I have read on this site that the V was advertised at 400H.P. and is not near that. I also read that Ford paid out on the 99 SVT for the same thing. You tech guys should keep us(me, the layman/hellman) informed. I will file first. FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT G.M HASN'T ANSWERED ANY MAIL(of any kind) ON OUR CONCERNS!!! '05's are being built and my oil alarm still goes off. F' them all. I work hard for my car. Every payment I make I take it out on that car. Who will help? I am already copying a lot of tech. posts just in case. You guys know a lot af stuff. I thank all you tech. guys.

I'm willing to join in if others too.

few posts on the internet doesn't help much. You may have to have the owners gather around and actually get their cars dyno'ed all at once to prove that everyone is actually dynoing low in same condition. Also it seems like lot of your rear diff is going bad which means it can also rob horsepower. Anyways lawsuit isn't a simple thing to win against a giant corp such as gm then again, they may just settle to keep the general public happy (actually they just don't want any bad publicity)


edit: forget chassis dyno since advertised figure is at flywheel which means engine dyno will be the key.

edit: forget chassis dyno since advertised figure is at flywheel which means engine dyno will be the key.
yeah.....if you guys went in with chassis dyno numbers, you wouldn't have a chance. i don't think anyone here has had their car dynoed at the flywheel. if someone did that, we'd know a lot clearer what's going on.

Agree with the rest... there is no factual information gained from the chassis dyno. Someone is going to have to volunteer to have their engine pulled and the full intake, exhaust, and accessory drives setup on an engine dyno. Anyone? I hear silence.

OR...

Perhaps... either an individual effort or through a lawyer, someone can get GM to explain the low chassis dyno numbers or provide engine dyno sheets.

From the GM engineering press releases, the only changes to the LS6 itself are a new oil pan and moving the belts closer to the engine. So, any loss would presumeably be related to restricted intake and exhaust... which SHOULD have been identical to those used during dyno testing. Seeing that the suspension certainly wasn't the same as that used for testing, perhaps they did some late changes for intake/exhaust noise???

Anyone dyno a late 04 or 05 to determine whether the false oil temp reading caused the computer to adjust on the majority of 04s?

DG

Actually, in the case against Ford, it was established that a chassis dyno would be accepted. There is case law on this matter so if we, as a group, met and had our cars dyno'd at the same location, on the same day, the info would stand up in court. All that would be required is for the same procedure be followed for all tests. We could even invite GM to show with the car that they used for those numbers and see how it measured up against ours.:rant2:

Actually, in the case against Ford, it was established that a chassis dyno would be accepted. There is case law on this matter so if we, as a group, met and had our cars dyno'd at the same location, on the same day, the info would stand up in court. All that would be required is for the same procedure be followed for all tests. We could even invite GM to show with the car that they used for those numbers and see how it measured up against ours.:rant2: Btw what did Ford owners get with the lawsuit.

Actually, in the case against Ford, it was established that a chassis dyno would be accepted. There is case law on this matter so if we, as a group, met and had our cars dyno'd at the same location, on the same day, the info would stand up in court. All that would be required is for the same procedure be followed for all tests. We could even invite GM to show with the car that they used for those numbers and see how it measured up against ours.:rant2:

Yes, but weren't the Cobra owners able to show that the car had the same dyno results as the previous car? And the only thing supposedly changed was an increase in HP? We don't have a control sample like that.... but we could average the transmission losses from similar vehicles (T56 tranny) and average the LS1 and LS6 results from other vehicles and assmeble a pretty good story...

maybe not enough air is getting to the engine when running on chassis. Like that dinan article says fan makes a huge difference in chassis dyno

With the RX8 issue, Mazda gathered a bunch of cars and not only dyno tested each one, but track tested to ascertain if the advertised performance was availalbe. The result was that horsepower was down, but they stood solid on their performance specs which were eventually met and exceeded by some owners as they got to know the car. The result was the buy back offer that many of us acted upon.

I suggest that the combination of chassis dyno's already run by owners (which IMHO indicate a 400hp engine), along with the FACT that the magazines and owners cannot achieve the performance claims, could be combined to make a case. The burden needs to be placed on GM, though I suppose a lawsuit would be unnecessary, to back up the claims. That is where issues that really matter to most of us - like wheel hop and oil temp alarms - will have to be dealt with. If GM can bring their test driver(s) to a location that we can bring our cars - and they can show us that the cars (chosen at random) do in fact perform to the numbers we expected - then no lawsuit necessary. I don't think the actual HP number is critical at this point - but the performance numbers are. The performance numbers if achieved (and I'm certaing they will achieve them) will certainly backup the advertised HP rating. Remember, there are already plenty of drag et's posted with trap speeds indicating a 400hp engine. This alone indicates that the HP is accurate. The wheel hop on the other hand, is more disturbing to me and for my vehicle, is certainly getting worse. Yes, I have done some clutch drops and I am familar with 1-2 powershifting techniques (who isn't). It has been there since day one (really, about day 6 when the car was finally broke in) but does seem to be getting steadily worse, since I can find it while powering out of corners now.

Just my thoughts. Some of you might want to read at www.rx8forum.com for more information on how the Mazda issue was handled (parent Ford didn't want another Cobra case on their hands). But really, let's drop the lawsuit pursuit.

Just my 1.998723647 cents.

Ah, such an American solution. A lawsuit. I'd love to see it. Please, make a big noise.

Then I'll start looking for a silver/no-roof V for $38K...

Ah, such an American solution. A lawsuit. I'd love to see it. Please, make a big noise.

Then I'll start looking for a silver/no-roof V for $38K...
:golden:

I am not happy about :annoyed:

Wheel hop
HP( 0-60)
oil light :rant2:
See my post at http://cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15188

I will follow this thread very closely.

If y'all get lawyers together I will give em my info after proceedings have started. If for whatever reason the lawsuit needs bodies in Jersey (doubt it) maybe I'll throw it in. I don't think the thing underperforms in terms of HP but the performance times, perhaps.I'd like to avoid my name on any lawsuits but if it gets me free suspension/driveline mods, maybe I will do it.

In most class action suits, the lawyers make millions in legal fees and the damaged parties get like a buck fifty. As a result, operating expenses for the car companies go up and therfore so do prices. You might get a used car for 38 K but you might not if GM stops making the cars if they feel that it is not worth the hassle. Courts get clogged with rich guys complaining about not enough performance in their performance cars, and real civil cases against negligent harmdoers get delayed.

Don't know the story of the Cobra. I'm a lawyer, I respect the legal system, and I beleive everyone is free to use it. That being said, I don't see anything here that makes a lawsuit the answer.

Doug

In most class action suits, the lawyers make millions in legal fees and the damaged parties get like a buck fifty. As a result, operating expenses for the car companies go up and therfore so do prices. You might get a used car for 38 K but you might not if GM stops making the cars if they feel that it is not worth the hassle. Courts get clogged with rich guys complaining about not enough performance in their performance cars, and real civil cases against negligent harmdoers get delayed.

Don't know the story of the Cobra. I'm a lawyer, I respect the legal system, and I beleive everyone is free to use it. That being said, I don't see anything here that makes a lawsuit the answer.

Doug

Doug -

I agree full heartedly. I am not advocating a lawsuit in any of my posts - and hope none of you have read my opinion to be in favor of one. I am suggesting that written letter campaign, or the sort (email doesn't cut it), may make some headway in finding out if performance numbers without wheel hop can be achieved.

I would hate to see a lawsuit over this vehicle. The current "scandal" alone is damaging the reputation of one fine automobile. It certainly doesn't help that the wheel hop is stopping the magazines from backing up the performance claims.

Two very separate issues here... we should not mix them.

1) Not making 400hp: false advertising; false HP claims; etc... this could be a lawsuit
2) Oil temp & wheel hop: These are mechanical problems with the car, because it is the first year of production... dont think you can sue for these.

And you cant (shouldn't) sue for #1, just because you're upset about #2!

Oil Temp: mfg's take a LONG time fixing things, the fix has to be designed, built, lab tested, field tested, then tested some more, then put into production. It took ford 2 years to fix the Lightning intercooler leak... which leaked coolant into the cylinders and blew up engines... but they wouldn't release the fix until they were sure it worked. It took GM almost 1.5 years for fix the '01 Z06 oil comsumption issue. Getting the oil fix out anytime this year would be pretty darn fast for Caddy.

Wheel Hop: Caddy did answer our complaint... we' re just not happy with their answer... there is a difference. Fixing wheel hop obviously does something GM was not happy with... makes the ride too rough, NVH specs are too high for a Caddy... something. I think GM's going to let the aftermarket take car of this one.

Well put everyone. I agree that the idea seems frivolous to me and I would not want to do anything to cause them to abandon this car line, that's for damn sure. If my attorneys told me it might I would never sign a single piece of paper.

As for the HP, I still think you are all on heroin and that when broken in the car does 340-350rwhp range. The gearing and setup of the car could account for most #s being in the 320-330 range prior to break-in, or it could account for greater-than-Z06 drivetrain loss on the LS6 engine, but I am pretty positive they did not detune the LS6 for this car, they just restricted the hp in other ways. And as long as GM's assertion of 400hp at the CRANK is correct, we are assed out.

Incidentally, if Mallett is running a 435 he might have a stock LS6 out of his V sitting somewhere. Maybe ask him if he dyno'ed it on an engine dyno?

i don't see any good coming from a lawsuit. if you win, you'll get some money, but your car will perform the same. if you like the car, who cares. if you want more power, go buy aftermarket stuff from mallet or someone else. we're only talking a difference of maybe 30 hp at most. you're not going to feel that 99% of the time you own your car. if it was advertising 125 and getting 75, that'd be different. but until it's engine dyno'ed, i'd say don't worry about it and keep enjoying your car.

From my butt-o-meter, my V makes 400 hp. Is it 404 or 392 or 389? who knows to that level but it definitely right up there around 400. I just recently sold my Z28 T-56 with 3.73 gearing just like the V and that put 321 hp to the rear wheels and I have a Silverado SS that puts 332 hp to the wheels. The V pulls a ton stronger than either of those. Maybe I got a ringer! :coolgleam

From my butt-o-meter, my V makes 400 hp. Is it 404 or 392 or 389? who knows to that level but it definitely right up there around 400. I just recently sold my Z28 T-56 with 3.73 gearing just like the V and that put 321 hp to the rear wheels and I have a Silverado SS that puts 332 hp to the wheels. The V pulls a ton stronger than either of those. Maybe I got a ringer! :coolgleam
Maybe your butt-O-meter is specifically tuned for the V.



Dgtal

Is a butt-O-meter submissable in court?

Dgtal

Guys,
If you decide to bring this lawsuit, you are just going to devalue our cars and make GM not want to play in this market again.

I might agree that some numbers that people have been getting on the dynos are low, but there are alot of factors here (air flow, temp, altitude, driveline, etc) which can be the cause of these lower numbers.

