: 1/4 ET Predictions



the cadillac kid
01-11-08, 09:57 PM
i think this thing will run 12.5s all day



post your predictions



*edit*
hmm... Parker got his to run an 11.86 weighing 4205lbs & putting out around 500 at the rear wheels (x/.8) puts him at 625 at the crank...
theres a difference of 75 hp here... so maybe a .7 of a second difference? puts it in the 12.5 territory...

CVP33
01-11-08, 10:13 PM
12.20 - 12.40 @ 120mph. That's what it will take to "suck the doors of an M5".

rand49er
01-12-08, 09:20 AM
With stkshkr's best 11.85/121 and 350 lbs lighter, I'd guess low 12's at ~118 for a similarly powered but heavier Gen II V.


(Wow! :worship:)

StealthViggen
01-12-08, 12:44 PM
We are forgetting a few things.
1. Massive Torque from probably 2000 RPM
2. Ability to launch with authority and not grenade the drivetrain ( we hope )
3. Performance traction program
4. Magnetic ride ( as applied in the ZR1, when a drag launch is detected allow for 100% rebound to allow rear weight transfer and squat without wheel hop)

My guess 12.0's or better.

austin
01-12-08, 03:08 PM
If a similar hp/trq equipted E55 AMG can do 11.5's all day with just a little extra work (Computer chip), then i see no reason the 2009 cts-v shouldn't. Where talking a whole differant animal here, as compared to just slapping on a maggie to a 04-07 cts-v. my best guess will be between 11.50-12.00.

thebigjimsho
01-12-08, 03:41 PM
If a similar hp/trq equipted E55 AMG can do 11.5's all day with just a little extra work (Computer chip), then i see no reason the 2009 cts-v shouldn't. Where talking a whole differant animal here, as compared to just slapping on a maggie to a 04-07 cts-v. my best guess will be between 11.50-12.00.Agreed. stkshkr has more power but the new V should be able to provide deadly launches. And with 285 rear meats. I'll venture an 11.95 @ 117mph...

keeksv
01-12-08, 04:49 PM
high 11's with the right launch, easily

onebadcad
01-12-08, 05:39 PM
Sub 12-sec run for a stock Caddy, who would have believed that 5 years ago.

BLACK_CTSV
01-12-08, 06:13 PM
12.6 @ 117

SLPR 6.0L
01-12-08, 08:13 PM
12.0 @117-119, all day long with a good paddle shifter. Hopefully the automatic will be more efficient than the manual.
Gonna make worm out of the Cobra (thats coming from a 96 modular 4.6 past owner).

v84life
01-13-08, 12:52 AM
GM 12.0-12.3 at 118 ...Rags and Mags 11.9-12.2 119... Owners 11.5-12.0 at 119-121.

I'm thinking huge fat tq curve , 373 rear , launch control and sticky tires:lildevil:
In the real world that would suck the doors off a M5.....

Can't wait....:D

NormV
01-13-08, 08:15 AM
As we have seen with the current V drive train, GM does not over engineer like MB does in their AMG cars. Neither are GM's transmissions as effcient as the Germans. We'll see.


Norm



If a similar hp/trq equipted E55 AMG can do 11.5's all day with just a little extra work (Computer chip), then i see no reason the 2009 cts-v shouldn't. Where talking a whole differant animal here, as compared to just slapping on a maggie to a 04-07 cts-v. my best guess will be between 11.50-12.00.

b4z
01-13-08, 08:32 AM
Traction will be an issue on the auto cars.
4.XX 1 st gear X 3.73 rear gear vs. the M6 ,which is either a 2.97 or 2.66 1st gear.

TheRooster
01-13-08, 09:16 AM
As we have seen with the current V drive train, GM does not over engineer like MB does in their AMG cars. Neither are GM's transmissions as effcient as the Germans. We'll see.


Norm

Uhhh, the CTS transmission is what goes into the 5 series.

Flyboy
01-13-08, 09:17 AM
Agreed. stkshkr has more power but the new V should be able to provide deadly launches. And with 285 rear meats. I'll venture an 11.95 @ 117mph...

:yeah::yeah:

TheRooster
01-13-08, 09:19 AM
My prediction is 11.79 @ 120. This thing is going to fly for a sedan and 550/550 may be just for the insurance companies. (We can only hope)

CVP33
01-13-08, 09:34 AM
http://robrobinette.com/et.htm

Calculator says 12.1 - 12.2. Don't forget to add the weight of driver and fuel when using.

keeksv
01-13-08, 09:56 AM
http://robrobinette.com/et.htm

Calculator says 12.1 - 12.2. Don't forget to add the weight of driver and fuel when using.
A lot of ET can be shaved off with decent 60 foot time. Not sure (or too lazy to look) what 60 foot time this site uses. I'm hoping the new car launches better than the current model. If so, with the right driver......ah, what am I saying, this is GM after all, right?

the cadillac kid
01-13-08, 04:57 PM
^ then again, the Z06 can run 10s bone stock, so maybe there are a couple more tenths that can be shaved off what the mags report...

*edit*
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1876797

Wicked_V
01-14-08, 02:21 PM
11.7 @ 122 mph...

Maxb49
01-14-08, 04:51 PM
Let's see, 4,300 pounds and 550 horsepower at the flywheel, this car should run 12.2 @ 111.7 (rounded up) after a fifteen percent powertrain loss is accounted for. You can do a lot better for $62,000. Supercharge a Mustang and live happily, with $$$ to spare.

parexa
01-14-08, 05:26 PM
lol a rustang is a totally different animal

Maxb49
01-14-08, 06:15 PM
lol a rustang is a totally different animal

Yeah. It's a car that actually wins races for low $$$. It's the same concept as the venerable Corvette, another better choice than this car for performance driving.

the cadillac kid
01-14-08, 06:46 PM
Maxb49, this is a Cadillac forum, nothing "ford" related in this thread.

thebigjimsho
01-14-08, 06:48 PM
Let's see, 4,300 pounds and 550 horsepower at the flywheel, this car should run 12.2 @ 111.7 (rounded up) after a fifteen percent powertrain loss is accounted for. You can do a lot better for $62,000. Supercharge a Mustang and live happily, with $$$ to spare.Just another mouth breather who thinks driving straight for a few hundred feet is all that matters in life.

thebigjimsho
01-14-08, 06:49 PM
Maxb49, this is a Cadillac forum, nothing "ford" related in this thread.I believe that is ****. You can't even say that name anymore, it's not yours...

thebigjimsho
01-14-08, 06:50 PM
Yeah. It's a car that actually wins races for low $$$. It's the same concept as the venerable Corvette, another better choice than this car for performance driving.Yeah, if you have no friends and never have to put anyone in your car. See, many people actually need more than 2 seats. Or 2 seats and an unusable rear seat.

The Tony Show
01-14-08, 06:57 PM
Supercharge a Mustang and live happily, with $$$ to spare.

That's assuming that someone could be happy driving a Rustang. If you're going to compare it something, let's talk MB AMG or Audi RS4. Mustangs are for kids with too much money or middle aged hipsters trying to relive the 60's.

I don't care if the new CTS-V is .1 second slower in the 1/4, since I'll be too happy gripping my Alcantara wheel and listening to some tunes on my 40gb HDD while going around a corner at 80. :)

the cadillac kid
01-14-08, 06:58 PM
TTS, ftw

NormV
01-14-08, 07:19 PM
It will not go under 12.5 just like the current V will go under 5 seconds, unless it is driven by GM engineer John H.

The alcantra covered wheel will be last models dif. Friend had a 330i that was an M3 minus the motor. Had the alcantra covered wheel replaced under warranty and swapped it out for leather and sold the alcantra. Don't GM's version will be any better than the German's. :)


Norm


That's assuming that someone could be happy driving a Rustang. If you're going to compare it something, let's talk MB AMG or Audi RS4. Mustangs are for kids with too much money or middle aged hipsters trying to relive the 60's.

I don't care if the new CTS-V is .1 second slower in the 1/4, since I'll be too happy gripping my Alcantara wheel and listening to some tunes on my 40gb HDD while going around a corner at 80. :)

wrazor1
01-14-08, 07:55 PM
Yeah. It's a car that actually wins races for low $$$. It's the same concept as the venerable Corvette, another better choice than this car for performance driving.


i'd like to know what races you are referring to? I've owned (and currently own) a handful of Vettes and can honestly say when I bought them I wasn't thinking "wow, now I can go win some races!!!!!" What in the hell are you talking about? Now, I will go out and have some fun with other cars from time to time and have been on the track a couple of times and still wasn't officially registered in any race. the more i read your post, the less sense it makes to me. Is there some kind of "Street Racing Cup" series that I'm not aware of?

I've changed my mind!!! I'm not going to buy a V now. This guy has talked me into buying an '89 Mustang. I'm going to save a ton of money and now I'll win races!!

Please send me info on where and when all these races are and I'll meet you there in my new stang.

Maxb49
01-14-08, 08:20 PM
i'd like to know what races you are referring to?

http://www.muscularmustangs.com/2005/news0036americaniron.php

http://www.racecar.com/story.asp?NewsID=15965


As for "brand cache", the CTS-V doesn't do it for me.

wrazor1
01-14-08, 08:37 PM
http://www.muscularmustangs.com/2005/news0036americaniron.php

http://www.racecar.com/story.asp?NewsID=15965


As for "brand cache", the CTS-V doesn't do it for me.

HAAAA!!!! You are not helping your cause here. Those look exactly like cars right off the dealers lot. That is why i'm buying a caddy, so i can put a spoiler on it and ruin it in races nobody gives a rat's ass about. This reminds me of the old saying about how it is better to be silent and presumed stupid then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Maxb49
01-14-08, 08:42 PM
This reminds me of the old saying about how it is better to be silent and presumed stupid then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

I'm not the one considering blowing $60,000+ for a supercharged small/midsized sedan. You are.

I have no "cause". My point is that these cars are far too overpriced for what you get.

Maxb49
01-14-08, 09:02 PM
WRazor, I have several honest questions for you:

1. What is the point of this segment?

2. What compels you to purchase this car?

wrazor1
01-14-08, 09:56 PM
WRazor, I have several honest questions for you:

1. What is the point of this segment?

2. What compels you to purchase this car?

The better question in why in the hell are you here? For someone not interested in this car or 'segment' you spend too much time here. Why do people buy M5's? Why do they buy M3's? Why do they buy AMG's? Is this starting to look like a bigger 'segment' than you thougt? Lets see, a luxury car that moves like a sports car. Yep, you're right, no appeal there. Listen, go buy your stang, take it to a track and kill it. That's fine. I won't follow you over to the mustang forum and ask why you like cheap, dime a dozen, see them on every street corner, and in every trailer park, wanna be sports cars. You are out of your league here.

CVP33
01-14-08, 10:38 PM
Let's see, 4,300 pounds and 550 horsepower at the flywheel, this car should run 12.2 @ 111.7 (rounded up) after a fifteen percent powertrain loss is accounted for. You can do a lot better for $62,000. Supercharge a Mustang and live happily, with $$$ to spare.

I agree. I'd use the extra dollars to buy a gun and kill myself before I'd be seen in a poohstang. Great cars, but really no comparison. Even the Shelby dash is an embarrassment to modern engineering. :cookoo:

SoCal-VEE
01-15-08, 03:19 AM
i'd like to know what races you are referring to? I've owned (and currently own) a handful of Vettes and can honestly say when I bought them I wasn't thinking "wow, now I can go win some races!!!!!" What in the hell are you talking about? Now, I will go out and have some fun with other cars from time to time and have been on the track a couple of times and still wasn't officially registered in any race. the more i read your post, the less sense it makes to me. Is there some kind of "Street Racing Cup" series that I'm not aware of?

I've changed my mind!!! I'm not going to buy a V now. This guy has talked me into buying an '89 Mustang. I'm going to save a ton of money and now I'll win races!!

Please send me info on where and when all these races are and I'll meet you there in my new stang.

These Trailer Park Boys should know......

http://www.audizine.com/gallery/data/500/Trailer_Park_Boys.jpg

wrazor1
01-15-08, 02:19 PM
These Trailer Park Boys should know......

http://www.audizine.com/gallery/data/500/Trailer_Park_Boys.jpg

I think the guy in the backseat is Maxb49.

Maxb49
01-15-08, 02:52 PM
The better question in why in the hell are you here? For someone not interested in this car or 'segment' you spend too much time here. Why do people buy M5's? Why do they buy M3's? Why do they buy AMG's? Is this starting to look like a bigger 'segment' than you thougt?

Nope, it's big as the segment has been for a while. Frankly, I don't see the purpose. What is the intent of the segment? I asked that as an honest question, but you felt the need to continue to affirm your ego. I'll ask it again., in bigger type so you don't miss it:

What is the point of this segment?

It obviously isn't a luxury cruising segment, because the dimensions of the car are too small to be in the BMW 7 series/MB S Class/etc. It obviously isn't about drag racing. It obviously isn't a grand touring car. And it obviously isn't a muscle car, because muscle cars blend performance and affordability. These are simply gussied up, high powered, small sedans. From a manufacturers' perspective, these cars are selling, and the segment makes sense to produce. That is not the question. The question presented before us comes from a purchaser's perspective. Why this segment?


Listen, go buy your stang, take it to a track and kill it. That's fine. I won't follow you over to the mustang forum and ask why you like cheap, dime a dozen, see them on every street corner, and in every trailer park, wanna be sports cars. You are out of your league here.

:rolleyes: Boy, looks like I hit a nerve with you. Take your supercharged pomposity eslsewhere.:histeric:

wrazor1
01-15-08, 03:20 PM
Nope, it's big as the segment has been for a while. Frankly, I don't see the purpose. What is the intent of the segment? I asked that as an honest question, but you felt the need to continue to affirm your ego. I'll ask it again., in bigger type so you don't miss it:

What is the point of this segment?

It obviously isn't a luxury cruising segment, because the dimensions of the car are too small to be in the BMW 7 series/MB S Class/etc. It obviously isn't about drag racing. It obviously isn't a grand touring car. And it obviously isn't a muscle car, because muscle cars blend performance and affordability. These are simply gussied up, high powered, small sedans. From a manufacturers' perspective, these cars are selling, and the segment makes sense to produce. That is not the question. The question presented before us comes from a purchaser's perspective. Why this segment?



And I will again answer your question with a question, WHY IN THE HELL ARE YOU HERE? You don't understand these cars for the same reason you probably don't understand a lot of things I’m guessing. There, I answered it. The purpose of this segment is to confuse idiots like yourself. Mission accomplished. BMW, Audi, Cadillac all got together, spent billions of dollars on R&D and production and sold thousands and thousands of cars just to confuse trailer park morons like you. You asking me to answer that question for an entire group of people so there you go. The fact that you are still here reading and posting about a car you don't like is what is really confusing here. You continue to demonstrate your idiocy. And no, you haven't hit a nerve, I love talking to morons. They call me the Tard Whisperer.

The Tony Show
01-15-08, 03:36 PM
Nope, it's big as the segment has been for a while. Frankly, I don't see the purpose. What is the intent of the segment? I asked that as an honest question, but you felt the need to continue to affirm your ego. I'll ask it again., in bigger type so you don't miss it:

What is the point of this segment?

It obviously isn't a luxury cruising segment, because the dimensions of the car are too small to be in the BMW 7 series/MB S Class/etc. It obviously isn't about drag racing. It obviously isn't a grand touring car. And it obviously isn't a muscle car, because muscle cars blend performance and affordability. These are simply gussied up, high powered, small sedans. From a manufacturers' perspective, these cars are selling, and the segment makes sense to produce. That is not the question. The question presented before us comes from a purchaser's perspective. Why this segment?



:histeric::rolleyes: Boy, looks like I hit a nerve with you. Take your supercharged pomposity eslsewhere.

Wow- talk about seriously missing the point. No one is comparing a CTS-V to an S class or a 7 series- this car competes against the C63 and the M5. Your comment to this extent shows how little you know about the prestige luxury segment and the products available.

In answer to "Why this segment?", I have a simple answer: I want a 4 door car with lots of luxury and room to carry my son, my golf clubs and family/friends to dinner. I don't want a massive vehicle like a 7 series, nor do I want a plebian drivetrain like a DTS. I value performance, but a car like a Corvette is out due to size and comfort. Hmmm......what ever could I purchase?

I know- How about a CTS-V? Brilliant!

urbanski
01-15-08, 03:37 PM
seems a few folks here didnt read my announcement, oh man i'm gonna enjoy this

HushH
01-15-08, 04:54 PM
back on torpic...12.0 - 12.2

wrazor1
01-15-08, 05:36 PM
seems a few folks here didnt read my announcement, oh man i'm gonna enjoy this

Come on. The guy's a troll just stirring it up. I like the back and forth. And I didn't know Tard Whisperer was on the censored list! :canttalk:

urbanski
01-15-08, 06:30 PM
yes hes trolling, but debate, dont name-call

wrazor1
01-15-08, 06:59 PM
yes hes trolling, but debate, dont name-call


I don't know how you debate people like this but since I'm new to this forum, I will stay out of the fray.

CVP33
01-15-08, 07:13 PM
I don't know how you debate people like this but since I'm new to this forum, I will stay out of the fray.

Just stick to the facts and hopefully your beliefs are based on a few facts as well. Then give the offending poster plenty of rope. Trust me, they'll do the rest.

bpitas
01-16-08, 09:01 AM
Nope, it's big as the segment has been for a while. Frankly, I don't see the purpose. What is the intent of the segment? I asked that as an honest question, but you felt the need to continue to affirm your ego. I'll ask it again., in bigger type so you don't miss it:

What is the point of this segment?

It obviously isn't a luxury cruising segment, because the dimensions of the car are too small to be in the BMW 7 series/MB S Class/etc. It obviously isn't about drag racing. It obviously isn't a grand touring car. And it obviously isn't a muscle car, because muscle cars blend performance and affordability. These are simply gussied up, high powered, small sedans. From a manufacturers' perspective, these cars are selling, and the segment makes sense to produce. That is not the question. The question presented before us comes from a purchaser's perspective. Why this segment?



:rolleyes: Boy, looks like I hit a nerve with you. Take your supercharged pomposity eslsewhere.:histeric:

This segment is obvious, at least for me. I had a Corvette, loved it, but had to get rid of it when I had my second kid. There's your honest answer. It's a 4-door Corvette.

I actually owned all Mustangs up until I got my '99 C5 ('83 GT, '85 GT, '96 Mystic) and when I got the Corvette I couldn't believe how much better it was in every aspect than the Mustangs were.

Actually between the C5 and the V I did a 5 year experiment with a WRX - since the V wasn't out yet and I just thought "reasonably fast car, tunable, handles well, and has 4 seats and practical storage".

That was a huge mistake, and much like my Mustangs before that, I was embarrassed to take people for rides in it. Especially people I work with or customers.

With the V I get very nearly the same performance as the C5, tons of room for the kids in the back seat, a trunk that'll fit a ton of stuff, and I actually LOOK for an excuse to drive now.

THAT is what this segment is all about for me...

-B

Flyboy
01-16-08, 09:27 AM
This thread got sooooo out of control. IMHO.....if you want a Mustang, buy one and don't judge the folks that want an '09 CTS-V. If one of us wants a '09 "V", who cares about if a guy (I'm assuming it's a guy here) wants a Ford???

The quality, road-handling (not just "straight line"), interior, real back seat, etc., etc are NO Comparison between the two cars. Let's stay on the topic of this thread.

Urby......Am I correct????

Kadonny
01-16-08, 09:36 AM
OMG, if the first gen V could do 0-60 in 0 seconds, then the second gen will actually travel backwards in time.

Now that's fast!

One of the best lines ever on this forum from Dean, it will live in infamy.

