- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
most if not all magazines side with you and your car though...
doing HW are da ones you gonna throw rocks at.
Spy Shots of the 2012 Dodge Charger...
doing HW are da ones you gonna throw rocks at.
- 1,930
- 54
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2007
ninjahood wrote:
Originally Posted by MyJaysGetRocked
Originally Posted by ninjahood
your reply is a opinion...who's to say who has more fun driving....i damn well know who's having more fun PARKING on a hill thoughOriginally Posted by 10 Piece Nuggets
So you'd rather whip a SRT-8 Charger to scoop up the wife and kids rather than a luxury sedan?
Whatever floats your boat.
For the other argument, its not a question that auto shifts more precisely than manuals. Thats pretty much a fact.
Its the fun in driving that auto takes away.
Going through all 6 gears while tearing down the street.
Mashing the gas medal tearing down the street.
and you tell me what a SRT-8 is missing when it comes to picking up da family... "luxury" is pretty codeword for prestige these days...da top trim charger got everything
a luxury sedan has as far as "gadgets" is concerned.
NTers in da JDM scene seem mad that people aren't knocking da doors down to jump on they set...naw son, we good over here, PLENTY of other car scenes on da streets,
and whats worse, they completely baffled that a american car such as CTS-V can outdo anything da great M series BMW provided.
Bro, stop talking out of your a**. Have you ever actually driven an M series or a CTS-V? and I don't mean just crusing down the street, I mean actually push the car? You're basing EVERYTHING on reviews of companies that for the most part have bashed BMW
That was your response? That BMW blog you posted, shared an article and review done by Road and Track. That "BMW" blog had nothing to do with testing that car. I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you. You like the Cts-v and thats fine, but don't just write nonsense. I'd have alot more respect for you if you wrote in a non-bias kind of way. They're both great cars in their own sense. Some things the M5 is better at and other the Cts-V, just choose whichever one fits you best.
- 39,330
- 19,774
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
Althought the SRT8 is indeed a monster, I would never drop 40k on it, I'd much rather go with Acura or a Benz, or just save up a bit more and go for a range or an Audi
- 96
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2000
I wasnt saying that the magazines were my enemy...Originally Posted by ninjahood
most if not all magazines side with you and your car though...they aren't your enemy, ignorant, and pompus NTers thinking imports are ungodly superior without
doing HW are da ones you gonna throw rocks at.
- 3,784
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
not this %*%# again
a charger is not a performance car
it has a lot of hp for the money though, yes.
a charger is not a performance car
it has a lot of hp for the money though, yes.
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
why, because it doesn't say acura, benz?
you can get a USED one for 22-25k
now whats your argument?
That was your response? That BMW blog you posted, shared an article and review done by Road and Track. That "BMW" blog had nothing to do with testing that car.
Bill Auberlen and John Heinricy were both on hand to drive the M5 and the CTS-V around the track. Bill Auberlen is a factory BMW driver, and is famous for racing the M3 in ALMS, and John Heinricy is head of GM’s performance division, and drove the CTS-V around the ‘Ring for its lap record.
STOP CRYING, DA M5 LOST FAIR AND SQUARE, can't grasp that concept huh
- 96
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2000
Nobody said it was a performance car... Its a regular car with a performance engine and parts, Jus like a M5, C63, CTS-V, G8 GXP, and whatever other 4 door beast you want to throw out there...
- 11,810
- 645
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
with the 22 stacks i could buy a modified evo or sti...
- 96
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2000
Good for you Paul Walker...
- 11,810
- 645
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
Just sayin'
chargers aren't even the best bang for buck performance sedans on the market
the c63 is...
chargers aren't even the best bang for buck performance sedans on the market
the c63 is...
- 8,368
- 1,480
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
this thread is %+%*!% stupid
- 3,190
- 171
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
Haha, it really is. I was posting in here but it's pointless as hell to do so. Basically arguing about an opinion in which no one wins, cause in the end it all comes down to preference. I love my V8 muscle and i have respect for some tuner cars as well but what i can't stand is people that don't even give a chance to look at what there bashing. Just bashing for the hell of it because there uninformed and uneducated. I still think lakers 242007 is a complete tool but thats just my opinionOriginally Posted by needsomejays
this thread is %+%*!% stupid
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
WRONG sir....
