Would you rather?

  • Thread starter motortrend
  • 22,046 comments
  • 1,112,936 views
Hard to say without a test drive in either, because the deciding factor for me would be ride quality/refinement. On a gut feeling I'd say the CTS-V because it's absolutely mental.
 
-> ...
TriumphTT900
2012 Cadillac CTS-V - 6.2l V8 - starting MSRP around $64k

2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class - 6.2l V8 - starting MSRP around $63k
Click to expand...
^ NEITHER!!!

~> GIVE ME WAGON!!!

lead14-2011-cadillac-cts-v-wagon.jpg


OR

2012-mercedes-c63-amg-wagon-front-quarter.jpg


:crazy:
 
.....AMC Eagle, just saying.......I mean, it is the best station wagon ever made by man.

BOT SRYUSLEE THOW
Probably the Merc, it just looks better
 
I do not like either of the coupes; the angle at which the rear end sits on both (as if it's raised even though it's not) makes it a bit meh for me.

If it was in wagon form (I love a wagon) I'd choose the C63 AMG.
And actually even if it wasn't a wagon comparison, I'd still choose the C63, in a nice black.
 
Audi VS Mazda : The TT, it's one of my favorite little cars. It looks neat, is decently fast, handles nice, and is just so fashionable. The Mazda's great too, but it doesn't look like a TT.
 
TT looks good and the 1.8T is one hell of an engine (had 3 of those: 1:150ps>210ps / 2:210ps / 3: 225ps>270ps). Lovely engines
 
Audi TT for me, great looking shape and decent performance to go with - I think it'll be a future classic.

I only like the NA MX-5/Miatas, and sadly this is the NB; but the NA still wouldn't change my choice on this one.
 
Caddy and Merc Wagons: Still the Merc.

TT vs MX-5: Definitely the MX-5. Rear-wheel-drive as opposed to front-bias all-wheel-drive, better steering, better looks, etc. etc. Would prefer an SP though. The atmo 1.8 is still pretty lethargic.

3.0 CSL vs E92 M3: Because I'm not a collector, the M3 100%.
 
CTS-V on both of those, but I thought the 6.2 AMG engine was replaced with the twin turbo V8 in that, and a few others. And I'm not sure with the next one. I surely couldn't fit in either.

Oh and E92 M3 because E92 M3.
 
BMW E9 VS BMW E92 M3

Ahhhh E28! Why do this to me?? :( :P

Normally it's as simple as "M3, because M3." but the E9 is such a great looking car - they don't make them like they used to!

I would probably trade the E92 for an E90 M3 - I'd be much more happier with 4 doors.

In the end, I'd go for the E92 M3 just because it'll probably be much more driver friendly and the experience is probably better; although I wish it was the E92 underneath but with the body and looks of the E9. :lol:
 
E92 M3. I've been lucky enough to have been driven in one on many occasions, and it is an incredible car.
 
-> On the super wagon battle, I'd pick the CTS-V simple because of this...

2011-cadillac-cts-v-079.jpg


;)

TriumphTT900
2001 Audi TT - 1.8l I4 Turbo - 64k miles - $10,000

2000 Mazda Miata SE - 1.8l I4 - 42k miles - $10,000
Click to expand...
^ The MX-5 easy. I always see the 1st-gen TT as a ritzed-up New Beetle. :indiff:

E28
BMW 3.0 CSL £54,950

vs

BMW E92 M3 £55,000
Click to expand...
^ Both. ;)
 
Cadillac CTS-V or Mercedes-Benz C-Class: I'll take the cadillac,

Audi TT or Mazda MX5: Not a fan of the Audi TT

BMW 3.0 CSL or BMW M3 E92: E92, but only because i don't like the CSL, but i'll take any other M3 ahead of the E92.
 
CSL VS M3 : The M3 has never really done it for me. Like the Evo and the STI, it's just never really stirred up anything for me. I'm sure it's a great car, and if I ever drive one, I'm sure it'll be a blast. But I haven't driven one, so I don't choose it. I know nothing of the CSL, but I'm sure it'd be a joy to go for a cruise in. It also looks much nicer, is a classic, and I think it has more charm.

2013 Toyota 4Runner Limited: $38,500
01-2010-4runner-limited-620op.jpg


2004 Toyota Land Cruiser: $38,000, immaculate condition, 24,000 miles
2005_toyota_land_cruiser_100008156_l.jpg
 

Latest Posts

Back