: CTS-V top speed?



svtbolt2001
06-19-08, 10:05 PM
What kind of numbers are you guys seeing documented out there?

rand49er
06-19-08, 10:21 PM
Maggie or no maggie? :D

BlackStellion
06-19-08, 10:25 PM
It's 163 pmh
I'm sure I saw a better video but i couldnt find it doing 163.
but I found this one thought (not me)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEsp01CGN_c&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEsp01CGN_c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ROG
06-19-08, 10:29 PM
Only had mine to 130.

ctsv154
06-19-08, 10:35 PM
Touched 164 before it bounced off the rev limiter in 5th

ctsv154
06-19-08, 10:36 PM
Hopefully I'll be able to pull in 6th when I get my motor back in!

zcarczar
06-19-08, 10:47 PM
Did 161 mph last weekend, but my tires are a tad bit taller than stock, so I think I hit somewhere in the neighborhood of 164 mph and it was still pulling, I didnt have time to look at the GPS speed on the NAV, was moving wayyy too fast.

Civardi
06-19-08, 10:52 PM
Did 161 mph last weekend, but my tires are a tad bit taller than stock, so I think I hit somewhere in the neighborhood of 164 mph and it was still pulling, I didnt have time to look at the GPS speed on the NAV, was moving wayyy too fast.

WOW. Joined in 06 and this is the first post. :tisk:

thebigjimsho
06-19-08, 10:54 PM
163 here...


And you need HUGE hp to accelerate in 6th above 160.

zcarczar
06-19-08, 11:04 PM
WOW. Joined in 06 and this is the first post. :tisk:

Joined back then when I got my first CTS, forgot all about the site then found it again last week when I was searching for stuff about my V that I just picked up. TONS of good info on here!

Keys8541
06-20-08, 04:10 AM
Dyno today at 135 in 4th

sleepys4
06-20-08, 05:58 AM
I have a Gps Confirmed 164 I gotta get the pic of my garmin.

atdeneve
06-20-08, 07:51 AM
163 here...


And you need HUGE hp to accelerate in 6th above 160.

Sí eso.

Enorme. Realmente enorme. :yup:

bpitas
06-20-08, 03:35 PM
160mph here - my tires are a bit shorter than stock, so that's limiter in 5th.
It might have been mostly the road I was on at the time (racing Lambo on Rt2 in Boston) but it was pretty scary at that speed. Only thing scarier was my sport bike at 170mph - felt like I had two rubber molecules touching the road...
'99 Z51 C5 at 175mph was rock-solid - less scary than my high-school girlfriend's Hyundai Excel was at 55mph. :-)

thebigjimsho
06-20-08, 04:26 PM
145 in an SHO was kind of scary.
163 in the V felt rock solid to me.

onebadcad
06-20-08, 04:36 PM
Dyno today at 135 in 4th

Sadly, this is true for me, did around 130mph in 4th vs. Bentley GT, but never been higher. I think I could get 180mph, but would need a 3-mile runway.

beartrace
06-20-08, 11:20 PM
On the night I bought my 05 V, driving home could not resist and took it up to 130. I would have done more, but the road was getting curvy and I did not have any confidence in the tires...... A great feeling, and there was petal left.

mrocha
06-21-08, 01:26 AM
hair over 165 here, lets call it 166. maggie, tune and corsa. felt solid for these speeds, still climbing when i let off.

tweeter81
06-21-08, 03:15 PM
I just completed a run on a closed track (wink, wink) today and reached a MPH of 163 in 5th gear @ redline. I feel like the car might have had more due to my headers, exhaust, tune, and CAI. Maybe someday I'll shift into 6th and see what happens.

BTW, the car felt pretty solid up to about 145, but from then on, the front end started to get a bit light feeling, nothing terrible, just different. Overall, a very enjoyable experience, haha.

ctsv154
06-21-08, 03:28 PM
My several 163 mph runs felt very stable. The cars suspension is stock with FE4's and no spoiler. I could cruise all day at 163 and not be the least bit uncomfortable. But thats coming from a guy who dosen't think a 4x4 extened cab Ford at 120 is un-nerving. Would take both cars faster but thats as fast as they go! lol

StealthCTSVJJL
06-22-08, 12:05 AM
163 for mine, mostly stock with FE2 shocks felt solid minimal front end float but surface was very smooth and very straight with no wind gusts, was playing with a stock M5, kinda funny, it was clearly quicker but fell flat at the 155 limiter while I pulled away for a while. Nice not to have a limiter on our cars.

bpitas
06-22-08, 12:37 PM
New M5 or old M5? I always wondered how our cars would hold up to an older M5 stock for stock. Obviously the new one blows us away. :-)

Mystical_Ice
06-22-08, 02:39 PM
newer one blows most everything away.

just wait till the 09V :)

191mph top speed? zomg.

also - you're all going to get letters from the DPS in the mail advising you that your drivers licenses have been suspended :p

Cowan480
06-22-08, 02:43 PM
NIce Video

BacDoc
06-22-08, 04:34 PM
I really hope you weren't holding the camera while doing that.

atdeneve
06-22-08, 07:08 PM
It's 163 pmh
I'm sure I saw a better video but i couldnt find it doing 163.
but I found this one thought (not me)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEsp01CGN_c&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEsp01CGN_c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You guys see the latest comment on that video.

"nicenred1 (http://www.youtube.com/user/nicenred1) (4 months ago)

what year was it? That must be bone stock i got up to 176 with a few mods out of my 05"


Haha! I'd like to know what few mods he had.

BowenCT
06-22-08, 11:58 PM
155mph running with an '03 M5. Had FE4s at the time, ordered a set of FG2s the next day.

STAGEUP
06-23-08, 12:22 PM
If we had the 3.42 gearing, we could probably see around 175mph in 5th

92nsx
06-23-08, 12:30 PM
155 twice for me, I agree once you see 155 she falls off a bit. But never the less I think the 163 or 164 top end is in with in reach (as other members have seen) BTW I'm bone stock. :) The :v: is a vary stable car if you ask me.

Mystical_Ice
06-23-08, 04:12 PM
If we had the 3.42 gearing, we could probably see around 175mph in 5th

doubt it. seems like we're drag limited to 163. it's not like it's really pulling at redline in 5th

CIWS
06-23-08, 04:24 PM
163 on a stock V here.


lCP7RqcQukw

TGrits10
06-23-08, 09:48 PM
doubt it. seems like we're drag limited to 163. it's not like it's really pulling at redline in 5th

How far does the power drop off between the RPM you'd see with 3.42's and the RPM (redline) you see with 3.73's? I know the V's aero leaves a lot to be desired, but 400hp has got to be good for 170 anyway. Anyone have the Cd and frontal area figures?

CTSV_510
06-23-08, 09:55 PM
How far does the power drop off between the RPM you'd see with 3.42's and the RPM (redline) you see with 3.73's? I know the V's aero leaves a lot to be desired, but 400hp has got to be good for 170 anyway. Anyone have the Cd and frontal area figures?

cd is 0.31

bpitas
06-24-08, 10:16 AM
The CTS is a brick aerodynamically. The really flat, vertical rear end is terrible for aerodynamics - the price we pay for the "stealth fighter" look.
At least the designers tried to put a bit of "rear defuser" in the back bumper, but it's not enough to do much...
When thinking about aerodynamic drag, it's not just about frontal area, you also need to think about how the shape of the car leaves the air after it's gone over the car. If you think about airplanes, birds, etc, they all taper to a point at the end, and our cars do the exact opposite. I remember reading somewhere (maybe it was "All Corvettes are Red"?) that most cars up until the 90s were probably more aerodynamic going backwards than forwards!

qqik4u
06-24-08, 10:34 AM
^^^^ you are correct as I learned as being an Aerospace Engineer ;). As you allow time to diturb the airflow you must also alow it to get back into its stream forward and aft. Hence the airfoil is designed that way in the wings of an aircraft. But anyway DRAG is a big factor in higher speed. Just my $0.02 :p

thebigjimsho
06-24-08, 01:15 PM
doubt it. seems like we're drag limited to 163. it's not like it's really pulling at redline in 5thYou need to get out of Houston. I pull fairly well to redline in 5th. It's redline limited.

If you do heads and cam and beef up the valvetrain, you could nudge up the rev limiter and hit 170...

I wouldn't exactly call the 300 SRT-8 a model of aerodynamic efficiency and they can hit 170 easily...

TGrits10
06-28-08, 06:33 PM
When thinking about aerodynamic drag, it's not just about frontal area, you also need to think about how the shape of the car leaves the air after it's gone over the car. If you think about airplanes, birds, etc, they all taper to a point at the end, and our cars do the exact opposite.

All of this is covered by the drag coefficient, no?

Drag is based on the density & viscosity of air, the frontal area, the drag coefficient, and velocity^2 right? Not that it follows the equation perfectly, especially on the ground where that surface throws all kinds of other stuff in. I dunno, I could be missing lots of things anyway, I hated Fluids, and I've had time forget what I did learn. In any case, I need to look up the equation, find the frontal area, plug the numbers in, and see what comes out...it will be interesting, whatever the results. :stirpot:

Cowan480
06-29-08, 06:07 PM
155 with no prob for me... W/O maggie..

Mystical_Ice
06-29-08, 11:50 PM
You need to get out of Houston. I pull fairly well to redline in 5th. It's redline limited.

If you do heads and cam and beef up the valvetrain, you could nudge up the rev limiter and hit 170...

I wouldn't exactly call the 300 SRT-8 a model of aerodynamic efficiency and they can hit 170 easily...

i'm not going to lie, i've never redlined in 5th, simply because i'm too scared. but at the same time, i've seen half a dozen "top speed run" videos, and spoken to people that have done it, and it definately seems like the car 'crawls' up to 163.

also, i've seen, in person, bone stock srt8s dynoing over 370HP at the tires. how many Vs do that stock? no wait... how many Vs do that with a full exhaust and tune? M5s do 210mph, and they only have 100HP more than us. by that logic, we should be able to, with heads, full exhaust and tune, to do close to 200! :)

V-Love
06-30-08, 01:30 AM
I have hit limiter stock. DarthVader has 166.

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2004/13573-where-can-i-legally-run-my.html
Post #4 avatar

I don't know how to insert old post into new ones.

TGrits10
06-30-08, 01:40 PM
I have hit limiter stock. DarthVader has 166.

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2004/13573-where-can-i-legally-run-my.html
Post #4 avatar

I don't know how to insert old post into new ones.

That thread from 4 years ago got farther than we have, but the question still hasn't been answered. Oh well.

atdeneve
06-30-08, 06:23 PM
i'm not going to lie, i've never redlined in 5th, simply because i'm too scared. but at the same time, i've seen half a dozen "top speed run" videos, and spoken to people that have done it, and it definately seems like the car 'crawls' up to 163.

also, i've seen, in person, bone stock srt8s dynoing over 370HP at the tires. how many Vs do that stock? no wait... how many Vs do that with a full exhaust and tune? M5s do 210mph, and they only have 100HP more than us. by that logic, we should be able to, with heads, full exhaust and tune, to do close to 200! :)

By that logic, you are totally neglecting the gearing factor. M5s have 7 gears, all of which are usable to attain their top speed. The V is effectively two gears short of the M5 in terms of high speed acceleration. For the V, the gearing in 6th gear is just too tall to pull at those speeds. We will not approach anything near 200 without huge amounts of horsepower. Either that or a change in gearing - shorten 6th gear or increase 5th. Even then, you'd still need more power to do any kind of meaningful pulling beyond 170+.

Seems like Darthvaders a bit confused. We aren't electronically limited to 163. We're red line limited - gearing. And that's in 5th gear, not 6th. We will not pull at all in 6th gear. We do have a fuel cutoff, however, we won't even hit that without some huge gains in horsepower and/or gearing changes.

MikeNice
06-30-08, 07:16 PM
i've personally done 160+ while racing an 07 gt 500 shelby mustang, 08 saleen mustang,(both have upgrades for 14+lbs of boost) and BMW M3(stock)...we did a poker run from one car cruise night to another accross town...i won. i am happy to say the V/// and my abilities as a hardened criminal has given me a slight edge,... as losing wasn't an option...2nd place is the 1st loser! btw the saleen claims his clutch was slippng and the gt500 hung with me the whole time but musta caught sum wind up his skirt. the m3 ...well its just an m3. lol

bpitas
06-30-08, 07:24 PM
i've personally done 160+ while racing an 07 gt 500 shelby mustang, 08 saleen mustang,(both have upgrades for 14+lbs of boost) and BMW M3(stock)...we did a poker run from one car cruise night to another accross town...i won. i am happy to say the V/// and my abilities as a hardened criminal has given me a slight edge,... as losing wasn't an option...2nd place is the 1st loser! btw the saleen claims his clutch was slippng and the gt500 hung with me the whole time but musta caught sum wind up his skirt. the m3 ...well its just an m3. lol

New E92 M3 or the older E46 one? If you beat the newer one what mods do you have? Just curious - the new ones are supposed to be pretty sick!

-B

TGrits10
06-30-08, 07:26 PM
We do have a fuel cutoff, however, we won't even hit that without some huge gains in horsepower and/or gearing changes.

Just for clarification, that refers to 6th and not 5th, right? i.e. at redline, way past power peak, the car can still pull beyond 163 in 5th. How much farther is anyone's guess, though it seems Darth Vader has upped the rev limiter enough to hit 166.

TGrits10
06-30-08, 07:29 PM
And for a follow-up question, how expensive/complicated is it to swap in 3.42's? That would move the rev limiter to 178 and put peak power at just past 160.

MikeNice
06-30-08, 07:33 PM
it's an 05 6 cyl. bone stock...333 hp? but not to be a braggart...i also beat the new v8 a few weeks back...now take into consideration...we are on state enforced highways,...so i'm not gonna say with another driver as wreckless/confident as i were behind that wheel, it woulda made a better race even though the v8 m3 could use more tq. that was obvious. =]
my only mods are lpe cai, and str8t pipes (cut off mufflers)& eibachs... and a total lack of respect for the law. lol

Mystical_Ice
06-30-08, 08:39 PM
that's going to catch up with you one of these days.

ask whisler what it's like getting a ticket at 145mph+ :)

V-Love
06-30-08, 09:56 PM
that's going to catch up with you one of these days.

ask whisler what it's like getting a ticket at 145mph+ :)

Agreed! The track has saved me. It humbled me too. I let a lot of would be races go now and just wait for the next track day.

145+ is a felony stop isn't it? Guns drawn, hands up, lay on the ground type stuff.

When it comes to the #'s, StealthV is on it. I think he is a mathmatician. I wish the old graphs were still on that old post. He covered it. Air drag limits it to under 200 I think.

atdeneve
06-30-08, 09:59 PM
We do have a fuel cutoff, however, we won't even hit that without some huge gains in horsepower and/or gearing changes.Just for clarification, that refers to 6th and not 5th, right? i.e. at redline, way past power peak, the car can still pull beyond 163 in 5th. How much farther is anyone's guess, though it seems Darth Vader has upped the rev limiter enough to hit 166.

Fuel cut off occurs at a certain speed and is not related to what gear the car is in. I believe it's at 175 mph. Obviously, with stock gearing and stock red line, 175 mph happens to be in 6th gear. However, even if the gearing/red line were modified such that 175 could be attained in 5th, that would be where fuel cut off would occur. I think fuel cut off occurs even lower, at 168, if possible oil starvation is detected. The fuel cut off can be tuned out, by the way.