[h1]The Quickest Sedans of 2008: $30,000 to $40,000 - Feature[/h1]
[h1]2008 Dodge Charger SRT8 - Feature[/h1][h2]The Quickest Sedans of 2008: $30,000 to $40,000[/h2]
Pages: 1234567891011Photos
[h2]In This Story[/h2]
- Introduction
- 2008 Volkswagen Passat 3.6
- 2008 Cadillac CTS DI V-6
- 2008 Buick LaCrosse Super
- 2008 Acura TL Type-S
- 2008 Chrysler 300C
- 2008 Infiniti G35
- 2008 Lexus IS350
- 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
- 2008 BMW 335i
- 2008 Dodge Charger SRT8
[h2]Visit Our Buyer's Guide »[/h2]
[h3]Dodge Charger[/h3][h3]News & Reviews[/h3]
- 2011 Dodge Charger - Spied
- 2009 Dodge Charger / Charger SRT8 - Review
- 2008 Dodge Charger - Review
- 2006 Dodge Charger Police Package - Short Take Road Test
- New York Police Test 150-mph Squad Car - Car News
- Dodge Charger R/T - Road Test
- Dodge Charger SRT8 - Auto Shows
- Dodge Charger - Auto Shows
- 2006 Dodge Charger - First Drive Review
Base price: $37,010
0-to-60-mph time: 4.8 sec
Quarter-mile time: 13.2 sec @ 109 mph
How does Dodge manage to put more than two tons ahead of such pedigreed track stars as the Evolution and 335i? Simple. Throw lots of cubic inches at it, 370 to be exact. With 6.1 liters of V-8 madness beneath that snorty hood, the Charger SRT8 sends 425 horses rearward for transformation into thrust or smoke—you decide. Driven for optimal speed, the Charger SRT8 hustles to 60 in 4.8 seconds and looks and sounds quick while doing it. Perhaps mindful of the car’s bruiser status, Dodge placed the traction control switch within finger-flicking range of the shift lever, should you want to scratch the burnout itch. Although this isn’t a “10 Fastest Sedans
emnabtnacesorj
Banned
- 1,725
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
Yo NinjaHood.. How is the engine bay of the charger bigger than your house tho??
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
C63
Base Price
$57,350
Drivetrain
Rear Wheel Drive
Curb Weight (lbs)
3924
City (MPG)
12
Hwy (MPG)
19
Horsepower
451 @ 6800
Horsepower
481 @ - TBD -
Torque (lb-ft)
443 @ 5000
Wheelbase (in.)
108.7
Length (in.)
186.1
Width (in.)
69.7
Height (in.)
56.6
DODGE Charger SRT 8
Base price: $37,010
yeah.....
Base Price
$57,350
Drivetrain
Rear Wheel Drive
Curb Weight (lbs)
3924
City (MPG)
12
Hwy (MPG)
19
Horsepower
451 @ 6800
Horsepower
481 @ - TBD -
Torque (lb-ft)
443 @ 5000
Wheelbase (in.)
108.7
Length (in.)
186.1
Width (in.)
69.7
Height (in.)
56.6
DODGE Charger SRT 8
Base price: $37,010
yeah.....
- 11,810
- 645
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
I forgot to add the word "luxury"
best bang for buck "luxury" performance sedan is the c63...2nd is probably the m5
best bang for buck "luxury" performance sedan is the c63...2nd is probably the m5
- 96
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2000
Originally Posted by ninjahood
WRONG sir....
