[mtla4]

I would never own a Jag...resale value is TERRIBLE, the dealership network is pretty limited and they're automatic only on top of being too bling bling for me(I like flying under the radar avoiding questions or being noticed). It's really up to you.

[adrian1480]

Originally Posted by mtla4

I would never own a Jag...resale value is TERRIBLE, the dealership network is pretty limited and they're automatic only on top of being too bling bling for me(I like flying under the radar avoiding questions or being noticed). It's really up to you.

fair enough. though tbh, the only car on my list that really would fly under the radar is the BMW.

I'll look into Jag resale value. I was looking at the KBB review and they were very clear in saying that they expect it and all the recent Jags to hold their value better than most of their competitors. But I should verify that for sure. To the overall point, this is not the Jaguar of old, and I think a lot of people slept through Jaguar's transition from being shoddy to being among the most reliable car brands on the road. But that's Jaguar's fault for not making a bigger point of it.

When your reliability is equivalent to Lexus and Buick and has been as such for damn near a decade, everyone should know it.

[NFS13]

Originally Posted by stingray23

The transmissions and more then enough to satisfy anyone and out perform even the quickest shifting DCT cars out there.

I drove one and that is so not true! Its slow! And downshifts are horrible.

[NFS13]

Originally Posted by stingray23

And between these two I would take the CTS-V coupe.

Says the Chevy man!

[adrian1480]

looks like we finally have a dissenting CTS opinion! lol

[NFS13]

Originally Posted by adrian1480

looks like we finally have a dissenting CTS opinion! lol

You really need to drive it.

[adrian1480]

Originally Posted by NFS13

You really need to drive it.

a couple hours away for me yet. but this thread is entertaining me in the mean time.

[Inspired]

Originally Posted by Magic-Man

I'm in the same boat, but not all your cars are on my list. I would take the V over the C63 due to cost of ownership & lease cost. I can get a V for $835 a mo lease vs over $1,100 a mo for the C63.

Do people actually lease 60-70k cars? Those payment are ridiculous..

[Precision]

Originally Posted by adrian1480

Understood. and I appreciate the feedback, truly.

I actually appreciate how subtly badass the XK is. It has style without screaming for attention, you know? "Confident class" if you will. But I will definitely check out the C63 and CTS-V tomorrow.

But for the quality and attention to detail that I saw with the Jag...and that price...It's going to be hard for me to justify $10-$15k more for one of the others on my list. Here's the car, btw:

FYI, This is a fanastic car, watch this video: It is of an XKR which is indeed a better car but for what youre asking out of it I can assure you that you wouldnt be disappointed, it's like a baby Aston except reliable. I can't remember if it was an XKR that one of the big car magazines did a long term test on but it might have been just an XK, definately the same generation though. They went about 60,000 miles without any costs beyond fuel and wearable part maintenance (no failures either).

Considering reliability, maintenance costs and CEL are a huge priority I suggest you ignore anything beyond the XK or the CTS-V. Besides, AMG engines being "bullet proof" does can mean a ton of things such as maybe the block is, but maybe the electrical gremlins aren't so friendly... MB reliability has been SHIT for quite a while, I happen to love the cars too but it doesn't mean I'd own one.

[adrian1480]

ah. finally a vote for the Jag. Bless you.

and thanks for the insight. I've watched several good reviews on youtube and elsewhere. People who've driven the car seem to love it and reviewers especially, with minor quibbles with stuff like the nav UI. Seems like a real winner in general, and something of a no-brainer for the price.

Alas, the CTS awaits.

[Precision]

This forum is so clouded with fan bois it's not even funny, so many who bought into that ultimate driving machine bullshit or the best or nothing bullshit its gross. I am an enthusiast, someone who appreciates what any car does well but aknowledges any of their faults, I have driven a C63 AMG and while a sweet car it is not even close to on par with a new CTS-V and definately not even close to as reliable.

To the Jag haters, put down the books from years ago when jag was in the dumps, in fac they are not owned by the same people and not really made the same way, the resale of a completely revamped brand name will show up soon enough and "RESALE VALUE?!"

Heres your resale value:

2011 C63 AMG 6,983 miles $67,881

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...standard=false

2008 Certified Pre-Owned C63 AMG with 30,000 MI $45,900

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...standard=false

DEPRECIATION after 3 years and 23,000 miles which is only 7666 or so miles per year, mind you HALF of the national average: $21,981 (32%)

That is a THIRD of a brand new CTS-V...

[NFS13]

[QUOTE=Precision;10413586]This forum is so clouded with fan bois it's not even funny, so many who bought into that ultimate driving machine bullshit or the best or nothing bullshit its gross. I am an enthusiast, someone who appreciates what any car does well but aknowledges any of their faults, I have driven a C63 AMG and while a sweet car it is not even close to on par with a new CTS-V and definately not even close to as reliable.


You say the C63 is not even close to on par with the CTS-V. That has to be the most insane thing I have ever heard!!! Enthusiast you say! Be real!

[NFS13]

[QUOTE=stingray23;10413470]I meant the car as a whole out performs cars with the quickest shifting DCT's.



I'll give you that! Even with that tranny the engine overcomes!!! It would be perfect if they put something more modern and up to date in it.

[txz4]

i would purchase the c63 coupe

why? the cts v is just inherently lame. I know its faster than the competition and can be modded far easier than the c63 but at the end of the day i think the c63 would be the better of the two. plus as said before, short of an LFA there is NOTHING out that sounds as good, especially in this price range (minus an M5 with an exhaust) The c63 looks like a luxury car while the American leaves much to be desired. though i do love the interior of the V, i loved the interior on my c300 that i had. If the c63 drives as well as the cts v (not talking about speed or acceleration, im talking overall feel) that would be the car for me. The XK looks so dated to me and anything else on the list seems overpriced minus the used cars which you wont have a warranty on

[Precision]

[QUOTE=NFS13;10414157]

Originally Posted by Precision

This forum is so clouded with fan bois it's not even funny, so many who bought into that ultimate driving machine bullshit or the best or nothing bullshit its gross. I am an enthusiast, someone who appreciates what any car does well but aknowledges any of their faults, I have driven a C63 AMG and while a sweet car it is not even close to on par with a new CTS-V and definately not even close to as reliable.


You say the C63 is not even close to on par with the CTS-V. That has to be the most insane thing I have ever heard!!! Enthusiast you say! Be real!

Performance wise it absolutely does not hang with the CTS-V.

C63 AMG:

Nurburgring lap time 8:13:00 (+13-14 seconds)
0-60 MPH: 4.1 sec (+ .2 seconds)
1/4 MI: 12.5 sec (+
Braking 60-0: 114ft (+7 feet)
Skid: 0.89G
Slalom: 68.6 MPH



CTS-V Sedan (Coupe curb weight is the within 30lbs curb weight):

Nurgburgring lap time 7:59:32 (-about 14 seconds faster)
0-60MPH (Coupe): 3.9 sec
1/4 Mi: 12.2 Sec
Braking 60-0: 107ft
Skid: 0.90G
Slalom: 70.3 MPH

Add all those factors together and take into account how long the CTS-V's legs are, no it won't performance wise.

[adrian1480]

amazing.

[NFS13]

[QUOTE=Precision;10414633][QUOTE=NFS13;10414157]

Performance wise it absolutely does not hang with the CTS-V.

C63 AMG:

Nurburgring lap time 8:13:00 (+13-14 seconds)
0-60 MPH: 4.1 sec (+ .2 seconds)
1/4 MI: 12.5 sec (+
Braking 60-0: 114ft (+7 feet)
Skid: 0.89G
Slalom: 68.6 MPH



CTS-V Sedan (Coupe curb weight is the within 30lbs curb weight):

Nurgburgring lap time 7:59:32 (-about 14 seconds faster)
0-60MPH (Coupe): 3.9 sec
1/4 Mi: 12.2 Sec
Braking 60-0: 107ft
Skid: 0.90G
Slalom: 70.3 MPH


Yeah, the ring numbers again! As has been rumored, GM has never been forthcoming with suspension changes for the test. Not saying the car isn't fast, but having no independent laps is kinda stange! Having driven both the sedan and coupe CTS-V's in stock form I don't buy those numbers.
Either way 14 seconds difference around an 8 minute ring is not blowing someone out!

[Q4P]

[QUOTE=adrian1480;10403929]...coupes do you buy, and why?

1.) New Audi S5 - AWD - do you really need it?
2.) New BMW 335xi - once again AWD - do you really need it?
3.) New C63 AMG Coupe - Good choice and should be reliable as that is a large NA engine, very comfortable as well but holds its own in the turns.
4.) New Cadillac CTS-V - Looks massively cheesy... there I said it.
5.) 2010 Jaguar XK - Jaguars have never in history been reliable.
6.) 2009 Porsche Carrera 4 - Once again, why AWD? In addition this particular Porsche is not that quick for a Porsche.
7.) 2007 Aston Martin Vantage - This is an exotic, it inherently will be expensive.

This is a very varied list and in my opinion purely comes down to the persons who will be purchasing it preference, but you need to re evaluate your list as all of those are in one way or another different.

[adrian1480]

^ yes, I'd like to have AWD. I spend significant time during the winters in the north.

and Jaguars are incredibly reliable and have been among the very best for at least a decade. You should really read up. I too was skeptical. Then I was set straight.

Thank you for your thoughts on the options.

[Magic-Man]

Originally Posted by twinturbo335

Do people actually lease 60-70k cars? Those payment are ridiculous..

Unless you keep cars forever, leasing makes more sense. Do I pay more per month & end up upside down in 2 years when I want out of it or do I lease it for less per month & walk away when I am done? Lease works for me when getting a brand new car. I just don't keep cars past 2-3 years. Sometimes they are gone in 1 year.

The purchase payment would be more than the lease payment. (Obviously I'm not talking about someone who put a huge chunk down)

[adrian1480]

Originally Posted by Magic-Man

Unless you keep cars forever, leasing makes more sense. Do I pay more per month & end up upside down in 2 years when I want out of it or do I lease it for less per month & walk away when I am done? Lease works for me when getting a brand new car. I just don't keep cars past 2-3 years. Sometimes they are gone in 1 year.

The purchase payment would be more than the lease payment. (Obviously I'm not talking about someone who put a huge chunk down)

I understand that. Personally, I couldn't do it. That's simply putting too much money into something I'd never own. Unless a car brand is inherently unreliable, buying always my first choice...and if I don't like and believe in a car enough to buy it, I don't want it in my garage in the first place.

Also, there's NO feeling as good as paying your last payment on a car or house. The euphoria of freedom, and the reality of having something you really can sell or trade in...or keep forever just because you can.

But I also understand the fun of constantly getting something new.

Update: I didn't have time to get to check out the CTS. I'll try again tomorrow. The Audi S5 was...cool, I guess. Fairly linear power, nice V8 sound. Interior was fine, but didn't blow me away or anything.

I'll say this: It's too bad there isn't a car with the S5's exterior and the CTS-V's interior. I love the CTS interior.

I'll also say this: over the next few years, leasing new cars makes a lot of sense to me. Moreso than in years past. Why? Because all of these EVs are going to start rolling out and taking hold. If I wasn't in the market now, I'd definitely be waiting to see how the i8, Telsa and similar cars turn out. They may be game-changers.

[Precision]

I feel too many on this thread are ignoring what was explicitly addressed in the OP. Check engine lights, maintenance costs, reliability is huge for this guy.

Pricing: CTS-V > C63
Stock performance: CTS-V > C63
Mod for mod performance: CTS-V > C63
Reliability/Maintenance costs: CTS-V > C63

This does not mean the C63 is a bad car, I have driven them and they are damn sweet but grin for grin it doesn't match the CTS-V. I like the sedan more than the coupe but the new GM is MEAN, a slayer of most at a fraction of the price with a reliable simplicity.