CTS-V vs. M3 on the Track
05-06-2010, 04:30 PM
#22
TECH Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Gillette, WY
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-06-2010, 08:01 PM
#23
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Riverview,Fl
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-08-2010, 12:04 AM
#24
TECH Addict
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Where the Navy tells me to go
Posts: 2,403
Received 106 Likes
on
88 Posts
I'd say get the best of both worlds. Pick up an E36 M3 and drop an LSx and T56 in it . 
Although it's not my primary track car, I've done a few track days in the V. It's definitely a very capable car, but there's no escaping that it weighs 4000#+ with driver. It's also hard to put anything close to decent sized rubber under it. Vorshlag runs 18x10.5" wheels all around on their E46 cars. All that extra rubber + a 10%+ weight advantage adds up to a lot. The only way the V stays close is by HP/TQ. (Not that there's anything wrong with that! :p)
I guess you didn't leave the Rota hatred behind when you left the Subaru community. 
I'm curious, what about Rotas makes them crappy?
Is it funny because they think a slalom has cones 250ft apart so that even a monkey could drive through them at WOT the whole way?
Although it's not my primary track car, I've done a few track days in the V. It's definitely a very capable car, but there's no escaping that it weighs 4000#+ with driver. It's also hard to put anything close to decent sized rubber under it. Vorshlag runs 18x10.5" wheels all around on their E46 cars. All that extra rubber + a 10%+ weight advantage adds up to a lot. The only way the V stays close is by HP/TQ. (Not that there's anything wrong with that! :p)
I'm curious, what about Rotas makes them crappy?Is it funny because they think a slalom has cones 250ft apart so that even a monkey could drive through them at WOT the whole way?
Last edited by smokinHawk; 05-13-2010 at 02:51 PM. Reason: nonsponser url
05-08-2010, 08:21 AM
#25
Say goodbye to 3500 lb sedans. Even the E9 series of the M3 is hefty compared to years gone bye. That being said, these newer heavier models often out perform their predecessors. The new stars on the track like the GTR the V2 are over 4K and they go like stink. The Porsche Panamera turbo is a damn 4800 lb car that gets to 60 in less than 4 seconds and beats the V2 at the ring. WTF is that all about jeeez. Aston Martin DB9 is 3880. Jaguar XFR 4300. BMW M5 4000. The list goes on an on. I stopped worrying about it.
05-08-2010, 09:10 AM
#26
Accelerating all that weight is really the easy part. Slowing and turning all that weight is altogether different.
Low power with low weight will outperform big power and big weight, even though their HP to WT ratios are the same.
Intertia rules ...
Low power with low weight will outperform big power and big weight, even though their HP to WT ratios are the same.
Intertia rules ...
05-08-2010, 09:21 AM
#27
Exactly! Recently advances in brakes and tire technology along with innovative chassis design have made heavier cars perform better which has narrowed the gap, but in the long run you are 100% correct. Inertia does rule.
05-08-2010, 10:01 AM
#28
[/QUOTE]Is it funny because they think a slalom has cones 250ft apart so that even a monkey could drive through them at WOT the whole way?[/QUOTE]
Geezzzz... way to poop on my perade buddy! Oh well, mind passing over the hateraid?
V's are gay! Who the hell would want to buy a 4k lbs boat anyways? Only way those rust buckets could get down a track is behind a tow truck! Freakin rust buckets! P.s. thanks for the hateraid! Lolz.... jk
Geezzzz... way to poop on my perade buddy! Oh well, mind passing over the hateraid?
