Cadillac Owners Forum banner
8K views 54 replies 27 participants last post by  newv 
#1 ·
I got 146 but to blurry! It is hard to shift into 5th going 141 and taking pictures in the dark all at the same time, but someone's got to do it!
 
See less See more
1
#27 ·
The car is supposed to be able to hit 163 in fifth. If you take the tach and speedometer numbers in the pic as 5600 rpm and 140 mph, that puts you right on 163 at 6500 rpm.

I plan to try for that but on a closed track near by when the weather gets better. I don't know that I would trust our roads and other drivers to attempt it even on an interstate. I question your judgement but not your guts

I have hit 210 kph going from Frankfort to Dortmund in a Volvo - it's amazing how easy it is once you travel about 100 klicks at over 180 kph. BTW - I was doing about 190 when two black turbo Carreras blew by me like I was standin' still
 
#28 ·
At 163 MPH you are traveling at 239.07 feet per second. Not a speed to make a mistake at. I can think of too many bad things that can happen even on a clear highway.
 
#30 ·
CVP33 said:
At 163 MPH you are traveling at 239.07 feet per second. Not a speed to make a mistake at. I can think of too many bad things that can happen even on a clear highway.
Is it limited to 163 (since 5th and 6th have the same top speed)? Or is 6th just geared in such a way that you can't get any more out of her?

BTW 144 in the "regular" CTS (2003 5MT) is unbelievably smooth, and having "TOP SPEED FUEL CUTOFF" popup on the Navi screen is a nice surprise. Wish I had a friend to take a picture of that :)
 
#32 ·
The Ttrmrc T56 M12 transmission has .84 ratio in 5th coupled to a 3.73 axle ratio, and at redline in 5th you are at 163mph. A switch to 6th drops the ratio to .56, and you would need HUNDREDS more horsepower to pull any faster in a gear that tall. The only way to go faster is to drop the axle ratio down (numerically).... you would then give up some of the butt-kicking feel at lower speeds, debateable if the 0-whatever times would change much.
 
#33 ·
Several years ago I was driving a VR6 way too fast, trying to see how fast it would go. I ran over and killed a small dog or puppy (I think it was a black cocker puppy). There was no way I could safely miss him. I have felt horrible about it since. People shouldn't let their dogs run loose. But people also shouldn't try to double the speed limit, even if a highway seems deserted. That's what tracks are for. I was damn lucky is was a small dog and not a deer, cow or horse.
 
#34 ·
globed70 said:
The Ttrmrc T56 M12 transmission has .84 ratio in 5th coupled to a 3.73 axle ratio, and at redline in 5th you are at 163mph. A switch to 6th drops the ratio to .56, and you would need HUNDREDS more horsepower to pull any faster in a gear that tall. The only way to go faster is to drop the axle ratio down (numerically).... you would then give up some of the butt-kicking feel at lower speeds, debateable if the 0-whatever times would change much.
Ok so 163 is the absolute top speed...thanks for the info.
 
#35 ·
163 is NOT the true top speed. It is electronically limited not drag limited. Trust me on this, the V is still pulling strong all the way to the limiter. I'd guess that she's capable of at least another 15mph maybe 20mph.
 
#36 ·
gothicaleigh said:
Thank you for 'allowing' us this time then. :rolleyes:

As for the anti-speed members:
Settle down. It sounds that he was only endangering himself and his car. I admit that snapping off pics at that speed is a bit reckless and not at all commendable, but to fly along a deserted road at 140 is a walk in the park for these cars. Even mine remains very composed and stable at that speed.
Hell, for all I know my car would probably PREFER to be driven at that speed every damn day. Pssh... Speed Limits. :coolgleam
 
#37 · (Edited)
For all you 149/160+ MPH people that think it's cool to travel at those speeds anywhere, Interstates, deserted roads, deserted airports..........we're going to miss you. Please reconsider!

April 2002 Severe vehicle damage
almost to the point of total
destruction of the car and driver.
Is there ever a reason to drive this
fast and damage yourself this
badly? This car wrecked only with
itself, how badly could others have
been hurt if they had been near?
 
