Just brainstorming here with some ricer math.

The LSA is basically a low compression LS3 motor, right?

LS3 makes about 430hp @ 10.7:1 compression.

LSA makes about 550hp @ 9.1:1 compression.

If you made the LS3 down to about 9.1:1 as a naturally aspirated motor, it would lose 1.6 points of compression, and each full point is worth about 4%.....so dropping the LS3 down to 9.1:1 compression would bring N/A hp to about 400-405hp.

Now, the CTS-V is going to run 9psi on 9.1:1 compression......

So boost is what would bring up this theoretical 400-405hp motor to 550hp. That's a 150hp gain with 9psi. That's about 15.5hp gain per pound of boost.

That seems kind of weak to me. Maybe GM really cranked the timing down, but still. That doesn't seem very efficient for a blower on a hp/psi measure, especially for a 6.2L motor.

I think you are onto something. I am just wondering if it is derated, or Caddy is sandbagging so the Germans are shooting at a low target with their counter stroke. Or it just has a lot of easy hp to gain for when the answering counterstroke comes. I suspect the LSA will be capable of 600-650, and the LS9 700-800.

:D You guys are digging pretty good for this one. Keep in mind that the recommended, not required, fuel for this vehicle is 91/92 but it will run on 87!! They have a secondary fuel map that the vehicle will switch to when it needs to. The engine most likely runs full timing when the conditions are just right. They (GM) can kill power at will via the timing. So the boost really isn't as important as one would make out. Plus the boost reading is most likely taken before the intercooler, meaning the engine is most likely only seeing about 7-7.5 psi. Bottom line is the blower is very efficient. Its the tune that alters the numbers....

Thanks,

Dr. Design
D3 Cadillac

So, it sounds like there may be some very low hanging fruit to be had with a tune...

So, it sounds like there may be some very low hanging fruit to be had with a tune...

You bet. Timing makes all the difference in the world on a blower motor if everything else component wise is set up efficiently. They will yank a lot for heat soak, fuel grade and torque management. Lots or cars run on this principle right now. It's easier to pull timing and put it back in within milliseconds rather than bleed boost off through the waste gate and wait for repressurization, only to have to adjust the computer to its' effects.
I'll bet we'll see 10-12 degrees in spots and the car will be running around 10:1 AFR.

Anyone remember how Ford underrated the HP numbers on the Mustang KR in an effort to fool insurance companies? :lol:

I was under the impression there would be no math involved.

:D You guys are digging pretty good for this one. Keep in mind that the recommended, not required, fuel for this vehicle is 91/92 but it will run on 87!! They have a secondary fuel map that the vehicle will switch to when it needs to. The engine most likely runs full timing when the conditions are just right. They (GM) can kill power at will via the timing. So the boost really isn't as important as one would make out. Plus the boost reading is most likely taken before the intercooler, meaning the engine is most likely only seeing about 7-7.5 psi. Bottom line is the blower is very efficient. Its the tune that alters the numbers....

Thanks,

Dr. Design
D3 Cadillac
Aren't most cars' boost levels rated before the IC anyway? I hear you on GM killing timing.....with only a 1.5psi difference between the LS9 and LSA, something else has to make up the 70hp difference....

I don't think GM would let Cadillac give the V enough power to out perform the current Vette.

Unless they can scrub 800-900 lbs off the CTS-V I don't think they need to worry about it outperforming the Vette.

Anyone remember how Ford underrated the HP numbers on the Mustang KR in an effort to fool insurance companies? :lol:

It is of course possible that by the time the car is officially released the numbers will be adjusted but if GM at that time announces them as 550/550 that's what they are. No underrating. The same debate keeps coming up with the Z06. Countless people keep stating that the Z06 must be underrated. This is not true. With the new SAE certification procedure the engine dyno numbers are within a very small window right on the 505/470 numbers as released by GM. This has been confirmed by both GM engineers as well as independently confirmed by Katech which has had a lot of the LS7's on an engine dyno.

Aren't most cars' boost levels rated before the IC anyway? I hear you on GM killing timing.....with only a 1.5psi difference between the LS9 and LSA, something else has to make up the 70hp difference....


HP is made by CFM, not PSI. 2.3 L blower vs 1.9 + 2 core IC vs 1. That plus cam differences can be at least 70 hp.

I don't think GM would let Cadillac give the V enough power to out perform the current Vette.

I can assure you that GM has no problems allowing a Caddy to be faster than a base Vette and I am sure they are doing all they can to make that a reality. If they could, they would make the CTS-V faster than a Z06. The car is being built to go up against BMW's and Mercedes fastest sedans, somewhere a Corvette could never compete as a 2 seater. This will be the first time since 1987 that GM built a car faster than the Corvette, and it was a Buick no less.:D

Actually the first V was faster than the then on the market C5 (I had one). When the 2004 C5 came out, it edged the V back out, but for a few months it was 2004 V against 2003 C5 and the V won by a tenth (4.6s vs 4.7 0-60).

