CTS-V vs Audi S8
08-22-2016, 08:06 AM
#1
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTS-V vs Audi S8 Okay so am I missing something here? I know the Audi has a claimed 44 more hp but I dont think that'd make over a second difference in ET, and if it did the 10+ MPH trap difference isn't making sense either. Maybe the LSA was heatsoaked?
either way that Limousine hauled the mail. It looks like he jumps the first one but the second one they leave about the same time.
either way that Limousine hauled the mail. It looks like he jumps the first one but the second one they leave about the same time.
08-22-2016, 08:52 AM
#3
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah that's what I was thinking. For the 16' model year Audi released the S8+ which has 605 hp stock but weighs in the 4300+ range. I'm thinking the lighter V even with a 49 hp deficeit should be trapping similar speeds even if it can't leave with the Audi
08-22-2016, 11:17 AM
#6
Staging Lane
A AWD, tuned twin turbo S8 that no doubt makes 600+WHP, verse a stock CTS-V that probably makes 480-500rwhp and the results make sense. Now lets even the playing field and do full pulley swap on the V and see how it does then.
08-22-2016, 11:21 AM
#7
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idk man, the caddy has a 300 ibs weight advantage and the Audi is only claiming 600 Flywheel HP. AWD gives you a traction advantage but the trap speeds are just as far apart as the ET's.
Trending Topics
08-22-2016, 11:23 AM
#8
S8 is almost $50k more expensive and has a tune... not exactly a fair comparo.
Tune the CTSV and launch it correctly and it would be a very close race if not have the V take the lead. Launching the CTSV is a pain, if the owner didn't do the hidden button tap then he probably started in second and bogged the engine off the line.
Tune the CTSV and launch it correctly and it would be a very close race if not have the V take the lead. Launching the CTSV is a pain, if the owner didn't do the hidden button tap then he probably started in second and bogged the engine off the line.
08-22-2016, 11:26 AM
#9
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This particular one seems to be having technical difficulties. Motortrend clocked a stock S8 at 11.7 @ 118.5, weighing in at 4685 ibs. This was a 2013 example and it had "only" 520 hp.
So if the V was weighing in at 4300 and had 36 more hp, I would expect it to maybe not run an 11.7 but trap atleast 118-119 or faster since it is lighter and has more power.
So if the V was weighing in at 4300 and had 36 more hp, I would expect it to maybe not run an 11.7 but trap atleast 118-119 or faster since it is lighter and has more power.
08-22-2016, 11:29 AM
#10
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S8 is almost $50k more expensive and has a tune... not exactly a fair comparo.
Tune the CTSV and launch it correctly and it would be a very close race if not have the V take the lead. Launching the CTSV is a pain, if the owner didn't do the hidden button tap then he probably started in second and bogged the engine off the line.
Tune the CTSV and launch it correctly and it would be a very close race if not have the V take the lead. Launching the CTSV is a pain, if the owner didn't do the hidden button tap then he probably started in second and bogged the engine off the line.
The CTS-V is more in line with the RS7 as far as size, weight, and power. The S8 got only 520 hp until the S8+ came out with 605. RS7 has 552 unless its the RS7 Performance.
What would have to be done to the CTS to get it to do a 10.65? APR has an RS7 with a tune and exhaust doing 10.6-10.7's
08-22-2016, 11:36 AM
#11
Staging Lane
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Clear Lake Tx
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see a 50 roll. Audi has the advantage because of awd. V2's are not super impressive bone stock, They wake the Hell up though with pulleys, cam, headers, and a tune. This outcome makes perfect sense
08-22-2016, 11:39 AM
#12
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I expected the Audi to run a better ET. Based on the trap speed, I think a 50 roll would be much of the same story here.
08-22-2016, 01:31 PM
#13
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That V isn't running anywhere near the times it should. Stock I was running 12.1@116 with 1.79 60'. I've seen guys at better tracks/conditions run high 11's. Unless that track was at 9000+ DA I can't see an 12.7 out of a stock V.
A tune on a turbo car can be HUGE.
This is from APR Tuning's website.
"The APR Stage I ECU Upgrade requires no hardware modifications and is available with 646-692 HP and 656-713 FT-LBS of torque, depending on octane. Gains as high at +121-171 HP and +134-191 FT-LBS of torque are available throughout the power band!"
A tune on a turbo car can be HUGE.
This is from APR Tuning's website.
"The APR Stage I ECU Upgrade requires no hardware modifications and is available with 646-692 HP and 656-713 FT-LBS of torque, depending on octane. Gains as high at +121-171 HP and +134-191 FT-LBS of torque are available throughout the power band!"
08-22-2016, 10:52 PM
#14
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: heading South East on Bakalakadaka street
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
V2 owner couldn't drive to save his life, but V2 wasn't going to trap 120+ stock. idgaf what anyone says here. Second run he did better, but still ****. Seen V2s run very low 12s stock @ like 116
Audi's AWD system and better driver took the win.
Audi's AWD system and better driver took the win.
08-23-2016, 06:21 AM
#15
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question is that they are claiming only 44 more HP than the V has stock. I know its tuned but they are saying "600 HP". If that is the case then the V should run dead even or at least trap even being some 300 ibs lighter.
So the V is either over rated or this audi is severely under rated.
08-23-2016, 08:09 AM
#16
Staging Lane
More along the lines of what I was thinking as well. I Think there was something left in the V, but not enough to trap 123-124 MPH or go low 11's.
My question is that they are claiming only 44 more HP than the V has stock. I know its tuned but they are saying "600 HP". If that is the case then the V should run dead even or at least trap even being some 300 ibs lighter.
So the V is either over rated or this audi is severely under rated.
My question is that they are claiming only 44 more HP than the V has stock. I know its tuned but they are saying "600 HP". If that is the case then the V should run dead even or at least trap even being some 300 ibs lighter.
So the V is either over rated or this audi is severely under rated.
08-23-2016, 09:36 AM
#17
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Claim 80hp increase and cuts half a second and gains 4ish mph, that sounds about right based on the stock baseline, unless both claims of stock and tuned is under rated.
Either way stock for stock the Audi is quicker and FASTER, to me that doesn't make sense because the V is lighter and more powerful. AWD only makes up for quicker not faster.
08-23-2016, 02:58 PM
#18
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely. However it was only rated at 520 stock and has a 300 ibs weight disadvantage. I posted the stock 11.70 @ 118.5 and guys are saying that a good running stock V is a 12.1 car at 116.
Claim 80hp increase and cuts half a second and gains 4ish mph, that sounds about right based on the stock baseline, unless both claims of stock and tuned is under rated.
Either way stock for stock the Audi is quicker and FASTER, to me that doesn't make sense because the V is lighter and more powerful. AWD only makes up for quicker not faster.
Claim 80hp increase and cuts half a second and gains 4ish mph, that sounds about right based on the stock baseline, unless both claims of stock and tuned is under rated.
Either way stock for stock the Audi is quicker and FASTER, to me that doesn't make sense because the V is lighter and more powerful. AWD only makes up for quicker not faster.
08-23-2016, 09:40 PM
#19
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: heading South East on Bakalakadaka street
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
S8 is almost $50k more expensive and has a tune... not exactly a fair comparo.
Tune the CTSV and launch it correctly and it would be a very close race if not have the V take the lead. Launching the CTSV is a pain, if the owner didn't do the hidden button tap then he probably started in second and bogged the engine off the line.
Tune the CTSV and launch it correctly and it would be a very close race if not have the V take the lead. Launching the CTSV is a pain, if the owner didn't do the hidden button tap then he probably started in second and bogged the engine off the line.
More along the lines of what I was thinking as well. I Think there was something left in the V, but not enough to trap 123-124 MPH or go low 11's.
My question is that they are claiming only 44 more HP than the V has stock. I know its tuned but they are saying "600 HP". If that is the case then the V should run dead even or at least trap even being some 300 ibs lighter.
So the V is either over rated or this audi is severely under rated.
My question is that they are claiming only 44 more HP than the V has stock. I know its tuned but they are saying "600 HP". If that is the case then the V should run dead even or at least trap even being some 300 ibs lighter.
So the V is either over rated or this audi is severely under rated.
Everyone amazed at the Audi gapping the V... No one buys 2 dynamometers and then lines them side by side to see who can beat the other guy's numbers. LOL '600hp' means ****. That was an estimation. Audi prob had bolt ons, tune, spray who the hell knows at the end of the day.
Very easily could have been 600whp, but i'd be sad if I had 600whp and trapped 123.
08-23-2016, 09:51 PM
#20
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stock CTS-V2 makes around 440-460. Anything higher than that is most likely just happy dyno. Doubt a stocker will pull 500whp unless someones tweaking the numbers one way or another.
300# advantage, but that trap is def in the Audi's favor regardless. No one knows the Audi's real numbers, considering its modified. Thats the thing.
Its a modded vs stock race, with the modded car being more expensive either way. it wasn't exactly a fair comparo from the start. V2 would pick up with mods, for sure.
Prob bit of both. V2 makes 556hp, but the weight hits it a bit for it to trap around 116 or so. Thats not necessarily overrated but its not trapping 120+ stock like some might think. Audi isn't stock, which is the issue. Audi is modified so we don't know official numbers for that specific one. "600hp" can be an estimation, it can be WHP, it can be a guess at crank, etc.
Sounds about right. All these dyno numbers don't mean **** at the end of the day because the trap and how the car responds on the street/track/racing is where it matters. That 600 is a guess...
Everyone amazed at the Audi gapping the V... No one buys 2 dynamometers and then lines them side by side to see who can beat the other guy's numbers. LOL '600hp' means ****. That was an estimation. Audi prob had bolt ons, tune, spray who the hell knows at the end of the day.
Very easily could have been 600whp, but i'd be sad if I had 600whp and trapped 123.
300# advantage, but that trap is def in the Audi's favor regardless. No one knows the Audi's real numbers, considering its modified. Thats the thing.
Its a modded vs stock race, with the modded car being more expensive either way. it wasn't exactly a fair comparo from the start. V2 would pick up with mods, for sure.
Prob bit of both. V2 makes 556hp, but the weight hits it a bit for it to trap around 116 or so. Thats not necessarily overrated but its not trapping 120+ stock like some might think. Audi isn't stock, which is the issue. Audi is modified so we don't know official numbers for that specific one. "600hp" can be an estimation, it can be WHP, it can be a guess at crank, etc.
Sounds about right. All these dyno numbers don't mean **** at the end of the day because the trap and how the car responds on the street/track/racing is where it matters. That 600 is a guess...
Everyone amazed at the Audi gapping the V... No one buys 2 dynamometers and then lines them side by side to see who can beat the other guy's numbers. LOL '600hp' means ****. That was an estimation. Audi prob had bolt ons, tune, spray who the hell knows at the end of the day.
Very easily could have been 600whp, but i'd be sad if I had 600whp and trapped 123.
