[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by swanson

Well, the M5 depreciates a lot. Look at the prices of 2013 models. Already in the $50K range.

Wait what?

Have any links to clean title 2013's with less than 30k miles for $50k'ish?

[swanson]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Wait what?

Have any links to clean title 2013's with less than 30k miles for $50k'ish?

Less then 30k miles is pushing it but heres one I found on cars.com

http://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/de...6122/overview/

[Nitrousbird]

Originally Posted by zer0cool

I would definitely not buy these new given their depreciation.

Yet you bought a new BMW with depreciation as bad or worse...

[rjd598]

Originally Posted by swanson

Well, the M5 depreciates a lot. Look at the prices of 2013 models. Already in the $50K range.

Not accurate. I just did a nationwide search (autotrader) on f10 m5's and the cheapest was a 2013 for $60k. 2014/2015 all are in the mid to higher $90k range for the most part with a few dipping in the mid $80's. That sounds normal for a BMW M car to me. The CTS-V will depreciate much quicker than the M5.

[CirrusSR22]

CTS-V wagons (2011-2014) are still in the $40,000 - $60,000 range. They started at $64,000 new.

[Vigilante375]

Originally Posted by trixdout

But you can get the ATS-V in manual which is killer.

Awesome little car and I'd take it over the new CTS V, unless they made a wagon version.....then I'd have to flip a coin.

[kprocivic]

Originally Posted by CirrusSR22

CTS-V wagons (2011-2014) are still in the $40,000 - $60,000 range. They started at $64,000 new.

id give a testes for one.

[AWheeler]

It's not my style, but this latest CTS-V is a VERY impressive car and I would argue it is worth the price of admission. The increased price probably brings with it increased exclusivity. Depreciation is uncertain with a lot of cars at the top of their respective brand's price range, though.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Faster, 100 more HP, lighter, etc?

Sometimes it seems hard for Cadillac to do anything right. Lots of people are stuck in stereotypes of how the interior is or other things that just don't hold up anymore, as the have improved their game and they are nothing like cars from the last 40 years. Seems like they are targeting the M5 pretty squarely with this, but the performance might be a few ticks better.

Because GM is notorious now for building a great driver's car that just sucks at most other things. In Cadillac's case it's the CUE system. And it's decision to have the surface that's touch sensitive a glossy black so it attracts fingerprints on it.

For the ATS it's the same aforementioned problems plus the fact that it's gauge cluster looks more suited in a 1995 Cavalier. It's the small shit that GM seems to overlook or miss. The Germans and Japanese seem to sweat the details of overall ergonomics much more than GM does. GM lately has built some capable cars all with small issues like that but most people shrug it off because they can deal with crappy seats and/or a crappy interior and/or no rearward visibility at all because the car is fun to drive and cheaper than other cars with the same amount of power. That kind of goes out the window and isn't as acceptable with a company that's supposed to compete with Audi, BMW and Mercedes.

That said, it's a bad ass car but the fact that it's ruined it's reputation and what I just mentioned don't give them much of a chance.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Because GM is notorious now for building a great driver's car that just sucks at most other things. In Cadillac's case it's the CUE system. And it's decision to have the surface that's touch sensitive a glossy black so it attracts fingerprints on it.

For the ATS it's the same aforementioned problems plus the fact that it's gauge cluster looks more suited in a 1995 Cavalier. It's the small shit that GM seems to overlook or miss. The Germans and Japanese seem to sweat the details of overall ergonomics much more than GM does. GM lately has built some capable cars all with small issues like that but most people shrug it off because they can deal with crappy seats and/or a crappy interior and/or no rearward visibility at all because the car is fun to drive and cheaper than other cars with the same amount of power. That kind of goes out the window and isn't as acceptable with a company that's supposed to compete with Audi, BMW and Mercedes.

That said, it's a bad ass car but the fact that it's ruined it's reputation and what I just mentioned don't give them much of a chance.

Most of those are stereotypes that don't hold up. Visibility? My 428 has a high hood and terrible rear visibility, I'm sure others like the 6 series aren't great either. I don't find most of those claims to be substantiated by real experience with these manufactures. I'd say many of the Japanese cars are falling behind, resisting turbocharging, not making anything particularly exciting, etc. What's the Japanese equivalent of an M3, CTS-v wagon, CLS AMG, z-28, Mercedes sls or gt? And even when you do find one, it's not like all of the Japanese manufacturers produce something in that category. I could go on forever, and there are a few Japanese cars, like the heavy and getting old gt-r or new nsx, but by and large they don't have many cars to compete in these areas and what they do have usually falls short or can't be sustained.

[Nitrousbird]

Originally Posted by rjd598

Not accurate. I just did a nationwide search (autotrader) on f10 m5's and the cheapest was a 2013 for $60k. The CTS-V will depreciate much quicker than the M5.

I just did your search as well. A number of 2013 M5's for 60k.

2013 CTS-V Sedans, 43k+.

'13 M5 starting MSRP: 90k

'13 CTS-V starting MSRP: 63k

So the in the same amount of time, the M5 lost $30,000 in value while the CTS-V lost $20,000 in value. Let's also mention that CTS-V was purchased off the lots for a lot more off of MSRP than the M5, and didn't have the significant option upgrade costs the M5 has, so the M5 depreciated even worse than the reflected $10,000 difference here.

Please explain how "The CTS-V will depreciate much quicker than the M5"

BMW's are notorious for awful resale value. That's why I bought one. Some other sucker eats the depreciation and I get a decent car for pennies on the dollar.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Most of those are stereotypes that don't hold up. Visibility? My 428 has a high hood and terrible rear visibility, I'm sure others like the 6 series aren't great either. I don't find most of those claims to be substantiated by real experience with these manufactures. I'd say many of the Japanese cars are falling behind, resisting turbocharging, not making anything particularly exciting, etc. What's the Japanese equivalent of an M3, CTS-v wagon, CLS AMG, z-28, Mercedes sls or gt? And even when you do find one, it's not like all of the Japanese manufacturers produce something in that category. I could go on forever, and there are a few Japanese cars, like the heavy and getting old gt-r or new nsx, but by and large they don't have many cars to compete in these areas and what they do have usually falls short or can't be sustained.

Ever driven a Camaro? You can't see jack shit out of a Camaro. You can see just fine out of a 4 or a 6 Series, they're coupes so you'd obviously expect less visibility than a sedan but none of them can hold a candle to how god awful the Camaro is, especially with it's high belt line and low seating position. Should actually try driving a Camaro.

"The Germans and Japanese seem to sweat the details of overall ergonomics much more than GM does."

Compare the features and usability of them in a BMW or a Lexus then try them in a Cadillac. I never said that German and Japanese cars were more "exciting" than GM. Ergonomics <> excitement. If I argued that they were more "exciting" than GM, I'd be wrong.

[Cbozz]

damn 6.2L supercharged V8 with 640hp and 630 lb-ft of torque ... I wish our car came like that, at least with SC!

[rjd598]

Originally Posted by Nitrousbird

I just did your search as well. A number of 2013 M5's for 60k.

2013 CTS-V Sedans, 43k+.

'13 M5 starting MSRP: 90k

'13 CTS-V starting MSRP: 63k

So the in the same amount of time, the M5 lost $30,000 in value while the CTS-V lost $20,000 in value. Let's also mention that CTS-V was purchased off the lots for a lot more off of MSRP than the M5, and didn't have the significant option upgrade costs the M5 has, so the M5 depreciated even worse than the reflected $10,000 difference here.

Please explain how "The CTS-V will depreciate much quicker than the M5"

BMW's are notorious for awful resale value. That's why I bought one. Some other sucker eats the depreciation and I get a decent car for pennies on the dollar.

you're right the m5 is depreciating faster now. i was thinking in the long term. i think the cts-v will become a $30k car sooner than the m5 will be. who knows

[Unknown_Car]

No thx still its a pig vehicle !

[Andrew115]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Wait what?

Have any links to clean title 2013's with less than 30k miles for $50k'ish?

This is the best deal I could find on an 13 at least "on paper" who knows what the car actually looks like.

http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/invento...362_isFeatured

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by Roma_335xi

No thx still its a pig vehicle !

Pig vehicle?

[Haywood]

Can someone show me a professional reviewer choosing the CTS-V over a M5? I'm sorry, not to sound like a BMW snob, but every company has been trying to catch up with the M3 and M5 for performance sedans and most have all failed. I'm sure the Caddy is a nice car, but I have zero appeal for it's looks. There is no situation ever that I would choose a Caddy over a M5 for performance. It's never been proven to be a better overall performance sedan.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by Haywood

Can someone show me a professional reviewer choosing the CTS-V over a M5? I'm sorry, not to sound like a BMW snob, but every company has been trying to catch up with the M3 and M5 for performance sedans and most have all failed. I'm sure the Caddy is a nice car, but I have zero appeal for it's looks. There is no situation ever that I would choose a Caddy over a M5 for performance. It's never been proven to be a better overall performance sedan.

The new CTS-V isn't out or available to reviewers yet.

But if the ATS-V is any indications, the CTS-V will likely have the better chassis/performance numbers. It's subjective stuff that will likely throw things back in the M5's favor. Back in the day, C&D and MT used to give the win to the M3 and M5 just because of its performance numbers even if the others won in areas like the interior and subjective aspects, but apparently in a performance sedan comparison now, CUE is important enough to drag the product down. Again when iDrive was crap, they made sure it wasn't enough to cause the BMW's to lose.....

Though the LT4 issues certainly is a definite worry for the CTS-V.

[CirrusSR22]

Originally Posted by Haywood

Can someone show me a professional reviewer choosing the CTS-V over a M5? I'm sorry, not to sound like a BMW snob, but every company has been trying to catch up with the M3 and M5 for performance sedans and most have all failed. I'm sure the Caddy is a nice car, but I have zero appeal for it's looks. There is no situation ever that I would choose a Caddy over a M5 for performance. It's never been proven to be a better overall performance sedan.

The CTS-V has never directly competed with the M5 until 2016.

2014 MSRPs:

CTS-V - $63,600
M5 - $92,900

[Unknown_Car]

By pig i mean they always leak oil like crazy. Much more then any german vehicle. And i know this by experience i am a mechanic at NTB .

[BwoodBMW]

Originally Posted by rjd598

Not accurate. I just did a nationwide search (autotrader) on f10 m5's and the cheapest was a 2013 for $60k. 2014/2015 all are in the mid to higher $90k range for the most part with a few dipping in the mid $80's. That sounds normal for a BMW M car to me. The CTS-V will depreciate much quicker than the M5.

I was very close to pulling the trigger on an 2013 M5 before I decided I want to order an M3. I had 2 different clean title cars (one with 28k miles, one with 35k miles) negotiated down to slightly less than $60k. The 35k mile car had extended warranty and maintenance as well so the extra mileage was worth about $5k in added warranties.