CTSVSL65AMG

Never seen a stock z28 or TA run 4.6 0-60 or run a 13.1 in the 1/4. But anything is possible, but to say it would beat it??? hmm, thats a stretch. Maybe 1 out of 10 runs.

TORNATIC!!

The Magnum, 300, and Charger SRT-8's all are capable of 160+ speeds. There have been a couple guys that have already hit 170+ in their Chrysler 300 Srt-8.

CTSVSL65AMG

Not stock though right?? Everything I read ( i shopped it against the V) said it was limited. So does Chrysler....

Top speed : 130 mph(electronically limited)
0-60 mph : 4.9 sec.
0-Ľ mile : 13.7 sec @ 102.1 mph
60-0 braking distance : 113 ft
200 ft skidpad : 0.88 g

TORNATIC!!

Nah actually the CTS-V is faster stock for stock. From a dig the F-Bod has the launching advantage so on average it would make for a good 1/4 race. From a roll the advantage goes to the CTS-V. I know a guy that ran a 12.9 at 110 in his stock CTS-V. It's difficult to launch them and they have a weak rear end but if you hook

Of course the LS1 F-Bod's are one of the best bang for buck cars ever so with just Lid, exhaust, and LS6 intake,the V is looking at tailights.

TORNATIC!!

Yeah they were stock. I don't think they have a limiter. I think it's just the 5.7 350 hp Hemi's that have that. I could be wrong. If they have a limiter it was disabled to allow them to got 170+ without any performance mods. Not bad.

CTSVSL65AMG

Not bad at all.

Z 2 8

Impressive, I didn't realize they were that fast. That isn't much slower than the 05+ corvettes. I would think they would be much faster because of the weight. Isn't there like a 600-650lb weight difference?

I test drove a CTS-V on a road course and wasn't that impressed. I mean it was fast, but I didn't feel low 13's high 12's. Although, there were 3 other people in the car with me and one of them weighed about 250lbs. The car still managed to chirp second gear pretty good and get sideways. If I was by myself, I bet it would have made a huge difference.

CTSVSL65AMG

yea 500lbs less would have made a difference I bet. Actually a road course is what this car was built for, its not a drag racer. I did a few open track days in Nor Cal in it....I was 1 second a lap off my race prepped s2000's lap times...on the stock tires...its goes like snot around a course, it may be close to an SS in the 1/4 but no LS1 powered car out there except for a c5 will hang with it around the race track.

TXSilverV

iTrader: (1)

I'm one of those guys with a CTS-V that had low dyno numbers! I was at 323RWHP which I thought was real bad! I have done a few mods to mine and now I'm at 498RWHP/479RWTQ and this is what this car needed. Guys all of our cars are cool no matter what they are. I got the CTS-V because I have kids.

Draco

LOL apparently you don't understand either, since CD is only one part of the aerodynamic equation. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to read up on frontal area (an attribute that the CTS-V has in abundance). Unfortunately, you will find that this ample frontal area is a handicap that will not help the aerodynamic case for the CTS-v.

CTSVSL65AMG

Do you actually know the frontal area of an F body vs a V?? Do some research, youll be suprised....

00454sscamaro

from just looks alone the f body does look alot more sleek though.. its not as boxy.. but they do have wide body's so who knows.. where would one go about getting this drag info anyway? is this with the top up or down the numbers you posted?

BAD99TA

Very understandable you got a CTS-V because you have kids. Then you push it to ~500 RWHP with a "few" mods because that's what the car needed...hell yeah buddy! I'm wondering what those mods are? That's f'in awesome man.
I'm also wondering what the drag coefficient of a 4th gen Camaro/Trans Am and CTS-V are respectively, anyone know? The CTS-V doesn't appear more sleek than a 4th gen F-body IMO, but I could be wrong. To the OP: I think it would have been a better race if you had the top & windows up. Way to run with the top down!

CTSVSL65AMG

For Draco and those who don't know...

Even though I was probably drunk at the time....my head wasn't too far up my ***....


Ok,

Fluid mechanics class isn't too far in ancient history. Anyhow, based on frontal area provided by GM. And CD provided by GM here is the outcome, and as speed increases the V's advantage increases.




Drag = 1/391 x Cd x A x Vsquared

Frontal Area of a 1998 SS is 23.4 Ft^2
Frontal Area of a 2005 CTS-V is 25.4 Ft^2

CD for an SS is .36
CD for a CTSV is .30

Drag for a SS at 100 mph = 215
Drag for a CTSV at 100 mph =195

Smaller number being better.

So as you can see, while frontal area does play a role, that number carries less value than the CD in the equation. So as I stated...comparing CD's usually is an acurate reflection of which car has more aredynamic drag. Now a bike has a horrible CD, but very little frontal area.....and thats a whole new school lesson for some people here

aerodynamic forces are proportional to the square of the speed. That means you quadruple the drag or lift when you double the speed.

to calculate drag you need to know three things: Cd, the drag coefficient; A, the frontal area of whatever you’re driving through the air; and the speed of air past it.

So....beyond that its a gearing and HP thing...


Cheers