Does the CTSv make it's advertised HP?
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally posted by Threxx
That's pretty disappointing to hear, but if the best anyone has ever run a CTS-v at the track is a low 13 then there's absolutely no way they're making 400 horsepower at that weight with a 6-speed manual.
I guess this'll make it a little easier for Lexus to compete with their redesign and release of the IS430 (ground-up redesign of the IS300 except now with the option of getting the 4.3L V8 w/ 350hp and a 6-speed manual), as well as for BMW to compete with their new M3.
That's pretty disappointing to hear, but if the best anyone has ever run a CTS-v at the track is a low 13 then there's absolutely no way they're making 400 horsepower at that weight with a 6-speed manual.
I guess this'll make it a little easier for Lexus to compete with their redesign and release of the IS430 (ground-up redesign of the IS300 except now with the option of getting the 4.3L V8 w/ 350hp and a 6-speed manual), as well as for BMW to compete with their new M3.
Plus the CTSv will be getting 500HP soon
IS430 will be too little too late.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by Chuck!
Poke around on some of the rest of that forum's messages. MORE and BMR are both claiming to be solving the wheel hop issues very quickly. MTI and Mallet already have tuner versions. The aftermarket is sprinting twards this car.
Poke around on some of the rest of that forum's messages. MORE and BMR are both claiming to be solving the wheel hop issues very quickly. MTI and Mallet already have tuner versions. The aftermarket is sprinting twards this car.
If only GM had spent the time and money to get the car right...2. I wonder what $20K in "aftermarket" could do for a Chrysler 300C?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,646
From: Portland, OR
Originally posted by redzed
1. The CTSv is one car that obviously needs some "aftermarket" attention to rectify its design faults. If only GM had spent the time and money to get the car right...
2. I wonder what $20K in "aftermarket" could do for a Chrysler 300C?
1. The CTSv is one car that obviously needs some "aftermarket" attention to rectify its design faults.
If only GM had spent the time and money to get the car right...2. I wonder what $20K in "aftermarket" could do for a Chrysler 300C?
Unless $20K get's me a stylish, rakish body, nothing can help the 300C.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally posted by redzed
1. The CTSv is one car that obviously needs some "aftermarket" attention to rectify its design faults. If only GM had spent the time and money to get the car right...
1. The CTSv is one car that obviously needs some "aftermarket" attention to rectify its design faults.
If only GM had spent the time and money to get the car right...
nice try
Originally posted by redzed
2. I wonder what $20K in "aftermarket" could do for a Chrysler 300C?
2. I wonder what $20K in "aftermarket" could do for a Chrysler 300C?
Last edited by Z28x; Jun 22, 2004 at 01:43 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,327
From: Hartford, CT
Originally posted by Aeromaks
well that answers why a 300c runs nearly similar times to a Caddy CTS-V. So now knowing and keeping that in mind.....
why on earth would anyone buy at 400hp caddy cts-v to have it put down no more than an fbody did? And when you can have for 15 to 20k less, a 300c loaded up the wazooo, more room, that runs nearly identical times.
well that answers why a 300c runs nearly similar times to a Caddy CTS-V. So now knowing and keeping that in mind.....
why on earth would anyone buy at 400hp caddy cts-v to have it put down no more than an fbody did? And when you can have for 15 to 20k less, a 300c loaded up the wazooo, more room, that runs nearly identical times.
I cant see the CTS-V being underrated if theyre trapping over 105mph. Do the math, LS1's on average trap between 105-108 stock and theyre 3-400lbs lighter. Does anyone know where private owner's et's can be found? I'd be interested to see what these "320-330rwhp cars" are doing at the track.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
I wonder what $20K in "aftermarket" could do for a Chrysler 300C?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,024
Originally posted by dream '94 Z28
What didn't they get right? I would not call not designing the IRS for optimum straight line launches a fault. I would suspect that was extremely low on the product specification list when you consider the target market.
What didn't they get right? I would not call not designing the IRS for optimum straight line launches a fault. I would suspect that was extremely low on the product specification list when you consider the target market.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Originally posted by redzed
That should do wonders for the axle hop problem.
That should do wonders for the axle hop problem.
this guy is.Well, 49K is definitely a large sum of money. In Canada they sell CTSv for 70,000. Other cars in this price range are (and I'm only going by MSRP):
1. Jaguar S-Type R $90,000 CDN $63, 000 USD
390 HP, SuperCharged 4.2 V8, 14.0 quarter mile
2. BMW M5 - not available, wait for next gen
BMW 545 $77,000 CDN $58,000 USD
325 HP, V8, 14.0+ quarter mile
3. BMW M3 - coupe only $74,000 CDN $47,000 USD
333 HP I6, mid-13 quarter mile
4. Audi S4 - smaller $72,000 CDN $46,000 USD
340 HP V8, mid-13 quarter mile
After this info, it seems to me CTSv fits just perfectly. What it does not make up in its nameplate, it definitely makes up in features compared to other vehicles (such as LS6 and performance).
