: New CTS-V Disappointing 1/4 times..



austin
01-18-09, 05:32 PM
I thought the new 2009 CTS-V would be able to spank the doors off of a 2004+ E55 AMG, guess not, atleast not at 12.3-12.6. If i am missing something here, please point it out (except for the fastest time that's on NOS of course).


2009 CTS-V 1/4 times;

http://www.dragtimes.com/Cadillac--CTS-V-Drag-Racing.html



E55 AMG 1/4 times;

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz--E55-AMG-Drag-Racing.html

darjae
01-18-09, 05:47 PM
Those times are comparing Apples and Oranges. The 09 V is stock and all of those E55s are highly modded.

Razorecko
01-18-09, 06:04 PM
Those times are comparing Apples and Oranges. The 09 V is stock and all of those E55s are highly modded.

Yea they all pretty much have midpipe/exhaust/tune/pulley - not a fair comparison.

austin
01-18-09, 06:05 PM
Those times are comparing Apples and Oranges. The 09 V is stock and all of those E55s are highly modded.


Not true, only some are modifed and there turning high 10's to low 11's.... A BONE STOCK E55 AMG's can run 11.89 all day long. Here is just one example.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXxUg5uyQ2Q&feature=related

Razorecko
01-18-09, 06:16 PM
I'm sure once more owners take their v's to the track you'll also see high 11's. The engineers said the vehicle is capable of mid 11's. I dont see it as a fair comparison considering the new e63 is slower than the previous e55.

RapidRob
01-18-09, 06:21 PM
AND - how much does/did an E55 AMG cost new?

Rob

dlstelma
01-18-09, 06:50 PM
11.89@117mph....on stock tires? i doubt it with a 1.76 60ft.

NormV
01-18-09, 07:03 PM
The w211 chasis is sold around the world with svelte 4000 lbs and 500 trq with Speed Shift automatic trans that can jump two gears on a downshift it was an M5/S6 competitor.

The tuners have had their hands on it for almost 5 years. The intercooler is not a week point as the Laminova cores are about the best for air-to-water setups.

It's got a 300 lbs head start on the V2 and not saddled by torque management0out of the box.


Norm

Jayrcr3
01-18-09, 08:59 PM
Someone is going to bolt a set of drag radials on a V and be in the 11's. Give it some time. These cars have only been available for about a month. 3/4 of the country is freezing its ass off. Come summer time we will be seeing better times from the new V.

Razorecko
01-18-09, 09:06 PM
Someone is going to bolt a set of drag radials on a V and be in the 11's. Give it some time. These cars have only been available for about a month. 3/4 of the country is freezing its ass off. Come summer time we will be seeing better times from the new V.

Thats a very good point. Especially since the pilots are practically full out summer tires i'm sure the rubber freezes up and just loses traction all over the place.

1fstkde
01-18-09, 09:49 PM
got these times from benz world back in 05...which is stock and relieable... just checked the stats on the ctsv and it says 12.8, so i guess it is slower!! pretty sad.!....not many stock 11 sec. cars out there,,

2005 E55 AMG (A)
0-60 4.2
12.4 @ 116.2
2002 E55 AMG (A)
0-60 4.8
13.3 @ 107.1

CIWS
01-18-09, 09:57 PM
A BONE STOCK E55 AMG's can run 11.89 all day long. Here is just one example.


Seriously, we know it's bone stock because the person puts "bone stock" on the youtube page ?

darjae
01-18-09, 10:10 PM
just checked the stats on the ctsv and it says 12.8, so i guess it is slower!!

Where did you get the 12.8? That would be the slowest time that any publication or review has ever shown as well as .8 sec behind the "official" spec from Cadillac of 12.0.

dlstelma
01-18-09, 10:11 PM
Someone is going to bolt a set of drag radials on a V and be in the 11's. Give it some time. These cars have only been available for about a month. 3/4 of the country is freezing its ass off. Come summer time we will be seeing better times from the new V.

and call it "bone stock," just like the benz video.

dlstelma
01-18-09, 10:13 PM
Where did you get the 12.8? That would be the slowest time that any publication or review has ever shown as well as .8 sec behind the "official" spec from Cadillac of 12.0.
from the benz website....where else?.:tisk:

Razorecko
01-18-09, 10:15 PM
^ even than he could have ran on a colder day w/ dr's spraying nitrous. Untill you get numerous consecutive numbers from the vehicle under similar conditions than nobody ever knows for sure.

darjae
01-18-09, 10:20 PM
from the benz website....where else?.:tisk:

They must have really slow drivers :)

Cub Cadet
01-18-09, 10:53 PM
11.89@117mph....on stock tires? i doubt it with a 1.76 60ft.

1.76 is not the 60' time.... it is the reaction time. If you notice, the Mercedes didn't exactly launch on the last bulb. The driver must have been asleep!!

CVP33
01-18-09, 11:06 PM
This sounds similar to the Z06 when it first came out in 2006. Guys were getting 12.3 to 12.5's and claiming the car was underpowered. Then some "drivers" got behind the wheel and started knocking off mid to low 11's. No worries here, 556 ponies are there and SAE certified. I'll eventuall coax 'em out the ol' fashioned way.

Seattle CTS-V
01-19-09, 12:09 AM
Not true, only some are modifed and there turning high 10's to low 11's.... A BONE STOCK E55 AMG's can run 11.89 all day long. Here is just one example.

YouTube - Bone Stock E55 Runs an 11.89 1/4 mile (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXxUg5uyQ2Q&feature=related)


I'm a very frequent poster on 6speedonline and MBworld and I can tell you that stock E55's do NOT run 11.89's all day long. That car absolutely had to have had drag radials and the track conditions must have been spot on. Besides, one of the forum members posted seeing CTSVs trapping 121mph in Michigan. A 121mph trap is easily good for mid-11's with a good launch.

1fstkde
01-19-09, 02:53 AM
Where did you get the 12.8? That would be the slowest time that any publication or review has ever shown as well as .8 sec behind the "official" spec from Cadillac of 12.0.
That makes the CTS-V one of the fastest four-door sedans in the world. Reportedly, it will run 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds and blister the 1/4 mi. in 12.8 seconds at 118 mph. ...FROM POPULAR MECHANICS MAGAZINES ARTICLE...EDMUNDS HAS IT AT 12.5....DRAGTIMES HAS THE BEST AT 12.3...

dlstelma
01-19-09, 08:01 AM
1.76 is not the 60' time.... it is the reaction time. If you notice, the Mercedes didn't exactly launch on the last bulb. The driver must have been asleep!!

Your right...he probably wasn't racing, but just wanted to concentrate on the best ET. Regardless, his trap and ET don't make sense "bone stock." only way you get that is with an out of the hole launch like a cannon...not going to happen on stock tires. maybe his stock tires are so worn out (with perfect track conditions) that they acted like DR...then again, i don't see that as a great possibility because typically tires get harder as they wear.

darjae
01-19-09, 08:34 AM
That makes the CTS-V one of the fastest four-door sedans in the world. Reportedly, it will run 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds and blister the 1/4 mi. in 12.8 seconds at 118 mph. ...FROM POPULAR MECHANICS MAGAZINES ARTICLE...EDMUNDS HAS IT AT 12.5....DRAGTIMES HAS THE BEST AT 12.3...

That was exactly my point, Just because one article has it as 12.8 that doesn't make it the official time. I've seen it in multiple places from 12.3 - 12.5 and that's without people really knowing the car. The most important word in the popular mechanics article is "Reportedly". That article was written in June of 2008 before that car was released and they didn't drive the car. I remember a Motor Trend preview article that said it was going to do 0-60 in 4.3 - 4.6 seconds. Then they actually drove the car and quickly revised that time.

Here are a few of the reviews and times that I've been collecting since the car was launched and I can't find anyone who drove one and posted a 12.8 second 1/4 mile:

12.4 - http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=7113
12.3/12.4 - http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0811_2009_cadillac_cts-v_first_test/specs.html
12.6 - http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/cadillac/cts/2009_cadillac_cts_v/2009_cadillac_cts_v_road_test+t-speed_and_stopping_ability+page-2.html
12.5 - http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=131106

Not to mention that the car has run 12.0 (repeatable) by GM engineers. It will get there once the weather heats up and some drivers really learn the car.

NormV
01-19-09, 08:40 AM
120+ trap speeds were down in October in Michigan. As with most boosted cars they are more sensitive to air quality (temp, humidity...)
Summer time will not be the time to head to the strip!


Norm


I'm a very frequent poster on 6speedonline and MBworld and I can tell you that stock E55's do NOT run 11.89's all day long. That car absolutely had to have had drag radials and the track conditions must have been spot on. Besides, one of the forum members posted seeing CTSVs trapping 121mph in Michigan. A 121mph trap is easily good for mid-11's with a good launch.

SRT8/BMW
01-19-09, 08:43 AM
I'm a very frequent poster on 6speedonline and MBworld and I can tell you that stock E55's do NOT run 11.89's all day long. That car absolutely had to have had drag radials and the track conditions must have been spot on. Besides, one of the forum members posted seeing CTSVs trapping 121mph in Michigan. A 121mph trap is easily good for mid-11's with a good launch.


that was me. I was out at Milan dragway in october when the Caddy engineers and Motor trend were out there testing the V. They were running consistent 12.3-12.4 @ 119-120. They had a best of 12.2@121 in the manual trans and 12.3 @121 in the auto. I have already posteda vid of it on this forum when they obliged me with a race against my tuned 335Xi which has a best 0f 12.3@113. In the vid (first run of the day) I ran a slow 12.7 and the V smacked me down with a 12.4 @121.

There is no doubt in my mind that when all this fricken snow melts I am going to get my CTS-V in the high 11s or VERY low 12.s with a little launch practice. With a tune-11s every time. I will bet on that!

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z253/mjsonego/th_bmwvscaddy.jpg (http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z253/mjsonego/?action=view&current=bmwvscaddy.flv)

1fstkde
01-19-09, 12:50 PM
That was exactly my point, Just because one article has it as 12.8 that doesn't make it the official time. I've seen it in multiple places from 12.3 - 12.5 and that's without people really knowing the car. The most important word in the popular mechanics article is "Reportedly". That article was written in June of 2008 before that car was released and they didn't drive the car. I remember a Motor Trend preview article that said it was going to do 0-60 in 4.3 - 4.6 seconds. Then they actually drove the car and quickly revised that time.

Here are a few of the reviews and times that I've been collecting since the car was launched and I can't find anyone who drove one and posted a 12.8 second 1/4 mile:

12.4 - http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=7113
12.3/12.4 - http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0811_2009_cadillac_cts-v_first_test/specs.html
12.6 - http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/cadillac/cts/2009_cadillac_cts_v/2009_cadillac_cts_v_road_test+t-speed_and_stopping_ability+page-2.html
12.5 - http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=131106

Not to mention that the car has run 12.0 (repeatable) by GM engineers. It will get there once the weather heats up and some drivers really learn the car.believe me guys..im on your side!! just posting what i read...but drag times will be the best way to go...this is my second v and your not going to get me to buy the car will run much better in summer crap!! every v i owned ran alot quicker in the cold than hot...i think if you can get a 60 degree temp..you might get best of both worlds..traction and h.p. :D

darjae
01-19-09, 12:52 PM
believe me guys..im on your side!! just posting what i read...but drag times will be the best way to go...this is my second v and your not going to get me to buy the car will run much better in summer crap!! every v i owned ran alot quicker in the cold than hot...i think if you can get a 60 degree temp..you might get best of both worlds..traction and h.p. :D

I agree. I wasn't referring to the summer. It's just that I know a lot of the V owners on this forum are in areas with snow. So, Spring is the time that we should really see what this baby can do.

Razorecko
01-19-09, 01:31 PM
we all know the vehicle will run stronger in the cold - the issue is keeping traction with the cold tires/ground

Luna.
01-19-09, 01:38 PM
I'm a very frequent poster on 6speedonline and MBworld and I can tell you that stock E55's do NOT run 11.89's all day long. That car absolutely had to have had drag radials and the track conditions must have been spot on. Besides, one of the forum members posted seeing CTSVs trapping 121mph in Michigan. A 121mph trap is easily good for mid-11's with a good launch.

Agree Seattle, you beat me to it.

Stock E55s do NOT run 11.89 all day long. Good lord... :rolleyes:

FikseGTS
01-19-09, 03:30 PM
Here is a video of my bone stock E55 on the original conti tires that came with the car running 12.07 @ 116.3 MPH..

some have run 11's stock with some negative DA, but they will run very low 12's as is in normal weather...

looking forward to seeing some new CTS-V's running in the 11's....

Heavychevy1
01-19-09, 05:27 PM
I thought the new 2009 CTS-V would be able to spank the doors off of a 2004+ E55 AMG, guess not, atleast not at 12.3-12.6. If i am missing something here, please point it out (except for the fastest time that's on NOS of course).