V's are gay! Who the hell would want to buy a 4k lbs boat anyways? Only way those rust buckets could get down a track is behind a tow truck! Freakin rust buckets! P.s. thanks for the hateraid! Lolz.... jk
05-08-2010, 11:37 AM
#29
TECH Addict
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Where the Navy tells me to go
Posts: 2,403
Received 106 Likes
on
88 Posts
Even without the LSx conversion, it's still a very quick, very capable car on track.That being said, these newer heavier models often out perform their predecessors. The new stars on the track like the GTR the V2 are over 4K and they go like stink. The Porsche Panamera turbo is a damn 4800 lb car that gets to 60 in less than 4 seconds and beats the V2 at the ring. WTF is that all about jeeez. Aston Martin DB9 is 3880. Jaguar XFR 4300. BMW M5 4000. The list goes on an on. I stopped worrying about it.
(On the subject of amazing 'Ring performances, my favorite is the Maybach 57S. The thing weighs like 6000# and matched the Porsche Cayman S around the 'Ring. That's just ******* crazy!
)
05-08-2010, 12:29 PM
#32
power to weight ratio is a insight to acceleration, nothing to do with how a car will turn laps around a track.
05-08-2010, 02:41 PM
#33
Just my BS opinion 
A car will be fastest when the steering wheel is not being turned. The faster you get through the turns the more time you spend going the fastest on the straightaways. When you get there you better be able to go fast. If power to weight gets you out of a turn faster it's an advantage. Lighweight cars are not always the fast cars. Cars that can brake short, manage weight transfer well (handle), and can haul the mail down the straights are going to turn in the best times. Lighweight cars have the capability to brake and transfer weight better than heavier cars. But....if they can't get the job done on the fastest parts of the course, the straightaways, lightweight won't help. They don't have to be the fastest car on the straights, just not slow. I read a book by Ross Bentley called Speed Secrets that said races can't be won in the turns but they can be lost there. I like AAIIICs idea of a LS powered E36. The best of both worlds.
A car will be fastest when the steering wheel is not being turned. The faster you get through the turns the more time you spend going the fastest on the straightaways. When you get there you better be able to go fast. If power to weight gets you out of a turn faster it's an advantage. Lighweight cars are not always the fast cars. Cars that can brake short, manage weight transfer well (handle), and can haul the mail down the straights are going to turn in the best times. Lighweight cars have the capability to brake and transfer weight better than heavier cars. But....if they can't get the job done on the fastest parts of the course, the straightaways, lightweight won't help. They don't have to be the fastest car on the straights, just not slow. I read a book by Ross Bentley called Speed Secrets that said races can't be won in the turns but they can be lost there. I like AAIIICs idea of a LS powered E36. The best of both worlds.
Last edited by Big Bu Bu; 05-08-2010 at 02:47 PM.
05-08-2010, 06:33 PM
#34
TECH Addict
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Where the Navy tells me to go
Posts: 2,403
Received 106 Likes
on
88 Posts
Well, we can go one better - an LS powered E30! 
414whp and all the torque that goes with it in a 2300# car. Thing must be a frickin' rocket.
414whp and all the torque that goes with it in a 2300# car. Thing must be a frickin' rocket.
05-10-2010, 11:06 AM
#35
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have actually considered doing an lsx e36, it would be a great option for track duty but I fear daily driving would be not so fun. I was at the track Friday and Saturday this week for some great racing and learned a few things about weight. I was the engineer for two built e36 cars racing in ITE with a field of about 15 other cars. My cars qualified 2nd and 3rd and finished 2nd and 3rd on Saturday. The car that won was a 4 cylinder e36! The engines in our cars were stock internals and the 4 banger was "built" but the weight savings with the 4 cylinder was what helped it stay in front. Even on the back straight it was nearly the same speed as our cars, so once it got in the twisty sections it would pull away. I was very surprised especially with the elevation changes on the track that our extra displacement should have helped take the edge.
Hopefully I get some more interest in my Forester this week and get it gone so I can go forward with picking a car. The cts-v is cheaper for me in every way from insurance to registration so it's is starting to gain a lead
As for the Rota hatred, I actually have had several sets and currently have a set on my Forester. They look good and the price is right but they are heavy and take lots of weight to balance. When I balance a set of new Rota's and they take a butt load of weight that means poor build quality. A good set of wheels like SSR's or CCW's take around .25 to .5 oz's total which is nothing.
