View Full Version : Edmunds - Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG vs Cadillac CTS-V


TriShield
11-14-2011, 12:15 PM
IL Track Tested: 2012 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Coupe vs. 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/assets_c/2011/11/ctsv-vs-c63_1600-thumb-717x477-106057.jpg

By Mike Magrath | November 9, 2011

During our first drive of the 2012 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Coupe we said, "Blindingly fast in a straight line, the C63 AMG Coupe is even more impressive when the road truns twisty. A legitimate M3 competitor if there ever was one."

But what fun is that? The M3 is on its way out and its 414 horsepower V8 is nearly outgunned by a stock Ford Mustang GT. The Merc's big 6.2-liter V8 cranks out nearly 70 hp more with its $6,050 AMG Development package. Even with "only" the stock 451 hp, it would be a bloodbath.

Thankfully, Cadillac offers a coupe much more in line with the spirit of "more is better" embodied by the C63 AMG Coupe. The CTS-V Coupe also uses a 6.2-liter V8, but ups the ante with a supercharger that blows horsepower to 556 and torque to 551. It's a monster.

556 vs 481. Six-speed manual vs. seven-speed automated manual. 4,200 pounds vs 3,990. CTS-V Coupe vs Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Coupe: Who takes it?

Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe - Cadillac CTS-V

0-30 (sec.): 1.9 - 1.9
0-45 (sec.): 3.0 - 2.9
0-60 (sec.): 4.2 - 4.2
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec.): 3.9 - 3.9
0-75 (sec.): 6.0 - 5.8
1/4-mile (sec @ mph): 12.3 @ 116.3 - 12.2 @ 117.5

30-0 (ft): 29 - 27
60-0 (ft): 112 - 107
Skid pad lateral accel (g): 0.89 - 0.90
Slalom 68.5 - 69.3

Vehicle: 2012 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Coupe (with AMG Development package)

Odometer: 3,798
Date: 11-01-2011
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $81,715

Specifications:
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Seven-speed auto clutch manual
Engine Type: Longitudinal, Naturally aspirated V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 6,208/379
Redline (rpm): 7,200
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 481 @ 6,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 443
Brake Type (front):14.2-inch ventilated discs with six-piston fixed Brembo calipers
Brake Type (rear): 13-inch ventilated discs with four-piston fixed calipers
Suspension Type(front): Independent MacPherson struts, stabilizer bar
Suspension Type (rear): Independent multilink, stabilizer bar
Tire Size (front): 235/40ZR18 (95Y)
Tire Size (rear): 255/35ZR18 (94Y)
Tire Brand: Continental
Tire Model: ContiSportContact SP
Tire Type: Summer performance
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 3,990

Test Results:

Acceleration
0-30 (sec): 1.9 (2.2 w/TC on)
0-45 (sec): 3.0 (3.3 w/TC on)
0-60 (sec): 4.2 (4.5 w/TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 3.9 (4.1 w/TC on)
0-75 (sec): 6.0 (6.2 w/TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 12.3 @ 116.3 (12.5 @ 115.9 w/TC on)

Braking:
30-0 (ft): 29
60-0 (ft): 112

Handling
Slalom (mph): 68.5 ( 64.8 w/TC on, 67.2 w/TC in dynamic)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.89 ( 0.88 w/TC in dynamic )

Db @ Idle: 48.1
Db @ Full Throttle: 80.5
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 67

Acceleration: "Race start" requires some wheelspin to determine appropriate traction control / throttle application, and so while it is consistent, a Trac off, no-wheelspin, progressive throttle launch was quicker (in "sport+ and "drive"). Shockingly smooth and rapid upshifts and still pulling HARD across 1/4-mile mark. And what a noise this 6.2 makes!

Braking: I get the distinct feeling the brake hardware is more capable/robust than the tires because it sort of skipped/lurched with each ABS cycle -- not what I'd call a smooth, seamless stop. Otherwise, excellent brake feel and modulation, zero fade and straight.

Handling:

Skid pad: "Dyn" is a wider envelope (ESC Sport Handling) than default "On," and it is very lenient with understeer, hence nearly identical off/dyn numbers. Excellent steering feel/weight but expected more grip than this -- could use better/wider tires. Understeer at the limit.

Slalom: Supremely neutral (almost to a fault) that causes oversteer when I entered fast and bled throttle, and understeer entering slowly and adding throttle. Maintenance throttle had to be "just right" to balance between understeer and oversteer. Felt under-tired and far more capable than the numbers suggest. Probably a freaking blast on a racetrack. Hard to determine if this has a true LSD or a brake diff, but it worked very well on slalom exit.

