Is it a good performance value? Yes. But who said you don't factor in the interior when determining whether a vehicle is a good value?

As for 0-60 and whatnot... they're both pretty similar. I think the fastest I've seen the Charger is 4.9 while the GTO got 4.7 in a test between in and the Charger SRT-8 in MT. You aren't going to notice much of a difference between 4.9 and 4.7 though.

i think the interior is a huge factor. again it comes down to price. i don't care how fast the SRT8 is, if your selling in the mid forties, you gotta not have the same plastic as a rubbermaid trash can. And some style and looks is part of the equation in this price segment too.

i think the interior is a huge factor.  again it comes down to price.  i don't care how fast the SRT8 is, if your selling in the mid forties, you gotta not have the same plastic as a rubbermaid trash can.  And some style and looks is part of the equation in this price segment too.

Charger SRT-8

CTS-V

How can a $50K+ CTS-V have such cheap looking seats?? It must not be worth the money??

P.S. Is that a 5.25 floppy drive in the CTS-V ???

P.S. Is that a 5.25 floppy drive in the CTS-V ???

omg it does look like a 5.5 floppy drive! lmao

You know from the reviews I've read the CTS's weakness is some cheap interior materials, I've never sat in one, and the materials probably for the most part are better than the Charger's...but remember: the CTS is a premium car, the Charger is not. Obviously a car that starts in the mid 20's isn't gonna have the opulance of a premium car car. You know, looking those shots of the interiors. the Charger's may be plainer, but the overall design is cleaner and not nearly as busy as the CTS's...looks like Caddy tried to hard to make a busy BMW interior. Also note, that while not much in the interior of the Charger changes, the things that matter, like substantial sport seats are present and accounted for. And I agree that the the Caddy's seats look cheap in comparion, while the Charger's look solid. I do like the look of the CTS' steering wheel though.

Edited March 10, 200620 yr by Dodgefan

"CTS is a premium car, the Charger is not."

Sorry buddy, if the sticker says 44,000 then its a 'premium car', because that's a premium price and shoppers compare it accordly. Sorry, no pass, no exemption.

"CTS is a premium car, the Charger is not."

Sorry buddy, if the sticker says 44,000 then its a 'premium car', because that's a premium price and shoppers compare it accordly.  Sorry, no pass, no exemption.

It's one of those... "If you buy a Dodge, you end up with a Dodge, whereas if you buy a Cadillac, you don't."

Seeing as I actually own a CTS and I've rented a 300c. I can say that the touch on the Chryslers compaired to the Cadillac is fairly similar with a slight edge to the Cadillac.

As far as the "cheap seats"... what you can't really see in the pic is the suead insert. The regular seats in my CTS are extremely comfortable and fit me like a glove while still being firm. The comfort of the seat feel and seating position was a *major* selling point for me. I can make 7 hour trips without stopping and not be uncomfortable.

for those of you that think the GTo is a better looking acr on the previous fwe pages,

have you noticed how bland and how much the GTO looks like a cavalier! it is almost a rebadge!

for those of you that think the GTo is a better looking acr on the previous fwe pages,

have you noticed how bland and how much the GTO looks like a cavalier! it is almost a rebadge!

It looks nothing like a Cavalier. Not even close.

If you said it looked like a previous generation Grand Prix, I'd give ya that.

But that said...

remember when the boxy cars with big bold grills were so uncool?

and small grill, aero were in?

Now, the boxy \, big grill cars are in.....

and small grill, aero cars are out.

Edited March 11, 200620 yr by Oldsmoboi

Man, it's like going circles. The Dodge is not and never will be a premium car, you want one, buy the 300C SRT-8, or get the Caddy if that is what you wish. The Charger is in a different size class than the Caddy, and the extra money you pay for the SRT-8 Charger over the R/T is for the performance parts, not pretty plastic. Get over the damn interior. It could be worse, it could be the Grand Cherokee's hard plastic everywhere, yet somehow a lot of people don't mind that in that thread I started, hell some say the interior doesn't matter much. Yet here we are, talking about a PERFORMANCE car and people are instead focused on the bloody interior and how soft it is. It's not about if it's got baby-butt smooth materials inside, it's how well the car performs, hence, why it is a performance car and not a luxury car. Also, the interior materials aren't that bad to begin with.

And once again, a more fair comparison size wise is the STS-V VS the Charger SRT-8, and you cannot say that the STS-V is cheaper or anything like that (starts at 77k). Remember when you factor in money here that you factor in the size of the car. The CTS is closer to the Charger, but it is in a smaller size class, so it better not be much more expensive. I have nothing against the CTS or the GTO as a whole, i like them both, but at the same time, the arguements are stupid about which is better and why or why not the SRT-8 is a good value.

Also, it starts at 38k...so yeah, according to the SRT site at least, you can get it cheaper than 44k.

Compare perfromance specs not plastic, it's a performance car after all.

Edited March 11, 200620 yr by Dodgefan

Yes, this is getting very, very circular. Can't we just settle this over a nice warm cup of rice?

Compare perfromance specs not plastic, it's a performance car after all.

Nuh uh!!!

Doesn't work that way. If you're compairing performance cars, you have to compair important things like the quality of the plastic and legroom.

I "lost" an argument in another thread where I was trying to compair the CTS-v to the M5 and how the current CTS-v compaired favorably on the track to the old M5. I hypothisized that the NG CTS-v with 500HP would compair favorably to the M5.

The responses I got? The BMW is a better performer because of the dash plastic and front passenger legroom while ignoring the $25k price premium.

Edited March 11, 200620 yr by Oldsmoboi

Yes, this is getting very, very circular. Can't we just settle this over a nice warm cup of rice?

lol that thing looks silly

I "lost" an argument in another thread where I was trying to compair the CTS-v to the M5 and how the current CTS-v compaired favorably on the track to the old M5. I hypothisized that the NG CTS-v with 500HP would compair favorably to the M5.

I think you lost because you compared it to the M5. Maybe an M3 because the CTS is a 3-Series rival size-wise.

Nuh uh!!!

Doesn't work that way.  If you're compairing performance cars, you have to compair important things like the quality of the plastic and legroom.

I "lost" an argument in another thread where I was trying to compair the CTS-v to the M5 and how the current CTS-v compaired favorably on the track to the old M5. I hypothisized that the NG CTS-v with 500HP would compair favorably to the M5.

The responses I got? The BMW is a better performer because of the dash plastic and front passenger legroom while ignoring the $25k price premium.

lol bummer. But since legroom is apparently a factor, i think the Charger's got plenty more than the CTS So HAH all of you non-believers

Nuh uh!!!

Doesn't work that way.  If you're compairing performance cars, you have to compair important things like the quality of the plastic and legroom.

I "lost" an argument in another thread where I was trying to compair the CTS-v to the M5 and how the current CTS-v compaired favorably on the track to the old M5. I hypothisized that the NG CTS-v with 500HP would compair favorably to the M5.

The responses I got? The BMW is a better performer because of the dash plastic and front passenger legroom while ignoring the $25k price premium.

               

Nice to know you've seen the light.

I think you lost because you compared it to the M5. Maybe an M3 because the CTS is a 3-Series rival size-wise.

 

ARG!@@#$@#(

At least I know you're joking.

Nice to know you've seen the light. 

The light is from me beating my head on the brick. :fcvxplode: :fcvxplode:

It looks nothing like a Cavalier. Not even close.

If you said it looked like a previous generation Grand Prix, I'd give ya that.

But that said...

remember when the boxy cars with big bold grills were so uncool?

and small grill, aero were in?

Now, the boxy \, big grill cars are in.....

and small grill, aero cars are out.

please correct yourself, it's not 'boxy big grille car', its CHUNKY big grill car

Yes, this is getting very, very circular. Can't we just settle this over a nice warm cup of rice?

don't make me f-king burst out laughing like that! i might ruin a n-tsac that way!

GET WITH THE PROGRAM! HERE'S YOUR CUP OF WARM STARCH

Edited March 11, 200620 yr by regfootball

please correct yourself, it's not 'boxy big grille car', its CHUNKY big grill car

"I'm not fat, I'm pleasantly plump."

STOP IT MAN!!!!!! LOL

It's one of those... "If you buy a Dodge, you end up with a Dodge, whereas if you buy a Cadillac, you don't."

While I like the look, and style of the CTS-v interior, the Dodge has it solidly beat when it comes to materials, switchgear, and seats.

The responses I got? The BMW is a better performer because of the dash plastic and front passenger legroom while ignoring the $25k price premium.

                 

No....don't misinterpret.....

I think the point we were all making in the CTS-v/M5 thread is that the BMW seems to be WORTH a price premium over the CTS-v due to the execution of the interior materials, seating, roominess, yadda, yadda.

It was a bigger issue than just "dash plastic" and "legroom."

While I like the look, and style of the CTS-v interior, the Dodge has it solidly beat when it comes to materials, switchgear, and seats.

Oh God do I disagree in every way imaginable with this statement.

Oh God do I disagree in every way imaginable with this statement.

It's like deciding, between Ralf Schumacher or Michael Schumacher, which of the two is better looking.