: 2009 CTS-V vs Nissan GT-R 'Ring sofa racing Can'O'Worms Spectacular!!



jasaero
09-30-08, 11:58 AM
http://carsguide.news.com.au/site/motoring-news/story/porsche_accuses_nissan_of_cheating_at_nurburgring/

Seems that, according to Porsche, the 2009 CTS-V's 'Ring time is only 5 seconds off the GT-R! Best Porsche could get out of the GT-R was 7:54. This is kind of a biased test of the GT-R, but if Nissan really did cheat and Cadillac didn't the ring times might be closer than what was first thought.

Still silly to compare these two cars, but it atleast was keeping the 2009 V thread more active when such discussions were happening!

atdeneve
09-30-08, 01:07 PM
Nissan was obviously using either ringers or a GT-R in V-spec trim for the first initial tests, which were producing phenomenal, apparently physics defying, numbers. Of course, those numbers just don't jive. A 3900-4000 pound car with a claimed 480 hp does not pull sub 3.5 0-60 times and a sub 7:30 Ring time, no matter how advanced the awd drive and how much technology they stuffed into it.

It's a great car, but it can't bend the rules of physics to its liking. Kudos to Porsche for calling 'em out on this one. It's no secret that the initial numbers were not produced by a factory spec GT-R (as was evidenced by Motor Trend's dyno runs), and this is just further proof of it. It is what it is.

Blackout
09-30-08, 01:28 PM
Nissan was obviously using either ringers or a GT-R in V-spec trim for the first initial tests, which were producing phenomenal, apparently physics defying, numbers. Of course, those numbers just don't jive. A 3900-4000 pound car with a claimed 480 hp does not pull sub 3.5 0-60 times and a sub 7:30 Ring time, no matter how advanced the awd drive and how much technology they stuffed into it.

It's a great car, but it can't bend the rules of physics to its liking. Kudos to Porsche for calling 'em out on this one. It's no secret that the initial numbers were not produced by a factory spec GT-R (as was evidenced by Motor Trend's dyno runs), and this is just further proof of it. It is what it is.

It just amazes me as to how people read only certain parts of articles and then claim it to be fact. The MT article you are referring too when they put it on the dyno, they even said that the numbers were much lower then the other ones they have tested and that they even said that it was much slower then the others they have tested as well. Most likely that was one was either busted, or just used and abused so bad by other testers. There have been a ton of mag's that have already put the GT-R on the dyno and Nissan has really low balled the numbers they are claiming. Because still to this day, nobody is sure of the drive train loss and one mag (can't remember off the top of my head) head a little graph on the bottom with different drive train loss's and with 30% drive train loss they figured that it was putting out close to 700 hp. Edmunds tested the GT-R and got a 3.3 0-60 mph and a 11.6 1/4.


The Rollers Tell the Truth
Though the GT-R has sizable exhaust tips, the four exhaust outlets themselves are surprisingly small in diameter, so the car isn't very loud. Nonetheless, the sound of the big tires against the rollers sets up a terrific banshee wail that seems to turn the air into jelly.

It's not an easy deal. All Japan-spec cars are equipped with a top-speed limiter at 180 km/h (112 mph) and we keep banging into it when we use 4th gear in the GT-R. Finally we select 3rd gear and get some clean pulls.

When the computer finishes crunching the numbers, the data tells us that the 2009 Nissan GT-R is putting out 406 hp at 6,400 rpm and 414 lb-ft of torque at 3,800 rpm. Once you factor in the parasitic losses of the all-wheel-drive system, these numbers are wholly in line with Nissan's claim for the engine's power at the crankshaft. During one pull, the horsepower perked up to 414 hp, but it wasn't repeatable and torque production through the midrange suffered.
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/il/features/general/09.nissan.gtr.dyno/gtrharman.300.jpg

Earlier, Harman tested a 997-generation Porsche 911 Turbo on the same dyno, and we discovered some interesting things when we overlaid its power curve with that of the GT-R. The Porsche's variable-geometry turbos give its six-cylinder engine a significant advantage in torque output over the GT-R below 3,600 rpm. But once these engines reach the range between 3,600 and 5,700 rpm (where the real work of acceleration must be done), the GT-R's V6 has the 911's flat-6 covered
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/il/features/general/09.nissan.gtr.dyno/gtrv997tharman.500.jpg

On a dynapack they got 452 hp and 448 tq which verifies their Mustang dyno numbers. So to sum it up, yes the GT-R will blow the doors off of the CTS-V on the 'Ring, yes the power numbers that Nissan claims are true, and Porsche cannot drive

atdeneve
09-30-08, 04:53 PM
It just amazes me as to how people read only certain parts of articles and then claim it to be fact. The MT article you are referring too when they put it on the dyno, they even said that the numbers were much lower then the other ones they have tested and that they even said that it was much slower then the others they have tested as well. Most likely that was one was either busted, or just used and abused so bad by other testers. There have been a ton of mag's that have already put the GT-R on the dyno and Nissan has really low balled the numbers they are claiming. Because still to this day, nobody is sure of the drive train loss and one mag (can't remember off the top of my head) head a little graph on the bottom with different drive train loss's and with 30% drive train loss they figured that it was putting out close to 700 hp. Edmunds tested the GT-R and got a 3.3 0-60 mph and a 11.6 1/4.



On a dynapack they got 452 hp and 448 tq which verifies their Mustang dyno numbers. So to sum it up, yes the GT-R will blow the doors off of the CTS-V on the 'Ring, yes the power numbers that Nissan claims are true, and Porsche cannot drive

Yeah, I am aware that the last GT-R they were testing in that article was pulling much slower numbers. And, yes, I thought it was either not working properly - perhaps, due to the repeated journalist testing, as they noted - or it was actually a 480 hp GT-R.

Personally, I think the other GT-Rs that pulled much better times had a significantly higher output than the quoted 480 hp. That's all I'm sayin. And it appears to be what you're saying, as well. At least, pretty much all of your first paragraph supports that. But then, in your last paragraph, you state that Nissan's power claims - and I assume you are referring to the 480 hp - are true. So, I'm not really sure what your position is there.

Yes, of course, the GT-R will take a CTS-V. That was not my contention.

And, perhaps, the Porsche drivers can't drive. But frankly, I find that hard to believe. If you can run a GT2 - a vehicle with a whole shitload of power and torque to the rear wheels and the engine situated behind the rear axle - around the Ring in 7:34, you sure as hell better be able to drive the GT-R, arguably one of the easiest cars to drive out there, around the Ring within 10 seconds of its supposed best lap time. I don't know, that's just my opinion.

So, alls I'm sayin is that Nissan's power claims of 480 hp are bogus. In the vehicles that showed those ridiculous test numbers (0-60, 1/4 mile, & Ring time), it is a lot more. And for those that put out test numbers that were not as stellar (i.e., more realistic), it was more in line with the 480 hp claims.

So, I fail to see how I only read parts of the article and, subsequently, claimed it to be fact. Nothing I said was in contradiction with any of the articles you cited. In fact, those articles would seem to suggest the same.

Perhaps, you should read what I said. Then, take a look at what you said. You start out basically supporting what I said, while outwardly disagreeing (over what?, I'm not yet quite sure). And then, to sum up, you outright contradict all the evidence you so conveniently provided. And I amaze you, huh?

gothicaleigh
09-30-08, 05:10 PM
'Ring times are a measurement of more than simply horsepower. It gives an idea of the total package.
Nissan's claimed times for the worked GT-R they ran are no where close to a true measurement of the production vehicle.


It would also be interesting to see how fast a CTS-V2 could go around the Nordschleife with scrubbed race tires.

6DN69
09-30-08, 10:58 PM
'Ring times are a measurement of more than simply horsepower. It gives an idea of the total package.
Nissan's claimed times for the worked GT-R they ran are no where close to a true measurement of the production vehicle.

It would also be interesting to see how fast a CTS-V2 could go around the Nordschleife with scrubbed race tires.


It could be a horsepower issue or it could be just as the drivers suspect...a tire issue:

"For us, it's not clear how this time is possible. What we can imagine with this Nissan is they used other tyres."

He believes the time achieved by Nissan with ex-Formula One driver Toshio Suzuki would only be possible with a semi-slick race-style tyre."


Didn't most of the american muscle car makers in the 60's 70's low balled the numbers in order to avoid higher insurance premiums? Nissan may be doing the same thing...

I too would like to see the V2 make the ring run on race tires...:yup:

Varsity
10-01-08, 04:54 AM
Living here n England we are less than 6hours away from the Ring and as such do get the opportunity to visit on a regular basis. 3 times in September!