Hopefully I get some more interest in my Forester this week and get it gone so I can go forward with picking a car. The cts-v is cheaper for me in every way from insurance to registration so it's is starting to gain a lead
As for the Rota hatred, I actually have had several sets and currently have a set on my Forester. They look good and the price is right but they are heavy and take lots of weight to balance. When I balance a set of new Rota's and they take a butt load of weight that means poor build quality. A good set of wheels like SSR's or CCW's take around .25 to .5 oz's total which is nothing.
Last edited by kbahus; 05-10-2010 at 11:17 AM.
05-10-2010, 08:35 PM
#36
TECH Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Gillette, WY
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you're telling me that a high hp/tq car that can accelerate much better than a low hp/tq car (or in the case of an e46 m3, you have to rev that thing to the moon to make any tq, and really how often are you in the 6000-8000 rpm range) will not be faster around a track. Doesn't acceleration matter when coming out of every turn?
So if you have a CTS-V, that has a bit of power/torque that starts at a pretty low rpm (2800-3000), and can use that power on not only any straights that a track has, but also each and every turn, how will it not be faster than a relatively low-powered car that just can't match those acceleration numbers. The low power car would have to be so much faster through the turns and later breaking into the turns to make up the lost time due to lower acceleration. Being that much faster through the turns is much harder than being able to use our V's big power, that is why it quite often would come down to a driver's race between a V and an e46 M3, with the advantage going to a properly-driven V because of the huge power difference (and the fact that the torque starts much lower in the rpm band).
05-10-2010, 10:30 PM
#37
I like ya brother, but that comment is some "low-hanging fruit" to be sure.
So you're telling me that a high hp/tq car that can accelerate much better than a low hp/tq car (or in the case of an e46 m3, you have to rev that thing to the moon to make any tq, and really how often are you in the 6000-8000 rpm range) will not be faster around a track. Doesn't acceleration matter when coming out of every turn?
So if you have a CTS-V, that has a bit of power/torque that starts at a pretty low rpm (2800-3000), and can use that power on not only any straights that a track has, but also each and every turn, how will it not be faster than a relatively low-powered car that just can't match those acceleration numbers. The low power car would have to be so much faster through the turns and later breaking into the turns to make up the lost time due to lower acceleration. Being that much faster through the turns is much harder than being able to use our V's big power, that is why it quite often would come down to a driver's race between a V and an e46 M3, with the advantage going to a properly-driven V because of the huge power difference (and the fact that the torque starts much lower in the rpm band).
So you're telling me that a high hp/tq car that can accelerate much better than a low hp/tq car (or in the case of an e46 m3, you have to rev that thing to the moon to make any tq, and really how often are you in the 6000-8000 rpm range) will not be faster around a track. Doesn't acceleration matter when coming out of every turn?
So if you have a CTS-V, that has a bit of power/torque that starts at a pretty low rpm (2800-3000), and can use that power on not only any straights that a track has, but also each and every turn, how will it not be faster than a relatively low-powered car that just can't match those acceleration numbers. The low power car would have to be so much faster through the turns and later breaking into the turns to make up the lost time due to lower acceleration. Being that much faster through the turns is much harder than being able to use our V's big power, that is why it quite often would come down to a driver's race between a V and an e46 M3, with the advantage going to a properly-driven V because of the huge power difference (and the fact that the torque starts much lower in the rpm band).
05-11-2010, 06:59 AM
#38
There are several tracks that have big, long straight sections ... Road America, Miller, Laguna Seca, super speedway rovals, VIR, to name a few. But most tracks have straights that are no more than a couple hundred yards long and, at the common man's level of track access, most tracks only occasionally see triple digit speeds. And 60-70% of a track is typically in a turn.
So even the torquiest of cars will have maybe a two or three car length advantage at the end of a given straight.
