Why the PATHETIC rwhp ?? - Page 6
Cadillac
 

Cadillac Forums | Help Us Help You | Advertise | Cadillac Parts | Cadillac News | Cadillac Classifieds / (Old System)

Cadillac Technical Archive | Cadillac Dealers | Cadillac Reviews | Cadillac Dealer Reviews | Cadillac Vendors

CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 95
2004-2007 Cadillac CTS-V Performance Mods Discussion, Why the PATHETIC rwhp ?? in Cadillac CTS-V Series Forum - 2004 - 2007; Originally Posted by Uber-V Empirical data. Let's just start with driving the car and the others that you compare it ...
  1. #76
    Shinkaze is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    331

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Uber-V
    Empirical data. Let's just start with driving the car and the others that you compare it to - stock and same miles. Then compare the exact same cars on the same day and same conditions. Then let's do something really revolutionary: Test the cars on the same dyno at the same time under the same conditions. That's emperical data.
    Dyno results are empircal, ride an drive sessions are purely subjective. My butt-O-meter would say that my CBR-600RR makes 800 RWHP the way it clips off tens in the Qtr mile. Thre reality is it only pulls 105 to the wheels but at 370 pounds thats all it needs to pull, and its more than enough to get it where it needs to be.

    The Subject of this thread is power, to the wheels, and why the CTS-V has yet to produce numbers indicitive of a 400 Crank HP car. The empircal data (dyno results) say that the best Dyno we can muster is still below that of the lowest Z06 we've seen. The Average result is well below and closer to a LS1 dyno. Heck, I would just be happy to see the car average the same as an e39 M5 (330 RWHP on a claimed 390 crank hp), but even that would indicate the car isn't up to 400hp.

    Hopefully there is some easy explanation thats a quick fix and "yea" everyone is happy.

    -Adam

  2. #77
    DgtalPimp's Avatar
    DgtalPimp is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): CTS-V CAI, CAM, BB X-pipe, Baer Extreme Plus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Phx, Arizona
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,129

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Quote Originally Posted by benjet
    As an aside (mainly to Cal) I get oil temps >250degF weekly regardless of driving style (usually while sitting in traffic).

    -Ben
    I get these oil temp alerts sitting in traffic after driving for a bit. This is a known issue with GM.

  3. #78
    DgtalPimp's Avatar
    DgtalPimp is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): CTS-V CAI, CAM, BB X-pipe, Baer Extreme Plus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Phx, Arizona
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,129

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Uber-V
    Empirical data. Let's just start with driving the car and the others that you compare it to - stock and same miles. Then compare the exact same cars on the same day and same conditions. Then let's do something really revolutionary: Test the cars on the same dyno at the same time under the same conditions. That's emperical data.

    I am busting your balls and I am also not convinced that this V car can really make the grade. I own a V and I am "Not Happy Yet". Other issues besides performance leave me dissapointed. The cost difference shouldn't come into play. Cadillac should be on top in every way.....period.
    NOT HAPPY YET?


    Dude how you drive your V?

  4. #79
    DgtalPimp's Avatar
    DgtalPimp is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): CTS-V CAI, CAM, BB X-pipe, Baer Extreme Plus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Phx, Arizona
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,129

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Shinkaze
    Dyno results are empircal, ride an drive sessions are purely subjective. My butt-O-meter would say that my CBR-600RR makes 800 RWHP the way it clips off tens in the Qtr mile. Thre reality is it only pulls 105 to the wheels but at 370 pounds thats all it needs to pull, and its more than enough to get it where it needs to be.
    You should try your butt-o-meter on my R1

    If you bang third real hard and correct she lifts the front wheel up over a buck.

    Cheers,

    Dgtal

  5. #80
    Dreamin is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2004 V
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Calif.
    Age
    46
    Posts
    2,212

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Adam and Dreamin,
    ...
    The real question here is:
    Have you driven a V or any of the cars you are comparing it to?
    Uber: I'm comparing the V to a Z06... So you're asking if I have driven a Z06 and a CTS-V.

