Has anyone here ever raced against an 2004+ E55 AMG, or a 2006+ BMW M3/M5??

I'm Just curious to know how close a stock STS-V is in keeping up with these cars (either on the highway or drag racing). Will a stock STS-V get slaughtered everytime??

There is test at caranddriver dot com if you care to find the answer. The STS-V has some torque nannies that keep it from being as fast at a drag strip as it should be. As for "on the highway" all of these cars are capable of manuevers far beyond anything that could sanely, let alone legally, be attempted on public roads. Please save it for track days. Better yet, spend $6000 on a shifter kart. After a few days in one of those (0-100-0 in 10 seconds; 0-60 in 3.5 seconds; 2.5 g's in a turn), street cars won't seem so fast and the temptation to be stupid goes away.

There is test at caranddriver dot com if you care to find the answer. The STS-V has some torque nannies that keep it from being as fast at a drag strip as it should be.


Good reading, although i was looking for more of a real world comparison instead of a controlled one;

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/10433/bahn-burners-episode-39.html

Has anyone seen any info comparing a tuned v(no nannies, but all stock parts) compared to these cars on the track/strip.

I am purchasing a '06 v this week. Once I get the car I was considering getting it tuned either through mail-in like vector etc., or arranging a custom tune. I have a lot of track time, with a lot of different cars. I just sold my race car that I daily drove because I had back surgery and couldn't drive it anymore. I don't plan on tracking my v, and it's track performance is not why I'm buying the car, however if in a convienent situation where I was at the track with my car there is a good chance I'll take it out.

Also I am a very much so law abiding citizen, and not much of a risk taker. I agree street racing and hgwy pulls are illegal and insane, I'd be a complete lier if I said I've never done anything like that. So any comparison info tuned v vs imports on the street would also be interesting and appreciated.

my 06 is bone stock and going in for a custom tune. I'll post up the dyno's (stock/tuned) when the tune is complete. My appointment is for Feb. 4. I don't think there is any car BMW makes (street production) that will take a STS-V. BUT the AMG 55 is a different story ( but we have a useable back seat). I have heard a 40 hp gain to the rear wheels with just a tune so I believe that would put the V in AMG hunting grounds. Am I being to optimistic?

CL63 AMG with the options our V has is stickered @ $149,850. comparing sticker to sticker you could buy 2 STS-V's for one CL AMG.
.
CL63AMG: Gross weight 5532 lbs with a 23 gal gas tank. Curb weight 4599lbs. 518 hp / 465 tq.
STS-V: Gross weight (can't find) with a 17 gal gas tank. Curb weight 4394 lbs 470hp / 440tq.

Given custom tunes are yielding arond 40+- hp gains that puts the STS-V @ 510hp / 465 tq area +-. I would say it puts them pretty damn even for half the cost.

I don't think there is any car BMW makes (street production) that will take a STS-V. BUT the AMG 55 is a different story ( but we have a useable back seat). I have heard a 40 hp gain to the rear wheels with just a tune so I believe that would put the V in AMG hunting grounds. Am I being to optimistic?

The current M5 has over 500 hp and a 7 speed sequential manual. In the C&D test discussed above it stayed with the AMG up to 60 and actually was pulling away after 100mph. There is no doubt it is a monster. C&D said the STS-V is a better daily driver. It certainly is more reasonably priced. If I want a race car I'll buy and drive a race car.

The S-65 AMG has 612HP and 539ft-lbs torque pumping out of the V12 biturbo. Just a monster. And a helluva lot more room in the rear seat than the V. But at over 2X the cost, not sure if it is a better deal. But both are fun to drive, but the S-65 is much quicker in all respects. The Cadillac is hands down more reliable. And getting parts for the Benz are next to impossible. So I prefer to drive my V and let the wife drive the Benz - when it isn't in the shop.

Bob

Hello,
We had a couple of our customers run into a few of the vehicles that were mentioned. Of course we send our customers out with no less than 500HP. The M3 is no contest. It would just get a really nice view of the STSV tail lamps. The M5 is okay, but really lacks torque. The E55 will keep up, but it wont blow any doors off. The E63 is another story. That car is a beast. A stage 2 STSV (550-575HP) will be able to take on that motor. There are quite a few torque management features that are in the STSV. The power is certainly there, its just a matter of getting it to the ground in its complete form. We have XLRV's running low 12's on stage 1.5's. The STSV's, in the right weather, should be capable of running high 12's with a few bolt on mods.

Thanks,

Dr. Design
D3 Cadillac





Has anyone seen any info comparing a tuned v(no nannies, but all stock parts) compared to these cars on the track/strip.

I am purchasing a '06 v this week. Once I get the car I was considering getting it tuned either through mail-in like vector etc., or arranging a custom tune. I have a lot of track time, with a lot of different cars. I just sold my race car that I daily drove because I had back surgery and couldn't drive it anymore. I don't plan on tracking my v, and it's track performance is not why I'm buying the car, however if in a convienent situation where I was at the track with my car there is a good chance I'll take it out.

Also I am a very much so law abiding citizen, and not much of a risk taker. I agree street racing and hgwy pulls are illegal and insane, I'd be a complete lier if I said I've never done anything like that. So any comparison info tuned v vs imports on the street would also be interesting and appreciated.

I went for a dyno tune yesterday with them using HPTUNERS software. Unfortunately I still have to go back because the initial tune with the TQ Mangmt was causing the auto trans to act funny and nothing I would want to drive on a constant basis. I simply ran out of time yesterday as initially we were only expecting roughly about 3 hours. However what was done while the tune was in reaped 20hp at the wheels bringing the car to right at about 500hp flywheel. We'll see if/how things will get figured out when I get time to go back.

It sure would be nice if those who have had a tune done or have done a tune themselves were to share some info on what to do and/or look for when tuning these cars vs letting each individual just go through the process themselves every time.

It sure would be nice if those who have had a tune done or have done a tune themselves were to share some info on what to do and/or look for when tuning these cars vs letting each individual just go through the process themselves every time.

Someone needs to come out with a simple hand held flash tuner "like" the diablosports predator (only better) with air/fuel, timing, and torque mahnagement already pre-configured (dyno proven of course), for either 91 or 93 octane use, and they will be the winner... No more fooling around.. Oh ya, it also has to get rid of the top speed limiter. :)

Someone needs to come out with a simple hand held flash tuner "like" the diablosports predator (only better) with air/fuel, timing, and torque mahnagement already pre-configured (dyno proven of course), for either 91 or 93 octane use, and they will be the winner... No more fooling around.. Oh ya, it also has to get rid of the top speed limiter. :)

Well that would be nice, but the question comes back to how many potential customers there would be with a vehicle of such limited production, and if any said company would see it as being worth their time/money to do so.

As far as the speed limiter setting, has anyone even taken the car to it's stock limit of 155 ? Is it capable of exceeding that speed by much ?

The CTS-V had a PCM limitation of 168, and a stock V couldn't make it to 166.

Well that would be nice, but the question comes back to how many potential customers there would be with a vehicle of such limited production, and if any said company would see it as being worth their time/money to do so.

As far as the speed limiter setting, has anyone even taken the car to it's stock limit of 155 ? Is it capable of exceeding that speed by much ?

The CTS-V had a PCM limitation of 168, and a stock V couldn't make it to 166.
Hi CIWS,
I`ve had the US model to 158 mph when the limiter comes in very softly.

My export STS V8 is not governed, I`ve get it always up to 276 kph (171 mph) here on the Autobahns.I`m playing right now with the idea to get me the export STS V, my dealer got one black/black, if I buy it (depends on what they`ll give me for my 13 month old STS) I`ll let you know the top speed.
When my 325 hp (german rating) V8 is able to do 276 kph I expect from the 476 hp (german rating) V to see something around 300 kph ( 186 mph).

Harry

That's great Harry ! Thanks for some real world info. :thumbsup:

If you don't like going top-speed fast (which i can see why.. it's dangerous), then your probably not going to like being able to play a DVD movie while you drive. CoastelEtech is now working on a STS NAV solution to do just so (many thanks to tomm for informing us of it). Hopefully they will have a plug n' play solution out soon. :) :) :)

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-sts-forum-2005-beyond/61385-sts-navigation-48.html

Well that would be nice, but the question comes back to how many potential customers there would be with a vehicle of such limited production, and if any said company would see it as being worth their time/money to do so.

