***700+HP 2011 CTS-V Coupe by Late Model Racecraft
05-13-2011, 08:27 AM
#41
I don't really care that they claim flywheel power, but I do mostly agree with the above post in the sense that it's done to market mostly to people who like to see the numbers, and on a site like this it would probably make more sense to actually list the rwhp numbers instead of estimated flywheel numbers.
Why is this so difficult for people to understand? LOL
05-13-2011, 08:45 AM
#42
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Missouri City
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just ignore the titles, click on the thread, and view the information within.
05-13-2011, 11:30 AM
#43
Staging Lane
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas must secede!!!
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had a blast with this one, the engineers got paid well today as a result of these claims. Its been determined that the CTS-V coupe has the least amount of parasitic drag than any vehicle GM has manufactured to date. One nice platform with unlimited potential. Great job LMR!
Last edited by 1c62nv; 05-13-2011 at 05:54 PM.
05-13-2011, 05:15 PM
#44
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The entire automotive world states crank HP numbers. Get over it if you feel that rwhp numbers are the only thing that matters. RWHP quoters are by far the vast minority in the automotive industry. RWHP is a good thing to know for yourself, but isn't the standard by which HP figures are stated.
I personally would prefer all vehicles get quoted at wheel hp, but they do not. I get over it, and accept that crank HP is the basis of comparison. You should too!
I personally would prefer all vehicles get quoted at wheel hp, but they do not. I get over it, and accept that crank HP is the basis of comparison. You should too!
So now to stir another can of worms: The factory 556bhp car put down 512whp? That's only a 44hp loss. Is the car underrated, is the drive train just that efficient, or does the dyno read a bit high?
05-13-2011, 06:02 PM
#45
Staging Lane
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas must secede!!!
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully agree. With car guys we talk whp. With everyone else you talk bhp, because they can't comprehend whp. No car company advertised whp, so the average joe doesn't get it. On another note, whp is different from dyno to dyno, so it doesn't mean much either without something to compare it to. At least the OP did mention the whp gain over stock.
So now to stir another can of worms: The factory 556bhp car put down 512whp? That's only a 44hp loss. Is the car underrated, is the drive train just that efficient, or does the dyno read a bit high?
So now to stir another can of worms: The factory 556bhp car put down 512whp? That's only a 44hp loss. Is the car underrated, is the drive train just that efficient, or does the dyno read a bit high?
05-14-2011, 08:50 AM
#46
Most of the automatic trans V's are putting down 465-480 rwhp, the manuals are 485-500 many times. Bone stock. The automatics are quicker though, as they are more aggressively geared and the 6-spd auto shifts very nicely. The auto also reduces wheelhop, and you stay in boost during those shifts.
Even better because it has a paper tag. I just need to make one stop on the way home from the dealer.
05-15-2011, 09:48 PM
#48
11 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the automatic trans V's are putting down 465-480 rwhp, the manuals are 485-500 many times. Bone stock. The automatics are quicker though, as they are more aggressively geared and the 6-spd auto shifts very nicely. The auto also reduces wheelhop, and you stay in boost during those shifts.