2009 CTS-V 1/4 times;

http://www.dragtimes.com/Cadillac--CTS-V-Drag-Racing.html



E55 AMG 1/4 times;

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz--E55-AMG-Drag-Racing.html

Seems very much like a stir the pot post. No attempt whatsoever to distinguish between the modded and stock E55's. Not to mention NONE of them are magazine times which is all we have to compare to with the V at this point.

Nothing but a Z06, Viper, GT2 etc. is blowing the doors off of an 11.8 and with mag test, most times even those will barely beat an 11.8.

Rediculous post of the year awarded.

FikseGTS
01-19-09, 07:51 PM
the stock times have a # next to them.....





Seems very much like a stir the pot post. No attempt whatsoever to distinguish between the modded and stock E55's. Not to mention NONE of them are magazine times which is all we have to compare to with the V at this point.

Nothing but a Z06, Viper, GT2 etc. is blowing the doors off of an 11.8 and with mag test, most times even those will barely beat an 11.8.

Rediculous post of the year awarded.

Heavychevy1
01-19-09, 08:14 PM
Yeah I know, but you are still comparing the best of people who "claim" to have run those times in stock cars, likely in ideal conditions, to magazine times which are almost ALWAYS slower than what the best drivers will get.

The best mag time for the Z06 is 11.5, the best real world time is 10.9
The best mag times for the E55 were mid-low 12's and the best individual time is 11.8


Do you get my drift now? You cant compare the two under the circumstances. You need to compare the mag times only or the street times only, and even those wont be as good as a same day same track test.


Besides the V will molest the E55 on any road course.

Jayrcr3
01-19-09, 08:52 PM
Even if it is a tic slower than the Benz, I will still take the V. I'll use the money I save to buy some sticky tires. I might even save someones job in Michigan. I still think once more people get them and have a chance to tinker with them you will see some better times. I don't buy 11.8 "bone stock" for the E55.

FikseGTS
01-19-09, 09:25 PM
of course, but I do personally know some of these E55 owners that ran those times.... I personally ran 12 flat in south florida....

just a matter of time before we get some real world CTS-V times aside from those few GM runs caught on tape a while back...

neither belong on a road course....




Yeah I know, but you are still comparing the best of people who "claim" to have run those times in stock cars, likely in ideal conditions, to magazine times which are almost ALWAYS slower than what the best drivers will get.

The best mag time for the Z06 is 11.5, the best real world time is 10.9
The best mag times for the E55 were mid-low 12's and the best individual time is 11.8


Do you get my drift now? You cant compare the two under the circumstances. You need to compare the mag times only or the street times only, and even those wont be as good as a same day same track test.


Besides the V will molest the E55 on any road course.

Luna.
01-20-09, 02:46 AM
neither belong on a road course....

The CTS-V doesn't belong on a road course?? :hmm:

NormV
01-20-09, 08:24 AM
With similar wheel power the E55 is 300 lbs light and would handle the V2 whether going straight, turning, or braking.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mercedes-Benz-E-Class-E55-AMG-E55-AMG-Renntech-Kleemann-K2-modified_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZ66Q3a2Q7c65Q3 a10Q7c39Q3a1Q7c240Q3a1308QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em1 4QQhashZitem280303590756QQitemZ280303590756QQptZUS Q5fCarsQ5fTrucks


4300 lbs vs 3980 lbs... It's like having two extra skinny guys as ballast!


Norm


The CTS-V doesn't belong on a road course?? :hmm:

Razorecko
01-20-09, 10:16 AM
Actually on an MB forum the owners of the e55/e63 can attest to the pretty bad track ability of the amg. The V would spank the E around the turns unless the E was seriously modded suspension wise. A better comparison for tracking would be the c63.

Another fact is that the e55 is more torquier and faster but its also an OLDER car. This would be like me comparing the chevy typhoon against the chevy trailblazer SS. Either way we will let this coming summer and the track numbers speak for the V.

Heavychevy1
01-20-09, 12:22 PM
With similar wheel power the E55 is 300 lbs light and would handle the V2 whether going straight, turning, or braking.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mercedes-Benz-E-Class-E55-AMG-E55-AMG-Renntech-Kleemann-K2-modified_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZ66Q3a2Q7c65Q3 a10Q7c39Q3a1Q7c240Q3a1308QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em1 4QQhashZitem280303590756QQitemZ280303590756QQptZUS Q5fCarsQ5fTrucks


4300 lbs vs 3980 lbs... It's like having two extra skinny guys as ballast!


Norm

What are you basing that on? The V would eat the E55 even with similar hp. The slushboxes in the mercs (aside from the Black Series) are complete garbage on the track. The insane amounts of torque make the usable powerband fairly useless on a road course. The suspensions are crap for handling too, body roll, no steering feel, numb driving with tons of torque that can break you loose at any time.

And what CTS-V have you seen weigh 3900 lbs? All I've seen is 4200+ and 4300 for the auto.

NormV
01-20-09, 01:33 PM
I guess you've never road coursed any of the AMG models.
The 369 trq and light weight of the M5 definitely kept it close to the V with almost 200 more trq!


The modified E55 with similar results to the ground and lighter weight would have the V2 in it's mirror on most tracks.


Norm



What are you basing that on? The V would eat the E55 even with similar hp. The slushboxes in the mercs (aside from the Black Series) are complete garbage on the track. The insane amounts of torque make the usable powerband fairly useless on a road course. The suspensions are crap for handling too, body roll, no steering feel, numb driving with tons of torque that can break you loose at any time.

And what CTS-V have you seen weigh 3900 lbs? All I've seen is 4200+ and 4300 for the auto.

Razorecko
01-20-09, 03:03 PM
I guess you've never road coursed any of the AMG models.
The 369 trq and light weight of the M5 definitely kept it close to the V with almost 200 more trq!


The modified E55 with similar results to the ground and lighter weight would have the V2 in it's mirror on most tracks.


Norm

Uhm yea and it also had the SMG dual clutch trans while the V had the manual trans. That gives the smg the edge. And the m5 costs what ? 30k more. People take their bmw's on a road coarse not an AMG.

concorso
01-20-09, 03:10 PM
The modified E55 with similar results to the ground and lighter weight would have the V2 in it's mirror on most tracks.
Norm A stock suspension E55 is a wallowing unpredictable car on the track. I don't doubt it may be fine with modified suspension. I have no experience with the E63, but Ive heard its worse then the E55 on track, less power with negligible gains in handling...

Heavychevy1
01-20-09, 03:47 PM
I guess you've never road coursed any of the AMG models.
The 369 trq and light weight of the M5 definitely kept it close to the V with almost 200 more trq!


The modified E55 with similar results to the ground and lighter weight would have the V2 in it's mirror on most tracks.


Norm

Actually I have tracked an AMG, the slushbox is aweful, and the paddles are even slower than the auto. I've driven the black series too, though not on track and it's automatic is tons more advanced than the older S/C mercs.

The E60 M5 beat the E55 by over 2+ seconds in almost every comparison they had on a track. Horsepower is not the answer for the AMG, it's got plenty enough to break the tires loose.

The M5 also revs well over 8k rpm, which is a HUGE benefit on a road course, and yet the V2 still beats it.

The older AMG's were crappy track cars, they'd overheat real fast, they tossed and turned in the corners, and had too much torque. Torque is of little to NO benefit on the road course. It's actually harmful when traction is an issue which at these power levels and on street tires is ALWAYS an issue.

On the track HP and revs reign supreme.

For example F1 800hp - 250 tq - 18k rpms.

Luna.
01-20-09, 05:00 PM
On the track HP and revs reign supreme.

For example F1 800hp - 250 tq - 18k rpms.

/threadjack on

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to tracking cars.

Please explain that, I'd be interested in reading more.

/threadjack off

NormV
01-20-09, 09:29 PM
Audi R-10's are not fast race cars as they make too much torque for a turbo diesel! :)

Norm


Actually I have tracked an AMG, the slushbox is aweful, and the paddles are even slower than the auto. I've driven the black series too, though not on track and it's automatic is tons more advanced than the older S/C mercs.

The E60 M5 beat the E55 by over 2+ seconds in almost every comparison they had on a track. Horsepower is not the answer for the AMG, it's got plenty enough to break the tires loose.

The M5 also revs well over 8k rpm, which is a HUGE benefit on a road course, and yet the V2 still beats it.

The older AMG's were crappy track cars, they'd overheat real fast, they tossed and turned in the corners, and had too much torque. Torque is of little to NO benefit on the road course. It's actually harmful when traction is an issue which at these power levels and on street tires is ALWAYS an issue.

On the track HP and revs reign supreme.

For example F1 800hp - 250 tq - 18k rpms.

NormV
01-20-09, 09:30 PM
I betcha he knows V T E C!!

Norm


/threadjack on

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to tracking cars.

Please explain that, I'd be interested in reading more.

/threadjack off

NormV
01-20-09, 09:46 PM
The key to getting down the straight away the fastest is acceleration out of a turn. Just like the drag strip, the lower the torque is in the operating the better given similar peaks.

If you don't have torque if displacement is constant you add extra ratios and change the gearing. Or raise the operating limit.

Look at Ducati's V-twin on Europe's short circuits. The V-twin's torque won the races coming out of the turns the high rpms bikes never had a chance to wind out. Then everyone followed with V-twins.

Norm

jjsC6
01-20-09, 10:40 PM
Internet racing is so much more fun than bench racing. All it takes to win an internet race is a keyboard!:histeric:

darjae
01-20-09, 10:49 PM
Internet racing is so much more fun than bench racing. All it takes to win an internet race is a keyboard!:histeric:

I was thinking the same thing.....I really want to think of some insane title to start a thread to see the flames and netRacing! :)

concorso
01-21-09, 11:49 AM
Audi R-10's are not fast race cars as they make too much torque for a turbo diesel! :)

Norm I remember reading articles about the testing of the R10 about 5 years ago. They were saying then that the power delivery of the TDI made that car sketchy, and the extra weight of the engine meant that the team couldnt mess around with ballasts to change the handling characteristics of the car, since the R10 was allready about 50 kg's overweight. There was even speculation that the reason the minimum weight for that class was raised was to allow the R10 to compete better...The advantages of the TDI are a broad tq band, better mileage, and better durability.

Heavychevy1
01-23-09, 11:46 AM
/threadjack on

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to tracking cars.

Please explain that, I'd be interested in reading more.

/threadjack off



It's a very long and detailed explanation but the short of it is that if you look at a dyno graph, cars make more torqque in the lower rpm ranges and then cross somewhere in the middle to upper RPM ranges and HP takes over as the primary force powering the car.

In an F1 car you have 800+ hp and only 1900 lbs. Imagine how hard that is to keep traction for. And though the F1 cars produce tons of downforce you have to be going really fast to use all of it. At slow speeds you are still relying on mechanical (non aero) grip, meaning your suspension and tires.

Since primary goal in road racing is putting as much usable power down at all times. Obviously exiting a corner is when you'll be going the slowest, but you likely have a lot of turning input which combined with too much throttle will break your rear tires loose (power oversteer). So what you do is make a higher reving car with less torque so you only really reach lots of power in the high rpm range when you're going fast enough to make it difficult/impossible to power oversteer.

Torque is the king of burnouts and power oversteer especially when your power is much greater than your traction.

Also to be noted is that the higher the revs, the less shifts you make going around the track. Less shifts, as long as you stay in the powerband, equals a faster lap because shifting costs time.

The brilliance of the Z06 is that it instead of high revs, it uses longer gearing which pretty much does the same thing and helps to put power down, so now you have torque and less shifts. But on race cars when you have to stay in a particular powerband and have specific gears for certain tracks, you need as many revs as you can get.

Hope this helps, it's brief and I may be off a little in some areas, but that is the jist of it. You dont see road race cars making more torque than hp because they are too hard to drive on track. On the road course HP is king, on the drag strip torque is king (Think drag strip mercedes, road course BMW)

NormV
01-23-09, 01:29 PM
Just to bring some up to speed. R10 is almost 3 years old and has the winnings to back up trq monsters!

The Diesel reflines @ 4000 rpms and makes peak torque from 1750-3000 rpms.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=20&article_id=3400

http://www.championracing.net/2008/the_car/index.htm

concorso
01-23-09, 04:12 PM
Just to bring some up to speed. R10 is almost 3 years old and has the winnings to back up trq monsters!

The Diesel reflines @ 4000 rpms and makes peak torque from 1750-3000 rpms.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=20&article_id=3400

http://www.championracing.net/2008/the_car/index.htmYea, the R10 will be run by private owners this year, wont it? We'll have to see if the new drivers are competent enough. I think the R15 should be ready for this summer...

mighty_quad4
01-23-09, 05:14 PM
It's a very long and detailed explanation but the short of it is that if you look at a dyno graph, cars make more torqque in the lower rpm ranges and then cross somewhere in the middle to upper RPM ranges and HP takes over as the primary force powering the car.

In an F1 car you have 800+ hp and only 1900 lbs. Imagine how hard that is to keep traction for. And though the F1 cars produce tons of downforce you have to be going really fast to use all of it. At slow speeds you are still relying on mechanical (non aero) grip, meaning your suspension and tires.

