tux2112

ok... so instead of raising the BS flag.. what's yours dyno at and what's it run in the 1/4?

and fwiw my car weighs in at 3900 w/me in it... (F-body) ... I ran 12.9 w/a lid and stock tires...

Shinkaze

The M5 is a good comparison actually. It may have similar peak power, but it lacks the torque of the LS6. Area under the curve drives acceleration, not peak power.

steve_c

i have to agree with cvp33, 11 sec is quick for a car to 100mph. Unless the suspension and aerodynamics are incredibly efficient, and keep in mind this car is not the most aerodynamic car (anyone know the Cd of the car?). It's basically a 3900lb box, and this takes alot of power to get up to speed.

PaiN

BS flag?

Why in the world would they BS about dyno numbers? My formula bone stock dynoed 280-288 rwhp. I went to the track the next day, and ran a whole handfull of low 13 sec runs,all but two being under 13.4. My car weighed in at 3700(+) with me in the car, and it was end of august ..and like almost 100 degrees at the track.

So this car...dynoes a little more, (probably has better heads than my ls1 heads at the time )...weighs more, and has comparable track times.... whats not to believe... more power offset by more weight.

Larry

Shinkaze

And more gear.

cvp33

I don't dispute that a car with 318 rwhp can do the quarter mile in 13.4. But it definitely can't do it when it weighs 4,070 as tested, has IRS, GoodYear Runflats and will NEVER reach 109 MPH by the end of the quarter with only 318 ponies. Physically CAN'T be done.

66ImpalaLT1

I disagree. I think its perfectly capable of doing all that with 318rwhp.

Shinkaze

Uhm, why not?

The car has a M12 gear box with more aggresive gearing than an F-Body, a ton more area under the curve than an M5, and a motor with a sweet spot in the RPM band for drag racing. Also weight has less to do with trap speed than it does ET. Look at the old Impala SS LT1. They typically trapped nearly the same as an LT1 F-Bod despite being significantly heavier.

Typically high MPH comes from power, and good ETs come from low weight and traction.

-Adam

mgreen

OMG, that's crazy! Impala SS's NEVER trapped 98-102mph stock (which is what an LT1 fbod does)! I think the highest a stock Impala SS would trap was ~94mph. And that was on a good day. And BTW, trapspeed is directly proportional to weight. I don't see how it's affected less than ET.

LT1 Impala SS's were ~90mph cars through the 1/4.

Also, up at Great Lakes Dragstrip, a guy has brought his M5 out, and it ran 12.8@108mph as it came from the factory.

Everybody likes to think the LS6 has such a better torque/power curve, but 12.8@108 in an M5 doesn't lie. It makes some serious power to do that.

Mike

wicked 98z

I guess someone needs to hurry up and take one to the track to find out. I think tony needs to go test drive one.

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

Its no BS, I was there to witness the dyno runs. MTI is developing some CTS-V specific components, this particular car is getting heads/cam this week....along with some top secret development work

Tony

steve_c

Yes let's see some time slips and well see how capable the car really is....

sawedoff

iTrader: (3)

I really couldn't care any less what this would do in a quarter. It's more than capable of doing 12's. There's absolutely no way I would spend the decent sum that this fine automobile costs and totally ruin it for anything but a contest of acceleration. As far as the aftermarket is concerned, the quality on their parts with of course the expected fashionable pricing, better be top notch, and not like the garbage they tried to pull over on the last F-body owner. If I were to buy a car of that caliber, I'd damn sure expect quality in line with the car. I suspect that it will be the same old bs. ( an assload for a cam; an assload for a head porting job, too much for air cleaners, pushing products that don't work, etc.) If I had a CTS-V, there's absolutely no way I'd take it to one of the jerk-off fly by night speed shop parts peddlers. If the car is to have any justice, it's going to have to be promoted to a crowd that cares about more than stupid trap speeds or quater mile times.

Shinkaze

You must not spend much time at the track do you? ET is more deeply affected by weight as the first 60' of travel the car has the most inertia to overcome. Dropping weight shows much higher gain in the form of Lower ETs. Why do you think Motorcycles Get such fantastic ETs with such low MPH? My Bike does high tens in the low 120s.
the LT1 Impala SS was a mid to low 90mph car, the LT1 Z28 was a mid to high 90 mph Car (Yes the SS could crack 100 mph, but the RWHP of the Impala is more comparable tothe Z28). As you can see the 600 pound weight difference was only a couple MPH spread, it WAS however a huge spread in ET. Weight does affect both ET and MPH, it just has more of an affect on ET than it does MPH.

