Comparing 300C SRT-8 and CTS-V

[Bruce Nunnally]

Autoblog.com has a nice article on a 800hp CTS-V conversion here:

http://sedans.autoblog.com/2007/03/09/cadd...rcharged-cts-v/

One of the complaints about the car is that several less expensive vehicles offer nearly as good or better performance at a lower price point (Chrysler 300C SRT-8, to name one), or that the cars GM identifies as real competition for the Caddy offer a much higher level of refinement and often better performance, albeit at twice the price in some cases (Think M3 and RS4 here). But the vehicle soldiers on, holding its head moderately high.

Which of course sent me off to price a 300C SRT-8. Now, although my experience with buying/owning chrysler cars has been abysmal, they perhaps due to the Daimler influence have improved. I follow the 300C boards sometimes. There are nice mods and performance parts for the SRT-8 setup, especially because Chrysler puts the same engine in multiple applications, and the tuning shops can tune for it (PLEASE Cadillac release the NS and 3.6L PCMs!!! No Tuning, No Peace!)

Anyway, the CTS-V comes one way, basically no options, for $53,370, including nav and sunroof.

The 300C if you pick the SRT-8 model, then nav, and sunroof, and side airbags, and stereo upgrade to match the CTS-V features, is $47,050.

I did not include cash allowances/dealer holdbacks/dealer cash for either model, although the Chrysler site points out that they are discounting by at least $2500 right now.

Although the 300C is heavier than the CTS-V, the two cars have very similar straight line performance. The SRT-8 actually puts down a little better than the 425hp advertised; the CTS-V tends to dyno slightly worse than the 400hp advertised (due to Cadillac quiet exhaust, noise restrictions?). The CTS-V gets the nod in the corners or on the track, although the 300C is no pig either.

You can only get the CTS-V with a 6-speed manual; you can only get the 300C with an automatic. I think now that Cadillac has a 6-speed auto (in the STS-V and XLR-V) that can take the torque they should give in and offer the CTS-V with an auto also.

In terms of mods, the LS2 in the CTS-V has a huge aftermarket and tons of go-fast potential. One example is the 800hp aftermarket car in the autoblog write-up.

My conclusion? Yes, the CTS-V costs $6K more, but it is not like the CTS-V costs $53K and the 300C is 30 or 35K. They both cost near $50K.

The 300C's appear to be nice cars, especially when heavily discounted. The CTS-V would be a better fit at my house (if I can convince my Wife she never drives my car anyway, so a stick is no problem), but the 300C is a respectable choice.

[Bruce Nunnally]

Interestingly, the autoblog entry on 3/9 is a reference to the gminsidenews post on 3/8 about a GmHighPerformance Magazine article. That article was cited here on Caddyinfo on Feb 23, over a week earlier:

http://caddyinfo.ipbhost.com/index.php?sho...c=12785&hl=

I thought it sounded familiar, but there are a lot of high-hp modified CTS-V's running around.

[JasonA]

Now, although my experience with buying/owning chrysler cars has been abysmal, they perhaps due to the Daimler influence have improved.

Not to run this thread off-course, but most of us in the Chrysler realm think it the other way. Chrysler was one of the most profitable auto companies in the late 1990s, had an excellent and popular product line, and was well on track to become a great company again. Daimler needed cash and bought Chrysler and stripped it of most of its dignity. Most of the product has declined since the late 1990s, especially the interiors. They're all ABS plastic now. It's really bad. The minivans are the last holdout, but they're revised in 2008 and have plasticy interiors now.

Now Daimler may be looking to throw Chrysler away; its stripped all the resources it can I guess. Dieter Zetche was quoted as saying something like, "yes, there's a lot of press about Chrysler right now, but DC does have some good news out of it; the Mercedes-Benz brand has really turned around and has posted profitable records."

Uh...yeah...right.

[Bruce Nunnally]

Yes, it may turn out the whole thing was the opening of negotiations with the union.