Since primary goal in road racing is putting as much usable power down at all times. Obviously exiting a corner is when you'll be going the slowest, but you likely have a lot of turning input which combined with too much throttle will break your rear tires loose (power oversteer). So what you do is make a higher reving car with less torque so you only really reach lots of power in the high rpm range when you're going fast enough to make it difficult/impossible to power oversteer.

Torque is the king of burnouts and power oversteer especially when your power is much greater than your traction.

Also to be noted is that the higher the revs, the less shifts you make going around the track. Less shifts, as long as you stay in the powerband, equals a faster lap because shifting costs time.

The brilliance of the Z06 is that it instead of high revs, it uses longer gearing which pretty much does the same thing and helps to put power down, so now you have torque and less shifts. But on race cars when you have to stay in a particular powerband and have specific gears for certain tracks, you need as many revs as you can get.

Hope this helps, it's brief and I may be off a little in some areas, but that is the jist of it. You dont see road race cars making more torque than hp because they are too hard to drive on track. On the road course HP is king, on the drag strip torque is king (Think drag strip mercedes, road course BMW)


Formula1 cars dont have torque because theyre limited to 2.4L displacement. that is why theyre limited on torque. the only way to make a small engine deliver big hp is to turn rpm. that is why they turn 18,000rpm and that is also why they make 800hp at that lvl. its has nothing to do with the engineers and engine builders making small engines with no torque on purpose. those engines only make around 250ft lbs of torque.

the F1 cars are fast because they weigh practically nothing and have very short gearing with extremely close ratio transmissions.

just wanted to add that F1 cars are also capable of producing WELL over 1g in a low speed corner where ground effects do not help.

Heavychevy1
01-23-09, 10:51 PM
Formula1 cars dont have torque because theyre limited to 2.4L displacement. that is why theyre limited on torque. the only way to make a small engine deliver big hp is to turn rpm. that is why they turn 18,000rpm and that is also why they make 800hp at that lvl. its has nothing to do with the engineers and engine builders making small engines with no torque on purpose. those engines only make around 250ft lbs of torque.

the F1 cars are fast because they weigh practically nothing and have very short gearing with extremely close ratio transmissions.

just wanted to add that F1 cars are also capable of producing WELL over 1g in a low speed corner where ground effects do not help.

On slicks a street car can pull well over 1 g in a low speed corner. But they have the weight to make breaking traction much harder than an F1 car. So imagine the difficulty if you had 800 ft lbs or torque trying to exit that corner in an F1 car. They'd be much harder to drive than they already are.

The reason F1 cars are built that way is because it's still the fastest way around the track and safer than big torque too.

Look at the R10, it has 811 ft lbs and over 100 more hp than the Porsche Spyders which only have 273 ft lbs and the spyders still beat the R10's on any track with lots of turns. Because the R10 only had a useful rev range of 5k rpms. The big power of the R10 is only useful on straights and if the ACO didn't limit the size of the gasoline gas tanks to make sure the P1's would beat the P2's the R10's would get raped. Meanwhile the RS Spyders rev to TWICE as many rpms at 10k and hp is the only difference on the straights.

Give the RS spyder and Acura's the same amount of HP and it's curtains for the R10.

NormV
01-24-09, 10:33 AM
...Give the RS spyder and Acura's the same amount of HP and it's curtains for the R10.


Not a valid argument when you comparing two cars in two different classes with different rules which have different rules in the two series they run in, America and Europe. Too much apples and oranges comparison.

Add almost 300 lbs and 300 hp to the Spyder/Acura and you'll have to redesign the race cars. There is a reason both of them are not in LM1. :)

Torque will get you ET at the drag strip in a passenger car. Unless you reduce weight or add gears/change gearing(V2 vs E60 M5 difference) torque-o-matic will win every time. The V2, at least in manual trans, is not geared for utmost performance in the 100 MPH range. The automatic, V2 or E55, with a nice loose converter will win the ET race everytime vs torque-less M5.

Norm

Razorecko
01-24-09, 11:02 AM
Not a valid argument when you comparing two cars in two different classes with different rules which have different rules in the two series they run in, America and Europe. Too much apples and oranges comparison.

Add almost 300 lbs and 300 hp to the Spyder/Acura and you'll have to redesign the race cars. There is a reason both of them are not in LM1. :)

Torque will get you ET at the drag strip in a passenger car. Unless you reduce weight or add gears/change gearing(V2 vs E60 M5 difference) torque-o-matic will win every time. The V2, at least in manual trans, is not geared for utmost performance in the 100 MPH range. The automatic, V2 or E55, with a nice loose converter will win the ET race everytime vs torque-less M5.

Norm

The auto might be more better geared but with the manual you have alot more control in gear selection. I'm sure the manual would have no problem taking the auto on the highway.

Heavychevy1
01-24-09, 02:48 PM
Not a valid argument when you comparing two cars in two different classes with different rules which have different rules in the two series they run in, America and Europe. Too much apples and oranges comparison.

Add almost 300 lbs and 300 hp to the Spyder/Acura and you'll have to redesign the race cars. There is a reason both of them are not in LM1. :)

Torque will get you ET at the drag strip in a passenger car. Unless you reduce weight or add gears/change gearing(V2 vs E60 M5 difference) torque-o-matic will win every time. The V2, at least in manual trans, is not geared for utmost performance in the 100 MPH range. The automatic, V2 or E55, with a nice loose converter will win the ET race everytime vs torque-less M5.

Norm

Too bad we wont get a chance to see the Porsches vs Audi's vs R10 in P1 since 2 have dropped out now.

I agree about torque ET, which is why I said the torque is still the king on the drag strip. But as you saw in the Edmunds test, the M5 was reeling the V2 in on the top end and trapped higher. Maybe this was a poor test for the V2 but I still give the nod to the M5 from 100 up, they are absolute monsters. They just suck at launching, but put get them going and they are a force to be reckoned with. A roll race from about 30 would be very interesting.

Luna.
01-24-09, 02:57 PM
The auto might be more better geared but with the manual you have alot more control in gear selection. I'm sure the manual would have no problem taking the auto on the highway.

Why not gear the manual better?? :hmm:

poor-sha
01-24-09, 03:06 PM
Why not gear the manual better?? :hmm:

Paging RPM...

I'm not sure what exactly folks are complaining about with the V2 gears (is it just the final drive or are they not spaced right?) but I do wonder if one of their alternate TR-6060 gearsets could fix that or possibly improve highway mileage.

Luna.
01-24-09, 03:11 PM
Paging RPM...

I'm not sure what exactly folks are complaining about with the V2 gears (is it just the final drive or are they not spaced right?) but I do wonder if one of their alternate TR-6060 gearsets could fix that or possibly improve highway mileage.

The auto trans CTS-V isn't going to have better RPM than the manual...very confused :hmm:

NormV
01-24-09, 04:12 PM
Torque & hp delivery is different just like most comparisons between 2 valve and 4 valve motors can explain it. Watch a comparison between E55 and M5 and you'll see the M5 sea-sawing between shifts and the E55 pulling seamlessly.

V2 update on Edmunds:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=131206

Norm


Too bad we wont get a chance to see the Porsches vs Audi's vs R10 in P1 since 2 have dropped out now.

I agree about torque ET, which is why I said the torque is still the king on the drag strip. But as you saw in the Edmunds test, the M5 was reeling the V2 in on the top end and trapped higher. Maybe this was a poor test for the V2 but I still give the nod to the M5 from 100 up, they are absolute monsters. They just suck at launching, but put get them going and they are a force to be reckoned with. A roll race from about 30 would be very interesting.

Silverspeed
01-25-09, 10:42 PM
The auto might be more better geared but with the manual you have alot more control in gear selection. I'm sure the manual would have no problem taking the auto on the highway.

I seriously doubt it. These cars are geared EXACTLY the same as the C6 corvette with one exception. The auto in the vette (base) gets a 2.56 rear end, the V2 gets a 3.23. That is a major difference. While it's generally accepted that a non Z51 Mn6 Vette, will pull an auto on the freeway, it's a very slow pull. The V2 auto has an enormous gearing advantage compared to the vette, so I doubt the outcome would be the same. JMO

NormV
01-26-09, 09:46 AM
I seriously doubt it. These cars are geared EXACTLY the same as the C6 corvette with one exception. The auto in the vette (base) gets a 2.56 rear end, the V2 gets a 3.23. That is a major difference. While it's generally accepted that a non Z51 Mn6 Vette, will pull an auto on the freeway, it's a very slow pull. The V2 auto has an enormous gearing advantage compared to the vette, so I doubt the outcome would be the same. JMO

Gearing and differentials remain the same but the torque converter does not. In modern day electronic cars it seldom is fulling applied or locked. This is the advantage to the automatic. Consider it almost VVT if it is loose from the factory. Anyone know the rating on V2 auto? Can't forget the infamous torque spike as a result of an up shift between gears. It can play havoc with trap speed numbers making them look larager than they are. :)

Norm

Razorecko
01-26-09, 10:41 AM
The nm limit on that 6spd slushbox is near the edge i'm guessing...

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:FD_1Xn_jpawJ:media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2009/Spec%2520Sheet/Transmissions/2009%2520Automatics/09_6L50_MYB_n.xls+Hydra-matic+6L50+nm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
( ^ not V2 version )

I expect tons of automatic trans failures once people start modding away. Unless they come up with mods for the tranny's like setrab coolers,etc.

Silverspeed
01-26-09, 01:13 PM
Gearing and differentials remain the same but the torque converter does not. In modern day electronic cars it seldom is fulling applied or locked. This is the advantage to the automatic. Consider it almost VVT if it is loose from the factory. Anyone know the rating on V2 auto? Can't forget the infamous torque spike as a result of an up shift between gears. It can play havoc with trap speed numbers making them look larager than they are. :)

Norm

What's the difference in the torque converters between the C6 and The CTS-V? I'd be willing to bet the have the exact same stall and are of almost identical design.

NormV
01-26-09, 02:54 PM
I'm wondering too. With the V being almost 1,000 lbs heavier than the C6, I don't see them being too close. Is there a tow rating on either transmission V?

All GM manual transmission cars advertise similar thresholds. That might be sustained nm where they can accept much bigger spikes.




Norm


What's the difference in the torque converters between the C6 and The CTS-V? I'd be willing to bet the have the exact same stall and are of almost identical design.

Luna.
01-26-09, 02:55 PM
Nm..

Hogg
01-26-09, 04:39 PM
the V2 will have a much tighter TC than the Vette will.

if you installed a Vette TC into a CTS-V, you would see ET improvements(traction provided), dropping a CTS-V TC into a Vette, the results would be disappointing. It would be a dog out of the hole.

The CTS-V makes 551 lb/ft torque while the Vette's LS3 makes 424-428 lb/ft.
If the same stall speed is desired, the CTS-V TC will have to be quite a bit tighter than the Vette.
this doesnt even take into account the big weight difference, which would make the CTS-V have an even tighter TC.

The K Factor(stall speed) will be very different between both cars. "The 'K' factor is an engineering term that means the speed of one member divided by the square root of the torque on the same member." This is calculated at stall conditions. On a 298 mm torque converter you can multiply the "K" factor by 14.2574 to get the stall speed.

Kinda like the differences between the old 3.8 NA TC's and the turbo Grand National TA's. The naturally aspirated TC is much looser than the Turbo TC.

The more torque you feed a TC, the higher the TC will stall.

In my Vortec 350 V8 truck, the stock TC stalls to 1700rpm, I took the TC from a V6 truck and installed it. I can now footstall the truck to 2700rpm.
400rpm less shift drop at WOT, and better 1/4 mile and 60ft times.


peace
Hog

GMX322V S/C
01-27-09, 01:12 AM
The nm limit on that 6spd slushbox is near the edge i'm guessing...

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:FD_1Xn_jpawJ:media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2009/Spec%2520Sheet/Transmissions/2009%2520Automatics/09_6L50_MYB_n.xls+Hydra-matic+6L50+nm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
( ^ not V2 version )

I expect tons of automatic trans failures once people start modding away. Unless they come up with mods for the tranny's like setrab coolers,etc.Same with the stock clutch / pressure plate combo for the same reasons.

Razorecko
01-27-09, 03:59 PM
Same with the stock clutch / pressure plate combo for the same reasons.

If the stock clutsh/plate is good enough for the ZR1 than i'm sure it can handle another 100hp+ before going.

GMX322V S/C
01-28-09, 10:11 AM
^ So you're saying GM is de-rating the auto and manual differently. Based on what? Just curious.

Razorecko
01-28-09, 11:12 AM
^ So you're saying GM is de-rating the auto and manual differently. Based on what? Just curious.

I am just stating that any auto slushbox has alot less durability when it comes to 'upping the hp on the said vehicle. Unless you throw in a th400 or a 480le in there it will "go" before the clutch will on the standard tranny.

GMX322V S/C
01-29-09, 07:48 PM
Um, okay. But once again, based on what? Personal experience?

Razorecko
01-29-09, 07:54 PM
Um, okay. But once again, based on what? Personal experience?

Yes. slushbox's are generally not as durable as a manual unless its one of the old school racing trannies i mentioned above.

rw99
01-29-09, 11:43 PM
Yes. slushbox's are generally not as durable as a manual unless its one of the old school racing trannies i mentioned above.

Not counting the clutch in the manual tranny, right? 'Cause that's a piece that gets changed often in a hi-po setup.

Razorecko
01-30-09, 12:14 AM
Not counting the clutch in the manual tranny, right? 'Cause that's a piece that gets changed often in a hi-po setup.

If the clutch is the same as the one in the zr1 than it should take another 100hp and still have a decent 40-60k lifespan. But thats something we'll know for sure once people start modding. That goes for both trannies

NormV
01-31-09, 03:55 PM
...but I still give the nod to the M5 from 100 up, they are absolute monsters. They just suck at launching, but put get them going and they are a force to be reckoned with. A roll race from about 30 would be very interesting.

Comparing Road & Track’s data panels of the M5 vs.2009 CTS-V.

100-130 MPH they are dead even. Thirty on up you say? 30-100 MPH maybe the M5 would show us Vanos, nope, one half of a second behind the V. Maybe 30-130(the M5 is finished by it’s speed limiter in 32 more MPH’s – we’re running out of scenarios!), still half second behind the V2. Both are manual transmission just tested at different venues. The V2 is in overdrive, 1.00:1, from 99 MPH on up where the M5 has the gear advantage and still cannot get “the nod” over the V2. M5 doesn’t see overdrive until 153 MPH.

I give up in showing you what torque will do, especially in lower gears where more time is spent. :)

Another interesting tidbit is the V carries it’s almost 150 lbs. difference over it’s front wheels. But braking distances are within feet. Slightly lower ambient temps and higher barometric pressure during the V test. Compare the M6 with a 250 lbs does to both of them is pretty impressive.



M5 placed 3rd overall behind MB and Audi:

http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/bmw/m5/2007_bmw_m5/bmw_m5_comparison_test+type-reviews_by_make+mode-collection+id-259.html

M5 test sheet:

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/2977/38913/version/1/file/0702_bmwm5_comparo_ts.pdf

2009 CTS-V

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2009_cadillac_cts_v_road_test


CTS-V test sheet:

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/119736/1624266/version/2/file/2009+Cadillac+CTS-V+-+Spec+Sheet.pdf

Norm

Heavychevy1
01-31-09, 05:24 PM
I hope you are done because you haven't proven anything. I've never said that torque wasn't the best to have in a straight line now did I???

Much of the V's lead was obtained at the launch between 0-60, which would be erased in a rolling start. No one has argued that the V couldn't launch better. The other half is torque and hp advantage up to 90 mph. They are then even until about 120 when the M5 makes up all of that distance in the range of 20 mph, simply walks the V in short order and would have passed it before they got to any limiter. And BMW is now raising the limiter from the factory. Start them from a Roll and run them to 150 the M5 will win.

Now let's not leave out the fact that not only does the V have a huge torque advantage but it also has a big weight/hp advantage too. Let's even out the that ratio and give the M5 536 hp and try again from a roll. If you are to isolate the torque as the difference you have to keep all of the other factors the same now don't you? What do you think would happen then.

Now let's get to the road course where pretty much non of this matters any ways, with the M5 you can get on the gas sooner exiting a corner because you don't have too much torque ready to break your tires loose. The V has a much better suspension and yet the M5 is still right there on the track, with less hp and MUCH less torque yet the difference is minimal.

Put a lower displcement high revving N/A 427 in the V with a 8400 rpm limiter (556 hp and 400 or so torque) to make everything else equal and it would spank the supercharged version easily.

Hell, put the Z06 with it's much less than ZR-1 torque on ZR-1 tires and give it the same weight/power ratio and the ZR-1 gets raped too.










Comparing Road & Track’s data panels of the M5 vs.2009 CTS-V.

100-130 MPH they are dead even. Thirty on up you say? 30-100 MPH maybe the M5 would show us Vanos, nope, one half of a second behind the V. Maybe 30-130(the M5 is finished by it’s speed limiter in 32 more MPH’s – we’re running out of scenarios!), still half second behind the V2. Both are manual transmission just tested at different venues. The V2 is in overdrive, 1.00:1, from 99 MPH on up where the M5 has the gear advantage and still cannot get “the nod” over the V2. M5 doesn’t see overdrive until 153 MPH.

I give up in showing you what torque will do, especially in lower gears where more time is spent. :)

Another interesting tidbit is the V carries it’s almost 150 lbs. difference over it’s front wheels. But braking distances are within feet. Slightly lower ambient temps and higher barometric pressure during the V test. Compare the M6 with a 250 lbs does to both of them is pretty impressive.



M5 placed 3rd overall behind MB and Audi:

http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/bmw/m5/2007_bmw_m5/bmw_m5_comparison_test+type-reviews_by_make+mode-collection+id-259.html

M5 test sheet:

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/2977/38913/version/1/file/0702_bmwm5_comparo_ts.pdf

2009 CTS-V

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2009_cadillac_cts_v_road_test


CTS-V test sheet:

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/119736/1624266/version/2/file/2009+Cadillac+CTS-V+-+Spec+Sheet.pdf

Norm

NormV
01-31-09, 08:12 PM
I hope you are done because you haven't proven anything. I've never said that torque wasn't the best to have in a straight line now did I???

Much of the V's lead was obtained at the launch between 0-60, which would be erased in a rolling start. No one has argued that the V couldn't launch better. The other half is torque and hp advantage up to 90 mph. They are then even until about 120 when the M5 makes up all of that distance in the range of 20 mph, simply walks the V in short order and would have passed it before they got to any limiter. And BMW is now raising the limiter from the factory. Start them from a Roll and run them to 150 the M5 will win.

Now let's not leave out the fact that not only does the V have a huge torque advantage but it also has a big weight/hp advantage too. Let's even out the that ratio and give the M5 536 hp and try again from a roll. If you are to isolate the torque as the difference you have to keep all of the other factors the same now don't you? What do you think would happen then.

Now let's get to the road course where pretty much non of this matters any ways, with the M5 you can get on the gas sooner exiting a corner because you don't have too much torque ready to break your tires loose. The V has a much better suspension and yet the M5 is still right there on the track, with less hp and MUCH less torque yet the difference is minimal.

Put a lower displcement high revving N/A 427 in the V with a 8400 rpm limiter (556 hp and 400 or so torque) to make everything else equal and it would spank the supercharged version easily.

Hell, put the Z06 with it's much less than ZR-1 torque on ZR-1 tires and give it the same weight/power ratio and the ZR-1 gets raped too.

V test sheet:

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/119739/1624291/version/1/file/2009+Cadillac+CTS-V+-+Test+Sheet.pdf

M5 takes 14.4 seconds vs 13.2 for the V 120 MPH, how is that even? Do you know how many feet that is at 120 MPH? Now the M5 has to race until 150 to beat a 09 V? You got data for that? There is no option to raise the limiter from bmwusa.com. And how do you know the V has a better suspension than the M5?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Corvette forum.
11-03-2007, 07:38 PM #1
heavychevy
CF Senior Member



My Corvette Photos
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: white ga Clutch out (each gear) while heel toeing????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does any one do this? I a noob to heel toeing in general, only about 4 events since I started doing it on track. So as of now, I'm on blip from current gear to turn gear no matter what gear I started in (I.E. 5th -> one huge blip -> 3rd) I havent yet become comfortable with going all the way down through the gears.

Secondly Is there any significant advantage to going through all gears as opposed to one blip?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You learned allot in one season? Personally didn't think you knew what your talking about, road course or drag strip from the begining. Go back to the Corvette forum with your theories instead of wasting band width here! You have not support any of your theories with facts.

Norm

Heavychevy1
02-01-09, 01:30 AM
I meant choosing a time gap, say between 100 and 130, the cars are dead even taking 6.5 seconds to get there. The V2 gets to 120 mph .4 faster but then the M5 really starts to walk it down. It takes pretty much all of the 1.2 second difference the V2 had (from 0-120) by the time they go from 120-140.

If you notice the Captions on the M5 sheet, it says the traction control was the hindering factor on the launch, I think when that test was taken it was before BMW owners complained and made them allow it to be disabled. But BMW had no intentions of putting a manual in the M5, they only did it because of lawsuits. And made it so you couldn't turn off the traction control. The SMG is quite a bit faster and 80-90% of M5's are SMG.

So the V2 got .4 before they got to 60 because of a crappy launch. Then with more torque and hp it gained another .8 by the time the cars got to 120. Then the M5 took over and walked it.

The magnetic suspension has already proven itself to be better than any basic strut combo suspension based on the results. It's more advanced, quicker adjusting and more adaptable to it's surroundings.

But the point is that minus a launch and with equal weight to power, the extra torque is NON BENEFICIAL on a road course vs a higher revving, similarly powered motor.

Like I said a 36 hp bump on the M5 and the V will still win drag races because the M5 will still suck at launching, but other than that the M5 will win.


V test sheet:

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/119739/1624291/version/1/file/2009+Cadillac+CTS-V+-+Test+Sheet.pdf

M5 takes 14.4 seconds vs 13.2 for the V 120 MPH, how is that even? Do you know how many feet that is at 120 MPH? Now the M5 has to race until 150 to beat a 09 V? You got data for that? There is no option to raise the limiter from bmwusa.com. And how do you know the V has a better suspension than the M5?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Corvette forum.
11-03-2007, 07:38 PM #1
heavychevy
CF Senior Member



My Corvette Photos
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: white ga Clutch out (each gear) while heel toeing????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does any one do this? I a noob to heel toeing in general, only about 4 events since I started doing it on track. So as of now, I'm on blip from current gear to turn gear no matter what gear I started in (I.E. 5th -> one huge blip -> 3rd) I havent yet become comfortable with going all the way down through the gears.

Secondly Is there any significant advantage to going through all gears as opposed to one blip?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You learned allot in one season? Personally didn't think you knew what your talking about, road course or drag strip from the begining. Go back to the Corvette forum with your theories instead of wasting band width here! You have not support any of your theories with facts.

Norm

Heavychevy1
02-01-09, 01:52 AM
And one other thing, I was thinking these were tested on the same day. These cars are too close to compare tests from 3 years apart. Who knows what conditions were going on. That is garbage to even try and make that comparison.

We do know that edmunds tested the two on the same day and though the V2 ran the faster quarter mile time as expected, the M5 was moving faster at the line and they hadnt gotten to 120 mph yet.

NormV
02-01-09, 08:41 AM
And one other thing, I was thinking these were tested on the same day. These cars are too close to compare tests from 3 years apart. Who knows what conditions were going on. That is garbage to even try and make that comparison.

We do know that edmunds tested the two on the same day and though the V2 ran the faster quarter mile time as expected, the M5 was moving faster at the line and they hadnt gotten to 120 mph yet.

Since you didn't learn it on the Vette forum; the 1/4 mile trap speed used my Edmunds, and a drag strip, uses the average 66 feet to determine trap speed for the 1/4 mile. Not "the line". So the actual ending speed for a car trapping at 115 MPH, if you've been down the strip, is well over 120 MPH. M5 is rpm limited in 3rd at about 129 MPH and right in the heart of it's peaky power band. That why there is a spike in the data and not a prediction of future progress. Adding a $5,000 exhaust system for the M5 will just skew the numbers more with more peak power and hardly any torque.

Have any idea what the torque is after a 3-4 shift on the M5?

Watch Edmunds video. The M5 barely squeals the tires, not the wheel spin that you talk about from a start.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/MediaNav/articleId=136636/firstNav=Gallery/videoId=20253539

I thought you said too much torque coming out of turn would cause the tires to spin in a car like the V and the M5 with less torque the throttle could be applied earlier...looks like your theory doesn't hold up as the M5 gets smoked down the straight away by guess what...torque!

"The VBox recorded a top speed of 104.8 mph for the M5 in this section."

"Caddy flew through the speed trap at a crushing 107.5 mph and stopped on a dime for the approaching corner."

That is 3 MPH in one short straight away!

Norm

CVP33
02-01-09, 11:53 AM
I think that we all agree that the M5 is a great car and superior to the V in every way except:

cost
looks
acceleration
braking
handling
nurburgring times

Other than that it's a great car.:histeric:

Heavychevy1
02-01-09, 12:15 PM
My goodness man why are you so desperate to prove something that you are failing so miserably at?

I understand the 66 feet (3 points avg) rule and regardless the M5 is traveling faster at the end of the 1/4 mile. Now about that Edmunds video.

#1 That is an SMG with launch control, which is why there is only a chirp of the tires at the launch. You can hear the subsequent chirps 2-3 shift that is characteristic of the SMG. But if you look at the main video you can plainly see that even with LC the SMG was spinning tires like crazy until they finally got one right. But you must have missed that part....................


#2 It's not a manual where you have to find the right slippage of the clutch to get off the line. And finding the right launch in the manual is very hard to do when you have TC that will cut the power dramatically if you leave too many RPM's on the table when you engage the clutch. So had they tried this with a Manual and TC enabled it would have been slower in trap speed and ET like that ancient test you used before.

3 mph can be all from one corner exit which is an attribute of the CORNERING ABILITY, BETTER WEIGHT-POWER RATIO and SUSPENSION ADVANTAGE of the V2:

V2 .98 g on the skid pad vs .88 for the M5
V2 69.2 mph on the slalom vs 68.9 mph for the M5
V2 104 ft 60-0 braking vs M5 110 ft


This tells me that even though it's heavier it puts power down better because it launches faster, it brakes better, and handles better. WHICH IS THE SUSPENSION!!!!!!!

In case you don't have much experience on the road course, if a car is that much better at braking than another and they have similar acceleration, the better braking car will get higher mph on the straights because you are on the gas for longer before applying the brakes. Combine that with a likely better exit speed BECAUSE OF THE SUSPENSION, and it's easy to see more mph on the straight. Not to mention the V2 also has a 36 hp advantage in the weight/power ratio category that you keep leaving out.

Notice they said the V handled the turns better and inspired more confidence by making the road feel smoother. What can that be attributed to? You guessed it THE SUSPENSION!!! The M5 still showed faster (speed, not ET) acceleration in the 1/4 mile, most likely picking it up on the back end and because a slow launch doesn't hurt your top speed too much.

The V2 is faster, but torque is only the reason it's faster in first part of the 1/4 mile. Has nothing to do with why it's faster on the road course. May even be a hinderance in that area


Don't get me wrong, I am on the side of the V2 here as I plan to get one (and beat M5's with it), but I haven't received my caddy colored glasses in the mail just yet.

NormV
02-01-09, 03:21 PM
Look at the data for 5-60 mph. Think either car is spinning tires? That is torque baby and the M5 doesn't have it in this area. Any race you mention from a roll will go to the torque monster. Even the high gear, low mph roll on the V wins. Stop speaking in generalizations give us stats or a video to support your theory.

You'll have to show me one static lateral load test where BMW won a comparison test. You'll be hard pressed to find one as their suspensions are engineered for transitioning rather than all out lateral load.

Still can't believe you said the M5 doesn't have that good of a suspension. Beemer boys would knocking you over the head with a big kraut!

You read too many magazines and watch too much racing to comment on what is actually going on. You just repeat what you read and hear.

Braking result from C&D have them both in the 160's from 70 mph. Since you probably never had a problem with brake taper on your Corvette or you'd know that brakes are never consistent through a whole session on a road course. This true for most street cars. The end of brake zones in most races is where passing is made there is usually not a big advantage to one team or another but the torque and exit line required in the turn preceding the straight away that is the key. I'd advise not doing anymore Corvette Museum events but one that gives some class time on the basics. Audi, BMW, or MB events usually will not let your experience level on the track without some class time and some exercise drills.



If the M5 doesn't have the suspension to put down the power for the one big straight away on a typical road course, it doesn't look like it will be winning any road course comparisons.

Norm

P.S. Here is one for you to ponder going back in time. 400 trq > 369 trq and only .15 difference at Putnam. Is zit zee torque ord de zuspenzion?! :)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/entry_luxury/cadillac_cts_v_road_test+t-driving_impression+page-4.html

Heavychevy1
02-01-09, 10:47 PM
Data for 5-60? You still havent said anything worth responding to. I've already said multiple times that the V is faster on the low end. What is your point? There is no track on this earth where you are going 5 mph.

I've never said a BMW won a lateral load test, in fact I've been praising the V's suspension this whole time which seemed to just be determined to say the opposite of what I'm saying.

I also never said the M's suspension wasn't that good, I said the V's was much better and per the magzines you are quoting, they tend to agree.

I READ TOO MANY MAGAZINES????? HHAHAHAHAHAH You brought the mags into this and tests that were done three years apart no-less.

You have no idea who you're talking to, if you actually got on track with me you'd know you're not talking to any track rookie. How can you say no team has an advantage in the braking zone, that is laughable to say the least. Porsche's have gotten wide acclaim for being better on the brakes than most. And this is street cars, with different street level braking systems. The V stop from 60 mph 6 feet shorter than the M5 IN THE SAME TEST ON THE SAME DAY which is the ONLY TIME IT MATTERS!!!!! Because that is the only time the surface is the exact same, testing in different conditions with different levels of heat in the tires wont give you anything accurate for jack.

M's have always been very tail happy and poor at launching and making the best use of their power. They were made for the autobahn especially the M5 and M6. Maybe you should try driving them before you make assessments. They are way too tail happy for low torque high revving machines.


And here you go adding another magazine and you accuse me of all read and no race........


You are getting way too desperate now, better stop while you're behind.

NormV
02-01-09, 11:16 PM
Torque rules and it's each manufacturer focus. That is why all the DOHC use variable valve timing and not rely on upper rpm power as they'd lose the race.

So you need the exact same conditions for the M5 to shine? Your digging deep and coming up dry.

Is it Porsche brakes or weight balance front/rear that give them the edge?

You give allot of generalizations with very little content to back it up. Like give the nod to the M5 from 100 on up, then it was 120 the M5 was putting the V behind it, then stateing that the M5 would pull the V but the magazine test didn't test that area.

Anything else you'd like to make up? Did you get your butt handed to you by one of these?

I've had experience with them all and have over a decade of experience to back it up now teaching others. Not only do I know the cars but the attitudes that each draw. I know your kind and would leave the right seat if you drive like you type.

Norm

Heavychevy1
02-02-09, 05:10 PM
Torque rules and it's each manufacturer focus. That is why all the DOHC use variable valve timing and not rely on upper rpm power as they'd lose the race.

So you need the exact same conditions for the M5 to shine? Your digging deep and coming up dry.

Is it Porsche brakes or weight balance front/rear that give them the edge?

You give allot of generalizations with very little content to back it up. Like give the nod to the M5 from 100 on up, then it was 120 the M5 was putting the V behind it, then stateing that the M5 would pull the V but the magazine test didn't test that area.

Anything else you'd like to make up? Did you get your butt handed to you by one of these?

I've had experience with them all and have over a decade of experience to back it up now teaching others. Not only do I know the cars but the attitudes that each draw. I know your kind and would leave the right seat if you drive like you type.

Norm

Porsche weight balance gives them the edge..............................

:bwahaharoll4vu::bwahaharoll4vu:

Funny you should mention that because Porsche has been using high revving NA engines with low torque numbers for the longest to win races. The RSR and Spyders are the prime examples.


You are still comparing an obviously slower and one of the slowest tests ever for an M5 from 3 years ago to a recent test of the V. The M5 in this case trapped 2 mph lower than the V whereas on the SAME DAY the M5 has trapped higher. Is that not enough data for you? Not more consistent??? Do you want to wager that the SAME DAY M5 started closing the gap a lot sooner than 120 mph if it was already traveling faster at 115 mph?

I tell you, your reasoning could use some help. I'm responding using the same data you are using and yet I'm the only one making stuff up.......

And I don't use average instructors. If you don't have some legit racing experience, you aren't qualified to instruct me unless I know you very well or don't know the track at all. Any Tom can get instructing credentials. I've had them offered to me on several occasions. So you wouldn't have a chance to be in my right seat unless I'm sure you know what you are doing or you wanted a ride as a passenger (not instructor).

Luna.
02-02-09, 08:46 PM
What are you guys debating again?

I'm so confused...

Heavychevy1
02-02-09, 09:00 PM
Norm seems to have gotten it mixed up but he's trying to say that the only reason the CTS-V is faster than the M5 is because of torque.

But I say BS, it's only because of torque that the V is faster under 100 mph. After that the M5 is as fast and eventually faster. On the road course the M5 is closer than it should be because it uses a preferrable method of power application in corners. High revving, low torque vs avg/low revving high torque.

The jist of it is that I say HP wins road racing and torque wins drag strip and he says torque wins everything.

NormV
02-02-09, 10:15 PM
...How can you say no team has an advantage in the braking zone, that is laughable to say the least. Porsche's have gotten wide acclaim for being better on the brakes than most....


Your so secretive it's scary!

This is like talking to the dry wall, nothing get reverated back.

Still haven't proved your credentials.

Why is the M5 a quarter of a second behind the V at the Nordschleife when a 8 minute time the average speed is 96 MPH? That's in the give the "nod" to the M5 area of 100+ MPH. They are hitting over 150 MPH and the M5 is not in the picture.

Here some more data to support the wake of torque that rules from 0-on up! From Monticello(R&T) comparision on the same day. The M5 driver even made a choice to drive SMG vs. manual to get the competitive advantage. Wasn't enough!

Click on the video and listen to the end:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/2008/W31/073020081955109533.jpg


..."Heinricy is confident his 6-speed manual V can run with the ultra-racy paddle-shifted M5. Looking at the stats, the V has a big advantage with 56 more horsepower, 168 lb.-ft. more torque and only a 150-lb. weight penalty. He puts the power to good use and stretches the legs of his V to 149.18 mph and runs a 2:45.55. Our Vbox GPS data shows that both drivers and cars are performing nearly identical laps..."

No "nods" to the M5 in the 115-120+ MPH area, is there when they are pushing 150!

Or the 6 seconds the V put on the lighter M6 at VIR during C&D Lighting Lap where you can easily see 120 plus twice a lap?

The torqueless wonder just is not supporting your theories. Not unless you have something to prove M5 rules push rod torque? I have not seen it yet.

Ultimate driving machine...looking for the ultimate driver!

Norm

P.S. So what gives a street Porsche the advantage, again?

NormV
02-02-09, 10:31 PM
Norm seems to have gotten it mixed up but he's trying to say that the only reason the CTS-V is faster than the M5 is because of torque.

But I say BS, it's only because of torque that the V is faster under 100 mph. After that the M5 is as fast and eventually faster. On the road course the M5 is closer than it should be because it uses a preferrable method of power application in corners. High revving, low torque vs avg/low revving high torque.

The jist of it is that I say HP wins road racing and torque wins drag strip and he says torque wins everything.

Read the post above. The M5/M6 is close but never wins any of the high speed stuff! Your reading into the data when there is none. You also look at a snap shot of 10-15 MPH and think that is it. The M cars are only putting 300 trq to the wheels. They make it close by doing this for almost 5000 RPMs. GM finally has them beat, but if M ever comes out with TTV8 it'll be a new game because the drive train has to be robust to handle the trq, especially from a turbo.

Norm

Heavychevy1
02-02-09, 10:41 PM
You want all these definitive answers and you aren't giving any. I simply said that Porsche's have been said to be great on the brakes by many in the racing world only to refute you saying NO ONE has advantage under braking in racing. That is hilarious to say the least.

The M5 was down 56 hp and 168 torque with worse handling and braking per seperate tests and still only .4 behind the V2. I dont see why it's so hard for you to understand that the M5 with so many disadvantages did great to be so close. And because that huge torque advantage means pretty much nothing on the road course.

Same track same day tests results are showing that the V2 isn't that far ahead of the M5 despite the HUGE torque advantage.

You are making up anything you can find now, there is no need to continue this discussion.


Your so secretive it's scary!

This is like talking to the dry wall, nothing get reverated back.

Still haven't proved your credentials.

Why is the M5 a quarter of a second behind the V at the Nordschleife when a 8 minute time the average speed is 96 MPH? That's in the give the "nod" to the M5 area of 100+ MPH. They are hitting over 150 MPH and the M5 is not in the picture.

Here some more data to support the wake of torque that rules from 0-on up! From Monticello(R&T) comparision on the same day. The M5 driver even made a choice to drive SMG vs. manual to get the competitive advantage. Wasn't enough!

Click on the video and listen to the end:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/2008/W31/073020081955109533.jpg


..."Heinricy is confident his 6-speed manual V can run with the ultra-racy paddle-shifted M5. Looking at the stats, the V has a big advantage with 56 more horsepower, 168 lb.-ft. more torque and only a 150-lb. weight penalty. He puts the power to good use and stretches the legs of his V to 149.18 mph and runs a 2:45.55. Our Vbox GPS data shows that both drivers and cars are performing nearly identical laps..."

No "nods" to the M5 in the 115-120+ MPH area, is there when they are pushing 150!

Or the 6 seconds the V put on the lighter M6 at VIR during C&D Lighting Lap where you can easily see 120 plus twice a lap?

The torqueless wonder just is not supporting your theories. Not unless you have something to prove M5 rules push rod torque? I have not seen it yet.

Ultimate driving machine...looking for the ultimate driver!

Norm

P.S. So what gives a street Porsche the advantage, again?

Razorecko
02-02-09, 10:50 PM
You want all these definitive answers and you aren't giving any. I simply said that Porsche's have been said to be great on the brakes by many in the racing world only to refute you saying NO ONE has advantage under braking in racing. That is hilarious to say the least.

The M5 was down 56 hp and 168 torque with worse handling and braking per seperate tests and still only .4 behind the V2. I dont see why it's so hard for you to understand that the M5 with so many disadvantages did great to be so close. And because that huge torque advantage means pretty much nothing on the road course.

Same track same day tests results are showing that the V2 isn't that far ahead of the M5 despite the HUGE torque advantage.

You are making up anything you can find now, there is no need to continue this discussion.

It could be possible because the m5 had smg and the cts-v was a 6spd manual. No way will the stick be nearly as quickly shifting as an smg trans. And around the track the manual will lose alot of time/ground to a much faster shifting vehicle. Now if it was auto vs auto i would expect the v to have had a much greater lead.

NormV
02-02-09, 11:12 PM
So no "nods" to the M5 at any speed? M5/M6 didn't win...in any of my points. Excuses, excuses! :)

Just say "uncle" and be done.

Not sure if the no lift throttle would be faster or not. Today's electronics have allot to be desired in powertrain control.

Norm


You want all these definitive answers and you aren't giving any. I simply said that Porsche's have been said to be great on the brakes by many in the racing world only to refute you saying NO ONE has advantage under braking in racing. That is hilarious to say the least.

The M5 was down 56 hp and 168 torque with worse handling and braking per seperate tests and still only .4 behind the V2. I dont see why it's so hard for you to understand that the M5 with so many disadvantages did great to be so close. And because that huge torque advantage means pretty much nothing on the road course.

Same track same day tests results are showing that the V2 isn't that far ahead of the M5 despite the HUGE torque advantage.

You are making up anything you can find now, there is no need to continue this discussion.

Heavychevy1
02-03-09, 06:44 AM
It could be possible because the m5 had smg and the cts-v was a 6spd manual. No way will the stick be nearly as quickly shifting as an smg trans. And around the track the manual will lose alot of time/ground to a much faster shifting vehicle. Now if it was auto vs auto i would expect the v to have had a much greater lead.



I'd be willing to bet Bill ditched the Manual in the M5 because or two ot three reasons.

#1 It still had traction control that couldn't be disabled.
#2 Because he knows not to be faster in the manual.
#2 The car was designed for SMG and manual was an afterthought. In fact it was tossed in the M5 without any development from the previous model M5 and only for the North American market because of complaints.

Since that car was a press car it's very likely that it was an 07 build when they wouldn't allow TC to be disabled.

What we do know is that Bill trimmed 3 seconds or so off his first session lap time as soon as he jumped in the SMG and SMG is certainly not that much faster unless the TC was still on in the manual.

I've driven the SMG trans and it's not smooth at all and the big bang and wheel spin on every shift is not all that great either. It's really not even that fast at shifting but the lack of torque interuption is certainly a help.

But I can also assert that the no lift shift feature, which we've seen John use on video during the other track days is advantageous over a regular manual as well. Basically like powershifting which is certainly on par with SMG.

Point being is we'll never likely get an even test in this matter because one or the other will have an advantage of some sort in the shifting department.

NormV
02-03-09, 08:07 AM
...Point being is we'll never likely get an even test in this matter because one or the other will have an advantage of some sort in the shifting department.

So we can use torque to cover up those inadequacies. Come on say it, U N C L E !!! :)

Norm

Heavychevy1
02-03-09, 09:09 AM
What?


You are clueless. I'd get an M5 just to use it to leave you in the dust at the track.


For road course action NA > FI and HP > Torque end of story.

Seattle CTS-V
02-03-09, 07:26 PM
My own personal experience with low-torque M5's (though I wasn't N/A at the time):

Encountered the M5 at 30sec and 8:30ish. I backed off the M5 in the later encounter in a few spots since I knew I'd run him down in the twisties and get the 'bye'.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bnCE0McTdc&feature=channel_page

You gotta make damn sure you're always in the powerband with that V10 or the mighty push-rod is gonna hunt you down... I've been the ///M driving experience and drove M5/M6's. Awesome cars and a bunch of fun. But if the V2 is anything like my blown V1 then the M5 is gonna be slower with most drivers. Torque is very forgiving and gets you going despite being in the wrong gear (which does happen from time to time).

Heavychevy1
02-03-09, 07:50 PM
That I can agree with.

NormV
02-03-09, 09:31 PM
Good to see you stopping back.

Quite obvious results. What were your trap speeds at thd drag strip in that state of tune? :)


Norm

My own personal experience with low-torque M5's (though I wasn't N/A at the time):

Encountered the M5 at 30sec and 8:30ish. I backed off the M5 in the later encounter in a few spots since I knew I'd run him down in the twisties and get the 'bye'.

YouTube - Cadillac CTS-V Lapping Day at Pacific Raceways (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bnCE0McTdc&feature=channel_page)

You gotta make damn sure you're always in the powerband with that V10 or the mighty push-rod is gonna hunt you down... I've been the ///M driving experience and drove M5/M6's. Awesome cars and a bunch of fun. But if the V2 is anything like my blown V1 then the M5 is gonna be slower with most drivers. Torque is very forgiving and gets you going despite being in the wrong gear (which does happen from time to time).

GMX322V S/C
02-05-09, 12:45 AM
...For road course action NA > FI and HP > Torque end of story.Yeah, those R10 TDI's are pathetic, aren't they? ;)

Heavychevy1
02-05-09, 09:48 AM
Yeah, those R10 TDI's are pathetic, aren't they? ;)



They sure are considering they can only sometimes beat the severely handicapped P2 cars unless there 2 mile long straights.

How many times did we see a P2 car on pole this year in ALMS only to get beat because of having to make and extra pit stop or two. The rules are somewhat different but in no way give an advantage to a P2 car except the turning radius.

Like I said already, even the playing feild and the turbo diesel gets ravashed.



The P2 cars have a 160 lbs weight advantage but they have:

2 inches narrower tire in the back
2100 cc's less displacement (almost half the size in the motor)
2.7 less gallons of fuel


So we can see that the P1 cars have an obvious power advantage having tons more displacement AND a power adder on top of that.

It's a crying shame that the Audi's don't lap the P2 cars every race. Pathetic actually. If the ACO wasn't so in love with turbo diesel, they wouldn't win any races.

NormV
02-05-09, 11:52 AM
...back to 1/4 miles discussion.

So Seattle was running similar full throttle times at the strip with an M5 and you get to the road course where we're using all the operating range and it's a walk in the park? Wasn't even close, you reeled him in the straights.

Another case for torque?

From Seattle's earlier post at the drag strip:

"...2.342 - 13.281 - 112.93 (beat a stock '07 M5 (14.9@108.84))

I spoke to the guy in the M5 quite a bit through the night. He was running almost identical times to me on each run (ie he progressively got faster through the night.) We were literally w/i a tenth of one another all night...except the time we lined up against each other. He said he accidentally started in 2nd gear. My 3rd run was my best and beat his best by one-hundreth of a second. He was also trapping 110-111."

Norm


My own personal experience with low-torque M5's (though I wasn't N/A at the time):

Encountered the M5 at 30sec and 8:30ish. I backed off the M5 in the later encounter in a few spots since I knew I'd run him down in the twisties and get the 'bye'.

YouTube - Cadillac CTS-V Lapping Day at Pacific Raceways (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bnCE0McTdc&feature=channel_page)

You gotta make damn sure you're always in the powerband with that V10 or the mighty push-rod is gonna hunt you down... I've been the ///M driving experience and drove M5/M6's. Awesome cars and a bunch of fun. But if the V2 is anything like my blown V1 then the M5 is gonna be slower with most drivers. Torque is very forgiving and gets you going despite being in the wrong gear (which does happen from time to time).

Heavychevy1
02-05-09, 08:05 PM
You could not be serious in comparing an average DE group to real acceleration........

So I guess if it happens in a DE then it must be true, so me passing C5Z's in an E39 M5 with less torque and 1000 more lbs is legit too. Or what about the Ford GT?


Get real, you definitely couldnt instruct me.



...back to 1/4 miles discussion.

So Seattle was running similar full throttle times at the strip with an M5 and you get to the road course where we're using all the operating range and it's a walk in the park? Wasn't even close, you reeled him in the straights.

Another case for torque?

From Seattle's earlier post at the drag strip:

"...2.342 - 13.281 - 112.93 (beat a stock '07 M5 (14.9@108.84))

I spoke to the guy in the M5 quite a bit through the night. He was running almost identical times to me on each run (ie he progressively got faster through the night.) We were literally w/i a tenth of one another all night...except the time we lined up against each other. He said he accidentally started in 2nd gear. My 3rd run was my best and beat his best by one-hundreth of a second. He was also trapping 110-111."

Norm

NormV
02-05-09, 08:27 PM
Thought for sure I saw the V acclerating faster than the M5 after 100 MPH just like you think the M5 is pulling the V2 just under 115 mph! :)


Norm

Heavychevy1
02-06-09, 12:27 AM
Thought for sure I saw the V acclerating faster than the M5 after 100 MPH just like you think the M5 is pulling the V2 just under 115 mph! :)


Norm


The M5 has pulled the V2 under 115 mph, the trap speeds say so. Taking a modded V1 that trapped 4 mph higher than the M5 in like conditions and then putting them on a road course is as funny as the rest of your dribble.

NormV
02-06-09, 09:12 AM
No need to take this personally.

YouTube - 5th Gear Nissan GTR vs. Porsche 997 Turbo (Bruno Senna)

Norm

gto_in_nc
02-06-09, 01:02 PM
At the risk of getting sucked into an interminable morass here that I will likely regret before I even click "Post Quick Reply", I'd just like to point out that an accelerating car experiences two things that are germaine here -- linear force at the tire/road interface & friction. Period. The force applied is utterly independent of what RPM the engine is turning (or any other "engine factor") and the frictional forces can be assumed to be a fixed function for our purposes. The entire HP curve vs. TQ curve argument is really meaningless because the physics simply doesn't care! (Don't believe me? Just show me where it pops up in Newton's equations of motion...) This is not to say that an engine's output vs. RPM function is not important, because it is, but the HP vs. TQ discussion is truly irrelevant except in regards to describing the shape of the function for force at the tire/road interface. (We can work through the math if anyone is interested.)

There IS, however, a significant fact that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread (although I may have missed it.) The M5 is a good bit more slippery than the V, and this manifests itself as a less rapidly increasing drag function for the M vs. the V as speed increases.

EricVonHa
02-06-09, 02:34 PM
It's all about corner exit... everyone knows that. (if you've actually driven a car to it's limits)

Continue on keyboard warriors! :thumbsup:

NormV
02-06-09, 02:57 PM
Yes, and torque or gearing will determine at what speed it happens.

Gto, you said, "ass-ume". :)


Norm


It's all about corner exit... everyone knows that. (if you've actually driven a car to it's limits)

Continue on keyboard warriors! :thumbsup:

Cadillac Tony
02-06-09, 03:02 PM
E60 M5 Nurburgring Lap time: 8:13

SigmaII CTS-V Nurburgring Lap time: 7:59

[/thread]

:p

gto_in_nc
02-06-09, 04:36 PM
Yes, and torque or gearing will determine at what speed it happens.

Gto, you said, "ass-ume". :)


Norm

LOL! Indeed I did! Meant it, too... ;)

(FWIW, it's the unstated assumptions that bite you on the... well, you know...)


Technically speaking, the key to understanding this problem (at least a first approximation) is instantaneous rear wheel torque as a function of vehicle speed, something that could easily be worked out from a dyno table & a gearing chart. A second approximation would include parasitic forces (which are less for the M5, I believe, as wind resistance becomes the biggie at speed and the M5 is more slippery (Cd of 0.31 vs. 0.36)) Only on subsequent approximations would variations in parasitic forces as a function of engine speed come into play at all.

It's just arithmetic... :)

marktanner
02-06-09, 05:03 PM
There are two more variables that should be mentioned. One is the contribution of the limited slip differential, especially since they may have different locking ratios. Second is the weight balance and weight transfer. They both contribute to being able to put the power down out of a corner. That's why 911's practically leap out of corners, though they may be slow going in. I think the M5 has less front weight bias than the V( as well as less weight). I don't know about the diffs.

Heavychevy1
02-06-09, 07:29 PM
E60 M5 Nurburgring Lap time: 8:13

SigmaII CTS-V Nurburgring Lap time: 7:59

[/thread]

:p

No do not /thread.

The V2 time was conducted by GM engineers with weeks of setup and testing and a GM test driver. Sport Auto, who submitted the lap time for the M5 did a warm-up lap and flying lap and that's it. I bet you if they got Bill Auberlin and some BMW engineers to test that time would be much closer to the V's time. Usually Sport Auto is about 7-8 and as much as 20 seconds off the pace of manufacturer claims.

gto_in_nc
02-06-09, 08:05 PM
No do not /thread.

The V2 time was conducted by GM engineers with weeks of setup and testing and a GM test driver. Sport Auto, who submitted the lap time for the M5 did a warm-up lap and flying lap and that's it. I bet you if they got Bill Auberlin and some BMW engineers to test that time would be much closer to the V's time. Usually Sport Auto is about 7-8 and as much as 20 seconds off the pace of manufacturer claims.

Might wanna take a closer look:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6963

Cadillac Tony
02-06-09, 08:08 PM
I think Horst Von Saurma has just a few (thousand) more laps at the 'Ring than Heinricy does. Heinricy knew the car better, but Von Saurma knows the track better, so it's pretty much a wash.

NormV
02-06-09, 08:31 PM
Too much St. Pauli Girl for you! You have hard time seeing the true when it's right in front of your eyes.

The Germans have built very well designed products but sometime you have to take the Porsche/BMW glasses off every once in awhile.

Norm


No do not /thread.

The V2 time was conducted by GM engineers with weeks of setup and testing and a GM test driver. Sport Auto, who submitted the lap time for the M5 did a warm-up lap and flying lap and that's it. I bet you if they got Bill Auberlin and some BMW engineers to test that time would be much closer to the V's time. Usually Sport Auto is about 7-8 and as much as 20 seconds off the pace of manufacturer claims.

Heavychevy1
02-07-09, 06:33 AM
I think Horst Von Saurma has just a few (thousand) more laps at the 'Ring than Heinricy does. Heinricy knew the car better, but Von Saurma knows the track better, so it's pretty much a wash.

That he does as he has more test laps than most anyone, but one warmup lap and a flyer is not enough. Just wait until sport auto does a supertest on the V. I bet you it will be significantly slower than Cadillacs time. YOU CANNOT RUN A ONE LAP FLYER AND COMPETE WITH MANUFACTURER TIMES.

Not going to happen.


Might wanna take a closer look:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6963

That has already been mentioned, nothing to look at and is actually more beneficial to my side of this debate.

56 more hp and 138 more lb-ft
magnetic suspension
bigger, better brakes with much shorter stopping distances
Wider front tires

Sorry but for only a .4 difference with pro drivers, this could go either way depending on the track type. These cars are very equally matched.

marktanner
02-07-09, 10:18 AM
Since the M5 is the 'Ring Taxi, that car runs many laps per year with an extremely experienced driver. The only mods I am aware of is a full cage, which adds stiffness and weight, but reduces pucker factor, too. There must be some times for this car. Does anyone know them?

gto_in_nc
02-07-09, 11:28 AM
I only entered into this embrolio because there seemed to be some confusion about the physics of motion involved here. Heck! I even offered to do the math! :) Did you even read that post??? I only threw that sarcastic link back to C&D in because you were going on about the M5 would clean the floor with the M5 if Bill were driving in a head-to-head test (or if you were driving or something...); I thought perhaps reading comprehension was a challenge! :)

Here's what bothers me, though. Here are a few of the statements you have made this thread:


The M5 also revs well over 8k rpm, which is a HUGE benefit on a road course, and yet the V2 still beats it.
Torque is of little to NO benefit on the road course.
On the track HP and revs reign supreme.

Show me the free-body diagram...




It's a very long and detailed explanation but the short of it is that if you look at a dyno graph, cars make more torqque in the lower rpm ranges and then cross somewhere in the middle to upper RPM ranges and HP takes over as the primary force powering the car.
Since primary goal in road racing is putting as much usable power down at all times.
On the road course HP is king, on the drag strip torque is king

I think maybe the relationship between torque & HP is misunderstood.




The reason F1 cars are built that way is because it's still the fastest way around the track and safer than big torque too.

Ummm... No. F1 cars are built that way because of design restrictions from F1.




These cars are too close to compare tests from 3 years apart. Who knows what conditions were going on. That is garbage to even try and make that comparison.

Fair enough. How about a heads-up challenge?




The V2 is faster, but torque is only the reason it's faster in first part of the 1/4 mile. Has nothing to do with why it's faster on the road course. May even be a hinderance in that area.

Errr... Ummm... Yeah.




The jist of it is that I say HP wins road racing and torque wins drag strip and he says torque wins everything.




Same track same day tests results are showing that the V2 isn't that far ahead of the M5 despite the HUGE torque advantage.

Another way of saying this is, despite the M5's advantages in weight, balance and aerodynamics (which is really why it recoups some of its losses at higher speeds, BTW), the V's superiour power/weight ratio still puts it ahead on the track.




Point being is we'll never likely get an even test in this matter because one or the other will have an advantage of some sort in the shifting department.

Ah.




For road course action NA > FI and HP > Torque end of story.

The most valid statement is "(s)ince primary goal in road racing is putting as much usable power down at all times." This is absolutely true, with two minor corrections -- drop the word "road" and replace the phrase "putting as much usable power down" to "creating maximum force at the tire/ground interface". Neither the tire nor the road know what RPM the engine is turning and neither care because it is irrelevant. The physics is clear on this one.

The M5 is smaller, lighter, better balanced, has a high-RPM-biased output curve and is more slippery and STILL the V beats it in every contest of speed -- including on a road track, on the same day, with factory-chosen drivers, with either M5 tranny. V A6 beat the M at the 'Ring, too, although that was discounted because they were not the same day or something.

Sounds to me like the M needs more stickers or neon or whatever...


Bottom line is this -- the M5 is a brilliant car with a fabulous engine, excellent handling and superb tossability for a big sedan. The V beats it in every performance category, including on the road course. Multiple tests, multiple testers, multiple cars, multiple transmissions, multiple venues, etc.

The OTHER bottom line is that some people in this thread would greatly benefit from spending time with a physicist, discussing classical mechanics. Newton FTW! :)

ExtraV
02-07-09, 11:29 AM
Geez I hate reading 'Ring threads. There are about 1 billion variables from each time recorded from each car. Different days, different weather, different drivers, different setups, different tires, etc etc etc. It makes as much sense as the BCS football championship.

Heavychevy1
02-07-09, 12:50 PM
I only entered into this embrolio because there seemed to be some confusion about the physics of motion involved here. Heck! I even offered to do the math! :) Did you even read that post??? I only threw that sarcastic link back to C&D in because you were going on about the M5 would clean the floor with the M5 if Bill were driving in a head-to-head test (or if you were driving or something...); I thought perhaps reading comprehension was a challenge! :)

Here's what bothers me, though. Here are a few of the statements you have made this thread:

Never said any such thing, I said were the power - weight ratios the same the M5 could beat the V2 regardless of torque.



Show me the free-body diagram...
huh?





I think maybe the relationship between torque & HP is misunderstood.
HP is a derivative of torque so they are completely related. The shape and duration of the application of hp is the determining factor in which car goes the fastest. But HP is the key figure used.





Ummm... No. F1 cars are built that way because of design restrictions from F1.
Still the fastest way whether you want to acknowledge it or not. 18000 rpm > 140000 rpm with lots of torque. Common sense applies here.




Fair enough. How about a heads-up challenge?

Heads up with whom? My intentions are to get a V2. But I'd be glad to do a heads up challenge were I to get an M5. Better send someone better than Norm though. I'm no slouch.



Another way of saying this is, despite the M5's advantages in weight, balance and aerodynamics (which is really why it recoups some of its losses at higher speeds, BTW), the V's superiour power/weight ratio still puts it ahead on the track.


What about despite all these advantages the V's chassy still handles the weight better in handling, transition, G forces, braking and accelerating (mostly). So despite the paper numbers the V is better suited for track duty because of it's brakes and the magnetic suspension.

Add to that worse weight/power ratio and MUCH MUCH worse weight/tq ratio and it's easy to see which car SHOULD win any comparison and the V has done that so far.


The most valid statement is "(s)ince primary goal in road racing is putting as much usable power down at all times." This is absolutely true, with two minor corrections -- drop the word "road" and replace the phrase "putting as much usable power down" to "creating maximum force at the tire/ground interface". Neither the tire nor the road know what RPM the engine is turning and neither care because it is irrelevant. The physics is clear on this one.

The M5 is smaller, lighter, better balanced, has a high-RPM-biased output curve and is more slippery and STILL the V beats it in every contest of speed -- including on a road track, on the same day, with factory-chosen drivers, with either M5 tranny. V A6 beat the M at the 'Ring, too, although that was discounted because they were not the same day or something.

Sounds to me like the M needs more stickers or neon or whatever...


Bottom line is this -- the M5 is a brilliant car with a fabulous engine, excellent handling and superb tossability for a big sedan. The V beats it in every performance category, including on the road course. Multiple tests, multiple testers, multiple cars, multiple transmissions, multiple venues, etc.

The OTHER bottom line is that some people in this thread would greatly benefit from spending time with a physicist, discussing classical mechanics. Newton FTW! :)

Bottom line is that no one has challenged those observations but the M5 has more disadvantages than advantages as I've already mentioned. So let's not act like we are talking about the underdog here. The V was specifically designed to beat the M5 and it does so, however not so convincingly which means that it's a drivers race any time these to meet on the street, strip or circuit. And for that reason I like my chances in either (asided from the strip, I'm not very good there).

Heavychevy1
02-07-09, 12:52 PM
The V2 is faster, that has been established already, and it should certainly be.

7.71 lbs per hp CTS-V

vs

8.28 lbs per hp M5

That's a pretty sizeable advantage.

The Tony Show
02-07-09, 01:27 PM
Still the fastest way whether you want to acknowledge it or not. 18000 rpm > 140000 rpm with lots of torque. Common sense applies here.

I'll disagree with that. If I can come out of a corner at 4,000 rpms making the same torque the other guy is making at 8,000 rpms then I win the straightaway.

Why? Because he'll have to shift very shortly and I won't, not to mention that the shift will ruin his momentum into the straight. Also, at the higher rpm it's easier for him to overpower the rear tires on exit if he's too heavy on the throttle. Low rpm torque creates a wider margin of error for accidentally power oversteering on exit, plus the ability to shift less in the course of a lap, and shifts take time.

Let's take an example of a 80mph straight leading into an increasing radius turn, then a long straight. If I'm in the V in 3rd gear running 6,000rpm, I can back off the throttle, feather it through the corner and exit still in 3rd around 4,000 rpm and making gobs of torque. A high revver would need to downshift to 2nd on corner entry to get the rpms up to around 6,000, feather it through the corner, exit at 6k and then immediately shift into third when he redlines 100ft into the straight.

While the high revving wonder is busy shifting from 2nd to 3rd, the torque monster is pulling away.

Heavychevy1
02-07-09, 02:21 PM
I'll disagree with that. If I can come out of a corner at 4,000 rpms making the same torque the other guy is making at 8,000 rpms then I win the straightaway.

Why? Because he'll have to shift very shortly and I won't, not to mention that the shift will ruin his momentum into the straight. Also, at the higher rpm it's easier for him to overpower the rear tires on exit if he's too heavy on the throttle. Low rpm torque creates a wider margin of error for accidentally power oversteering on exit, plus the ability to shift less in the course of a lap, and shifts take time.

Let's take an example of a 80mph straight leading into an increasing radius turn, then a long straight. If I'm in the V in 3rd gear running 6,000rpm, I can back off the throttle, feather it through the corner and exit still in 3rd around 4,000 rpm and making gobs of torque. A high revver would need to downshift to 2nd on corner entry to get the rpms up to around 6,000, feather it through the corner, exit at 6k and then immediately shift into third when he redlines 100ft into the straight.

While the high revving wonder is busy shifting from 2nd to 3rd, the torque monster is pulling away.


There are too many factors left out to make a legit response to your comment. First off, in a 18,000 rpm shifting car (not 8,000) you still are only going to use the top 70% or so of the rpm range in either car. And it's not the torque at that rev range that's important but the hp. Torque and hp cross at 5252, so the farther you go beyond that, the more HP is the primary force moving the vehicle.


As for the straight into an increasing radius turn, I'd need to see that one, there are corners that will benefit each car differently, so to state one corner is if all of the turns on any track are that turn isnt going to accomplish much. For that same car may be able to take a small chicane in one gear and carry the gear out longer exiting than the lower revving car. Higher revs means you can be more aggressive with the gearing. And you also leave out what they are entering. If the higher revving car shifts early but only once, he's shifting while in the lower rpms which has less of and affect on acceleration than shifts at higher speeds when interuptions in power application meet more wind resistance.

The Tony Show
02-07-09, 03:39 PM
You deal in far too many "yeah but what ifs" to have a decent discussion about this. My example was based on the original discussion: M5 versus CTS-V. Talking 18,000 rpm TDIs is a whole other discussion.


Still the fastest way whether you want to acknowledge it or not. 18000 rpm > 140000 rpm with lots of torque. Common sense applies here.

Making a blanket claim like that then saying that Norm couldn't instruct you is a little presumptive on your part. If you can't admit there are times when torque down low beats out a high revver on a road course, then there's no point even trying. Both myself and NormV have brought up several situations where low rpm torque would be better than high rpm horsepower, but you just reply with "Well what about THIS OTHER situation?"

gto_in_nc
02-07-09, 03:44 PM
You miss my point, I think. What I am saying has nothing to do with the V or the M or the 'Ring or John vs. Bill or anyone's driving skills or whatever. I am speaking strictly to the physics involved.

