Cadillac Owners Forum banner
30K views 116 replies 50 participants last post by  thebigjimsho 
#1 ·
What kind of numbers are you guys seeing documented out there?
 
#3 ·
It's 163 pmh
I'm sure I saw a better video but i couldnt find it doing 163.
but I found this one thought (not me)

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEsp01CGN_c&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEsp01CGN_c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
 
#26 ·
It's 163 pmh
I'm sure I saw a better video but i couldnt find it doing 163.
but I found this one thought (not me)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEsp01CGN_c&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEsp01CGN_c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
You guys see the latest comment on that video.

"nicenred1 (4 months ago)

what year was it? That must be bone stock i got up to 176 with a few mods out of my 05"


Haha! I'd like to know what few mods he had.
 
#5 ·
Touched 164 before it bounced off the rev limiter in 5th
 
#6 ·
Hopefully I'll be able to pull in 6th when I get my motor back in!
 
#8 ·
WOW. Joined in 06 and this is the first post. :tisk:
 
#16 ·
Sadly, this is true for me, did around 130mph in 4th vs. Bentley GT, but never been higher. I think I could get 180mph, but would need a 3-mile runway.
 
#14 ·
160mph here - my tires are a bit shorter than stock, so that's limiter in 5th.
It might have been mostly the road I was on at the time (racing Lambo on Rt2 in Boston) but it was pretty scary at that speed. Only thing scarier was my sport bike at 170mph - felt like I had two rubber molecules touching the road...
'99 Z51 C5 at 175mph was rock-solid - less scary than my high-school girlfriend's Hyundai Excel was at 55mph. :)
 
#17 ·
On the night I bought my 05 V, driving home could not resist and took it up to 130. I would have done more, but the road was getting curvy and I did not have any confidence in the tires...... A great feeling, and there was petal left.
 
#18 ·
hair over 165 here, lets call it 166. maggie, tune and corsa. felt solid for these speeds, still climbing when i let off.
 
#19 ·
I just completed a run on a closed track (wink, wink) today and reached a MPH of 163 in 5th gear @ redline. I feel like the car might have had more due to my headers, exhaust, tune, and CAI. Maybe someday I'll shift into 6th and see what happens.

BTW, the car felt pretty solid up to about 145, but from then on, the front end started to get a bit light feeling, nothing terrible, just different. Overall, a very enjoyable experience, haha.
 
#20 ·
My several 163 mph runs felt very stable. The cars suspension is stock with FE4's and no spoiler. I could cruise all day at 163 and not be the least bit uncomfortable. But thats coming from a guy who dosen't think a 4x4 extened cab Ford at 120 is un-nerving. Would take both cars faster but thats as fast as they go! lol
 
#21 ·
163 for mine, mostly stock with FE2 shocks felt solid minimal front end float but surface was very smooth and very straight with no wind gusts, was playing with a stock M5, kinda funny, it was clearly quicker but fell flat at the 155 limiter while I pulled away for a while. Nice not to have a limiter on our cars.
 
#24 ·
NIce Video
 
#34 ·
The CTS is a brick aerodynamically. The really flat, vertical rear end is terrible for aerodynamics - the price we pay for the "stealth fighter" look.
At least the designers tried to put a bit of "rear defuser" in the back bumper, but it's not enough to do much...
When thinking about aerodynamic drag, it's not just about frontal area, you also need to think about how the shape of the car leaves the air after it's gone over the car. If you think about airplanes, birds, etc, they all taper to a point at the end, and our cars do the exact opposite. I remember reading somewhere (maybe it was "All Corvettes are Red"?) that most cars up until the 90s were probably more aerodynamic going backwards than forwards!
 
#37 ·
When thinking about aerodynamic drag, it's not just about frontal area, you also need to think about how the shape of the car leaves the air after it's gone over the car. If you think about airplanes, birds, etc, they all taper to a point at the end, and our cars do the exact opposite.
All of this is covered by the drag coefficient, no?

Drag is based on the density & viscosity of air, the frontal area, the drag coefficient, and velocity^2 right? Not that it follows the equation perfectly, especially on the ground where that surface throws all kinds of other stuff in. I dunno, I could be missing lots of things anyway, I hated Fluids, and I've had time forget what I did learn. In any case, I need to look up the equation, find the frontal area, plug the numbers in, and see what comes out...it will be interesting, whatever the results. :stirpot:
 
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