Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

blueguydotcom

Agreed on the appearance. I've seen the new A6 in person and it's really bland. The 5 is the only one that stands out as different and sporty. I'm getting Bangled!

The RL reminds me a bit too much of a super sized ES330. I think it's the huge headlamps.

I want to drive a 6 speed TL with that SH-AWD system and 300 HP. That could be fun.

blueguydotcom

Dear Forum, I never thought this would happen to me... When I was a teen I loved the look of the Mustang stocker from the late 60s. I used to draw updated versions of it - smooth bits offsetting the rough edges, larger wheels, etc. Fast forward 15 years and Ford's making that car. I dig the look (and power) of the Mustang GT-R. Minus the spoiler of course - yuck. I need to go home and drive my Bimmer to cleanse my soul of ever entertaining notions of a 500 HP Mustang...

speedracer3

Although derivative, I'd rather take the M45. It has a nice interior and sounds like it is a barn stormer.

Blue,

Are you going schizo on us?...I thought you hated American cars with a passion.

gpwatfrd

Anytime, The car is an auto with premium package, sports package and metallic paint. Ivory pearl with Black interior. I like the white exterior with the dark interior. I also think the black on silver inside looks good. The only other options that were available were the rear spoiler and the overpriced navigation system.

danny1878

RL technology and it's innovations are astounding. Not too fond of its exterior, the front side reminds me of an ES/Accord while the butt looks like an oversized Accord. For exterior, I prefer the TL or the previous 5 series.

M45, nice interior but exterior also reminds me of G35 sedan. I think RL has better technology and innovations, but 3.5L engine with 300hp only? give me a break!.

blueguydotcom

Are you going schizo on us?...I thought you hated American cars with a passion.

Rules were made to be broken. I like the Mad Max look. Man, this goes back to my teen years - it's like the way my ears perk up when I hear theme songs from horrible 70s and 80s sitcoms. essentially, it's primal. I'd even go all black for a car like that - and I swore never to own another black car. Gunmetal rims. Nice weekend car...lol

Now that I think about it, a dark, dark gunmetal gray would be pretty wicked.

I'm sure it'll be cheaper than the M5 I was drooling over last week. That was based purely on the engine.

jrock65

Some more M45 photos:

http://www.nissannews.com/?http/www.nissannews.com/nissan/news/products/reljanel2002072105400.shtml

Click on M45 Concept, then click on Photo Library.

The more I look at it, the more I like it. The two speakers mounted on the shoulders of each front seat is interesting. That really brings the sound close to the ear. I guess they'll tone down the output of those speakers relative to the body mounted speakers.

kahunah

"3.5L engine with 300hp only?"

Yeah, that is disappointing, especially with AWD. Makes it tough to compete with a 340hp V8.

blueguydotcom

It's good output - sort of. Then again, we know BMW gets 350 out of a 3.2 liter 6 - M3 CSL.

jjabbytaylor

I'm also kind of disappointed that the car only comes with a 5 speed auto. BMW and Mercedes are using 6 and 7 speed automatics in most of their cars these days.

Jeff

pat

It's the topic police again, reporting for duty! (Hey, it's what they pay me for, ya know? )

Why don't we take the conversation about the M45, the A6, and the RL to the discussion jrock started for that class of vehicle here: Luxury Performance Sedans. That one is specifically linked to those three discussion lists, so that's where you want to post your comments if you want them to be seen by the majority of our visitors and members who are interested in those vehicles.

If anyone has forgotten, our topic vehicles in this discussion are listed here: pat Mar 19, 2004 6:34pm

portknoxxa

335i, 340i, 345i. Does anyone have any info on the next generation BMW 3 Series engines as far as displacement, HP, etc. And will they show up in the next generation 3 Series. The G35 and Acura TL has made it very interesting by out horsepowering/out torqueing the 3.

pg48477

Don't forget it's only a concept. TL concept also had 300HP not 270, so HP can go up or down before this car hits show room. In any case I think 300HP is good enof to compete with 6 cylinders versions of i's competition. One of the reasons M45 did so poorly is luck of V6. Most of GS, E and 5 are being sold with 6 cylinders, in fact 80% of GS is I6. I don't think Acura wants to spend money on something they can't sell, if the come up with full size sedan maybe they will build V8. This way they'll be able to use the engine for two vehicles and maybe full size SUV.