    Yes, I own a Z06:




    Do all the work and mods on it myself (having a lift in your garage really helps with this ):




    And to make sure I know how to drive it, I track it regularly (here's Laguna Seca):





    I have test-driven three CTS-V's over the last month... fairly extensive drives, got a good feel for the car...absolutely loved it.
    It felt slower than my Z... probably because it is much heavier.

    I guess I fail to see the point of your question.

  6. #81
    JBsZ06 is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 2008 CTS AWD FE2 DI 304hp
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    729

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Dyno numbers are bs! How s the car perform? Thats the real answer.


    drivetrain loss, dyno variances etc. make dyno a comparative tool best saved for mods.

  7. #82
    wildwhl's Avatar
    wildwhl is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    5,496

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Check out this thread:

    http://www.zo6vette.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57361


    332 rwhp in an 04 Z06 at 1700 miles. Guys on there are commenting that this isn't all that uncommon. Just fuel for the fire I suppose.

  8. #83
    Trilio is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    36

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Keep your dino readings, I can't drive them! Yeah my tuned up Firebird with LS1 "feels and sounds" a lot stronger than my V but on the track it just aint so. The V is just so smooth and effortless you don't know how fast it is until your running against another car. The Z06 is faster but its 800 lbs lighter and no where near as comfortable. It's so cool to be driving along with friends who think they are in a luxury car til I "forget" to slow for a turn then give it full muscle coming out! Even the most macho guys want to scream like a girl. I just love it. Don't get caught up in the numbers game it costs a lot of money and if your not going to run on the track its just possing. Don't have to look fast as long as you are fast, and this car is as fast as you can possibly be on the street and still be safe. One man's opinion.

  9. #84
    Devil_concours is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Age
    31
    Posts
    3,684

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Quote Originally Posted by wildwhl
    Check out this thread:

    http://www.zo6vette.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57361


    332 rwhp in an 04 Z06 at 1700 miles. Guys on there are commenting that this isn't all that uncommon. Just fuel for the fire I suppose.
    i think i've seen 321 on z06 but that could have been from the older z06 with 385hp.

  10. #85
    Chapel is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Salem, Massachusetts, United S
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Shinkaze
    No, that's simply not the case. Look at the LS1 Vette vs the z06 Vette.
    LS1 Vette Avg RWHP 300 on 350 hp = 14.2% (50hp)
    Z06 Vette Avg RWHP 355 on 405 hp = 12.3% (50hp again)
    12.3% loss is not common on a Dynojet 248C and those are the most forgiving
    Look at alot of new performance cars. The SRT-4 makes over 230whp and only CLAIMS 215bhp. From all I've seen, the Z06 is producing well more than 405bhp, but unless someone feels like yanking their engine out and putting it on a proper brake dyno, I wont accept that it makes 405bhp.

    The amount of power it takes to spin the same drivetrain becomes a smaller percentage of overall power as power increases. FWIW though the GTO which has largely identicle driveline makes 298 RWHP which is 350hp exactly at 15% loss (52hp). The CTS-V averages 320RWHP. So you're saying that against logic it takes almost 30 more HP to spin the same driveline in the CTS than the GTO? I think not, besides the Vette proves the inverse is true that as power increases the percent of overall parasitic drag as a function of total power decreases.
    The only thing I can think of is NVH implements in the Cadillac driveline to keep it quiet that could be sapping power. If there is some type of flex shaft on the tail of the transmission, that could claim some horsepower.

    Where are you getting these numbers from? 25% for a stick?!?!?
    Certainly. Ive seen 25% driveline loss on a manual transmission on a Dyno Dynamics Low Profile 4WD Dyno. I've seen over 30% too.

    Stock Subaru WRX STi, 228bhp is 25% driveline loss from 300bhp.