#39 ·
don't want to.
 
#40 ·
CVP33 said:
163 is NOT the true top speed. It is electronically limited not drag limited. Trust me on this, the V is still pulling strong all the way to the limiter. I'd guess that she's capable of at least another 15mph maybe 20mph.
I'm sure it pulls strong, but what globed70 had to say about gear/differential ratios is convincing too. The magazines didn't say if it is electronic or absolute, so I don't know any better.
 
#41 ·
CVP33 said:
163 is NOT the true top speed. It is electronically limited not drag limited. Trust me on this, the V is still pulling strong all the way to the limiter. I'd guess that she's capable of at least another 15mph maybe 20mph.

Just think if you had the kind of power that the Cadillac Sixteen puts out, how fast you could go. :lildevil:

Oh wait, I guess you could get that much hp out of a CTS:
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10708 :D

As for the CTS-V redlining in 5th at 163, I think I saw an RPM graph somewhere that shows it cuts off much before redline while doing 163. I'll see if I can dig it out. Also, can someone find the gear ratios, final drive, and coefficient of drag for a Z06? I'm curious as to how different they are (the Z06 hits in the 180mph range).

The CTS, despite it's boxy looks, is quite aerodynamic with a coefficient of drag (aerodynamic drag, not mechanical) of .30 for the 'normal' CTS (the much smaller BMW 3 series has a .31Cd for comparison). I would imagine that the CTS-V with it's side skirting and lower stance, would be even more slippery. :)
 
#42 ·
gothicaleigh said:
Also, can someone find the gear ratios, final drive, and coefficient of drag for a Z06? I'm curious as to how different they are (the Z06 hits in the 180mph range).

The CTS, despite it's boxy looks, is quite aerodynamic with a coefficient of drag (aerodynamic drag, not mechanical) of .30 for the 'normal' CTS (the much smaller BMW 3 series has a .31Cd for comparison). I would imagine that the CTS-V with it's side skirting and lower stance, would be even more slippery. :)
Remember, Cd is just a measure of how slippery the shape is - it's somewhat independent of of the size of that shape. You then have to factor in frontal area, and the CTS and CTS-V have a fair bit more frontal area than a Z06 and a little more than a 3-series.

Side skirts and the like are unlikely to have a big impact on Cd unless pieces of them are sticking way out into the airflow (those ricer body kits destroy Cd.) If you're engineering a vehicle and you want to cut Cd, you work on airflow under the car and through the engine compartment. The CTS-V's bigger wheels alone probably kick the Cd up a bit relative to the base CTS.
 
#43 ·
Clintonwmills said:
I got 146 but to blurry! It is hard to shift into 5th going 141 and taking pictures in the dark all at the same time, but someone's got to do it!

Wow interesting to know it'll do an honest 140. I'll echo others in the "be careful" sentiment. You need to switch lanes or do much more than keep straight at 140, and it'll get VEERY loose VEERY quickly. ( I know of where I speak!).

Anyway, you tried it once. And that should be good enuff...hopefully. We can't afford to loose any CTS-enthusiasts!!

Cheers! :burn:
 
#44 ·
CTScop said:
Wow interesting to know it'll do an honest 140. I'll echo others in the "be careful" sentiment. You need to switch lanes or do much more than keep straight at 140, and it'll get VEERY loose VEERY quickly. ( I know of where I speak!).
At 140 in (most) road cars you do everything gently.

Still, our Bimmers are plenty stable for it to be a usable freeway speed under appropriate conditions (e.g. unrestricted sections of Autobahn.)

It's been pretty rare for a Detroit product to be usable at such speeds, even when they've had the power to get there they've either had poor stability or engine-cooling problems. I hope GM got it right on the V.

The Germans don't always get it right, either: when Audi first released the TT a few years back, the rear developed a fair bit of aerodynamic lift. They had a couple fatal and near-fatal accidents where folks would be buzzing down the A'bahn at 140 or so, back off the gas in a bend, and the rear end would come around.