In any case exterior does not look exiting at all, to bland. Interior is very nice.

pg48477

BMW will introduce new 3.5L engine for 535, I think new 3 will have current 3.0 standard and 3.5 as an option.

blueguydotcom

And will they show up in the next generation 3 Series. The G35 and Acura TL has made it very interesting by out horsepowering/out torqueing the 3.

Funny how those numbers still don't translate to more powerful automobiles.

I'll take my 3.0 liter 235 HP ZHP over the supposedly more powerful 270 HP 3.2 of the TL and the 260 HP 3.5 liter VQ in the G.

If BMW goes to even a 3.2 L we know they can pull out over 300 HP. And as we've seen those German horses tend to be bigger than Japanese ones...

pg48477

'I'll take my 3.0 liter 235 HP ZHP over the supposedly more powerful 270 HP 3.2 of the TL and the 260 HP 3.5 liter VQ in the G. "

Lot more people think otherwise.

dhanley

Supposedly there was supposed to be a 3.0L twin turbo i-6 in the works, but that seems to have gone quiet--so perhaps it was dropped.

The twin turboing was supposed to be sequential too--so a smaller turbo for quick spool-up and a big one for boost at high RPM's. Was supposed to be 385HP or some such.

dave

wco81

Funny how those numbers still don't translate to more powerful automobiles.

I'll take my 3.0 liter 235 HP ZHP over the supposedly more powerful 270 HP 3.2 of the TL and the 260 HP 3.5 liter VQ in the G.

Isn't that because the 3-series body is lighter than the TL or G bodies?

dhanley

"Lot more people think otherwise."

Let's have another conversation about purchase numbers. That'll be really productive.

pat

Let's don't and say we did, eh?

:-)

It's lots more interesting to talk about what we like and dislike than what the abstract numbers say, seems to me.

portknoxxa

I actually would buy a 3 series over any TL, G35, etc. I'd even buy a 325i auto I think that BMW just proves that they engineer one or some of the best cars you can buy. I mean an M3 with a 3.2L i think with 333 HP and ? torque, and lets not forget the performance pkg. on the 330, only increased 10 HP and is still underpowered compared to G35, TL and it all around out performs a G35 and TL. I would love to see BMW continue their engines w/o turbo/super chargers. They seem to do so much with naturally aspirated smaller displaced engines on all of their cars, compared to their rivals. Isn't Lexus dropping a V8 in the IS 300 and what about the RS4 from Audi? BMW should bring back the M3 sedan in a hurry to put these other car makers back in their place! Just for the record I do not own any of these cars. I've had a 2004 Mitsu Galant GTS for 3 months. Less HP than Accord V6 and Altima 3.5, but the GTS kills 'em with the 250 tourqe and sport tuned suspension.

webby1

The residual is just under 24 K's.
The point I am making that you can get the BMW listed around 47 to 49 K's and still pay less (net )than the TL !
I was very surprised too...I think BMW is trying in a big way to grab the market share and the deals are there. Driving both cars I must admit there is no contest....in my opinion there is no front wheel car that comes close to BMW's handling.
Not to mention the all paid service for 3 yrs/60,000 km....warranty 4 yrs/80,000 km ...road assistance and choice of tires !
I made the deal with BMW after driving Honda's/Acuras since 1975 !

pg48477

I hope you got 330 with performance package, because 325 doesn't come close.

danny1878

Dont kid yourself, I know G35 do outrun 330i. I dont own G35 also.

Lighter or not, 0-60 stats proves it

blueguydotcom

Dont kid yourself, I know G35 do outrun 330i. I dont own G35 also.

0-60 in 5.6? When did the G35 sedan do that? Haven't seen that stat from any mag.

The less powerful 330i Performance Package with its smaller 3.0 liter inline 6 pulls to 60 in 5.9-5.6 seconds (depending whose numbers you believe - BMW says 5.9 and they always go conservative).

You'd think with another half-liter in displacement the supposedly more powerful G35 would be quicker. Or what about the TL's 270 HP V6?

Gearing? Horses? Whatever it is, BMW does more with less than the others. What happens when BMW puts a 3.2L in a 3 series? Oh, then we're talking about 0-60 romps in the 4s and over 330 HP. Suddenly the 3.5 liter VQ doesn't seem all that impressive...

