Damn Nissan Isn't Messing Around This Year

[v6sonoma]

I sold my CTS (2005) when I got my Camaro. I'm 6'3" and it was a 6-speed manual so giving up leg room to the back wasn't gonna happen and I never got any complaints from anyone back there. The reality is that anyone buying these really doesn't care about back seat room. If transporting passengers in the rear was your top priority neither car would be on the list and you would be a chauffeur and your boss would be making the decision for you.

[SS 376]

Originally Posted by Entaille

they really need to put that v8 in the next Z car.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

lolwut?
have you ever been inside a CTS sedan?

Yep, now I have to wonder...have you?

Originally Posted by v6sonoma

I sold my CTS (2005) when I got my Camaro. I'm 6'3" and it was a 6-speed manual so giving up leg room to the back wasn't gonna happen and I never got any complaints from anyone back there. The reality is that anyone buying these really doesn't care about back seat room.

Bingo! This is my whole point. If you are seriously looking at a CTS then you probably don't need much rear seat room. I get that, same can be said for the C-Class, 3-Series, etc. My point is that the Infiniti M is made to compete in a class where people actually need a reasonable amount of rear seat room. As such, the comparison makes no sense.

Looking at an M56 and saying 'I would rather have a CTS-V' makes about as much sense as looking at a Malibu V6 and saying "I would rather have a Civic'. They aren't direct competitors and they don't do the same thing. The comparison of performance and price makes no sense because the Infiniti is designed to be a larger car, it's going to cost more as is a 5-Series, or an E Class, etc., etc.

Originally Posted by v6sonoma

If transporting passengers in the rear was your top priority neither car would be on the list and you would be a chauffeur and your boss would be making the decision for you.

So everybody who needs a usable rear seat for adults should just shift to a limo? Yeah, okay.

Originally Posted by v6sonoma

It seems to me that you're only defense for the Infinity vs. CTS-V is the rear legroom. Why this is such a huge factor, i have no idea why. I mean, comparing the CTS rear legroom to the Camaro rear leg room, there is a hell of a ton of room in the CTS. There's just 2 inches of it more in the Infinity. Big deal.

So, because the CTS has more rear leg room than the Camaro now it's an S Class? And, as for the numbers, while they certainly favor the M they don't tell the whole story. If you have ever been in both (I have) there is no comparison.

And there is nothing wrong with that, there isn't supposed to be a comparison in rear seat room, they are in different size segments.

[TahoeCamaro]

Originally Posted by syr74

So, because the CTS has more rear leg room than the Camaro now it's an S Class? And, as for the numbers, while they certainly favor the M they don't tell the whole story. If you have ever been in both (I have) there is no comparison.

And there is nothing wrong with that, there isn't supposed to be a comparison in rear seat room, they are in different size segments.

Again, the only thing you have for the M56 is legroom. And why would I buy a Japanese car when I have the choice to buy a better styled, more well thought out, American car with better performance and better safety features?

[truth411]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I'm afraid that, by and large, the only people saying that are the ones who don't actually want what the CTS-V offers and/or diehards for something other than GM and would never actually buy a GM product even if it was the best car for the money. What am I talking about? I'm talking about a car that a car that can be ferocious on the track, yet has a world class interior. A car whose ride quality isn't compromised by its handling.

Put simply, the Cadillac is a genuine luxury sport sedan with room in the back for nearly anyone to sit in and be comfortable, yet with performance that surpasses practically every sedan in the world. The M56 is not. And realistically speaking that limits the M56 to:

a: those who look down on Cadillac and GM
b: people need 1/2" of extra headroom
c: those who don't particularly care about the performance side of sports sedans

Hilarious!!!

[Kyle2k]

Don't rich people that would normally be in the back seat long enough to care usually just fly?

[truth411]

Originally Posted by syr74

Yep, now I have to wonder...have you?



Bingo! This is my whole point. If you are seriously looking at a CTS then you probably don't need much rear seat room. I get that, same can be said for the C-Class, 3-Series, etc. My point is that the Infiniti M is made to compete in a class where people actually need a reasonable amount of rear seat room. As such, the comparison makes no sense.

Looking at an M56 and saying 'I would rather have a CTS-V' makes about as much sense as looking at a Malibu V6 and saying "I would rather have a Civic'. They aren't direct competitors and they don't do the same thing. The comparison of performance and price makes no sense because the Infiniti is designed to be a larger car, it's going to cost more as is a 5-Series, or an E Class, etc., etc.



So everybody who needs a usable rear seat for adults should just shift to a limo? Yeah, okay.



So, because the CTS has more rear leg room than the Camaro now it's an S Class? And, as for the numbers, while they certainly favor the M they don't tell the whole story. If you have ever been in both (I have) there is no comparison.

And there is nothing wrong with that, there isn't supposed to be a comparison in rear seat room, they are in different size segments.

IMVHO wasn't the CTS-V target the M5?? Thus the customers looking for the ultimate luxury sport sedan was the criteria. Don't M5 customers place higher priority on performance/ride/handleing than rear shoulder room? In your post Im surprised that you didn't menchon that the Infiniti offers better fuel economy even though both cost 65k. If rear shoulder room was is the priority than the Taurus SHO is better than both, but that misses the point of what sedans at those price brackets are for. Besides (I could be wrong) personaly I have NEVER seen anyone purchasing a 65k+ vehicle and use it to take their family on a 2 day road trip like from texas to New york, they always fly. At 65k the CTS-V is the better car, from the suspenion setup to the motor. I have been in the rear of a (I am 5ft 10") CTS-V, its fine for daily commutes though I would not want to be there for 8+hrs. But as I said it seems people who by M5s and Benz AMGs dont use them for 12+ hr drives for family trips.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by TahoeCamaro

Again, the only thing you have for the M56 is legroom. And why would I buy a Japanese car when I have the choice to buy a better styled, more well thought out, American car with better performance and better safety features?

Perhaps because you need to fit two grown adults in the back? Seriously, how is this a difficult concept to grasp? I mean, that is the whole point of building larger cars than this. . I'll be honest, I think we can all stop wondering how GM went bankrupt because, to be blunt, from what I can see they think the same way you guys do and there is no logic in it whatsoever.

Put simply, for somebody who needs a car that can realistically seat four adults for a meaningful amount of time the CTS is a non-starter. No big deal, as the class of car the CTS was designed to compete within wasn't meant for that. That customer can move on to another, larger class of car and find something better suited.

BMW and their fans get it, Mercedes and their fans get it too, apparently you guys don't and in my experience what seems to be lost on you seems to be lost of GM too.

Originally Posted by truth411

Hilarious!!!

More like tragically pathetic. Seriously, we apparently have a whole sub forum worth of GM enthusiasts who literally don't understand why cars larger than the CTS exist. And GM/Cadillac has to count of these guys to buy their cars.

They have a phrase for the situation that puts GM in, it's called 'being screwed'

[20Camaro11]

if you are worried about room in the back seat, I heard a bargain can be had on a Ford Crown Vic.

If I could afford that level of car, I would go with the CTS or BMW. I like the styling cues of those over that of the Infiniti.

[truth411]

Originally Posted by syr74

Perhaps because you need to fit two grown adults in the back? Seriously, how is this a difficult concept to grasp? I mean, that is the whole point of building larger cars than this. . I'll be honest, I think we can all stop wondering how GM went bankrupt because, to be blunt, from what I can see they think the same way you guys do and there is no logic in it whatsoever.

Put simply, for somebody who needs a car that can realistically seat four adults for a meaningful amount of time the CTS is a non-starter. No big deal, as the class of car the CTS was designed to compete within wasn't meant for that. That customer can move on to another, larger class of car and find something better suited.

BMW and their fans get it, Mercedes and their fans get it too, apparently you guys don't and in my experience what seems to be lost on you seems to be lost of GM too.



More like tragically pathetic. Seriously, we apparently have a whole sub forum worth of GM enthusiasts who literally don't understand why cars larger than the CTS exists. And GM/Cadillac has to count of these guys to buy their cars.

They have a phrase for the situation that puts GM in, it's called 'being screwed'

I do understand and Since the Next gen CTS is GROWING in size GM gets it too. But to throw out the interior, to throw out the suspenion/ride quality, to throw out performance, to throw out its handleing for "rear shoulder room" Seems like your reaching quite a bit, Just sayin.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by truth411

IMVHO wasn't the CTS-V target the M5?? Thus the customers looking for the ultimate luxury sport sedan was the criteria. Don't M5 customers place higher priority on performance/ride/handleing than rear shoulder room?

Are you serious? Honestly, I think part of the problem here is that I'm dealing with a forum full of folks the vast majority of whom have never really spent time in one of these cars or with their typical customer. The M5 may have been Cadillac's performance target, but the CTS does not compete with the 5-Series because it's too small. Compared to the CTS the 5-Series is a virtual limousine. There is a reason why, outside of the CTS-V, the engine lineup for the CTS matches up better with the 3-Series than the 5-Series.

Originally Posted by truth411

If rear shoulder room was is the priority than the Taurus SHO is better than both, but that misses the point of what sedans at those price brackets are for.

Then why does the M5 even exists? I say this because you could shove that same V10 into the 3-Series and launch yourself into orbit if size doesn't matter. So why even have the bigger car? And of course, by that logic the AMG S Class is the mystery of the ages. Heck, those losers at Mercedes could have shoved that same turbo 12 into the E Class, saved about 50k in msrp, and gone even faster.

Originally Posted by truth411

Besides (I could be wrong) personaly I have NEVER seen anyone purchasing a 65k+ vehicle and use it to take their family on a 2 day road trip like from texas to New york, they always fly.

I worked in this industry, I dealt with these people..trust me, not only are you wrong I genuinely think you have no understanding of just how wrong you are. Honestly, I think most of you guys have decided who buys these cars and how they drive them by watching The OC or something. The reality you guys are describing simply doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by truth411

At 65k the CTS-V is the better car, from the suspenion setup to the motor. I have been in the rear of a (I am 5ft 10") CTS-V, its fine for daily commutes though I would not want to be there for 8+hrs. But as I said it seems people who by M5s and Benz AMGs dont use them for 12+ hr drives for family trips.

And you have to be on a 12+hr trip for comfort to matter? Seriously? Let me assure you little Ashley is going to bitch her proverbial head off if the new M5 doesn't have as much legroom for the trip to school as the old E55 did. What do you think Uncle Dan is going to be saying on the 30 minute trip to the restaurant downtown? You all are conjuring some imaginary, rich customers for these cars that don't exist.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by truth411

I do understand and Since the Next gen CTS is GROWING in size GM gets it too. But to throw out the interior, to throw out the suspenion/ride quality, to throw out performance, to throw out its handleing for "rear shoulder room" Seems like your reaching quite a bit, Just sayin.

I'm not throwing anything out. I'm saying somebody who needs a car in a larger segment isn't going to look at a CTS. And what I get in response is a bunch of guys who seemingly think you can just throw cousin Ted in the trunk because they've got 50 bazillion horsepower and that is all that matters. Trust me, when people have to choose between power and space, if space is important, power never wins.

And as such the comparison is silly, because the M56 was designed for somebody who needs a bigger car.

[truth411]

Originally Posted by syr74

Are you serious? Honestly, I think part of the problem here is that I'm dealing with a forum full of folks the vast majority of whom have never really spent time in one of these cars or with their typical customer. The M5 may have been Cadillac's performance target, but the CTS does not compete with the 5-Series because it's too small. Compared to the CTS the 5-Series is a virtual limousine. There is a reason why, outside of the CTS-V, the engine lineup for the CTS matches up better with the 3-Series than the 5-Series.



Then why does the M5 even exists? I say this because you could shove that same V10 into the 3-Series and launch yourself into orbit if size doesn't matter. So why even have the bigger car? And of course, by that logic the AMG S Class is the mystery of the ages. Heck, those losers at Mercedes could have shoved that same turbo 12 into the E Class, saved about 50k in msrp, and gone even faster.



I worked in this industry, I dealt with these people..trust me, not only are you wrong I genuinely think you have no understanding of just how wrong you are. Honestly, I think most of you guys have decided who buys these cars and how they drive them by watching The OC or something. The reality you guys are describing simply doesn't exist.



And you have to be on a 12+hr trip for comfort to matter? Seriously? Let me assure you little Ashley is going to bitch her proverbial head off if the new M5 doesn't have as much legroom for the trip to school as the old E55 did. What do you think Uncle Dan is going to be saying on the 30 minute trip to the restaurant downtown? You all are conjuring some imaginary, rich customers for these cars that don't exist.

Just to offer some clarification, for the most part we agree. I was not arguing against a larger vehicle.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by truth411

Just to offer some clarification, for the most part we agree. I was not arguing against a larger vehicle.

I picked up on that, but are you not seeing a little of the 'CTS-V' rules because it has the power and nothing else matters argument going on with some others here? Heck, I've got to be honest, you are talking to somebody who is looking for a car and, if I needed a smallish four door, the CTS-V would absolutely be on my short list. For me, I can get by with a coupe so the CTS-V sedan is not on my short list.

My wife is looking for a sedan with room for grown adults, so the CTS is off of her list in any trim level. I get the sense of pride the CTS-V gives the GM faithful, and I'm glad for you guys. But I think the guys who compare cars based on power and nothing else do the GM fan base a disservice, it makes you look out of touch as a whole and I know some of you have to 'get it'