Mike, here is a picture of my Garage, know what that car in the background is?



Trust me, there are two things I know, M5s and LS motors, and the LS6 is a much more rounded motor. The M5 V8 lacks low end punch big time.

-Adam

mgreen

I still disagree w/ you Adam. Sorry. I've seen stock 2.73 geared LT1's hit 101mph in the 1/4 in 70* weather (nothing fantastic). . .

I consider the bottom end for an LT1 Fbody to be 96mph. And the bottom end for the Impala SS to be ~89-90mph.

Which is almost right on for the 600lb difference. The general rule of thumb is every 100lb = 1mph difference.

BTW, I'm 8 minutes away from www.Route66raceway.com , believe me, I have PLENTY of experience at the dragstrip.

Quote:

Trust me, there are two things I know, M5s and LS motors, and the LS6 is a much more rounded motor. The M5 V8 lacks low end punch big time.

Well, I don't see a picture of a CTS-V there. . .
You may know LS6 and M5 motors. . . but have you driven a CTS-V to see what the LS6 feels like in that particular car?

Heck, an M5 motor would probably feel like it has a lot better low end punch if it was in a 3300lb Fbody.

My car goes 12.0@117mph (soft launch w/ 4.10's, 3485lb raceweight).
But with a full tank, crap in the hatch area, and a 230lb passenger, I'd say my car feels like it lacks on the bottom end.

Shinkaze

I have a friend that regularly pulled 98 MPH from his Impala down in Florida heat, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I did not say that weight does not affect MPH, I did say that weight has a larger affect on ET than it does MPH. By your numbers rather than mine to exagerate the difference let's just say an LT1 Impala does go 95 mph to a 100 mph LT1 F-Body with a second difference in ET (15.0 to 14.0). That equates to a 5% improvement in MPH and a 7% improvement in ET by reducing the car by 600 pounds. Compare the Z06 to the CTS-V ~12.5@110 to ~13.3@108 Same power more weight and there is a 6% spread in ET vs a 2% spread in MPH.
the M5 makes 368lb-ft of Torque @ 3800 RPM vs. the Ls6 in the CTS-V at 385 @ 4800 RPM, granted it spikes higher but from my own rather extensive seat time in the M5 it's a very peaky motor, you have to rev the pee out of it to really get the M moving. The reason the M does so well despite it's weight is it's short gearing it's a single overdrive 6 speed rather than a double over drive like the T56. more gear more sweet spot.
Higher weight = higher inertia to over come thus greater affect on ET than MPH.

PS my Motorcycle only makes 7 more MPH than your Car but it's a 1.3 Seconds faster. Yet If we did a street race from 60 mph I know (from experience) you would have a much better time keeping up. Weight is much less of an issue once you get moving.

-Adam

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

Nice toys Adam! and I'm glad to see that you are posting again

Gripenfelter

iTrader: (1)

If memory serves correctly, the intake and exhaust manifolds are pretty restrictive.

The intake does a 90 degree turn and one of the rear primaries on the exhaust manifold is pretty restrictive as well.

40rwhp from headers and exhaust? Maybe if you use a plasma cutter and do some creative bodywork to get the headers to fit?

cvp33

I found this site with the help of GNSCOTT from the Caddy forum.

http://www.corral.net/tech/horsepower.html

Simply plug in the weight of the vehicle as tested - 4,070lbs. in the case of R&T's CTS-V

Your desired trap speed - 109mph in R&T as well.

This equates to 420 hp needed to propel the vehicle to the top end.

FYI

Bowtiered

to whoever said they wouldn't put crap aftermarket in a CTS-V. . . uhhh. . .great. but an ls6 is an ls6 is an ls6. . . so i'm thinkin the same cams that fit in a z06 will fit in a cts-v. doesn't lunati make some? i wouldn't call that crap. i know the heads gotta be the same. . . god, those patriot heads are terrible too. . . i would buy a porsches and put aftermarket stuff on it if i had the money and there was an aftermarket. if you wanna make your car fast- you wanna make it fast, regardless of how much the car costs.