Once again you prove to be a real tool. I was clearly talking about the CTS-V not the M5. The 1st Gen CTS-V was approx, 49K and with the new motor, I am expecting the cost to rise 10-15%. I know very well the M5 does not cost 65k. Hence the CTS-V shoudl eb approx 2/3’s of the cost of the M5…do I need to spell this out for you or can you comprehend what is written?
[/quote]
We both know you were talking about the CTS-V when you said 55-65 or whatever. That’s a far fucking cry from a $90k car though.
Once again you prove to be a real tool. I was clearly talking about the CTS-V not the M5. The 1st Gen CTS-V was approx, 49K and with the new motor, I am expecting the cost to rise 10-15%. I know very well the M5 does not cost 65k. Hence the CTS-V shoudl eb approx 2/3’s of the cost of the M5…do I need to spell this out for you or can you comprehend what is written?
[/quote]
well than, you extremely suck at quoting, just incase you missed what you did
[quote=“Marcus,post:29,topic:32029"”]
[quote=FormulaLS1;659863]And the M5 is going to cost how much more then it…
[/quote]
Probably not too much more…I bet the price of the CTS-V will be 55k-65k[/quote]
Its funny, when it was said to be 600hp I was interested but 540hp dosen’t seem that great to me.
Five years ago 400hp would have been outstanding.:biglaugh:
Today’s hp numbers are getting crazy.
I remember buying my Evolution and thinking 270 was good.
Now I wouldn’t buy a car with less than 350-400hp.:lol:
well than, you extremely suck at quoting, just incase you missed what you did
[/quote]
And you should chill the fuck out instead of jumping down everyones throat when they post a reply to a thread that you dont agree with. You come off as a cock…but it doesnt bother me in the least…you just look silly. You can say all you want about me or my threads…because i simply dont give a fuck.:gotme:
Hopefully they put some more R&D into the rear suspension so it doesn’t hop like a jack rabbit every time you spin the tires like my GTO and the last CTS-V.
Oh wait, that R&D money went into union health care, retirement, overtime and vacation.
Hopefully they put some more R&D into the rear suspension so it doesn’t hop like a jack rabbit every time you spin the tires like my GTO and the last CTS-V.
[/quote]
Mine is going in of Friday for the wheel hop bulletin. Supposedly a new bushing kit and some other things reduce this issue.
^ 05-04-114-001A TSB Controlling Rear Axle or Wheel Hop on Full-Throttle Application from a Standstill and/or Full Throttle 1-2 Shift (Install Supplementary Rear Sub-Frame Bushings) July 18, 2005
Yes it is.
A new V right now is $53,470 with everything including sunroof, navi, xenons, etc. You can take off the sunroof and get it for $52,270.00
M5 is $82,900 plus Destination & Handling $775 plus a couple grand in accessories.
I would say 30 grand separates customers. Even if they raise the price to 60 it will still be 25 grand.
[/quote]
I said between a $70k and $100k… not $52k and $100k.
[quote=“brent_strong,post:53,topic:32029"”]
Uhh…why wouldn’t it be? We can call it roughly 50%. A 50% difference in price in ANYTHING is a big deal.
[/quote]
I said between a $70k and $100k… not $50k and $100k.
So no, it is not roughly 50% it is 30% EXACTLY. 30% is large, but realistically speaking, people looking at the NEW Vs could honestly get an M5 if they wanted. Is the 5 worth $30k more than the V… well you’ll know that when you see the sales numbers between the two, or the performace comparisons when the cars are actually released.
Bring it down to “poverty” level. Would you spend $700 on a Malibu or $1000 on an Impala? Now it isn’t $30k but its still 30%. Most people wouldn’t buy either, but thats neither here nor there.
If it were a 50% difference, I still believe the cars are aimed at 2 different crowds. I highly doubt GM will be borrowing too many M5 customers because they added some HP to their CTS. Would it play a factor? Yes. As huge as the 2 of you make it out to be? No.
30 / 70 = 42%. With all the fuzzy math already going on, we can call that 50%. If you’re looking at a 70k car (which the CTS-V isn’t), a $100k car is 42% more.
there, i quoted it for you. I’m not concerned with your math skills or anyones percieved cost of either vehicle… this is what my comparison was based on.
You said a 50% difference in price…
If your looking at a $100k car… the $70k car is 30% cheaper is it not? I think it is. You said “A 50% difference in price”, apparently we were looking at it from 2 standpoints. Mine was right, cause I started it.
there, i quoted it for you. I’m not concerned with your math skills or anyones percieved cost of either vehicle… this is what my comparison was based on.
You said a 50% difference in price…
If your looking at a $100k car… the $70k car is 30% cheaper is it not? I think it is. You said “A 50% difference in price”, apparently we were looking at it from 2 standpoints. Mine was right, cause I started it.