A 3rd party company would most likely talk to diablosport etc, or anyone else that packages a handheld for sale, and enhance one of those existing products for STS-V use.. This would effectively keep the cost down.


The CTS-V had a PCM limitation of 168, and a stock V couldn't make it to 166.

"Apples & Oranges".. The CTS-V was at its limit at 166-mph with the 3.73:1 rear gear ratio.. The STS-V has a higher top speed (as someone already got there non-limited STS-V to 176-mph).. I wouldn't recomend going that fast, but it's nice to know that the STS-V can keep up with the best of them on the highway (in non-limited form).. Most likely due to the 3.23:1 rear ratio ...and also having a few more HP/Trq can't hurt either!!

"Apples & Oranges".. The CTS-V was at its limit at 166-mph with the 3.73:1 rear gear ratio..

Most stock CTS-Vs couldn't bust 163, but that's really neither here nor there, I was simply using it as an example not comparing apples and oranges. If the STS-V can do over 165mph then one may wish to remove/increase the speed limiter from 155. For me personally there are no roads around here where the traffic ever clears enough to think I could see 140 for more than a few seconds at best, much less try to keep climbing past 155. Now if I was out in Nevada or Montana somewhere..... :D

The S-65 AMG has 612HP and 539ft-lbs torque pumping out of the V12 biturbo. Just a monster. And a helluva lot more room in the rear seat than the V. But at over 2X the cost, not sure if it is a better deal. But both are fun to drive, but the S-65 is much quicker in all respects. The Cadillac is hands down more reliable. And getting parts for the Benz are next to impossible. So I prefer to drive my V and let the wife drive the Benz - when it isn't in the shop.

Boblets be clear the S-63 is our competetor with a V8. and runs 2x more. The S-65 is a V-12 and MSRP is $207k almost 3x a STS-V

Someone needs to come out with a simple hand held flash tuner "like" the diablosports predator (only better) with air/fuel, timing, and torque mahnagement already pre-configured (dyno proven of course), for either 91 or 93 octane use, and they will be the winner... No more fooling around.. Oh ya, it also has to get rid of the top speed limiter. :)The thought is nice but the results would be somewhat tame. No one wants to sell you an aggressive tune since every motor is different and an aggressive tune on one car may lean out your engine and blow it. So most of the "canned" tunes are going to be on the consertive side, thus leaving you asking why you paid $500 for only 15 hP. If I was driving a Camaro or mustang I might be satisfied with going a canned tune. But there is so much potential in our motors on an individual basis I am happy to get mine custome tuned. I'l never have to worry about hurting my motor but I will know I got the most out of it I wanted. Do it right. Spend the money and have it custom tuned. My HPTuner was $600 for the pro kit(real time data logging without a lap-top connected) Dyno tuning should run $400 to $500. So for around $1000 I will be running strong and safe. Knock $300 off of that since I am using the other credits of my HPTuner to dyno tune my Denali and I only spend $700 in total for my STS-V tune. Roughly $200 more than canned tunes.

oh yeah! with 3.5 times the gain (15 x 3.5 = 40) .......... Hopefully :-)

Hello,
I think it really comes down to the fact that this is a specialized motor. Not too many people are familiar on these motors. GM put a lot of time and money into the development of this engine. We have stated in the past that there is certainly more in it, from a tune standpoint. Development costs a lot for this vehicle. Not to mention there are so few of these vehicles, it makes it tough to invest heavily in this type of application.

Custom tunes work great. Just be sure you don’t run them on the ragged edge as they are also VERY sensitive.

Good luck!

Thanks,

Dr. Design
D3 Cadillac





If I was driving a Camaro or mustang I might be satisfied with going a canned tune. But there is so much potential in our motors on an individual basis I am happy to get mine custome tuned.

I was directing my reply more to the mass produced handheld flash and go solutions not yours.

