M, RS, V, F, AMG. The alpha alphabet represents five manufacturers’ best efforts to create something unique, exciting and memorable from their more prosaic mainstream motors. The resulting “performance tuned” sports sedans are so powerful, so capable, so versatile, that they’re the ground based equivalent of the all-weather fighter jets that battle for control of the skies. While the shibboleth “there’s no such thing as a bad car” applies here, there are always going to be winners and losers. And it’s our job to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Each car symbolizes the corporate culture that crafted it. Each car possesses a unique personality. And each vehicle has a clear mission profile. BMW’s M3 seeks to defend and extend proven road-going superiority through maximum thrust and maneuverability. Audi’s RS4 sets out to shoot down the BMW. Mercedes’ C63 AMG embarks on a low-level bombing run. Cadillac’s CTS-V simply wants to defend its home airspace. And the Lexus IS-F tries to prove it can create the world’s fastest luxury jet.
I was privileged to drive these cars. Despite the universal G-inspired facial rictus, I walked away liking some of these uber sedans more than others. In the final analysis, my preferences stem as much from my own personality as they do from each car’s aesthetics, ergonomics and driving dynamics. I’m a Type-A aviator that breaks things for a living and abhors mediocrity. Mea culpa. So what follows is Capt. Mike’s ultimate guide to $60K super sedans. Nothing more. Nothing less.
5th Place — Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG
If you think it’s OK to buy a car for its engine, the C63 is a highly defensible choice. The AMG-fettled V8 generates 451 bhp @ 6,800 rpm. Even in this highly-horsed company, that’s an awful lot of thrust. There’s nothing wrong with the way the mighty Mercedes mill propels pistonheads towards perdition. Equally important, the C63’s sonic signature is the best of our fearsome five. It bellows and roars with the best of them. In fact, it IS the best of them, if unbridled aural sex is your thing.
Did I mention the C63’s deeply contoured Recaro seats, or an automatic transmission that snaps off gearshifts like a high-speed Nikon camera changes frames? Unfortunately, the C63’s interior falls well short of its natural competitors’ cabins. The C63’s plastics are top notch and the switch actions are sublime. But something’s missing. Some sign that the librarian is about to take off her cheap plastic glasses, shake loose her hair and muss yours.
You really lose faith when you steer the car; the C63 AMG doesn’t mask its weight like the others super sedans. The helm precision delivered by every other car in the comparo is notably absent in the C63 AMG. Sure, you can throw this bad boy around. And it’s easy enough to hang the tail out in clouds of tire smoke. But the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG feels a bit like the world’s fastest, best-handling Mustang.
Theme song: “Deuces Wild” by Link Wray
4th Place — Lexus IS-F
The Lexus IS-F lacks a manual transmission, looks odd and offers less badge appeal than a Trans Am. However, focusing on these elements detracts from the IS-F’s amazing accomplishment: straight out of the box, the Japanese luxury brand’s first F is the fastest AND most comfortable sports sedan money can buy.
All the other cars in this comparison seek that hard edge, that extreme sportiness that proclaims them the King of the ’Ring. The Lexus just sits back quietly and invites you to enjoy a surround-sound journey into the world of 416 hp (@ 6,600 rpm).
Around town, the IS-F’s V8 remains hushed and tranquil. Slam down the pedal, crest 3,000 rpm and the exhaust baffles open. All Heaven breaks loose. Although the Lexus IS-F is every bit as capable in the corners as, gulp, the BMW M3, the smooth ride remains.
In this group, the IS-F is the car you’d choose to drive from say, Atlanta to Providence, RI. But it’s not the car that would whisper in your ear, “Before we park up, there’s this nice little twisty road out by the reservoir . . . .”
Theme song: “Don’t Touch my Hat” by Lyle Lovett
3rd Place — Audi RS4
The Audi RS4 is the oldest car here. Not that you’d not know from looking at it. The RS4’s creases, gigantic snout and look-at me-bulges are all of a piece, but it’s increasingly difficult to decide what whole the parts are supposed to form. The RS4’s cabin holds the top slot for fit and finish. Sad to say (and see), the RS4’s omnipresent grays lack the Caddy’s joie de vivre and the BMW’s technologie mach frei.
Fire it up, push the RS4’s “S” button and it’s like you’ve poked a dozing tiger with a pointy stick. It’s ferociously pissed and it’s not even awake yet. When Ingolsdtadt’s 420 hp (@ 7,500 rpmm) V8 rouses from its slumber, you’ve got the proverbial tiger by an unwagging tail. And it’s got you by the balls. There may be a harsher riding sports sedans (cough, GT-R, cough), but it’s not in this group.
Yes, the RS4 has genuine steering feel. Yes, you can drive it like a Porsche C4S: just point and shoot. But there’s no excuse for a $60K German luxury carmaker’s sports sedan to offer so little luxury.
Theme song: “Hurts So Good” by Herr John Cougar Mellencamp
2nd Place — BMW M3
The BMW M3 was pipped to the post by the Cadillac CTS-V for one main reason: too much technology. I’m a man whose world is defined by acronyms, who depends on computers to keep me alive. Yet I got lost in the e-gadgetry foisted upon the Bimmer’s 414 hp (@ 8,300 rpm) V8 chassis. iDrive, MDrive, handling nannies, traction nannies and an ECU smart enough to clone dinosaurs on its own—the Bimmer’s brain created a corner carving concert that made it a the consummate sports sedan. But somewhere along the line it lost some it its character.
No question: that spark of genius remains buried deep within the M3’s box of tricks; the spirit of the original E30 M3 struggles to get out. When I stopped fiddling with all the gadgets, set everything to automatic and let loose the dogs of war, I could just about recapture those glory days, glory days, glory days.
Which is a bit like complaining that watching “Battlestar Gallactica” is never as good as it was the first time. The BMW M3 was, is, and most likely will be the most feelsome sports sedan in the world. Those who prefer finesse to raw thrills are free to transpose my top two choices without any debate. Well, from me.
Theme song: I take Beethoven’s fifth.
1st Place — Cadillac CTS-V (Manual)
The other mad machines in this comparo made the sheetmetal leap from mainstream to insanestream via louvers, brake ducts, spoilers, exhaust pipes and more exhaust pipes. The Cadillac CTS-V simply adds some chrome to the aggressive original (v. 2) design and meshes around with the front end. Inside, the Caddy proves once and for all (unfortunately) that General Motors can make a class-leading interior. Taken as a whole, the Cadillac CTS-V comes across as the brash American, fitness-trained by Hollywood’s best, wearing a perfectly tailored who’s-the-[Hugo]-boss suit.
When the pinks are on the line, the ultimate Caddy delivers the goods. At our 60 large price point, the Cadillac CTS-V has 100 bhp worth of extra Bimmer-bashing oomph under the bonnet. The 556 hp (@ 6,100 rpm) rip out of the back wheels, while the engine snarls with enough ferocity to send the Germans to the local tuning shop for some fortifying kaffe und kuchen.
But it doesn’t stop there and neither do you. The CTS-V’s gearbox (automatic or manual), suspension and brakes may lack the M3’s delicacy of touch, but they work with equal harmony and precision. This is one of those rare cars that creates confidence even as it unleashes accelerative and lateral mayhem.
Theme song: anything by Stevie Ray Vaughan.
80 Comments on “Comparo: BMW M3 vs. Audi RS4 vs. Cadillac CTS-V vs. Lexus IS-F vs. Mercedes C63 AMG...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
CTS-V number 1!
Too little, too late. And even if it’s not too late, the wrong lesson is sure to be learned by GM management.
CTS-V and SRV…
This cannot possibly get any better!
As I said before when GM killed their last EV in California they killed their own future.
We warned them but it is too late.
Could GM be killing the CTS-V because it can steal sales from the Corvette? Even the first iteration of the car is a hoot to drive, with only 400 horses. Besides, with 4 good seats and a big trunk, who needs SUVs…
I agree Mike…great review.
The M3 has lost some of its original mojo in this V8 edition. The Caddy may be bigger in every dimension (more a 5 series competitor) but at this price point, it beats the M3 at it’s own game.
Isn’t the RS4 out of production at this point?
I agree, for 60k it’s hard to overlook the fact that A) the CTS-V has 556bhp, and a rather nice interior, and a well-tuned chassis… and 556bhp…
I’ll take a 2010 CTS-V.
(In 2015, when it’s time to replace a car, and I can get one of these bad boys in my driveway for 15 large. Or 8 large if GM no longer exists.)
SRV?
“Steering feel” only comes up when discussing the Audi. Why is it so rare in even this class of sedan?
Of this bunch, I’ve driven only the M3 so far. The steering in that car is far too light. The 335i feels more gutsy at lower rpm. Unlike other reviewers, I fail to see the point of the car for 90+ percent of real-world driving.
It’s good to see the Cadillac faring so well in reviews. But it’s nearly 50 percent heavier than my ideal sedan.
On the reliability front, TrueDelta has results for these cars in their mainstream forms. The 2007 and 2008 A4 have actually been better than average–Audi might have turned a corner. The E90 3-Series and 2008 C-Class have been average. With the Lexus, only a partial result for the 2006 so far. It seems to be about average. Compared to the others, the 2008 CTS has had a moderately high repair rate. Common problems might be fixed with the 2009.
http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php
red60r: GM isn’t killing the CTS-V. And the Corvette sits much lower and weighs over half a ton less than the CTS-V. The driving experiences are not commensurable.
Anyone who thinks ANY sedan drives like a sports car doesn’t know what a proper sports car feels like.
I went straight to the bottom of the list expecting the CTS-V to win it all.
I’m SO waiting for the CTS-V Coupe to come out. I really have money in the bank WAITING/collecting interest until that time.
I’m buying a loaded CTS-V Coupe with after market Lamborghini door hinges. Its gonna be my next personal project car.
This is gonna be AWESOME.
Michael:
Just remembering what was rumored in earlier GM reportage.
Those with families sometimes have to make a compromise between true hoonage and carrying capacity.
Michael Karesh
Elaborate…what is a sports car suppossed to drive like?
How about a Chrysler 300C? How does that rank on the scale of 1-5?
1 being econobox and 5 being sports car.
As a group, I don’t get these cars. Last time I checked, the speed limits in the US (at least in the NE corridor) vary between 55 and 65 mph. There are simply cheaper cars that are as fun or more fun to drive at the limit or at least reasonably close to it.
In particular, the CTS-V fails for me on two fronts. GM needs a high volume hit, not another low volume niche player like the Vette. Second, the value of a car like the V would be in re-branding Cadillac to stand for something. Perhaps something like an upscale Zoom, Zoom. Instead, the V reminds us that GM can build world class vehicles, but chooses not to.
I’ll take the M156 engine along with whatever wide-tire car Daimler wrapped around it. So, C63 AMG it is then.
I’l grant that the CTS-V is competitive, dynamically, and for the money. Not sure if it would finish 1st if it were my comparo. I can’t get comfortable in the Cad’s front seats.
Also, shouldn’t a “world class” engineering company be able to come up with an automatic that can handle massive hp and torque?
Mike: How were able to put this fantastic comparo together? I assume these were not all driven back-to-back, as even the top tier buff books would have a hard time lining up this display of iron (or aluminum, if you will). Dealer butt kissing?
So GM’s Corvette division is allowing another model to offer brash performance? Isn’t this what killed the Grand National back in the 80’s?
Caddy is listed as one of the defensive linemen in GMs lineup, they need to be a leader in something and the luxury car market offers a lot of profit potential to ignore. Note Hyundai is also shooting for the market as well. I think the Genesis coupe would be a good car to compare against this as well.
@ Brett,
Confidence is key when it comes to dealers. And they were all driven back to back (minus the RS4, which was driven earlier) over one glorious weekend in Dallas. Me and Justin Crenshaw spent two days driving nothing with less than 400bhp. When you jump from car, to car, to car, you really discover the differences and how each one has a special character trait that appeals to different people.
@ willbodine,
The Caddy comes with a manual, or an automatic, with no difference in power
I’ve added rpm data to the story and added hp ratings that were missing for a couple of cars.
Epic review Mike – no argument about 5th, 4th and 3rd but I will take you up on the option to swap 1st and 2nd.
Sounds like the IS-F would be perfect for Farago.
Haven’t driven the CTS-V (would like to) or the IS-F (don’t care to), but I agree with your assessments of the other three.
The M3 may have lost edge as you say, but with all the performance settings set to their most aggressive mode, it still feels pretty hardcore. When you want to take things a bit easier, it is smooth and comfortable and quiet on the highway.
I’ll be ordering my M3 soon. European Delivery (ED pricing is so cheap the car is almost a bargain.)
Michael Karesh – the M3 isn’t for real world driving. Its for motorsports competition. Hence the M.
With the exception of the Corvette, you could put an interesting equation together here for analysis. Namely, the more TTAC likes a GM car is inverse to the chances GM will kill the model, probably to something like the fourth power.
Examples:
TTAC dogs the Cobalt, but kind of likes the Cobalt SS; the junker instantly becomes a Pontiac and they kill the SS group entirely.
TTAC likes the G8, GM goes overboard in response and axes the whole RWD platform along with the brand itself.
TTAC reviews the Caddy CTS-V, likes it well enough to rate it highly against some obviously well-regarded competitors from some of the finest marques on friggin Planet Earth…GM preemptively axes the V-group a week before said reviews.
My hypothesis:
TTAC can save GM through reverse psychology.
TTAC should run a comparo of tiny cars…Fit, Yaris, Rio, Focus, etc. GM’s entry is the Aveo. Hold your nose, close your eyes, give the Aveo five stars. GM will finally kill that thing.
Really an awesome read. Your word play makes my hate for cliche’ wording worthwhile. “All Heaven Brakes loss”. Great. Thank you.
@willbodine:
Also, shouldn’t a “world class” engineering company be able to come up with an automatic that can handle massive hp and torque?
They have a very nice stable of automatics. Why would you pollute the experience of this car with one?
“There may be a harsher riding sports sedans (cough, GT-R, cough)”
The GT-R is not a sedan.
I’ve driven the IS F [note, there's no hyphen in the name], M3, RS4 Cab [what a pig], C63 non-AMG and the CTS.
The IS is an entertaining car, but insular. The M3 lacks some of the taut feeling of the previous models. The RS4 Cab is so bloated that you’ll doubt it has the same engine as the R8; thank god the sedan is lighter and cheaper. The non-AMG C-whatever it is distinctly un-sporty, but the previous AMG C class cars were decent on the track. The CTS, even without the V’s big motor is quite well-done. My only quarrel is the brakes could be better from high-speed stops, ie, above 80 mph.
@ thebeastofrock,
Technically it is, same as the two-door M3 is classified as a sedan. The coupe moniker is just a subset of the overall sedan category. Strange to consider the Camry Solara and the GT-R are in the same family… at least where the government is concerned….
Flashpoint:
A sports car should feel more agile and close to the road than any sedan can hope to.
A Chrysler 300C drives NOTHING like a sports car. It drives like a large sedan with a high driving position, because that’s what it is.
I’ve only driven one car that had a rear seat I could fit into, and that felt like a sports car, and that’s the Mazda RX-8.
cretinx:
The M3 undoubtedly feels much better on a track that it does on all but the most challenging roads. But why track such a car as opposed to a sports car?
The only M3 that strikes me as truly engineered for motorsports is the first one, the legendary E30.
There is one thing everyone seems to miss in these high power comparos. The caddy/vettte pushrod motor has a lot more Torque than the competition. I am not saying to forget the horsepower numbers but the torque makes a huge difference in pushing around all the lbs. in these heavy cars.
The current M3 is woefully underbraked for track duty, in typical BMW fashion. In fact, of the five cars, the only one which really has almost enough caliper is the fifth-place C63 AMG.
In reality, from a trackday perspective, these are “four-lappers” on most big tracks.
As an example, my S5 can just hit 141 on the back straight of VIR’s Full Course.
Lap 1: the brakes work as you expect
Lap 2: they work a little better, because they’re hot
Lap 3: Pedal travel increases as fluid boils
Lap 4: Pedal travel is close to the stop
On lap five, the pads start to chunk and misbehave, which means that you have a hard pedal combined with a long stop… It’s okay at VIR because there’s extra brake zone on the back straight if you have to run it off, but other places it’s hairy.
The M3 is slightly faster at the back straight than the S5 but it stops worse so you put even MORE heat into the calipers.
And this is why if you take a 986S to the track you’ll always end up passing the M3s; they can’t stay in the kitchen for a full session.
Nice review. I’m sure the Cadillac is a capable car, but I would still chose #2-5 before the Cadillac. That being said, Cadillac has been trying hard for years to lose their old man image, but as far as I’m concerned they still haven’t made it. Whenever I see one of these on the road, the person behind the wheel is usually 45 plus years old. Is it just me or does there seem to be a pattern here. GM builds decent cars and then improves them year to year. So now, 5 years later, they finally have a good car. Why don’t they just build a good capable car to start with?
My wife drives a Saturn Aura (a very good car), I have driven the C6 ‘Vette and the new Malibu (both excellent) and reviews of the CTS-V are universally stellar.
Why oh why couldn’t GM have got their act together like this 10 years ago? Things could have been soooo different.
In my mind, sedans have four doors and coupes have two. That is, the M3 is a coupe, not a sedan. So is a 1979 Mercury Cougar.
With proper track use tire selection, the brakes on these cars really, truly suck. Which makes the geek age predicament of marketing street cars based on supposed track times even more silly.
Where these cars shine is on the street; specifically on lightly policed, fast secondaries. LA to SF ‘down the middle’ (between the 5 & 101), or LA to Vegas via 29 Palms or Death Valley (weekdays off season), for those in SoCal. With freeways at congestion levels turning even the most patient suicidal, cars that allows reasonable A to B times while avoiding them, can be well worth it. And here the M3 stomps all over the 335, despite having no real advantages in town or on freeways.
I think the M3 comes in sedan and coupe, or it least it used to.
As for what GM NEEDS, it needs profitable cars, all of them it can get. I suppose if the V is profitable, they will figure out a way to keep making it, even if they don’t update it.
@ Geotpf
Just so there is no confusion, here is the official definition of a sedan:
A sedan car (American English) or saloon car (British English) is a passenger car with two rows of seats and adequate passenger space in the rear compartment for adult passengers.
They come in three styles: Four-door, two-door, and fastback.
So the M3 comes in four, and two door sedan configurations. Or sedan and coupe… which is a sedan….
I just love the intricacies of English!
“As a group, I don’t get these cars. Last time I checked, the speed limits in the US (at least in the NE corridor) vary between 55 and 65 mph.”
People who actually procure these cars have the idea that one day in the far-off future, they can aim the tiller, smash the go pedal, and hurtle through space-time into some mystical realm of glass-smooth, laser-leveled, fenced, patrolled, immaculately maintained superhighways. (People who buy muscle cars think the same thing, except they’re at Talladega.)
In the real world, these cars are about as fearsome and virile as an Avalon.
SRV?
Stevie Ray Vaughan.
I learn something new everyday…
bumpy
I haven’t driven a one of these cars. However, I have driven a Carrera 4 for 12 years and a Cayman S for 1/2 year. I’ve never come close to top speed of either. What I like is they go where you point them, get there right quick, and stop so well that you need to look at whomever is behind you and see if they are paying attention. I like the noises too. All these features are available at all speeds. Not everyone agrees that its worth it.
Hey, how come the RL wasn’t in this comparo???
Acura’s Tier 1, aren’t they???
Sorry, just kidding. That was a bad joke.
I for one hope Takanobu Ito can bring the thunder.
ccd1
Last time I checked, the speed limits in the US (at least in the NE corridor) vary between 55 and 65 mph
only if The Man spots you.
Yes, unfortunately, BMWs are underbraked, especially on track. But BMW ///M3 also has three body styles to choose from: Sedan (Saloon), Coupe and a Cabrio (Convertible).
And, please, don’t forget that BMW ///M3 has to do with only 4.0-liter engine, where ‘fancy Toyota’ has to have 1-liter larger motor to extract same amount of horsepower. And soon to be extinct V-series Caddy has a 6.2-liter with a blower bolted onto it! Although this 4-liter ///M motor has not won ‘Engine of the Year Award’ (that has been won by another BMW engine) it finished in the top 5 engines. Incidentally, the fifth spot was occupied by the motor it’s based on 5-liter ///M (from ///M5 and ///M6) that won top honors two years in a row in 2005 and 2006. I’m sorry, but I did not notice any of reviewed competitors engines even as a top seven.
If GM were to flood the German market with tens of thousands of CTS-V’s, over say…two or three model cycles…and they still performed on par w/their BMW & Audi rivals, I’d be drinking the Kool-Aid.
But face it: These cars are engineered to be driven by a small number of Americans, on a crappy highway system and at no where near their supposed limits. GM simply does not have the pedigree for this sort of high-performance sedan and I have no confidence…NONE…to drive say an 8-year old CTS at 275Kph on the A6. The steering, the brakes, hell…the basic nuts & bolts…weren’t engineered for that punishment. They were engineered so some guy could maybe take it up to 160Kph on a lonely stretch of shitty asphalt covered with pothole patches and tar snakes, once in a blue moon. It’s about the false-chrome badges, not the long-term, time-tested performance pedigree.
So, that said, what in the hell was GM thinking? Was it really worth dumping hundreds of millions of dollars, in the midst of a failing industry, into such an odd-ball automobile? I mean, is the little bit of automotive press and notoriety that the CTS-V receives going to save GM? Or, like the Pontiac G8, is this just a last hurrah whose blueprints were drawn up by some idiots who didn’t see the world falling apart around them?
PS: Don’t think I’m a Eurotrash fan; I too got a “Lee Greenwood Boner” when the pansies on Top Gear gave the CTS-V glowing reviews. In fact, I was even happier by the Corvette praise…if only the Europeans could get past their continued impression of it as a pimp-mobile for Amitrash.
Only had some time in the F and the Audi.
Really the only thing I would say is that they’re excellent cars all around and that the absolute gap between 1st and 5th is pretty small.
The choice would be based only on personality I would think.
Given the depreciation on AMG-V-RS-M cars (F has yet to be tested but I doubt it will be an outlier) I’ll gladly take one with light miles in 3-4 years. New not so much.
I’d love to have an F, but I can’t justify it since I own an IS – so it’d be C63/CTS-V for me. If that exhaust note is as good as it was in Top Gear, I definitely need to drive the CTS-V first to avoid just plunking down the cash.
Great capsule reviews/comparo. Must have been a hell of a weekend.
Sammy Hagar : I highly doubt this car cost GM hundreds of millions. The engine is the most expensive part of the car and it came from the ZR1
Bimmer : It’s been stated time and time again that hp/L is meaningless. Nothing more needs to be said about hp/L, please
The current M3 is woefully underbraked for track duty, in typical BMW fashion. In fact, of the five cars, the only one which really has almost enough caliper is the fifth-place C63 AMG.
I am not sure why, but I am really surprised at this. Not that I would expect the average driver of any of these cars will put them on a track ever, but yet if they did they might burn up the brakes. Not just standard duty stuff either, fancy multiple piston and probably slotted or drilled rotors, but yet not enough heat capacity and cooling to run sustainably on a track.
My SRT-4 has an absolutely pedestrian stock set of cast iron sliding calipers all the way around. Just a little heavier duty than the average Neon. The only trick is phenolic pistons. Granted I am only pushing 260hp and 3000#, but I can and have easily run indefinitely at various track days in the northeast. I can hit 120 on the front straight at Watkins Glen, and I have run overlapping sessions there in 90+ summer heat…had to come in for fuel though, otherwise I coulda stayed out for a few more laps.
I suppose if ever I am in the market for an M3 though I will probably be in a different state of mind, probably won’t care about track days. I guess it still seems odd, but no more so than buying an SUV without any real off-road capability.