    2002 WRX (227bhp)
    Stock pull (in red) was 155.6whp. Over 30% driveline loss.

    Why would the CTS-V alone producing 20% loss when the GTO, Firebird, Camaro, Corvette LS1 and LS6, Viper and Mustang Cobra all with the same T56 tranny showing 15% or better?
    transmission is not the only cause of driveline loss. Differentials and axles along with even the rolling stock can reduce numbers on a chassis dyno. And I was under the impression that the CTS-V used the ZF-6, not the T-56.
    Keep in mind the courts ruled against ford for false advertising on 15 avg HP below advertised. We're talking more than twice that here. Ford had to go back and upgrade owners Cobras and give them partial refunds, same with the RX8 when it dynoed low.
    The RX-8 was a different story altogether as the RX-8 has a safety measure when there is no air being forced into the engine compartment (and a standard dyno fan cannot produce the force needed) that causes the engine to kick back full power so not to overheat the catalytic converters. In the case of the E46 M3, you cant even get the engine to run past 6500 without the BMW GT1 Diagnostic tool (which you cant buy) set to Dynamometer mode.
    Either the marketing or mechanicals are wrong so somone should ask Caddy to explain.
    Well, how about this. If someone wants to start a class action lawsuit, they should find someone who has taken the engine out of their car, put it on a proper brake dyno and have it run with a qualified GM technician to make sure that there are no electronic leashes keeping the engine from producing full song. Chassis dynos are currently being used incorrectly by people who just want peak numbers to show off rather than a diagnostics tool. The only way to measure TRUE power is on a brake dyno, not a chassis dyno.
    Maybe manufacturers should start showing average WHP when rating their cars to appease this new wave of Internet Class Action Lawsuits from people not happy with their dyno numbers.
    Id like to know the numbers alot of these people are getting on specific dynos. Dynojets are known to be more lenient with their numbers, Mustang dynos are less so and Dyno Dynamics are the least forgiving. I've seen an LS1 Vette put down 300whp on a Dynojet 248C (15% loss) and the next week put down 280whp on a Dyno Dynamics (20%loss) with no changes

    Here is a DynoDynamics run from a Z06 Vette with a Remapped ECU:

    329.9whp recorded on a modified 405bhp car (which is more than likely making about 420+bhp)


    Same here, look at stock numbers: 323.7whp (20% loss)
    with a different throttle body, intake, thermostat and Remapped ECU it made 345.9whp (~435 corrected brake horse)
    Different dynos give different numbers

  11. #86
    Cal
    Cal is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    NJ Shore
    Posts
    763

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Looks like we are finally building some empirical data!


    I am still too lazy to hunt through this mound on my desk and find my slips to compare to the Z06, but I will soon not to worry.

  12. #87
    wildwhl's Avatar
    wildwhl is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    5,496

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Gentlemen -

    I'm certain that our cars are within spec on the horsepower. I am also certain, from my own experiences with the RX8 that there are things that could be causing the lower than expected dyno numbers. The RX8 actually was down on power, Mazda admitted it and corrected the advertising. The reason was due to a last minute ECU reprogramming that would make the cats live as long as CARB required, if I recall correctly. I know some of these things as fact because I drove two of the top dog Mazda engineers around in my defective one for an hour - he could barely speak english, sat in the backseat while his laptop sat in the passenger seat and I tried to destroy the car that they knew I'd be selling back. He explained many of the systems to me - it is a complex car - somewhat of a technical marvel in my book.

    Furthermore, that car has a pretty darn good stability system in it that monitors all four wheels and will further reduce power if everything isn't doing what it should do - for example the front wheels aren't turning when the rears are doing 100 mph - the computer says hold on and cuts power. The piggyback ecu tuners for that car have found ways around this, but it is complex.

    Now, it is possible some of these same type of issues (stabilitrack cutting power?) could be occuring on the V. Again, if I recall correctly, on the rx8 dynos you couldn't see what anyone would attribute to as braking, but we later learned that the computer was in fact reducing the power none the less.

    SO, let's put this hp issue to bed. There are no grounds for it that I can see. Those with the lowest dynos will probably see significant improvement after mods or even after further breakin/different dyno/different day/etc. Logic tells me GM did as little as possible to the LS6 to get it into the car (aka - K.I.S.S.) and should it be the balance of the drivetrain that is sapping additional rwhp, then so be it. That is one of the elements that makes this a luxury sports sedan, and I can live with it.