Now ... the other side of that sword is that all that extra speed has to be slowed down. So a faster car will have to begin braking sooner. So, much of the advantage gained is erased in the braking zone.
Another way of looking at it ...
How many feet (distance, not time) does it take for a car to accelerate from 40 to 100 mph? How many feet does it take for the same car to slow from 100 to 40?
A guess is that it would take twice, maybe even three times the distance to accelerate 40-100 as it does to deccelerate from 100 to 40.
Advantage ... braking.
Light vs Heavy ...
A tire can only grip as much as it can grip. It doesn't care about speed or weight, it can only grip at 100%.
So a tire's ability to carry a higher speed through a turn means that reduced weight is necessary. It is eye-opening and jaw-dropping what a HUGE difference 500lbs can make in the amount of speed one can carry through a turn.
So if a lighter car can carry more speed through 60% of a given track and be able to out-brake the heavier, torquier and straight-line faster car, then the advantage the HP car is reduced significantly.
In Grand Am racing, it's why an RX8 can be uber-competitive with a C6.
So even the torquiest of cars will have maybe a two or three car length advantage at the end of a given straight.
Now ... the other side of that sword is that all that extra speed has to be slowed down. So a faster car will have to begin braking sooner. So, much of the advantage gained is erased in the braking zone.
Another way of looking at it ...
How many feet (distance, not time) does it take for a car to accelerate from 40 to 100 mph? How many feet does it take for the same car to slow from 100 to 40?
A guess is that it would take twice, maybe even three times the distance to accelerate 40-100 as it does to deccelerate from 100 to 40.
Advantage ... braking.
Light vs Heavy ...
A tire can only grip as much as it can grip. It doesn't care about speed or weight, it can only grip at 100%.
So a tire's ability to carry a higher speed through a turn means that reduced weight is necessary. It is eye-opening and jaw-dropping what a HUGE difference 500lbs can make in the amount of speed one can carry through a turn.
So if a lighter car can carry more speed through 60% of a given track and be able to out-brake the heavier, torquier and straight-line faster car, then the advantage the HP car is reduced significantly.
In Grand Am racing, it's why an RX8 can be uber-competitive with a C6.
05-11-2010, 08:04 AM
#39
2009 Porsce Cayman S 3100 lbs. 60-0 mph 111 feet
2010 CTS V 4200 lbs. 60-0 mph 109 feet.
Lower weight does not always equal superior braking. BTW the V2 which is almost 1/2 ton more in weight will destroy a Cayman S on a road course. Road and Track has tested both. It takes more than low weight to win. But......low weight is the first thing you should try to achieve because it pays big dividends. Imagine the V2 if it weighed 3500 lbs. So I agree with you about weight. It's just not everything.
2010 CTS V 4200 lbs. 60-0 mph 109 feet.
Lower weight does not always equal superior braking. BTW the V2 which is almost 1/2 ton more in weight will destroy a Cayman S on a road course. Road and Track has tested both. It takes more than low weight to win. But......low weight is the first thing you should try to achieve because it pays big dividends. Imagine the V2 if it weighed 3500 lbs. So I agree with you about weight. It's just not everything.
05-11-2010, 10:30 AM
#40
Keep in mind that we're comparing braking from 100-40 while setting up for a turn and doing so multiple times, lap after lap. Not a single straightline braking event. That's not exactly apples to apples ...
The V has HUGE brakes and I love it. I am currently trying to find a way to get my V on track to see how it compares to my old track car and my current race car. It feels great on the street.
It's hard to get your head around, but weight plays more of a role in lap times on a road course than horsepower ... at least that's been my experience.
The V has HUGE brakes and I love it. I am currently trying to find a way to get my V on track to see how it compares to my old track car and my current race car. It feels great on the street.
It's hard to get your head around, but weight plays more of a role in lap times on a road course than horsepower ... at least that's been my experience.