CTS-V vs WS_6
01-22-2005, 12:27 PM
#1
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Plano
Posts: 944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTS-V vs WS_6 are they sure about 400hp????? cuz i just raced one from 50-110 and i pulled on him...maybe 1-2 cars lengths..... im very disappointed...... 
01-22-2005, 12:38 PM
#2
Originally Posted by TX_SS
are they sure about 400hp????? cuz i just raced one from 50-110 and i pulled on him...maybe 1-2 cars lengths..... im very disappointed......
01-22-2005, 02:53 PM
#5
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I drove my 03 Cobra from the Carolinas to Fla for the Holidays and I had one jump on me in AL coming out of a small town on a four lane road. I wasn't expecting him to run. I was in sixth going 50 when got the jump on me and pulled about two cars before I shifted down to fourth. It was my first race with the KB. I walked his *** so bad the only way I could estimate it would be about four Greyhound bus lengths to 140. He couldn't hang with a stock 03.
01-22-2005, 09:05 PM
#6
Teching In
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm I thought they were putting down like around 340 hp, consistantly? I remember a few at MORE Performance that were fitted with just a CAI made by MORE were making over 360 hp. I remember cause I felt sad about my car's power. 
01-22-2005, 09:06 PM
#7
Originally Posted by C5HellRod
Hmm I thought they were putting down like around 340 hp, consistantly? I remember a few at MORE Performance that were fitted with just a CAI made by MORE were making over 360 hp. I remember cause I felt sad about my car's power.
Trending Topics
01-22-2005, 09:25 PM
#8
Teching In
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gloveperson
01-27-2005, 12:57 PM
#10
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by baldurann
Maybe they get a lot of drivetrain loss. Also, they are pigs 
I realize that I did not have a WS-6, but they are not that much quicker than a stock T/A. Don't get me wrong, the Trans-Am and the "V" are both great cars, but they are very similar in straight-line performance - as for being a "pig", the "V" does out-weigh the T/A, but not by all that much. Also, after about 3,000 miles on the engine the "V" seemed to really come alive (of course a Corsa cat-back exhaust system didn't hurt!) In all, I love my "V", I also loved my Trans-Am, but I wanted room, luxury and performance without spending $75-$85,000, and, with the CTS-V I got it ...... by the way, Motor Trend timed the "V" 4.7 sec 0-60 - not shabby for a performance sedan!
01-27-2005, 02:04 PM
#12
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NICKYV
I traded in my '99 M-6 Trans-Am (non-WS6) for my '05 CTS-V and I can tell you for a fact that the "V" is quicker than the T/A, not to mention that the "V" will out-handle the T/A in any situation. I got rid of my Trans-Am very reluctantly, I loved that car, but I just "grew out" of it.
I realize that I did not have a WS-6, but they are not that much quicker than a stock T/A. Don't get me wrong, the Trans-Am and the "V" are both great cars, but they are very similar in straight-line performance - as for being a "pig", the "V" does out-weigh the T/A, but not by all that much. Also, after about 3,000 miles on the engine the "V" seemed to really come alive (of course a Corsa cat-back exhaust system didn't hurt!) In all, I love my "V", I also loved my Trans-Am, but I wanted room, luxury and performance without spending $75-$85,000, and, with the CTS-V I got it ...... by the way, Motor Trend timed the "V" 4.7 sec 0-60 - not shabby for a performance sedan!
I realize that I did not have a WS-6, but they are not that much quicker than a stock T/A. Don't get me wrong, the Trans-Am and the "V" are both great cars, but they are very similar in straight-line performance - as for being a "pig", the "V" does out-weigh the T/A, but not by all that much. Also, after about 3,000 miles on the engine the "V" seemed to really come alive (of course a Corsa cat-back exhaust system didn't hurt!) In all, I love my "V", I also loved my Trans-Am, but I wanted room, luxury and performance without spending $75-$85,000, and, with the CTS-V I got it ...... by the way, Motor Trend timed the "V" 4.7 sec 0-60 - not shabby for a performance sedan!
Luxury. Yes, I bet.
But I have too much love for my WS6 and I guess at 37 yrs of age I have not grown up yet.
The CTS-V is a nice car and should put the M5 in it's place. However, I still cannot get past the feeling and performance of my WS6.
01-27-2005, 11:48 PM
#13
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: OKC
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NICKYV
I traded in my '99 M-6 Trans-Am (non-WS6) for my '05 CTS-V and I can tell you for a fact that the "V" is quicker than the T/A, not to mention that the "V" will out-handle the T/A in any situation.
as for being a "pig", the "V" does out-weigh the T/A, but not by all that much.
as for being a "pig", the "V" does out-weigh the T/A, but not by all that much.
Doesn't your car weigh around 3850 lbs?? That's the weight I'm finding with spec searches. 400 lbs seems like quite a bit.
I've taken a ride in an Evo. It feels quicker, but is it really
01-28-2005, 07:22 AM
#14
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Plano
Posts: 944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 02Warbird
Doesn't your car weigh around 3850 lbs?? That's the weight I'm finding with spec searches. 400 lbs seems like quite a bit.
I've taken a ride in an Evo. It feels quicker, but is it really
I've taken a ride in an Evo. It feels quicker, but is it really