Comparison Test: 2008 BMW M5 vs. 2009 Cadillac CTS-V vs. 2009 Mercedes-Benz C63

My Vote:
Caddy CTSV
Merc C63
M5

Really doesn't matter if the Caddy is the fastest...GM will be non-existent by 2009Q1

The Mercedes isn't overpriced. It's a beast of a car and it's a hammer blowing experience. It was at least when I test drove one. It's just not packed with 500+ horsepower like the CTS-V and the M5.

I'm a Merc fan but I can't ignore the the CTS-V or the M5. CTS-V = brilliant. M5 = despite it's interior I love the V10 growl. C63 = Wild, Posh, Fun.

I hear Caddy is going rear drive to finally produce a world class car and compete with the Euros.

The CTS has been rear wheel drive.

uh... if they decided against using the E63 as a competitor in favor of the C63, why wouldn't they use the M3 instead of an M5? Considering the C63 came with 1.6 points of the CTS-V in this test, and the M3 has beaten the C63 in pretty much every comparison test, where would the M3 have finished? We don't know, because Edmunds decided to stack the deck against the M5 for some reason by comparing it to two brand new models costing $30k less.

You want some cheese with that whine? The M5 was the benchmark for the new CTS-V. That why it's in there. And the E63 didn't stand a chance.

E63 didnt stand a chance?

I'm not disagreeing that Caddy considers the M5 the benchmark for the CTS-V. You're missing my point point. My argument is if EDMUNDS is going to agree and pit the two against each other and throw in a Benz for good measure, then than Benz should be an E63. Conversely If EDMUNDS is going to arbitrarily choose to use a C63 instead, and they never actually said why since the C63 is not an M5 competitor, then be fair about it and use an M3, not an M5. An M3 with M-DCT would have matched up much better with these two since it's in the same pricerange, and, you know, actually competes with the C63 (and whether Caddy wants to admit it or not there will be more CTS-V buyers cross shopping the $65k M3 than the $90k M5). And yes, while the M3 is smaller inside than the Caddy, so is the C63 (the M3 is actually more spacious than the Benz). It also outperforms the M5 and is a better "Value", which was a big part of the test procedure. So if they were going to use the C63, they should have also used the M3. Period.

I was just bustin' your chops. I think just about every auto enthusiast on the planet wanted to see the M5 dethroned, so I think that's why it was thrown in there. Whereas the C63 was thrown in as a benchmark for value combined with performance and liveability. The M3 would have absolutely crushed them all being lighter, race inspired engine and tuning...everybody knows that. Just my take.

I don' think so. On Car and Driver's lightning lap it beat the M3. I still think I like the M3 better, but that's pretty impressive. Btw, in the right hands, the manual in the CTS V should be even faster.

So it is Edmunds fault first for BMW pricing the M5 in the stratosphere of mortals, and second, CTS-v outstanding performance at any price. I guess it is Edmunds fault that the competing vehicles are 09 models and they couldn't get the current model M5. Oh, wait the 09 is basically the same model. Your logic is faulty at best. When the M5, any AMG models or S line compete on performance terms, then let the chips fall where they fall. No prisoners, no excuses. Be real.

"So it is Edmunds fault first for BMW pricing the M5 in the stratosphere of mortals, and second, CTS-v outstanding performance at any price."

Inspiron, I am not denying the CTS-V's credentials.

It's simple. The M5 is priced to compete with the AMG E-class. The AMG E-class is priced to compete with the M5. BMW didn't price it "ridiculously high", it's priced to compete with cars BMW considers competitors. Trust me, if Cadillac could sell CTS-V's for $85-100k, which is M5, E63, RS6 money, they would do so in a heartbeat. Regardless, if Edmunds wants to do a comparison with the CTS-V and M5, that's fine. What I am saying is Edmunds shouldn't have stuck a C63 in there then. If their reasoning for including the C63 over the E63 was because it was similarly priced to the CTS-V, then use an M3. Don't hamstring the M5 and then wonder why it "lost". It's $25k more than either other car in the test, and larger than both as well, with similar performance. Surprise surprise, it lost. Based on this test an E63 would probably have lost as well, but we'll never know since they didn't include one, they used a C63. That also lost. Had they used an M3 based on price (which is why they chose the C63) the results may very well have been the same, but guess what? We don't know that either, because there was no continuity in the test vehicles chosen.

