: Look what I found...... This could really get outta hand.



tblack
12-04-08, 03:07 AM
For those of you who felt 556 HP wasn't enough, our friends at Hennessy Performance have all your death defying needs covered.

http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/hennesseyperformance/ListItems.php?cart=NgUaqCKd&DoThis=Cadillac+CTS-V+%282009%29&ActionReq=Where

An 800 HP CTS-V would probably have the local traffic authorities turn my drivers license to confetti before my eyes but 660 HP could probably work. I would have to assume that these are crank figures.

It'd probably void the warranty though......

Uncle Meat
12-04-08, 07:29 AM
It'd probably void the warranty though......Ya think? :p

U.M.

V-Love
12-04-08, 07:40 AM
I wonder what the details are. Its gonna get fun around here again.

The Tony Show
12-04-08, 08:41 AM
Do a Google search on "Hennessey Lawsuit".

Pass.

CIWS
12-04-08, 08:43 AM
Na that guy's got too much mud in his water now to be touching my 70K car in order to void it's warranty. Perhaps some folks out there have enough money that they don't care about a warranty on the car, but in my case I do and that kind of modification would certainly void it, especially in a time when the manufacturer will be looking for excuses not to honor it due to their own tough economic times.

Florian
12-04-08, 10:02 AM
youre gonna pay some serious coin to make your 6.2L engine hold more boost. The motor isnt set up for much more, theres gonna be some sad V owners if they get too aggressive on tunes, etc.


F

Ketzer
12-04-08, 10:44 AM
Do a Google search on "Hennessey Lawsuit".

Pass.

x2, x3, and x4
Although they say if you live in Texas, don't pay any money up front, don't mind doing without your car for a year or better, don't mind the estimate getting doubled, don't mind seeing your car beat to he!! on youtube, he's a heck of a tuner.

Hennesey = FAIL.

thebigjimsho
12-04-08, 01:58 PM
Hennessey? No. Nuff said.

Luna.
12-04-08, 04:46 PM
Hennessey? No. Nuff said.

Why is that? Do they suck or something?

And I would think that this motor could handle a lot more HP than it currently has. I'm pretty sure the ZR-1 motor can. Granted, the Vs version doesn't have all the internal goodies that the ZR-1 has, but I can't believe they didn't over-engineer the motor a little. Hell, we've been throwing maggies on the LS-6 and this motor seem far, far stronger than the LS-6 motor.

gotapex
12-04-08, 04:48 PM
Do a Google search on "Hennessey Lawsuit".

Pass.

What, you're not interested in getting Hennesscrewed(tm)?

CIWS
12-04-08, 05:46 PM
Why is that? Do they suck or something?

And I would think that this motor could handle a lot more HP than it currently has. I'm pretty sure the ZR-1 motor can. Granted, the Vs version doesn't have all the internal goodies that the ZR-1 has, but I can't believe they didn't over-engineer the motor a little. Hell, we've been throwing maggies on the LS-6 and this motor seem far, far stronger than the LS-6 motor.

No doubt the engine is tuned rich from the factory, and they've probably restricted the air intake to cut down on supercharger whine. But beyond that I'm not so sure it has a lot more above the 600 mark without risking something going pop. Someone will certainly try it and we'll see how they try to explain the failure to get warranty coverage, or get stuck with a big repair bill for an uncommon motor, unlike the LS6 or LS2.

darjae
12-04-08, 05:59 PM
Why is that? Do they suck or something?

And I would think that this motor could handle a lot more HP than it currently has. I'm pretty sure the ZR-1 motor can. Granted, the Vs version doesn't have all the internal goodies that the ZR-1 has, but I can't believe they didn't over-engineer the motor a little. Hell, we've been throwing maggies on the LS-6 and this motor seem far, far stronger than the LS-6 motor.

I wouldn't use Hennessey and I live in Houston where I could check on my car everyday. Too many horror stories.

On handling more HP, I read a quote on Edmunds that a 10 % is within reach:

"Dave Mikels, the CTS-V's powertrain integration engineer, reckons a 10 percent boost in horsepower should be within easy reach for a tuner. "I know because we've done it in development," says Mikels with the sly smile that inevitably comes when boys talk about horsepower. "

Luna.
12-04-08, 06:35 PM
Just so I'm on the same page, because this is very confusing to me...

The LS-6 can easily handle another 100+ rwhp without any issues. We do it with the maggie very frequently. Based on various dyno runs across the nation, let's say that 330 rwhp is a good number from the factory for the LS-6. Well, the maggie cranks that up to, say, 440 rwhp, with ease. That's 110 rwhp, or a 33% increase. Based on what many say on these very forums, the LS-6 can handle up to, say, 500 rwhp without any significant issues. That's a very healthy increase.

Based on what I'm reading, the new LSA motor is supposed to be significantly stronger, which, of course makes sense, as it's carrying ~150 more HP from the factory. The part that is confusing to me is that it seems to be suggested that the new LSA won't be able to handle even a ~20% increase in HP (100 hp) without blowing up.

REALLY?!?!?!?

I mean, that would be shocking that the LS-6 was so much more over-engineered than the new, kickass LSA motor... :confused::confused::confused:

CIWS
12-04-08, 08:30 PM
JThe part that is confusing to me is that it seems to be suggested that the new LSA won't be able to handle even a ~20% increase in HP (100 hp) without blowing up.

REALLY?!?!?!?

I mean, that would be shocking that the LS-6 was so much more over-engineered than the new, kickass LSA motor... :confused::confused::confused:

If the LSA motor could run at 650HP (100HP over stock) with no problems then there wouldn't have been any need to spend the extra cash to build up the LS9 to it's configuration since it's only needed at 640HP would it ? Isn't that a terrible waste of cash to overbuild a motor by that much that could have been saved either as profit for GM or to reduce the sticker price and make it even more attractive ? Or for that matter make both cars easily 600+ and 700+ HP from the factory to destroy any possible competition ?

They very well could be capable of running at those numbers for some "limited" amount of time. But how long is long enough ? Would an owner be happy if the car ran for a year like that before their motor decided to give up something, two years ? Most owners I would think would want it to last beyond that time period, at least as long as they're making payments on it, before they're faced with possibly paying to have the engine repaired because a lifter, valve, or some other part wasn't designed to handle that load for an extended period of several years. If a dealership never had a clue it was modified then they should have no worries and a warranty would fix it for them. But if they did find out it had been modified and ran at that level then they would be within their rights to deny a claim.

The literal truth is we're not going to know where this motor's strengths and weaknesses lie until some folks take that leap and give it a try. It's basically a new motor untested on the rigors of the daily driver/owner for a period of several years of ownership.

CVP33
12-04-08, 08:38 PM
I wouldn't let Hennessy touch my lawn mower. And I don't even like my lawn mower that much.

Kmajecki
12-04-08, 08:41 PM
I can't believe they didn't over-engineer the motor a little.

556hp to 800hp is a little to you?!!! :hmm:

Wonder if 800hp could destroy that fancy new rear diff too? Would be fun, but i certainly couldn't afford the risk..

Luna.
12-05-08, 03:12 AM
If the LSA motor could run at 650HP (100HP over stock) with no problems then there wouldn't have been any need to spend the extra cash to build up the LS9 to it's configuration since it's only needed at 640HP would it ?

Yes, there would. Reliability would be higher if the motor was overengineered. I'm willing to bet it is.



Isn't that a terrible waste of cash to overbuild a motor by that much that could have been saved either as profit for GM or to reduce the sticker price and make it even more attractive ? Or for that matter make both cars easily 600+ and 700+ HP from the factory to destroy any possible competition ?


I'm not sure how to define, "that much," do you?

And GM's profit woes have little, IF ANYTHING, to do with the quality of their high-performance motors. They still have serious legacy cost issues, as well as being destroyed by the bullsh*t credit crisis.

Further, GM could go a long way to gaining customers by continuously improving their high-performance motors, both in terms of performance, as well as reliability.





They very well could be capable of running at those numbers for some "limited" amount of time. But how long is long enough ? Would an owner be happy if the car ran for a year like that before their motor decided to give up something, two years ? Most owners I would think would want it to last beyond that time period, at least as long as they're making payments on it, before they're faced with possibly paying to have the engine repaired because a lifter, valve, or some other part wasn't designed to handle that load for an extended period of several years. If a dealership never had a clue it was modified then they should have no worries and a warranty would fix it for them. But if they did find out it had been modified and ran at that level then they would be within their rights to deny a claim.

Funny, many of us have been running maggies adding a HIGHER amount of rwhp (from a percentage perspective) through GMs LS-6 without blowing their motors, for '000s of miles... All of a sudden, the sentiment is that the LSA won't be able to handle a similar boost? Hell, I'm talking a lesser boost, but whatever...





The literal truth is we're not going to know where this motor's strengths and weaknesses lie until some folks take that leap and give it a try. It's basically a new motor untested on the rigors of the daily driver/owner for a period of several years of ownership.

Thanks for the headsup... :annoyed:


556hp to 800hp is a little to you?!!! :hmm:



I'm not even sure I understand what you are saying...

The question I was asking was a fairly simple one. I was looking to merely understand why the sentiment in this thread was that the LSA wouldn't be able to handle any significant power increase. GM seemed to do a heck of a job on the LS6/2, so why would the LSA motor be expected to be feeble?

Perhaps there was something someone knew that I was ignorant of, hence I asked the question...

Nevermind if it's going to be some issue... :nono:

CIWS
12-05-08, 06:05 AM
The question I was asking was a fairly simple one. I was looking to merely understand why the sentiment in this thread was that the LSA wouldn't be able to handle any significant power increase. GM seemed to do a heck of a job on the LS6/2, so why would the LSA motor be expected to be feeble?

Perhaps there was something someone knew that I was ignorant of, hence I asked the question...

Nevermind if it's going to be some issue... :nono:

Hehe, some issue. Dude we're just holding a hypothetical discussion.

The world is replete with examples of a company building multiple engines and in some cases those are over engineered and in others they are built close to their top end of performance. Which is the LSA ? Well we just don't know yet do we. It may be an example of the most over engineered motor they've ever built, time will tell. If / when you get a V2 I hope yours is :)

LITTLEELVISDAN
12-05-08, 09:03 AM
Keep in mind the LSA "IS ALREADY SUPERCHARGED".. You could buy an overbuilt LSA "without a supercharger" I suppose and put a maggie on it to increase HP back up to 566... BUT. GM has already done that for you.

And yes car makers do enfineer some engines to their max capacity out of the box.

Honda did it with the S2000. At a stock 120 hp per liter Normally Asperated, Tuners were having trouble getting another 10hp out of the motor because it came stock so well tuned to the max. SC'ing or turbo'ing them was costly and usually came with dire results and were definately NOT long term solutions.

Be happy with 556 / 550 stock. And if you can get 600hp out of a tune/intake then be real happy. What does a stock Z06 come with 505hp or a stock Viper come with?

600hp is a lot by any standard ... anything over that takes a ton of money.

You want more then go buy a Veyron. you get 1001hp but cost 2.5 mil if you can get one.

The Tony Show
12-05-08, 09:34 AM
I'm with Luna on this one- I don't see why the LSA can't be boosted up to some crazy HP levels if done right. They're running 9:1 compression pistons (as opposed to 10.5:1 in the LS6) to keep things cooler in the combustion chamber, so it's already a better platform for big boost than an LS6/LS2 if everything else in the motor (rod, valves, springs, etc) is equal. I doubt that's the case though, and would be willing to bet that the head gaskets and rods are a little tougher since they designed the engine for boost.

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to hit 550 at the wheels with an bigger crank pulley, a good tune that modifies the S/C bypass valve and maybe (maybe) some stiffer valve springs for insurance.

CIWS
12-05-08, 11:19 AM
I don't see why you shouldn't be able to hit 550 at the wheels with an bigger crank pulley, a good tune that modifies the S/C bypass valve and maybe (maybe) some stiffer valve springs for insurance.

Part of the point here is though not that the engine couldn't possibly produce it, but how long it would be able to continue to deliver it without a failure.

I know we will find out because there will always be those that try it :D

The Tony Show
12-05-08, 12:24 PM
I think it would produce it for quite a while if done right. People have been running Maggies with a 2.6 pulley on stock LS6 10.5:1 pistons for long time now, and I don't recall seeing one take a dump because of it. The lower CR of the LSA should make it even safer for increased boost levels, and require fewer workaraounds to prevent detonation.

Kmajecki
12-05-08, 01:13 PM
I'm not even sure I understand what you are saying...

I quoted you saying you couldn't imagine they wouldn't over engineer the engine at least a little. My response was questioning if you perceived the ability to handle an additional 244hp as a little.


Keep in mind the LSA "IS ALREADY SUPERCHARGED"..

Nicely said, I couldn't agree more! Supercharging a N/A LS6 should yield a higher hp gain than swapping a S/C to a turbo on a forced induction motor. How would swapping the S/C to a Twin Turbo add much more power other than increasing the mount of boost? Maybe they should turbo charge the super charger and add a shot of NOS to keep things cool!! LOL

I am quite sure it's a strong motor, but IF i could afford one i certainly wouldn't be letting people test 15psi on mine!!

Luna.
12-05-08, 01:16 PM
Keep in mind the LSA "IS ALREADY SUPERCHARGED".. You could buy an overbuilt LSA "without a supercharger" I suppose and put a maggie on it to increase HP back up to 566... BUT. GM has already done that for you.

And yes car makers do enfineer some engines to their max capacity out of the box.

Honda did it with the S2000. At a stock 120 hp per liter Normally Asperated, Tuners were having trouble getting another 10hp out of the motor because it came stock so well tuned to the max. SC'ing or turbo'ing them was costly and usually came with dire results and were definately NOT long term solutions.

Be happy with 556 / 550 stock. And if you can get 600hp out of a tune/intake then be real happy. What does a stock Z06 come with 505hp or a stock Viper come with?

600hp is a lot by any standard ... anything over that takes a ton of money.


Be happy with 556/550? Why is that?

And I don't believe that getting 550 at the wheel with this motor would take a ton of money



You want more then go buy a Veyron. you get 1001hp but cost 2.5 mil if you can get one.


Yeah, because this solution is so realistic. Further, if everyone thought this way, the aftermarket market wouldn't even exist... :thepan:


I'm with Luna on this one- I don't see why the LSA can't be boosted up to some crazy HP levels if done right. They're running 9:1 compression pistons (as opposed to 10.5:1 in the LS6) to keep things cooler in the combustion chamber, so it's already a better platform for big boost than an LS6/LS2 if everything else in the motor (rod, valves, springs, etc) is equal. I doubt that's the case though, and would be willing to bet that the head gaskets and rods are a little tougher since they designed the engine for boost.

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to hit 550 at the wheels with an bigger crank pulley, a good tune that modifies the S/C bypass valve and maybe (maybe) some stiffer valve springs for insurance.

Exactly. Well put Tony.

That would be my gut reaction as well, hence my confusion.

550 rwhp is about spot on in terms of where I'd like to end up.


I think it would produce it for quite a while if done right. People have been running Maggies with a 2.6 pulley on stock LS6 10.5:1 pistons for long time now, and I don't recall seeing one take a dump because of it. The lower CR of the LSA should make it even safer for increased boost levels, and require fewer workaraounds to prevent detonation.

I agree again. I've been running an 8" crankshaft pulley (which is actually a little higher than a 2.6") for my maggie for, say, 25k miles without nary a problem related to the motor.

Luna.
12-05-08, 01:20 PM
I quoted you saying you couldn't imagine they wouldn't over engineer the engine at least a little. My response was questioning if you perceived the ability to handle an additional 244hp as a little.

I don't know where you came up with 224, nor do I understand the relevance. I wasn't asking to determine if the motor could handle X amount of additional power--that has nothing to do with it.





Nicely said, I couldn't agree more! Supercharging a N/A LS6 should yield a higher hp gain than swapping a S/C to a turbo on a forced induction motor. How would swapping the S/C to a Twin Turbo add much more power other than increasing the mount of boost? Maybe they should turbo charge the super charger and add a shot of NOS to keep things cool!! LOL

I am quite sure it's a strong motor, but IF i could afford one i certainly wouldn't be letting people test 15psi on mine!!

You've totally missed the point.

Seriously, nevermind.

Kmajecki
12-05-08, 01:25 PM
I don't know where you came up with 224, nor do I understand the relevance. I wasn't asking to determine if the motor could handle X amount of additional power--that has nothing to do with it.


Hennessey Performance
V800 Twin Turbo - 800 HP Upgrade for the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V

800-556=244hp



You've totally missed the point.

Seriously, nevermind.

Didn't the point of this thread start with the first post? That's what i referring too.

I too hope that 550rwhp (X-rwhp) is easily achievable. I wasn't trying to hurt anybody's feelings by questioning how it would get there.

verbs
12-05-08, 03:59 PM
I think it would produce it for quite a while if done right. People have been running Maggies with a 2.6 pulley on stock LS6 10.5:1 pistons for long time now, and I don't recall seeing one take a dump because of it. The lower CR of the LSA should make it even safer for increased boost levels, and require fewer workaraounds to prevent detonation.

Um, not quite. I wouldn't coax too much more power on this motor with stock pistons.....it'll become a ticking timebomb.

The Tony Show
12-05-08, 05:39 PM
Timebomb? Only if you let it knock. I assume your dredging up the "Oh noes- no forged pistons in teh LSA!!!11!!" argument we had here a while back, but it's not as important as everyone thinks. As long as the flame front is properly managed in the cylinder, the stock pistons are the least of your concerns.

Properly tuned without any stupid bandaids like water or meth injection it will be fine.

Kmajecki
12-05-08, 06:39 PM
I just test drove one!!!! Black Auto (no recaros) I got some pics with mine next it but they are on my phone, ill post in a bit!

Luna.
12-05-08, 07:01 PM
Timebomb? Only if you let it knock. I assume your dredging up the "Oh noes- no forged pistons in teh LSA!!!11!!" argument we had here a while back, but it's not as important as everyone thinks. As long as the flame front is properly managed in the cylinder, the stock pistons are the least of your concerns.

Properly tuned without any stupid bandaids like water or meth injection it will be fine.

I tend to agree.

I recall reading that the LS1 tech forums on cast vs. forged pistons and the final sentiment seemed to be that the pistons wouldn't be high on the concern list.

One comment I found particularily interesting was:

"I feel the pistons will be fine in the car. The Supra crowd has been running stock cast pistons at over 1000whp levels with no issues. The rods usually go before the pistons do unless there is some serious detonation."

Makes sense to me...

I want to believe that (at least) the same proportion of over-engineering is in the LSA as it is in the LS6/2, but I'd be happy with even less. Is another, say, 75-100 hp really going to cause this thing to just explode? It just seems so strange that it would, especially since it's such a lower percent increase than in previous, "inferior" motors. 100 more hp is only an 18% increase. Yes that's a lot, but not when the maggie is adding ~120 to an LS6, which calculates to a 30% increase.

I just want to get to, say, 550 rwhp and I'll be a happy guy. :cool2::cloud9: Hell, I'll go any route right now to keep the motor as stock as possible, including (cough, cough) NOS... (I can't believe I'm saying that, but I am...)

Dr. Design
12-05-08, 09:07 PM
It should certainly be interesting. We will be sure to test the natural limits of the factory engine combination and see just what it can take. We have a few different combinations that we will be trying out.

Thanks,

Dr. Design
D3 Cadillac


I tend to agree.

I recall reading that the LS1 tech forums on cast vs. forged pistons and the final sentiment seemed to be that the pistons wouldn't be high on the concern list.

One comment I found particularily interesting was:

"I feel the pistons will be fine in the car. The Supra crowd has been running stock cast pistons at over 1000whp levels with no issues. The rods usually go before the pistons do unless there is some serious detonation."

Makes sense to me...

I want to believe that (at least) the same proportion of over-engineering is in the LSA as it is in the LS6/2, but I'd be happy with even less. Is another, say, 75-100 hp really going to cause this thing to just explode? It just seems so strange that it would, especially since it's such a lower percent increase than in previous, "inferior" motors. 100 more hp is only an 18% increase. Yes that's a lot, but not when the maggie is adding ~120 to an LS6, which calculates to a 30% increase.

I just want to get to, say, 550 rwhp and I'll be a happy guy. :cool2::cloud9: Hell, I'll go any route right now to keep the motor as stock as possible, including (cough, cough) NOS... (I can't believe I'm saying that, but I am...)

CIWS
12-05-08, 11:15 PM
I just want to get to, say, 550 rwhp and I'll be a happy guy. :cool2::cloud9:

That's around 680 bhp, out of an already supercharged 556bhp setup ?

Tell you what, if the car can do it reliably on the "stock" motor (tune / pulley swap, CAI, headers) and not lunch itself within 15K miles, I'll be very surprised.

tblack
12-06-08, 12:52 AM
Uh... I see I sorta opened up pandora's box here. Just thought I'd share some info I had come accross.

Sorry guys.

CIWS
12-06-08, 08:55 AM
Uh... I see I sorta opened up pandora's box here. Just thought I'd share some info I had come accross.

Sorry guys.

No need to act like this conversation is anything more than differing opinions upon a subject. We all have them, and part of the reason for a forum such as this is so that they can be shared despite the fact they may not agree. The discussion is what it's all about. :thumbsup:

Kmajecki
12-06-08, 10:50 AM
Must be Democrats! Dont ask questions, just believe!!! YES WE CAN!! LOL jk

Luna.
12-06-08, 01:53 PM
That's around 680 bhp, out of an already supercharged 556bhp setup ?

Tell you what, if the car can do it reliably on the "stock" motor (tune / pulley swap, CAI, headers) and not lunch itself within 15K miles, I'll be very surprised.

~19% drive train loss seems a little high. I would think somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-16% would be a little more reasonable, which would put it somewhere around 650 crank HP. That's ~100 more hp, or an ~18% increase over stock.

That may seem like a lot, but when you consider that we were adding ~120rwhp with the maggie on an LS6/2, on a motor that was producing 400 crank HP/~335 rwhp, that's an increase of a whopping ~36%!! 18% doesn't seem too egregious anymore...

What I'm talking about is 1/2 of what we were doing with the LS6/2!

Perhaps I'm totally wrong, but it would just seem very strange to me that the LSA, which has been designed to kick butt from the factory, wouldn't be able to handle that increase.

I honestly would be... :jawdrop:


I don't disagree at all that reliability is high on my hit list. Here's to hoping that we can make it work. :highfive:

My preliminary thoughts are to merely tune it and add (gulp) NOS to get there. I'm currently driving a car that has about 550 crank HP and it's a great ride. Hence, I feel that I'd be pretty happy putt-putting around town on the motor (with a tune). But I've always wanted to end up between 500-600 rwhp, so 550 seems like a good spot to shoot for. Add a 50-75 shot for those moments (based on what I'm reading, a good tune should yield, say 30-50 rwhp) when I want to go crazy and.. :)

(Why is it that I feel like a 18 year old kid for wanting to add NOS? :o)

The Tony Show
12-06-08, 03:21 PM
The SVT guys got 40 more hp out of the Mustang KR with a simple change to the timing.


The supercharged V-8 benefits from a new cold-air intake and a Ford Racing low-restriction exhaust. "We also tweaked the spark maps a bit," says Jamal Hameedi, SVT chief nameplate engineer. "Life is great with forced induction, because small spark changes bring big power increases." With no change in boost pressure, output is bumped to a target of 540 horsepower and 510 pound-feet of torque, up from 500 horses and 480 pound-feet for the GT500.

A few things that haven't been mentioned:

All the Supercharged Vs require premium gas, but are tuned to be able to run on regular with reduced power. They build in a certain "cushion" of fuel richness and timing retard that allows the car to run on lower octane or in higher heat without harming the engine. If you're willing to commit to running nothing but 93 (and who puts 87 in a V anyway?), you can tune out the "idiot safety net" and immediately pick up 40-50hp *snap* like that. From there it's just an intake, exhaust and modification to the blower bypass valve away from 100hp over stock. Maybe 85, but still damn close to covering the original drivetrain loss.

atdeneve
12-06-08, 03:30 PM
Rand49er has already mentioned on multiple occasions that 700bhp has been done. With just a tune, was it?

It settled then. Go forth and mod!

Ketzer
12-06-08, 04:24 PM
Uh... I see I sorta opened up pandora's box here. Just thought I'd share some info I had come accross.

Sorry guys.

Dont sweat it TB, its just one of those bench racing "what if" conversations that always gets outta hand. Like auto vs manual.

thebigjimsho
12-06-08, 06:50 PM
I got another couple years before I get a V2, so I'll let you sumbitches figure out what's what. Then I'll reap all the benefits...

Luna.
12-06-08, 06:51 PM
The SVT guys got 40 more hp out of the Mustang KR with a simple change to the timing.



A few things that haven't been mentioned:

All the Supercharged Vs require premium gas, but are tuned to be able to run on regular with reduced power. They build in a certain "cushion" of fuel richness and timing retard that allows the car to run on lower octane or in higher heat without harming the engine. If you're willing to commit to running nothing but 93 (and who puts 87 in a V anyway?), you can tune out the "idiot safety net" and immediately pick up 40-50hp *snap* like that. From there it's just an intake, exhaust and modification to the blower bypass valve away from 100hp over stock. Maybe 85, but still damn close to covering the original drivetrain loss.

I'd be very interested in that & I think you put it well--cover the drivetrain loss is all I'm after. :lildevil:


I got another couple years before I get a V2, so I'll let you sumbitches figure out what's what. Then I'll reap all the benefits...


I wise man indeed...

CIWS
12-06-08, 08:28 PM
~19% drive train loss seems a little high. I would think somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-16% would be a little more reasonable, which would put it somewhere around 650 crank HP.

My STS-V which is using an auto trans in the same family is at approx 21% drive train loss. That's advertised BHP vs measured rwhp. You may consider that high, but that's as I have actually measured. So my calculations were slightly conservative based on my real world observations. Once some of these new 09V owners get on the dyno, we'll see what they're getting.

Luna.
12-07-08, 01:36 AM
My STS-V which is using an auto trans in the same family is at approx 21% drive train loss. That's advertised BHP vs measured rwhp. You may consider that high, but that's as I have actually measured. So my calculations were slightly conservative based on my real world observations. Once some of these new 09V owners get on the dyno, we'll see what they're getting.

Based on reading many dyno runs of stock V1s, the bhp was often seemed to hover around 330-340. Unless the crank HP wasn't 400 hp, I'd say the actual drivetrain loss hovered around 15-16%.

V-Love
12-07-08, 06:29 AM
Uh... I see I sorta opened up pandora's box here. Just thought I'd share some info I had come accross.

Sorry guys.

We love box around here. Pandora seems to be getting around, though.

CIWS
12-07-08, 08:30 AM
Based on reading many dyno runs of stock V1s, the bhp was often seemed to hover around 330-340. Unless the crank HP wasn't 400 hp, I'd say the actual drivetrain loss hovered around 15-16%.

The rwhp on my stock CTS-V was 333, that was about 17%. The rwhp on the STS-V was 370 (as measured from the exact same dyno), that a 21% loss. Two completely different cars and drive trains yielded two different loss measurements. The new CTS-V with the auto is using a xmission that's very close (same family) as the one in the STS-V. I'm betting the numbers will be similar, although the 6 speed and auto may differer in loss numbers. Plus unlike the 1st gen CTS-V the engines in the STS-V and 09 CTS-V are "hand built" so the actual bhp numbers will almost certainly vary a little between engines/cars.

Razorecko
12-07-08, 01:31 PM
There will probally be a 5% difference between the auto and manual in the '09 v

Luna.
12-07-08, 01:34 PM
The rwhp on my stock CTS-V was 333, that was about 17%. The rwhp on the STS-V was 370 (as measured from the exact same dyno), that a 21% loss. Two completely different cars and drive trains yielded two different loss measurements. The new CTS-V with the auto is using a xmission that's very close (same family) as the one in the STS-V. I'm betting the numbers will be similar, although the 6 speed and auto may differer in loss numbers. Plus unlike the 1st gen CTS-V the engines in the STS-V and 09 CTS-V are "hand built" so the actual bhp numbers will almost certainly vary a little between engines/cars.

When it comes to rounding, a few HP makes a difference. A mere 2 rwhp higher, at 335 rwhp, it's about 16%. A mere 7 rwhp higher, at 340 rwhp, it's 15%. And some people have gone even higher than 340 rwhp stock.

The issue is knowing what the motor is actually doing at the crank, which isn't an easy issue to solve.

Further, the point you are making above seems to parallel the comment I had about manuals generally yielding higher rwhp numbers than their corresponding auto counterparts. Hence, it seemed strange to me that the auto was nearly as fast. The primary advantage the auto has is gearing, which has to overcome a lot (weight, rwhp, etc.)

In any case, I was referring to a manual % loss getting to the tires. It would seem strange to compare a manual to an auto in terms of drivetrain loss.

LITTLEELVISDAN
12-07-08, 03:50 PM
Luna Keep in mind that the V2 now comes in Auto as well... unlike the V1 which only came in manual. I know you know that, just making a point

clarifying which we are comparing up front is something you V1 owners will have to adapt to.. and us STS-V owners will also have to get used to, as we olny spoke in Auto terrms.

Barak Hussien Osama was right.. We all CAN get along.. YES WE CAN.. says the self appointed almighty....

CIWS
12-07-08, 06:54 PM
Hence, it seemed strange to me that the auto was nearly as fast. The primary advantage the auto has is gearing, which has to overcome a lot (weight, rwhp, etc.)

In any case, I was referring to a manual % loss getting to the tires. It would seem strange to compare a manual to an auto in terms of drivetrain loss.


You just stated the very reason why. Because Cadillac has stated the auto and manual are seeing the same kind of times in 0-60 and 1/4 mile runs which would imply there's not much difference in what's making it to rwhp. They've chosen to state this with both versions of the cars. So I compared the personal real world experience I've had with owning and testing both cars.

We'll be finding out soon enough as the new V2 owners get their cars broken in and start taking to the dyno. Hopefully they're going to get some baseline runs made on the stock cars before considering any form of mods and dynoing after.

Razorecko
12-07-08, 08:22 PM
I'd presume that the lesser amount of hp loss in the 6spd manual offsets the auto's ability to shift quicker and that gives to almost identical times between the two.

CIWS
12-08-08, 10:07 AM
Yeah I wouldn't disagree. Although there are some folks here that will swear they can get a better time in a manual vs an auto. Especially in a car like the new V that could manage some good RPM buildup without shattering the rear on a launch. :)

The Tony Show
12-11-08, 02:52 PM
Someone has already found an extra 36hp and 55lb/ft with just a tune.

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-2004-2007/1031595-2009-cts-v-dyno-sheets.html

Luna.
12-11-08, 09:35 PM
Someone has already found an extra 36hp and 55lb/ft with just a tune.

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-2004-2007/1031595-2009-cts-v-dyno-sheets.html

Didn't he ultimately get ~49 hp from just the tune?