I would love to see a tweak or two to get this car flirting with 11s.

urbanski
01-16-08, 11:16 AM
Urby......Am I correct????

beats me, i'm just watching ferd sue its largest fan forum.

Vrocks
01-16-08, 11:44 AM
As we have seen with the current V drive train, GM does not over engineer like MB does in their AMG cars. Neither are GM's transmissions as effcient as the Germans. We'll see.


Norm

BMW and MBs have a lot of engine and transmission problems with their high powered AMG cars. I know several people that have the 55's and one 65 (it was a buy back because of so many transmission failures).

We all remember the M3 enigne problems.... and they weren't much better in the past when my parents had them (non M's 5 and 7... tons of E problems and one transmission problem) in the early to mid 90's.

thebigjimsho
01-16-08, 12:04 PM
beats me, i'm just watching ferd sue its largest fan forum.link?

urbanski
01-16-08, 12:32 PM
50 lashes for not reading every thread here :D
www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-forums-lounge-member-introductions/128439-ford-threatens-lawsuit-against-mustang-enthusiast.html

SRT8/BMW
01-16-08, 01:36 PM
back to the topic at hand...

I am going with 12.4ish. If they did as good a job with the automatic and new geometry in the rear as they did with my sts-v...this puppy will be a consistently good launcher....my STS-V is.


I am seriously thinking about getting on the early delivery list for this beast..gotsta sell one or two of my stable to do it though...:lildevil::lildevil:

CVP33
01-17-08, 08:00 PM
GM quoted 0-60 in 4.7 seconds for the 2004 CTS-V. I predict that GM will quote 2.8 seconds for the 2009. :D

NormV
01-17-08, 09:42 PM
German cars like Audi turbos can handle double the power. You'll never see the heavy V do that.

Look at Toyota if wan tol see quality issues per 100 or 1000.


All the manufactures have quality issues. I had an AMG and my buddy had an E39 M5. We know they had quality issues but the potential to make power is much greater than the V.

Norm


BMW and MBs have a lot of engine and transmission problems with their high powered AMG cars. I know several people that have the 55's and one 65 (it was a buy back because of so many transmission failures).

We all remember the M3 enigne problems.... and they weren't much better in the past when my parents had them (non M's 5 and 7... tons of E problems and one transmission problem) in the early to mid 90's.

Surfer-Dude
01-18-08, 12:53 AM
German cars like Audi turbos can handle double the power. You'll never see the heavy V do that.

Look at Toyota if wan tol see quality issues per 100 or 1000.


All the manufactures have quality issues. I had an AMG and my buddy had an E39 M5. We know they had quality issues but the potential to make power is much greater than the V.

NormUhhhh no, and I almost bought an E39 M5 as I love the classic shape over the butt ugly bangles, V has way more performance potential. And had an 03' E55 when they came out for about 2 years before getting rid of it, I liked it, but the damn thing was in the shop constantly. Sorry, V > AMG/M5's in mod potential, thats not even an opinion, thats fact. And Audi, please, I knew some of the guys pushing serious power in the b4 S4's, can say problematic?

thebigjimsho
01-18-08, 03:08 PM
German cars like Audi turbos can handle double the power. You'll never see the heavy V do that.

Look at Toyota if wan tol see quality issues per 100 or 1000.


All the manufactures have quality issues. I had an AMG and my buddy had an E39 M5. We know they had quality issues but the potential to make power is much greater than the V.

NormYeah, and none of the S or RS models have turbos anymore. As for quality issues, remember toysnot?

urbanski
01-18-08, 04:35 PM
haha snot hasnt logged in since Sept 06

The Tony Show
01-18-08, 05:09 PM
German cars like Audi turbos can handle double the power. You'll never see the heavy V do that.

Look at Toyota if wan tol see quality issues per 100 or 1000.


All the manufactures have quality issues. I had an AMG and my buddy had an E39 M5. We know they had quality issues but the potential to make power is much greater than the V.

Norm

"German Cars"? Puh-leez. When are people going to look at their absolute shit reliability and quality ratings and realize that the "German Engineering" myth is total marketing, akin to "Blast Processing" back in the Sega Genesis days.

You'll never find an easier engine to make power on than the GM small block.

NormV
01-20-08, 10:46 AM
Don't knock until you've driven a few. Used to own them but are just too expensive bang for the buck!

S65 Renntech 11.0 @ 128 MPH. Stock engine, ECU, and airbox!

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz-S65-AMG-Timeslip-10181.html

Throw 150 NX shot on an S600 and run 10's

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz-S600-Timeslip-11883.html

$6400 will get your a 25% increase in power on a S600. 09 V will never handle 25% would put it under 700hp. 25% increase in the current V is 500hp.

http://www.renntechmercedes.com/w220_pricelist.pdf

Got to love German over engineering! I don't want to drive an automatic though.

I instruct with guys that have 2.7TT S4's that are right in the 500hp range. They use them as daily drivers and track cars. The car was original rated at 240-250hp.

Norm

TheRooster
01-23-08, 06:59 PM
German cars like Audi turbos can handle double the power. You'll never see the heavy V do that.

Look at Toyota if wan tol see quality issues per 100 or 1000.


All the manufactures have quality issues. I had an AMG and my buddy had an E39 M5. We know they had quality issues but the potential to make power is much greater than the V.

Norm

Yeah, the LSX motors have no potential. :suspect:

the cadillac kid
01-24-08, 05:31 PM
anything new from GM?
any new predictions?

The Tony Show
01-24-08, 05:42 PM
Don't knock until you've driven a few.

I've driven a ton of them, thanks. My statement wasn't about whether or not they're fast, but rather their crap reliability.

Just about anybody will tell you that a Benz spends more time in the Dealer's garage then your own.

NormV
02-02-08, 11:09 AM
Just cannot see the second gen V going into the low 12's. Granted this will be a state of the art engineering from GM but if you look at weight to power and compare it with this. 605hp/590trq(567/533 wheel) GT 500 runs 12.5 @ 119 MPH with near identical gear ratios and the same 3.73 differential producing more power but lighter than the V.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6056

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/1207_rt_ShelbyGT500.pdf

Norm

Cadillac Tony
02-02-08, 12:07 PM
That "super snake" doesn't have Performance Traction Management or No Lift Shift. From the article you linked to:


That surfeit of motive force easily overwhelms the rear tires. During our acceleration runs, the best we could post was a 0–60-mph time of 4.4 seconds with massive wheelspin in the first two gears. Once underway, though, watch out. The Super Snake bit off the quarter mile in 12.5 sec. at 119.9 mph

I've remember a writeup on a Procharged C6 that had the same problem, and was actually slower 0-60 than a stock one because it couldn't hook. It would be nasty from a roll, but for 1/4 mile or 0-60 it was just too much. Less time spent burning the tires and more spent moving forward, as well as the ability to shift with your foot to floor will easily shave .5 off that time. Expect to see 4.0 second 0-60 times and 12.0 or less in the 1/4 from the CTS-V.

Dave's V
02-02-08, 01:16 PM
I hope it beats MT's estimate of 4.5-4.6 because that seems real slow for a 550hp car. The question will be is GM going to let a Caddy beat a Vette in performance?

thebigjimsho
02-02-08, 01:33 PM
Just cannot see the second gen V going into the low 12's. Granted this will be a state of the art engineering from GM but if you look at weight to power and compare it with this. 605hp/590trq(567/533 wheel) GT 500 runs 12.5 @ 119 MPH with near identical gear ratios and the same 3.73 differential producing more power but lighter than the V.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6056

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/1207_rt_ShelbyGT500.pdf

NormYou took a consistent pig. What does an E55 do?

NormV
02-03-08, 11:40 AM
Don't think they'll be running full timing advance during shifts like you can power shifting like GM engineer John H does.

Let you guys do the research on MB potential with a smaller engine and taller gearing and open diff!

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=81

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=229092


Norm

thebigjimsho
02-03-08, 12:01 PM
Amazing how much you hate the V. You bitter or something?

Cadillac Tony
02-03-08, 01:00 PM
Don't think they'll be running full timing advance during shifts like you can power shifting like GM engineer John H does.

Let you guys do the research on MB potential with a smaller engine and taller gearing and open diff!

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=81

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=229092


Norm

You forgot $96,000.

The best thing you could come up with to prove your point of Mercedes' dominance is a car that runs equal to or slower than what the 2009 CTS-V will, all the while being incredibly ugly and costing about $25,000 more than a V?

Hmm......:hmm:

Cadillac Tony
02-03-08, 01:04 PM
****

NormV
02-03-08, 01:18 PM
The MB has the engineering already, just add power. The new V will costs the similar in the end once you fix the second Gen short comings. Some we don't even know.

Still don't think the auto magazines will see consistent sub 12.5's.

Norm

thebigjimsho
02-03-08, 01:41 PM
The MB has the engineering already, just add power. The new V will costs the similar in the end once you fix the second Gen short comings. Some we don't even know.

Still don't think the auto magazines will see consistent sub 12.5's.

NormWow, the knowledge! Too bad GM didn't hire you to engineer the V the correct way in the beginning. I can't wait for that $90G V to come out that will be so perfect...

NormV
02-03-08, 02:18 PM
Wow, the knowledge! Too bad GM didn't hire you to engineer the V the correct way in the beginning. I can't wait for that $90G V to come out that will be so perfect...


No car is perfect. That is why modifiy them?

Just taking some real world examples to a get a better estimate of what the V will do.

Got to admit that with the GT500 snake's weight and power that trap speed will be around 114-116 MPH or about the same as a maggied gen one. Depending how much they have neuterd it for traction purposes.

Norm

L.Sanchez
02-03-08, 04:28 PM
We are forgetting a few things.
1. Massive Torque from probably 2000 RPM
2. Ability to launch with authority and not grenade the drivetrain ( we hope )
3. Performance traction program
4. Magnetic ride ( as applied in the ZR1, when a drag launch is detected allow for 100% rebound to allow rear weight transfer and squat without wheel hop)

My guess 12.0's or better.

I'm with you. Lows 12's on street tire, high 11's on DR's and GOD KNOWS what that thing would do with a pulley swap, intake, exhaust and tune!!! :bonkers:

10's!?? :histeric:

NormV
02-04-08, 04:10 PM
Car & Driver latest edition puts the V with manual @ 4.1 & 12.4 times.

These guys are not too pleased about the weighty ZR-1 but would rather keep the Z06 and have it loose weight.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1921018&page=3&highlight=scale


Some of you are going gaga over this car while the corvette guys are getting charged double for what only some think are bling mods to the ZR-1 vs C6 and double the price. Granted the C is about double

The Tony Show
02-04-08, 04:37 PM
Well, whatever Corvette guys think the ZR-1 package is just bling are idiots. A guy in the thread you linked to said it perfectly:


I think an easy way to sort it out for you is with a checklist:

Wheels: ZR1 better (larger as light)

Tires: ZR1 better (present runflats are universally derided)

Brakes: ZR1 better (no contest, if you don't know why educate yourself)

Transmission: ZR1 better (usable higher gears, stronger)

Rear End: ZR1 better (Larger, stronger)

Half shafts: ZR1 better (hell even the C5 where better)

Clutch: ZR1 better (twin disc, factory tough, easy on the leg)

Aero: ZR1 better (that much whined about looks stuff 'window excepted' actually works. Splitter, rear wing, side pieces)

Engine: ZR1 better (oh, boy don't cry now. They didn't use the LS7 because it wasn't strong enough. Think about that. If you still think its just a supercharged LS3, read more about it. Not even close. Way more power)

Interior: Toss up (I don't look at interiors that much and assume they will be the same or the ZR1's will all get a 3LZ, but not worse than a ZO6)

Suspension: ZR1 better (READ the damn articles on the tuning of the MR shocks. The things they do are amazing)

Weight: ZO6 better (150 to 200lbs advantage no denying)

Looks: TIE (Half think it looks too tame the other half too blinged -opinon call)

Price: ZO6 (That many improvements aren't free, just reality)

So apart from 'new car I don't like change (insert personal reason here)' opinon stuff if you could by either of them and you wheren't looking for a simple track car (and if so go buy a Lotus Exige), why if you could by both would you get a ZO6? If you didn't have the money, if it didn't meet your specific needs like you want to mod it and have a track car only.

So there you go. Very easy checklist.

P.S. and NO your 600hp modded LS7 will not be as reliable as GM's LS9. Tuners can't do the testing GM can. Period.

You wouldn't happen to have a link to the C&D Hands-On test of the CTS-V, would you? I was under the impression no one had tested it yet.

NormV
02-04-08, 05:42 PM
When I mentioned "puts" I should have clarified that it was their estimate. I would not put too much into the first tests by the rags as the manufacturers can easily put in a ringer. Tests by Motorweek or Autoweek will give a real world results for the average Joe.

The racelogic testing equipment in most cases does not include roll out that you'll see at a drag strip and prepped surfaces.

Norm

TheRooster
02-05-08, 12:38 AM
You forgot $96,000.

The best thing you could come up with to prove your point of Mercedes' dominance is a car that runs equal to or slower than what the 2009 CTS-V will, all the while being incredibly ugly and costing about $25,000 more than a V?

Hmm......:hmm:

He's retarded is all. Move on, nothing to see here.

TheRooster
02-05-08, 12:41 AM
The MB has the engineering already, just add power. The new V will costs the similar in the end once you fix the second Gen short comings. Some we don't even know.

Still don't think the auto magazines will see consistent sub 12.5's.

Norm

Who the hell cares about how fast the rags go. Race me with your overpriced reich piece of work and you'll see a V go much faster than 12.5. You think for a second GM would let that happen? Think again.

Katshot
02-05-08, 08:22 AM
That's assuming that someone could be happy driving a Rustang. If you're going to compare it something, let's talk MB AMG or Audi RS4. Mustangs are for kids with too much money or middle aged hipsters trying to relive the 60's.

I don't care if the new CTS-V is .1 second slower in the 1/4, since I'll be too happy gripping my Alcantara wheel and listening to some tunes on my 40gb HDD while going around a corner at 80. :)

Excuse me. I LOVE my Mustang!
But you're right, you can't even begin to compare one to these cars.

Katshot
02-05-08, 08:30 AM
They call me the Tard Whisperer.

LOL!!!:rofl: Maybe it's me but that's gotta be one of the funniest things I've read in a while. Ok, sorry, back to your local programming.

Katshot
02-05-08, 08:47 AM
I hope it beats MT's estimate of 4.5-4.6 because that seems real slow for a 550hp car. The question will be is GM going to let a Caddy beat a Vette in performance?

The answer to that is no IMO.

the cadillac kid
03-17-08, 09:16 PM
aw man the stang killed my thread :mad:

any new predictions?

CTSV_Rob
03-17-08, 09:25 PM
Excuse me. I LOVE my Mustang!
But you're right, you can't even begin to compare one to these cars.
Have a friend with a hardtop 98 mustang (procharged, no slouch) and from a stand still I was able to pull away stock. With the extra weight of the convertible it does not offer much of a challange in the 1/4.

Plus you need to have the feet of a 10 year old to drive it. When I drove the wive's 98 convertible I would sometimes catch the brake pedal when going for the gas, not a lot of room.

Nice looking car though.

CVP33
03-17-08, 09:41 PM
Back on topic. I predict that the new CTS-V will run high 8 second quarter mile times at approximately 180mph and will carry the front wheels for the first 100 ft. down the track. :eek: Slightly better with drag slicks and wheelie bars, but only slightly.

CTSV_Rob
03-17-08, 10:30 PM
So they are coming factory with a chute or is this an option?

TheRooster
03-24-08, 11:22 AM
I hope this car stomps the GT-R. :stirpot:

the cadillac kid
03-24-08, 04:10 PM
what are the #s on the nissan?

roman371
03-24-08, 09:48 PM
what are the #s on the nissan?

??? 11.6 @120? Sweet rollerskate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdjZ29hgZVM

Katshot
03-25-08, 08:48 AM
I hope this car stomps the GT-R. :stirpot:

SERIOUSLY doubt it.

the cadillac kid
03-25-08, 12:05 PM
i know it will stomp some rustangs :lol:
that GT-R is quick as hell, nissan did a good job on it.
now, back to business.

Katshot
03-25-08, 12:49 PM
i know it will stomp some rustangs :lol:


Ya got me there. I would hope a $60,000+ CTS-V with 550hp+ beats a $30,000 Mustang with 300hp.:bigroll:

the cadillac kid
03-25-08, 01:42 PM
haha it will :thumbsup:

GNSCOTT
04-09-08, 01:58 PM
Somme of you guys have to wake up. 4200lb curb weight, say 4375 with driver. Say 15% drive train loss to get RWHP for around 470rwhp. Every calculator I use shows 12.2@ 111mph, and even worse for the auto that weighs 100lbs more. SOME good drivers and good conditions will get into the 11's unless Gm finds more HP or loses some weight those will be the numbers.

06ImpalaSS
04-09-08, 06:34 PM
I bet this thing will run high 11's at around 120mph. That's my guess for right now.

TheRooster
04-10-08, 12:02 AM
Somme of you guys have to wake up. 4200lb curb weight, say 4375 with driver. Say 15% drive train loss to get RWHP for around 470rwhp. Every calculator I use shows 12.2@ 111mph, and even worse for the auto that weighs 100lbs more. SOME good drivers and good conditions will get into the 11's unless Gm finds more HP or loses some weight those will be the numbers.

111, yah. Those stuoopid online et calculators don't work well at all for cars with massive torque.

v84life
04-10-08, 12:58 AM
You said massive.. hu, hu,:lildevil:

GNSCOTT
04-10-08, 02:18 PM
111, yah. Those stuoopid online et calculators don't work well at all for cars with massive torque.


They work real well. It shows the V1 at 13.3 and the Z06 at 11.2. Those massive enough for you? You are adding 150HP and 100lbs to a V1. A little over a second sounds about right to me off the top of my head. Also a rule of thumb is 100lbs equals a tenth on the track. The V weighs about 1000 lbs more (a full second) and more importantly when you get into those numbers (low 11's) aerodynamics plays a much larger role and the Z06 kills the V there, so yes the V2 should be about a full second slower than a Z06 even with the extra 45hp. To get a 120mph trap speed in a 4375 race weight sedan, you need close to 600RWHP or around 650fwhp. If the V ends up being 550hp (it will be SAE certified so it will not be underrated) it will run low 12's with some getting into the 11's on a good day.

concorso
04-10-08, 08:23 PM
They work real well. It shows the V1 at 13.3 and the Z06 at 11.2. Those massive enough for you? You are adding 150HP and 100lbs to a V1. A little over a second sounds about right to me off the top of my head. Also a rule of thumb is 100lbs equals a tenth on the track. The V weighs about 1000 lbs more (a full second) and more importantly when you get into those numbers (low 11's) aerodynamics plays a much larger role and the Z06 kills the V there, so yes the V2 should be about a full second slower than a Z06 even with the extra 45hp. To get a 120mph trap speed in a 4375 race weight sedan, you need close to 600RWHP or around 650fwhp. If the V ends up being 550hp (it will be SAE certified so it will not be underrated) it will run low 12's with some getting into the 11's on a good day.Thats BS. I did an 10.4 at 207 in Forza2...dummy. :hide: :)

TheRooster
04-10-08, 08:51 PM
They work real well. It shows the V1 at 13.3 and the Z06 at 11.2. Those massive enough for you? You are adding 150HP and 100lbs to a V1. A little over a second sounds about right to me off the top of my head. Also a rule of thumb is 100lbs equals a tenth on the track. The V weighs about 1000 lbs more (a full second) and more importantly when you get into those numbers (low 11's) aerodynamics plays a much larger role and the Z06 kills the V there, so yes the V2 should be about a full second slower than a Z06 even with the extra 45hp. To get a 120mph trap speed in a 4375 race weight sedan, you need close to 600RWHP or around 650fwhp. If the V ends up being 550hp (it will be SAE certified so it will not be underrated) it will run low 12's with some getting into the 11's on a good day.


