That's awesome! Good thing our IS-F's aren't afflicted

 

Those Recaro's are dope if you decide to get the option

 

Does a muscle car suppose to be pretty? I do agree you should like what you see but power should look like a BEAST not a princess. IMO

 

I love 4 door have 09 myself all worked and making around 580 at wheel and car is a monster. I can't fall in love with 2 door yet, the *** end could have been alot better. But I will say this M3,M5 or M6 cant touch it.

 

Seriously? You've got to be kidding

 

The ones posted look good since they are helped out with the wheels and drop, but IMO the CTS-V is a much better looking, and more aggressive car....

 

Well the CTS-V wasn't built to compete with the M3 or M6 but rather the M5 as stated by GM, and the numbers are really close across the board. If you're basing your entire arguement on the "infamous" Nurburgring lap time then sure......but to say that the M5 "can't touch it" in regards to the CTS-V is just ignorant and simply not true!

 

I'm not taking anything away from the V as the numbers clearly speak for themself. Look are purely subjective and I understand that but I just can't get over how symetrical the car looks. Oh well, to each their own.

Nice looking Z in your avatar. Had an '07 myself. Great, fun car.

 

The M5 has already been beaten by the XFR in alot of areas, and the E63 now as well which recently even beat a CTS-V in a comparison test. The V is faster, quicker, handles better and rides better. It also is easier to mod to handle even better has more advanced suspension technology and is fairly easy and relatively cheap to get to 600 rwhp.

That being said nothing screams like an S85 with the right exhaust closing on 8,000 rpm. But the CTS-V with the right exhaust sounds really good in its own way as does the E63. If it wasn't for the price difference the XFR is actually a great mix of handling and comfort but its less agressive than the CTS-V which has been reported to ride just as well.

And yeah this car is pretty ugly....

 

Ignorant lol wow well sorry it is true. I was talking about my CTS-V and none of those cars can touch it. I was basing it on fact that V beat them all stock vs stock no matter how you want to look at it that is true.

 

I will chalk up your inept syntax to speed typing.........and I won't base it on your intellectual prowess!

Regardless of what you think, I have driven and ridden in both and read several articles with comparison tests and it is very close! I don't know why you're trying to expend so much energy trying to convince me otherwise! Besides, being a CTS-V owner yourself makes you a little biased........I own neither, don't care one way or the other and base my opinion purely on my first hand experiences!

 

+1 I dont know why more people dont like the CTS-V. Maybe because most prefer the generic look of modern BMW's

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShL8rsBwyXg

 

It's ugly is an easy way to discount the CTS-V's amazing performance. It owns the performance for dollar ratio sports sedan category. The Panamera Turbo is ugly no matter how you slice it but that doesn't stop it from being the penultimate performance car.

 

Gotta agree. At a track day I was at last month at PBIR there was a guy there who owned a new V and a year old M5. He drove both and the V was always 1-3 seconds a lap quicker. He said the M5 was very "peaky" and was not as easy to drive smooth. He was a 6-time BMW owner, saying the V was the better track car.