I know alot of follks don't favor box tunes, and that's just fine... But i favor them, and i know alot of other folks do as well.. The plug n' play module D3 offers can't get any simpler than that. They also custom tune it to there mods. If it only did torque management, made for crisper/solid shifts of say 3rd-4th etc, and also removed the top speed limiter.... It would be just perfect. :)

I am still between the "box tune" vs custom for the V, although I am aiming for the custom. Vector seemed to be a good reliable tuner, that offered safe good gains with nanny removal etc,. Down side is mailing ecu and not being able to drive while shipping. Custom is ideal, just have to find someone trustworthy with experience and close enough to drive to. I live in South Florida, and the best sounding person to me was 2-3 hours away. So most likely I'll have to spend an entire day to get my tune done, but I imagine it will be well worth it.

Stock, E60 M5/ E55/63 etc will destroy it. Our 03' E55 we had, I ran low 12's at around 116-118, I saw a few STS-V's and XLR-V run there and all trapped around mid 100 range. Thats a massive difference. Not sure why the V's are so slow for the power output? I drove one and was suprised at how slow it felt even compared to a CTS-V? Still quick but not what I was expecting. Motor is going to need a lot of mods to make up that mph difference.

Feel isn't everything. I've already outrun stock CTS-Vs.

Stock, E60 M5/ E55/63 etc will destroy it. Our 03' E55 we had, I ran low 12's at around 116-118, I saw a few STS-V's and XLR-V run there and all trapped around mid 100 range. Thats a massive difference. Not sure why the V's are so slow for the power output? I drove one and was suprised at how slow it felt even compared to a CTS-V? Still quick but not what I was expecting. Motor is going to need a lot of mods to make up that mph difference.

Car & Driver got 0-60 in 4.6, which was a couple tenths off the M5 and E63. 1/4 mile was similar IIRC.

I think the bottom line, however, is this car is not set up for impressive standing starts. The engine management system is designed to relieve strain on the drivetrain by limiting torque at low speeds. I've noticed it, as have others.

Personally, I could care less. IMHO drag racing is a poor way to measure vehicle performance, as it has such a low correlation to real world situations. I would expect and M5 to lap the Nurburgring faster. Most of that would be from the F1-style sequential manual transmission and the stiffer suspsension. Neither of these features make the M5 a particularly friendly car to drive on city streets. I'd expect the E63 to be very close to the STS-V, as AMG Mercedes are not know for great handling and road course times. [its kind of weird when the German car is the better drag racer and the American car might be in the hunt on a road course.]

Car & Driver got 0-60 in 4.6, which was a couple tenths off the M5 and E63. 1/4 mile was similar IIRC.

I think the bottom line, however, is this car is not set up for impressive standing starts. The engine management system is designed to relieve strain on the drivetrain by limiting torque at low speeds. I've noticed it, as have others.

Personally, I could care less. IMHO drag racing is a poor way to measure vehicle performance, as it has such a low correlation to real world situations. I would expect and M5 to lap the Nurburgring faster. Most of that would be from the F1-style sequential manual transmission and the stiffer suspsension. Neither of these features make the M5 a particularly friendly car to drive on city streets. I'd expect the E63 to be very close to the STS-V, as AMG Mercedes are not know for great handling and road course times. [its kind of weird when the German car is the better drag racer and the American car might be in the hunt on a road course.]We owned the E55 and I drove the STS-V for a day, not even a chance from a roll, the STS-V will get absolutely stomped on. There are a few I've seen in some car groups as one guy I knew traded his Lexus in on one. I know he ran an E63 on I-95 lost badly. Actually the E55 handled damn good, I took it on Sebring Speedway, though I still think the CTS-V was the sharpest handling sedan around even moreso then the E39 M5.

E60 M5 is definitely fast, but I personally don't care for it, the manual trans is so poorly matched and geared for the motor (basically a transplant of the 39 M5 trans), and I hate SMG or really any flappy paddle box. I would take an E39 M5 over it any day, and take an CTS-V over either anyway :) which I'm looking at right now as a daily driver.

0-60 and 1/4 mile times don't really matter, you can gear an 5.0 Stang on slicks to match those times but the trap speed won't even be close which shows the potential of the car, I ran the 1/4 at 12.1 at around 116-118 stock in the E55, some others have gotten in the 11's with stock tires but thats in perfect conditions, that was the best I could manage as the low-mid range grunt was massive and liked to shred tires even before we did a few mods lol. As much as I loved it, was always in the shop though, was new in 03' and seems that year had quite a few electrical gremlins running around. I'm not trying to put down the STS-V at all, was just disappointed in how it drove, even highway passing power it was plenty quick just not what I was expecting given the power output.

