking to go from a compact to mid-size sedan. Also looking at 5 series & E Class. Some other interior diminsions of note between the three: Interior Vol. C.F. Front - Rear - CTS 54 CTS 42 5 52 5 44 E 53 E 44 Front Headroom - Rear Headroom - CTS 38.8 in. CTS 37.2 in. 5 37.7 in. 5 37.0 E 39.1 in. E 37.8 Front Legroom - Rear Legroom - CTS 42.4 in. CTS 35.9 in. 5 41.5 in. 5 36.0 E 41.9 in. E 35.6 Weight - CTS 4032 lbs. 5 4048 E 4039 Source: Car & Driver 11/06, & 9/07. the 5 was a 550i, & E was E550. Also in the last C&D, 01/08, CTS was named one of 10 Best. 535i, nominated & was not chosen. I don't recall this current 5 being chosen in it's current style, starting with the '04's. You don't have to care for the new CTS, but shouldn't trash it. I have really enjoyed my 3, and not sure what my next choice will eventually be, but I am giving the new CTS a hard look. Check your own cosmetic mirror in your bag before you put lipstick on something else. Replies to this message: habitat1 (Dec 10, 2007 2:52 am) circlew (Dec 10, 2007 5:28 am) habitat1 (Dec 10, 2007 6:21 am) lonestar2 (Dec 10, 2007 2:08 pm) arby1 (Dec 10, 2007 6:17 pm) and 2 more...
#395 of 475 Re: A Few Observations... [habitat1] by cdnpinhead Dec 09, 2007 (4:28 pm)
Replying to: habitat1 (Dec 08, 2007 10:53 am) ". . .my wife would have been holding a map upside down blocking part of the windshield and when we finally reached a vineyard, I would have been asking for a shot of vodka." Amen. The GPS is one of the finest products of the past 20 years, and I actually know how to navigate. One less stressor.
#396 of 475 Re: CTS weight problems [lonestar2] by habitat1 Dec 10, 2007 (2:52 am)
Replying to: lonestar2 (Dec 09, 2007 3:34 pm) Looking to go from a compact to mid-size sedan. Also looking at 5 series & E Class. I am not sure what dimension you consider important in the decision to go from a compact to mid size sedan, but the fact that the CTS is an inch narrower in rear seat/shoulder width than a BMW 3-series and 3 inches narrower than a 5 series would certainly be a deal killer for me, no matter the slight (1" or less) advantages it has in a few leg and head room dimensions. In shopping for a family sedan to replace my 1995 Maxima in 2004, with two daughters, a 3 series would have make a tight fit for the occasional longer family weekend trip when we don't take our SUV. Not necessarily in leg or head room, but in width, given that one of them was still in a car seat and even now, they need that neutral space between them for books, a cooler, etc. Anything narrower than a 3-series, regardless of leg or head room, would still be a "compact" in my book, no matter what the EPA says. Regardless of our respective opinions of any of these cars, I suggest you do your own "test fit", before you conclude the CTS works for your situation. Why you now need more head and leg room, but are willing to go to a narrower width rear seat is certainly your business. But there is no way I would ever consider the CTS comparable to the 5 or E in actual useable size. As for weight, since when did two tons become an acceptable weight for a 6 cylinder mid size sedan? BMW and Mercedes have always been heavy. It's in their "bank-vault" DNA. Not something you will find in GM's heritage. And yet you need to compare a 6 cylinder CTS to an 8 cylinder, larger 550i or E550 in order to find something as heavy. Heck, throw in the M5 V10 at under 4,100 lbs. On that basis, I can claim I don't to lose 15 lbs before next spring baseball season, by comparing my weight to that of Barry Bonds. Sorry for not being as lenient as perhaps I should to Cadillac. They do seem to be trying harder. But I also think they are getting at least some of their accolades from sources that have a lot of pressure to say something nice, before GM goes completely bankrupt. I have a few friends and business associates that, trying to be open minded, have test driven the new CTS along with the 3/5 series, A4/A6, E class, Lexus ES/GS etc. None of them, including an attorney who is a DC lobbyist for trade unions, concluded that the car was anything better than an "average" contender. Which is probably better than they would have rated any previous GM model, but not exactly a ringing endorsement. Replies to this message: circlew (Dec 10, 2007 5:28 am) habitat1 (Dec 10, 2007 6:21 am) lonestar2 (Dec 10, 2007 2:08 pm) arby1 (Dec 10, 2007 6:17 pm) lonestar2 (Dec 10, 2007 7:02 pm) and 1 more...