http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=100217

First, look at the wonderful press the car got.

Second, Mallet did much of the work.

Third, does GM own one of these cars yet?

Fourth, if no, WHY?

Fifth, what's it gonna take for GM to sell a car just like this in concept in STS, CTS and XLR formats? Not just a 400hp variant like CTSv, but a fire-breathing monster of a car that devours the Autobahn in vast gulps.

Sixth, it better dawn on someone at GM that this is a HUGE advantage relative to BMW - the availability and ease of sending the car to an aftermarket shop to give it a stout bump in performance.

Now, GM needs to go out and buy TWO of them... a 471hp version and the twin-turbo monster CTSv and send them both to the magazines for a little game of "German smackdown". Then have a full-tilt STS built...

GET THE WORD OUT!!! CTSv vs. M3 = dead Bayerische Mistwagen.

Have a tagline like:

Cadillac CTSv...

Everything else is prey.


PS - That tagline is Suzuki's, referring to the Hayabusa.

 

You've stumbled on the reason why Ferrari can make 420hp out of a 3.6L V8 and Porsche can make 380 out of a 3.6L flat 6.

Individual craftsmen hand build these engines which includes blueprinting the motor and hand porting the heads and massaging other components

What your asking for is that GM start up a craftsman engine building center, where $5000 engines become $20000 engines.

Don't know if GM or Ford is ready for that step yet.

 

Tell that to a group of UAW workers in Wixom, MI. Do some reading in this forum, it's amazing what you will learn...

 

Ford already hand builds their Cobra and GT motors.

 

I was beat too it, but GM and Ford hand make certain high end motors.

 

It's not just the hand-building that enables these motors to make that much power. A mass-marketer like GM also has to be concerned with fuel economy, emissions, reliability, durabilty, etc. I doubt that cars such as Mallett's cars would meet GM's standards in this regard.

 

Not quite the same. They may assemble the mass produced components by hand into an engine, but they don't blueprint or port or file to fit anything. That's where the power comes from. They don't shim valvesprings to exact seat pressures or index cams for max power. Once your willing to do that, you can run an even bigger cam and make even more power.

Stock class racers do the same thing. Rules say that the motor has to be stock. But they find 50-100hp in small blocks by rebuilding them to exact specs. That's with a stock cam and no porting of heads.

The costs of this are prohibitive outside of an outfit like Porsche or the Italians.

 

lol , those cams are far from stock . Stock lift #'s ...yes , all else is do as you please

People building these higher end engines is not the reason they can make more power . Blueprinting and engine will do ALOT more for durablity over a long period than simply make more power . Those baby motors have great flowing heads , 4 valves per cylinder , and 4 cams and rev in some cases to 9K rpm . Its much easier to make alot more power with alot less cubes DOHC engine .

 

I, for one, will take the machine built engine every time, thank you very much.

The reason these motors are being handbuilt is because they don't have enough volume to justify automation, not some deep-rooted idealism about hand-built engines being better.

 

My Camaro Club is hired to drive the cars in the Corvette auction at Bloomington Gold, every year.

I had the opportunity to spend about 45 minutes driving one of the auction cars...a Mallet C5 putting out well in excess of 500 hp. The catch? I had to drive under 10 mph.

What would you call that????.....I think the term is BLUE *****.

 

I tend to agree with PX here. GM's engine plants are simply not structured to run off limited production motors. It's one thing to vary cam specs and exhaust manifolds on...for example...an LS2. It's another thing to assemble a completely specific motor like the LS7.

Without Wixom, I don't believe the LS7 could be assimilated into GM's powertrain system.