It's not that surprising. The STS-V is down about 80ft lbs to the E55, and because the V also is 70 cubic inches short, you'd expect the torque peak in the V to be higher in the rev range as well. This is exactly how it feels to me. The CTS-V also will have a lower rpm torque peak and has a 3.73 rear end, so its effective rear wheel torque might be more in a given situation.

Not a big deal to me, because with cars like this we're really talking different levels of stupid fast (stupid in the new, good way) on the street, with no serious real-world applications. This is the first time I've owned one of these "super car" type street machines, and it's my wife's car (which might make it stupid in the bad old way). The bottom line for me is that any serious race car will eat any of these cars for lunch without breaking a sweat, so the ultimate point of these cars is a bit vague. I'm impressed, of course, but a bit confused as to why people throw big $$ into performance that is excessive for the street but not fast for the track. I guess ultimately these cars are "toys" masquerading as transportation? Never pass up an excuse to tinker.

well I will throw in my two cents. I own an sts-v, a charger srt8 and a heavily modded 300c. They are all sedans obviously--and obviously I am into relatively fast sedans. The simple reason..they are fun to drive.

I have run my v at the track and it is a consistent 13.1-13.2 car..the key word being consistent. It is the easiest to launch..a hard roll into the throttle, minimal spin, and off. Clearly, the torque nanny is holding her back though. My srt8 and even modded C will take my v if you run them out. That shouldn't happen, with 469 hp...but it does. The V shines off the line. Seriousluy, a luxury sedan that can run a 4.6 0-60 and 1/4 in 13.1. True...there are much faster track cars, and much faster road course cars, but a sedan that can do that is absolutley what I like. There is a market for a cart like that..some are faster than others but they all have the same general purpose.

That said, I have a deposit down on the new CTS-V. That should compete quite well with the M5 and AMG cars.

My turn!

I have owen fairly quick cars for the las 20 years of my life. I started with Mazdaa, because I worked for them at a dealer level. I raced them for 10 years with factory sponsorship in IMSA and SCCA Pro Racing, so I've had RX-7's, regular and turboed, a 323 GTX, and stuff like that. But, I've always had a love for GM cars and have had a few fast ones as well, '77 T/A w/a built 455, a modified 454SS pickup, "02 Firehawk and now the V. It does not matter to me that it is not the fastest car on the road since I have found that it's usually faster than whoever thinks they are faster than me...maybe because of my track experience I may be a little crazier than some, but whatever...I don't feel that I have anything to prove but I do enjoy fast GM cars and I enjoy this one, I would not have any of the other fast sedans just because they are a "little" quicker...who cares, who's keeping score? Just drive it and enjoy it! Next time you are in the market for a new car buy the other one...but for me ...THIS is the one.

Yeah! and that is coming from a guy who is driving the slowest color V.... Immagine if he had a black raven... :-)

I agree. for what it is i am more than happy to own it and have considered even having 2 if i didn't have to have a vehicle that can pull a trailer or fit my dog in the back seat. English Mastiff's don't fit very well in the back seat of a V....

Yeah! and that is coming from a guy who is driving the slowest color V.... Immagine if he had a black raven... :-)

I agree. for what it is i am more than happy to own it and have considered even having 2 if i didn't have to have a vehicle that can pull a trailer or fit my dog in the back seat. English Mastiff's don't fit very well in the back seat of a V....

I'm sorry, but THUNDER is only bested by LIGHTNING, therfore is considerably faster than ANY Raven...might be a good race for my Black Firehawk, though.(if I still had it) Therefore Thunder Gray is definately the fastest color.

I'm sorry, but THUNDER is only bested by LIGHTNING, therfore is considerably faster than ANY Raven...might be a good race for my Black Firehawk, though.(if I still had it) Therefore Thunder Ghay is definately the fastest color.

fixed

F

well I will throw in my two cents. I own an sts-v, a charger srt8 and a heavily modded 300c. They are all sedans obviously--and obviously I am into relatively fast sedans. The simple reason..they are fun to drive.