The best result you can hope for in a lawsuit is GM forced to buy back the car... What do you think they are going to do, tune everyone's motor and then dyno it to make sure itacheives what you consider to be a reasonable horsepower level (remember they advertise at the crank). It aint going to happen. I am happy with this car if the number is 323 or 335 hp... It still fast and still a great car and I dont want to give it up. I especially dont want it devalued because some folks acheived a low number on a chaisis dyno (with or without a fan) than they expected. If you dont like the car then sell it.

I am keeping mine.

On the reflash and wheelhop issue: The refalsh will be here, we just need to be patient.. Its a flaw they accept and they are going to fix it. We all know the car has wheelhop (I experienced it in a race this morning). GM will gladly put a solid rear in your car for those 1/4 mile launches... I prefer to handle better... The aftermarket WILL give us a solution, but its then your choice to take whatever symptoms come along with that (rougher ride, worse handling, etc). GM made a decision to appeal to most people they thought would be driving this car. They would have fixed it to begin with (if only to avoid this bad press) unless there was something comprimised by repairing it (i.e worse handling, part failure, etc). BTW: you probably knew about wheelhop before buying the car (if you did any research on the car) and still chose to buy. I did and will live with it until someone comes up with a real solution.

Things I am more concerned about are driveline clunk. Thats a real issue.

Sorry for my rant...

Reed
http://www.cadillacfaq.com

Guys,
If you decide to bring this lawsuit, you are just going to devalue our cars and make GM not want to play in this market again.

I might agree that some numbers that people have been getting on the dynos are low, but there are alot of factors here (air flow, temp, altitude, driveline, etc) which can be the cause of these lower numbers.

The best result you can hope for in a lawsuit is GM forced to buy back the car... What do you think they are going to do, tune everyone's motor and then dyno it to make sure itacheives what you consider to be a reasonable horsepower level (remember they advertise at the crank). It aint going to happen. I am happy with this car if the number is 323 or 335 hp... It still fast and still a great car and I dont want to give it up. I especially dont want it devalued because some folks acheived a low number on a chaisis dyno (with or without a fan) than they expected. If you dont like the car then sell it.

I am keeping mine.

On the reflash and wheelhop issue: The refalsh will be here, we just need to be patient.. Its a flaw they accept and they are going to fix it. We all know the car has wheelhop (I experienced it in a race this morning). GM will gladly put a solid rear in your car for those 1/4 mile launches... I prefer to handle better... The aftermarket WILL give us a solution, but its then your choice to take whatever symptoms come along with that (rougher ride, worse handling, etc). GM made a decision to appeal to most people they thought would be driving this car. They would have fixed it to begin with (if only to avoid this bad press) unless there was something comprimised by repairing it (i.e worse handling, part failure, etc). BTW: you probably knew about wheelhop before buying the car (if you did any research on the car) and still chose to buy. I did and will live with it until someone comes up with a real solution.

Things I am more concerned about are driveline clunk. Thats a real issue.

Sorry for my rant...

Reed
http://www.cadillacfaq.com
couldn't have said it better. cadillac will make the 'real' problems go away. if you're not happy with your car, you can always sell it. 10-15 hp shouldn't be a reason to sell it, but if it is, then by all means, sell it. you won't have a a tough time finding a buyer. GM is not going to be able to make a car that everyone likes. if they would have fixed the wheel hop people would complain it doesn't handle right. maybe someday both will be achieved. but for a first year car, i think they did pretty well so far.

Guys,
If you decide to bring this lawsuit, you are just going to devalue our cars and make GM not want to play in this market again.

I might agree that some numbers that people have been getting on the dynos are low, but there are alot of factors here (air flow, temp, altitude, driveline, etc) which can be the cause of these lower numbers.

The best result you can hope for in a lawsuit is GM forced to buy back the car... What do you think they are going to do, tune everyone's motor and then dyno it to make sure itacheives what you consider to be a reasonable horsepower level (remember they advertise at the crank). It aint going to happen. I am happy with this car if the number is 323 or 335 hp... It still fast and still a great car and I dont want to give it up. I especially dont want it devalued because some folks acheived a low number on a chaisis dyno (with or without a fan) than they expected. If you dont like the car then sell it.

I am keeping mine.

On the reflash and wheelhop issue: The refalsh will be here, we just need to be patient.. Its a flaw they accept and they are going to fix it. We all know the car has wheelhop (I experienced it in a race this morning). GM will gladly put a solid rear in your car for those 1/4 mile launches... I prefer to handle better... The aftermarket WILL give us a solution, but its then your choice to take whatever symptoms come along with that (rougher ride, worse handling, etc). GM made a decision to appeal to most people they thought would be driving this car. They would have fixed it to begin with (if only to avoid this bad press) unless there was something comprimised by repairing it (i.e worse handling, part failure, etc). BTW: you probably knew about wheelhop before buying the car (if you did any research on the car) and still chose to buy. I did and will live with it until someone comes up with a real solution.
Sorry for my rant...

Reed
http://www.cadillacfaq.com
:yeah:

i guess the question is what do you want out of a lawsuit?? if you want your cars to gain performance, it's not going to happen. cadillac isn't going to change every car to meet the preferred numbers. if you want money, you might get 50 bucks, but other than that, the lawyers will get the money.

At 400 horses, we should see 365 I think. HP loss to the drivetrain is about 35 horses.
The 400 is probably at the flywheel w/no intake or exhaust restrictions.

Horsepower loss through drive train is a constant percentage based on the type of transmission you have. A manual transmission loses around 15%-17% of engine horsepower and an automatic transmission loses between 20%-25%.

At 400 horses, we should see 365 I think. HP loss to the drivetrain is about 35 horses.
The 400 is probably at the flywheel w/no intake or exhaust restrictions.

Horsepower loss through drive train is a constant percentage based on the type of transmission you have. A manual transmission loses around 15%-17% of engine horsepower and an automatic transmission loses between 20%-25%.
Hmm. 15%-17% of 400 = 340 - 332hp.

Hey you guys, PLEASE give these numbers games a rest! The V is a fantastic car, the fact that it is an American car is unbelievable. In reality, no one has out pulled me at any speed unless they were at least a quarter ton less weight or $20,000 more. We don't need a bad rap on our cars because a dyno gives a number. Drive the damn thing the way it was meant to be driven and you will forget the numbers. NOW, if they can correct the oil temp problem all will be good in Paridise. PS beat the s..t out of an EVO last night, he"s still trying to catch me.

Btw what did Ford owners get with the lawsuit.
I read about this some years ago, and supposedly the '99 Cobra had the wrong-size camshaft, I believe. Cobra owners were able to bring in their Mustangs and Ford replaced the camshaft. They were very embarrassed by the incident, and I read that in a Ford magazine!

With GM's X-car of 1980, there were lawsuits for the rear brakes locking and some cars went into a violent spin. I think some people got killed because of this, however that lawsuit took 10 years before any settlements were made if I recall.

I have the July 2002 magazine called "Mustang Monthly." In the article called "Horsepower in the Mustang World," they engine-dyno several cars and the results are interesting. One of the cars tested was a bone stock 99 Cobra that had yet to have the "fix" installed. Another, a totally stock "Bullitt." The Cobra was advertized at making 320 hp, however it only made 250 hp at the wheels for a baseline!! Quite a difference! Several numbers were tossed around for the Bullitt Mustang of 2001, ranging from 275 to 270, the final number ended up being 265 hp. Apparently, Ford wanted to be on the conservative side and avoid another 99 Cobra incident. "Most Bullitts make enough power at the wheels to translate to around 270 hp at the flywheel. If you factor in a 15 percent parasitic loss in power for output at the wheels, it is easily making 265 ponies at the flywheel. We were happy to see the 240 mark coming out of the dynojets printer!"

So supposedly, 30 hp difference is acceptable, or a 15 to 20% loss. The V is a great car, and this is nothing to be concerned over IMO.

Yeah, a class action lawsuit is a great idea. Maybe we can piggyback it onto the ongoing search for the killers in the O.J. Simpson case. Both have an outstanding likelihood of success.

ds

Most of you seem to be missing the point. We (most of us) love the V BUT the truth of the matter is that our cars can not perform as claimed by GM. This was the same basis for the Ford lawsuit. The value of the cars will not decrease if a lawsuit is filed. It didn't for the Cobras. What needs to be done to correct this is anybody's guess (new intake, reworked heads, etc) BUT it should be done by GM at their expense not ours. Would I give up my V...NO but I am disappointed that the car DOES NOT perform as GM claims it can. What if you bought a 60" plasma screen tv but when you got it home it was only 55"? Would you want it replaced with what you paid for or just bend over and say well it looks close enough!?!?!

The other issues like wheel hop and the oil reflash will eventually be resolved and could not be the basis of a lawsuit.

IMHO the legal system is clogged by all of the lawsuits that have no merit. If our courts and juries would stop awarding absolutley ridiculous settlements for equally ridiculous claims, we would be in a much better place. How about this, if you file a lawsuit against me and lose, you pick up ALL court costs?!?! This would elimnate all of the frivilous lawsuits...by the way, this is done in Canada so it does work.

Off my soap box.

OK now I was going to let this thread go on without any comment (by me) and especially since I generally agree with Reed (mrbadss) but somehow this struck a nerve with me - my comments follow

We all know the car has wheelhop (I experienced it in a race this morning). GM will gladly put a solid rear in your car for those 1/4 mile launches... I prefer to handle better... The aftermarket WILL give us a solution, but its then your choice to take whatever symptoms come along with that (rougher ride, worse handling, etc). GM made a decision to appeal to most people they thought would be driving this car. They would have fixed it to begin with (if only to avoid this bad press) unless there was something comprimised by repairing it (i.e worse handling, part failure, etc).

I have yet to do ANY drag style launches - becuase eating clutches aren't my thing. The fact of the matter with me (and my car) is that wheel hop is now a daily driving problem and it's getting worse every day - it is CERTAINLY affecting the vehicle's handling characteristcs. I can get the wheels to hop (without WOT on a variety of dry pavement) in 1st 2nd and 3rd gears in corners and in straights - and almost at request. My wheels are hopping bad enough that the traction engaged DIC warning light comes on (almost a daily occurance). This happened twice already today (to and from lunch). The car no longer handles well, as it is fighting to keep it's ass in check. I'm starting to wonder how the rest of you V owners drive (hello - ms. daisy?) ;) I am not pushing the limits on this car (at least not to and from lunch) nor doing ANY launch type starts - yet this issue is preventing my from enjoying the HANDLING capabilities of this car. What is it that I seem to be missing?

-Ben

Ben, perhaps the alignment is off in the rear. That would explain your handling going away.

Yesterday I did a roll-on full throttle in first gear and left two nice black patches without a hint of hop. But mine is a '05 with FG2.

Ben, perhaps the alignment is off in the rear. That would explain your handling going away.
Thanks for the idea BUT - been there, done that @ 3k miles - think I need to re-do it at 7.5k?

Ben,
My hop is not that bad.. Only when I WOT from a standstill or am really racing the car (Speedshifting).... Could be alignment as suggested above... I guess I dont see wheelhop as much and I do race the car (took a CLK55 AMG this morning by 2-3 car lengths).

Has anyone thought that maybe the wheelhop is a production problem which is why it did not show up on prototype cars. When I first got my Impala SS many years ago, the rear axel on some B body cars was not aligned properly (the factory used the wrong hole which misaligned the axel horizontally). Could something similar to this be the cause of our wheelhop problem? If its that much worse with the alignment off, could be the same problem. This could explain why some people have it much worse than others (and I assume that the hop itself may mess up the rear alignment).

Ben if you have your alignment checked, let us know what happens

Reed
http://www.cadillacfaq.com

Ben even without FG2 I never had bad hop in daily driving, only when powershifting or drag shifting through the gears at full or nearly full throttle. Sounds like a tire/rear end issue. I'd take it into the dealer because I agree that is totally unacceptable.

Stealth, try dropping the clutch at 5-6k rpm you will lay a patch for 10+ seconds; fun!

Glad someone else can confirm the lack of wheel hop with FG2 so people can start to realize the truth that is my sermon!

I am really in the middle about what I want to happen. I don't know if the car makes 400 HP, I haven't gone to the dyno. It feels like it does.

Yes, of course I am very happy with the car. However, if a CTS-V engine is dynoed on an engine stand and it does not make close to 400 HP, I think something should be done.

What? I don't know. If it is GM handing out performance mods to increase the HP or only giving each owner $50, I will be one of them.

You never get anything for free, but if you can, AND YOU DESERVE IT, go for it. I don't know anybody who wouldn't. But if there are some who like the car the way it is, leave it alone. Don't take whatever GM gives.

Again, I am not leaning toward any way. If someone wants to dyno the engine, go for it.

ok, just a lil rant. heck, i don't even own a V but here's my 2 cents...

i still think the V has more than enough power to put other cars in their place. i also think that most engines have their horsepower measured at the engine, not at the wheel. heh, if you want a few more horses, go buy that Tornado thing that you put in the intake! i've always wanted to try one of those things. if it weren't for those dynos, everyone woulda still thought they have 400hp at the wheel. what you don't know, won't hurt you. obviously when people were test driving the V weren't saying "this doesn't feel like 400hp to me. it's weak!" because they still bought 'em for the power they had now. as long as these V's beat the AMG's and M Series, i wouldnt worry about it. oh yeah, i guess the new M5 will have 500hp. i wonder what the STS-V is gonna have, heh, cuz that's gonna be the real class it will be competing against price wise. it's funny how the CTS-V cost far less than previous M5 and still smokes it. whoops am i rambling? ok i will stop. i hope this issue will have a painless solution.

I don't have my V yet but I am not in favor of a class action law suit. From observing the posts on this web site there are obviously some very critical and discriminating people who participate in this forum. Instead of initiating a lawsuit, perhaps we should be working with GM/Cadillac by offering constructive suggestions to help them improve the V. Do we know for a fact that they're not receptive? I for one am still interested in and excited about the V and what GM is attempting to do with an image car of this caliber. We finally have an American performance sedan that can stand up to the German products. Give GM some time to work out the bugs - any new model has them. I for one would rather spend money on an aftermarket solution to boost horsepower than provide millions to attorneys who don't know a V from a VW.

The value of the cars will not decrease if a lawsuit is filed. It didn't for the Cobras.I beg to differ, it certainly did kill the values of the year(s) in question. Subsequent year Cobras were not nearly as effected, but the value did get hit hard. The same with the RX8, which is a recent issue for comparison. The RX8 walked itself off of lots at first, but after the lawsuit, we can't give them away.

I think the thing to realize is that this represents Cadillac's first step into this "domain" in decades (probably ever), and if they "fail" through a lawsuit right off the bat, it could kill the value of the V and any other subsequent "V" cars.

Worst case scenario, 2004 and 2005 V's are devalued...

I was critical on the wheel hop and 0-60 mph times early on. Now that I've owned the car for several months they're non-issues to me. The wheel hop problem only occurs in wet conditions and I have launched the car hard in the dry with no hop problems. Perhaps my hard launch is soft compared to yours (mine = 2500 - 3000 rpm) with tires screeching for about 10 feet. The car wasn't designed for burnouts.... that would be a stupid design requirement since it only hurts performance. If a magazine was able to get a 5.3 0-60 time with apparently bad wheel-hop I'm sure a GM test driver could ring every last ounce out of this car for a sub 5 second 0-60 time. They might need to do clutchless upshifts but they'd do it and I would think they already have evidence to back up all of the performance figures they advertised.

Oil temp problem - I'm fortunate that my V doesn't have that problem and I'm sure a fix for it is close and yes it's long over due. I just can't see how you can sue for this "soon to be fixed" problem.

guys, talk all you want. but i can tell you this. this site will NOT be used as a rallying point for v owners to sue cadillac. for the most part I think the complaints are unfounded and hardly sastisfy any type of burden of proof.

cant achieve Cadillac advertised 0-60 number? no kidding, seems most car magazines never hit the manufacturers numbers. either way, my position on this is not from my disbelief of damages. what i dont want to see is a group of our members creating some sort of online audition for class-action attorneys. so like i said, talk all you want, but anything further than that will not be tolerated. :)

The truth is I just want G.M. to answer questions and provide us with help when we ask. It would be good for us and them. The V is great and handles real tight. It isn't a drag car and burnouts can easily be achieved. I just want to hear from G.M. Some of the guys in this forum give me all the answers I could ever want. I am a driver and I LOVE my V. Good to read the dialouge though.

I agree with V-Love...were is GM?!?!? If they would supply some response to our concerns it would be 100% better. At most of the large C5 events there are representatives from the Corvette Team that will listen to our concerns and if they do not know the answer they will get back to you or find the person that does. We do not have this with the V. When I had my 98 C5 and noticed that the convertible top was wearing just above the windows, I pointed it out to Dave Hill at the C5 BDay Bash. Within 30 min I had 9 GM engineers/reps looking at the top. Approx a week later I got a phone call telling me to take the car into the dealer and it would be taken care of...they replaced the top and adjusted the windows. This "process" has been duplicated countless times with other "petty" issues. It just seems that GM/Cadillac does not really care. It's not going to be a law suit that brings the V-Series to and end, it will be the lack of attention that GM gives to it's biggest supporters...us the buyers of the V-Series.

Okay, here's my take:

1) Dyno's: I'm not an expert on this, but pretty much when I had some free time, I read up on it a little on the net. Seem's that alot of people complain about HP numbers at the rear wheels when compared to factory claims. I read some threads about the nissan maxima back in 2000 I think where they were getting like 180 rwhp from 5 speeds (or 6?) when it was rated at 255hp. I read some camaro threads and F-body threads. Looks like parasitic drain is around 15-20% for manual transmissions, but it looks like it not just dependent on transmission, but also gearing/differential, intake, exhaust, etc...Now that LS6 is CRAMMED in there, bet those exhaust manifolds aren't exactly free flowing. Also bet the exhaust is tuned to not make "too much" noise...well, etc...Point is that I see most of the dynos on the V in the 320-330 range. That's 17.5% to 20% drain. I don't think that's that far off at all guys. Seems right around where it should be - a little low, yes, but I think I read somewhere someone dumped JUST and intake on theirs and was up into the 335 rwhp range! That kinda proves that the engine is capable of making the power, it's just held back, probably mostly from the CRAMMING it took...

2) I honestly believe the FG2 was GM's immediate reaching to provide those that wanted it, track/drag performance. I don't think GM ever designed the V to be a straight dragger, or else they (like it's been said before) would have put super firm suspension on it from the factory, and used urethane instead of rubber isolator bushings in the suspension, or thrown a solid rear axle under there. But of course to swim with the big boys, they had to throw that ultimate 0-60 number out there, which I'm sure they obtained at some time, wome way, but like EVERY other manufacturer it's very difficult to obtain those claimed times. Those 03 CTS owners who bought their CTS for the 6.9s 0-60 are pretty pissed off too (jk!).

I bet GM decided to semi-fix the wheel-hop (enough to give most people all the grip they'd ever need) quietly, so as not to cause the large uproar we seem to be causing here - it could have save a big "value reduction" press smear if they would've come out admitting "failure" and offering free parts. Instead, they decide to give the "track" option to those that want it, as if saying "There's nothing wrong with the CTS-V, we just have made it even better" - I'd think that is what we'd want.

.....And I digress.

For anyone who has not driven/launched an FG2 car, I'd do that FIRST before you continue to scream about wheel hop - you'd be quite surprised. And for those that would then shout out "we shoudn't have to pay for a fix for wheel hop", I would counter as I always have that the V was designed to be an all-around performer and is NOT the only "super touring" car that has this to deal with - but with 395 lbs/ft of TQ, it's hard to hide it :rolleyes: . Judging by the number of people who have emailed me about selling their FG2 they didn't have installed, I'd say many people prefer the ride and handling from the factory and have no compaints about the wheel hop...

Just a note. More Performance listed their Procharged CTS/V on Ebay for sale. Their information claims 625 crank/524 rwhp. That's about 17% loss. That's right where I'd guess it to be, and as a percentage of drivertrain loss our stock V's will be higher. Just an FYI. Seems to me the car, with anybodies engine, has a less efficient drivetrain than some owners may have hopes for, but efficient enough by my standards. I say anything less than 20% is good enough - and we're below that for sure by the dynos posted.

Let's stop arguing about this, and start discussing ways to actually improve our ownership experience, enjoy our vehicles, and get on with life. We've received exactly what we expected to when we purchased the car - a nearly perfect first attempt that kills most (if not all) of the competition for a fantastic price, and it was born right here in the red, white and blue.

I'll be patient and wait for the fixes. Which reminds me...Cal...when are our Mallett shifters supposed to ship? Should be soon...and then there's the Corsa, Kooks headers, soon to be released FI kits, appearance, interior and electronics mods, Bimmers in the rearview...ahh, I digress as well...this is going to be one hell of a ride over the next few years.

They said 2 weeks last week or the week before, heh. Probably like 4 weeks in reality-time. I will call her this week and find out.

Corsa I would guess July (duh). Kooks, let's hope soon, but I doubt less than 2 months away. Sucks since I won't get em for the summer, and this car is going in the garage once it gets wet and nasty. If Corsa comes with no sign of Kooks I will just do cats/Corsa at the same time and put Kooks on later.

My tuner shop is getting AFR heads for the first time this week, so we'll see how those suckers do. If I do end up doing just heads I will also do throttle body and a tune for airflow (obviously). Probably won't crack the engine till next year barring anything major, see how the 2006s are looking by then.

AFR are around 2400 they confirmed, and my guy says you get $1k on the ebay/sale for your stock LS6 heads, so generously you get a set of sweet heads for only $1500 or so out of pocket. Pretty nice when they are supposed to put down more power than anything else out ther that is $2500+ INCLUDING the core.

Sorry to threadjack, I can use any excuse to talk about tuning.

But like I said in the Mallett thread this car should be throwing down over 450 at the wheels for under 6k. Just wait and see. :bonkers:

I think it can be done - but will wait to watch you do it :)

Miscreant: the official method for engine dyno is to have the complete intake , exhaust, abd accessory drives in place. So they ARE saying 400hp at the crank with all the crap in place. Just a fact.

Benjet: I'd have someone look at the alignment, tire pressures, tread wear, etc. My wheel hop is usually from a stop and if I dump it into 2nd gear. If I get on it hard in low speed corners, I've gotten it a bit... but never to the extent you are discussing. Most of my high power IRS cars would hop in the rain (Viper and M5 for example). Yours shouldn't be as bad as it is.

I posted my feelings on suing for profit here (http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15330)

Dgtal

I respect miscreant and the like...I don't want a lawsuit- it doesnt benefit anyone. I wouldnt leave GM over this.
I just want an identified root cause on wheel hop though. There is a reason they can take a V and smoke the rears and put it on teh web and I can't accelerate with confidence. It hurts me in turns in third. And i really dont want to have to pay for FG2 plus isntallantion.

seriously, just talk to me. thats all i want. talk to me. i fill out your surveys... i gave the XLR incredible marks for quality that it deserves. i answer teh dealer survey callers after a service visit.... why can't i get an answer to my one question? I called 15 people trying to find out if scheduled maintenance would be included and never got an answer until i came to this board.
have my sales rep call me and say hey, here is the 411.

If FG2 is the solution, tell me, and put it on my car and let me go home happy. if its because they are goodyears and not michelins, tell me so i can put new rubber on teh car (i hate goodyears).

the ONLY thing that doesn;t let me dismiss teh 4.6 second claim is what happened with the GTO. the claimed 5.5 and most magazines are getting that, or better... 5.3. otherwise i would let it go.

but my motiviation is not a lawsuit. my motivation is a quiet fix.

[I could care less about dyno numbers}

Disclaimer: I do not own a V however I have owned GM V8s for the past 15 years and currently own an LS1. I am however inthe Market for a CTS-V, S4, M3 or C55 AMG.

I think folks here are confusing the issue. There is a difference between the car being underpowered and over rated. I don't think anyone here would say that a car that makes 320 RWHP is underpowered. However, anyone with any time under their belt at a chassis dyno would say that a car making 320 RWHP is NOT making 400 at the crank. Here are the facts of the matter.

1.) The V does not put down power to the wheel like a 400 hp car. Even the e39 M5 rated at less power puts down 330. The V is only making 20 more RWHP than a GTO.

2.) The V is not reaching claimed performance figures. (0-60 and Qtr Mile)

The specualtion is that this could be:

1.) An engineering fault like the RX8
2.) Excessive drivetrain loss (Doesn't address fact 2 though.)

I agree that a Lawsuit should be a last resort, however if I was a V owner I would try to get answers from GM on why the V isn't making proper power and performance as claimed by them. Especially since this could be the forerunner of an engine failure or fault.

I can respect the site admins not wanting this forum to become the rally point of a class action law suit, however I want to respectfully point out that Corral.net was a rally point for Cobra owners and through that Ford addressed and fixed their concerns. When the M3s started popping motors...

http://members.roadfly.com/jason/m3engines.htm

.. The members used Roadfly as their rally point and through that pressure got BMW to admit they messed up the engine's oiling system and got their motors replaced under warranty.

My feeling is that it is too early to start a law suit, however, I do think that this group should, in a respectful manner "consolidate efforts" and go to Cadillac with this issue. Give Cadillac the opportunity to become aware and adress the issue and offer resolution. If Cadillac ignores the problem or refuses to aknowledge the problem, then use more pressure.

-Adam

1. Dyno numbers are not repeatable or precise. GTO's don't have near the same pull on the road in 3rd gear like a V does. Drive both, the GTO seems like a Cavalier afterwards.
2. GM's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are doable with the correct clutch-killing launch.

I can attest to the torque. The V pulls hard once it gets moving. I have chirped the tires in 5th. That is a lot of torque! (with a passenger)! On the race course I was pushing a C-5 vette with an aftermarket exhaust.

1. Dyno numbers are not repeatable or precise. GTO's don't have near the same pull on the road in 3rd gear like a V does. Drive both, the GTO seems like a Cavalier afterwards.
2. GM's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are doable with the correct clutch-killing launch.
1.) The only repeatable things the dynos have proven is that that the CTS-V doesn't show the power of a 400 crank HP car. Not sure why you wouldn't be concerned about this?
2.) Great, show me the test that matches their stated figures.

I can attest to the torque. The V pulls hard once it gets moving. I have chirped the tires in 5th. That is a lot of torque! (with a passenger)! On the race course I was pushing a C-5 vette with an aftermarket exhaust.
Again no one is saying the CTS-V is underpowered. They are saying its over rated as the CTS-V has yet to consistantly show dynos supporting 400 crank hp.

on average....how much hp is lost in the drivetrain?? at 320, that's about a 25% loss. i thought that was about average. and a lot of people are saying they are getting more hp than that.

on average....how much hp is lost in the drivetrain?? at 320, that's about a 25% loss. i thought that was about average. and a lot of people are saying they are getting more hp than that.
25% is what you get with an AWD system or a really lossy automatic. The CTS-V has essentially the same driveline as a GTO. (The GTO is based on the Opel Omega platform which is the forerunner to the Sigma platform on which the CTS-V is made). Manual tranny GTOs make 297 at the wheel on an advertised 350. 350 crank HP with 15% loss is 297.50 RWHP. So about dead on at 15%.

At 15% loss the CTS-V should make 340 RWHP instead of the average 320.

what about the people who are saying they're getting 340 and above?? and some people saying they're getting 320 with no fans. and someone on here said a good fan could add 10 hp on a chasis dyno. so now we're at 330 which is 17.5%. if people were reporting 300 and under, then i'd say you have a chance at a lawsuit. but i'm not seeing that yet.

what about the people who are saying they're getting 340 and above?? and some people saying they're getting 320 with no fans. and someone on here said a good fan could add 10 hp on a chasis dyno. so now we're at 330 which is 17.5%. if people were reporting 300 and under, then i'd say you have a chance at a lawsuit. but i'm not seeing that yet.
FWIW the folks with the 1999 Cobra's won theirs based on Ford overating by 15hp at the crank.

Unless there are more dynos out the averages I've seen for the CTS-V is in the 320 range, I've only seen one over 330 (336 I think?).

Again I think it's premature to take legal action, the group should start by opening a constructive dialogue with Cadillac, and if that fails then look for other methods. Thats just my advice though.

Keep in mind though bean counters at the big three rule and if there is a fault or failure, they're more likely to quietly fix it on next years models than retro-fix cars already sold. That's standard operating procedure for a car company. Heck it's hard enough to get a car company to do a safety recall, and only then will they do it if the cost of the recall is less than the cost of the law suits from the burned up victoms. (Remember the Pinto)

the courts have said you only have to prove 5% off in either direction and you can win. however, you're only going to win no more than 50 bucks. they aren't going to retro-fix your cars, but it will decrease the car's resale value, probably by a good bit. there's enough evidence for the courts, but i don't think there's enough evidence for cadillac to make changes. they probably will anyway though. you can't keep the same car with no upgrades for very long without sales really hurting.

We have dynoed a couple of CTS-V's at the shop and the first one made a pathetic 315rwhp. The second car (our personal shop car) made 342 rwhp with ~1000miles on the car - bone stock. The first car was found to be running on the low octane spark table during the dyno pulls. On the street, it actually ran in the Hi Octane tables and had full performance.

We are currently working on the wheel hop issue and have been able to lessen it, but we have not completely eliminated it....yet. Right now, if you launch too softly, it will hop, if you launch too aggressively, it blows the tires off it and spins. There is a ~500rpm sweet spot where it will hook and go. Further development is planned and we hope to eliminate it totaly in the near future.

Any lawsuit will just damage the cars reputaion. The 4.6 0-60 was actually achieved by GM, but it was VERY hard on the clutch and took alot of finesse to get it right. Lets face it, most of us mere mortals are not as good a driver as the Factory guys who get paid to do this for a living day in and day out.

Jersey

Lets face it, most of us mere mortals are not as good a driver as the Factory guys who get paid to do this for a living day in and day out.

Jersey
ain't that the truth. those guys have a job that really sucks, huh. :)

the courts have said you only have to prove 5% off in either direction and you can win. however, you're only going to win no more than 50 bucks. they aren't going to retro-fix your cars, but it will decrease the car's resale value, probably by a good bit. there's enough evidence for the courts, but i don't think there's enough evidence for cadillac to make changes. they probably will anyway though. you can't keep the same car with no upgrades for very long without sales really hurting.
That is simply not the case. Ford had to fix the 1999 Cobra to bring it back up to advertised HP levels. In regards to the RX8 it was less than 5% off advertised figures. Mazda offered to either buy back the cars or for those chooisng to keep their cars, they recieved "free maintenance for four years and a card good for $500 in parts and accessories, ..."

Source:
http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/mazda5_20030905.htm

As for hurting values, thats already been done. Look at the price difference used between a 2000 model Vette and 2001 Model Vette, mostly because of major updates to the LS1 for the 2001 model year. If Caddy "fixes" the 2005 CTS-V then 2004 cars will suffer similar depreciation.

We have dynoed a couple of CTS-V's at the shop and the first one made a pathetic 315rwhp. The second car (our personal shop car) made 342 rwhp with ~1000miles on the car - bone stock. The first car was found to be running on the low octane spark table during the dyno pulls. On the street, it actually ran in the Hi Octane tables and had full performance.
That just confirms there may be a simple fix that Caddy needs to do a recal on, but even something as simple as a spark plug swap will not be a recall issue untill CTS-V owners bring this issue up with Caddy.

I'm not complaining about the issue, but there is a valid point. If you average the results from chassis dynos accross a variety of "cousins" like a Z06, base C5, GTO, F-car, and so on... the same variables affect all cars... whether it be vehicle variability, drive-line losses, placement and type of fans, a/f ratios (maps, trims, etc), and so on.

So the issue is that accross the "cousins" with T56 transmissions, the 15% driveline loss estimate seems to work... ON AVERAGE. So, the VALID question is why aren't more CTS-V results showing an AVERAGE of 340hp at the rear-wheels. I'm not complaining, nor am I supporting legal action. But I DO AGREE that there is a VERY VALID complaint based on statistical averages, not one specific dyno result.

It is quite POSSIBLE, that in reality the intake and exhaust work done to the LS6 in the CTS-V has caused more than 5hp difference at the crank between it and the Z06. This should be quite easy to prove on average. Compare the power increase on the Z06 after doing an intake and cat-back exhaust with the increase on the CTS-V after doing similar mods. If the increase on the V is far greater than the 5hp crank difference, then they suffocated the thing much more than 5hp.

does the ctsv run the trick cat converters and valve train upgrades the later 405hp z06 got over the lower rated z06 from a few years ago ? just curious if it got all the goodies the last z06 vettes had ..then again it is advertised at 400+ hp ...

does it in competition mode change the numbers on the dyno or is it just a override of stability controll?

i dont own one but im curious cuz they are one of my all time fav cars

does the ctsv run the trick cat converters and valve train upgrades the later 405hp z06 got over the lower rated z06 from a few years ago ? just curious if it got all the goodies the last z06 vettes had ..then again it is advertised at 400+ hp ...

does it in competition mode change the numbers on the dyno or is it just a override of stability controll?

i dont own one but im curious cuz they are one of my all time fav cars

The LS6 is meant to be identical (except for revised oil pan and accessory pullies) to CURRENT Z06... intake and exhaust are different. But 400HP is 400HP, and meant to be rated with all the crap attached.

And negative on comp mode... part of traction and stability control system.

Hmm I think Jeresyboy has some interesting findings. I'm curious to see if those low-dynos are all on a different Fuel map. If so then the question is what is causing the car to run on a low-map, that might very well be the reason.

Of course my point about raising the issue with Cadillac is they're the ones that should figure out whats wrong and tell us, not the other way around :D

I sure hope it's that easy though.

The engine is rated as installed in the vehicle, with all the accessories in place, Alternator loaded as it would be in the vehicle, full vehicle exhaust or representative back pressure based on vehicle measurements amy be used. All data is corrected to SAE standards.

It's not completely identified what causes the car to run in the low octane table. Some believe it is due to consistant knock sensor activity. There is nothing "wrong" with the car. The fact that the car performed properly on the street, means it is adjusting to suit the conditions at which it is operating. It's doing exacty what it needs to do to keep the engine alive. Remember, we don't race dynos, they only tell part of the story.

You have to realize that this vehicle has to be calibrated to run on pump gas (only 91 octane in some states - think that might be an issue with some dyno numbers?), pass pollution and noise emissions tests, and try to satisfy each and every one of you guys who owns them. Some of you will give up the smooth ride to get rid of the wheel hop, some won't. Some will live with air induction noise, some won't. Some like a rough idle, some don't. Personally, I think GM did a pretty impressive job with the V. I know they are working on the hop issue and will implement it on the h\newer cars when they get an acceptable solution that can satisfy each and every one of you. This is a mass produced car after all, not a tuner vehicle.

Jersey

91 octane is all some states get?? wow. i guess i'm lucky to get 93 at the gas stations i go to and 94 if i want it.

what exactly is "low octane spark table"??

maybe the dyno fans aren't blowing enough air so the computer lowers spark table

It's not completely identified what causes the car to run in the low octane table. Some believe it is due to consistant knock sensor activity. There is nothing "wrong" with the car. The fact that the car performed properly on the street, means it is adjusting to suit the conditions at which it is operating. It's doing exacty what it needs to do to keep the engine alive. Remember, we don't race dynos, they only tell part of the story. I agree GM has to design this car to operate in all conditions, however a Dyno is not exactly a worse case condition. If the car has a tendency to drop to a lower table then I would call that a "problem". Especially since it seams to be the norm rather than the exception based on the dynos shown so far. (assuming that alone is the sole cause which we have not identified for sure yet). Your car may have recovered once on the street, but showing an excessive tendency to drop to a lower table would be a problem especially once you start driving hard and really heating things up. (i.e. "sure its a 400hp motor until you start to horse it around").

So I would say a deeper understanding of this problem is required, and Cadillac needs to be the one investigating the issue.

-Adam

what does dropping to a lower octane spark table mean??

I agree GM has to design this car to operate in all conditions, however a Dyno is not exactly a worse case condition. If the car has a tendency to drop to a lower table then I would call that a "problem". Especially since it seams to be the norm rather than the exception based on the dynos shown so far. (assuming that alone is the sole cause which we have not identified for sure yet). Your car may have recovered once on the street, but showing an excessive tendency to drop to a lower table would be a problem especially once you start driving hard and really heating things up. (i.e. "sure its a 400hp motor until you start to horse it around").

So I would say a deeper understanding of this problem is required, and Cadillac needs to be the one investigating the issue.

-Adam
i would also argue that tiny fan that they use at dyno shops are no where near the real life highway speed travel. Hence dinan's article explaining impact of fan on dyno result

i would also argue that tiny fan that they use at dyno shops are no where near the real life highway speed travel. Hence dinan's article explaining impact of fan on dyno resultI would agree with your assesment if this situation was not isolated to just the CTS-V. Were that the case we would see similar issue with the Vettes, GTO, Camaros, etc, but we don't. GTOs are very consistantly putting 297 to the wheels on different days different dynos. If fans were the case it would be a bit more pandemic and stretch well beyond just CTS-Vs.

If the engine is starting to spark knock (detonate) due to low octane fuel and/or high inlet temps (characteristic of operation on a chassis dyno) then the knock sensor senses the knock and retards the spark advance to protect the engine. Same on all knock control systems. If the spark knock is persistent then the spark control algorithm in the PCM drops to a lower base spark table that is representative of lower octane fuel as a starting point for the spark delivery. There are a number of spark advance tables in the PCM that are calibrated for different octane fuels based on detonation characteristics of the fuel. The knock control system uses the different tables based on the knock level measured to avoid any driveability issues with low octane fuel and then trims from there.

The engine will produce the rated power if the proper, high octane fuel is provided. Period. If the knock control is retarding the spark to protect the engine then better fuel needs to be used and/or better cooling and cooler inlet temp air needs to be provided on the dyno. If the knock system is retarding the spark due to detonation then it will not make the rated power. Period. It is the operators responsibility to put good fuel in the car if max power is desired/required. Power is very sensitive to spark advance so if any retard at all is needed to prevent detonation then the advertised power will not be produced.

Understand that advertised power is run on an engine dyno under carefully controlled conditions with the engine maintained at a steady state condition for many minutes at each RPM/power point to establish a fixed and stabile power delivery as a reference. It is not the result of a 10 second dyno "pull" on an inertia dyno..... Understand, also, that the advertised power numbers are corrected for atmospheric pressure and temperature per SAE J1349 procedures....same as what other manufacturers use. Per SAE J1349 the inlet temp is corrected to 77 degrees F. What this means that if the inlet temp is above 77 F you are guaranteed that the observed power will be less than advertised. This is the same for all engines so nothing new here...but I see little or no mention of what the inlet air temps were for all the dyno pulls on chassis dyno's being referenced.

The chassis dyno numbers can be corrected mathematically for the actual ambient inlet air temp...but I would not really trust corrections that cover more than 10 degrees F. GM advertised power runs are run with controlled inlet air conditions so that no correction is necessary. The system to provide this "controlled" or "conditioned" inlet air to standard temp and pressure is standard in every dyno cell used for advertised power so it will be hard to argue with the data unless you have the same setup. If the chassis dyno is running on a day when the ambient temp is 90 or 100 near the car then the power is going to be way down as the inlet air is going to be 13-23 degrees F hotter than the correction used for advertised power.

GM advertised power levels are generally somewhat conservative to avoid any controversy over power in the cars......so.......

There is a huge difference in power measurements on chassis dyno's. The conditions are not nearly as well controlled as in engine dyno cells at the Powertrain development center at GM. Runs compare somewhat favorably run to run on any given dyno and operator but be carefull of absolute measurements from a chassis dyno. Be especially carefull of absolure measurements that are not corrected for standard temp and pressure. For the most accurate correction for ambient temp the ambient temp at the air inlet during the dyno run must be measured and used for the correction...not the temp on the wall 30 feet away.

A CTS-V makes the advertised power. Trust me. Get good fuel and the correct inlet temps and then complain.


BTW....octane rating at the station varies with the state, location, altitude, etc.... higher altitude states and cooler, northern states, tend toward lower octane "premium" due to the lower density of the air. Lower altitude states and hotter states tend towards the highest octane for Premium. A lot depends on where the fuel is being shipped from, etc...so this is a general summation.

That was one of the best technical, easy to understand posts I have read on here. Thank you bbobynski for your post. I feel that I am one of the people in your statement that said
"If the chassis dyno is running on a day when the ambient temp is 90 or 100 near the car then the power is going to be way down as the inlet air is going to be 13-23 degrees F hotter than the correction used for advertised power." I also think my pulls were being effected by more than one factor (hot inlet air temp, plus the oil temp alarm during the pulls).



Dgtal (dgtalpimp@pimpdaddy.com)

BTW....one other thing to consider....exhaust back pressure.

The advertised power tests are NOT run with a full car exhaust system on the engine on the dyno. Instead, the backpressure of the car exhaust during a full throttle acceleration, with a moderately warm exhaust, is measured and then duplicated on the engine dyno with an orifice in the exhaust pipe or a gate valve.

This is done to provide a stabile exhaust backpressure reading during extended power testing....testing that might go on for hours and hours without bringing the engine down to idle.

The delimna with a car exhaust is that the backpressure changes constantly in the system with changes in temperature. This is due to the rapid cooling of the exhaust gases as they travel down the system and the changing volume of the exhaust gases as a result. The less volume of the exhaust gases the less backpressure will be seen. The hotter the exhaust system gets the hotter the exhaust gases stay and the more backpressure there is...and the less power will be made.

This is a huge problem with chassis dynos and repeated runs..and absolute power measurements on a chassis dyno. The exhaust system is rarely cooler with fans on a chassis dyno so the system hot soaks under the car in still air and the exhaust backpressure is rarely, if ever, representative of what the backpressure is on the street driving along with air flow under the car cooling the exhaust.

This change in backpressure is very very obvious in measured, instrumented testing. As an example, a system that is classified as a "15 inches of mercury backpressure system" for a transient condition at WOT/6000 RPM on a passenger car might measure as follows: 12-13 inches if the system is stone cold on a first 0-80 pass, 15 inches on a pass with a system that was running at 70MPH to stabilise, 18 inches on extened full throttle operation for 20-30 seconds, 20 inched on full throttle/top speed running continuously (autobahn), 23-24 inches if installed on a dyno and run continuously for several minutes (still air around system), 25-26 inches if run continuously on a dyno.

As you can see, there is NO WAY to run a car exhaust on a chassis dyno or an engine dyno and meet representative backpressure measurements on a typical , transient backpressure test. Absolutely no way. Even with fans and coolers the exhaust will still not be cooled the same as a 100 MPH blast under the car....no way. Been there, tried/done that...and failed.

The exhaust on a CTS-V is tucked up a bit more than some other cars so that may be causing some more of the variability between runs and on an aboslute basis. On a chassis dyno I would say that the system would have to be pretty "cold" to duplicate the backpressure seen on the street on a 77 degree day with high speed cooling air over it. The CTS-V exhaust system is a bit "quieter" than on the Corvette Z06 application (this is a Cadillac....LOL) so it will be necessarily a bit more restrictive and more sensitive to temp changes of the system. A hot CTS-V system will be a bit more restrictive on a chassis dyno than a "hot" Z06 system I would theorize.

wow.....thanks. that's really informative and easy to understand.

A CTS-V makes the advertised power. Trust me. Get good fuel and the correct inlet temps and then complain.
First kudos on a well written explanation of the variables affecting power and dyno reults, however your points do not support the above thesis. I'm been to dozens of dyno days, witnessed hundreds of dynos, and I still cannot subscribe to the logic you are presenting that a car that averages 320 RWHP on the dyno makes 400 crank HP.

From a Macroobservation all variables being equal, an honest power rating would result in similar power defficits on the dyno for other LSX platform cars. This is decidedly not the case as shown by the consistantcy of other platforms to make their advertised power within an acceptable drivetrain loss factor. Case in point of the dozen or so M6 GTO's that have been dynoed in variable conditions they have consistantly made 297 at the wheels. The observation based on your argument above would be that we should see only a handful of GTO's making 297 RWHP as a majority would have adverse conditions that would kill their power as seen with the CTS-V.

Rather the CTS-V has consitantly dynoed 20 RWHP above the LS1 GTO and 30 RWHP below the LS6 Z06. That would indicate either:

a.) The engine is not making the advertised 400 hp

or

b.) Some factor is making the car dyno lower than a 400hp car should.

I assume based on your argument that you are arguing for "b.)" so the next question is what would cause a CTS-V to dyno substantually lower than other LSX cars, which would again point to some sort of fault. We have already seen that CTS-V has some gremlins to shake out (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=7780&page_number=2). So I think it is not a stretch to make the observation this is the case with the observed power output as well.

The regretable issue here is that some owners will have "emperor's new clothes" syndrome until some of their compatriots uncover a "fix" that consitantly recovers the 30 RWHP deficit. Either way the issue should be brought to Cadillac, otherwise I'm sure they'll "fix" later versions of the car iwth no explanation and 2004 owners will see a 30 RWHP deficit when compared to later versions.

-Adam

Maybe someone needs a little cheese to go with their whine.

I boils down to whether or not you like your car. Everyone seemed to like them until they found out their dynos were a little light. However I love mine and it has a very good seat of the pants feel. That simply means that it pulls hard like I expect and handles well to boot. Heck I had mine up to 146 mph yesterday in a short distance and it was still pulling hard in 5th gear until I ran out of my limited roadway.

Don't run any dynos unless you have at least 93 octane fuel in the car and don't expect it to pull what you want if you baby the thing around all the time. Cars run according to how they are broken in. I have always been a firm believer of that. Law suits seem a bit over reactionary to me. If you are not happy with the car, sell it. There are plenty of people out there willing to take it off your hands. I have picked on Mustangs, Trans Ams and Camaros with mine and love every minute of it.

I do agree with Shinkaze. He has some good points and above all he stays away from flaming. BTW, he never said he is not happy with the car but with some of its idiosyncrasies.

To give and read about such opinions is the foundation of a forum. Writing letters to each other just how wonderful our car is would be kind of boring, wouldn’t it?



If it were discovered that let's say the V’s resonator eats 25 RWHP would we not all be happy to learn about this? :bouncy: :bouncy:

Thanks Silver baron :)

Railcop094,
I'll take a nice Brie with my Merlot thank you :D

Serriously though I'm not saying the V is underpowered, I just want to make sure everyone's V is living up to full potential!

-Adam

RESURECTION Time

The other day I picked up an old car mag and started reading through it. I came upon an add, and just happened to read it. It was a Chevy 2001 Z06 add. 0-60 claimed? 4 second flat. However, in the SAME magazine they pit the Z06 against the C5-R (I think) and rate the tested 0-60 as 4.6s. I did a search on Road and TRack and Motor Trend. Seems the 2001 Z06 was testing at about 4.5-4.7s.

Let's add the Z06 to the class action lawsuit...

Also, let's add the Audi A4. Audi claims 0-60 for the 3.0L as 7s, but the best I can find in the mags is 7.7s (that just happens to be one that was together in the magazine as well). I bet you'd find some serious discrepancies between most manufacture claims (which is BEST times) and most mag tested times (which is AVERAGE times)...

Done. It can die again.

I believe GM produced a video showing John Heinricy doing a 0-60 in 4.0 or 4.1sec... lots of practice, insanely hard launch, and speed shifting. I'll search the Z06 forum if anyone cares... it's been a few years.

Also, a buddy of mine just dyno'd his bone stock '02 Z06 14K miles: 363.7rwhp (CF=1.00)... I'm going to take my V to the same dyno when it has a few more miles.

Would be nice to see back to back dyno runs of your buddies Z06 and your V Dreamin to ensure similar ambient conditions, dyno calibration, etc. :coolgleam

I believe GM produced a video showing John Heinricy doing a 0-60 in 4.0 or 4.1sec... lots of practice, insanely hard launch, and speed shifting.

My guess - that's how they hit 4.6 in the V...

You have to use the same Dyno on the same days. I've been to a couple of Dyno days and know one thing, it is HARD to find a 100% bone stock Corvette that would pay to go on a Dyno. They all had some small mods. I say if there is any HP missing, it is all in the headers.

I have been thinking about buying a V for a couple of months and have held off based on all of the problems that I have read about with the car on this website. I find it interesting that most visited posts are this one and the wheel hop post. It makes me wonder who tests these cars before they sell them to the public. I don't want to spend $50K on a car that can't achieve what the manufacter claims.

Have you guys tried a letter campaign to Detroit? It might help if you got one of the major car magazines to check it out......Motor Trend, Car&Driver, etc. Surely somebody has some connections. I first heard about the Cobra issue in Motor Trend.

Good luck. Still on the fence for now.

it is HARD to find a 100% bone stock Corvette that would pay to go on a Dyno.

Very true... this was my buddy's "before" run... the mod's go in next week... and then he'll do an "after" run. (So cant now do a back-to-back dyno with his and my car... and my Z06 is no longer stock :()

I don't want to spend $50K on a car that can't achieve what the manufacter claims.

I guess that was my point in the post above. I can't find many cars that attain manufacturer claims in the books/mags, because manufacturer claims are the extremes (as evident above in the Z06 run). I can list car after car that does not live up to it's manufacturer claims unless you really run it hard, and I think someone on this board posted a 4.7 or 4.8 run, but with some heafty clutch feathering.

HP claims, one thing. But that still has not been adressed to the level where we can make accurate judgements. Anyone do a flywheel yet?

WannaV: I started the other big thread on the HP issue (Why the PATHETIC rwhp?)... that was before I owned the car. At that time, I (and Adam) were very surprised at the reaction from the owners... *for the most part* it didn't seem to bother them! And read the 'problem' threads... reactions from the owners taking their cars in for diff leaks, broken diff's, etc... again, for the most part... taking it very well. Til the day I bought my car i did not understand this one bit.

After owning the car... i will say this: the car is so over the top enoyable... so insanely fun to drive... drive it easy, drive it hard, or drive the snot out of it... it's an unbeliveable car.

It is more rewarding to drive then the M5 (friend has one, drive it all the time), S4 (lots of test drives), M3 (couple friends own these), the list goes on, and even my Z06... (yes, the V is slower, but the overall driving experience is more rewarding).

So what i am saying is: I have no problems forgiving it's couple-of-horsepower shortfall (if there really is one), and it's few 1st year production issues.

The wheel hop is a real issue. With traction control off and one dumps the clutch from a high rpm, the hop will happen. From my perspective, it is not a big deal unless you want to take the V drag racing.

Now this whole thing about the V engine not making its 400 horsepower is a big giant bunch of crap. Yes, the average driver will never be able to hit GM's claimed 0-60 time of 4.6 seconds or 1/4 mile times due to lack of skill, finese, practice, etc. One member of the forum here did get down to a 4.7 second 0-60 run with many, many practice launches and I believe ClintonMills has run at least a 13.2 second quarter mile. (You out there Clinton to confirm?)

Remember the thread we had a while back about top speed? During the past months, I've been continuing to work on refining the numbers. Look for a set of nice graphs, etc. in the coming weeks but since this horsepower subject has resurfaced, I'll share an overview of the numbers I've got to date.

Assumptions:
Drag Coefficient = 0.354
Cross Sectional Area = 24.3 sq. ft.
Weight with driver & fuel = 4150 lb.
Weight distribution on rear axle = 45.6%
Center of gravity = 15.0 in.
Wheelbase = 115.2 in.

The following calculations were done assuming factory published power numbers, launching at 2000 rpm, slipping the clutch until the tires hooked up, no wheel hop and a 6400 rpm shift point.

Zero to Terminal Velocity Speed Run
------------------------------
60' time = 2.31 seconds @ 34 mph
60 mph = 4.59 seconds
1/8 mile = 8.65 seconds @ 87 mph
100 mph = 11.34 seconds
1/4 mile = 13.23 seconds @ 108 mph
162.11 mph = 39.00 seconds (terminal velocity in 5th gear)
164.23 mph = 93.45 seconds (terminal velocity in 6th gear)

The calculations have confirmed GM's numbers very closely. The difference between their numbers and our track/G-tech numbers is wheel hop and the loose nuts behind the wheel.

IMHO, all this "lack of power" discussion is doing is accelerating the depreciation of our wonderful cars.

:hide:

Drag Coefficient is 0.354

RESURECTION Time

The other day I picked up an old car mag and started reading through it. I came upon an add, and just happened to read it. It was a Chevy 2001 Z06 add. 0-60 claimed? 4 second flat. However, in the SAME magazine they pit the Z06 against the C5-R (I think) and rate the tested 0-60 as 4.6s. I did a search on Road and TRack and Motor Trend. Seems the 2001 Z06 was testing at about 4.5-4.7s.

Let's add the Z06 to the class action lawsuit...

Also, let's add the Audi A4. Audi claims 0-60 for the 3.0L as 7s, but the best I can find in the mags is 7.7s (that just happens to be one that was together in the magazine as well). I bet you'd find some serious discrepancies between most manufacture claims (which is BEST times) and most mag tested times (which is AVERAGE times)...

Done. It can die again.
Miscreant,
My Concern has nothing to do with drag launches and 0-60 times, rather a generally low dyno result that would imply the CTS-V is more likely a 360-370 hp car. That by no means is Underpowered but it is below the advertised rating. Whats even more conern is there are a couple of cars that appear to be making 340hp, which is more indicitve of a 400 hp car. So that begs the question, what is different and how can the other CTS-Vs make sure their cars recover the 20-30 hp?

FWIW I'm still on the fence with the CTS-V bad after some serious car shopping last week its back on the top of the list. So far it seams to tbe the most affordable blend of comfort and performance. At this point though I think I will get my car in October, so hopefully I can try on the new LS2 GTO....sadly the worthless trunk and lower-par interior of the GTO have put it behind the CTS-V for me. My "front runners" right now are (in order)

545 Sport with the new M5 Fascia (http://www2.autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=3142&categoryId=12)
At the same price I would probably get the 545 over the CTS-V, in day to day driving I'm finding its 90% as good as the E39 M5, it just lacks that extra 10% that makes you absolutly adore th car.

2005 CTS-V
I'm not totally in love with the interior, I do love all the gadgets and gizmos and with my GM discount it's price very well.

M3
Loved this car for a long time, but it's lack of practicality and more dated interior has moved it to the back of the pack

2005 C55
Holding off judegment until I drive one, the C32 is fun, but small.

2005 S4
B*O*R*I*N*G exterior, very nice interior, but the center console rubs my thigh...not crazy about that.

Anyhow I've strayed off topic mainly because I feel what I need to say on this topic has been said, despite it's short commings and problems it still is high on the list, but we'll see how things change as I get closer to purchase.

-Adam

Turn off the traction control, find a clear road, then stomp on it in first or second from a roll. As you start smiling look in the rear view to see the rubber left on the road. Feels like 400 hp to me

As someone who has a Camaro that puts over 320 hp to the rear wheels (the same ballpark as most V's I've seen dyno'd), I can personally assure you the V makes every single one (or more) of its 400 horsepower. My theory why the dyno pulls are so low on the V is simply a matter of the engine not getting enough air sitting on the dyno, running hot and pulling timing.

If I remember right, Dinan, of BMW tuning fame, explained that over 70 hp can be "found" by properly blowing air over the engine compartment. Thus, the dyno pulls for the V don't mean squat on the true power put down on the street.

There is a night and day difference between how my V and Camaro pull in the same gears. The V feels like it has 100 more horsepower than the Camaro, yet it weighs hundreds of pounds more. Between both cars, they have the same transmission, same rear axle ratios, about an apple to apple comparison as one can get with the buttometer.

Come to my house, you drive the Camaro, I get the V and I guarantee you will see nothing but taillights. The V hooks up and launches harder than I ever can in the Camaro and the Camaro has got the factory SS 275/45-17 Eagle F1 Supercar tires on it which are quite a bit wider than the stock V rubber.

How can naysayers explain the reality of my V walking on the Camaro if the V is under powered and makes no more power than my Camaro? By making the same power and weighing 400 pounds more, the V should get spanked by the Camaro but it doesn't. You know why? Because the V does make the power.

But then again, as I've said in the past, maybe my V is one of those factory "ringer" cars like the media gets. :lildevil:

THE V MAKES 400 HORSEPOWER!

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

LOL stealth

Every HP calculator I have used, based on the track #'s above and 4100#'s (car and driver) show right around 400hp.

Every HP calculator I have used, based on the track #'s above and 4100#'s (car and driver) show right around 400hp.
And yet the dynos don't back that up. I understand that the fans might not give the car extra air flow or that the "feel" of the car might show it's not underpowered, but the fact of the matter is on a dyno it isn't making 400 hp (on average). I understand the resistance to face this fact based on the love and feel of the car, but another fact of the matter is other CTS-V cousins do not show this problem including "bottom breathers" like the Trans Am and Corvette that would be more obviously affected by air flow problems on a dyno. If the dyno study that Dinan did affected all cars equally then the low dynos would be a pandemic situation affecting all or most LSx platform cars. Which it does not, the only pandemic observation is that the CTS-V dynos low which would indicate the car is not making claimed power. IF the car is making the power on the street and not making the power on the dyno then the obvious conclusion is some sort of over-sensitive condition that rears its head on the dyno. While I do believe Dinan has researched their observations on cars they modify (BMW cars), cars that we modify are showing no where near the 70HP sensitivity range Dinan does, rather only the CTS-V platform is showing abnormality.

So the question remains, on a dyno why does this car on average not make its advertised power? If the car is oversensitive, what happens under high stress situations? The Dyno is hardly high stress compared to an actual drag race, and especially in hot weather conditions.

Shinkaze -

I guess for me it comes down to asking myself if I care whether I can achieve the advertised number on a dyno (problematic and unrepeatable) or at the track (whether it be 1/4 mile or road course). I care more about the latter, as this is a true indication of vehicle performance regardless of the "technical specifications" advertised by the manufacturer. Ever pay attention to the advertised weights of street/dirt bikes by the manufacturers (no air in tires, no fluids, bathroom scale on the moon, etc)?

I have to say that the posted time slips in the 13.3 range and every HP calc. I've used says that we're at or about 400 hp depending on which calc., what weight is entered, etc. If you enter 4,000 lbs for the weight you'll get something like 397 crank hp for a 13.3 et. Increase the weight and the hp increases respectively to achieve the already proven et. Use 4150 lbs like some like to and enter 13.3 you'll get well over 400 hp. Use a trap speed calculator and the numbers are even better.

There is a recently posted video of Jesus and his Mercedes hauling ass drag racing. I guess the horsepower question comes down to just that - did you buy the car for drag racing? I didn't. Hell, after watching those videos if I wanted a street drag car you can't argue with that AMG Mercedes at all (no wheel hop =torque management?)...but that isn't what I wanted and I'd bet that on any of my favorite twisties the V would win - we could even swap drivers back and forth and I still bet the V would be the preferred and faster car on those roads where the adrenalin really gets pumping.

So, to each of you, what sold you on the car? The advertised numbers certainly interested you in the beginning, but what sells you in the end is the driving experience, and, hate to say it again, the butt-dyno reigns supreme here. Few of us will rarely get to the track to test the numbers out. All of us have the opportunities on the street to test our car and ability against the competition from time to time. But myself, it is the fact that the car is seriously FAST, easily and AFFORDABLE to modify, sublime HANDLING, great LOOKS, superior VALUE...and the list goes on.

I don't argue that the dyno numbers may be disappointing. I will simply state that this dead horse subject just keeps beating up the reputation and value of the vehicles that we already own - even though there is simply no doubt in my mind that the car makes the advertised hp numbers. From a business standpoint, GM did the least possible to get the engine in the car. We know the engine is the same as the Z06 but packaged differently. We know how awesome the entire package is and it has long been proven to make the advertised power, if not more.

Finally, we KNOW that chassis dynos are tools to help you tune a vehicle. They are invaluable tools for this I'm sure. What they are terrible at is giving accurate comparisions vehicle to vehicle, dyno to dyno, day to day.

So what if the GTO is actually UNDERATED and really making 370 hp or so (ever consider that?). Makes the GTO a good value for a drag car if you like it. To me it in no way affects the V. We're just not apples to apples here. Why the power discrepency on the dynos? We can speculate forever. The only answer will have to come from either GM or a tuner that really knows their stuff and can explain the realities of what the PCM does or does not do based on conditions at the time of the dyno. This is all to similar to the RX8 timeline and experience, where everybody loved the car until a number was off. To date, you still cannot accurately chassis dyno an RX8. It did not change my opinion of that car when I owned it, and this issue does not change my opinion of the V now. In fact, if I find one for a sweet deal in the next year or so, I'm buying another RX8 just to have and beat on...even if they lower the hp rating to 10 hp!

I bet my sorely shredded F1 tires believe there is 400 hp and more :) Simply put, you cannot make the 1/4 mile times without the hp advertised. They're happening and so are every single one of those ponies with maybe a couple we didn't even expect to have :)

And yet the dynos don't back that up. I understand that the fans might not give the car extra air flow or that the "feel" of the car might show it's not underpowered, but the fact of the matter is on a dyno it isn't making 400 hp (on average). I understand the resistance to face this fact based on the love and feel of the car, but another fact of the matter is other CTS-V cousins do not show this problem including "bottom breathers" like the Trans Am and Corvette that would be more obviously affected by air flow problems on a dyno. If the dyno study that Dinan did affected all cars equally then the low dynos would be a pandemic situation affecting all or most LSx platform cars. Which it does not, the only pandemic observation is that the CTS-V dynos low which would indicate the car is not making claimed power. IF the car is making the power on the street and not making the power on the dyno then the obvious conclusion is some sort of over-sensitive condition that rears its head on the dyno. While I do believe Dinan has researched their observations on cars they modify (BMW cars), cars that we modify are showing no where near the 70HP sensitivity range Dinan does, rather only the CTS-V platform is showing abnormality.

So the question remains, on a dyno why does this car on average not make its advertised power? If the car is oversensitive, what happens under high stress situations? The Dyno is hardly high stress compared to an actual drag race, and especially in hot weather conditions.

what about intake design?

A dyno is for tuning a car. If you are trying to get accurate and consistant #'s from a dyno, good luck. If a non professional board member can run a 13.2@108 with a 2.3 60ft than I have to beleive with the right launch this car can run in the 12's. The new Vette with the Z51pkg 6 spd. and 400HP is repoted by GM to run the 1/4 in 12.6@ 115mph. Add 400#'s to that same car and you have a 13.0 and that is with the LS2 which has a much better torque curve than the LS6,. I am not blindly sticking up for the car. The promised performance is there. It is faster than my 03 Vette, so I know its there. If you are looking for HP try:

Running it on a cool day
run it on a day w/ low humidity
put a high speed fan in front of the car
dyno it at sea level

Intake airflow is not the problem on the dyno, it is heat soak from sitting there under high loads with no normal 60+ mph air flow through the engine compartment.

Things that really suck down the rear wheel horsepower of the V compared to the Z06/GTO, etc. is the GIANT Brembo brakes, a much larger propshaft, heavier wheels, etc. Of course the other cars are going to dyno more becuase of less rotating inertia. Duh.

How many of you came from 200 hp Camrys and other crap like that and now are complaining about the horsepower? Give me a break.

If you don't believe your V makes the power, pull the engine out and dyno it out of the car. It is the only true way to test the power. Prove to us it is underrated.

:deadhorse

Intake airflow is not the problem on the dyno, it is heat soak from sitting there under high loads with no normal 60+ mph air flow through the engine compartment.

Things that really suck down the rear wheel horsepower of the V compared to the Z06/GTO, etc. is the GIANT Brembo brakes, a much larger propshaft, heavier wheels, etc. Of course the other cars are going to dyno more becuase of less rotating inertia. Duh.

How many of you came from 200 hp Camrys and other crap like that and now are complaining about the horsepower? Give me a break.

If you don't believe your V makes the power, pull the engine out and dyno it out of the car. It is the only true way to test the power. Prove to us it is underrated.

:deadhorse


BZZZZZZ wrong, the burden of proof is on you to prove that a 320 RWHP car is a 400 Crank HP car. Quote Dinan all you want but no other LSx platform car has this issue.

Shinkaze -

I guess for me it comes down to asking myself if I care whether I can achieve the advertised number on a dyno (problematic and unrepeatable) or at the track (whether it be 1/4 mile or road course). I care more about the latter, as this is a true indication of vehicle performance regardless of the "technical specifications" advertised by the manufacturer. Ever pay attention to the advertised weights of street/dirt bikes by the manufacturers (no air in tires, no fluids, bathroom scale on the moon, etc)?
You're right the Dyno is a diagnostic tool, if it's showing the car has a tendency to dyno low, you have tuning issue that needs to be recognized, and diagnosed.
I have to say that the posted time slips in the 13.3 range and every HP calc. I've used says that we're at or about 400 hp depending on which calc., what weight is entered, etc. If you enter 4,000 lbs for the weight you'll get something like 397 crank hp for a 13.3 et. Increase the weight and the hp increases respectively to achieve the already proven et. Use 4150 lbs like some like to and enter 13.3 you'll get well over 400 hp. Use a trap speed calculator and the numbers are even better.
The Drag strip is much less controlled than a dyno, and traction too often becomes the difference. FWIW though I haven't seen any posted Qtr Mile times on this board, but Motor Trend's 13.48@105.3 (http://motortrend.com/roadtests/luxury/112_0404_400club/index6.html) would indicate as much as 370, while Road And Tracks (http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/2252004154854.pdf) Number would show as high as 414hp. Qtr mile estimates are just that, estimates, and vague ones at that. I've got thousands of Qtr Miles runs under my belt and in one night my times can range as much as .5 seconds and 4-5 mph. That would be 50hp swings in estimated power. Conversely I have dozens of dynos under my belt on my personal car and have witnessed hundreds more. My own dynos are rarely more than 3-5 RWHP off each other.
There is a recently posted video of Jesus and his Mercedes hauling ass drag racing. I guess the horsepower question comes down to just that - did you buy the car for drag racing? I didn't. Hell, after watching those videos if I wanted a street drag car you can't argue with that AMG Mercedes at all (no wheel hop =torque management?)...but that isn't what I wanted and I'd bet that on any of my favorite twisties the V would win - we could even swap drivers back and forth and I still bet the V would be the preferred and faster car on those roads where the adrenalin really gets pumping.
Now this is the logic that escapes me. GM advertises a 6-speed manual, there is a 6th gear shown on the shifter, would you feel so generous if you suddenly discovered they put a T-5 5-speed in your car? I'm not sure why you're okay with getting less than you paid for?
So, to each of you, what sold you on the car? The advertised numbers certainly interested you in the beginning, but what sells you in the end is the driving experience, and, hate to say it again, the butt-dyno reigns supreme here. Few of us will rarely get to the track to test the numbers out. All of us have the opportunities on the street to test our car and ability against the competition from time to time. But myself, it is the fact that the car is seriously FAST, easily and AFFORDABLE to modify, sublime HANDLING, great LOOKS, superior VALUE...and the list goes on.
Obviously you have not read a word I typed, for the 100th time I said the car is not underpowered, but at 320RWHP it is underrated.
I don't argue that the dyno numbers may be disappointing. I will simply state that this dead horse subject just keeps beating up the reputation and value of the vehicles that we already own - even though there is simply no doubt in my mind that the car makes the advertised hp numbers. From a business standpoint, GM did the least possible to get the engine in the car. We know the engine is the same as the Z06 but packaged differently. We know how awesome the entire package is and it has long been proven to make the advertised power, if not more.

Finally, we KNOW that chassis dynos are tools to help you tune a vehicle. They are invaluable tools for this I'm sure. What they are terrible at is giving accurate comparisions vehicle to vehicle, dyno to dyno, day to day.

So what if the GTO is actually UNDERATED and really making 370 hp or so (ever consider that?). Makes the GTO a good value for a drag car if you like it. To me it in no way affects the V. We're just not apples to apples here. Why the power discrepency on the dynos? We can speculate forever. The only answer will have to come from either GM or a tuner that really knows their stuff and can explain the realities of what the PCM does or does not do based on conditions at the time of the dyno. This is all to similar to the RX8 timeline and experience, where everybody loved the car until a number was off. To date, you still cannot accurately chassis dyno an RX8. It did not change my opinion of that car when I owned it, and this issue does not change my opinion of the V now. In fact, if I find one for a sweet deal in the next year or so, I'm buying another RX8 just to have and beat on...even if they lower the hp rating to 10 hp!

I bet my sorely shredded F1 tires believe there is 400 hp and more :) Simply put, you cannot make the 1/4 mile times without the hp advertised. They're happening and so are every single one of those ponies with maybe a couple we didn't even expect to have :)Well one fact for sure is, if you ignore the problem then you'll never have to wait for a solution to arise. However, how silly would you feel after this rant it was discovered some simple fix was missing that takes ten seconds to cure...loose wire, blown fuse, whatever, and then poof! There is your missing 20-30RWHP? Guess what, the missing power won't be discovered if the problem is swept under the rug while we all play emperor's new clothes to the issue.

FWIW I wouldn't put too much faith on tuners "discovering the problem". 99% of all power tricks and knowledge comes from the hobbiest, the tuners just package it up and resell it to those that don't want to get their hands dirty. Not to mention Mallett may be the most stand up guy around but if uncovers a "missing 30 RWHP", as a tuner it's better business for him to "fix" this issue on a customer car by customer car basis.

:yawn:

:hmm:

Being that there isn't much debate that the engine is an LS6, then either:

1. The intake/exhaust combo is more restrictive than GM anticipated. Assuming for the minute that the exhaust manifold isn't more restrictive than the Z06, then some chassis dynos after intake AND exhaust work should indicate if they really are eating up 20hp (possible).

2. Inefficiencies in the driveline, although I'm having trouble believing 20hp (IMHO).

3. There are little green men in the car that want to frustrate us. :suspect:

4. There has been no indication that GM changed the program on this LS6, but who knows.

Who should know? Other than GMPD, the folks over at Mallett MUST KNOW and those that advertise themselves as tuners SHOULD KNOW.

Ok kids, listen up. Class is in session.

Quote from More Performance on LS1tech.com

"The last bone stock Z06 we dyno'ed made 339RWHP. It had no performance modifications at the time of the dyno."

Speaking about their CTS-V, MP continues...

"Our test mule was made 412FWHP. We estimate a 17% loss on our Caddy (Which dyno'd at 324RWHP). You multipy the 400FWHP (That caddy says you have) X17% and subtract that gives you 332RWHP. You also have to account for the horrible exhaust and headers and the numbers you see are very close to accurate. There is no accurate % for what you should go by. The only sure fire way is to pull an engine, engine dyno it, reinstall it and chassis dyno it for accurate readings. I think this is a waste of everyone's time since there is no sure fire way of telling what the % rate should be. What we have found is close to what GM specs are."

The V is not underrated. OK? I'm done, you guys can continue to bicker like kindergarten kids about a subject that is just as worthwhile to discuss as the torque curve of a Yugo.

:cheers:

Here's the MP dyno thread ---> LS1Tech Dyno Thread (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180683&page=1&pp=40)

:tisk:

I bit of healthy conversation amongst interested owners is not exactly bickering. No one said the V isn't powerful or a great car... the only debate was why it seemed to dyno a bit lower than expected by owners. Specifically, why for instance a Z06 with 5hp additional quoted HP on AVERAGE tends to dyno quite a bit more. Simple as that.

So calm down there tough guy :drinker

i stopped by a local dyno shop today and asked bunch questions about their dyno and they gave me a down to earth answer and told me that there is 25%~30% difference between their result and advertised rating

Shinkaze -

Thanks for the responses...I knew you'd take the bait!
(Just kidding)
I'm not saying I disagree with your thoughts entirely, only that I'm quite certain the power exists, at least in my V. I have nothing to verify this other than my own experiences. It is quite possible that some cars are significantly off the mark and that would be disturbing should we find out that it were true. I believe the drivetrain is less efficient than the Z06, heavier wheels, etc.

What I'm really saying is that, at least to me, the headline of this thread is a waste of time and energy. I don't think a lawsuit is in order, as many have mentioned that no one has proven anything either way yet. I only argue that those that have been to the track are able to hit numbers that in my estimation requires 400 hp.

Hell, I could be wrong, and my V might be 50 hp off from the mark. Would I want it fixed if a fix were offered? Probably, but I'm not going to have any sleepless night over it in the meantime. Logic simply tells me the motor is intensively the same as the Z06 LS6 and hence one of the reasons I bought the car in the first place = great aftermarket tuning. I wasn't after a 400 hp 4 door luxury sports sedan when I bought it. My goals, like many others on this board, are somewhat higher and will require modifying much of what the factory supplied anyway - so to me - it really doesn't matter.

By the way, it seems that my V doesn't have a 6 speed afterall. It is funny you should mention it. Mine seems to have only one speed...








Real Damn Fast!

So, Shinkaze my friend, how do you suggest we resolve this issue so that we can all make sure each and every V is really a 400 hp automobile? I'm not sure there is a way but am open to your thoughts and suggestions. Right now I need to make some tire decisions before I wear the tread markers off!

You're right the Dyno is a diagnostic tool, if it's showing the car has a tendency to dyno low, you have tuning issue that needs to be recognized, and diagnosed.

The Drag strip is much less controlled than a dyno, and traction too often becomes the difference. FWIW though I haven't seen any posted Qtr Mile times on this board, but Motor Trend's 13.48@105.3 (http://motortrend.com/roadtests/luxury/112_0404_400club/index6.html) would indicate as much as 370, while Road And Tracks (http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/2252004154854.pdf) Number would show as high as 414hp. Qtr mile estimates are just that, estimates, and vague ones at that. I've got thousands of Qtr Miles runs under my belt and in one night my times can range as much as .5 seconds and 4-5 mph. That would be 50hp swings in estimated power. Conversely I have dozens of dynos under my belt on my personal car and have witnessed hundreds more. My own dynos are rarely more than 3-5 RWHP off each other.

I guess my dyno vs. track comment is vague. Let me put it another way. I can go to a dyno (if we had a local one!) and you could go in your town, probably with the same car, much less your car vs. mine, and we'll see different results. Same goes for 1/4 mile times at different tracks/times. What I was saying about being repeatable at the track is that there is more than one posted time across the net and in the mags that verifies a 400 hp automobile, though I agree that the range of the dynos is strange. At least if I see another V at the strip and we run similar times, and hopefully good ones at that, we'll know something about those two autos. I'll probably take her to Top Gun this fall to find out (and I have now noticed two other V's here so maybe one will show up?). My dyno experience is limited to motorcycles and we generally used it much less for absolute numbers but more for measuring gain or loss due to performance (or so-called performance) modifications. I know many people dyno repeatedly at the same location and get similar if not the same numbers day to day. I also know that I have dynoed on the same model/type machine at nearly the same altitude at two different shops, temps in the mid 70's and similar humidity to see a whopping 18% difference on a bike that had simply been riden from one place to the next! That's where my mistrust in dyno tests comes from I suppose...but hey, we are in fact beating a dead horse and I'm going to stop now.

Should you find the solution I'm sure you'll post it here and we will all appreciate your ef