Vehicle: 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe

Odometer: 855
Date: 7/6/2010
Driver: Josh Jacquot
Price: $69,285

Specifications:
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Six-speed manual
Engine Type: Longitudinal, Supercharged, port-injected V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 6,162/376
Redline (rpm): 6,200
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 556 hp @ 6,100 rpm
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 551 @ 3,800 rpm
Brake Type (front): 15.0-inch ventilated discs with six-piston fixed calipers
Brake Type (rear): 14.7-inch ventilated rotors with four-piston fixed calipers
Suspension Type (front): Independent double wishbones, coil springs, driver-adjustable two-mode magnetorheological dampers, stabilizer bar
Suspension Type (rear): Independent double-wishbone, coil springs, driver-adjustable two-mode magnetorheological dampers, stabilizer bar
Tire Size (front): 255/40ZR19 (96Y)
Tire Size (rear): 285/35ZR19 (99Y)
Tire Brand: Michelin
Tire Model: Pilot Sport PS2
Tire Type: Summer Performance
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 4,200

Test Results:
0-30 (sec): 1.9 (2.0 with TC on)
0-45 (sec): 2.9 (3.0 with TC on)
0-60 (sec): 4.2 (4.4 with TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 3.9 (4.1 with TC on)
0-75 (sec): 5.8 (6.0 with TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 12.2 @ 117.5

30-0 (ft): 27
60-0 (ft): 107

Slalom (mph): 69.3 (67.9 with TC in competition mode)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.90g

Db @ Idle: 58.1
Db @ Full Throttle: 80.9
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 72.1

Acceleration: Wow! As usual, GM's supercharged 6.2-liter V8 amazes: No whine, no surge, no drama, just propulsion. Difficult to launch well, but still quite consistent with no apparent heat-soak. The Coupe scratches rubber on both the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts. No programmed launch control available -- seems an odd choice.

Braking: Amazing power and fade resistance from firm pedal with shallow jump-in. No dive, no wander, just dead consistent.

Handling:

Skid pad: Competitive driving mode works quite well in managing slip angles during rapid transitions. Still, CTS-V is easy to control and communicates well with all aids off. Best run using "sport" suspension setting.

Slalom: Competitive mode helps the big coupe rotate off throttle more effectively than with everything off. Moderate understeer is easily balanced away with throttle. Fun and remarkably nimble for a 4,200-pound car.

http://support.edmunds.com/images/logo-insideline-big.png (http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2011/11/il-track-tested-2012-mercedes-benz-c63-amg-coupe-vs-2011-cadillac-cts-v-coupe.html)

2002_Z28_Six_Speed
11-14-2011, 02:05 PM
Pathetic that the Caddy has so much more HP and the numbers don't show it at all. All that damn weight.

Buckwheat
11-15-2011, 01:10 PM
I wouldn't call a low 12 second stock caddie pathetic but yeah, she is a porker. The test states that you can't hear the blower. That is untrue. I drove one and while muted a lot, it was clearly audible to me...and I'm half deaf.

Z Fury
11-15-2011, 01:43 PM
You could be doing a lot worse in life if your current dilemma is which of these two cars to buy.

ls1ya
11-15-2011, 01:59 PM
I would never buy a C class for 81k.
Unless its was done by CEC and was a Dtm. Caddy on the other hand is a no brainer

2002_Z28_Six_Speed
11-15-2011, 02:17 PM
My blower is inaudible and I am missing half my hood liner + no baffles. Interesting they couldn't keep it quiet in a OEM application with baffles in the intake.

Z Fury
11-15-2011, 03:04 PM
CTS-V blower was very quiet in the one I drove. The sound deadening inside of a Cadillac is amazing. I could hear it with the windows down though.

deft
11-16-2011, 11:31 AM
One request......When they (journalists) do their comparisons, why dont they take the time to strap the cars to the dyno and get some WHP numbers. Would it be that bad for advertising?

SSCamaro99_3
11-16-2011, 12:28 PM
One request......When they (journalists) do their comparisons, why dont they take the time to strap the cars to the dyno and get some WHP numbers. Would it be that bad for advertising?

99% of the buying public wouldn't be able to conceptualise the idea of parasitic loss, or care.

justin455
11-16-2011, 10:23 PM
More power is always good, but I'm sorry, one of the best things about driving a PD supercharged car is the sound. If I can't hear it that's one of the first things I'm fixing.

01ssreda4
11-16-2011, 11:24 PM
Pathetic that the Caddy has so much more HP and the numbers don't show it at all. All that damn weight.