I have run my v at the track and it is a consistent 13.1-13.2 car..the key word being consistent. It is the easiest to launch..a hard roll into the throttle, minimal spin, and off. Clearly, the torque nanny is holding her back though. My srt8 and even modded C will take my v if you run them out. That shouldn't happen, with 469 hp...but it does. The V shines off the line. Seriousluy, a luxury sedan that can run a 4.6 0-60 and 1/4 in 13.1. True...there are much faster track cars, and much faster road course cars, but a sedan that can do that is absolutley what I like. There is a market for a cart like that..some are faster than others but they all have the same general purpose.

That said, I have a deposit down on the new CTS-V. That should compete quite well with the M5 and AMG cars. i find that hard to believe that any srt-8 will take an sts-v.. ive ran almost every make and its no contest..maybe its my tune from d3...??

I know we have a seperate thread for this, but it is just heading this way on this one, so I will ask the question..

Fastest 1/4 mile time to date by an STS V? For me it's still around 13.1-13.2. I can't wait for spring to see if it has improved since my latest mods.

Yeah, come late spring or early summer it will be down to "Test and Tune" day at the track to see where the car will come out. :)

i find that hard to believe that any srt-8 will take an sts-v.. ive ran almost every make and its no contest..maybe its my tune from d3...??


Peak numbers can be deceiving; the area of the curve below the torque peak tells you more about what the car will really do. In this respect I took the V out yesterday for another "experimental" run on a favorite road and I'm now convinced that while GM made sure the engine management system could generate those impressive and highly marketable peak power numbers, the tq nannies spend most of their time protecting the warranty and making sure you never see those numbers in the real world. I suspect that they're removing a fair amount of area from that below-peak power curve, but then allowing it to spike a bit under certain conditions in order to generate that peak number.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that tune surely helped.

I drove the SRT-8 before buying the V. I detected no nannies with that car--monster torque was immediately available off idle. Straight line performance doesn't mean much to me, however. Chassis-wise the SRT didn't seem happy, with a reluctant turn-in that seemed a 1/4 step behind the quick-ratio steering. I actually liked the SRT-8 "design" package, with the upgrade suspension but the stock powertrain and steering, better. The V was a much more refined package than either.

i find that hard to believe that any srt-8 will take an sts-v.. ive ran almost every make and its no contest..maybe its my tune from d3...??

well, I have no vested interest. I own both (actually on my second srt8--this one is a charger and last was 300C). Don't get me wrong...off the line its usually the sts-v. the 0-60 is awesome, but more important its consistent. The srt8 tends to spin more and need to be feathered, but if you do hook it, lookout. Then,,if you run them in the quarter, they are dead even usually (done that at the track with my bro and a friend). Caddy is consistent 13.1-13.2,,srt8 fluctautes more. Can be as good as 12.8-12.9 or as bad as 13.4-13.5..but mostly right in the middle at 13.2ish. Where the srt8 seems to beat it is on the freeway, from a roll. It walks away from it in the upper end...very slowly mind you, but it does. Don't ask me why a car that has 425hp can edge away from one that has 469, and weighs the same pretty much..but it does.

If you gave me a choice of which one to do stop light races with...the v wins easily in my opinion, cause it is the wicked launcher!

Maybe this spring I will get that on film for you so you can see what I am talking about. Your tune would make all the difference in the world though...

Peak numbers can be deceiving; the area of the curve below the torque peak tells you more about what the car will really do. In this respect I took the V out yesterday for another "experimental" run on a favorite road and I'm now convinced that while GM made sure the engine management system could generate those impressive and highly marketable peak power numbers, the tq nannies spend most of their time protecting the warranty and making sure you never see those numbers in the real world. I suspect that they're removing a fair amount of area from that below-peak power curve, but then allowing it to spike a bit under certain conditions in order to generate that peak number.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that tune surely helped.

I drove the SRT-8 before buying the V. I detected no nannies with that car--monster torque was immediately available off idle. Straight line performance doesn't mean much to me, however. Chassis-wise the SRT didn't seem happy, with a reluctant turn-in that seemed a 1/4 step behind the quick-ratio steering. I actually liked the SRT-8 "design" package, with the upgrade suspension but the stock powertrain and steering, better. The V was a much more refined package than either.

I am sure this will start flame wars, but here goes. Remember, I have both cars and LOVE both..for different reasons. The caddy is more refined..it feels European to me. The whine of the SC, the exhaust...all that stuff. The srt8 is more "american muscle." But check out the published stats for these two..the slalom, the skid pad, the braking and the lateral Gs. There is even a (I think it is road and track-they went to a road course in Michigan to test the sts-v, the e55 AMG and the M-5, I think it was, and a charger srt8 showed up and had the second best time) test of the two. In the handling department, the SRT8 wins...HANDS DOWN. I know..you all don't want to hear that..but again, I own both and have no vested interest. The mags tested them that way, they stat out that way, and on the road, the srt8 corners and slaloms ...and brakes...MUCH better. Trust me..it isn't hard to tell..it is clear as day. When I go out and play in them with my bro..whomever is in the srt8 corners and curves MUCH faster/harder..and gets away.

I am not saying it is a better car...but the big misconception about the srt8 is that it is a "brick" and only good in a straight line. Check out the slalom numbers..and braking. It puts many small "sports" cars to shame. In that respect, it is only a step behind the cts-v-a much smaller car. If you don't believe me, check out Road and Track, or Motor Trend or Car and Driver or Edmunds Inside lines..

Again..I LOVE my sts-v..just telling you the truth. (and by the way, I drove the new CTS and LOVED the handling..as close to my old BMW that I have felt. Went right into the dealer and put down a deposit on the new 09 cts-v):yup::yup:

Weight differences, gearing, aerodynamics, drivetrain loss, actual wheel HP vs listed BHP. Lots of factors come into play between various vehicles that determine how they act off the line or at speed.

IBut check out the published stats for these two..the slalom, the skid pad, the braking and the lateral Gs. There is even a (I think it is road and track-they went to a road course in Michigan to test the sts-v, the e55 AMG and the M-5, I think it was, and a charger srt8 showed up and had the second best time) test of the two. In the handling department, the SRT8 wins...HANDS DOWN.

I don't doubt you. I was discussing "feel" not absolute performance. Cars that feel absolutely horrible and are a pain to drive can generate great numbers.

An extreme example: My shifter kart "feels" horrible. The set up is so wacked that I run toe OUT (not a misprint) to maximize cornering speed on a tight circuit. However, this unrefined beast runs 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, 0-100-0 in 10 flat, and pulls 2.5 g's in a turn. I will happily take on any street car on an autocross course--you can show up in a Bugatti for all I care--and soundly trounce it.

So what? It's a bloody go kart and these impressive numbers say nothing about what it's like to drive it. The little thing beats you to death in 12 laps.

I did not enjoy driving the SRT-8. I'm sure it can generate impressive numbers, but if I want impressive numbers I'll buy a racing machine and get REALLY impressive numbers. The STS-V was a more refined, well integrated package. On a racing machine, that means nothing. On a street car it counts.

well, I have no vested interest. I own both (actually on my second srt8--this one is a charger and last was 300C). Don't get me wrong...off the line its usually the sts-v. the 0-60 is awesome, but more important its consistent. The srt8 tends to spin more and need to be feathered, but if you do hook it, lookout. Then,,if you run them in the quarter, they are dead even usually (done that at the track with my bro and a friend). Caddy is consistent 13.1-13.2,,srt8 fluctautes more. Can be as good as 12.8-12.9 or as bad as 13.4-13.5..but mostly right in the middle at 13.2ish. Where the srt8 seems to beat it is on the freeway, from a roll. It walks away from it in the upper end...very slowly mind you, but it does. Don't ask me why a car that has 425hp can edge away from one that has 469, and weighs the same pretty much..but it does.

If you gave me a choice of which one to do stop light races with...the v wins easily in my opinion, cause it is the wicked launcher!

Maybe this spring I will get that on film for you so you can see what I am talking about. Your tune would make all the difference in the world though...hey you own a stsv and your screen name on this forum is SRT8/BMW???:want::Poke::Poke:..

I don't doubt you. I was discussing "feel" not absolute performance. Cars that feel absolutely horrible and are a pain to drive can generate great numbers.

An extreme example: My shifter kart "feels" horrible. The set up is so wacked that I run toe OUT (not a misprint) to maximize cornering speed on a tight circuit. However, this unrefined beast runs 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, 0-100-0 in 10 flat, and pulls 2.5 g's in a turn. I will happily take on any street car on an autocross course--you can show up in a Bugatti for all I care--and soundly trounce it.

So what? It's a bloody go kart and these impressive numbers say nothing about what it's like to drive it. The little thing beats you to death in 12 laps.

I did not enjoy driving the SRT-8. I'm sure it can generate impressive numbers, but if I want impressive numbers I'll buy a racing machine and get REALLY impressive numbers. The STS-V was a more refined, well integrated package. On a racing machine, that means nothing. On a street car it counts.

well said. You haveto love the feel of a car!

hey you own a stsv and your screen name on this forum is SRT8/BMW???:want::Poke::Poke:..


I know...:bigroll::bigroll:..sorry. When I first joined this forum (and several others) I had a BMW 745 and an srt8....

Kinda off topic but since SRT-8 was being mentioned, I'll tell you what, the SRT-8 Jeep is extremely fun, even moreso then the SRT-8 sedans. It drives like a modern day muscle car, and the motor is a gem b/c from a roll its barely slower then the SRT-8 sedans, how they managed that with awd, its weight, and aero, even with its gearing...I have no idea.

Hi guys..

Kinda hard to find any good STS-V kill stories.. I searched the other forum for it. Anyone happen to have a good one that they want to share??

Um, I ran over a squirrel by accident a few months ago......

Um, I ran over a squirrel by accident a few months ago......

I guess it's just not that time of year. :hmm:

Um, I ran over a squirrel by accident a few months ago......

What a coincidence. I ran over a Honda by accident a few months ago (the squirrel in the motor was quite shaken up).

Let me add a couple notes since I currently have ALL parked in the driveway. My son drives a BMW, I have a 2007 Charger that I use for work and of course the STS-V. The thing about the Charger is that any hack cotuld drive that car and it would feel and handle great. Under normal to slightly pushed circumstances it feels better than the other 2. The geometry is set up such that it feels very comfortable. The BMW is effortless as well but with much higher capacity for error. Where the difference is really seen is when you push them to the maximum. The Charger has a limit that is found very quickly and when you cross it, bent metal and death feel eminent. The BMW and STS-V can be pushed MUCH farther without the feel of impending doom. The V is tuned for a DRIVER.

The V is tuned for a DRIVER.
Tru Dat!

Nurbergring Track Times:

8:28 145.98 km/h -- 2008 CADILLAC STS-V
8:31 145.13 km/h -- 2006 CADILLAC STS-V
8:36 143.60 km/h -- BMW M3 EVO
8:50 139.93 km/h -- Mercedes Benz E55 AMG

Nurbergring Track Times:

8:28 145.98 km/h -- 2008 CADILLAC STS-V
8:31 145.13 km/h -- 2006 CADILLAC STS-V
8:36 143.60 km/h -- BMW M3 EVO
8:50 139.93 km/h -- Mercedes Benz E55 AMG


WoW.. I guess 1/4 mile time isn't everything after all. :)

Got to watch which generation for the German cars as the M3 nameplate back in 1988 had 190 horsepower. First E55 had 350 hp which makes that time fit.

Norm

Nurbergring Track Times:

8:28 145.98 km/h -- 2008 CADILLAC STS-V
8:31 145.13 km/h -- 2006 CADILLAC STS-V
8:36 143.60 km/h -- BMW M3 EVO
8:50 139.93 km/h -- Mercedes Benz E55 AMG

Nurbergring Track Times:

8:28 145.98 km/h -- 2008 CADILLAC STS-V
8:31 145.13 km/h -- 2006 CADILLAC STS-V
8:36 143.60 km/h -- BMW M3 EVO
8:50 139.93 km/h -- Mercedes Benz E55 AMGYou can't just go off stats like that though, different weather, different drivers etc. Plus that E55 is way off as that was the old E55, the s/c'd AMG's were much quicker on track. SL55 is heavier and handles slightly less sharp then the E55 and the SL55 ran an 8:05 or 8:06 something like that, can't remember. E46 M3 is also in the low 8:20 range, the euro version e36 is what you have on there.