Whilst there last weekend the subject of Ring times was brought up over dinner, especially the GT-R times. It has been alleged that the famous GT-R times were helped by semi-slick road tyress, tuned engine ECU and some other track biased mods. The buzz about the CTS-V was that it was so quick in 'road form'.

I can't prove or stand by this but would suggest that the person who spoke about the cars is very well informed, lives next to the track, has some very knowledgable friends and would have no reason to say anything other than whats what.

Theres no doubt the GT-R is an awesome tool but the CTS-V will be something very special too.

NormV
10-01-08, 10:14 AM
Can't image what a sedan like the RS6 weighing slightly more than the GT-R and more power would do. Looks like they are on top of the V2 'rings times now, just not coming stateside.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=131933


Norm

Bigron
10-01-08, 02:22 PM
Can't image what a sedan like the RS6 weighing slightly more than the GT-R and more power would do. Looks like they are on top of the V2 'rings times now, just not coming stateside.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=131933


Norm

Also at a cost of 2 new CTS-Vs

jasaero
10-01-08, 02:22 PM
Can't image what a sedan like the RS6 weighing slightly more than the GT-R and more power would do. Looks like they are on top of the V2 'rings times now, just not coming stateside.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=131933


Norm

That car is so much heavier than the V2 that is actually has a power to weight deficiency by a very very small margin. The sedan will probably make power to weight a tie, but the V2 I think would still take it with it's better distribution and MRC helping it out.

Audi has yet to claim a sub 8 minute 'Ring 4 door time on stock tires.

atdeneve
10-01-08, 03:36 PM
Yeah, with the sedan at 4,337 lbs and the avant at 4,464 lbs, that car is definitely a pig. Even more so than the CTS-V. And look at that engine (on the rolling chassis picture). It's damn near teetering off the nose of that thing.

Those brakes are monster! Ceramic 16.5 inch rotors with eight piston calipers - that's some heavy duty ish right thar.

Wouldn't mind seeing the black optical package on the V, as well.

Cadillac Tony
10-01-08, 03:40 PM
*edit*

Wrong thread. :doh:

NormV
10-01-08, 05:25 PM
Should be interesting to see the results of their weight reduction. Fully equipped might complete with the GT-R with an extra pair of doors! :)


Norm

annie
10-04-08, 11:12 PM
Can't image what a sedan like the RS6 weighing slightly more than the GT-R and more power would do. Looks like they are on top of the V2 'rings times now, just not coming stateside.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=131933


Norm

the rs6 weighs more than the v and has 70 less lbs ft of torque witch is the most important thing to moving a fat car.

NormV
10-05-08, 11:21 AM
the rs6 weighs more than the v and has 70 less lbs ft of torque witch is the most important thing to moving a fat car.

Weight within 100 lbs. could be made up by the driver and equipment levels. :) Remember too that RS6 has AWD(quattro) which adds weight but very low in the drivetrain where the V has 150 lbs blower and intercooler/coolant(@6 lbs a gallon) sitting at front hood height. Not so much peak ratings but where and how much power is across the operating range. Twin turbo will give more boost and earlier where the quattro will get the power to the ground where is matters coming out of corners and pulling away from stop lights on a slick street. :)

With no RS6 for stateside we'll have to wait for Tiff or Jeremy for comparison testing.

Norm

Jpjr
10-05-08, 11:41 AM
Weight within 100 lbs. could be made up by the driver and equipment levels. :) Remember too that RS6 has AWD(quattro) which adds weight but very low in the drivetrain where the V has 150 lbs blower and intercooler/coolant(@6 lbs a gallon) sitting at front hood height. Not so much peak ratings but where and how much power is across the operating range. Twin turbo will give more boost and earlier where the quattro will get the power to the ground where is matters coming out of corners and pulling away from stop lights on a slick street. :)

With no RS6 for stateside we'll have to wait for Tiff or Jeremy for comparison testing.

Norm


maybe you are referring to some specific nuance, but in general a belt driven supercharger will make boost with significantly less lag than an air driven turbo. the trade off is that they are heavy and inefficient, but of course drag racers still pefer them.

NormV
10-05-08, 10:53 PM
Interesting torqueless 4-cylinders are not all superchargered. Come to think of it are there any SC fours? Mini?


Norm


maybe you are referring to some specific nuance, but in general a belt driven supercharger will make boost with significantly less lag than an air driven turbo. the trade off is that they are heavy and inefficient, but of course drag racers still pefer them.

CadillacSTS42005
10-05-08, 11:06 PM
It just amazes me as to how people read only certain parts of articles and then claim it to be fact. The MT article you are referring too when they put it on the dyno, they even said that the numbers were much lower then the other ones they have tested and that they even said that it was much slower then the others they have tested as well. Most likely that was one was either busted, or just used and abused so bad by other testers. There have been a ton of mag's that have already put the GT-R on the dyno and Nissan has really low balled the numbers they are claiming. Because still to this day, nobody is sure of the drive train loss and one mag (can't remember off the top of my head) head a little graph on the bottom with different drive train loss's and with 30% drive train loss they figured that it was putting out close to 700 hp. Edmunds tested the GT-R and got a 3.3 0-60 mph and a 11.6 1/4.



On a dynapack they got 452 hp and 448 tq which verifies their Mustang dyno numbers. So to sum it up, yes the GT-R will blow the doors off of the CTS-V on the 'Ring, yes the power numbers that Nissan claims are true, and Porsche cannot drive


Black out
why dont you just go leg hump the designers then stick man your hood in the tail pipes of that pos and get it over with...
christ you peg that tupperware like Jesus himself build it from the tears of angels...

Blackout
10-06-08, 11:30 AM
Interesting torqueless 4-cylinders are not all superchargered. Come to think of it are there any SC fours? Mini?


Norm

Usually 4 cylinders are usually turbo charged since blowers require power from the engine to run. But the only blown 4 cylinders I can think of off the top of my head are the Mini Cooper S, Saturn Ion Redline, and Cobalt SS but all three of those cars have since switched over to turbo charging them instead

Blackout
10-06-08, 11:33 AM
Black out
why dont you just go leg hump the designers then stick man your hood in the tail pipes of that pos and get it over with...
christ you peg that tupperware like Jesus himself build it from the tears of angels...

Cadillac S T S 2003
why dont you just go to sylvan learning center and learn how to spell then you can stick man your hood in the tail pipes of your pos:thumbsup:

LITTLEELVISDAN
10-06-08, 02:55 PM
Twin turbo will give more boost and earlier where the quattro will get the power to the ground where is matters coming out of corners and pulling away from stop lights on a slick street. :)



Norm

UM! since when has any turbo spooled up faster and delivered boost earlier over a positive dispalcement roots blower? or were you not comparing the RS6 to the CTS-V?

I'm not a fan of the GT-R. Specs and real world results have been all over the place since that thing hit the road. I believe that is exactly why they aren't selling that well. You just don't know what you are really getting and yet still charging top dollar to get it.

Give me a V any day.

NormV
10-06-08, 03:06 PM
Dan,you've been to the drag strip and heard a Grand National build a couple lbs of boost on the line?

Your lyschom super charger in your V might make a few lbs if you brake boost but the computer might over ride it. Most belt driven SC don't make boost unless there rpms are related.

Norm


UM! since when has any turbo spooled up faster and delivered boost earlier over a positive dispalcement roots blower? or were you not comparing the RS6 to the CTS-V?

I'm not a fan of the GT-R. Specs and real world results have been all over the place since that thing hit the road. I believe that is exactly why they aren't selling that well. You just don't know what you are really getting and yet still charging top dollar to get it.

Give me a V any day.

Blackout
10-06-08, 03:26 PM
UM! since when has any turbo spooled up faster and delivered boost earlier over a positive dispalcement roots blower? or were you not comparing the RS6 to the CTS-V?Blowers are good for immediate power but at the same time they also eat up power in the process which doesn't make for the most efficient F/I setup. Turbo's now adays have next to no turbo lag like they used too have. You would be amazed by what kind of turbo technology is available now adays.

LITTLEELVISDAN
10-06-08, 03:27 PM
Turbo lag still exists as they are driven off exhaust pressure. Centrifugal blowers are RPM related since they are really belt driven turbos and need redline to put out full boost. But roots gives you instant boost at all RPM's. thats why they make better TQ numbers. They have more boost off available quicker.

GNX's have to build boost on the line to overcome turbo lag. Roots do not need to do that since there is NO lag.


We could argue Pro's and Cons all day long as both applications have their strenghts and weaknesses. I just don't think a exhaust/pressure driven turbo can generate boost earlier than a belt driven roots blower.

LITTLEELVISDAN
10-06-08, 03:46 PM
Blowers are good for immediate power but at the same time they also eat up power in the process which doesn't make for the most efficient F/I setup. Turbo's now adays have next to no turbo lag like they used too have. You would be amazed by what kind of turbo technology is available now adays.
I never argued the efficiency between either or any other pro's or con's. I was just questioning the comment, which one built boost quicker.

Varsity
10-06-08, 03:47 PM
UM! since when has any turbo spooled up faster and delivered boost earlier over a positive dispalcement roots blower? or were you not comparing the RS6 to the CTS-V?

I'm not a fan of the GT-R. Specs and real world results have been all over the place since that thing hit the road. I believe that is exactly why they aren't selling that well. You just don't know what you are really getting and yet still charging top dollar to get it.

Give me a V any day.

Sold out here in the UK for the next year!

LITTLEELVISDAN
10-06-08, 03:52 PM
Sold out here in the UK for the next year!

Wow! they need to ship some of ours in the showrooms over to you guys. You could always get one here ofr sticker and ship it over there. but then again the steering wheel would be on the correct side.:thumbsup::)

Jpjr
10-06-08, 04:57 PM
Belt driven blowers will always generate boost faster than turbos, it is why drag racers use them. That said, there are some pretty low lag turbos out there and the upside potential is significantly higher.

NormV
10-06-08, 05:55 PM
You guys must be talking about SC rail type dragsters. That is like saying carbs are good because NASCAR runs them. Pfff! :)

There is a reason you don't see roots blowers on the roadcourses. The daily commute is not full of Xmas tree lights but more resembles a race track for most of us.

If turbos are so much viable why don't we see on the ZR-1 and V2? Costs and warranty costs. Boost builds quicker with smaller, more efficient turbos and as a result will tend to shock the drive train in manual transmissioned cars where as the belt driven SC is more linear with centrigal make more peak power but very similar 40-50 spread between HP and trq. That is why you see the in more expensive cars.

Norm

Jpjr
10-06-08, 06:52 PM
You guys must be talking about SC rail type dragsters. That is like saying carbs are good because NASCAR runs them. Pfff! :)

There is a reason you don't see roots blowers on the roadcourses. The daily commute is not full of Xmas tree lights but more resembles a race track for most of us.

If turbos are so much viable why don't we see on the ZR-1 and V2? Costs and warranty costs. Boost builds quicker with smaller, more efficient turbos and as a result will tend to shock the drive train in manual transmissioned cars where as the belt driven SC is more linear with centrigal make more peak power but very similar 40-50 spread between HP and trq. That is why you see the in more expensive cars.

Norm


Well it always comes down to cost, that is why the ZR1 is using a pushrod motor still. Superchargers are simply the cheapest power adder, period. However, for the extra cash you can add low lag 57-61mm twin turbos to the same car and drastically improve hp per lbs of boost.

So yes, the math is simple. Turbos > Blowers, but they cost more.

NormV
10-06-08, 08:06 PM
Actuallyy NOS is the best bang for the buck with results to match. :)

JP, your so cute when you agree. ;)


Norm





Well it always comes down to cost, that is why the ZR1 is using a pushrod motor still. Superchargers are simply the cheapest power adder, period. However, for the extra cash you can add low lag 57-61mm twin turbos to the same car and drastically improve hp per lbs of boost.

So yes, the math is simple. Turbos > Blowers, but they cost more.

Jpjr
10-06-08, 08:29 PM
Actuallyy NOS is the best bang for the buck with results to match. :)

JP, your so cute when you agree. ;)


Norm


Actually you are right again on the spray!

Blackout
10-07-08, 01:34 PM
Actuallyy NOS is the best bang for the buck with results to match. :)

JP, your so cute when you agree. ;)


Norm

True but I'd want a power adder that I don't have to worry about having to get refilled all of the time.

Bluhair
10-08-08, 11:39 AM
I am getting both, so it will be nice to have the comparison.

As for the GT-R , this one is stock,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyIomZ5bK2o

and yes it will beat the pants off of a CTS-V on any track.

Actually using Nring times as a benchmark, is a fool's errand. Using The times that a rival Marque, has provided is even dumber. The 997tt is a slower car, and costs twice as much.

One can buy a CTS-V and a GT-R, or buy one 997tt.

Blackout
10-08-08, 12:04 PM
Not to mention the fact that the USDM version of the GT-R shocks are stiffer, but the springs are softer rates. Also USDM GT-R has revised transmission/differential mounts for less wheel hop compared to the other GT-R's but the main difference being the USDM version doesn't have the 112 mph limiter

Blackout
10-10-08, 02:09 PM
Nissan's response http://jalopnik.com/5060960/nissan-officially-responds-to-porsche-skepticism-recommends-driving-lessons

NormV
10-24-08, 06:58 PM
Four door GT-R?

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/24/back-in-the-rumormill-infiniti-working-on-four-door-gt-r/

Norm

Prof
11-04-08, 07:47 AM
New guy here, just trying to revive this discussion...

I'm a twin screw guy that is very interested in the '09 CTS-V...

My current recreational power plant:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g50/rfouts/1SRT%2010/Picture030.jpg

gotapex
11-04-08, 03:26 PM
New guy here, just trying to revive this discussion...

I'm a twin screw guy that is very interested in the '09 CTS-V...

My current recreational power plant:




Wow, that thing looks like a serious monster! What's it putting out?

Prof
11-04-08, 07:14 PM
Haven't done the final dyno yet...I have an exhaust restriction, that is being resolved. It was 620 rwhp at 5.6 lbs of boost, I just did a forged rebuild and moved to 10 lbs of boost...it should be close to 700 rwhp...but it takes a lot of ponies to pull a 5200 lb brick!

Hope to resolve the restriction in about a week...just before the snow flies and then put it away for the winter...

Anyone here driven the 09 CTS-V? I am looking to get one as a daily driver while my garage queen rests through the winter...

gotapex
11-04-08, 10:50 PM
Haven't done the final dyno yet...I have an exhaust restriction, that is being resolved. It was 620 rwhp at 5.6 lbs of boost, I just did a forged rebuild and moved to 10 lbs of boost...it should be close to 700 rwhp...but it takes a lot of ponies to pull a 5200 lb brick!

Hope to resolve the restriction in about a week...just before the snow flies and then put it away for the winter...

Anyone here driven the 09 CTS-V? I am looking to get one as a daily driver while my garage queen rests through the winter...


Dang, that's a grip of power. What do you have it in, a Ram?

My fun car has a 3L V6 with 515 rwhp. I can't imagine how much more fun it would be with 700 rwhp. To be fair, it only has about 2300 lbs though to drag around though.

Southern-Hospitality
11-04-08, 11:30 PM
For those who don't believe the 0-60 on the GT-R you should probably drive one. The acceleration of this car puts you in the trunk.

Varsity
11-05-08, 07:08 AM
I am getting both, so it will be nice to have the comparison.

As for the GT-R , this one is stock,

YouTube - Top Gear 11x05 - Nissan GT-R - Part 3b (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyIomZ5bK2o)

and yes it will beat the pants off of a CTS-V on any track.

Actually using Nring times as a benchmark, is a fool's errand. Using The times that a rival Marque, has provided is even dumber. The 997tt is a slower car, and costs twice as much.

One can buy a CTS-V and a GT-R, or buy one 997tt.

Lets hope you drive as well as you boast!

Just a little envy here, only a bit. :crying2:

Prof
11-06-08, 02:34 PM
Dang, that's a grip of power. What do you have it in, a Ram?

My fun car has a 3L V6 with 515 rwhp. I can't imagine how much more fun it would be with 700 rwhp. To be fair, it only has about 2300 lbs though to drag around though.

The truck is an '04 Ram SRT 10. Thanks for asking:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g50/rfouts/1SRT%2010/Picture015-1.jpg

gothicaleigh
11-13-08, 11:55 PM
http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/assets_c/2008/10/separated-thumb-555x717.jpg




:shifty

atdeneve
11-14-08, 06:02 AM
Haha!

atdeneve
11-14-08, 06:02 AM
That Cobalt is really puttin out some impressive numbers though. Dare I say, it would be a real contender for a stock first gen V in regards to performance.

parexa
11-14-08, 08:50 AM
http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/assets_c/2008/10/separated-thumb-555x717.jpg




:shifty

LMAO, post of the day :highfive: