Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 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
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)
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Dec 08, 2007 10:53 am) Amen. The GPS is one of the finest products of the past 20 years, and I actually know how to navigate. One less stressor. |
|
|
Replying to: lonestar2 (Dec 09, 2007 3:34 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Dec 10, 2007 2:52 am) I see some '08 models now but was wondering on the terrible history GM has for new model intros? While I was servicing my wife's Yukon on Saturday (third visit for On-Star Upgrade to digital format - 4th visit in 2 weeks) the Enclave is STILL nowhere to be seen after 4 weeks before with the same sales guys. Talking to the sales team, they are depressed because there are none for even a test drive! The same dealer has an allocation of 1 Pontiac G8 going into January from a first batch of 800 country-wide. Not a good time to depend on commissions at Pont-Bui-GMC. All of the AVAILABLE floor models are typical GM boring. Sounds like business as usual to me. Way to go GM. Is the CTS debut a failure as well in terms of delivery time? Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Dec 10, 2007 5:28 am) It does seem, however, that the GM dealerships seem to be loaded with the cars people don't want. Apparantly, if you want any Caddy other than the CTS or blinged up Escalade, they will just about give them away. |
|
|
|
|
According to the 2008 Consumer Reports Buying Guide: Infiniti G35 Journey was rated at 92 Lexus IS250 was rated at 84 BMW 328i was rated at 79 Sorry, no ratings provided for the CTS or C350 (PS M35x was rated at 97, 535i was rated at 78) The 2008 Consumer Guide to Autos had all of them in it: CTS w/Direct Injection was rated at 76 G35 w/Premium was rated at 73 335i w/Navigation was rated at 72 CTS Base w/Auto was rated at 71 C350 w/Auto was rated at 70 IS350 w/Navigation was rated at 62 (PS M35 was rated at 75, 550i was rated at 69) For your information only.
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Dec 10, 2007 2:52 am) One impressive stat to me is the 70 - 0 stopping distance. CTS 155ft. 550 & 328, both 161ft. Pretty good for two tons. I'm also glad GM is finally putting forth the effort it should have years ago. It will take some doing to get me away from Munich, but will thoroughly enjoy the test driving to make my decision. I live in the sun belt, and if I had your garage, I'd be in the 911 as often as possible!
|
|
|
|
|
While at Barnes also checked out the Kelley Blue Book Used Car Guide January-June 2008 edition. Used the Private Party Good value/Original MSRP for calculations. Just used the base car w/o worrying about options. May not be the best, but provides an equal footing for comparisons. For 2003 Models: G35 15650/29495 = 53.1% IS300 16400/32485 = 50.5% CTS 14600/29900 = 48.8% 330i 18700/39070 = 47.9% C230 Sport 13900/30310 = 45.9% For 2004 Models: IS300 18650/32815 = 56.8% G35 17700/31690 = 55.9% 330i 21400/39270 = 54.5% C230 Sport 16300/33180 = 49.1% CTS 15950/33155 = 48.1% (PS 2006 530i 34600/47495 = 72.8%, 2006 M35 30000/41250 = 72.7% - first year available) For your information only |
|
|
Replying to: lonestar2 (Dec 10, 2007 2:08 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: arby1 (Dec 10, 2007 6:17 pm)  ) Also thought depreciation would be worse than my BMW, but not according to the KBB post above, even though I personally have found it didn't carry much weight in my real world negotiating.
|
|
|
Replying to: lonestar2 (Dec 10, 2007 7:02 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Article Comments - Comparison Test: 2007-2008 Sport Sedans
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Cadillac CTS
2010 BMW 3 Series
2008 Infiniti G35
1991 Mercedes-Benz 350-Class
2010 Mercedes-Benz C-Class
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