I can assure you that GM has no problems allowing a Caddy to be faster than a base Vette and I am sure they are doing all they can to make that a reality. If they could, they would make the CTS-V faster than a Z06. The car is being built to go up against BMW's and Mercedes fastest sedans, somewhere a Corvette could never compete as a 2 seater. This will be the first time since 1987 that GM built a car faster than the Corvette, and it was a Buick no less.:D

The showroom stock LS3 Base C6 is rated and real world tested at 4.1 seconds in the 0-60.

I'm not 100% sure what the published numbers are yet from GM and there obviously has not been any real world track testing done by Car & Driver etc, but I sincerely doubt that a 4300 pound showroom stock CTSV is going to have been ET numbers than a C6...IMHO.

In addition Callaway is getting ready to release the Eaton 1900 series supercharger for the LS3 and will match the GM 5 year 100,000 mile powertrain warranty.

Installing the Eaton 1900 on the LS3 C6 produces a 200+ mph 3200 pound rocket ship.

The new 09 CTSV is a stellar piece of GM engineering and I plan on having one in my gargage at the end of 2009 after alot of the anticipated price gouging ends. In will be warmly welcomed when compared to my now sold 05 CTSV.

But in the interim, I purchased an 08 LS3 C6 last month with intentions of sending it to Callaway in Conneticut in March to have the Eaton 1900 Magnacharger installed by them along with having the heads ported and polished.

Top speed I agree but 0-60? Gearing will be enough to beat the base 'vette with 550+ lbft and 0-60 in the 3's unless the 'vette gets a bump.

The showroom stock LS3 Base C6 is rated and real world tested at 4.1 seconds in the 0-60.

I'm not 100% sure what the published numbers are yet from GM and there obviously has not been any real world track testing done by Car & Driver etc, but I sincerely doubt that a 4300 pound showroom stock CTSV is going to have been ET numbers than a C6...IMHO.

In addition Callaway is getting ready to release the Eaton 1900 series supercharger for the LS3 and will match the GM 5 year 100,000 mile powertrain warranty.

Installing the Eaton 1900 on the LS3 C6 produces a 200+ mph 3200 pound rocket ship.

The new 09 CTSV is a stellar piece of GM engineering and I plan on having one in my gargage at the end of 2009 after alot of the anticipated price gouging ends. In will be warmly welcomed when compared to my now sold 05 CTSV.

But in the interim, I purchased an 08 LS3 C6 last month with intentions of sending it to Callaway in Conneticut in March to have the Eaton 1900 Magnacharger installed by them along with having the heads ported and polished.

C&D got 4.0 0-60 for the LS3 C6. Pretty impressive! The thing is getting heavier and heavier! Click on spec sheet.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/13173/the-lightning-lap-2007.html

MB C63 got 3.9 to 60 MPH! GM has their work cut out!

Norm

Aren't most cars' boost levels rated before the IC anyway? I hear you on GM killing timing.....with only a 1.5psi difference between the LS9 and LSA, something else has to make up the 70hp difference....

Remember also that the smaller blower is going to be making more heat than a bigger one. Sixteen hp per pound is pretty much the norm for a streetable car.

Norm

i got 550-lb ft for you right here

according to the guy on the floor 550+ hp
0-60 in less than 4 seconds
and he works for gm
if that is not fast enough for yall, then get ur azzes over to bmw or audi and leave us sensible folks alone

x2
:yup:

I'll bet its a little over 550 hp. We were all bitching cause the first one seemed a little over-rated (330 at the wheels or whatever). This time I bet GM goes the other way this time. I am starting to get pretty psyched again. I can't wait for the 04 vs 09 (stockers) on the track comparison.

I, for one can't wait to drive it but I must admit I'm thinking the Gen. 1 had as much power as I'd want. Wait...did that just come from me?!
Okay, scratch that. Driving the Gen. 1 was amazing in many ways and I "guess" one "might" be able to utilize a bit more power at times but I really think that these cars just might be starting to get to a point where they're OVER-powered. Unless they bring out an AWD version that is.....:D

I think the extra horsepower will definitely make it faster, but not as much as the improvements in technology. Let's not forget that it's several hundred pounds heavier than the outgoing V, so several of the extra ponies go to moving that extra mass. The no lift shift, PTM and MR launch control will probably be responsible for at least .3 or .4 off the 0-60 times- the rest is HP.

As Jimmy said, the people we talked to at NAIAS are pretty confident that the final number will be above 550, and that 0-60 times will be 4.0 or less. It's all a matter of finding the right tune as far as heat and durability are concerned at this point.

If the new Corvette ZR1 shares the same motor and Tranny as the 09 CTS-V they should be capable of the same HP. The CTS-V should only need the Vettes program. I assume GM tuned down the CTS-V as the Corvette boys never want to be bested.

