Okay, here's my take:
1) Dyno's: I'm not an expert on this, but pretty much when I had some free time, I read up on it a little on the net. Seem's that alot of people complain about HP numbers at the rear wheels when compared to factory claims. I read some threads about the nissan maxima back in 2000 I think where they were getting like 180 rwhp from 5 speeds (or 6?) when it was rated at 255hp. I read some camaro threads and F-body threads. Looks like parasitic drain is around 15-20% for manual transmissions, but it looks like it not just dependent on transmission, but also gearing/differential, intake, exhaust, etc...Now that LS6 is CRAMMED in there, bet those exhaust manifolds aren't exactly free flowing. Also bet the exhaust is tuned to not make "too much" noise...well, etc...Point is that I see most of the dynos on the V in the 320-330 range. That's 17.5% to 20% drain. I don't think that's that far off at all guys. Seems right around where it should be - a little low, yes, but I think I read somewhere someone dumped JUST and intake on theirs and was up into the 335 rwhp range! That kinda proves that the engine is capable of making the power, it's just held back, probably mostly from the CRAMMING it took...
2) I honestly believe the FG2 was GM's immediate reaching to provide those that wanted it, track/drag performance. I don't think GM ever designed the V to be a straight dragger, or else they (like it's been said before) would have put super firm suspension on it from the factory, and used urethane instead of rubber isolator bushings in the suspension, or thrown a solid rear axle under there. But of course to swim with the big boys, they had to throw that ultimate 0-60 number out there, which I'm sure they obtained at some time, wome way, but like EVERY other manufacturer it's very difficult to obtain those claimed times. Those 03 CTS owners who bought their CTS for the 6.9s 0-60 are pretty pissed off too (jk!).
I bet GM decided to semi-fix the wheel-hop (enough to give most people all the grip they'd ever need) quietly, so as not to cause the large uproar we seem to be causing here - it could have save a big "value reduction" press smear if they would've come out admitting "failure" and offering free parts. Instead, they decide to give the "track" option to those that want it, as if saying "There's nothing wrong with the CTS-V, we just have made it even better" - I'd think that is what we'd want.
.....And I digress.
For anyone who has not driven/launched an FG2 car, I'd do that FIRST before you continue to scream about wheel hop - you'd be quite surprised. And for those that would then shout out "we shoudn't have to pay for a fix for wheel hop", I would counter as I always have that the V was designed to be an all-around performer and is NOT the only "super touring" car that has this to deal with - but with 395 lbs/ft of TQ, it's hard to hide it
. Judging by the number of people who have emailed me about selling their FG2 they didn't have installed, I'd say many people prefer the ride and handling from the factory and have no compaints about the wheel hop...