If Darth Vader increased his rev limit, he would have had to changed some internals, as well. Otherwise, he'd better be ready for something to let go and, when things let go, they can often take anything else in its path along with it. So it's not exactly a simple 'up the rev limit' and, "Yay, let's go!" type a deal.

whisler151
06-30-08, 10:26 PM
that's going to catch up with you one of these days.

ask whisler what it's like getting a ticket at 145mph+ :)

I very rarely speed anymore because of that ticket. :banghead:

TGrits10
07-01-08, 12:46 AM
Fuel cut off occurs at a certain speed and is not related to what gear the car is in. I believe it's at 175 mph. Obviously, with stock gearing and stock red line, 175 mph happens to be in 6th gear. However, even if the gearing/red line were modified such that 175 could be attained in 5th, that would be where fuel cut off would occur. I think fuel cut off occurs even lower, at 168, if possible oil starvation is detected. The fuel cut off can be tuned out, by the way.

If Darth Vader increased his rev limit, he would have had to changed some internals, as well. Otherwise, he'd better be ready for something to let go and, when things let go, they can often take anything else in its path along with it. So it's not exactly a simple 'up the rev limit' and, "Yay, let's go!" type a deal.

Hmmmm I can't help being skeptical of a limiter well beyond what the car can reach from the factory....I mean limiters are for liability, be it the engine blowing up or the tires blowing out or the car becoming unstable...but if someone goes and modifies the car enough to go 175 then they're far from stock and the factory can't be held responsible....so what gives?

As for the revs, the LS6 is good for almost 7k on stock valvetrain, but the power falls off quick past 6500 on the stock cam so what's the point unless you're swapping the cam in which case you're gonna upgrade the springs anyway. Bumping the rev limiter up is how stock '01-'04 Z06's get from 171 to 175 with no adverse affects.

MikeNice
07-01-08, 01:40 PM
I very rarely speed anymore because of that ticket. :banghead:
whisler what did happen? just curious

atdeneve
07-01-08, 05:12 PM
Hmmmm I can't help being skeptical of a limiter well beyond what the car can reach from the factory....I mean limiters are for liability, be it the engine blowing up or the tires blowing out or the car becoming unstable...but if someone goes and modifies the car enough to go 175 then they're far from stock and the factory can't be held responsible....so what gives?

Well, you can ask StealthV to confirm that. He's quite intimate with the tune state of the V and all of it's parameters. Actually, you can ask anyone with LS1 Edit to just look it up with the program. It should be an easy verification, either way.


As for the revs, the LS6 is good for almost 7k on stock valvetrain, but the power falls off quick past 6500 on the stock cam so what's the point unless you're swapping the cam in which case you're gonna upgrade the springs anyway. Bumping the rev limiter up is how stock '01-'04 Z06's get from 171 to 175 with no adverse affects.

Can you tell me where to find this info? I wouldn't mind increasing the revs, if it were that simple. So does that mean hitting the rev limiter every day will have no ill effect on the engine? Thanks.

TGrits10
07-01-08, 06:09 PM
Can you tell me where to find this info? I wouldn't mind increasing the revs, if it were that simple. So does that mean hitting the rev limiter every day will have no ill effect on the engine? Thanks.

I'm going from memory on this from a few years ago when I was up on things (I got busy with life, then I sold my last LSx and bought a Northstar, etc.), but it most likely came from corvetteforum (where I got 95% of my C5 tips) or LS1.com's technical/engine sections (where I was a mod and wasted my college years). The LS6's high-rev durability is similar to LS7 in that both are plenty safe well past factory redline, but there's no power up there in stock tune and it gives GM an extra margin of safety to cut the revs off early.

EDIT: Of course, shixxt does happen...increased rev limit and warranty are mutually exclusive...

atdeneve
07-01-08, 06:16 PM
What about hitting the rev limiter regularly? Of course, not that I plan to do so, as there's really nothing to gain, besides looking like an idiot. Just outta curiosity.

TGrits10
07-01-08, 06:31 PM
What about hitting the rev limiter regularly? Of course, not that I plan to do so, as there's really nothing to gain, besides looking like an idiot. Just outta curiosity.

Bouncing off the rev limiter isn't any harder on an engine than sitting at that rpm, it just sounds/feels awful.

RGRATTAN
07-01-08, 06:49 PM
155mph in the V no issues felt solid she had more left but too scared of going to jail to test again.
189 on the bike (04 CBR1000) felt great wanted more, the stock cut off is 186 but I was on a little downhill strech and it crept to 189 for a moment 186-187 all day. :-D. No worries on the bike they can't catch me on two wheels.

TGrits10
07-01-08, 08:17 PM
155mph in the V no issues felt solid she had more left but too scared of going to jail to test again.
189 on the bike (04 CBR1000) felt great wanted more, the stock cut off is 186 but I was on a little downhill strech and it crept to 189 for a moment 186-187 all day. :-D. No worries on the bike they can't catch me on two wheels.

Heh, yeah on a liter bike you get up to top speed and back rather quick. A car takes juuuuust a bit longer, really gotta pick your spots.

TGrits10
07-02-08, 12:57 AM
Threads related to LS6 rpm limits:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1971101
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=2000644
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1988291

atdeneve
07-02-08, 04:13 PM
Threads related to LS6 rpm limits:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1971101
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=2000644
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1988291

Thanks for the info.

Would be interesting to see a dyno graph of a stock LS6 with the rev limit increased to 6900-7000, to see where the power drop off is. Even with a power drop in the higher revs, you'd still have the gearing advantage, which may, in all likelihood, produce stronger acceleration and warrant sticking through the lower gears.

So the ability to hold a gear longer (i.e., accelerate longer for each gear) and have stronger acceleration in that lower gear, during that extended range (relative to one gear higher), poses a very good reason to increase the rev limit. Seems like a relatively simple way to gain performance, if, in fact, we can spin the stock internals that high.


Bouncing off the rev limiter isn't any harder on an engine than sitting at that rpm, it just sounds/feels awful.

You know, thinkin' bout it, I actually seem to recall, I think, that Stealth offers a soft cut off (i.e., throttle body closing), as opposed to the hard fuel cut off in the stock configuration. In other words, I think hitting the rev limiter is less than ideal, especially, if someone continues to keep their foot in it, leading to a lean state, due to the fuel cut off. I think it's for that reason that Stealth offers a soft cut off - so that you don't risk going lean.

TGrits10
07-02-08, 04:19 PM
You know, thinkin' bout it, I actually seem to recall, I think, that Stealth offers a soft cut off (i.e., throttle body closing), as opposed to the hard fuel cut off in the stock configuration. In other words, I think hitting the rev limiter is less than ideal, especially, if someone continues to keep their foot in it, leading to a lean state, due to the fuel cut off. I think it's for that reason that Stealth offers a soft cut off - so that you don't risk going lean.

Ya know, I hadn't thought about that. Makes a lot of sense.

TGrits10
07-02-08, 04:27 PM
Thanks for the info.

Would be interesting to see a dyno graph of a stock LS6 with the rev limit increased to 6900-7000, to see where the power drop off is. Even with a power drop in the higher revs, you'd still have the gearing advantage, which may, in all likelihood, produce stronger acceleration and warrant sticking through the lower gears.

So the ability to hold a gear longer (i.e., accelerate longer for each gear) and have stronger acceleration in that lower gear, during that extended range (relative to one gear higher), poses a very good reason to increase the rev limit. Seems like a relatively simple way to gain performance, if, in fact, we can spin the stock internals that high.

True, as long as you have more power at rev limit than you do at the rpm you shift to, you can benefit from more revs....which may be why there's so much discussion about bumping the limiter on these motors.

StealthV
07-03-08, 12:08 AM
... I remember reading somewhere (maybe it was "All Corvettes are Red"?) ...

Good book - Just read it again for the umpteenth time. A similar book on V1/2 development would make for a very interesting read.

V Owners: Wheelhop sucks. The diff sucks.
GM's Public Side: It doesn't wheelhop when driven properly and the diff meets design criteria.
GM Internal Memo: Don't let this happen on V2 or they'll be really pissed.

tdyguy2k
07-03-08, 12:33 AM
whisler what did happen? just curious

Check this thread: http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2004/144082-cts-v-has-fallen-criminal-element.html

I asked the same question this afternoon.

whisler151
08-18-08, 11:58 PM
whisler what did happen? just curious

Sorry...missed this post. Check out http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2004/107514-142-mph-75-mph-i-need.html then http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2004/113164-update-142-75-reckless-driving-ticket.html to see the conclusion.

Everything is good now. The ticket never hit my record. I'm guessing it had something to do with the three states that had to communicate with each other (Nevada, Arizona and Texas).

cobra29svt
08-19-08, 12:53 PM
As fast as I've been in the V so far.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7363/081of4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

92nsx
08-19-08, 02:36 PM
As fast as I've been in the V so far.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7363/081of4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


And then................?????

v-ape
08-21-08, 04:57 AM
I got to 155 then had to shut it down. I was on 540 in NC and it was starting to come to a curve/and my exit. Also, my friend with the V1 was in front and I had just blown past his VW VR6, he was rollin at ~140 when I passed him at 155.

He now has a Turbo VR6 and says hes smoked a V from a roll. Anyone in NC want to run him for me? I sold my car and am in Tokyo now.

atdeneve
08-21-08, 10:02 AM
Arigato, Mr. Roboto.

cobra29svt
08-21-08, 04:24 PM
And then???

atdeneve
08-22-08, 10:20 AM
I refuse to play your Chinese food mind games!

cobra29svt
08-22-08, 03:36 PM
No and then!!

sleepys4
11-09-08, 04:53 AM
174 Mph the other day I have a friend that can confirm. I have the mods listed below. I was doing 162 up a slight hill then hit 6th expecting the motor to fall flat on its face, It pulled steady all the way up to 174, before a turn. It was kinda stable at that speed. It must be from my lowering springs. I know people will not believe this, but I have no reason to lie. It can be done! I will get a video next time.

Twitch
11-09-08, 10:41 AM
174 Mph the other day I have a friend that can confirm. I have the mods listed below. I was doing 162 up a slight hill then hit 6th expecting the motor to fall flat on its face, It pulled steady all the way up to 174, before a turn. It was kinda stable at that speed. It must be from my lowering springs. I know people will not believe this, but I have no reason to lie. It can be done! I will get a video next time.

Your mods aren't listed. Also, a great way to confirm is to get the GPS in the video.

thebigjimsho
11-09-08, 01:52 PM
174 Mph the other day I have a friend that can confirm. I have the mods listed below. I was doing 162 up a slight hill then hit 6th expecting the motor to fall flat on its face, It pulled steady all the way up to 174, before a turn. It was kinda stable at that speed. It must be from my lowering springs. I know people will not believe this, but I have no reason to lie. It can be done! I will get a video next time.Will that friend come here and tell us this is so? That would be so cool! **chuckle****snort**

MauiV
11-09-08, 02:50 PM
Im still waiting on pics of Whistlers stripper damnit!!!

whisler151
11-09-08, 07:54 PM
Im still waiting on pics of Whistlers stripper damnit!!!

Whoa whoa whoa! I had a girlfriend at the time, so there were NO pics of the passenger. :tisk: Sorry to disappoint. However, if you go to Vegas and happen to "stumble" into Scores, ask for "Michelle". She may still be working there.

MauiV
11-09-08, 08:25 PM
Never been to Scores Vegas but I have dropped a LOT of money at Crazy Horse Too and Spearmint Rhino.

GOOD times.

DownSouthV
11-09-08, 08:34 PM
how much :nox: you spraying? haha

whisler151
11-09-08, 10:39 PM
Never been to Scores Vegas but I have dropped a LOT of money at Crazy Horse Too and Spearmint Rhino.

GOOD times.

I've heard Spearmint Rhino is cool. I've never been there. Scores was the only place I've been and only went once. How was Crazy Horse? I haven't hear of that. Then again locals in Vegas have better luck at actual night clubs then strip joints. :highfive: Every weekend is a new crop. :stirpot:

MauiV
11-09-08, 11:08 PM
CH2 was cool. My company of the evening was 1/2 Mongul 1/2 Uzbek and SMOKING!!!!

The Rhino must have the most stringent hiring process of any club I have ever been to (some of hte best in thee US). Every girl in there is absolutly PHENOMINAL!!!

whisler151
11-09-08, 11:34 PM
CH2 was cool. My company of the evening was 1/2 Mongul 1/2 Uzbek and SMOKING!!!!

The Rhino must have the most stringent hiring process of any club I have ever been to (some of hte best in thee US). Every girl in there is absolutly PHENOMINAL!!!

There is no more smoking in Vegas. It makes it so much more enjoyable at clubs, restaurants, and hotels. I hope Dallas adopts those rules soon.

MauiV
11-09-08, 11:43 PM
I have lived in non-smoking places for the most part for the last 6 years and it is GREAT. I dont have to Febreze my clothes when I get home just to keep from stinking up the house.

BTW, she wasnt literally smoking, LOL

UnsafeAtAnySpd
11-09-08, 11:53 PM
There's a Spearmint Rhino in Santa Maria, CA...guessing they don't have the same hiring standards...

MauiV
11-10-08, 12:58 AM
There is a Spearmint Rhino in Lexington Ky and it is AWESOME (college town) but not nearly the same as Vegas.

Twitch
11-10-08, 08:55 AM
Strip club threads are cool.

Mystical_Ice
11-10-08, 11:11 AM
There is no more smoking in Vegas. It makes it so much more enjoyable at clubs, restaurants, and hotels. I hope Dallas adopts those rules soon.

same with Houston. no spoking in an establishment within city limits.

goodbye 'smoking sections'

kelleyperformance
11-15-08, 01:44 AM
well, not to dig up an old thread... especially one thats been jacked LOL. i was just beginning to experience the way the V's handle and take high speeds. honestly im very let down. IMO this car absolutely falls on its face at any speed above 100 mph. it feels like im dragging a damn 4 ton weight. watching those you tube videos, confirms how i thought the car would be in 5th. since my tranny is basically done, and 5th syncro is gone... i wouldnt know. lets just say, on a pull from 2nd to the redline in 4th... an 07 330i walked me. last time i checked, those werent fast.

AND i have to say, at those speeds (about 130) the CTS doesnt feel too unstable at all, but then again im lowered pretty signifigantly. the car was manuvering beautifully and very stable. and i dont think it would take all that much power to run faster than 160... first off, like said a few pages back... a good valvetrain upgrade and some ARP rod bolts, spinning 7100 rpm even a slightly modded V would prob reach 170+.

i have a BRICK aero-designed 06 silverado ss, on 24s with pretty tall tires... slammed to the floor, bedcover (those two things help SIGNIFIGANTLY at high speeds on it). it makes a little shy of 600 whp without spray, and it used to have a LS7 Z06 T-56 in it. remember, we are talking ex. cab reg bed fullsize truck here... its seen 165 and was litterally still pulling absolutely no problem. i think the gearing had alot to do with it, cause now that the 4L70e is back in it, it falls on its face once it hits 4th. when my TVS-charged 408 goes into the truck, the T-56 will go back in as well... hoping to take it somewhere i can actually run it, and math is telling me that with the projected power i should be making, and the gearing... im looking at 200 mph, possibly ++. (750 rwhp + 100 wet shot, redline 7200 rpm)

bpitas
11-17-08, 01:49 PM
i wouldnt know. lets just say, on a pull from 2nd to the redline in 4th... an 07 330i walked me. last time i checked, those werent fast.





I have an '04, and I've found that the LS-6 really needs to be high in the RPM band to get any real power out of it, and if you're not, plenty of "regular" cars will walk you. Cars that you wouldn't think you would need to downshift for. I find that I have a tendency to drive my V like my LS1 Vette, which is not downshift unless I'm racing something significant (like Vette/Viper/M5/M3/AMG, etc). But with the V, you'll get embarrassed if you do that, and then you have to live with the knowledge that that guy probably went to his home forum and posted a "kill" on a "slow-ass CTS-V" when he got there.