    I'm sure each of you can as well.

    Trust me, GM didn't false advertise, and the emperical data will show just that. The car is what it is. Not capable of 4.6 0-60 yet, until the wheel hop is gone. But the 1/4 mile times will happen, just wait. And I'm sure someone will figure out how the GM guys slipped/launched the car to get the 4.6 time.

    The car is wicked fast as is, with more than enough horsepower. Do I want more? Sure I do, but I won't be entering into yet another frivolous class action lawsuit in our society to find it. Period.

    No two cars are created equal - but all of the V's were created pretty darn great. The HP is being made and we're wasting our time trying to figure "where it went".

  13. #88
    Chapel is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Salem, Massachusetts, United S
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

    "To prove his point, Dinan bolts to his Dynopack one of his 2003 Dinan M5s, heavily tweaked to make a claimed 470 horsepower at the crank (he expects about 415 at the wheels). With the hood closed and no external fan blowing air into the radiator, the car wheezes out just 334 horsepower at the wheels. An LCD data logger on the dashboard reveals the air-fuel ratio from the engine computer. Approaching redline, the BMW's computer richens the mixture all the way to 9.5:1 as the underhood temperatures soar.

    That's one thick mix, practically charcoal briquettes blowing out of the tailpipe. But then, with the M5 running in fifth gear (the 1:1 gear ratio with the least friction, preferred by dyno testers), the computer expects 159 mph worth of cooling wind blast around the horsepower peak. It's getting nothing, and it knows.

    Now Dinan opens the hood and turns on a small Home Depot shop fan blowing about 10 mph worth of air. The M5 is allowed to shed some excess heat and then run again. This time the computer finds another 37 horsepower, or 371. Things are looking up, but the M5's output is still nowhere near Dinan's expected number of 415.

    "I can't claim something I can't measure," says Dinan, so the crew then wheels out the big gun: a $7000 electric fan that looks like it should be hanging on the wing of a Boeing 737. It blasts 38,000 cubic feet per minute of air at 75 mph down a narrow duct, right into the M5's radiator. The fan roars, the M5 howls, the computer twinkles, and the graph paper ticka-ticks out of the printer. It says 411.4 horsepower, the best run of the day."

  14. #89
    dennis is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): '04 CTS V
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    West Linn, OR
    Posts
    11

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Typically, when a successful product liability challange results in substantial notoriety and recognition for the legal consul team representing their plaintiffs in a class action, that same legal team should be eager to pursue similar class action claims of product liability by means of a contingency agreement. Especially when the defendent is again, a world-leading automotive corporation and major Fortune 100 company. Possibly, that legal team is simply not aware of the CTS-V shortcomings. Just my thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shinkaze
    There is already a court precedent set by the 1999 Ford Mustang Cobra Case (see my link to LS1Tech above), that a Chassis dyno can be used to acuratly determine crank HP. In order for the CTS-V to achieve 400 Crank HP you should see RWHP in the 340 range, which is 20 shy of what is listed below.

    ALSO as I've said before, the CTS-V has a more efficient driveline than the Corvette Z06. The Torque tube rear transmission used in the corvete typically shows a 18% parasitic loss compared to a 15% parastic loss in none torque tube set-ups. Since the LS6 is rated at 400hp in the CTS-V it should dyno similar if not better dynos than the Corvette Z06.

    320 RWHP is closer to an LS1 F-Body. While my TA dynoed 300 at the wheels stock, I know half a dozen people that bone stock dynoed 310-320 RWHP in their F-Bodies. The CTS-V should be putting down more power, and I fear this could be indicitive of a greater problem, and/or an overrated motor.

    -Adam

  15. #90
    Cal
    Cal is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    NJ Shore
    Posts
    763

    Re: Why the PATHETIC rwhp ??

    Bad news...on my dyno slips there isn't fuel/air only speed in that bottom 3rd graph there. So there really isn't a comparison in terms of same dyno, all I can say is that my partner's Z06 with 1k miles and headers/borla/cats/tune only had ~40hp on my V stock. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting