: An AWD "V"?



Katshot
01-31-08, 09:16 AM
So, at what point do you think AWD will be a MUST in order to harness the power from the engine? And do you think AWD would be a good thing, or a bad thing on a "V" car?

Cadillac Tony
01-31-08, 10:13 AM
I don't know that it will ever be a "must"- I mean, look at cars like the ACR Viper and the ZR1. They're lighter weight with quite a bit more power and they still manage to be driveable.

AWD drive would also make an already heavy car even moreso, and while GMPD has done an awesome job making the CTS-V handle great for its weight, you can't just keep piling on more unless there's a significant return. The PTM system will do a great job keeping the rear tires from going up in smoke, and AWD would just add understeer. I don't see a need for it, but if the customers want it, they'll build it.

jasaero
01-31-08, 10:15 AM
I think some comparisons with the RS6 when it comes out will answer this question. My feeling is that the power to weight levels still aren't to a point where AWD is going to give you a huge advantage, if any?? The PTM and Launch control on this new V are going to put it ahead of the RS6 Avant and Sedan I am quite sure. My guess is that the RS6 will not quite make it below 8 minutes on the Ring in sedan form, but the CTS-V will run it under 8 minutes. Hopefully they do a wagon form of the V for Europe to have bragging rights on that front also. 0-60 and quarter mile will probably be very close also though.

Brett
01-31-08, 06:47 PM
This question is a well traveled road around here :)

Katshot
01-31-08, 07:30 PM
Sorry Brett. Didn't mean to be redundant. I'll do a search and see what's been discussed previously. Feel free to dump the thread if you think it's worthless to the membership.

Brett
01-31-08, 07:32 PM
LOL, no that was a jab at you about the 5+ page argument we had years ago about RWD vs AWD :)

StealthV
01-31-08, 10:13 PM
An AWD CTS-V or CTC-V is appealing to those of us in the snow belt. If Cadillac builds it, I'm buying one.

Brett
01-31-08, 10:20 PM
I lived in Chicago for 29 years and visited MN often, I have no doubt it would have helped your recent situation

lawfive
01-31-08, 11:21 PM
I lived in Chicago for 29 years and visited MN often

"I'll take 'Why people move to Tampa' for $100, Alex."

Brett
01-31-08, 11:28 PM
"I'll take 'Why people move to Tampa' for $100, Alex."

Watch StealthV's video. All the answers are contained within

Katshot
02-01-08, 09:06 AM
LOL, no that was a jab at you about the 5+ page argument we had years ago about RWD vs AWD :)

5+ page argument? Jeez you have some memory!

gothicaleigh
02-01-08, 09:19 AM
No AWD V-series.
AWD is great for the other CTS models, but the V should be about performance with no excuses. AWD has a negative effect on handling that the added traction just does not justify nor will make up for on a real track.

YxG2M2PcM8c

Katshot
02-01-08, 09:35 AM
I know there's always going to be the purists out there saying that RWD is the ONLY way to go but I think as AWD systems have evolved, and engine power outputs have climbed, AWD will probably prove to be the choice for maximum performance in real-world driving situations. Yeah, on dry pavement, RWD with a high quality traction-control system can do just fine. If you want to see another RWD vs. AWD comparo....check out the Shelby Mustang vs. the Subaru Sti. Here's a link to the video index 9not sure how to post the actual video, sorry.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/VideosGalleryIndex#12

gothicaleigh
02-01-08, 09:46 AM
I know there's always going to be the purists out there saying that RWD is the ONLY way to go

If you're not a purist, you don't belong in this car.


but I think as AWD systems have evolved, and engine power outputs have climbed, AWD will probably prove to be the choice for maximum performance in real-world driving situations. Yeah, on dry pavement, RWD with a high quality traction-control system can do just fine. If you want to see another RWD vs. AWD comparo....
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/VideosGalleryIndex#12

The V should not be compromised for often subjective "real-world" driving conditions. It should be an example of how much performance America can wring from a luxury-sport sedan (just like the ZR1 is an example of an uncompromised coupe). If you want to trade performance for a bit of added traction and safety, we can direct you to a 3.6DI AWD model.

ZR1s will be terrible in the snow and would have a better 0-60 if they were AWD. What were they thinking?
:gothicaleigh:

Katshot
02-01-08, 09:54 AM
I must admit, I've always wondered about the model overlap between the CTS and STS. Maybe the CTS is destined to be the more hard-edged model of the two. I'd love to see the actual business plan for these two cars. What GM's views are on them. Why THEY feel there's a need for BOTH cars. Hell, the same could ALMOST be said for the DTS and STS too.

gothicaleigh
02-01-08, 09:56 AM
I must admit, I've always wondered about the model overlap between the CTS and STS. Maybe the CTS is destined to be the more hard-edged model of the two. I'd love to see the actual business plan for these two cars. What GM's views are on them. Why THEY feel there's a need for BOTH cars. Hell, the same could ALMOST be said for the DTS and STS too.

There is no need for both. GM is axing both the STS and DTS to be replaced with a single 7-series sized model. I believe the current STS was just a placeholder to ease the transition from the SeVille to the upcoming replacement.

The CTS is our 5-series and they are bringing the next generation BLS here to fill the smaller 3-series slot.

Katshot
02-01-08, 10:01 AM
There is no need for both. GM is axing both the STS and DTS to be replaced with a single 7-series sized model. I believe the current STS was just a placeholder to ease the transition from the SeVille to the upcoming replacement.

The CTS is our 5-series and they are bringing the next generation BLS here to fill the smaller 3-series slot.

That sounds better. Just hope the future BLS does better than the current one.

Brett
02-01-08, 10:10 AM
5+ page argument? Jeez you have some memory!

I dont get in an many arguments as you so it makes them easier to remember ;)

Katshot
02-01-08, 10:23 AM
I dont get in an many arguments as you so it makes them easier to remember ;)

OUCH!!!

Brett
02-01-08, 10:28 AM
OUCH!!!

LOL:bouncy:

Brett
02-01-08, 10:32 AM
I can think of one reason to make AWD an option. And that is for all the Snow Belt people. I dont think they should have to buy a second car for the sake of "purity".

Snow is a bitch, no matter what anyone says. Someone will come on here and thump their chest saying, put on some snow tires and deal with it, but AWD is far superior.

A short list of cars I had when I lived in Chicago: Mustang, Trans Am, GN, C5. They all SUCKED. Even with snow tires. I could have easliy flipped or crashed any of them several times.

Katshot
02-01-08, 11:18 AM
Agreed. At least if you have a manual trans, you have a fighting chance but those cars aren't very good in snow, you're right.
Plus, you have to consider that GM hopes to sell some of these in the export market which includes some areas of the world that would benefit from AWD.
Plus plus, I still have a problem with understanding why someone would buy one of these if they're looking for a car for the track. Sure, you can do it but why, when there are so many other cars out there that are a more natural fit for the track. Face it, the percentage of owners who will ever actually take their cars to the track is relatively small, so even though they COULD, why restrict the car's appeal to appease such a small group? After all, the point is to sell cars, right?

gothicaleigh
02-01-08, 11:28 AM
Agreed. At least if you have a manual trans, you have a fighting chance but those cars aren't very good in snow, you're right.
Plus, you have to consider that GM hopes to sell some of these in the export market which includes some areas of the world that would benefit from AWD.
Plus plus, I still have a problem with understanding why someone would buy one of these if they're looking for a car for the track. Sure, you can do it but why, when there are so many other cars out there that are a more natural fit for the track. Face it, the percentage of owners who will ever actually take their cars to the track is relatively small, so even though they COULD, why restrict the car's appeal to appease such a small group? After all, the point is to sell cars, right?

It seems to have worked well enough thus far for BMW's ///M division. No AWD there either despite offering it in their base models since at least the 80's.

Also you underestimate the number of people who would never explore the limits of a car but want to be able to say that it could. The bragging rights demographic is very large.

Brett
02-01-08, 11:39 AM
Nobody says you need to play "follow the leader"

As for the "bragging rights" crowd, most of them are tools who don't know anything about cars and the AWD would be something for them to actually brag about. Talk to some Carrera 4 owners and see what their opinion of a Carrera 2 is.

Katshot
02-01-08, 12:07 PM
True, and don't get me started about Audi. Goth, I'm getting tired of hearing about what BMW does to be honest. On one hand, you want to say how Cadillac is or will be better than BMW but on the other hand you use BMW as an example of what to do or not to do. You want to have Cadillac trash the idea of using a V8 with a wide powerband too?

gothicaleigh
02-01-08, 12:38 PM
True, and don't get me started about Audi. Goth, I'm getting tired of hearing about what BMW does to be honest.

...and plenty of us get tired of hearing about what Cadillac does not. http://www.8thdayceations.com/images/gothicaleigh/gothiwink.gif


On one hand, you want to say how Cadillac is or will be better than BMW but on the other hand you use BMW as an example of what to do or not to do.

Cadillac executives use BMW as an example of what to do or not to do. They have never been shy about who exactly they are targeting. BMW has long been the benchmark for this part of the auto industry, so the comparison is natural.


You want to have Cadillac trash the idea of using a V8 with a wide powerband too?

Where did this come from?

I want them to use what works. If that means a Chevy LS V8, fine. But say a small straight 4 is the best answer, why not use it? The ends justify the means. The argument that the engine must be a V8 is as ridiculous as those who argue that the Corvette is a lesser car than [insert flavor of the week here] because it has a pushrod engine and leafsprings. The ends justify the means.

Katshot
02-01-08, 02:56 PM
Corvette, leafsprings????? Huh??
Okay, anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, my point is that Cadillac shouldn't be doing things just because BMW does, and I don't think that you using what BMW does as an adequate reason for Cadillac to do something is right either.
Bottom line, Cadillac is looking to compete head to head with BMW AND OTHERS but, they also have some unique issues to contend with. For that reason, I can understand paying attention to what the competition does but not necessarily using them as a blueprint.
I for one like the fact that GM is using the engine they are verses a high-revving, low-torque V10. I also think that as a marketing concession they're probably right in offering an automatic (although I'm sure as a "purist" the decision probably offends you) since it's all about selling cars.

gothicaleigh
02-01-08, 03:16 PM
Corvette, leafsprings????? Huh??

The Corvette has a long history of riding on transverse leafsprings. The same flat-earthers that point out the OHV "pushrod" LS engine as a "flaw" usually also like to point to the leafsprings (neither argument is very good though).

The insistance of a V8 around here is akin to that. The technology used should be immaterial if the results produced are desirable.

urbanski
02-01-08, 03:28 PM
5+ page argument? Jeez you have some memory!

a memory as large as his pecs

Katshot
02-01-08, 03:34 PM
Yeah but notice when they gave up the transverse leaf, the car ascended to a whole new level of handling etc. I understood what you were saying, was just surprised you brought up something so old. Thought maybe you thought they still used leafsprings.
As for the insistence of a V8, I too feel it's the ONLY engine for the car. Your argument is valid on paper but in my book, enthusiast owners are rarely so analytical. I for one would HATE my car to sound like a Viper even though the power would be nice. You ever drive one? Or even hear one up close? Nothing inspiring at all about the exhaust note. There's just more to a car, especially a sports car, than the raw numbers on a spreadsheet. MY car MUST be a V8. The rumble is unmistakable, and something I don't want to live without. A performance car should be not only fast and well handling. It needs to be a feast for the senses. ALL the senses IMO.

gothicaleigh
02-01-08, 04:15 PM
Yeah but notice when they gave up the transverse leaf, the car ascended to a whole new level of handling etc. I understood what you were saying, was just surprised you brought up something so old. Thought maybe you thought they still used leafsprings.

...because, well... they do... o.O

Even the ZR1 rides on transverse leaf springs.


As for the insistence of a V8, I too feel it's the ONLY engine for the car. Your argument is valid on paper but in my book, enthusiast owners are rarely so analytical.

See, I believe the opposite. The masses are easily swayed by advertising gimmicks like "hemi", "sport" versions and "hp", but true enthusiasts want results.


I for one would HATE my car to sound like a Viper even though the power would be nice. You ever drive one? Or even hear one up close? Nothing inspiring at all about the exhaust note. There's just more to a car, especially a sports car, than the raw numbers on a spreadsheet. MY car MUST be a V8. The rumble is unmistakable, and something I don't want to live without. A performance car should be not only fast and well handling. It needs to be a feast for the senses. ALL the senses IMO.

That is a completely subjective argument. For example, it could be argued that a Ferrari V12 sounds much better than any V8. http://www.8thdaycreations.com/images/gothicaleigh/gothiwink.gif

BMW's V10 isn't too bad either.

Katshot
02-01-08, 04:46 PM
Sorry, I really didn't know they still used a leaf on the Corvette. Shows how much I care about Corvettes I guess.
And yes, I realize I'm being subjective with respect to my statement about a V8. That's why I said things like "I feel" or "on my car". I still think a vast majority of American performance car buyers feel the same but I could be wrong.

The Tony Show
02-01-08, 05:02 PM
One look at the slobbering masses that are driving up Kleenex stock watching videos of the GT-R online is all it takes to convince me that people care about results over how many cylinders it takes to obtain them.

urbanski
02-01-08, 05:09 PM
GT-R :drool:

dkozloski
02-01-08, 05:12 PM
I thought that Audi answered all the questions about AWD when they went Trans-Am racing against Camaro and Mustang purpose built silhouette race cars with stock bodied Quattros. Hans Stuck and Walter Rohrl made everybody else look like monkeys strictly on handling. They ripped off a string of victories that will probably never be matched. They were running a dinky five cylinder against 5L V8s and embarrassing the competition. The lines they were able to take through the corners made everybody's jaw drop. Not only did they have the Quattro AWD but they kept the steel bodies against race cars. It didn't hurt that they were two wiley old veterans that enjoyed crapping all over the young guys. Hurley Heywood showed them a thing or two as well. The first guy with the throttle wide open coming out of the corners is going to win the race every time and that's what AWD does for you. Ask Roger Penske. Audi handed his head to him.

Katshot
02-01-08, 05:35 PM
Ya know, I thought I'd read something like that but was afraid to mention it in my post for fear of being called on it. And didn't I read something about recent diesel-powered car outings that trounced the competition?

Blackout
02-01-08, 05:36 PM
GT-R :drool:

You and me both. Here's the new GTR "Club Sport" caught doing some testing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCcvLmHn9UQ this is going to be slotted somewhere in the GTR lineup. But rumor has it that this will be the mid level entry followed by the V-Spec which will be even more powerful

Katshot
02-01-08, 05:43 PM
One look at the slobbering masses that are driving up Kleenex stock watching videos of the GT-R online is all it takes to convince me that people care about results over how many cylinders it takes to obtain them.

That's one hot-ass car, you gotta admit. At least performance wise. I'm not really a fan of the styling myself. Liked the Skyline better. But if the data that I've been hearing is correct, the car sets all kinds of new benchmarks.

Rich H
02-01-08, 05:46 PM
I thought that Audi answered all the questions about AWD when they went Trans-Am racing against Camaro and Mustang purpose built silhouette race cars with stock bodied Quattros. Hans Stuck and Walter Rohrl made everybody else look like monkeys strictly on handling. They ripped off a string of victories that will probably never be matched. They were running a dinky five cylinder against 5L V8s and embarrassing the competition. The lines they were able to take through the corners made everybody's jaw drop. Not only did they have the Quattro AWD but they kept the steel bodies against race cars. It didn't hurt that they were two wiley old veterans that enjoyed crapping all over the young guys. Hurley Heywood showed them a thing or two as well. The first guy with the throttle wide open coming out of the corners is going to win the race every time and that's what AWD does for you.

Another thing AWD does for you is wear your tires out faster than the competion too. In the GT World Speed Challenge races in the first couple seasons that Randy Pobst and company raced their RS6 Audis against the CTS-VR they were certainly quick out of the gate and ususally led in the early stages of the race. But the Vs would slowly gain on them throughout the race and were very competive towards the end of the race - if not outright passing and winning. I know the rewards weights added to the cars complicates things but you can safely assume that the heavier the car - the quicker it will wear tires. The Vs were lighter than the Audis and I'm sure the absence of AWD had something to do with it.

dkozloski
02-01-08, 05:47 PM
Ya know, I thought I'd read something like that but was afraid to mention it in my post for fear of being called on it. And didn't I read something about recent diesel-powered car outings that trounced the competition?
I think Audi has run some diesels in endurance racing and I think they did pretty well.

Blackout
02-01-08, 05:49 PM
That's one hot-ass car, you gotta admit. At least performance wise. I'm not really a fan of the styling myself. Liked the Skyline better. But if the data that I've been hearing is correct, the car sets all kinds of new benchmarks.
Here's a link to the first full test of the car http://youtube.com/watch?v=yDoJdQXmwu8
Here's a dyno chart of one
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/12/gt-r_dynapack_dyno_450-op.jpg
But it's dyno'd at 475 hp @ 6,115 rpm and 428 lb.-ft. of torque at 5,130 rpm. Assuming parasitic drivetrain losses around 15% - although the loss could be even larger given the GT-Rís all-wheel drive platform - that would put power at the crank around 550hp and 495lb-ft of torque - absolutely insane numbers for a 3.8L engine, twin-turbo or not.

Blackout
02-01-08, 05:52 PM
I think Audi has run some diesels in endurance racing and I think they did pretty well.
Yeah, the Audi R10 TDI's were killing it in the LeMans series.

dkozloski
02-01-08, 05:54 PM
Another thing AWD does for you is wear your tires out faster than the competion too. In the GT World Speed Challenge races in the first couple seasons that Randy Pobst and company raced their RS6 Audis against the CTS-VR they were certainly quick out of the gate and ususally led in the early stages of the race. But the Vs would slowly gain on them throughout the race and were very competive towards the end of the race - if not outright passing and winning. I know the rewards weights added to the cars complicates things but you can safely assume that the heavier the car - the quicker it will wear tires. The Vs were lighter than the Audis and I'm sure the absence of AWD had something to do with it.
AWD spreads the wear across all four tires instead of just the rears. The answer is tire management. It's interesting to note that Dale Earnhardt was a master at tire management and the first advice he gave to Jeff Gordon was to learn tire management. Hans Stuck and Walter Rohrl had learned in the bias ply tire days and had no problem with it.

Katshot
02-01-08, 05:59 PM
Just as a point of comparison, a 2008 S6 weighs less than a couple hundred pounds more than the '09 CTS-V is supposed to. What's the weight difference between the STS and the STS-4?

Rich H
02-01-08, 06:01 PM
AWD spreads the wear across all four tires instead of just the rears. The answer is tire management. It's interesting to note that Dale Earnhardt was a master at tire management and the first advice he gave to Jeff Gordon was to learn tire management. Hans Stuck and Walter Rohrl had learned in the bias ply tire days and had no problem with it.

Part of the answer is tire management. The biggest advantage is going to go to the best handling car and the suspension set-up. Also hp to weight ratio will add a decided advantage. Hence, the lighter the better.

Rich H
02-01-08, 06:15 PM
Just as a point of comparison, a 2008 S6 weighs less than a couple hundred pounds more than the '09 CTS-V is supposed to. What's the weight difference between the STS and the STS-4?

The 2007 Audi S6 weighed in at 4528 lbs vs a BMW M5 at 4137 lb and an E63 AMG at 4315 lb. I don't know how that compares to the STS but it is a whole lot heavier than my 2004 V with nearly the same hp and identical torque to the S6.

Cadillac Tony
02-01-08, 06:23 PM
Just as a point of comparison, a 2008 S6 weighs less than a couple hundred pounds more than the '09 CTS-V is supposed to. What's the weight difference between the STS and the STS-4?

226 pounds.

dkozloski
02-01-08, 06:35 PM
The Audis of Hans Stuck, Hurley Heywood, and Walter Rohrl were stock steel bodied and they were running against the 2600lb purpose built race cars of Jack Roush among others. They shamed the opposition so badly that AWD was legislated out of the competition. Audi quit and went IMSA racing. Horsepower is not the be-all end-all in road racing. The first guy to WOT coming out of the corner wins. The RWD car is going to burn the rear tires off trying.

dkozloski
02-01-08, 06:44 PM
What demoralized the Mustangs and Camaros was that the Audis could go around them on the outside and still pull them coming out of the corner.

dkozloski
02-01-08, 07:57 PM
I love these theoretical discussions about RWD vs. AWD and the armchair experts telling all about it. Meanwhile BobTullius ate Jack Roush's lunch and the organizers banned AWD for doing it.

Katshot
02-02-08, 08:46 AM
I love these theoretical discussions about RWD vs. AWD and the armchair experts telling all about it. Meanwhile BobTullius ate Jack Roush's lunch and the organizers banned AWD for doing it.

I like this guy!:highfive:

gothicaleigh
02-02-08, 01:31 PM
I love these theoretical discussions about RWD vs. AWD and the armchair experts telling all about it. Meanwhile BobTullius ate Jack Roush's lunch and the organizers banned AWD for doing it.

There were more differences between those cars than just AWD versus RWD. Besides, Firebirds and Mustangs have never been known as the most proficient of handlers (not to mention that german automotive engineering was peaking in the '80s while the US was turning out the worst cars it ever did).

Outfit the same car with both, and on any roadcourse RWD will outperform AWD everytime. Any wheel being used for forward momentum has less lateral traction.

Dave's V
02-02-08, 02:14 PM
AWD adds weight and is more complex. While it will provide more traction it still most carry the extra 200lbs or so of weight around. But give the AWD enough HP to offset the weight and it will be better around a track.

As far as the street version goes you are probably looking at a $2-3k hit, reduced gas mileage (IE more GGT) and more maintenance issues. I would cringe if I saw a new V driving in this snow/salt crap around here even with AWD.

Rich H
02-02-08, 02:43 PM
There will be a lot more than 200 lbs difference between a V RWD and a V AWD. If you are looking at 226 lb difference for a plain STS the differnce will go up for a car with 550 hp and 550 ft lb distributed between 2 differentials and drive lines. We have enough problems now with a single rear drive line holding up to a mere 400 hp. Think what it would be like with 2 drive lines with more grunt!

dkozloski
02-02-08, 04:04 PM
There were more differences between those cars than just AWD versus RWD. Besides, Firebirds and Mustangs have never been known as the most proficient of handlers (not to mention that german automotive engineering was peaking in the '80s while the US was turning out the worst cars it ever did).

Outfit the same car with both, and on any road course RWD will outperform AWD everytime. Any wheel being used for forward momentum has less lateral traction.
Jack Rausch's Trans Am Mustangs were 2600lb. purpose built from scratch race cars with tube frame chassis and fiberglass bodies. That made the drubbing of them by the stock bodied Audi's all the more satisfying. AWD provides better cornering by sharing the acceleration loading on the tire patch among all four wheels instead of just the rears. With a FWD car under hard acceleration the front end heads for the guard rail. Under hard acceleration with a RWD car the rear end kicks out. Under acceleration with an AWD car you get a nice balanced cornering plus the traction at all four wheels to rocket you out of the corners.

Road racers use hard braking to get set up for the corner, the car essentially rolls through the middle of the corner while the driver sets it up for the exit. The first car that gets to wide open throttle exiting the corner is going to win. The AWD car can take the turn wider and still have traction for the exit. There is no argument here. The Audis were stock steel bodied cars with gutted interiors. Jack Rausch's Mustangs were purpose built 2600lb race cars built in his shops and driven by the best guys he could hire, Wally Dallenbach jr., Scott Pruett, Hurley Heywood, and Dorsey Schroeder. Hurley Heywood saw the handwriting on the wall and defected to Audi to join Hans Stuck, and Walter Rohrl. Audi steamrolled the competition. SCCA at that point banned AWD and Audi went to IMSA. If RWD will handily beat AWD, why did Audi kick everybody's ass and the SCCA banned AWD?

dkozloski
02-02-08, 04:14 PM
Winning at road racing is all handling, driving, and getting the power to the ground. Horsepower is secondary.

gothicaleigh
02-02-08, 05:57 PM
The Audis were simply better overall cars than the Mustangs and TransAms of the time.

Show me one example of a car, all other things being equal, where the AWD version is the better performer. You will not be able to because physics are against AWD, not only in weight, but in cornering grip (not just how fast you can dig and pull out of the corner, but how well the car handles through the whole corner).

A wheel that is pushing the car forward does not have the same amount of lateral traction as a tire that is "freerolling". This is part of the reason why RWD cars are prone to understeer and FWD cars are prone to oversteer. Oversteer just pushes through, but understeer can be manipulated with experienced throttle control. A properly balanced AWD system will tend towards understeer, but still retains an inherent oversteer when pushed to the limit due to the fact that it's front wheels have less lateral grip than the same car with RWD. Now compound that with the heavier unsprung mass needed to drive the front wheels and it should be obvious why RWD is the preferred layout for performance.

dkozloski
02-02-08, 06:27 PM
The Audis were simply better overall cars than the Mustangs and TransAms of the time.

Show me one example of a car, all other things being equal, where the AWD version is the better performer. You will not be able to because physics are against AWD, not only in weight, but in cornering grip (not just how fast you can dig and pull out of the corner, but how well the car handles through the whole corner).

A wheel that is pushing the car forward does not have the same amount of lateral traction as a tire that is "freerolling". This is part of the reason why RWD cars are prone to understeer and FWD cars are prone to oversteer. Oversteer just pushes through, but understeer can be manipulated with experienced throttle control. A properly balanced AWD system will tend towards understeer, but still retains an inherent oversteer when pushed to the limit due to the fact that it's front wheels have less lateral grip than the same car with RWD. Now compound that with the heavier unsprung mass needed to drive the front wheels and it should be obvious why RWD is the preferred layout for performance.
You have the physics and handling characteristics of FWD and RWD cars exactly ass backwards. FWD cars understeer under power and RWD cars oversteer under power. AWD cars have balanced steering because the acceleration loads are shared at both ends. Jack Raush's cars were Ford Mustangs in name only. The motors were 5L Boss 302's but the chassis and bodies were purpose built race cars by one of the most famous names in racing in America. The Audi's were stock steel bodied 5 cylinder Audi 200's that were turbo charged. The edge was from AWD. That's why it has been outlawed and not used in current racing. Not because it's inferior somehow. During the same time period, Michelle Mouton won the Pike's Peak hillclimb in an AWD Audi against all comers including the Unser brothers driving sprint cars. Anybody that has road raced will tell you that the key is the exit from the corners. They all would be willing to give up something in the corner to make the best possible exit.

gothicaleigh
02-02-08, 06:47 PM
You have the physics and handling characteristics of FWD and RWD cars exactly ass backwards. FWD cars understeer under power and RWD cars oversteer under power.

Yeah, I see somehow I typed those out backwards... dyslexia? :p


AWD cars have balanced steering because the acceleration loads are shared at both ends.

Lateral traction loss is also shared at both ends.


Jack Raush's cars were Ford Mustangs in name only. The motors were 5L Boss 302's but the chassis and bodies were purpose built race cars by one of the most famous names in racing in America. The Audi's were stock steel bodied 5 cylinder Audi 200's that were turbo charged. The edge was from AWD. That's why it has been outlawed and not used in current racing. Not because it's inferior somehow. During the same time period, Michelle Mouton won the Pike's Peak hillclimb in an AWD Audi against all comers including the Unser brothers driving sprint cars. Anybody that has road raced will tell you that the key is the exit from the corners. They all would be willing to give up something in the corner to make the best possible exit.

Most pertinant part in bold. The 80's were a shitty time to be an american car. The most successful production based racecar of that time (and still holding the title) was the RWD e30 M3. But races between different cars mean nothing to this argument because there are many many other variables at play. On equally equipped cars, the RWD version will outperform the AWD one.

For you Koz:
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-forums-lounge-member-introductions/130228-funny-work-safe-pictures-2.html#post1390887

http://www.8thdaycreations.com/images/gothicaleigh/gothiwink.gif

urbanski
02-02-08, 06:48 PM
:gurl: gothicaleigh

dkozloski
02-02-08, 07:55 PM
Yeah, I see somehow I typed those out backwards... dyslexia? :p



Lateral traction loss is also shared at both ends.



Most pertinant part in bold. The 80's were a shitty time to be an american car. The most successful production based racecar of that time (and still holding the title) was the RWD e30 M3. But races between different cars mean nothing to this argument because there are many many other variables at play. On equally equipped cars, the RWD version will outperform the AWD one.

For you Koz:
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-forums-lounge-member-introductions/130228-funny-work-safe-pictures-2.html#post1390887

http://www.8thdaycreations.com/images/gothicaleigh/gothiwink.gif
You just don't get it. 1980+ Trans Am cars were not production based cars. Frame and suspension wise anything went. They were purpose built race cars with silhouette bodies. They were no more production based cars than current NASCAR entries are production based. The production based Trans-Am machines had disappeared in the late '70s. Audi knew they had the field covered with the advantages of AWD so they decided to use steel bodied cars even though they could have used tube frames and RWD if they had wanted to. It's interesting to note that in current SCCA racing where AWD is allowed there is such a severe weight rule penalty that for all practical purposes it's prohibited anyway. In the smaller classes it's 400 lbs. and goes up from there. Even if you won't admit the superiority of AWD, SCCA knows all about it and has slanted the rules to make it impractical.

gothicaleigh
02-02-08, 09:03 PM
Still haven't found that example I asked for, eh?

I'll narrow down the search:
It's not your STS.
It's not the CTS.
It's not the BMW 3-series.
It's not the BMW 5-series.
It's not the Dodge Magnum.
It's not the Dodge Charger.
It's not Mercedes' C-class.
It's not Mercedes' E-class.
etc. etc. ad infinitum

dkozloski
02-02-08, 09:22 PM
Still haven't found that example I asked for, eh?

I'll narrow down the search:
It's not your STS.
It's not the CTS.
It's not the BMW 3-series.
It's not the BMW 5-series.
It's not the Dodge Magnum.
It's not the Dodge Charger.
It's not Mercedes' C-class.
It's not Mercedes' E-class.
etc. etc. ad infinitum

It's an acedemic exercise because AWD has been legislated out by the sanctioning bodies as a result of the drubbing Audi gave with a production car to purpose built race cars. It's just like the turbine cars at Indy and Jim Halls ground effects cars and movable wing. Somebody comes along and blows away the competition with a better mousetrap so they do with the rulebook what they can't do at the track. By the way did you ever see a Group B rally car that wasn't AWD?

dkozloski
02-02-08, 09:41 PM
How did Michelle Mouton win the Pikes Peak run-what-you-brung class with an AWD Audi when all the competiton including the Unser brothers were using the "much superior" RWD cars. The opposition included 600-800HP Sprint and Champ cars driven by some of the best road racers in the world and she ate their lunch.

Put this video in your pipe and smoke it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKKfzR7dX-c

gothicaleigh
02-02-08, 09:59 PM
You're still comparing different cars to one another.

Let me put this as simply as possible:
The RWD version of your car will outperform the AWD one that you have, all other hardware being equal. The same is true with every car with RWD and AWD variants. Why do you think that is?

That performance disadvantage is why there should not be an AWD V.

dkozloski
02-02-08, 10:27 PM
You're still comparing different cars to one another.

Let me put this as simply as possible:
The RWD version of your car will outperform the AWD one that you have, all other hardware being equal. The same is true with every car with RWD and AWD variants. Why do you think that is?

That performance disadvantage is why there should not be an AWD V.
The Audi Quattro AWD outperformed any other version of any other car made anywhere up Pikes Peak eight years in a row. Why would that be? Audi makes 2WD cars. Why not use them instead because it would be a hell of a lot cheaper?

dkozloski
02-02-08, 10:32 PM
Please explain to me how you're going to do with a RWD car what Walter Rohrl does with an Audi Quattro in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGIiarIrUCI

gothicaleigh
02-02-08, 10:35 PM
I think you should have bought an Audi.

You're still avoiding my question though. Yes, Audi has a very respectable racing history. Their cars were above and beyond their competition at the time. None of that addresses why AWD would be a better option for the V or how it would be an advantage to performance in any way.

StealthV
02-02-08, 11:09 PM
Seems everyone missed the key point on Page 1 - If they build an AWD V, I will BUY one. Could give a rats ass that it weighs more or whatever other downside someone can come up with. It's called building a product that generates cash flow and profit for GM.

First one to hook a WOT launch wins. My Sierra Denali being AWD would embarass many CTS-V owners to 60 mph.

And I got snow; lots o' snow.

:cow:

dkozloski
02-02-08, 11:19 PM
I think you should have bought an Audi.

You're still avoiding my question though. Yes, Audi has a very respectable racing history. Their cars were above and beyond their competition at the time. None of that addresses why AWD would be a better option for the V or how it would be an advantage to performance in any way.

AWD gets the power to the ground in a way that no RWD car can. The problem is that the weight penalty exacted by the race organizers because of this advantage precludes the use of AWD. Who knows? Cadillac might try it anyway. You have to admit that the technique required to get the most from an AWD car results in a spectacular show. AWD cars use an entirely different racing line through the corners than RWD because they don't have to sacrifice so much in the entrance and middle of the corner in order to get the drive off the exit. When Audi was racing in Trans Am one of the complaints of the RWD car drivers was that there was no way they could guard the racing line going into the corners to prevent the AWD cars from getting the jump on the exit. If it was raining it was a one man show by Hans Stuck because he is the absolute master of the wet track. I for one would like to see Cadillac go racing with AWD just to watch the jaws drop and hear the other makers howl in complaint. All the arguments you are making about handling and clumsiness were made far and wide when Audi showed up in Trans Am and IMSA. Audi proved they were all unfounded when they blew the competition away. In IMSA competition in particular, Audi could have built RWD cars to compete but they knew they had the answer with AWD and it would take years for the others to get up to speed. If Cadillac decides to go racing with AWD there'll be some eyes opened pretty wide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3uP8fwi0Uc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HS3gz1M6GU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hskTWUx2vw&feature=related

dkozloski
02-02-08, 11:32 PM
Seems everyone missed the key point on Page 1 - If they build an AWD V, I will BUY one. Could give a rats ass that it weighs more or whatever other downside someone can come up with. It's called building a product that generates cash flow and profit for GM.

First one to hook a WOT launch wins. My Sierra Denali being AWD would embarass many CTS-V owners to 60 mph.

And I got snow; lots o' snow.

:cow:
My AWD STS gets the best launch of any street car I've ever seen.

dkozloski
02-03-08, 12:16 AM
I don't see how anybody could watch the Audi videos without jumping up and down in their seat in anticipation of an AWD V. There is no way that a thinking person can deny the advantages of AWD in a road racing machine. Audi proved it twenty years ago and it holds true today. I understand the young folks being skeptical because they weren't around to see the Audi's but I remember that era very well. Everybody that had to compete against them is still trying to forget it. People touting the advantages of RWD are going to be sitting with egg on their faces watching the AWDs disappear ahead of them and it's going to be great rubbing it in.

Blackout
02-03-08, 11:37 AM
My AWD STS gets the best launch of any street car I've ever seen.

As much as you would probably hate to do it you should try driving an Evo or an STi. Those things launch pretty damn good

gothicaleigh
02-03-08, 11:47 AM
-More drivetrain loss = less power to the ground.
-More unsprung weight = negative effect on all areas of performance.
-More overall weight.
-Added understeer and loss of lateral traction.
-RWD provides a more balanced weight distribution.
-RWD provides a more centered feeling and allows you to steer with the throttle.

Yeah, I can barely contain myself from jumping up and down. :gothicaleigh:

CIWS
02-03-08, 11:54 AM
That performance disadvantage is why there should not be an AWD V.

But isn't there other models of performance vehicles built that offer different build variations in which one version technically outperforms another ? Some consumers may be willing to sacrifice ultimate platform performance in order to gain certain options they would prefer.

Dave's V
02-03-08, 12:49 PM
550 hp going to two wheels will create its own traction problems. An AWD system may help the power get to the road instead of the traction management taking over. It will probably put less stress on the rear end, half shafts and limit wheel hop.

I said before that you don't want AWD with some motors. It will slow you down in the end if you don't have extra power to spare. The new V does. One of the best AWD systems on the market, Audi's Quattro system, was banned by SCCA because it provided too much of an advantage. While other cars were trying to put down power with their rear wheels the Audi's would just claw through and disappear. Even a Volvo AWD beat everyone by a lap (including the VR) last year when it raced in rain all day.

There are some negatives with AWD but with over 550hp, there is a lot of positives for it. You can only accelerate with as much traction as your car will provide. In that case 4 wheels will ALWAYS be better then 2.

People need to read up on AWD systems because a good one will offset the disadvantages.

dkozloski
02-03-08, 12:59 PM
-More drivetrain loss = less power to the ground.
-More unsprung weight = negative effect on all areas of performance.
-More overall weight.
-Added understeer and loss of lateral traction.
-RWD provides a more balanced weight distribution.
-RWD provides a more centered feeling and allows you to steer with the throttle.

Yeah, I can barely contain myself from jumping up and down. :gothicaleigh:

Even with an additional 400lb weight handicap, forced use of smaller tires and a boost restriction the Audi's cleaned the clocks of the competition. The opposition declared AWD to be such an advantage that the race organizers banned its use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HS3gz1M6GU

This video places you in the unique position of being the last person in the world unwilling to admit the superiority of AWD in a road racing machine.

gothicaleigh
02-03-08, 01:12 PM
I'm in good company with both the engineers behind the V-series and BMW's ///Motorsport division.

Your whole argument rests upon Audi's accomplishments from nearly 20 years ago (or worse yet, upon rallying history which is a completely different animal from roadcourse racing). You have also completely ignored the fact that any example that can be given of a car offered in both AWD and RWD, the RWD version will outperform the AWD one. The added traction AWD provides upon launch is quickly negated by the disadvantages I listed above.

Brett
02-03-08, 01:13 PM
Lets get rid of all the arguments over which is better for a second.

Goth, there are people who would buy an AWD CTS-V, for several reasons, snow belt, perceived performance, "fully loaded" status. Do you think Cadillac should not offer it because of some sense of brand "purity"?

Any of my friends that still live in IL would not buy a V because of the RWD aspect, but would definitely be interested in the AWD.

And with the addition of an automatic this car will be interesting to a whole new realm of buyers and lots of them will want the CTS-V4.

A few years from now we may have to actually deal with V4 vs V snobbery around here

gothicaleigh
02-03-08, 01:26 PM
Lets get rid of all the arguments over which is better for a second.

Goth, there are people who would buy an AWD CTS-V, for several reasons, snow belt, perceived performance, "fully loaded" status. Do you think Cadillac should not offer it because of some sense of brand "purity"?

The V-series is not a high enough volume seller to offer both and a V loaded with AWD will not be competitive versus the best efforts from Germany. Performance comparisons are everything in this class, so every tenth is invaluable.


Any of my friends that still live in IL would not buy a V because of the RWD aspect, but would definitely be interested in the AWD.

And with the addition of an automatic this car will be interesting to a whole new realm of buyers and lots of them will want the CTS-V4.

A few years from now we may have to actually deal with V4 vs V snobbery around here

Slushbox plus AWD... :gothicaleigh:
...I guess we at least will be able to tell who purchased it for the badge then.

dkozloski
02-03-08, 01:36 PM
I'm in good company with both the engineers behind the V-series and BMW's ///Motorsport division.

Your whole argument rests upon Audi's accomplishments from nearly 20 years ago (or worse yet, upon rallying history which is a completely different animal from roadcourse racing). You have also completely ignored the fact that any example that can be given of a car offered in both AWD and RWD, the RWD version will outperform the AWD one. The added traction AWD provides upon launch is quickly negated by the disadvantages I listed above.
Please excuse my abysmal ignorance. I was not aware that the SCCA Trans Am series and IMSA GTO were rallying. I could have sworn they were road racing. It just goes to show how dumb I can be.

Brett
02-03-08, 01:36 PM
The V volume will likely increase due to the Automatic. though sales gains may be diminished by the higher price tag. Either way there is a market for AWD. If GM is content with continually telling people what they want instead of giving them what they want then more power to them.

You are in the situation where you actually know too much. Most people just dont buy these cars to do what you think. Especially with the addition of an auto there will be less enthusiast owners than there were before.

Rich H
02-03-08, 01:52 PM
The V volume will likely increase due to the Automatic. though sales gains may be diminished by the higher price tag. Either way there is a market for AWD. If GM is content with continually telling people what they want instead of giving them what they want then more power to them.

You are in the situation where you actually know too much. Most people just dont buy these cars to do what you think. Especially with the addition of an auto there will be less enthusiast owners than there were before.

I couldnít agree more. The CTS V filled a distinct niche in the market place for a few enthusiasts who wanted a distinct product. When you try to make this product appeal to many people it loses its identity. Letís hope that GM realizes that and doesnít try to diversify any more than they already have. The automatic tranny is already a move in the wrong direction IMHO. AWD and a 2 door coupe will seal the Vís demise.

gothicaleigh
02-03-08, 01:54 PM
Please excuse my abysmal ignorance. I was not aware that the SCCA Trans Am series and IMSA GTO were rallying. I could have sworn they were road racing. It just goes to show how dumb I can be.

This post is just more obscurantism on your part. You had linked to more than just the road racing events, hence why I stated: "Your whole argument rests upon Audi's accomplishments from nearly 20 years ago (or worse yet, upon rallying history which is a completely different animal from roadcourse racing)."

Brett
02-03-08, 01:56 PM
AWD and a 2 door coupe will seal the Vís demise.

Maybe from a "purist" point of view, but GM will likely make more money the more variations that they have.

I think the days of the "gearhead" V are over. I really have no opinion on whether that is a good thing or not. I suspect for GM it is good. For the enthusiast it is bad.

Brett
02-03-08, 01:57 PM
Goth, do you have any type of comparable track times for a C2 vs C4 911? I would be interested in seeing that.

dkozloski
02-03-08, 02:33 PM
The 959 Porsche was a total bust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_959

The 993 was as well.

Porscshe must have been ready to gunnybag their whole operation after they converted all 911 turbo production to AWD. The 996's and 997's are particularly disgraceful. I'm sure their track record would have been much better with RWD. It must have been sheer stupidity and a total disregard of basic engineering principles that drove them to have such an extensive AWD development program.

Katshot
02-03-08, 05:52 PM
It's an acedemic exercise because AWD has been legislated out by the sanctioning bodies as a result of the drubbing Audi gave with a production car to purpose built race cars. It's just like the turbine cars at Indy and Jim Halls ground effects cars and movable wing. Somebody comes along and blows away the competition with a better mousetrap so they do with the rulebook what they can't do at the track. By the way did you ever see a Group B rally car that wasn't AWD?

Reminds me of how the old turbine cars were handled.

Katshot
02-03-08, 06:04 PM
550 hp going to two wheels will create its own traction problems. An AWD system may help the power get to the road instead of the traction management taking over. It will probably put less stress on the rear end, half shafts and limit wheel hop.

I said before that you don't want AWD with some motors. It will slow you down in the end if you don't have extra power to spare. The new V does. One of the best AWD systems on the market, Audi's Quattro system, was banned by SCCA because it provided too much of an advantage. While other cars were trying to put down power with their rear wheels the Audi's would just claw through and disappear. Even a Volvo AWD beat everyone by a lap (including the VR) last year when it raced in rain all day.

There are some negatives with AWD but with over 550hp, there is a lot of positives for it. You can only accelerate with as much traction as your car will provide. In that case 4 wheels will ALWAYS be better then 2.

People need to read up on AWD systems because a good one will offset the disadvantages.

Sorry I haven't been here in a couple days. I would've made this very point too. Well said!
Bottom line is that the '09 CTS-V has WAY more torque than it can use in virtually every situation. You have a problem believing that, try driving one anywhere near the edge WITHOUT the T/C.

Katshot
02-03-08, 06:11 PM
Maybe from a "purist" point of view, but GM will likely make more money the more variations that they have.

I think the days of the "gearhead" V are over. I really have no opinion on whether that is a good thing or not. I suspect for GM it is good. For the enthusiast it is bad.

Maybe if GM actually makes money, and the CTS-V (or any performance line actually) actually sells well and ends up making some respectable sales numbers, they would offer a "club" version for all the "purists". But if the model line shows dismal sales, there's no chance of making a business case for investing in what is sure to be an even SMALLER niche vehicle.

Brett
02-03-08, 06:55 PM
Maybe if GM actually makes money, and the CTS-V (or any performance line actually) actually sells well and ends up making some respectable sales numbers, they would offer a "club" version for all the "purists". But if the model line shows dismal sales, there's no chance of making a business case for investing in what is sure to be an even SMALLER niche vehicle.

which is why I am all for, sedans, coupes, RWD, AWD, stick, auto. whatever keeps the model viable.

StealthV
02-03-08, 07:07 PM
Having owned a '05 supercharged V with power delivery very similar to the '09 model, there is more power than can be used by the rear tires until one is 100+ mph in fourth gear.

So the 0 to 100 mph where all of us drive 99.9999% of the time, AWD wins.

Did I mention snow?

:cow:

wildwhl
02-03-08, 08:15 PM
What's snow...?

WW

dkozloski
02-03-08, 08:26 PM
What's snow...?

WW
That white stuff up on Donner Pass above Tahoe.

wildwhl
02-03-08, 08:42 PM
That white stuff up on Donner Pass above Tahoe.

Several years ago, that was lunch (seriously tasetless joke in reference to your location). XXXXXX Party, the other white meat.

WW

Rich H
02-03-08, 09:20 PM
We all know the CTS V's initial marketing target was the BMW M5. I came very close to buying a 2003 M5 until I test drove the 2004 V. We also all know that the only options you got with an M5 were a sunroof and maybe some variable color selections - but basically the same as the CTS V. Now they may be offering a SMG option on the new M5 (much better than a plain auto IMO). If you want a coupe you buy an M3 which caters to a different audience. If you want AWD you're plain out of luck. These cars have been, and will likely continue to be, GM's target. If GM markets a "V" coupe they need to rename it so it is distinct from the 4 door sedan. If this strategy has worked for Bavaria, it will work for GM. But don't assume that just because you build something you perceive there is a market for that you will have success. However, I think GM has proven with their latest models that they can compete with the rest of the world. So have at it, GM!

wildwhl
02-03-08, 09:22 PM
I have to confess something. Today, I saw a CTS4. It was awesome. It made me look at this site...and dream towards the new V in 2010 for me.

WW

neuronbob
02-03-08, 11:44 PM
I'm relatively new to this forum and am seriously considering a new V even though I live in snow country myself. I'm one who's going to buy a 6AT version rather than the 6MT as the wife needs to be able to drive my car in an emergency, and simply never had the aptitude for manual driving. I CERTAINLY consider myself an enthusiast, otherwise I would be looking at the regular CTS, which is a fine car. I'm an import buyer and I feel that GM has outdone itself with the CTS. I plan to reward them with a purchase.

On to AWD.....I currently own an Acura RL, which has a full-time vectoring AWD system. With engine mods and stickier tires, takeoff is seamless and smooth even at WOT. The AWD system is such that it sends much torque to the rear wheels in turns, and then to the outside rear wheel, which is caused to turn faster. The result is that the car is less prone to understeer than it might be in the turns (the car is ostensibly FWD-designed, with the AWD system added on). Thus, it has some advantage even in dry weather. It is a beautifully designed system. The only problem is that it weighs 200 pounds. :( I bring this up to say that if GM put a similar system on the CTS-V, there could be some handling benefit.....my RL, also with modded suspension, handles turns like a car 1/2 its 4k pound size in the twisties.

Would I buy such a beast? I'm not sure, would depend on driving dynamics. I'm already assuming that if I buy the CTS-V, it'll be the RWD version and I'll be looking for a set of nice-looking 17's to put some Blizzaks on. Before FWD became all the rage 25 years ago, people were sliding around my VERY snowy region with RWD cars donned in snow tires and heavy salt bags in their trunks. I'm sure I'd survive. I see plenty of people around here driving their Corvettes during the winter, in fact!

Katshot
02-04-08, 08:40 AM
which is why I am all for, sedans, coupes, RWD, AWD, stick, auto. whatever keeps the model viable.

Absolutely.

Rich H
02-04-08, 02:58 PM
I'm relatively new to this forum and am seriously considering a new V even though I live in snow country myself. I'm one who's going to buy a 6AT version rather than the 6MT as the wife needs to be able to drive my car in an emergency, and simply never had the aptitude for manual driving. I CERTAINLY consider myself an enthusiast, otherwise I would be looking at the regular CTS, which is a fine car. I'm an import buyer and I feel that GM has outdone itself with the CTS. I plan to reward them with a purchase.

On to AWD.....I currently own an Acura RL, which has a full-time vectoring AWD system. With engine mods and stickier tires, takeoff is seamless and smooth even at WOT. The AWD system is such that it sends much torque to the rear wheels in turns, and then to the outside rear wheel, which is caused to turn faster. The result is that the car is less prone to understeer than it might be in the turns (the car is ostensibly FWD-designed, with the AWD system added on). Thus, it has some advantage even in dry weather. It is a beautifully designed system. The only problem is that it weighs 200 pounds. :( I bring this up to say that if GM put a similar system on the CTS-V, there could be some handling benefit.....my RL, also with modded suspension, handles turns like a car 1/2 its 4k pound size in the twisties.

Would I buy such a beast? I'm not sure, would depend on driving dynamics. I'm already assuming that if I buy the CTS-V, it'll be the RWD version and I'll be looking for a set of nice-looking 17's to put some Blizzaks on. Before FWD became all the rage 25 years ago, people were sliding around my VERY snowy region with RWD cars donned in snow tires and heavy salt bags in their trunks. I'm sure I'd survive. I see plenty of people around here driving their Corvettes during the winter, in fact!

Wecome to the thread - I think. Since nobody else has offered their opinion let me give you mine. I too live in an area that you can call snow country. In fact, for the past few months there has literally never been a day when we haven't had snow - if not in Denver then at least within 50 miles from here in the high country. AWD is a great feature to have to get from point A to point B when traction is an issue. In fact, I think we see a higher proportion of 4WD (AKA AWD) vehicles here than any place in the country. Do I own one - of course - an SUV. Do I think it belongs on a high performace car like my CTS V? Just read my previous posts. A great number of us have had problems with our drive trains holding up to the hp and torque that the 2004 thru 2007 Vs can dish out. In fact I have had my rear differential and drive shaft replaced once already. Many others have had them replaced multiple times.

Now you might say that GM has learned their lesson and put a totally redesigned rear end into the 09 V. It certainly appears to be bullet proof since it has a cast iron housing now. But will it hold up to higher hp and torque the 09 will push through the rear wheels? The assymetric half shafts should help reduce wheel hop so maybe it will be fine - and maybe not.

My point is there is still uncertainty that the rear end can handle the new duty. Now suppose we add another drive train including transfer case with an additional differential and 2 half shafts to drive the front wheels. Not only will that add weight (likely more than 200 lbs to handle the V's output) but won't it also increase the probability of drive line failure since you have over twice as many parts that can now fail? I don't think you need to do a reliability and maintainability analysis to figure out that if this has been a trouble prone system in the past, it is highly likely it would be even more trouble prone if you double the complexity.

So, maybe I'm a purist, but I happen to think that you design vehicles for their intended use and making a snow capable vehicle out of a V sounds like a good conceptual idea - but based upon the V's past track record, it doesn't sound like the best idea to me.

Katshot
02-04-08, 03:26 PM
Rich,
So you're saying that if there's more parts, there's a more chances for failure? Okay, that's a possibility I guess, but what about the idea that your differentials failed simply because there's too much power for them? In that case, adding AWD to the mix will reduce the load on the rear diff. And I'm not totally following your logic on how a cast iron housing is going to make the rear "bullet-proof". Were there actual housing failures on the Gen. 1 cars? Were there failures that are directly resulting from some structural problem with the old housing? And finally, forgive my ignorance on this one, what was the Gen. 1 housing made of? Not busting you here, I'm being serious. I guess I always assumed the housing was cast iron. Guess not. Was it aluminum?

Cadillac Tony
02-04-08, 03:36 PM
First gen CTS-V differentials were sand cast aluminum. Most of the replacements were due to whining/binding on turns, but there were a few cracked or shattered cases from wheelhop or sudden hooks.

The biggest problem (as I see it) was the soft bushings used to mount the differential, combined with the design of the attachment points securing it to the rear subframe. They were all on the same plane (all the mounting bolts ran front to back), and there was enough pinion deflection under hard throttle that you ended up with excessive internal wear if driven hard, and a broken case if driven real hard. In theory, an aluminum case would be plenty durable in this application as long as the pinion angle issues were addressed, but I give the engineers credit for over-engineering this one in an attempt to be certain that it holds up to the power.

The new CTS-V not only uses a cast iron housing, but the diff is secured on two planes (both front to back AND top to bottom), which will correct the pinion angle changes under load. I don't know for certain yet, but I would assume that they're using a higher durometer bushing as well after tracking how many tore or compressed in the first gen.

Lessons learned from the 04-07 are going to make this car pretty awesome.

Rich H
02-04-08, 05:51 PM
As was aptly described, the Gen 1 differential housings were cast aluminum. The point I was attempting to make is that the new differential housing will be made of a much denser and heavier material (cast iron has a specific gravity of about 2.5 times that of aluminum) which of course adds more mass. Whether that's a significant weight addition overall is less important than the fact that the original needed to be beefed up structurally as well as the need for some design changes to internal bearing and/or gear components.

I suppose that if you could assure yourself that the power was always equally distributed between the front and rear drive train components you could take credit for this and reduce the design loadings for each. However, that still doesn't negate the fact that you have a lot more moving parts. My experience is that the drive trains on 4WD vehicles - be they trucks or SUVs - have a tendency to develop problems before anything else. So why compound the problem with the V since this has been its Achilles heel in the past?

StealthV
02-04-08, 08:53 PM
If one were to design an AWD V with mass production and logic (ha!) in mind, it would use the same rear axle assembly as a RWD V.

Take a 450 rwhp '09 V, now dump the power 60/40 through AWD and it's 270 hp sent to the rear and 180 hp sent to the front. With AWD, wheelhop and its nasty shock loading will be a non-issue. The rear differential should live forever. A nice built in weak link like a driveshaft or clutch would be a good thing.

The key is to ensure the transfer case and new front axle parts are worthy of the power. 180 hp in the front differential doesn't require a Dana 44. It would suprise me not that the CTS4 front setup is over designed to handle the V application. Plug and play one blown 6.2L engine and go.

Owned countless 4x4s and AWD vehicles over the years, some new, some with 200k+ miles on them - zero problems with the drive system.

For the next gen V, AWD, 2-door, hand brake and a bunch of other things are on my four year old wish list in the V forum. I'll live with the pop-tart nav system if we get a handbrake!

P.S. Move the V emblem to the fender where it belongs! The door? Are you kidding me? Kick that person off the V team and put them on something like the next gen Aveo. Cars no one cares about - sort of like Toyotas. :D

Katshot
02-04-08, 09:14 PM
I think we've managed to cover a decent variety of concerns here but let pose one more. I guess a "food for thought" statement more than anything.
It's been my experience that over the years, quite often, people (usually people with more money than brains) produce a car that simply has more power than can be adequately used. Most of the time, these are tuner cars, or special-interest customs but, sometimes, they are actually production cars. The ability to actually utilize the engines power (put the power to the pavement as it were) has often been the ultimate determining factor of what would be considered the maximum power for a given vehicle. Go beyond that point and you have wasted power and/or a dangerous vehicle. But technology has provided an answer that at least to a point, allows the maximum power of a given vehicle to be greatly increased. It's called AWD folks.
Now GM certainly has enormous experience with 4WD (light, medium and even heavy-duty trucks) and to a lesser degree, AWD (mostly brought on by the SUV craze) but, they do not have a whole lot of experience with AWD in cars. And folks those are two totally different beasts IMO. So the question is, can GM produce an AWD drivetrain that will be effective in a performance car?

StealthV
02-04-08, 09:20 PM
Absolutely. :thumbsup:

There are going to be a many more second gen Vs wrapped around telephone poles than first gens.

Hey, I didn't hit a pole! :rimshot:

Rich H
02-04-08, 10:20 PM
Product Development (R&D is some circles) is a wonderful, but time consuming, endeavor. Anything can be accomplished given the time and effort. The question is whether it's worth it. We all know that the V has been tested time and again on the Nurburgring and other courses. When the last gen 1 car had been through countless tests and GM thought it was ready for production there was still a lot of work to be done. We have yet to see whether the changes they made on gen 2 have addressed the major problems and whether we have raised the benchmark for all other manufacturers. If an AWD is in the making, GM will need to spend a lot of time and money developing it on this car. Even if it's their decision to go forward with it I wouldn't count on it until gen 3 at the earliest.

neuronbob
02-04-08, 10:23 PM
Thanks, guys for the welcome (Rich) and the explanation of the 1G V's rear diff, I am taking a crash course on the 1G V's issues from this board and so far I'm impressed with the technical knowledge of folks here, and hoping for the best with the new V. I guess I didn't appreciate the issues with that diff and the reason it might be difficult to make an AWD V for this gen. I'm sure it can be done, though. If it can be done, it might be a worthwhile upgrade.

urbanski
02-05-08, 08:30 AM
Hey, I didn't hit a pole! :rimshot:

but i still have my car :rimshot::hide:

dkozloski
02-05-08, 04:48 PM
I think we've managed to cover a decent variety of concerns here but let pose one more. I guess a "food for thought" statement more than anything.
It's been my experience that over the years, quite often, people (usually people with more money than brains) produce a car that simply has more power than can be adequately used. Most of the time, these are tuner cars, or special-interest customs but, sometimes, they are actually production cars. The ability to actually utilize the engines power (put the power to the pavement as it were) has often been the ultimate determining factor of what would be considered the maximum power for a given vehicle. Go beyond that point and you have wasted power and/or a dangerous vehicle. But technology has provided an answer that at least to a point, allows the maximum power of a given vehicle to be greatly increased. It's called AWD folks.
Now GM certainly has enormous experience with 4WD (light, medium and even heavy-duty trucks) and to a lesser degree, AWD (mostly brought on by the SUV craze) but, they do not have a whole lot of experience with AWD in cars. And folks those are two totally different beasts IMO. So the question is, can GM produce an AWD drivetrain that will be effective in a performance car?
All that's required for an AWD drive train is available off the shelf from Borg-Warner, Getrag, and other suppliers just like everybody else uses. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Current STS transfer cases are Borg-Warner. The diffs are Getrag. A quick check of their websites shows that some pretty skookum stuff is available.

Rich H
02-05-08, 06:57 PM
All that's required for an AWD drive train is available off the shelf from Borg-Warner, Getrag, and other suppliers just like everybody else uses. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Current STS transfer cases are Borg-Warner. The diffs are Getrag. A quick check of their websites shows that some pretty skookum stuff is available.

The OEM rear differential for the 04 and 05 CTS V was "off-the-shelf" and look where that got us. They made a few changes to the 06+ version but that has not been adequate for most. That's why they have completely redesigned the 09 V rear. Don't automatically assume that something that is out there now can handle the output of a ultra high performance vehicle.

The Tony Show
02-05-08, 08:04 PM
Anybody with common sense can figure out what happened with the 1st gen V's rear diff - bean counters. Getrag's specs on their web site clearly show the diff as rated to handle 260 ft/lbs of torque, which was fine for the base CTS (too close for comfort in my opinion, but technically up to the job). When the V was built, I'm sure someone along the way suggested an upgrade, but it obviously didn't happen, most likely because an accountant came up with a risk/reward scenario (ex: replacing 500 under warranty will cost less than contracting a complete redesign).

I think GM has learned the hard way over the last 3 decades that this sort of thinking is what allowed the imports to steal so much market share, and it would seem that they are making fewer major choices today based solely on the bottom line. Bottom line is crucial to maintain the business, but so is product image and customer enthusiasm. It seems like they're figuring that out, even if it is taking a maddeningly long time.