That's extremely flawed logic. It's a better performer in every way including braking (which has nothing to do with hp) and price. What is there to complain about here. I say Cadillac is kicking some major tail. And shame on that writer for calling it a Merc :nono:

GTOSE
11-16-2011, 11:50 PM
More power is always good, but I'm sorry, one of the best things about driving a PD supercharged car is the sound. If I can't hear it that's one of the first things I'm fixing.

This. Definitely one of the reasons I'd buy a V.

Even though it is a pretty dumb reason, I'm still for it.

LS1LT1
11-17-2011, 01:47 AM
It's a better performer in every way including braking (which has nothing to do with hp) and price. What is there to complain about here. I say Cadillac is kicking some major tail.:nod:

Nine Ball
11-28-2011, 08:44 AM
With a larger crank pulley on my CTS-V, you can definitely hear the blower. You can also hear it when stock, it isn't silent by any means.

Here is a vid of mine, doing a 167 mph pass in the standing mile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iykopvjtiOk

LS1LT1
11-29-2011, 11:28 PM
With a larger crank pulley on my CTS-V, you can definitely hear the blower. You can also hear it when stock, it isn't silent by any means.

Here is a vid of mine, doing a 167 mph pass in the standing mile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iykopvjtiOk:thumb: :cool:

itsslow98
11-29-2011, 11:48 PM
Pathetic that the Caddy has so much more HP and the numbers don't show it at all. All that damn weight.

God forbid a LUXURY performance car not weigh 3100lbs. I cant stand seeing people complain about things like this when they think the ctsv was built just to be fast. The whole concept of the car is the best of both worlds, speed and LUXURY. Please remember it weighs about the same as a 5th gen SS which has half the interior a ctsv does.

Cole Train
11-30-2011, 01:03 AM
V's :drool:

The Alchemist
12-03-2011, 10:52 AM
People do understand that these are 'luxury' cars first and foremost, and oh, by the way, they happen to be damn fast as well. There's a reason the caddy weighs as much as it does, and that's because it is well equiped with nice amenities that people want in a caddy.

If you want a 3200-3300 lb car, buy a corvette.

Gaunt
12-04-2011, 03:01 PM
C63 > V car

The Merc is just classier, and if you want real speed, you wouldn't be in a 4000+ lb car anyway.

ThisBlood147
12-04-2011, 03:21 PM
Great performance in a great lux package. Too bad the V is uglier than sin. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Merc's styling either...but both Audi and BMW are doing much better in the aesthetics department IMO. I wouldn't buy a lux saloon for performance anyways...that's what sport coupes are for.

1BDHWK
12-04-2011, 03:35 PM
C63 > V car

The Merc is just classier, and if you want real speed, you wouldn't be in a 4000+ lb car anyway.

If it was an E63, I might have to agree with you. But the C, no thanks. The V is the complete package. After test driving too many Sport Luxury cars, I ended with a V Wagon. The Mercedes brand just isn't what it used to be.:bang:

To give you an idea of how sweet the V is, I got rid of my 5800 mile '08 AO Z06 for it. I don't miss the Z one bit.;)

LS1LT1
12-05-2011, 01:50 AM
The Merc is just classier"Classier"?:huh:
Can a car actually have 'class'? I thought only people can have that LOL.
Lots of crack dealers/pimps/raping murderers drive Mercedes Benz's, would that still make them classy?
Or if a philanthropic Yale/Harvard doctorate Peace Corp/Red Cross volunteer drives a Cadillac does he/she still have less class than the average Mercedes driver?
:lol: ;)





Too bad the V is uglier than sin.While that is strictly subjective and entirely open to personal opinion, I still don't know if I'd go that far.
As a matter of fact, in talking with other fellow car enthusiasts about the CTS-V (old one or new one) I have yet to find even one who would agree with that.

Gaunt
12-05-2011, 10:39 AM
"Classier"?:huh:
Can a car actually have 'class'? I thought only people can have that LOL.
Lots of crack dealers/pimps/raping murderers drive Mercedes Benz's, would that still make them classy?
Or if a philanthropic Yale/Harvard doctorate Peace Corp/Red Cross volunteer drives a Cadillac does he/she still have less class than the average Mercedes driver?
:lol: ;)


Yes, I do believe a car can have the attribute of "class". Everybody makes a quick judgement call by glancing at a car. You see a clapped out LX stang sitting next to a new Mercedes, one clearly adheres to a higher standard. To be classy is to be stylish and sophisticated. Granted, just because you drive a more expensive car doesn't automatically mean YOU are classy.

I don't think this notion is that thought provoking... Maybe I'm the only one that thinks like this? :lol:

And that's not to say I look down on people driving a subjectively "less classier" car (after all, I drive a god damn F-body with a daily driver Sentra lol). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so on and so forth.

LS1LT1
12-05-2011, 11:14 AM
Yes, I do believe a car can have the attribute of "class". Everybody makes a quick judgement call by glancing at a car. You see a clapped out LX stang sitting next to a new Mercedes, one clearly adheres to a higher standard. To be classy is to be stylish and sophisticated. Granted, just because you drive a more expensive car doesn't automatically mean YOU are classy.Point taken. :nod:

And that's exactly how I view Cadillac's current line up as well. I don't automatically give the nod of 'class' or 'upscale' to certain vehicles based solely on their nameplate or the public's general (and often wrong) perception of it.
"Oh it's a Mercedes/BMW so it must be classier." Not me man LOL.
Mercedes' old base 190 and BMW's 318ti come into play here as well.

Do keep in mind that Cadillac was among THE standard of the world back in the day, owning one 50-75 years ago held nearly as much weight as owning a Mercedes or possibly even a Rolls Royce.

Gaunt
12-05-2011, 11:20 AM
Point taken. :nod:

And that's exactly how I view Cadillac's current line up as well. I don't automatically give the nod of 'class' or 'upscale' to certain vehicles based solely on their nameplate or the public's general (and often wrong) perception of it.
"Oh it's a Mercedes/BMW so it must be classier." Not me man LOL.

Do keep in mind that Cadillac was among THE standard of the world back in the day, owning one 50-75 years ago held nearly as much weight as owning a Mercedes or possibly even a Rolls Royce.

For sure, the people giving the nod to a car simply based on the badge/moniker are idiots in the nicest way I can say it.

Cadillac is STILL a standard and will always be one of the greats that cars compare themselves to (although I would argue that they really came into their own again only recently). Just in this particular case, I say the C63 is close enough to the V in terms of speed that the overall package that Mercedes offers is the one I would choose to drive. That's of course my opinion. An argument over a subjective view is usually a moot one. I would be happy with either a V or C63 amg in my garage, but if I have the choice, it's going to be the Benz.

GTOSE
12-05-2011, 12:51 PM
I would choose a C63 over a V. The decision would be tough, but having driven both platforms, the Mercedes is built to be completely comfortable and easy to drive. It's a weird feeling driving a car like that, but I could definitely get used to it.

Cadillac is getting there as far as comfort and drive ability goes. But they still aren't quite at the level of Mercedes.

DiscerningZ32
12-05-2011, 05:33 PM
I would like to point out that the C class is in a different class than the CTS-V, hence the weight difference.
The CTS-V is midsized, while the C class is more compact.

This is kind of funny about the C class coupe though...:D

Separated at birth:
Honda Accord Coupe
http://www.autocarwallpapers.com/cargallery/2011/09/2007-Honda-Accord-Coupe-Concept-Side-Wallpaper.jpg
http://www.donny-design-cars.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2012-Mercedes-Benz-C-Class-Coupe-Side.jpg

LS1LT1
12-05-2011, 06:27 PM
I would like to point out that the C class is in a different class than the CTS-V, hence the weight difference.
The CTS-V is midsized, while the C class is more compact.Excellent point, I would think that the heavier and more costly E class (E63) would be the more logical comparison to the CTS-V. :nod:

LS1LT1
12-05-2011, 06:29 PM
This is kind of funny about the C class coupe though...:D

Separated at birth:
Honda Accord Coupe
http://www.autocarwallpapers.com/cargallery/2011/09/2007-Honda-Accord-Coupe-Concept-Side-Wallpaper.jpg
http://www.donny-design-cars.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2012-Mercedes-Benz-C-Class-Coupe-Side.jpgOMG! :eek: :eek2: :werd: :lol: :D ;)

ThisBlood147
12-05-2011, 09:59 PM
While that is strictly subjective and entirely open to personal opinion, I still don't know if I'd go that far.
As a matter of fact, in talking with other fellow car enthusiasts about the CTS-V (old one or new one) I have yet to find even one who would agree with that.

No doubt, it is strictly my opinion of the styling. I've not cared for Cadillac's styling formula for the better part of the last decade. Too many gaunt angles and broad, flat, uninterrupted surfaces. While I do agree the V coupe has that aggressive, beastly stance to it...it simply isn't something I would consider slick or sexy. Kind of the same feelings I have when I look at the Mad Max Interceptor.