By the same token, if you're shifting right (i.e. at redline) you can destroy some pretty fast cars.



A 330i (not a 335i) is pretty slow, and if one walked you then there's a problem. Assuming you're not running on 7 cylinders or something, and not knowing where you were shifting, I'd say you needed to be in a different gear. Racing an SRT8, I found that 4th gear is magically faster than 3rd, which doesn't make sense in a torque-multiplication spreadsheet, but proved to be true on the highway. You'd think from a 60mph rolling start you'd want 3rd gear in the V, because you'd be up in the meat of the power band, but I found I actually ran much better starting in 4th even though the starting RPM is lower than what I would consider the lower side of the HP curve.








AND i have to say, at those speeds (about 130) the CTS doesnt feel too unstable at all, but then again im lowered pretty signifigantly. the car was manuvering beautifully and very stable. and i dont think it would take all that much power to run faster than 160...



I'm lowered about 1.5" and for whatever reason my car feels really loose at higher speeds under WOFT acceleration. Could be the shocks I have (k-sport) not having enough nitrogen pressure to stay up under acceleration squat or something, or maybe my rear cradle bushings are shot (again) but once I'm on the loud pedal for a while in 4th, my car starts to get squirmy. If you stay in it, it seems to get a bit more stable, but definitely not as stable as my C5 was. I don't get up to any real speeds often enough to worry about it too much - just thought of it now because I ran up against a new STi on the highway last night and embarrassed him in 4th...

sleepys4
11-17-08, 02:05 PM
Will be making a video of a 175 mph or better this weekend. If I get some new front tires. Will have gps to confirm. Stay tuned!

kelleyperformance
11-17-08, 06:20 PM
I have an '04, and I've found that the LS-6 really needs to be high in the RPM band to get any real power out of it, and if you're not, plenty of "regular" cars will walk you. Cars that you wouldn't think you would need to downshift for. I find that I have a tendency to drive my V like my LS1 Vette, which is not downshift unless I'm racing something significant (like Vette/Viper/M5/M3/AMG, etc). But with the V, you'll get embarrassed if you do that, and then you have to live with the knowledge that that guy probably went to his home forum and posted a "kill" on a "slow-ass CTS-V" when he got there.

By the same token, if you're shifting right (i.e. at redline) you can destroy some pretty fast cars.

A 330i (not a 335i) is pretty slow, and if one walked you then there's a problem. Assuming you're not running on 7 cylinders or something, and not knowing where you were shifting, I'd say you needed to be in a different gear. Racing an SRT8, I found that 4th gear is magically faster than 3rd, which doesn't make sense in a torque-multiplication spreadsheet, but proved to be true on the highway. You'd think from a 60mph rolling start you'd want 3rd gear in the V, because you'd be up in the meat of the power band, but I found I actually ran much better starting in 4th even though the starting RPM is lower than what I would consider the lower side of the HP curve.

I'm lowered about 1.5" and for whatever reason my car feels really loose at higher speeds under WOFT acceleration. Could be the shocks I have (k-sport) not having enough nitrogen pressure to stay up under acceleration squat or something, or maybe my rear cradle bushings are shot (again) but once I'm on the loud pedal for a while in 4th, my car starts to get squirmy. If you stay in it, it seems to get a bit more stable, but definitely not as stable as my C5 was. I don't get up to any real speeds often enough to worry about it too much - just thought of it now because I ran up against a new STi on the highway last night and embarrassed him in 4th...

yea i know on the RPM... i was racing, i tend to run up to the redline :rolleyes: he was pulling on me while i was in 4th at about 5k rpms all the way till the shift into 5th. and my car has nothing wrong with it, i am a GM certified tech lol. the cars stable at these speeds, just much slower than id expect. guess aerodynamics and wieght are the main culprits

bpitas
11-17-08, 07:26 PM
yea i know on the RPM... i was racing, i tend to run up to the redline :rolleyes: he was pulling on me while i was in 4th at about 5k rpms all the way till the shift into 5th. and my car has nothing wrong with it, i am a GM certified tech lol. the cars stable at these speeds, just much slower than id expect. guess aerodynamics and wieght are the main culprits

Seriously man - our cars are actually FASTER in 4th gear up than they are at slower speeds (compared to other cars like the M's and SRT-8s) so unless that guy was packing a super/turbo charger or something you should have walked him easy!
Any chance you were really heat soaked or something? (like getting an opening in traffic after sitting still for a while?) There is NO WAY a stock 330i would even come close to a V... I walked a stock 330i in my old WRX Wagon several times through traffic, and the WRX's terminal speed in the quarter was only 102mph vs 109mph for the V...

Mystical_Ice
11-18-08, 01:25 AM
...and the WRX's terminal speed in the quarter was only 102mph vs 109mph for the V...


^^^ and that's with a much better start than the V too, by the way.

4 wheel drive vs. 2 wheel, bad rear-end drive

kelleyperformance
11-18-08, 10:54 AM
Seriously man - our cars are actually FASTER in 4th gear up than they are at slower speeds (compared to other cars like the M's and SRT-8s) so unless that guy was packing a super/turbo charger or something you should have walked him easy!
Any chance you were really heat soaked or something? (like getting an opening in traffic after sitting still for a while?) There is NO WAY a stock 330i would even come close to a V... I walked a stock 330i in my old WRX Wagon several times through traffic, and the WRX's terminal speed in the quarter was only 102mph vs 109mph for the V...
its very possible that the BMW had a dinan package on it or something... those are just stupid fast. that would make the most sense but still. like i said, i feel like my car crawls past 110 or so... ive owned M3's and even two SRT8 300's. i know for fact that the M3 with minor modifications will wipe me out (buddy just did the other day lol) at highway speeds. i kinda pulled about 2 or 2 1/2 cars until about 110 then he began to pass me

the car wasnt heat soaked at all. if anything, the opposite. i had been on a highway going a steady 50-60 mph for about 10 minutes before hand, and that night was about 60 deg which is cold for us :D

kelleyperformance
11-18-08, 11:32 AM
some stats according to fast-autos.net-
04 CTS- V :
0-60 mph:5.2 sec
0-100 mph:12.2 sec
¼ mile:13.7 sec @ 107 mph
Top Speed:163 mph
Lateral acceleration:.90g
Braking 60-0 mph:118 ft

i cant find "set in stone" stats for the SRT8 300, but the general stats agree on low 5's 0-60 mph, and mid to upper 16s 0-100-0 mph. that sounds like a damn close race to me.... more so their advantage to the average driver vs. average driver, since their 5spd autos. (425 hp @ 4100 lbs roughly)

the M3 (E46) generally has these stats:
0-60 mph in high 4s (4.8-4.9 sec)
1/4 in 13.3 @ 104 mph
(333 hp @ 3500 lbs)
top speed of 176 mph (gov removed)

using those, that puts them at (lbs/hp):
CTS-V: 9.75
SRT8 300: 9.65
E46 M3: 10.51

thebigjimsho
11-18-08, 02:40 PM
My '04 pulls hard and fast all the way to 163. An M3 would need some good mods to be pulling on me anywhere...

SgtMcClellan
03-03-09, 01:59 PM
I maxed mine out at 163MPH on the cruise control between Lubbuck(sp?) and Amarillo, Tx.:shhh:

VforMe
03-03-09, 02:03 PM
I maxed mine out at 163MPH on the cruise control between Lubbuck(sp?) and Amarillo, Tx.:shhh:

On a closed track without anyone else around, right?

liqidvenom
03-03-09, 06:11 PM
i would be shocked to see a stock m3 walk on a cts-v....

and even a modded m3 would need a good deal more power to walk a v. from a stop maybe, but not from a roll

814V
03-03-09, 06:41 PM
i would be shocked to see a stock m3 walk on a cts-v....

and even a modded m3 would need a good deal more power to walk a v. from a stop maybe, but not from a roll

ide race one

thebigjimsho
03-03-09, 08:11 PM
testosterone? toblerone?

smokisnshellz
03-03-09, 08:21 PM
bmw 330i's shoulnever ever beat you in a V!

thebigjimsho
03-03-09, 08:22 PM
nevar!

liqidvenom
03-03-09, 09:36 PM
and by m3 i meant e46 chassis

HeyRoss
03-03-09, 10:42 PM
163 all Stock. after about 4-5 minutes I got tire pressure and oil temp warnings. Still felt rock solid the whole time.

thebigjimsho
03-03-09, 11:16 PM
nothing like covering 13 miles in 5 minutes...

814V
03-03-09, 11:24 PM
nothing like covering 13 miles in 5 minutes...

:word:

V-Love
08-23-11, 07:19 PM
Will be making a video of a 175 mph or better this weekend. If I get some new front tires. Will have gps to confirm. Stay tuned!

Guess you never got those tires. Anybody break 170?

CancerJCC
08-23-11, 08:24 PM
Guess you never got those tires. Anybody break 170?

Yeah. I can't pin point his s/n right now but at the Texas mile he hit like 172...Maggied etc.

EDIT/ Remo. 169.7 http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/2004-2007-cadillac-cts-v-performance/213687-texas-mile.html

thebigjimsho
08-25-11, 01:27 AM
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100523154219/reddeadredemption/images/2/2b/Toblerone.jpg

mberisha
08-25-11, 04:43 AM
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100523154219/reddeadredemption/images/2/2b/Toblerone.jpg

MMMMMmmmmm.....yummy!

CADZILA
08-25-11, 09:18 AM
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100523154219/reddeadredemption/images/2/2b/Toblerone.jpg


:hmm: 13.1 posts per day for 7 years 2 months = 34,256 posts

Wow you spend a lot of time here.....:histeric:

mberisha
08-25-11, 09:26 AM
nothing like covering 13 miles in 5 minutes...

Ummmm....yeah....I've got the long stretches of AutoBahn here....and have cruised on the Bonneville Salt Flats which are just shy of 13 good miles of drivable road.....

Just curious where HeyRoss pulled a sustained 163mph for ~5mins...I'm not doubting you bro....just curious?

mstrjon32
08-25-11, 10:15 AM
I'm sure the answer has something to do with a closed track. :)

I wish I could hit 163...stupid speed limiter.

rand49er
08-25-11, 10:48 AM
... a sustained 163mph for ~5mins ...Bet those exhaust manifolds were cherry red. I've seen this on an engine dyno many times, but can't imagine in a car with all the wires nearby.

thebigjimsho
08-25-11, 10:55 AM
I hit a sustained 163 for 5 seconds.