2009 Cadillac CTS-V Runs 12.5-Second Quarter-Mile

[radz28]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

OMG

I love this car for one very simple reason... LSA

Please, Please, Please GM. The Camaro just BEGS for a blown motor.

LSA LSA LSA!!!

I know that car can go faster in people who know how to drive in a straight line, or that aren't try to test on a gravel-topped street. I bet, we'll see tests where it goes top-11s, bone stock, on a good strip. Grr...

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Ex-Cobra Guy

Although I like the new CTS-V, the Germans are just (almost) as quick while staying naturally aspirated. I too expected better numbers, but we'll have to wait for a "real" magazine test.

NA yes, But the compression ratios are so high that there is little room for added power with out making big and spensive changes to the motor.


Now if you aren't an aftermarket upgrade kinda person then the high CR makes little difference.

But being Blown with a lower CR leaves the door open for ZR1 LS9 power numbers with low cost mods. For me that's part of the appeal.

[JEFF2010SSMANUAL]

This article NEEDS to be POSTED on the 1ADDICTS BMW FORUM. They ALL think GM can't make a car that handles as good as a BMW. A bunch of JackA$$es.

The Camaro SS should handle awesome!!!


Watch out BMW, HAHA

[Sizzox]

Originally Posted by JEFF2010SSMANUAL

This article NEEDS to be POSTED on the 1ADDICTS BMW FORUM. They ALL think GM can't make a car that handles as good as a BMW. A bunch of JackA$$es.

The Camaro SS should handle awesome!!!


Watch out BMW, HAHA

have they not heard of a vette yet alone a zr-1

[radz28]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

NA yes, But the compression ratios are so high that there is little room for added power with out making big and spensive changes to the motor.


Now if you aren't an aftermarket upgrade kinda person then the high CR makes little difference.

But being Blown with a lower CR leaves the door open for ZR1 LS9 power numbers with low cost mods. For me that's part of the appeal.

ZR1 power, at the tires

[AirGoya]

If you told someone 10 years ago that a cadillac sedan in the future will be faster than a m5 or AMG and do the 1/4 mile in 12.5, they would laugh at you.

THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nfamous209]

the trap speed calls for faster then 12.5 imo. i see this car hitting high 11's stock form.

[Mblock66]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

It is Much heavier than the z06,

And there is no way you can compare this car to a Z06. The Z06 is borderline super car. built to go fast, with comfort and luxury on a as needed basis.

The CTSV is a luxury car first with the performance stuff second. And it out performs many sports coupes... Compare it to a BMW or a Benz, not a vette.

You can absolutely compare it to the Z06. The Z06 is the "detuned" version of this car, or in other words the CTS is a Detuned version of the ZR1.

When you are talking straight line performance only and you are comparing two vehicles with the same engine and trans it basically comes down to weight and suspension.

Now with 50 extra horses over the N/A Z06 but probably 1000 lbs more I still wouldn't have guessed this car to be over 1.5 seconds slower through the traps. With the Zr1 projected to go low 10's I would have thought more of this but I won't give up on it yet. Wait until a real magazine can abuse one.

As I predicted above at least 12.0 if not 11.6-11.7

[GTAHVIT]

CTS-V curb weight. 4300
Z06 curb weight. 3180

So, a 30% increase in weight vs, only a 10% increase in power. Plus the added benefits of all the HiPo suspension gearing and drive train of the Z06 makes for a fair comparison?

And the Z06 is A LS7 normally aspirated motor

While the CTS V is a LSA supercharged motor, Yes they are both Gen 4 motors, but that's about where the similarities end.

So, really when you lay it all out if they can get the numbers you predict then I certainly won't complain. All I'm saying is for what the CTSV is, to even be as close as it is to the Z06 is incredible.

[Mblock66]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

CTS-V curb weight. 4300
Z06 curb weight. 3180

So, a 30% increase in weight vs, only a 10% increase in power. Plus the added benefits of all the HiPo suspension gearing and drive train of the Z06 makes for a fair comparison?

And the Z06 is A LS7 normally aspirated motor

While the CTS V is a LSA supercharged motor, Yes they are both Gen 4 motors, but that's about where the similarities end.

So, really when you lay it all out if they can get the numbers you predict then I certainly won't complain. All I'm saying is for what the CTSV is, to even be as close as it is to the Z06 is incredible.

Well if you don't think that is fair then even comparing it to a regular LS3 with 430 HP. Both are 6.2's one is supercharged to make 120 more HP.

Yet the LS3 has run 11.7 showroom stock.

Now the coupe is about 3300 lbs which makes it 7.67 lbs per HP
The CTS V is 4300 lbs which makes it 7.73 lbs per HP

Basically identical from that aspect. Yet it shouldn't be almost 8 tenths slower. Compare what you will, these engines don't have that much not in common. There are may similarities between the LSX engines

[GTAHVIT]

Hey fair enough,

CTSV 550hp / 4300lbs = 0.127906976744 Power to Weight Ratio

Z06 505hp / 3180lbs = 0.158805031447 Power to Weight Ratio

LS3 Vette 430 / 3300 = 0.130303030303

Edit:
I just realized you meant the LS3 not the LS7 in your last post. added above

That is a huge difference.

No biggie. And I think you are forgetting to account for the vastly improved suspension on a corvette.

But, I'm in no way trying to pick a fight. I'd love to see the V hit the numbers you suggest.

[MajorTom]

Originally Posted by Ex-Cobra Guy

Although I like the new CTS-V, the Germans are just (almost) as quick while staying naturally aspirated. I too expected better numbers, but we'll have to wait for a "real" magazine test.

I'm with you that it may show faster numbers. Edmunds is notorious for their poor acceleration times.

And while those engines are naturally aspirated, the 6.2 liter engine out of the Benz has been reported to cost somewhere in the 35k range. I'm not kidding. I read in Car and Driver that to buy that engine from MB it'd cost that much. Compare that to the average small block LS motor cost of about 6 or 7k. And to be fair let's assume this LSA costs twice that for being such a monster. 13k for the engine.

The Germans may have stayed NA, but their idea of performance certainly costs more cash than the Americans.

And even if you're not into modding, the performance benefits of using a supercharged V8 should be obvious and they go beyond just easy mods. How bout 170lbft of torque over the BMW engine? 80 over the MB engine? And it should be obvious, to anyone who knows even the simplest info about engine configurations, that a push-rod motor is limited in revs in comparison to a DOHC engine therefore to make their power goal they would've needed to make a new engine type or seriously rework the Northstar.

And there's no rule saying that naturally aspirated motors can't be compared to supercharged motors. Especially when the supercharged motor clearly costs less and does the same job for lots less money.

Originally Posted by gtahvit

CTS-V curb weight. 4300
Z06 curb weight. 3180

So, a 30% increase in weight vs, only a 10% increase in power. Plus the added benefits of all the HiPo suspension gearing and drive train of the Z06 makes for a fair comparison?

And the Z06 is A LS7 normally aspirated motor

While the CTS V is a LSA supercharged motor, Yes they are both Gen 4 motors, but that's about where the similarities end.

So, really when you lay it all out if they can get the numbers you predict then I certainly won't complain. All I'm saying is for what the CTSV is, to even be as close as it is to the Z06 is incredible.

Let's not forget the CTS uses much smaller tires. I believe they're 285s rather than the 325s on the Z06.

[BowtieGuy]

Originally Posted by Mblock66

Well if you don't think that is fair then even comparing it to a regular LS3 with 430 HP. Both are 6.2's one is supercharged to make 120 more HP.

Yet the LS3 has run 11.7 showroom stock.

Now the coupe is about 3300 lbs which makes it 7.67 lbs per HP
The CTS V is 4300 lbs which makes it 7.73 lbs per HP

Basically identical from that aspect. Yet it shouldn't be almost 8 tenths slower. Compare what you will, these engines don't have that much not in common. There are may similarities between the LSX engines

If 100 pounds equals roughly .1 seconds in the quarter, then that half ton deficit should put the CTS-V around one second slower than the LS3 Vette. Now we're talking about a 12.7 quarter. Now add in the 120 hp benefit to the Cadillac. Now factor weight distribution, less agressive gearing, smaller tires, more aero drag, less efficient, etc. You seem to be underestimating the effect weight alone has on the entire equation, much less everything else. Will it run faster? Probably, but not by all that much.

[Mblock66]

Originally Posted by BowtieGuy

If 100 pounds equals roughly .1 seconds in the quarter, then that half ton deficit should put the CTS-V around one second slower than the LS3 Vette. Now we're talking about a 12.7 quarter. Now add in the 120 hp benefit to the Cadillac. Now factor weight distribution, less agressive gearing, smaller tires, more aero drag, less efficient, etc. You seem to be underestimating the effect weight alone has on the entire equation, much less everything else. Will it run faster? Probably, but not by all that much.

I don't think the CTS has less aggressive gearing, I believe in 6 speed format it is the same as the vette (or very close). Yes it has more drag but that only effects a car slightly in a 1/4 mile and almost none 0-60. If 100 pounds is roughly 1 tenth but then the caddy has 120 HP back on its side it should at least half the effect of the weight if not al of it. That is why I did the lbs per HP argument above. That shows that the HP is on par with the vette.

The math just doesn't work here no matter how you slice it. The CTS V isn't just a regular CTS with a supercharger on it. It is beefed up as well in tires, suspension etc. This car will run mid 11's with a great driver otherwise that engine is overrated at 556hp.