How many passes do you have under your belt, 10? Those calculators are usually off by almost half a second on a bigger cube or blower motors. I've been drag racing for 100 years and looking at those calcualtors since they first came out.
Those calc's show 12:30 for a V2....
And did you calculate the Z with no driver? They show an average weight guy at 11:52.
Ok, the V will run 111 mph. We'll see. :thepan:

StealthV
04-10-08, 10:01 PM
Remember to factor in the torque management.

NormV
04-10-08, 10:48 PM
Remember to factor in the torque management.

Rick, your no fun! :)


Norm

TheRooster
04-11-08, 04:56 PM
Rick, your no fun! :)


Norm

And Kentucky windage?

thebigjimsho
04-11-08, 08:40 PM
What was the calculator for the E55 saying?

StealthV
04-11-08, 09:30 PM
Ludicrous speed.

GNSCOTT
04-11-08, 09:46 PM
How many passes do you have under your belt, 10? Those calculators are usually off by almost half a second on a bigger cube or blower motors. I've been drag racing for 100 years and looking at those calcualtors since they first came out.
Those calc's show 12:30 for a V2....
And did you calculate the Z with no driver? They show an average weight guy at 11:52.
Ok, the V will run 111 mph. We'll see. :thepan:

Funny you mention my drag racing skills and running forced air motors. Oh and cubes have nothing to do with it. I ran an 13.4 with my 04V on my first ever pass with a stick and a 2.2 60ft time. I have MANY passes in my other cars including my old car in my profile. It was a V6.

http://http://hometown.aol.com/gn1270/myhomepage/index.html

Anyone who thinks the new V will trap anywhere near 120 and will come anywhere near GT-R numbers are dreaming. I see MAYBE 115 topps on a track like Cecil county. I stand by my squeaking into the 11's too on most tracks. I'm saying 12.2@ 113 for an average good clean run. Mid 11's is a crack pipe dream.

TheRooster
04-12-08, 10:32 AM
Funny you mention my drag racing skills and running forced air motors. Oh and cubes have nothing to do with it. I ran an 13.4 with my 04V on my first ever pass with a stick and a 2.2 60ft time. I have MANY passes in my other cars including my old car in my profile. It was a V6.

http://http://hometown.aol.com/gn1270/myhomepage/index.html

Anyone who thinks the new V will trap anywhere near 120 and will come anywhere near GT-R numbers are dreaming. I see MAYBE 115 topps on a track like Cecil county. I stand by my squeaking into the 11's too on most tracks. I'm saying 12.2@ 113 for an average good clean run. Mid 11's is a crack pipe dream.

I have no idea what the hell your first two sentences mean. Please work on your "rebuttal."
Sounds like you are a really great driver as well. 2.2 60 foot? Come back when you can hit 1.80 on street tires. That is incredibly lame. And you ran a 13.4. Hmmm. The calculator says 13.3 according to some. Seems it's right on if you can't drive. Or, it's 3 to 4 tenths off if you can, like me, like I said.
Big cubes have nothing to do with ET. Excuse me? I've run block block GTO's to 11:60 at 112. One example of hundreds. 455 ci, big gear, big slicks, 550+ ft lbs and 450 HP.
I used to run 11:65 at 114 with a 5.0 Mustang and a crappy but torquey Powerdyne supercharger (before putting in a 351 with a Vortech X-trim and a 150 shot).
Sure this thread was created for fun. Who knows what the V2 will run. I can say that hooking up 525 ft lbs will be MUCH quicker than if it had 400. That's the whole point of my higher cube or forced induction comments. Blowers can make torque go way up and flatten the curve out considerably. Those calc's ignore that aspect and torque is huge in drag racing.

Look at the E63 vs M5. 7 HP difference, about the same weight, E63 KILLS it in acceleration. 97 more ft lbs! What?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x481jc_top-gear-bmw-m5-touring-vs-mercedes_auto

the cadillac kid
04-12-08, 10:44 AM
"horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" -carroll shelby

thebigjimsho
04-12-08, 01:33 PM
"horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" -carroll shelbyYeah, if you can't rev. Don't tell that to the new M3.

StealthV
04-12-08, 01:57 PM
Look to what supercharged V1s are running today on standard street tires - ET in the low to mid twelves and trap speed in the mid to high teens.

The smidge more power with V2 is offset by its weight gain so to me it'll be about a wash and be in the V1 Maggie ballpark. Stock w/ Joe Average driver - mid twelves and high teens.

NormV
04-12-08, 04:16 PM
I put my money on Stealth's statement. :)


Norm


Look to what supercharged V1s are running today on standard street tires - ET in the low to mid twelves and trap speed in the mid to high teens.

The smidge more power with V2 is offset by its weight gain so to me it'll be about a wash and be in the V1 Maggie ballpark. Stock w/ Joe Average driver - mid twelves and high teens.

GNSCOTT
04-12-08, 08:37 PM
I have no idea what the hell your first two sentences mean. Please work on your "rebuttal."
Sounds like you are a really great driver as well. 2.2 60 foot? Come back when you can hit 1.80 on street tires. That is incredibly lame. And you ran a 13.4. Hmmm. The calculator says 13.3 according to some. Seems it's right on if you can't drive. Or, it's 3 to 4 tenths off if you can, like me, like I said.
Big cubes have nothing to do with ET. Excuse me? I've run block block GTO's to 11:60 at 112. One example of hundreds. 455 ci, big gear, big slicks, 550+ ft lbs and 450 HP.
I used to run 11:65 at 114 with a 5.0 Mustang and a crappy but torquey Powerdyne supercharger (before putting in a 351 with a Vortech X-trim and a 150 shot).
Sure this thread was created for fun. Who knows what the V2 will run. I can say that hooking up 525 ft lbs will be MUCH quicker than if it had 400. That's the whole point of my higher cube or forced induction comments. Blowers can make torque go way up and flatten the curve out considerably. Those calc's ignore that aspect and torque is huge in drag racing.

Look at the E63 vs M5. 7 HP difference, about the same weight, E63 KILLS it in acceleration. 97 more ft lbs! What?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x481jc_top-gear-bmw-m5-touring-vs-mercedes_auto


Sorry guy, but what was the 60ft time the first pass you ever made with a stick? How about your with your V1? I apologize if my rear grenaded on my second attempt because I got it to stick. As for your cube argument, my Buick GN was about 1200/1200 on a V6. Oh and my best 60" was a 1.3> Why dont you get back to me when you do the 60ft with looking at nothing buy sky. Oh and the first time I did that I messed up too getting off it and coming down on my Radiator support and crushing my Intercooler pipes, but like my first pass with my V you live and you learn. Sorry to say GM LS motors are not big blocks either. Also sorry that you cannot hold a conversation, especially a fun one w/out coming across insulting.Here are average bone stock Z06 times on the Vette board. These are 3 years worth of track times. Z06 weighs 3132 w no driver and the V2 weighs 4200M6, 4300 auto. You figure out what having 45 extra HP, but 1068-1168 lbs more will do and you will clearly see that the V2 with worse aerodynamics will be no where near 120mph trap speeds at 550hp. I do not know what more I can do to back up my prediction. You can keep screaming about the HP calculator, but I am also giving you a real world comparison with the Z06. Bone-Stock on Stock Tires ------*Current Avg. 11.464 secs. @ 123.97 mph 1.83 secs

1----10.981 @ 128.90--1.77---jamie furman (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=216373)------'06. Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1562974169&postcount=219)
2----11.138 @ 127.20--1.76---Ranger (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=11243)------'06. Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1562900535&postcount=211)
3----11.242 @ 122.38--1.68---Dr.Ron (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=49427)------'06. Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1561756584&postcount=22)
4----11.311 @ 122.89--1.80---BLU-BY-U (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=31705)------'06. Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1561814001&postcount=73)
5----11.349 @ 124.97--1.75---zosix427 (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=214867)-----'06. Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1562804806&postcount=203)
6----11.392 @ 124.84--1.92--- C5 Frank (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=4527)------'06Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1563460310&postcount=251)
7----11.450 @ 125.92--1.88---dgdoc (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=188597)------'06. Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1561757797&postcount=26)
8----11.458 @ 124.13--1.80---layjzay (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=231336) '06 Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1564680930&postcount=282)
9----11.545 @ 123.16--1.83---dpracing (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=229678)-----'07 Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1561952219&postcount=107)
10---11.557 @ 126.68--1.95---Incon306 (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=165041)-----'07 Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1563224436&postcount=243)
11---11.560 @ 124.53--1.85---Zlicious (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=38010)-----'06. Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1562011176&postcount=109)
12---11.627 @ 121.67--1.83---BLK BZT (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=250817)-----'06 Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1562556301&postcount=176)
13---11.632 @ 123.43--1.96---Z06kait (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=263935)-----'07 Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1562421474&postcount=164)
14---11.638 @ 122.46--1.88---Chempwr (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=202112)-----'07Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1563498776&postcount=256)
15---11.641 @ 120.71--1.78---svt2z06 (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=230536)-----'08 Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1564673786&postcount=279)
16---11.695 @ 122.44--1.93---vredvet (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=237120)-----'08 Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1564124667&postcount=269)
17---11.709 @ 121.41--1.86---JWGJR (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=211063)------'07 Details (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showpost.php?p=1561810363&postcount=68)



I am giving it a better time than Stealth only because GM promised faster than the M5, but he is spot on. (I still say in the 114 area on mph) GM I beleive is allowed to over/under the SAE number by 5%. I could be wrong on that. It could be closer to 3%> If it is the 5% they can call it 550hp when it actually is 575hp.

:megan::D

concorso
04-12-08, 09:03 PM
GT-R is betar.

Stealth, how's the Nazi-sled? :)

StealthV
04-12-08, 10:09 PM
Glad I backed out of the '08 Caddy CTS4 order; the 5er is a far superior machine. Hoping some M5 rubs off on V2.

Looking at stkshkr's timeslip when he was closer to stock (467/441 at the wheels), I'm now thinking Joe Average will pull off a 12.1-12.3 with a trap in the high teens. All depends how good Joe is at launching and rowing the gears.


http://www.stealthv.com/images/dyno/Gene_12.296at114.78.jpg

And it is my duty as a V fan to say just like the old car, the new one was never designed to be a 1320' machine.

There will be few street cars that will be able to keep up to a V2 in a 3rd gear roll.

CVP33
04-13-08, 12:27 PM
And it is my duty as a V fan to say just like the old car, the new one was never designed to be a 1320' machine.

There will be few street cars that will be able to keep up to a V2 in a 3rd gear roll.

Amen on both counts. The V possesses the meanest 3rd gear in a 4 door sedan EVER. I do miss loading the V up in 3rd gear and waiting for the sacrificial Mustang GT, G35 coupe or some other unworthy punk to try to blow past me on the highway. :thumbsup:

concorso
04-13-08, 12:43 PM
Glad I backed out of the '08 Caddy CTS4 order; the 5er is a far superior machine. Hoping some M5 rubs off on V2.

And it is my duty as a V fan to say just like the old car, the new one was never designed to be a 1320' machine.

There will be few street cars that will be able to keep up to a V2 in a 3rd gear roll.The new 5er is quite refined. They've got a real winner with that new tt6, as well. If nothing else, the Caddy would have been alot slower. I still say my e39 540i has a nicer interior tho! :)

Veering off topic slightly...

What about a 0-100-0 ? How do ya think the V2 would fare in this? How was the V1?

TheRooster
04-13-08, 07:04 PM
I've seen plenty of blue sky. Like I said, 11.4 is weak when guys can run 10.90's in a Z06. How scientific is that? Toss that calc if you can drive. I certainly hope you can best what it says in everything you drive. Use the non-scientific average if you are an average driver. Well, are you?
For your info, and since you don't know me, I run some of the very best stock C5 and C6 Z06 times out there. :thehand:
TYVM.

It'll go 11:95 @ 116 on a good day!

GNSCOTT
04-14-08, 12:02 PM
I've seen plenty of blue sky. Like I said, 11.4 is weak when guys can run 10.90's in a Z06. How scientific is that? Toss that calc if you can drive. I certainly hope you can best what it says in everything you drive. Use the non-scientific average if you are an average driver. Well, are you?
For your info, and since you don't know me, I run some of the very best stock C5 and C6 Z06 times out there. :thehand:
TYVM.

It'll go 11:95 @ 116 on a good day!


Listen., there is the best time anyone runs, the times GM runs, and the times magazines run. Take what an M5 runs and knock off a tenth or 2 and tell me what you have. That is the CTS-V at 550 SAE hp. The M5 has a curb weight of 4012 which is 200-300 lbs less.

You still have not told me what evidence you have to support your figures except that you can defy Physics or have a major down hill with a tail wind in 35 degree weather track nearby.

Here are the facts that we have to go by

4200 M6, 4300 auto curb weight equates to around 4400-4500lb race weight.
550 HP
aerodynamics: average

My numbers are being generous to the CTS-V and your numbers just do not add up. GM will need to find more of that ZR1 HP to get to the 11's with any kind of consistency. I still think it will be the flukes in prime racing conditions at the best track.

TheRooster
04-14-08, 03:39 PM
I still think it will be the flukes in prime racing conditions at the best track.

Or they could all race at shitty tracks and run 15's. Your point?

GNSCOTT
04-14-08, 04:56 PM
So you pick one line out of my entire post and ignore the rest? Show me your point on how the car is magically going to run 11's @ 120mph. That is what the post is about. Lets see your math to back up what you think. In other words piss or get off the pot.

TheRooster
04-16-08, 10:29 PM
So you pick one line out of my entire post and ignore the rest? Show me your point on how the car is magically going to run 11's @ 120mph. That is what the post is about. Lets see your math to back up what you think. In other words piss or get off the pot.

The rest of your post is worthless.

tedasaurus
04-16-08, 11:05 PM
Anything less then a consistent 120mph in the quarter with an automatic and Cadillac has failed performance wise again. The STS V is a bad joke with horsepower equaling performance numbers. Lets hope the 550 rated hp equates to appropriate times that should EASILY beat the M5 as that is what it will be compared to again and again regardless price and size. Cadillac needs to out power the competition because history has proven the Cadillacs cannot out refine the German or Japanese. They have to have some advantage besides price.

SRT8/BMW
04-17-08, 12:29 PM
Anything less then a consistent 120mph in the quarter with an automatic and Cadillac has failed performance wise again. The STS V is a bad joke with horsepower equaling performance numbers. Lets hope the 550 rated hp equates to appropriate times that should EASILY beat the M5 as that is what it will be compared to again and again regardless price and size. Cadillac needs to out power the competition because history has proven the Cadillacs cannot out refine the German or Japanese. They have to have some advantage besides price.

sadly, as the owner of an sts-v, I agree with that part of your statement. Don't get me wrong..it is an awesome car and fast, but with 469hp and 439 lb/tq. it should produce much better 1/4 miles than it does-generally 13.2 ish. Personally, I think it is the amount of factory torque nanny going on. Saw a guy (video) on sts-v board disconnect rear wheel sensor for TC and went from 13.2 down to 12.8 just like that.

StealthV
04-17-08, 01:27 PM
By design, the new V has PTM to "de-torque" the engine under load. So for the sake of no wheelspin, all the LSA power isn't going to make it to the ground.

A LS6 supercharged V is traction limited on street tires below 100 mph in 1, 2 and 3rd gear. V2, with even more power, will be worse and I'd imagine PTM is going to rear its ugly head at the drag strip and put up numbers less than the experts would expect.

V1 and V2 were never meant to be uber 1/4-mile machines.

concorso
04-17-08, 02:15 PM
V1 and V2 were never meant to be uber 1/4-mile machines. Incredible how many times this has to be said...

GNSCOTT
04-17-08, 06:05 PM
The rest of your post is worthless.


No, You are ignorant and I cannot beleive that you race on any kind of a serious level with you lack of knowledge when it comes to HP and torque to weight ratios. You must have headed up the design team that put the rear in the V1. :rolleyes: This is my last message to you unless you can back up your numbers. I feel like I am in an argument with a 12 year old kid now.

StealthCTSVJJL
04-17-08, 06:45 PM
I think you are missing an important point in the comparison with an M5, while the V2 may be 200 to 300 pounds heavier, with 550 Torque it will enjoy a huge advantage on the M5, accodring to Caddy it develops the M5s 380 por so lbs/ft at a mere 1800 rpm. As a former Audi S4 owner with KO4 turbos and less than 400 hp, I regularly wiped out previous generation m5s. The big torque advantage of the S4 made up for less horsepower, on the V2 the huge torque advantage will wipe out the weight difference while the extra 50+ hp should take care of the rest. That said I doubt the V2 will make it into the 11's, but it should register very low 12's and hands down beat the M5, the new M3 and more importantly the very quick Mercedes C63.

v84life
04-18-08, 12:49 AM
I think you are missing an important point in the comparison with an M5, while the V2 may be 200 to 300 pounds heavier, with 550 Torque it will enjoy a huge advantage on the M5, accodring to Caddy it develops the M5s 380 por so lbs/ft at a mere 1800 rpm. As a former Audi S4 owner with KO4 turbos and less than 400 hp, I regularly wiped out previous generation m5s. The big torque advantage of the S4 made up for less horsepower, on the V2 the huge torque advantage will wipe out the weight difference while the extra 50+ hp should take care of the rest. That said I doubt the V2 will make it into the 11's, but it should register very low 12's and hands down beat the M5, the new M3 and more importantly the very quick Mercedes C63.

Sounds about right:highfive:

StealthV
04-18-08, 08:45 AM
Lutz "It'll suck the doors off..."

GNSCOTT
04-18-08, 01:04 PM
I think you are missing an important point in the comparison with an M5, while the V2 may be 200 to 300 pounds heavier, with 550 Torque it will enjoy a huge advantage on the M5, accodring to Caddy it develops the M5s 380 por so lbs/ft at a mere 1800 rpm. As a former Audi S4 owner with KO4 turbos and less than 400 hp, I regularly wiped out previous generation m5s. The big torque advantage of the S4 made up for less horsepower, on the V2 the huge torque advantage will wipe out the weight difference while the extra 50+ hp should take care of the rest. That said I doubt the V2 will make it into the 11's, but it should register very low 12's and hands down beat the M5, the new M3 and more importantly the very quick Mercedes C63.

I agree to a point. I also compared it to a 1000lb lighter Z06 and people keep creeping closer to those numbers. The reason I am saying it may hit an 11.9 is Lutz's promise that it woul beat the M5 and I am assuming that an M5 runs in the 12.3 range on a good run. I think it will be underrated by a little to get there too.

tedasaurus
04-18-08, 02:52 PM
If the '09 CTS V is not faster than the M5 forget what we think, just think what the magazine writers will do. Many of them are too car ignorant to see the forest for the trees and will lampoon the V to smithereens as another American made POS that promises everything and delivers nothing in their narrow point of view. Make fun of those jokers like I do but realize they have the power to sell your ride or crush it in the market place.

Silverspeed
04-18-08, 03:05 PM
Lutz "It'll suck the doors off..."


If that's true than it better beat the M5 by AT LEAST 2-3 tenths and a few miles an hour in the qtr. Sucking the doors off should not equate to a drivers race, it should be a sound beating.

As for my prediction.......12.3-4 @ 115-117. ABSOLUTELY no way does this car get into the 11's except on a rare event in VERY VERY good weather (negative or barely positive DA)

StealthV
04-18-08, 07:09 PM
So was Lutz talking about 1/4 mile or 3rd gear rolls?

NormV
04-18-08, 07:38 PM
Brings up a good question, I wonder how much above sea level Milford is? Maybe AZ? Salt flats? :)


If that's true than it better beat the M5 by AT LEAST 2-3 tenths and a few miles an hour in the qtr. Sucking the doors off should not equate to a drivers race, it should be a sound beating.

As for my prediction.......12.3-4 @ 115-117. ABSOLUTELY no way does this car get into the 11's except on a rare event in VERY VERY good weather (negative or barely positive DA)

TheRooster
04-19-08, 12:24 AM
No, You are ignorant and I cannot beleive that you race on any kind of a serious level with you lack of knowledge when it comes to HP and torque to weight ratios. You must have headed up the design team that put the rear in the V1. :rolleyes: This is my last message to you unless you can back up your numbers. I feel like I am in an argument with a 12 year old kid now.

Who's arguing? What a high strung little bitch. You need to head over to the Viper forum.
Ignorant? That's Dr Ignorant to you pendejo.
The car will get 117 with no trouble. It'll run in the 11's with someone like me behind the wheel and not a chode like yourself. These are the numbers I've been saying the whole time so you are only arguing with yourself. Go stuff your calculator up your arse. You wanna bet me bitch?

v84life
04-19-08, 01:12 AM
:jedi:

the cadillac kid
04-19-08, 02:23 AM
:alchi:

StealthV
04-19-08, 09:40 AM
Uhhh, the CTS transmission is what goes into the 5 series.

The 5-sereies uses a ZF transmission. For the V2 slushbox, GM needs to copy (or heck even make better) the ZF up/down-shift tuning and overall behavior

PTM is seen by some as the "turn grandma into Kenny Berstein miracle" with sub two second sixty foots. What if PTM does not make V2 faster than a well-driven blown V1, it just saves the drivetrain bits from lying near the christmas tree in a big puddle of goo?

Ones and zeros flowing around in a computer can't beat a human brain, yet. Which begs the question, will one be able to turn off PTM?

HiTechRV
04-20-08, 09:40 PM
IMO a really well done computer based system can now out perform a person at launch, and by a considerable margin in the best systems. The computer can individually control what each wheel is doing, including hop. The computers react faster and now have more information, and much better control then what the driver gets with a simple throttle and clutch imput.

Look at software ABS based traction control. No way a person driving could modulate the power to 2 different wheels simultaneously as well as the computer can, so we put in clunky hardware based LSD for humans to control. PC based LSD is the wave of the future, and has better performance to boot.

StealthV
04-20-08, 09:59 PM
So why do we still need a human behind the wheel?

HiTechRV
04-20-08, 10:14 PM
Look up the "Boss" Tahoe autonomous vehicle...

But the answer is, launch is a very specific situation where a computer can look at a limited and specialized set of sensor inputs and control more outputs than a person.

Driving point to point is a lot more complicated than a good launch.

verbs
04-23-08, 01:41 AM
Somme of you guys have to wake up. 4200lb curb weight, say 4375 with driver. Say 15% drive train loss to get RWHP for around 470rwhp. Every calculator I use shows 12.2@ 111mph, and even worse for the auto that weighs 100lbs more. SOME good drivers and good conditions will get into the 11's unless Gm finds more HP or loses some weight those will be the numbers.

You're calc is cracked out. 150hp more and a much bigger powerband than the LS2/LS6 motor....yeah it'll have an extra 350lbs or so, but this car will do no less than 114-115mph. I surmise it'll do 116mph on average.

verbs
04-23-08, 01:51 AM
It'll go 11:95 @ 116 on a good day!On bone stock tires good luck. Your 11.6 time on a modified fox body times are irrelevant. Dumbest comparison ever. That car weighed 1000lbs less and wasn't torque managed to hell. Good luck cutting a 60ft time anywhere near what you cut in that fox body....or in your ZO6s which also weigh 1000lbs less and have a much better weight distribution for launching....oh, and more rubber on the ground. Need I say more? Your logic is horrible, as are your posts troll.

Only way this is happening is at E-town or ATCO on a -2500ft density altitude day with a massively prepped track. 95% of the people driving this car are going to run low-mid 12s in the 114-118 range.




I bet this thing will run high 11's at around 120mph. That's my guess for right now.120mph? You have no concept of how changes in power/powerband and weight equates to trapspeeds. Way too high.

Cadillac Tony
04-23-08, 10:08 AM
PTM is seen by some as the "turn grandma into Kenny Berstein miracle" with sub two second sixty foots. What if PTM does not make V2 faster than a well-driven blown V1, it just saves the drivetrain bits from lying near the christmas tree in a big puddle of goo?

Ones and zeros flowing around in a computer can't beat a human brain, yet. Which begs the question, will one be able to turn off PTM?

The production version of PTM in the ZR-1 and CTS-V is a modified version of what they used on the SCCA World Challenge CTS-V. Several of the tracks that car runs have very tight corners, and the PTM allowed the drivers to feed throttle in faster without the rear end flying around on them. If a driver of Andy Pilgrim's caliber can benefit from it, there's no doubt we will as well.

I agree that part of the reason for it is also driveline protection, but it should make the car easier to control on launch and corner exits. I suspect PTM will be defeated in the press and hold, "Everything Off" mode, but we'll see.

thebigjimsho
04-23-08, 11:15 AM
I don't give a rat's ass. Drag racing is for poopies...:welcome:

StealthV
04-23-08, 01:01 PM
So one might say that PTM is like traction control and torque management all rolled into one? Hmm...4200+ pounds, mega low-end torque, sticky 285 PS2s - Customers and GM won't be happy with failed drivetrain bits - AGAIN. So will PTM gimp 1/4 mile times in the sake of drivetrain bits along with benefit those on the roadcourse? Hmm...

Nürburgring. Anyone up for Euro delivery besides me? Hey, I didn't use the B word. ;)

Vrocks
04-30-08, 01:01 PM
The '05 E55's were running 11.8s @ 118 with 469hp and 500+ lb/ft of torque.

The V2 will have approx 100HP more and a simliliar type of launch control. I'll be surprised if it can't pull an 11.5-11.9 @ 120.

StealthV
04-30-08, 01:18 PM
Give me some of those Wheaties.

TheRooster
04-30-08, 03:36 PM
On bone stock tires good luck. Your 11.6 time on a modified fox body times are irrelevant. Dumbest comparison ever. That car weighed 1000lbs less and wasn't torque managed to hell. Good luck cutting a 60ft time anywhere near what you cut in that fox body....or in your ZO6s which also weigh 1000lbs less and have a much better weight distribution for launching....oh, and more rubber on the ground. Need I say more? Your logic is horrible, as are your posts troll.

Only way this is happening is at E-town or ATCO on a -2500ft density altitude day with a massively prepped track. 95% of the people driving this car are going to run low-mid 12s in the 114-118 range.



120mph? You have no concept of how changes in power/powerband and weight equates to trapspeeds. Way too high.

Calm down toolkit. I rarely run slicks because I can drive, unlike you. Last year I was running 11:60's in my 2002 C5 Z06 with stock rubber, an airbox lid and a tune. Sup? I cut 1.7's and 1.8 with stock rubber and stock gears all day driving a 6 speed, not auto. If you don't think a car such as the CTS-V, predicted to run 0-60 in about 4.0, can't pull a 1.8 on street tires easily, ride along and get some proof from yours truly.
My foxbody ran better than those aforementioned 11:60's on street rubber. I've run 11:20's before the days of drag radials when no one else could seem to pull it off. Yes, I am in that top 1% of people that can get the most out of there car. I drive others cars often (like yours since you need it) and pick up ET on the first pass over their best.
In fact, I can't remember the last time I pulled a lazy ass 2.0 60 foot. 10-11 years.....

I know all too well how changes in power equate to trap speeds. You are a bench racer and are about to get proven wrong. Go read a ricer magazine and spare us all.

StealthV
05-01-08, 12:09 AM
Exhibit A - Ludicrous Speed (http://blog.gmnext.com/?p=133)

Exhibit B - Stupid Fast (http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=O89UWHnFUl0)

StealthV
05-07-08, 12:56 AM
New pencil, new numbers -

Stick 12.11 @ 122.57
Auto 12.35 @ 120.82

SRT8/BMW
05-07-08, 06:01 AM
New pencil, new numbers -

Stick 12.11 @ 122.57
Auto 12.35 @ 120.82

that would be sweet....

NormV
05-10-08, 09:59 AM
Rick, better keep your eraser handy. . I ask the two factory drivers at summit point if they were predicting 1/4 mile times for the 09 v and one replied that it would faster than the v. I asked faster than the Z06? Same driver said C5 Z06? I said C6. They replied in stereo "no". The other driver said it is just plain physics. Also asked about weight. 4100-4200 with no options. That probably a curb weight without fluids. Add another 150 lbs for gross weight.

So the drivers were eager to admit it being as fast as the C5 Z but not any where near C6 z time . . . Figure 12.4 @ 115-117 mph.

I got to run with the two test mules a few sessions but was usually showing a student showing him the line, not given thrill rides. Straight line acceleration didn't look like 150 hp more than my v with an extra person. Both of the test cars were loaded up with testing equipment and the automatic had a differential cooler. They both were not running the new dual composition brakes. So I am sure the cars were not under powered. Handling was pretty good and they had drivers to match!

Norm


New pencil, new numbers -

Stick 12.11 @ 122.57
Auto 12.35 @ 120.82

StealthV
05-11-08, 11:01 AM
Oops - Going back and checking the calculations, I forgot to convert flywheel torque to rear wheel delivered. So the numbers above would apply to a V delivering 15% more power (LS9 anyone?)

Fresh new ones -

Stick - 12.61 @ 115.79
Auto - 12.72 @ 114.50

Derived using the assumptions:
325 lb-ft @ 1000 rpm
420 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm
480 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
510 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm
540 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
540 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
540 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
540 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
540 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
530 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm
475 lb-ft @ 6200 rpm
15% drivetrain loss
0.8 clutch slip factor
4475 lb weight
53% on rear wheels
12" CG Height
113.4" wheelbase
24.3 ft2 cross-sectional area
0.355 CD
0.013 Crf
1.16 Csf
26.85" rear tire diameter
27.03" front tire diameter
0.6 slug-ft2 rear tire/wheel intertia (probably should be higher)
0.6 slug-ft2 front tire/wheel intertia
0.08 slug-ft2 engine inertia
70o F
29.8 in-Hg barometric pressure
10" roll-out
6200 rpm shift
2400 rpm launch

If someone has better engine output data or other factors, let me know and I'll plug them in.