That's it. No disparaging any of the competitors, simply questioning the choice of vehicles. Edmunds basically stacked the deck by comparing the CTS-V with a larger, $25k more expensive BMW that only competes with the CTS-V in the eyes of GM, and a Mercedes that as great as it is has lost every comparison test I've seen to the BMW it competes directly against. I am 100% certain the CTS-V is an awesome vehicle, but they don't need to rig test results to prove it, and yes, I have a problem with that.

Just when GM is starting to get to the top of their game...the game is turning against them! How sad!

that was my point above. If you're going to stick the M5 in there, then include the E63. If you're going to use the C63 instead, then use the M3.

JRob .. reason being is the M3 would have trumped them all. The M3 is the benchmark for the BMW performance sedans, not the M5. The M5 is a performance touring sedan with unbelieveable tact, feel and power, but it is nowhere near as abalanced as the M3.

Guys, its called pick and choose. You will not get a fair comparison with anything when the test is done, geared towards yielding a particular result.

In this case, they want to make a case for the CTS-V to play in the same ballpark as the German performance sedans, so they need to pick an M5, not the M3, because its not as agile and its a 3 year old car. They picked the C63 because its lacking over 100hp from the CTS-V, which makes it not as fast.

Its picking and choosing to get a desired result, and I have said it over and over again, that edmunds.com comparison results must be taken with a grain of salt!

"what a shock!!! a bunch of BMW fanboys defending the m3!!! never thought id see the day!!"

kaner, perhaps you need some assistance with reading comprehension. No one is "defending" the M3 -- there's nothing to defend, as it wasn't part of the test. It should have been, that's the argument.

Would it help you if we typed slower?

Why compare a CTS-V to an M3. They were never designed to be competitors. Edmunds should have included the Benz E63 not the C63.

Anyway, the M3 would have been crushed by the CTS-V in the acceleration test and the CTS-V also would have won due to the marginal price increase over the M3 but substantial increase (when Edmunds test the times are notoriously slow) in straight-line acceleration.

The Cts-v would not have crushed the M3 in acceleration, since most of the 0 to 60 times for the M3 have been 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.

no wrong, the M3 is actually than the rest of the M lineup, which doesnt make sense, but hey it its, it has the fastest 0-60 time of the M cars. But anyway the CTSV is amazing in one generation they have come from an also ran, to being a benchmark, a car priced against the compact performance luxury sedans, sized and intenteded to out perform the next classup amazing car, it and the ZR1 if these 2 cars dont convince people that GM can compete with the best than soemthing is wrong with them

"aslo ran"? The last CTS-V outperformed the last M3 and last M5. Again, I know this from first hand experience.

If this result (and all others that are the same against any M or AMG before or to-come) is a surprise to anyone, it is because they are new to the enthusiast car genre or they have their head up thier German fanboy arses.

The CTS-V outperforms all other performance sedans on the market today.

Get used to being in 2nd (or 3rd or 4th or...) place, just like you were in 2004.

please go away i just praised and complimented the CTS-V and you sendme some idiotic response about how im some german fan boy, why dont you learn how to read....and again stay off my post!!!, the last CTS-V wasnt a great car it was a cadillac with a vette engine, trouble taking off, and poor interior other than looking good and being fast it wasnt that good of a car...the new one is far from that it is a benchmark, stay off my post, or at least read them first jerk

and the M3 for those that dont know is the fastest of the M cars, check times....

"Stay off my post"? Really??? lol

The '04 CTS-V was not an also ran, and it out-ran the last M3 and M5.

I didn't mean to offend you by adding other points to the reply, I should have posted it separately.

Group hug! lol

At first thought... what a messed up comparison (without even reading the article-but aren't all edmunds.com comparisons skewed or deformed in one way or another?)

Then, after i read the comparison, it seems even more messed up... Theres something about this article that makes it dumb, regardless of the results.

Did you actually read the article? A "straight-line car?" Get a grip.

Someone blatantly doesnt know what theyre talking about.

BimmerMike = the epitome of fanboy

Don't bother yourself with facts or the real world Mikey. Have fun looking at the ugly rear-end of every CTS-V you ever see, whether straight line or in the curvy's.

M loses. V wins. Again.

Intersting...what "performance" car did BMW produce in 1968 (you know...50 years ago)?

Bimmermike is in his jealous mode. Admit it fanboy. Oh and GM may be in a roller coaster situation but that doesn't mean this car is crap. You must be one of those douchebags from the island of Jeremy Clarkson.

Oops...my bad...what performance car did BMW make in 1958, not '68. Even more poigniant, I'd say.

Well, fan, with or without the boy, putting the CTS-V 98th on a list in front of a Kia Sedona sums up my point.

I don't like BMW's, but I can give them props that they produce a competetive car that doesn't barely beat a Kia.

I'm a BMW guru but the CTSv is just plain faster, and if it were only a straight line car it wouldn't have beaten the BMW at nurburgring. Had the BMW had more power it would have maybe won. bottom line the CTSv has a torque monster V8 engine that doesn't need to be wound up to make power. sure the
BMW engines are marvels of technological sophistication but the good ol pushrod v8 works. plain and simple and it has the interior to compete as well. I still would take my BMW but I will never say anything bad about the CTS and I give it its due respect.

All three are ugly. You'd look like a complete ass driving any of them. Fast? yes. Cool? No!
These are cars for people who wear Oakley shades.

you wear pleated pants don't you?

Liars don't figure, and figures don't lie. How is the CTS-v a straightline car with the numbers in generates. If anyone would be against the Caddy because, well for whatever reason someone might have, then stand on the reason. But to say it can't perform like its competitors is just junior high grade school stuff. Look at the stats and to say Edmunds is trying to skew the results is ignorant.

Ok, so who wants to start up a "media outlet" in order to get a Super-comparo of every V, M, AMG, S/RS, and F in one all out overall winner regardless of size, cost, class, # of doors, whatever?

I am quite confident that if anyone objectively reads all the comparos already out this year against every M and AMG and V (and by extension, the comparos of the S, RS, and F lines) that the CTS-V will win all aspects of all test...again.

They already have from multiple, independent sources.

Why is it so hard to admit you're beaten, guys? It is the age of the V, try to catch up!

drive the Caddy with 20k miles on it. Rattlebox...OUT

The Caddy was a car that had its own class. It was wedged between the 3 and 5, the C and E. It has even been stated by GM as being such. So what they attempted to do with this comparo is get someone from each field. The C63 and then the M5. They could have gone opposite and done M3 and E63. But the whole point is that the M5 is the benchmark performance sedan hands down. Up until the current model, you could not get a 4 door M3 in the US. They didn't exist. GM from the beginning wanted to go against the M5.

The CTS is larger than a 3 series as well. The upcoming larger model is more a 7 series than a 5 competitor anyways. The CTS competes with the M5 in performance and size but in price against the 3.

Now take their goal of taking on the almighty M5 which is not a car to scoff as, as none of these are. If Caddy wanted to make a stripped down, two or four door smaller car with racetrack precision then they would have a M3 comnpetitor. The CTS-V is not a M3 competitor for this reason. It is a touring sedan.

the C63 was tossed in because not many people look into E63's. If you want the luxury and comfort you get an E63. If you want performance, you go for an M5. So pick a car from every group and let them have at it. You get the KNOWN benchmark M5, and the new C63. If it was all M cars against a CTS-V then you would have a very biased one sided comparison where people would cry out about no Merc or Audi's in the article.

congrats to Caddillac for such an awesome machine, the last CTS-V was nice, but this thing is killer and deserves the respect it has earned.

What the junk bin luxury class?

actually, they did make a 4-door M3 in the mid 90's, based off of the e36 platform. They also had it with an auto, if you happened to be a soccer mom who wanted great performance without spilling your latte. Pretty rare car now (4 door M3), but the autoboxes are not particularly desirable.

I do not care about subjective opinions: Numbers said: CTS V Won, Thats final. Now we need to see how will performe it, after 100,000 milles. Regarding the M, most of you know that other good reason to take the M5 and C63 could be the Engine size and power. I know that what I will say won´t like to bimmer fans, but Facts are Facts, most of high reving engines comming from M cars "NOW" are weak in power and torque (btw , you do not need too many revs to get torque from the CTS V), The AMG 6.2 engine is better in every aspect than the M engines, again lighter than the 4.0 V8 on the M3, so imagine against the weight of the V10 from M5. BTW the C63 is using a tamed version cause the regular engine in europe for CL have 525 HP instead of 451 HP (Imgaine Supercharged as the Cady or with TT). What is not fair is that the M5 is an old car now, so we will have to wait till the next M5 and "Hopefuly", GM won´t rest. M3 is great, but the engine is not to play on this category. Regarding the correct car for this compare, I agree, it should be the E63, which is another old warrior as the M5 and is better performer in winding roads than the E or CLS too (I am and MB fan but I´m not blind as a lot of bimmer fans), However M3 and C63 are almost new models. Now if they are goig to compare category of size M5 or E63 or even CLS63 aginst CTS V is OK. If Prices, then delete the M5 and add the M3, ISF and leave the C63. Again, at the end, everyone will take the car that they love (at this point numebers won´t matter). M3 for the track specialist with fear to skid and looking for precision on tracks, C63 for experienced that does not fear the drift and have the reaction and drivers skills to handle such power, or CTS V for the ones that love the WINNER of this season and won´t be pleaced with less. Congrats Cadillac. Sorry for you Lincoln.

"blah blah blah."

That's my brief synopsis of what you just said, just to save everyone else the hassle of reading it. We get it, you don't like advanced, high RPM engines. You're a NASCAR guy, not an F1 guy. That's fine, but you don't have to bring it up every time you post, especially when the majority of what you say is wrong anyway. The M engines are "weak in power and torque"? Have you ever even BEEN in an M? Listen, imagine a new M3 and M5/M6. Now strip the car away and just think about the engine for a second, pretend it doesn't have "BMW M" written all over the engine cover, and just admire the specifications of the engines themselves. You know what other brand's engines are most similar to those? It's a little company called Ferrari, perhaps you've heard of them? High RPM, high horsepower, high driver engagement, high technology. Those BMW M engines are as advanced as anything in a road going car today that doesn't have a prancing horse on the hood. And FYI, the fact that the AMG 6.2L V8 is lighter than BMW's M3 4.0L V8 doesn't make it more advanced, it just makes it lighter. That's it, period. So quit bringing it up, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Anyway, let's ignore the MB homerism you like to constantly display, because I happen to really like Benzes, especially the AMG's, and my reply to your post has nothing to do with that. BMW M and MB AMG have, until now, simply gone about accomplishing a similar goal (making fast luxury cars) two different ways. Neither is right or wrong, both work quite well, and I'd argue that they both fit the "nature" of the manufacturers and their buyers perfectly.

Um Sailor? The 6.2-l engine in the C63 AMG is a homage to the legendary 300SEL 6.3 racing S class of the late 1960s and early 1970s. And its large displacement is great for extra torque. No need to make it sound like this engine is "outdated". The AMG philosophy has always been oriented around large displacement engines or forced induction. Doesn't mean their motors are "less advanced" than BMW M. Different philosophies.

And who cares if the M3 is the better performance car than the C63 AMG? The C63 AMG is probably the best-handling car AMG has ever developed together with the old CLK55 AMG / CLK63 AMG / CLK63 AMG Black Series / DTM. Every test of the C63 AMG has praised it for its handling, which is GOOD. You can drive it hard on the track and it will cope easily.

No one mentioned an RS6. 580 horsepower huge torque and a wagon althogh a sedan is supposed to come state side. Audi has some sweet S and RS cars right now....

The CTS-V > S6. I admit it, however, it should be interesting to see how it compares to the RS6 saloon.

CTS-V > E63 > S6 > M5

RS6 > CTS-V > E63 > M5

I'm waiting for Jags new XF-R instead of these!

1st: CTS-V, RS6, E63

...

last: M5.

JRobUSC Wrong my dear friend: Everybody is looking for light weight, And FYI BMW is a good performer cause their cars are light weight (to the point that several times they get bad points in security by NHTSA). M3 3600 pounds, C63 4000, Replace M3 engine for AMG 6.2 and you´ll have the world best sport car. Light weight technolgy matters in almost evrything. I know that cause I am engineer and I love numbers not comments, Can you expalin how the CTS is the winner with numbers?. High RPM engines are great, Specialy the sound, I already test and M3 and there is nothing like that to me. Even the sound of F360 is not so sweet to me. I like Ms but honestly what bothers "ME", not you, is that, you have to step the car to the high RPMs all the way to get a real strong answer from those engines (very bad for driftig fun which I love).. Big engines are not perfect, specialy if you want economy. But at the end the numbers say that those will stand the test of time cause they evrythig with lest mechanical stress. Some of you are very contradictory cause the weight matters when the transmision comes up....but you do not hear transmission problems in MB as often as in BMW. About the weight of the AMG 6.2, till this point is doing great, and also is high RPM engine, not so high as the M3s V8 or even the V10, and yes they powerful in specifict output per liter, but, Now I have an engineering question for you: Which engine is bigger in total dispacement, the M5 V10 (4999) or the AMG 6.2 (6208) and why? and remeber hp with torque is half solution. Regarding your last paragraph, ? You are BMW fan, nothing wrong with that. I am and MB lover, most of the people likes the noise of the engine in that case, BMW is my favorite, but when I drive my Benz I like the performance in absolut silence...It talks soft but when you want to play, just step on it and turn off the ESC, enjoy. M3: If you are in a rush, in that car you want to hear the music of that master piece. Finaly you will enjoy the music , I will enjoy drifting, but at the end both of us will see the ugly or beautiful backside of the CTS V my friend.

M5 if you can afford, it.

C63 if you can't.

I'd rather not buy a car than buy a caddy.

Then you are either 12 or just don't understand how business works.

I'm a DYED IN THE WOOL self-proclaimed BMW fanboy with a picture of Chris Bangle in my office. I'm a BMW owner and fanatic.

I'm going to buy a CTS-V. I've had more than a few people go "...but it's a Cadillac".

Yeah. A Caddy that beat the M5 around the 'Ring with a talented, yet non-racing driver and a slushbox transmission. And not because of just straight line power either..although it sure helps.

A Caddy with a slick interior. Recaro seats?

A Caddy that can hit 190's with the manual transmission. A pulley here and exhaust there... You've got a car that can put you in the exclusive 200mph club.

And thanks to GM's situation, a Caddy who's price difference between the M5 (what was my previous heart throb) is 30k+.

I was the same as you. I hated Caddy and put them in the same category as Buick and Lexus. But things change. The Japanese make one of the best TRUCKS, there's a real Korean threat in Hyundai, Jag is owned by the Indians and...get this...not only is some Black dude President of the USA, I hear he's pretty smart too!

Things change, dude. This your daddy's Caddy. Heck, it isn't even a Caddy from your Older brother. Go test drive one. Pay close attention to the interior fit and finish. Look for those gaps or loose pieces. Try to make it feel unsettled when driving it.

Good luck on either. I'm as shocked as anyone that this car is so good. As an F1 fan and BMW fanatic, I wanted a piece of the glory V10 days in the M5. I still do. But right now, 556hp and 551 torque in a package over $30k less more than makes up for it.

Don't take my word for it. Go to YouTube and search for 'Top Gear CTS-V ZR1' and hit the first result.

*Unless it's a badge thing with you. If that's the case, there's nothing the car could do to win you over, is it?

Three cheers for the Caddy!!

I would take the M5 the best looking of these 3, and i drives perfectly.

I have driven the caddy DTS, its a bad car i got sick driving it om mountain roads in California, Arizona, Nevada and Utah. I admit i have never driven the M5 and only got into a caddy because thats the car we rented for vacation. The quality of the caddy is not even close to a BMW (drive one her in DK) my E46 are so much better made.

DTS is no CTS. A dated vehicle that is closer to a land yacht comparatively speaking. You are comparing apples and watermelons.

Sailor, I think you have your Caddys confused. The BLS is the Saab clone, only sold in Europe IIRC. The DTS a massive, floaty, FWD old-guy sedan along the lines of the Lincoln Town Car. Formerly known as the Deville.

MPowerDK, simply put, you CANNOT EVER drive a DTS and then formulate an opinion on how the CTS drives. The DTS is the WORST Cadillac to drive, and that includes the Escalade. The CTS is RWD, smaller, sharper, with a real suspension and the nicest interior GM makes.

That's like driving an X5 3.0si and saying the M5 is slow because you drove a slow BMW.

The Caddy is faster, no doubt about it.

That being said, I'd still never own one.

If I wanted an AMG, I would spring for the E63 or CLS63. Both look nicer, and more menacing presence on the road.

The C63 is a nice little car and a good value compared to the M5.

But the M5 is ….well the M5. Repeat after me …can you say….I-C-O-N!

I have no complaints about mine, other than the turn signal indicators are finicky, and the gas tank is too small (same size as my E46 M3).

Other than the fact that the M5 is a performance legend and have been so for the past 20 years, it also seats 5 full-sized adults comfortably, has a gigantic trunk that Tony Soprano would be proud of, great resale value, and the award-winning V10 near redline is the automatic equivalent of angels singing! Can you also say 279 possible power/shift speed/suspension settings combination.

Most importantly and this definitely can’t be overlooked, it isn't owned by a company a month away from bankruptcy.

But is still doesn't do away with the fact that a Cadillac has better performance numbers than the iconic M5. No one wants to ADMIT this simple FACT. You can dance around it, pretend it not the elephant in the room, or the bully that has taken your lunch money, or what ever comparison you wish to use. A Cadillac has triumph almost every performance ICON on the market. Period.

"Most importantly and this definitely can’t be overlooked, it isn't owned by a company a month away from bankruptcy."

Know what, WeaponX? That is definitely a concern. But what does bankruptcy mean in 2009? Look at Delta Airlines. They went bankrupt and missed nary a beat, save elimination of some routes.

With today's Debtor In Possession or DIP rules, I doubt that a Chapter 11 bankruptcy would disrupt much on the consumer side. The only problem I could see would be from the UAW.

Then again, I could be wrong about the whole thing. Guess I'll lease that CTS-V instead... ;-)

"If I wanted an AMG, I would spring for the E63 or CLS63. Both look nicer, and more menacing presence on the road."

The C63 AMG is far more menacing than the E63 AMG on the road. I don't know how you could get a different impression just from looking at pictures. The C63 is also a handling revelation, and not just a straight line performer like other AMGs. Don't let that fool you--it's still quicker than any other AMG sedan. And it's a relative steal.

I think you know which one I would choose. :)