[h1]The Quickest Sedans of 2008: $30,000 to $40,000 - Feature[/h1]
[h1]2008 Dodge Charger SRT8 - Feature[/h1][h2]The Quickest Sedans of 2008: $30,000 to $40,000[/h2]
Pages: 1234567891011Photos
[h2]In This Story[/h2]
- Introduction
- 2008 Volkswagen Passat 3.6
- 2008 Cadillac CTS DI V-6
- 2008 Buick LaCrosse Super
- 2008 Acura TL Type-S
- 2008 Chrysler 300C
- 2008 Infiniti G35
- 2008 Lexus IS350
- 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
- 2008 BMW 335i
- 2008 Dodge Charger SRT8
[h2]Visit Our Buyer's Guide »[/h2]
[h3]Dodge Charger[/h3][h3]News & Reviews[/h3]
- 2011 Dodge Charger - Spied
- 2009 Dodge Charger / Charger SRT8 - Review
- 2008 Dodge Charger - Review
- 2006 Dodge Charger Police Package - Short Take Road Test
- New York Police Test 150-mph Squad Car - Car News
- Dodge Charger R/T - Road Test
- Dodge Charger SRT8 - Auto Shows
- Dodge Charger - Auto Shows
- 2006 Dodge Charger - First Drive Review
Base price: $37,010
0-to-60-mph time: 4.8 sec
Quarter-mile time: 13.2 sec @ 109 mph
How does Dodge manage to put more than two tons ahead of such pedigreed track stars as the Evolution and 335i? Simple. Throw lots of cubic inches at it, 370 to be exact. With 6.1 liters of V-8 madness beneath that snorty hood, the Charger SRT8 sends 425 horses rearward for transformation into thrust or smoke—you decide. Driven for optimal speed, the Charger SRT8 hustles to 60 in 4.8 seconds and looks and sounds quick while doing it. Perhaps mindful of the car’s bruiser status, Dodge placed the traction control switch within finger-flicking range of the shift lever, should you want to scratch the burnout itch. Although this isn’t a “10 Fastest Sedans
- 17,649
- 24,001
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
No, it's either the C63 or the CTS-V. The M5 isn't in the discussion for bang for the buck.
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
fixed.
[h3]2010 Cadillac CTS-V Specifications:[/h3]
Base Price: $60,720.
Price as Tested: $69,440.
Engine: 6.2L LSA supercharged V8 – 556-hp / 551 lb-ft of torque.
Transmission: 6-speed manual with dual disc-clutch, 6-speed automatic.
Curb Weight: 4,200 lbs (manual), 4,300 (automatic).
0 to 60 mph: 4.0 seconds.
Fuel-Economy: 12/18 mpg (city/highway).
M5 MSRP Price:$85,700 BASE PRICE
- 0-100 km/h (62 mph): 4.7s [sup][2][/sup]
- (0-100 mph: 10.1s, Road & Track [2/06])
- (0-60 mph: 3.8s, Road & Track [2/06, Dinan S3 package, Stock est. 4.5s)
- Top speed: 250 km/h (155 mph) actual (or 163 mph (262 km/h) indicated) with electronic speed limiter [sup][3][/sup]
- Power: 373 kW (507 PS; 500 bhp) at 7750 rpm [sup][3][/sup]
- Torque: 520 N·m (384 ft·lbf) at 6100 rpm
- 11,810
- 645
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
sorry but you're wrong
c63>cts v
For one, it's n/a AND it's 600 lbs lighter
a simple tune will have you runnin' 10's
power to weight ratio plays almost a bigger factor then hp numbers
then again, you wouldn't know that
c63>cts v
For one, it's n/a AND it's 600 lbs lighter
a simple tune will have you runnin' 10's
power to weight ratio plays almost a bigger factor then hp numbers
then again, you wouldn't know that
- 1,930
- 54
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2007
Bill Auberlen and John Heinricy were both on hand to drive the M5 and the CTS-V around the track. Bill Auberlen is a factory BMW driver, and is famous for racing the M3 in ALMS, and John Heinricy is head of GM’s performance division, and drove the CTS-V around the ‘Ring for its lap record.Originally Posted by ninjahood
why, because it doesn't say acura, benz?
you can get a USED one for 22-25k
now whats your argument?
STOP CRYING, DA M5 LOST FAIR AND SQUARE, can't grasp that concept huh
Whats up with the big font? is that the only way you can get your point across? Lets see if you can get this concept...."Both the Cadillac and BMW teams were there to watch it all go down. The CTS-V was a 6-spd manual, and BMW supplied an SMG and a 6-spd manual M5 for the test. Bill took the SMG. Keep in mind, John Heinricy has been the official test driver of the CTS-V since its inception. He is also a factory Chevrolet racing driver. Bill hasn’t touched an M5 in four years."
Here is the last paragraph of the review...
See that? 2:44.70 for the M5 and 2:44.23. John has been driving the car for a few years now. Bill hasn’t driven an M5 in four years, and rips the V a new one… The CTS-V has 56 more hp, 168 more lb-ft of torque, and just shy of 200lbs heavier. The M5 is just slightly slower with less. Isn’t that funny. Remember, the CTS-V also develops its 551lb-ft of torque at 3800 RPM versus the M5’s 383lb-ft of torque at 6100 RPM. Oh, and the V gets its 56 more hp at 6100 RPM versus the M5’s 500hp at 7750 RPM.
So let me get this straight....The cts-v is supercharged, is 2 years newer, and has its best dirver behind the wheel yet it only wins on the last try by .47?....LMAO. This is why you think the Cts-v outdoes the m5? You're a bigger joke than I thought.
Oh,yea.... I'll be waiting for your response in big font....lol
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
really...?Originally Posted by mondaynightraw
sorry but you're wrong
c63>cts v
For one, it's n/a AND it's 600 lbs lighter
a simple tune will have you runnin' 10's
power to weight ratio plays almost a bigger factor then hp numbers
then again, you wouldn't know that
[h1]
http://www.spike.com/efphttp://www.spike.com/efp http://www.spike.com/efphttp://www.spike.com/efp
Grudge Match: Cadillac CTS-V vs BMW M5 vs Mercedes Benz C63 | Sports | SPIKE.com
CTS-V >>>>>*try again son
- 17,649
- 24,001
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
The Charger is an okay car if you only like to go in a straight line and don't mind piss-poor interiors.
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
Originally Posted by MyJaysGetRocked
Bill Auberlen and John Heinricy were both on hand to drive the M5 and the CTS-V around the track. Bill Auberlen is a factory BMW driver, and is famous for racing the M3 in ALMS, and John Heinricy is head of GM’s performance division, and drove the CTS-V around the ‘Ring for its lap record.Originally Posted by ninjahood
why, because it doesn't say acura, benz?
you can get a USED one for 22-25k
now whats your argument?
STOP CRYING, DA M5 LOST FAIR AND SQUARE, can't grasp that concept huh
Whats up with the big font? is that the only way you can get your point across? Lets see if you can get this concept...."Both the Cadillac and BMW teams were there to watch it all go down. The CTS-V was a 6-spd manual, and BMW supplied an SMG and a 6-spd manual M5 for the test. Bill took the SMG. Keep in mind, John Heinricy has been the official test driver of the CTS-V since its inception. He is also a factory Chevrolet racing driver. Bill hasn’t touched an M5 in four years."
Here is the last paragraph of the review...
See that? 2:44.70 for the M5 and 2:44.23. John has been driving the car for a few years now. Bill hasn’t driven an M5 in four years, and rips the V a new one… The CTS-V has 56 more hp, 168 more lb-ft of torque, and just shy of 200lbs heavier. The M5 is just slightly slower with less. Isn’t that funny. Remember, the CTS-V also develops its 551lb-ft of torque at 3800 RPM versus the M5’s 383lb-ft of torque at 6100 RPM. Oh, and the V gets its 56 more hp at 6100 RPM versus the M5’s 500hp at 7750 RPM.
So let me get this straight....The cts-v is supercharged, is 2 years newer, and has its best dirver behind the wheel yet it only wins on the last try by .47?....LMAO. This is why you think the Cts-v outdoes the m5? You're a bigger joke than I thought.
Oh,yea.... I'll be waiting for your response in big font....lol
sure, da CTS-V is ALSO 30 grand cheaper
for da slow people on NT that means for what imma spend on...
i can get
&
and used
- 11,810
- 645
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
n/a>fi
it's as simple as that....
to be fair..i would take a cts-v over the c63 since i think it looks better
but the c63 is a beast
it's as simple as that....
to be fair..i would take a cts-v over the c63 since i think it looks better
but the c63 is a beast