HiTechRV
05-11-08, 11:12 AM
2400 RPM launch? Did you assume a diesel? I'm hoping even the auto will have a 2800 RPM stall converter, and you could launch higher RPM yet on a manual. I'm also guessing the torque will be fatter down around 1500 RPM.

StealthV
05-11-08, 11:13 AM
The 60' comes out at 2.05 sec. <-- The ~4500 lbs showing up...

1/8 mile - 8.39 @ 90.07 mph

0 to 60 mph = 4.60 seconds
0 to 100 mph = 9.69 seconds

Top speed = 108.6 seconds @ 193.5 mph (takes 5.05 miles to get there)

urbanski
05-11-08, 12:51 PM
Who's arguing? What a high strung little bitch. You need to head over to the Viper forum.
Ignorant? That's Dr Ignorant to you pendejo.
The car will get 117 with no trouble. It'll run in the 11's with someone like me behind the wheel and not a chode like yourself. These are the numbers I've been saying the whole time so you are only arguing with yourself. Go stuff your calculator up your arse. You wanna bet me bitch?

it feels great to start sunday off with a nice ban

NormV
05-11-08, 12:54 PM
Times and trap would best conservative. I would say they are right on the money! :)


Norm



Oops - Going back and checking the calculations, I forgot to convert flywheel torque to rear wheel delivered. So the numbers above would apply to a V delivering
15% more power (LS9 anyone?)

Fresh new ones -

Stick - 12.61 @ 115.79
Auto - 12.72 @ 114.50

Derived using the assumptions:
325 lb-ft @ 1000 rpm
420 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm
480 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
510 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm
540 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
540 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
540 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
540 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
540 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
530 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm
475 lb-ft @ 6200 rpm
15% drivetrain loss
0.8 clutch slip factor
4475 lb weight
53% on rear wheels
12" CG Height
113.4" wheelbase
24.3 ft2 cross-sectional area
0.355 CD
0.013 Crf
1.16 Csf
26.85" rear tire diameter
27.03" front tire diameter
0.6 slug-ft2 rear tire/wheel intertia (probably should be higher)
0.6 slug-ft2 front tire/wheel intertia
0.08 slug-ft2 engine inertia
70o F
29.8 in-Hg barometric pressure
10" roll-out
6200 rpm shift
2400 rpm launch

If someone has better engine output data or other factors, let me know and I'll plug them in.

RightTurn
05-11-08, 08:53 PM
it feels great to start sunday off with a nice ban

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z117/sarahw422/thumb_LOL-Monty_Python_Applause.gif

HiTechRV
05-11-08, 09:42 PM
The 60' comes out at 2.05 sec. <-- The ~4500 lbs showing up...

1/8 mile - 8.39 @ 90.07 mph

0 to 60 mph = 4.60 seconds
0 to 100 mph = 9.69 seconds

Top speed = 108.6 seconds @ 193.5 mph (takes 5.05 miles to get there)

0-60 in 4.6? Something's way way off on the assumptions here. My STS-V with it's sad little 469 hp 4V motor and a slushbox will do that. This is around 100 hp more, a manual, and a much flatter, fatter torque curve. And we are getting 12.9s at the track with no mods, just unplugging the rear axle sensor.

the cadillac kid
06-03-08, 06:31 PM
hmm, any new predictions :stirpot:

v84life
06-04-08, 12:10 AM
Factory rating 0-60 4 flat and 1/4mile 12 flat @116

Real world possibilities 0-62 in 3.9 . Launch control and 550+tq baby:devil:
Yes a Euro killer:hide:

1/4 11.6 @118 can't wait :cloud9:

Silverspeed
06-09-08, 06:04 PM
If that's true than it better beat the M5 by AT LEAST 2-3 tenths and a few miles an hour in the qtr. Sucking the doors off should not equate to a drivers race, it should be a sound beating.

As for my prediction.......12.3-4 @ 115-117. ABSOLUTELY no way does this car get into the 11's except on a rare event in VERY VERY good weather (negative or barely positive DA)

OOOOPs. Looks like I was way off, but not near a s bad a some people. :):stirpot: This car will definately be in the 11's.

StealthV
06-10-08, 06:43 PM
Plugging in the recent torque curve off Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/MediaNav/articleId=126900/firstNav=Gallery/photoId=56689) and launching at 4000 rpm with 0.2 seconds between shifts of the stick...

0-60 mph: 4.33 Seconds
0-100 mph: 8.44 Seconds
60 ft: 2.03 @ 35.30 mph
330 ft: 5.34 @ 74.46 mph
1/8 mile: 7.95 @ 96.06 mph
1000 ft: 10.16 @ 112.19 mph
1/4 mile: 12.00 @ 122.59 mph
Max Accel: 0.714 G
Air Density: 0.00231552 slug ft^3

If one can rifle off quicker 0.1 second shifts...

0-60 mph: 4.23 Seconds
0-100 mph: 8.22 Seconds
60 ft: 2.03 @ 35.30 mph
330 ft: 5.30 @ 75.34 mph
1/8 mile: 7.87 @ 97.28 mph
1000 ft: 10.05 @ 113.66 mph
1/4 mile: 11.87 @ 123.83 mph


Real world with me driving (AKA Joe Average - Save the drivetrain shifting and launching at a more sane 2000 rpm)

0-60 mph: 4.83 Seconds
0-100 mph: 9.26 Seconds
60 ft: 2.10 @ 33.83 mph
330 ft: 5.57 @ 73.01 mph
1/8 mile: 8.31 @ 91.87 mph
1000 ft: 10.60 @ 107.19 mph
1/4 mile: 12.52 @ 118.46 mph

JonCR96Z
06-10-08, 07:28 PM
Plugging in the recent torque curve off Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/MediaNav/articleId=126900/firstNav=Gallery/photoId=56689) and launching at 4000 rpm with 0.2 seconds between shifts of the stick...

0-60 mph: 4.33 Seconds
0-100 mph: 8.44 Seconds
60 ft: 2.03 @ 35.30 mph
330 ft: 5.34 @ 74.46 mph
1/8 mile: 7.95 @ 96.06 mph
1000 ft: 10.16 @ 112.19 mph
1/4 mile: 12.00 @ 122.59 mph
Max Accel: 0.714 G
Air Density: 0.00231552 slug ft^3

If one can rifle off quicker 0.1 second shifts...

0-60 mph: 4.23 Seconds
0-100 mph: 8.22 Seconds
60 ft: 2.03 @ 35.30 mph
330 ft: 5.30 @ 75.34 mph
1/8 mile: 7.87 @ 97.28 mph
1000 ft: 10.05 @ 113.66 mph
1/4 mile: 11.87 @ 123.83 mph


Real world with me driving (AKA Joe Average - Save the drivetrain shifting and launching at a more sane 2000 rpm)

0-60 mph: 4.83 Seconds
0-100 mph: 9.26 Seconds
60 ft: 2.10 @ 33.83 mph
330 ft: 5.57 @ 73.01 mph
1/8 mile: 8.31 @ 91.87 mph
1000 ft: 10.60 @ 107.19 mph
1/4 mile: 12.52 @ 118.46 mph
You're a crappy driver.

GNSCOTT
06-10-08, 07:31 PM
You're a crappy driver.


Please do not forget to post you 13 sec time slips when you get em. ;)

silver bullet
06-10-08, 08:18 PM
July Car&Driver mag says 556hp 551 torque 0-60 in 3.9 sec 12 sec 1/4 mile at 118mph. They say it's official.

HiTechRV
06-10-08, 09:08 PM
A local guy just got slips from Milan Dragway of 12.9 with an STS-V with no upgrades, just the rear wheel-hop sensor disconnected. And that car has a worse power to weight ratio because it has only 469 HP instead of 556.

I predict we will see real world slips of considerably better than 13 seconds posted.

the cadillac kid
06-10-08, 11:49 PM
You're a crappy driver.

:histeric: :histeric: :histeric: :histeric: :histeric: :histeric: :histeric:

NormV
08-30-08, 06:24 AM
Right on Rick! There are almost a half dozen reviews of manufacture pre-production cars backing up your data. :)

Norm


Plugging in the recent torque curve off Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/MediaNav/articleId=126900/firstNav=Gallery/photoId=56689) and launching at 4000 rpm with 0.2 seconds between shifts of the stick...

0-60 mph: 4.33 Seconds
0-100 mph: 8.44 Seconds
60 ft: 2.03 @ 35.30 mph
330 ft: 5.34 @ 74.46 mph
1/8 mile: 7.95 @ 96.06 mph
1000 ft: 10.16 @ 112.19 mph
1/4 mile: 12.00 @ 122.59 mph
Max Accel: 0.714 G
Air Density: 0.00231552 slug ft^3

If one can rifle off quicker 0.1 second shifts...

0-60 mph: 4.23 Seconds
0-100 mph: 8.22 Seconds
60 ft: 2.03 @ 35.30 mph
330 ft: 5.30 @ 75.34 mph
1/8 mile: 7.87 @ 97.28 mph
1000 ft: 10.05 @ 113.66 mph
1/4 mile: 11.87 @ 123.83 mph


Real world with me driving (AKA Joe Average - Save the drivetrain shifting and launching at a more sane 2000 rpm)

0-60 mph: 4.83 Seconds
0-100 mph: 9.26 Seconds
60 ft: 2.10 @ 33.83 mph
330 ft: 5.57 @ 73.01 mph
1/8 mile: 8.31 @ 91.87 mph
1000 ft: 10.60 @ 107.19 mph
1/4 mile: 12.52 @ 118.46 mph

HiTechRV
09-07-08, 10:56 AM
These are much more believable numbers. What changed so much? Area under the curves and low end torque and horse power? The old numbers out of what I assume is the same program were so much more pessimistic.