TTopJohn

Adam, and everyone else who wants to sue:

I can't believe I'm saying this (since I'm in law school) but suing is not the answer.

If car enthusiasts keep up this "sue the people who build the cars we love" thing, the automakers will quickly abandon us.

With rare exception, they don't make any money on limited edition performance specials like the CTS-V, since they cost a lot to develop and sell in small numbers. They justify them as halo cars for the rest of the lineup. If we, the enthusiasts, make it MORE expensive for them to serve up these cars, they are very likely to wash their hands of the likes of us, and shift their energy to normal family cars, trucks and SUVs.

We're a small but passionate market - but we are a SMALL market. And if the automakers have to worry about a lawsuit everytime they rate the horsepower of a performance cars, that makes it that much tougher for the car nut engineers to justify a program like the CTS-V to the bean counters.

Shinkaze

I didn't articulate myself properly then, I was being sarcastic above where TT John said that maybe larger brakes acounted for the 30 RWHP difference. I pointed out Keith Locklier's 3 RWHP dyno to show that while a factor, it's not as large as one might think.
(I) am not pushing a lawsuite because (I) do not have a CTS-V and thus would gain nothing from it. However, This is a similar event to what happened when the Cobras were down 15 RWHP, the owners sued Ford for False advertising, and Ford was required to fix the situation.

(I) am saddened that people buying CTS-Vs are not getting what they paid for, and the reason I mention litigation is because they need to be aware of their rights, including the right that Cadillac explain why the car is not making the power it should.

Again Differences aside there should be a "range" of high and low numbers shwoing an "average" power. The Range of Dynos seen are 312-336 rwhp withthe average at 320 RWHP over the 7-8 dynos I've seen. Of those only (1) has crested 330 RWHP Most fall inthe mid teens to low 20s.

As for the weight of the wheels and brakes again that is BS. That can account for some difference but not 30 RWHP.

Here is a point of fact I DO have some experience with the e39 BMW M5 rathed at 390 hp crank they make 330 RWHP. Thats 15% drivetrain loss. That number and better has been shown for the GTO, F-Body, Corvette, Viper, etc. If you are right and the Caddy is 5% less efficient than the BMW's dodges, Chevys and Pontiacs, then the question becomes why is the Caddy so horribly inefficient when all the other cars int he category are so much moreso?

The simpler solution is the motor jusst isn't making it's advertised power.

Shinkaze

Thats fine if you feel that way. And again I'm not saying we should Sue as I've stated before I don't own a CTS-V so I have no stake in the matter other than the fact tht until this week the car was high on my list of possible cars for a Fall purchase.

I am however saddened by people that get shafted and then feel they aren't empowered to do something about it, especially when there is precedent. If I bought a VCR took it home and the record button didn't work or played movies with the tracking off, I would take it back and ask for a repair If they told me the poor tracking was "in spec" when they advertised otherwise I would then ask for a refund. I wouldn't be scared that Sony would quit making VCRs.

WhiteDiamond

Adam,

Again, you are trying to compare the numbers to a Corvette Z06 which has a engine rated higher and may have much less computer interference. The fact of the matter is that a 330rwhp CTS-V is making more than the advertised 400bhp. You may compare the CTS-V to your M series, but there are way too many variables in a driveline to make this comparision. Reciprocating mass taxes power and the BMW may be less in this scenerio.

It is also important to take notice of the current Z06 dyno numbers. The 405hp Z05(2002 - 2004) is dynoing in the 355hp to 360hp range at the rear wheels. Some are higher. This shows that the LS6 in the Z06 is underrated. Even using a low 15% loss through the drivetrain, the car should only see 340rwhp +/- a few and most of the Vette dyno operators will tell you that 17% is the current loss factor they use for the M6 cars.

So, Chevy gives us an underrated 405bhp Z06 Corvette and a damn near perfectly rated 400bhp CTS-V. I believe this is the way it should be, as the Vette is GM's supercar. More power to Caddy, but they are delivering the numbers they advertise and magazine track testing has shown the dyno numbers may actually be inacurate, as times tested show the motor to be closer to the 350 to 360rwhp range.

Todd

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

The engine rating is accurate. The restriction is in the exhaust and the intake airbox. Since these cars are Caddys, they were designed to minimize engine and exhaust noise. They are very quiet in stock form. Simply replacing the silencer/resonator on the midpipe of the exhaust system with an X-pipe setup will get you about 18-20 rwhp (dynojet proven), and it will sound much better. The stock mufflers on the back are restrictive as well, but I'd give up some power for quieter exhaust.

The potential is under the hood, and extracting the power is the fun part. The '99 Cobra simply had an engine that was a piece of crap, that isn't the case with the proven LS6.

Tony

Dreamin

It was my understanding that mfg hp claims are hp at the crank with everything in place... smog equip, intake, full exhaust... not the "raw" engine numbers.

WECIV

There will always be factory freaks some of our members have freak FBods. Of course some ZO6's will have higher numbers than others, but the CTS-V must be properly marketed.

WhiteDiamond

I won't speak for Tony, but I take his comment as the CTS-V is delivering the 400hp Cadillac rates it at in stock form(320rwhp + 20% is 400bhp) and if you want more out of it, aka Z06 levels, the restriction is known and fixable. If Tony is correct, he has plenty of dyno info, the CTS-V should dyno in the 340 to 350rwhp range with just some exhaust work. Now, at that level, your CTS-V is actually producing more than the 400bhp claimed, but some may feel better about it.

Todd

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

Nope, GM rates the engines based on the engine itself. It is only the internet crowd that tries to correlate the actual rwhp figures with the rated figures. Why should we trust GM hp ratings anyways, look how much they underrated the LS1 f-bodies at 305 hp, when they were making 305+ rwhp stock. Would that be 0% drivetrain loss? lol

TTopJohn

But Tony, doesn't the protocol for SAE NET horsepower figures call for the engine to be tested with full exhaust and intake that it will have when it is installed in teh car? This doesn't have anything to do with rwhp, it's just the way SAE says to measure net flywheel horsepower.


307 rwph here with a lid and a cat back God love GM for underrating these things

ls6caddy

GM rates their engines with everything attached (exhaust, accessories, etc.).

The Z06 LS6 and the CTS-V LS6 engines are exactly the same, except for oil pan and exhaust. And that is why the CTS-V LS6 makes 5 less HP than the Z06 LS6, because of the different headers/exhaust.

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

My point on that subject is that GM isn't exactly known for rating their vehicle HP levels properly or consistently. Sometimes they rate high, sometimes they underrate quite a bit.

If they always rate the vehicles with the engine in the car, then the 98-02 Camaros/Firebirds would have been rated at 345-360 hp. Not 305 hp.

Inconsistent rating methods it appears. I know the LS6 under the hood of the CTS-V is the same engine as the Z06, so at least we know the engine itself isn't a piece of junk, haha.

Ratings? Who cares. I know the potential

STRIPSTAR

iTrader: (4)

He is comparing the HP from the M5 and the RWHP but dont the German calculate the HP different? I had a VW That was supposedly 150 hp. It make 148 at the wheels so its not just GM or a capital case.

OWENMUSTANG

iTrader: (2)

to the tune of 12 fwhp! and the larger brakes were slightly lighter to boot!

MorePerformanceInc

After much dyno testing on our Mule Caddy, we have found that ours makes about 402FWHP. Of course we are going by the standard 17% loss based on our previous knowledge and what has come in the shop. Most corvettes lose 17-18% while camaros only loose about 15%. I would not say that Cadillac is lying to everyone. I think that for the most part it is accurate in the horsepower numbers they give. We have been dyno testing an Engine for GM High Tech and on the Engine Dyno it made 412FWHP. It is the same engine that the 2004-2005 Caddy has and was supplied from the same. In the car it lost 17% and the air was horrible on the day of the testing. I am not sure the numbers are really that bad. We are makeing 625FWHP/524RWHP with our caddy right now.

Dreamin

Moreperf: So your test mule made 334rwhp (402 *.83) ?

What about the car used for the intake testing, it only made 324rwhp ?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-2004-2007-gen-i/154088-new-cold-air-cts-v-proves-great-improvements.html

But the real question is: what do stock 02+ Z06s make on your dyno?

MorePerformanceInc

The last bone stock Z06 we dyno'ed made 339RWHP. It had no performance modifications at the time of the dyno. After a Cam, Springs, VaraRam, Headers and Exhaust it made 419RWHP. Our test mule was made 412FWHP. We estimate a 17% loss on our Caddy (Which dyno'd at 324RWHP). You multipy the 400FWHP (That caddy says you have) X17% and subtract that gives you 332RWHP. You also have to account for the horrible exhaust and headers and the numbers you see are very close to accurate. There is no accurate % for what you should go by. The only sure fire way is to pull an engine, engine dyno it, reinstall it and chassis dyno it for accurate readings. I think this is a waste of everyone's time since there is no sure fire way of telling what the % rate should be. What we have found is close to what GM specs are.

StealthV

Amen.

vettedriver32

iTrader: (3)

White diamond has hit the nail on the head.

CTSV rear Rotors weigh almost 10 pounds more than a Corvette rear rotor.

Plus the IRS soaks up some additional power.

we have dynoed five or six CTSV's and have consistently produced 325 to332 HP at the rear wheels.

When they heat up, they fall off as computer compensates...

Also, low results may be caused by one of the air intake ducts becoming dislodged or partially blocked, which may trigger a lean condition and a low octane table reversion...

Anyway, this is a great car. I love mine. And it is so easy to make faster!!!

J. Brown

Its simple.......intake and exhaust. You people that are complaining actually think GM would build a different LS6 for the caddy?? come on. I'm not saying I would be happy with my $70K (cdn) caddy making the same horsepower at thr real wheels as my $40K SS.