They ended up recalling all the TTs, slapping a rear spoiler on 'em, changing the springs and shocks and sway bars to an understeer-at-all-times setup, and recalibrating the stability control system to full-paranoia. I've never driven a TT, but if you believe the Brit press, Audi took what used to be a fun car to drive (in pre-recall form) and turned it into a leaden lump in order to ensure it was safe at high speeds.
 
#45 ·
JEM brings up a good point. What is holding the rear down and those speeds? I had mine up to 163 mph and it felt very stable, what I described as scary smooth and no sensation of speed. GM must have got it right and created a car that was aero neutral, creating no lift at speed. Or did they? Did I just get lucky?
 
#46 ·
CVP33 said:
JEM brings up a good point. What is holding the rear down and those speeds? I had mine up to 163 mph and it felt very stable, what I described as scary smooth and no sensation of speed. GM must have got it right and created a car that was aero neutral, creating no lift at speed. Or did they? Did I just get lucky?

:holycrap: :jawdrop: :burn:
 
#47 ·
CVP33 said:
163 is NOT the true top speed. It is electronically limited not drag limited. Trust me on this, the V is still pulling strong all the way to the limiter. I'd guess that she's capable of at least another 15mph maybe 20mph.
I trust you, just not your explanation. Top speed is the fastest a car can go, period. The V cannot go any faster than 163, as you WILL hit the rev limiter in 5th gear no matter how hard she pulls. The concept of drag limited comes into play in 6th gear, as their is plenty of revs left but not enough power to overcome DRAG (aerodynamic and rolling resistance in total). I'll make it easy:

Check out the picture at 140mph, about 5600 on the tach, in 5th gear... do the simplified math 6500/5600*140=163!

Or, go for a drive and determine your speed and rpm combination in 5th gear, and do your own math.

Or, go to roadandtrack.com, look up their review on the V and download the PDF datasheet.

Or, trust me when I say it pulls very strong to 163mph and hits the rev limiter... at which time you can upshift to 6th and go on further... as their is not enough power to overcome DRAG (same exact thing as Viper or Corvette)

Or, understand that the CTS-V has a 3.73 axle ratio while the Z06 has something in the neighborhood of 3.42... do the gear swap, and if you assume (just for the moment) that roll resistance and aerodynamic drag are no worse than the Z06, your top speed will be the same.

Now you can trust me.
 
#48 ·
CVP33 said:
JEM brings up a good point. What is holding the rear down and those speeds? I had mine up to 163 mph and it felt very stable, what I described as scary smooth and no sensation of speed. GM must have got it right and created a car that was aero neutral, creating no lift at speed. Or did they? Did I just get lucky?
I'm no aerodynamicist, but my understanding is:

There's airflow over the top of the car, and airflow underneath the car and through the engine compartment. (everyone repeat after me: duh)

Where Audi screwed up was on the shape of the upper body, the rounded butt of the TT generated a lot of lift.

On many cars airflow underneath is a bigger problem, and airflow through the engine compartment of a front-engine car can be the biggest source of drag.

The designer needs to ensure that only the minimum amount of air needed to cool the engine goes through the engine compartment, that it enters in front of the radiator, that it all goes through the radiator, and that it doesn't try to exit into a high-pressure region under the car (exiting up, or sideways, is better but usually impractical on a production car.)

Under the car the designer needs to avoid structures like big drooping rear bumper covers that trap air under the car and create high-pressure regions.
 
#49 ·
globed,

If it means that much to ya', I trust ya. :)
 
#50 ·
CVP33 said:
globed,

If it means that much to ya', I trust ya. :)
Actually means very little to me. I actually appreciated when I bought early editions of Viper GTS and M5 having people around to dispell myths and misinformation... they are contagious and do nothing in helping fellow fans decide whether to buy the car in question... and when deciding whether to invest $$$ in modifying their car. Hopefully when more CTS-Vs are delivered, some really knowledgeable guys (of which I am not one) will contribute. Sorry you don't seem to appreciate. Dan
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top