Who ever asked about horsepower wars, do they even realize that BMW's 1998 car design still bests these late-comers? That BMW currently makes a 3.2 liter engine that will obliterate the VQ and TL?

kahunah

Congrats and enjoy the ride. Looks like BMW is really trying hard to increase their market share. What colour combo did you get, and is it auto or manual?

danny1878

These are 330i datas :
6.0 seconds 330i with performance package 2003
http://www.maximum-cars.com/Cars/Car.php?carnumber=447

6.1 seconds 330i Modernracer.com

6.4 seconds 330i Fast-auto.com
6.4 seconds at http://www.westgermanbmw.com/showroom/show3sed.html

6.4 seconds 330i 2002 hotrod-hell.com/quarter.html
6.1 seconds C&D
6.1 seconds Motortrend
6.5 seconds fastsaloons.com

BTW I dont really trust salesman(5.9 secs) :-)

jrock65

I'd rather have the car cost less (G35, TL) and have similar performance, than have lower engine displacement (330i) and have similar performance.

knr5

Sigh! Automobile in their October 2003 issue had G35 6MT do 0-60 in 5.6 sec (same as Mitsu Evo in the same test). They looked at 12 or 13 "sport" sedans. Even though the G was superior in practically all the performance categories, it placed 3rd overall, behind the TSX and the 325i.
I am frankly surprised that this comparison test is hardly ever mentioned.

blueguydotcom

Car and Drive 330i with Performance Package - 5.6 seconds:

http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6- 978&page_number=1
\

I think I saw a 5.9 once for the manual G35. someone here has a 5.6. If that's so, that's great but wait a second, that'd be in line with a car sporting half a liter less displacement. And 25 HP less.

jrock65 - "I'd rather have the car cost less "...to each his own. I'm not looking for bang for the buck - or i'd own an STi. But I do find it hilarious that people are saying the G35/TL is hot on the 3 series when both are 2 years old or less while the bimmer debuted in 98 as a 99 - 6 model years ago! That's like taking on Lennox Lewis at the end of his career and beating your chest over it. It took Infiniti until 2002 to come up with a BMW challenger. Acura 2003.

Even now, you know that BMW's 3.2 means at any second they can slip it and the M moniker into a sedan and it'll eat TLs and Gs for lunch.

What exactly are Honda and Nissan doing with their big engines and engineering? Obviously not much if the best they can do is go toe-to-toe with the guy who is on his last legs. Shouldn't they be roundly beating him now?

Have a good night guys. And before I leave, I dig and respect both the TL and G35. I just find the HP snorting comical given the results.

kahunah

...and the 3 Series is great handling vehicle. But for my money, the car is too small and too pricey for what you get. Gs and TLs are much better value. Good night indeed...:-)

jrock65

"jrock65 - "I'd rather have the car cost less "...to each his own. I'm not looking for bang for the buck - or i'd own an STi. But I do find it hilarious that people are saying the G35/TL is hot on the 3 series when both are 2 years old or less while the bimmer debuted in 98 as a 99 - 6 model years ago! That's like taking on Lennox Lewis at the end of his career and beating your chest over it. It took Infiniti until 2002 to come up with a BMW challenger. Acura 2003.

Even now, you know that BMW's 3.2 means at any second they can slip it and the M moniker into a sedan and it'll eat TLs and Gs for lunch.

What exactly are Honda and Nissan doing with their big engines and engineering? Obviously not much if the best they can do is go toe-to-toe with the guy who is on his last legs. Shouldn't they be roundly beating him now?"

Well, for $18,000 more, I'd hope it could eat G's and TL's for lunch.

I have no doubt that Honda and Nissan have the engineering to produce much more hp and performance from their current engines. It's all a matter of cost. To them, it's not cost effective to do so at this time; to BMW, it is.

You make it sound as if BMW has been just sitting around since the intro of the current 3 in MY1999. They've been upgrading the car, especially from an engine standpoint. When it first came out, it was a 2.8L engine, then BMW upgraded to a 3.0L. Your ZHP and its engine modifications were introduced only last year.

Who cares if BMW uses a 2.8, 3.0, 3.2, or 3.5? Bottom line is performance/features/cost.

"But I do find it hilarious that people are saying the G35/TL is hot on the 3 series when both are 2 years old or less while the bimmer debuted in 98 as a 99"

I find nothing hilarious about it. So when the new 3 comes out in MY2006, can we no longer compare it to the G and the TL?

Just my thoughts, nothing personal intended.

qbrozen

Not to mention we are talking about historically family and economically oriented Japanese companies producing vehicles that can compete with the historically performance-oriented end-all-be-all German moniker for far less money. So explain to me again how this makes BMW look good?

shipo

When one goes to Europe, one realizes that BMW is just as family and economically oriented as are the Japanese marques. The only real difference is that BMW leaned toward the performance and handling niche whereas the Japanese leaned toward the simplicity and reliability niche, historically speaking.

To put this in context, I was doing a project for MB-USA in the mid 1990s and the folks from Stuttgart liked what I did for the folks in Montvale, and shipped me over there for a while. Due to the fact that I was a contractor, their insurance regulations prohibited me from being assigned a car from the pool reserved for the MB-USA folks, so they rented me a small BMW. Said rental had four doors, a 1.6 or a 1.8 liter mill (I think it was the 1.6), crank windows, no A/C, cloth seats and a simple radio without a cassette. To make matters worse, I was driving north out of Austria early one morning (about 4:00 AM) and the 316i was laboring up a long hill south of Ulm, flat out at something like 80 mph when I saw a pair of headlights catching me, FAST. No sooner had I finished passing a string of even slower moving cars and moved over to my right, a Chrysler MiniVan passed me doing well over a buck twenty! So much for the "end-all-be-all" image of BMW.

Best Regards,
Shipo

kahunah

When I was in Düesseldorf, Germany in 1998 on business, ALL of the taxi cabs were bare bones (and I mean bare bones) MB 190Es, complete with cloth seats and crank windows. They were painted in an awful green and orange color combo. The interior was very plain and mostly covered in cheap brown vinyl. Ugh! When I got home after the three week trip, my '92 Accord felt sooo luxurious in comparison.

chrisboth

"Gearing? Horses? Whatever it is, BMW does more with less than the others. What happens when BMW puts a 3.2L in a 3 series? Oh, then we're talking about 0-60 romps in the 4s and over 330 HP. Suddenly the 3.5 liter VQ doesn't seem all that impressive... "

No one can say the bimmer engineers aren't good at refining a sedan and engineering the heck out of it over time. But in its first try nissan bested the true class competitor (330i) and is redefining the expectations of this segment. It's truly a joy to own a G and hear people compare the car to much more powerful or expensive machines such as m3 and any 5 series as the car seems to find it self compared to so often. The m3 is over 50k and is not much bigger than a civic. While very beautiful and classic in design it's very pricey for the propeller on the hood and the extra oophm. Worth it - maybe if you can swing it. Maybe last year and not next year tho. Its another whole class the M3 sits in with a 911 carerra and the vette that we are comparing a 27k car to....very cool to me.

Now as for the VQ being tame - yes it's not pushing all the M hp/liter but thats a $17,000 motor with a 1% failure rate from such a long stroke working at 9k rpm. Nice but quirky and expensive. The VQ can easily perform 300hp without any major tweaks and could possibly get to 340 or so if tuner like the M guys tune the VQ. Maybe still not the same high hp/litre as m3, but much cheaper much more reliable and still more productive than 99% of the v6's sold in the us. I'll take it.

For 1k you can take the existing 260 in the sedan and turn it into 290 or so. Thats an 11% increase with minor work and dollars. This engine screams to do more and the short stroke and balanced v-6 are not as smooth as a straight 6 inherintly but find another v that even comes close...and costs so little to make.

speedracer3

Blue,

I am very impressed with the VQ. The fact that it can propel a midsize sedan in the mid 5 range is very impressive. The BMW 3 is fast, but it is also the size of a Sentra.

nickjc

My lease expires this year ('01 Audi A6 4.2), and I have started test drives. Thus far:
S4, M3, 330i ZHP, C32, TL (mt & auto), G35 coupe 6mt, M45, S60R, E500 (just out of curiosity).

I agree with recent posts regarding, "to each his own," and for me, I need a sedan (6 & 4 year olds); it needs to be relatively quick (low-mid 6s 0-60, 14s-15s 1/4); and while this may be snobbish(a word?), I don't want to see myself coming and going on every roadway (i.e some exclusivity).

My own observations:
S4/M3--awesome acceleration, ride too firm, Audi's gas mileage horrendous, Bimmer pricey;
C32--great ride & acceleration, pricey, weak interior;
S60R--not bad, do I want a Volvo?, auto is alot slower than mt (wife cannot drive mt, despite my best efforts);
G35 coupe--it's a coupe, great looking, quick, ride relatively good, interior a bogey, great bang for buck, need to try sedan, hoping '05 interior improved;
TL--great bang for buck, I wish speedo and tach were given equal real estate, otherwise great interior (one must admit lots of BMW cues, inside & out), fast enough (for me);
M45--included here because one can be had significantly below sticker, fast, comfy, exclusive, ride a little floaty, interior nice but redundant controls take too much real estate;
330i ZHP--I must admit, I really like its lines, ride, fast enough (BMW definitely low-balls its hp ratings--I believe my E36 M3 had 240hp, was lighter, and slower? c'mon! However, I live in MD, where we do receive snow/ice, and I hear those 18" rims bend frequently...

I'd love to hear more praise/gripes from owners.

And, despite what most of want to believe, price plays a huge factor. I promised my wife the car payment was going to be reduced...c'est la vie!

webby1

325I Auto...silver grey with black interior..premium package..no sport package available in Canada til June ( unless the dealer finds one somewhere )I do not want to wait that long since my lease expires May 1st.
First BMW so I hope it is a good one.
I am still pissed off at Acura for not willing to deal...they still do not believe that I dumped them !

webby1

Sorry...not 330 but 325...power does not mean that much to me as long as the power is adequate, enough torque and great handling.
Timeless design and tracks as driving on railroad tracks!

bxd20

I mean, a regular 330 is not running no 5.6. This is the performance package equipped version, and perhaps a juiced one that C&D got at that.

330 perf package costs way more than what you can get into a G35 for. If you "tuned" your VQ yourself spending the money you saved you'd end up ahead.

BMW doesn't have any voo-doo HP tricks that others lack. It's a question of money. The specific output of the 325 is very low, just look at a 98-00 Duratec 2.5 pumping 200hp... that was 6 years ago mind you.

I also notice that none of the TL lovers here are touching the Motor Trend comparison. About the torque steer, they basically wrote "sure you could live with it, but why would you want to"? (not an exact quote, i don't have the mag here in front of me)

To sum it up:
The G35 dominated since there was no BMW competition. But the CTS keeps creeping up in these comparisons, coming in second this time. It pulled a 6.6 with an auto, which will probably mean a 6.2 when the M6 hits lots this June as an '05. So I could drive a 5 series in size and comfort that goes 6.2 for as little as $32k or I could force my friends to cram into the back of a 3 series and either spend a little more money for equal performance (regular 330) or spend way more for slightly better performance (330 perf package). No thanks, I'm not into paying more for less just to have what everyone else thinks is "cool". I work hard for my money and the status symbol factor of BMW does nothing for me.

For me, a person who needs to use the back seat at times, but still wants a balanced sports sedan the G35/CTS are clearly the value leaders.

Brian

blueguydotcom

But in its first try nissan bested the true class competitor (330i) and is redefining the expectations of this segment.

First try? Nissan's had the I class for a long time and it was in the same market segment: entry level lux. The G comes a good 10 years into Nissan's first failed attempts.

It's truly a joy to own a G and hear people compare the car to much more powerful or expensive machines such as m3 and any 5 series as the car seems to find it self compared to so often.

Who would compare a G to an M3? There is no comparison. That's beyond silly. comparos to the 530 make sense. The 545? No way.

The m3 is over 50k

Starts at 45k.

and is not much bigger than a civic.
What? Regardless, I find the 330i to be too big - that's why I'm looking forward to the M2 in 2006/7.

Worth it - maybe if you can swing it. Maybe last year and not next year tho. Its another whole class the M3 sits in with a 911 carerra and the vette that we are comparing a 27k car to....very cool to me.

You're the only one doing that. Quite frankly the G's a fun car, but it's not in the same league as the M3, 911 or Vette - those are flat out performance cars. When you're running sub 5 second 60s then it'll be called a GT-R.

The VQ can easily perform 300hp without any major tweaks and could possibly get to 340 or so if tuner like the M guys tune the VQ.

Again, so, it's also much larger. We've seen over 350 out of the 3.2 on the M3 CSL.

For 1k you can take the existing 260 in the sedan and turn it into 290 or so.

Stock for stock. I don't care what mods are out there. Kids are on the road with Civics pushing over 400 hp. Doesn't change the fact it's still a Civic.

The G's a fine car but it's not Nissan's first foray into entry-level-lux and it's certainly not in the league of cars like the M3, 911 or Vette, STi, Evo. To believe it is, can only be described as foolishness.

blueguydotcom

Why would I buy a 330i base? It was a fun car but if BMW makes a better one, why wouldn't one go for it? I desperately wanted an M3 sedan to be frank. If BMW sold it, it'd be sitting in my garage at this moment. But if ifs and nuts were candy and nuts...

Regardless, this all began because someone babbled about the G35 and TL outgunning the 3 series. I don't see it that way. I see that they finally caught up with it - while posting high HP numbers. And still they aren't winning comparos straight up. It's only when adding price that they win some of the comparo....and to some buyers, price wasn't the determining issue when buying a car for fun. Afterall, it's a toy. If i'm tossing 33k on a car, 6k more is not that big of a deal in the scheme of things. If 6k means 10% more happiness, the trade off is a no brainer, in my opinion.

I think in the end I'm buying my sports sedan for a different reason: fun. Roominess, bang for the buck, modability don't enter my equation.

shipo

While the CTS may have decent acceleration, it's the rest of the package that turns me off. It looks like a Piccaso characature of what I'm not sure, the interior is a serious turn off to me, and don't get me started on the handling which felt to me less stable and precise than our family Caravans much less than either of my BMWs.

Personally, I think that the G and the 330i (with just the regular SP, not the ZHP) are well matched, the G has a little more room and depending on the day may be a little faster, the 330i has a higher quality interior and depending upon the day is a better handler. I will not speculate on the E46 replacement but I wouldn't bet against the BMW engineers on that one.

Best Regards,
Shipo

nickjc

I rode in one the other day. It had the "performance package/option," and stickered around $44K. Ride is firm, but tolerable. Had the 3.6 liter engine, which seemed atheletic enough. Nice sized interior and trunk. Way too much plastic inside, with some cost cutting parts evident here and there.

I'd like to try the CTS-V in the near future, but I suspect a test drive will be hard to obtain. And I still cannot decide how I feel about the exterior design, although it is beginning to grow on me, I think...

BTW, the 2003 E500 I drove is quite nice, and probably can be had for a relative bargain.

shipo

It's been over a year since I drove a CTS, and I don't remember if the "Performance Package" was included on the one that I drove, or for that matter if that package even existed late in 2002. Regardless, the car was much too soft and unstable when pushed for my tastes. Maybe I should give it another chance. On second thought, maybe I'll wait until the next generation when, hopefully, the look is not so objectionable.

Best Regards,
Shipo

chrisboth

Hey just becasue im tickled that everyone points to the m3 when hp/ltre of the G is mentioned doesn't mean I think they compare. I never said nor dillusionally consider the G to be in carerra territory.

27k baby and I'm not the one bringing m3 and 5 series up in this thread but it seems they enter the equation when one wants to liken the VQ to something less than the supposedly exclusive world of overpriced BMW tuning (still good but pricey).

Blueguy - i forget that the g20 called itslelf a bimmer beater - i forget it actually exists. The good old days of reaming the american consumer with simple marketing to undereducated buyers is coming to a close! I made all those mistakes myself. Infiniti learned that the hard way.

and ps stock for stock i think the numbers are right on for the g and zhp in everything.

speedracer3

Infinti never had sport sedans nor did they ever compete in the arena. Infinitis were just more luxurious versions of their Nissan siblings.

G20 = Sentra
I30 = Maxima
QX = Pathfinder.
M30 coupe = probably a cousin to the 300ZX/240SX.

The Q stood alone, as having no Nissan relation. Infiniti got it right on the first shot with the G35...that a HUGE accomplishment as their first foray into true sport sedan segments.

sawyerjon

Just wanted to add my .02...I took the CTS for the 24 hour test drive, it had the luxury package, not sport. In comparison, I had driven the 2003 with the 3.2 engine, there is a major difference in performance. I previously owned a '98 3 series, and can honestly say that the handling performance of the CTS is on par with the bimmer, in everyday driving that is. On the track, it maybe a different story, but for real world driving, the Caddy performed well above my expectations (especially when you add in the fact it is a larger vehicle).

blueguydotcom

Regardless, the [cts] was much too soft and unstable when pushed for my tastes.

That was my experience with a fully loaded manual model when it came out. I was shocked at how poorly the car handled after all the bogus raves in magazines.

Which reminds me, Autoweek, Carconnection, Carpoint all carried stories about how Detroit was overtaking Euro cars for reliability. The tone of the writing suggested for some weird reason the writers were excited and the excitement should be felt elsewhere.

That's sort of the reason I take reviews of American products with a grain of salt. It's almost like the reviewers are trying hard to like the vehicles.