Stop comparing this CTSv to a Cobra or Corvette. Speaking of which, they all have wheel hop. So what?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,646
From: Portland, OR
I'm haven't heard of the axle problems. But let's think about product planing for a second.
At $75K (XLR) the majority of the drivers (98%) are not going to want 320hp and rock solid clutches for great launches. That power is a bragging right, a status symbol, and is more often than not going to be called on when the vehicle is already in motion.
Stop thinking like a race car driver or enthusiast for a second and more of a conservative weathly male who doesn't drag race but rather enjoys 'sprirted driving'. That's the XLR's audience. More money could have been spent on the drivetrain, sure, but at the expense of interior materials and getting the clutch (I'm assuming) to be as sooth and light as possible.
At $75K (XLR) the majority of the drivers (98%) are not going to want 320hp and rock solid clutches for great launches. That power is a bragging right, a status symbol, and is more often than not going to be called on when the vehicle is already in motion.
Stop thinking like a race car driver or enthusiast for a second and more of a conservative weathly male who doesn't drag race but rather enjoys 'sprirted driving'. That's the XLR's audience. More money could have been spent on the drivetrain, sure, but at the expense of interior materials and getting the clutch (I'm assuming) to be as sooth and light as possible.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
Well I'd like to see the tq numbers as well. I'd also like to see the cars that were dynoed actually run some 1/4 mile passes. ET's and trap speed is worth much more than a big dyno sheet!
If these cars consistantly run low 13's with speeds over 107 like I've seen advertised then we really have no problem.
Any anyone who says a 300C thats running high 13's and trapping at 101-102 mph is "close" to the performance of a CTS-V running low 13's and trapped 5-6mph has not been behind the wheel of a car at the track. The difference between ET's is big enough to drive a bus thru..... not to mention the difference in trap speeds is litterally like someone running away from you.
At 3800 lbs if these cars were truly making 315-325 rwhp they wouldn't hit traps over 104 if they fell from the Sears Tower....
If these cars consistantly run low 13's with speeds over 107 like I've seen advertised then we really have no problem.
Any anyone who says a 300C thats running high 13's and trapping at 101-102 mph is "close" to the performance of a CTS-V running low 13's and trapped 5-6mph has not been behind the wheel of a car at the track. The difference between ET's is big enough to drive a bus thru..... not to mention the difference in trap speeds is litterally like someone running away from you.
At 3800 lbs if these cars were truly making 315-325 rwhp they wouldn't hit traps over 104 if they fell from the Sears Tower....
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
I could have sworn I've heard of the current-generation M3 running as fast as a 12.9 in the 1/4-mile, completely stock. Most run more like low 13s, though... but they are on average about neck 'n' neck with a C5 down the drag strip.
I'd also figure they'd have a considerable advantage over the CTS-V on the track because of their highly-touted chassis/suspension design (it was definitely a benchmark when it first came out, not sure about now though) as well as their several hundred pound lower weight.
But maybe not?
The M5 will most definitely be a CTS-V killer... but then again it should also be in a much higher price bracket, so it's not like they would be head to head competitors.
I'd also figure they'd have a considerable advantage over the CTS-V on the track because of their highly-touted chassis/suspension design (it was definitely a benchmark when it first came out, not sure about now though) as well as their several hundred pound lower weight.
But maybe not?
The M5 will most definitely be a CTS-V killer... but then again it should also be in a much higher price bracket, so it's not like they would be head to head competitors.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Most CTSv dynos I have found have been around 330RWHP (17.5% drivetrain loss??) They also had under 1000mi. It will be interesting to see what they dyno at 10,000mi.
Most M3s are about even with a LS1 Camaro, maybe a hair slower. The next M5 should be a lot faster than the CTSv since it is dumping the V8 in favor of a 500HP V10. of course it will also cost $90,000
Originally posted by Threxx
I could have sworn I've heard of the current-generation M3 running as fast as a 12.9 in the 1/4-mile, completely stock. Most run more like low 13s, though... but they are on average about neck 'n' neck with a C5 down the drag strip.
I'd also figure they'd have a considerable advantage over the CTS-V on the track because of their highly-touted chassis/suspension design (it was definitely a benchmark when it first came out, not sure about now though) as well as their several hundred pound lower weight.
But maybe not?
The M5 will most definitely be a CTS-V killer... but then again it should also be in a much higher price bracket, so it's not like they would be head to head competitors.
I could have sworn I've heard of the current-generation M3 running as fast as a 12.9 in the 1/4-mile, completely stock. Most run more like low 13s, though... but they are on average about neck 'n' neck with a C5 down the drag strip.
I'd also figure they'd have a considerable advantage over the CTS-V on the track because of their highly-touted chassis/suspension design (it was definitely a benchmark when it first came out, not sure about now though) as well as their several hundred pound lower weight.
But maybe not?
The M5 will most definitely be a CTS-V killer... but then again it should also be in a much higher price bracket, so it's not like they would be head to head competitors.