If the new Corvette ZR1 shares the same motor and Tranny as the 09 CTS-V they should be capable of the same HP. The CTS-V should only need the Vettes program. I assume GM tuned down the CTS-V as the Corvette boys never want to be bested.

They're NOT the same.

There's several differences between the ZR1 and CTS-V powertrain, most notably different superchargers. John Heinricy finally dispelled the rumor that there's some unwritten law about other GM products not being allowed to beat a 'Vette, so I imagine that the lower HP count has more to do with rear tire width, airflow to the engine, exhaust manifold design and cost.

While I agree there are multiple reasons for the CTS-V to have lower output than the ZR1, I seriously doubt you'll see anything in the GM lineup out-power the Corvette.

From Autoblog....

"The single biggest difference leading to lower output for the Cadillac is the supercharger displacement. While the LS9 has a 2.3L blower, the unit in the CTS-V only displaces 1.9L. Aside from the size, the blower is based on the same four lobe rotor design with 160 degrees of twist to the lobes. The design provides greater efficiency and thirty-five percent less power draw than the previous three lobe design in addition to much quieter operation. The maximum boost pressure is reduced from 10.5 psi to 9.0 psi.

Since the CTS-V had a little more vertical and longitudinal space under the hood than the Corvette, the engineers were able to use a different intercooler. The LS9 intercooler has two separate heat exchanger units that are split on either side of the supercharger outlet. The LSA has a single heat exchanger that is slightly taller but has more efficient airflow. The other packaging difference is the use of a third drive belt dedicated to the supercharger rather than the two belt system used on the ZR1 engine.

The lower pressures mean that some of the material changes that were implemented on the LS9 were not necessary on the LSA. The titanium connecting rods and intake valves are replaced by forged powdered metal and SilChromel, respectively. The exhaust valves on the LSA are not sodium filled either. The exhaust manifolds are cast iron rather than stainless steel as on the LS9 and the main bearing caps are nodular iron rather than steel.

The pistons in the LSA are hyper-eutectic cast aluminum rather than being forged. The piston skirts are polymer coated for improved scuff resistance and reduced NVH. The sumped top design of the pistons is retained, which allows for clearing the valves without machined valve pockets. The continuous surface free of edges helps to avoid hot spots that can contribute to pre-ignition.

The LSA also gets the dual pressure fuel system used in the the LS9, but the top pressure is reduced from 600kPa to 450kPa. The LSA gets the same beefed up block casting, seven-layer head gasket and 12mm head bolts as its big brother. The improved lubrication system including the squirters that spray oil on the bottom of the pistons is also retained. In total, the LSA and LS9 have about 100 new part compared to the LS7 in the current Corvette Z06. Of those, about twenty-five percent are common to both engines.

The end result is an engine that compared with the BMW M5 has 50 hp more at its peak and, more importantly, a much fatter torque curve. At 1,200 rpm the LSA is already producing more torque than the 383lb-ft that the M5 engine makes at its 6,100 rpm peak, and it never really lets up. It's the kind twisting force that gives you a shove in the back and just keeps pushing and pushing as long as the driver has the nerve to keep his or her right foot planted."

That's a shame. Something is a foot here. Auto makers like to share parts to keep costs down. Why go to the great lenghts just to seperate the two? they already admitted the new engines share little with current motors. Oh Wait! There is no way any GM will be faster than a Vette. That might be why. Hmmmmm!
.
Well there is an upside. If GM do the same thing they did with our STS-V in the tuning arena, there will surely be room for another 40hp with just a custom dyno tune.

Speaking of the STS-V, wonder what Cadillac's going to do for an engine in that car in the future. Souped-up V6 maybe? LSA? Hmmm...

Speaking of the STS-V, wonder what Cadillac's going to do for an engine in that car in the future. Souped-up V6 maybe? LSA? Hmmm...

Stop producing it . . . .

I think it's being phased out. The new gen CTS / STS will be one in the same car.

From Autoblog....

"... At 1,200 rpm the LSA is already producing more torque than the 383lb-ft that the M5 engine makes at its 6,100 rpm peak, and it never really lets up. It's the kind twisting force that gives you a shove in the back and just keeps pushing and pushing as long as the driver has the nerve to keep his or her right foot planted."

:highfive:

I think it's being phased out. The new gen CTS / STS will be one in the same car.

They currently share a few parts that are not obvious to the eye. Honestly when close up I cannot the CTS and STS apart at a glance. :)


Norm

I might be late to this discussion, but the website confirms 550/550!

WW

ZR-1 also has a dry sump oil system instead of a wet sump for the V. The V probably has more room under the engine to fit the oil pump and parts. They also put a smaller SC as mentioned before which allows them to use less expensive parts as mentioned before.

:bouncy::highfive: