Quote:
Originally Posted by bronch
I guess I'm in the minority here since I don't think the looks are akin to a dumpster fire. It's miles ahead of the angular transformer looking last gen car and I actually like it. I also don't care how old the engine design may be (whatever that means) ... It puts out 640HP! It's just sick on paper. My only gripe in the past is the cheapish interior and I don't know whether they unf*&^ked that part. If they do, I'll buy one in minute. For now, I still love the lines of the M5 and it's all-around prowess. I don't need the fastest sedan per se (Although that's nice bragging rights and all) and also compromise everything else that's important to me. As far as a dead company, they seem to be thriving now. So, what's a few billion in bailout in the past amongst friends.  |
I've sat in the 2016 CTS-V. I wouldn't exactly say that they unf$%ked the interior, but it's definitely better than the previous generation V. The ergonomics just simply are not as good as the F10's and the quality of materials is in fact better but the merino leather in the F10 is still of far better quality than GM's leather. The tech inside the interior is severely lacking when it comes to the nav display and functions of that system, but the LCD instrument display is pretty awesome actually. You can get a HUD in the CTS-V now too. The back seat of the 2016 CTS-V is where things start to go badly for it compared to BMW's though. The back seat of the M5 is plush, soft, and elegant even without the Full Leather option and the Executive Package. But most M5's are equipped with the Executive Package and the Full Leather option and that just gives the back seat area a huge bench mark of class, quality, and technology that the CTS-V can never match.
I decided upon my analogy a long time ago. If both cars were military bombers, the BMW M5, would be the B-2 Stealth Bomber, fast, extremely sophisticated, stealthy, and elegant, yet subsonic but still has an extremely long range because it has no fuselage creating all that extra drag so it's extremely aerodynamically efficient. Where as the 2016 CTS-V is more the B-52 type of bomber, able to just brute force it's way into enemy airspace while carrying an ungodly bomb load capacity. Not sophisticated by today's standards at all but employing the best technology of the last 50 years offering nothing new in it's construction from the future though. It's almost really apples and oranges. Both cars/aircraft have the same mission but go about it very different ways.