The last statements were that they want to sell the whole thing, not in parts, and not with Jeep separate. Also that they are showing perspective buyers their future vehicle plans/models, as well as the books, which does make it sound like they are selling to me.

[Cadillac Jim]

It does sound to me very much like Chrysler is in play. This is a difficult thing to behold, an American Great, one of the Big Three, with about as much control over its fate as a volleyball in Seal Beach. Most stable corporations are actually controlled by large shareholders and big changes in the board of directors that must accompany major structural changes or sales are buffered by majority owners with a long view of things. An example of what can happen if this isn't so is Hughes Aircraft.

Hughes Aircraft evolved from an outfitting company that Howard used for his toy shop until WW II, when Howard's contacts, patriotism, and willingness to invest his movie and family money in high-tech defense products generated a strong defense aerospace division that dominated the company after Howard's debilitating injuries in a 1948 crash as a test pilot. Howard put all his holdings under an umbrella company whose mission was finding a cure for his medical problems. After he died, the Hughes Medical Foundation immediately sold Hughes Aircraft to move its holdings to investments with higher cash flow to assets ratio. GM bought Hughes and transferred much of its electronics and systems engineering technology to GM, and we are all the beneficiaries of that. But, GM found after a decade that half it's investments were part of Hughes while only about 15% of its cash flow was from Hughes, and it needed to divest Hughes to raise its stock price. The result is that the major part of Hughes was bought by Raytheon, a company half its size, which needed to co-opt another purchaser if its principal rival but couldn't afford the deal financially. Most of the rest went to Boeing, and only DirecTV is left, and even that is in play.

I very much hope that Chrysler finds a white knight in an investor group or its unions. I think that GM will co-opt a purchaser such as Toyota/Renault or whatever but would not merge the companies with the view to spinning off Chrysler on it's own to a white knight to be determined as appropriate. Common sense tells me that the merger would be motivated on the GM side by a plan more like liquidating overlapping functions of one company or the other, with the effect on the workforce of liquidating a complete car company. The SEC would not likely approve such a plan. A plan involving some technology transfer with a well-defined milestone of spinning off Chrysler as an independent company would likely get SEC approval if the future spinoff had really good credibility, but it's unlikely that GM could present this plan to its investors as anything other than a sacrifice to prevent Chrysler from falling into the hands of a predatory foreign entity or a Government-mandated deal to prevent a slash-and-burn investor like Krikorian from gutting or even liquidating Chrysler.

[GreenMachine]

Honestly this isn't my first comparison, the 300C SRT-8 is much larger than the CTS (at least looks that way). I think the 2010 move of the DTS to RWD will more squarely compete with the SRT-8...well not really, I think Cadillac is looking up on competition now "down" so to speak, so they are going after the Mercedes while Chevy or Buick can come up with something to fight Chrysler.

[Chris]

...it's unlikely that GM could present this plan to its investors as anything other than a sacrifice to prevent Chrysler from falling into the hands of a predatory foreign entity or a Government-mandated deal to prevent a slash-and-burn investor like Krikorian from gutting or even liquidating Chrysler.

I never really thought GM taking on Chrysler was feasible until someone told me about a news article at work this week. Apparently there is talk that with GM owning Chrysler, they would have much, much more leverage with the UAW/CAW. There is a better article out there somewhere, but this sums it up by the Windsor Star:

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/sto...900&k=10304

PENSION, HEALTH CARE LIABILITIES

David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, said he, too, didn't think the acquisition would take place.

But he said the major issue of pension and health care liabilities for unionized retirees could be addressed if the companies combined. GM and Chrysler could reach a settlement with the United Auto Workers union similar to what Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. reached with the United Steelworkers union.

Goodyear got rid of its liabilities by paying $1 billion into a union-run trust fund.

"If you fold their legacy costs together," Cole said, "you might be able to save enough on your long-term contingent liabilities on health care and pensions to pay for the whole thing."

GM has said its potential retiree health care liability is $50 billion. Stephen Cheetham, senior research analyst for European autos at Sanford C. Bernstein Ltd. in London, estimated those liabilities for Chrysler at $21 billion.