Acceleration to distance (such as a quarter-mile run or a blast down a long straight on a road course) is described by:

s=s1+v1+Δt+1/2a(Δt)^2

Acceleration to speed (such as a 0-60 or 0-100 run) is described by:

v=v1+aΔt

The missing thing here is the acceleration, "a".

a=F/m


What we are looking for here is the force, "F", that is applied to the ground by the tire.

Remember that torque is a pseudovector defined as:

τ=rXF (pardon my notation)

or, sticking to magnitude (and recognizing orthogonality):
τ=rF

where r is the tire radius.

The force applied to the road, therefore, is τ/r. This is rear-wheel torque divided by distance from axle centerline to road/tire contact-point.

That's it. Period. RPM has NOTHING to do with it, either at the flywheel (engine RPM) or at the wheel (which becomes a gearing issue.)



If I am reading you correctly, the main argument you are presenting is that the M's acceleration at high RPMs closes the gap on the V and may result in the the M reeling the V back in again on a really long straight. I think you are saying that this is because the M's engine spins higher, producing power into higher RPM ranges than the V does, at the expense of lost power at lower RPM ranges compared to the V. This is a case of "common sense" not telling the true story (as the physics clearly shows) and is, instead, easily explained by physics when one other factor is taken into account -- aerodynamics.

The M is significantly more slippery than the V (Cds od 0.33 & 0.355, respectively, or an increase of nearly eight percent) and the V is also taller & wider, resulting in a considerable difference in drag area (I didn't see the M's frontal area anywhere handy or I'd calculate it, too.) At very low speeds, air resistance is nearly linear with speed but as speed increases that curve becomes more geometric. This means that the drag on the V starts out greater than the drag on the M and the difference increased dramatically as the speeds increase. As speeds rise, more & more of the V's power edge is being devoted to pushing air out of the way rather than accelerating the car.

THIS is why the M is gaining at high speeds.


Your observations are accurate but your explanation for why it works that way was not.


In any event, I think both cars are sweet and I know I don't have the driving skills to drive either to their limits... :)

Submariner409
02-07-09, 04:09 PM
This is really neat !! So much more useful math and technology than down in the old Seville basement threads. When do we get to JATO bottles and Nitromethane gasoline additives ??? A couple tenths of frontal square footage resistance should be good for AT LEAST 1.3345 sec/quarter.

gto_in_nc
02-07-09, 04:28 PM
Take a look at this totally fabricated chart:
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47525

Can you tell whether is comes from this:
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47526

or this?
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47527


Neither can the tires...

NormV
02-07-09, 07:40 PM
"...Unless your acceleration is traction-limited, a little more acceleration early is worth more than having it come in later down the straight since the equation for distance traveled from a given point in a given time is a function of the early speed. So a broad torque band that gives away a little up top in exchange for some lower midrange has the advantage, particularly when the length of the straight is relatively short. IOW, what most of the previous responses have already said.

Minimizing shifting means that a little less acceleration time is lost during the shift process when the above equation essentially becomes [drag]/[car weight] and is actually a third to half a second or so of slight deceleration (you wouldn't gently touch the brakes midway down the straight, would you?). But avoiding a shift only works if you have enough torque at rpm's below that of peak torque to avoid bogging (that 8500 rpm engine coming out of a 2500 rpm turn comes to mind as a poor combination for not shifting)."

From SCCA autocross forum. Similar principle as road course, just separated the men from the boys when comes to understanding the dynamics.

http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/8095.aspx

Norm

Heavychevy1
02-07-09, 09:39 PM
You deal in far too many "yeah but what ifs" to have a decent discussion about this. My example was based on the original discussion: M5 versus CTS-V. Talking 18,000 rpm TDIs is a whole other discussion.



Making a blanket claim like that then saying that Norm couldn't instruct you is a little presumptive on your part. If you can't admit there are times when torque down low beats out a high revver on a road course, then there's no point even trying. Both myself and NormV have brought up several situations where low rpm torque would be better than high rpm horsepower, but you just reply with "Well what about THIS OTHER situation?"

I deal in too many yeah but what ifs and you reduced a whole track to one corner that may benefit a torquey car. Low speed tracks with lots of hair pins are good for cars with lots of torque as they reduce the need and benefit of high top end cars. You are doing just as much "what iffing" as I am. I am stating that high revving cars use gearing and rpms to supplant torque and it works obviously based on the champions in ALMS, Rolex and F1. There is NO WHAT IF in that.

The P2 cars are at serious disadvantages just like the M5 yet they remain competitive with much less displacement, much less hp and WAY less torque. The facts are staring you right in the face. I don't need what if's.

The V still has a much better weight-power ratio and were that not the case, I believe you'd see the M5 ahead in every acceleration category. But that's not the case so the V edges the M5 out in low end acceleration.

As for Norm, he made the comment that based on what I said he wouldn't want to be in my right seat instructing me. I'm perfectly ok with that, and based on his comments would rather not have him in my car. How's that for presumptive?


"...Unless your acceleration is traction-limited, a little more acceleration early is worth more than having it come in later down the straight since the equation for distance traveled from a given point in a given time is a function of the early speed. So a broad torque band that gives away a little up top in exchange for some lower midrange has the advantage, particularly when the length of the straight is relatively short. IOW, what most of the previous responses have already said.

Minimizing shifting means that a little less acceleration time is lost during the shift process when the above equation essentially becomes [drag]/[car weight] and is actually a third to half a second or so of slight deceleration (you wouldn't gently touch the brakes midway down the straight, would you?). But avoiding a shift only works if you have enough torque at rpm's below that of peak torque to avoid bogging (that 8500 rpm engine coming out of a 2500 rpm turn comes to mind as a poor combination for not shifting)."

From SCCA autocross forum. Similar principle as road course, just separated the men from the boys when comes to understanding the dynamics.

http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/8095.aspx

Norm

Tony Show, I hope you're reading this!!!!

If you are coming out of a turn at 2500 rpm you are driving FAR FAR FAR too slowly or you're in the wrong gear. Even slower turns you should be in the top 60-65% of your rev range. And on R comps that goes to 70-75%.

That's the point you are missing, lets say the M5 exit a turn at 65% which is 4,675 rpm and the V does the same, it's only at 3410 rpm. The M5 has almost 4k rpm to get to redline while the V has less than 3k RPM prior to redline. So the M can be more aggressive with gearing to apply more power and carry the same distance out of the turn because of the higher rpms.

Add to that a much better throttle response for an NA motor versus any type of forced induction and not only does the NA car respond quicker, but it can put down the same amount of power in the same period of time. Avg hp is what counts and the V and the M5 are nearly identical in avg hp.

NormV
02-07-09, 10:02 PM
So BMW should cancel their plans of putting a turbo on everything or they will be lethargic?

How many turns on a road course are so similar that 60% throttle through the turn? Very few that will have similar turn layouts. Because no two turns are the same your theory, what if, is not always possible. Because passenger cars accelerate quicker with torque and not hp, the car with more torque will get the jump as in the autocross example. Seldom do they change gears and flexibility comes from torque, not hp that may only be seen for a very short time.

Norm

The Tony Show
02-07-09, 11:55 PM
I deal in too many yeah but what ifs and you reduced a whole track to one corner that may benefit a torquey car.

*sigh* :doh:

Yes. Yes I did reduce an entire track to one corner that would benefit a torquey car. Why? Once again, for the people in the cheap seats.


18000 rpm > 140000 rpm with lots of torque. Common sense applies here.

You made the broad statement that rpm is better than torque, and I provided and example where you would be incorrect. That's how a disagreement works- you say "RPM is always better than torque", and I provide an example where you're wrong. I'm not the one making statements that one is always better than the other- you are. If I had said "torque is always better than RPM" your replies to me would be meaningful, but I didn't, so they aren't.

Are you willing to retract your statement that "1800>1400 with gobs of torque" now that I've provided an example where it isn't, or am I just going to get more lectures about completely different situations?

Luna.
02-08-09, 12:01 AM
There are too many factors left out to make a legit response to your comment. First off, in a 18,000 rpm shifting car (not 8,000) you still are only going to use the top 70% or so of the rpm range in either car. And it's not the torque at that rev range that's important but the hp. Torque and hp cross at 5252, so the farther you go beyond that, the more HP is the primary force moving the vehicle.


I think I know what you are saying, but this wording seems strange...

No matter what, torque, described as twisting force, is all a motor can produce no matter where it redlines, be it 5k or 9k or whatever.

Torque is what moves the car.

HP doesn't move the car, torque does.

HP is a calculated number. All the engine can do is produce torque, that's all.

WHERE the motor generates its torque is how HP can help solve problems

Heavychevy1
02-08-09, 03:59 AM
So BMW should cancel their plans of putting a turbo on everything or they will be lethargic?

How many turns on a road course are so similar that 60% throttle through the turn? Very few that will have similar turn layouts. Because no two turns are the same your theory, what if, is not always possible. Because passenger cars accelerate quicker with torque and not hp, the car with more torque will get the jump as in the autocross example. Seldom do they change gears and flexibility comes from torque, not hp that may only be seen for a very short time.

Norm

If they want to please their customers they'll avoid the Turbos, but that seems neither here nor there for them. They aren't going turbo because it's better, they are going turbo because it's their only option.

How many high revving V10's do you see produced in numbers like the M5/M6? Those motors are run to the edge which unless you spray, it's so hard to get any more power from them. How much longer can they keep up with the competition that's mostly FI now and stay NA and also meet increasing emmissions standards?

Turbos are the future because they are cleaner, and produce power easier than NA. Say goodbye to the high revving motor's from BMW because they will no longer rev to 8400 rpm. The only other option is to go low revving high displacement like the Viper and you lose the benefit of the motor anyways.

In a limited production R8 or Gallardo that can be done. Cars produced by the droves like the M5 and M6 will not work that way.


*sigh* :doh:

Yes. Yes I did reduce an entire track to one corner that would benefit a torquey car. Why? Once again, for the people in the cheap seats.



You made the broad statement that rpm is better than torque, and I provided and example where you would be incorrect. That's how a disagreement works- you say "RPM is always better than torque", and I provide an example where you're wrong. I'm not the one making statements that one is always better than the other- you are. If I had said "torque is always better than RPM" your replies to me would be meaningful, but I didn't, so they aren't.

Are you willing to retract your statement that "1800>1400 with gobs of torque" now that I've provided an example where it isn't, or am I just going to get more lectures about completely different situations?

Well obviously I was reffering to the course of a whole racing season. You cannot possibly go corner by corner on every track and deduce which turn would be hypothetically better for which car or you'll go crazy.

Provide a track where 14000 rpm in F1 style with 800 hp 800 lb ft is better than 18000 with 800 hp and 250 ft lbs and you'll be on to something. But you'll be hard pressed to find cars that light that can effectively use all of that torque. The lighter your car, the less torque is typically used.

Heavychevy1
02-08-09, 04:13 AM
I think I know what you are saying, but this wording seems strange...

No matter what, torque, described as twisting force, is all a motor can produce no matter where it redlines, be it 5k or 9k or whatever.

Torque is what moves the car.

HP doesn't move the car, torque does.

HP is a calculated number. All the engine can do is produce torque, that's all.

WHERE the motor generates its torque is how HP can help solve problems

Yes, but dyno's do not work that way, they calculate hp and then convert the dyno values into torque based on the equation.


Hp = tq x rpm

5252


So hp is the application of your torque to the track. Torque only tells you how much twisting force your car has. Hp tells you how your car is using the applied torque on the track. Hp is the key figure because it takes into account all of the given factors of acceleration.

For exmaple: You can have the exact same car and put a different set of gears in it and it accelerates differently. Hp takes this into account, torque does not and is therefore inconclusive to power application. HP curves are what counts because they measure the big picture.

And all the dyno sheets we have implanted in our minds work in reverse order and calculate HP which is why you have to have the tachometer connected to derive a torque number.

That is the simplistic explanation without getting into all of the details, but should be easy to understand. Everything goes back to torque, but is measured in hp which is why hp is what gets you around a track.

NormV
02-08-09, 07:51 AM
Yes, but dyno's do not work that way, they calculate hp and then convert the dyno values into torque based on the equation.


Hp = tq x rpm

5252


So hp is the application of your torque to the track. Torque only tells you how much twisting force your car has. Hp tells you how your car is using the applied torque on the track. Hp is the key figure because it takes into account all of the given factors of acceleration.

For exmaple: You can have the exact same car and put a different set of gears in it and it accelerates differently. Hp takes this into account, torque does not and is therefore inconclusive to power application. HP curves are what counts because they measure the big picture.

And all the dyno sheets we have implanted in our minds work in reverse order and calculate HP which is why you have to have the tachometer connected to derive a torque number.

That is the simplistic explanation without getting into all of the details, but should be easy to understand. Everything goes back to torque, but is measured in hp which is why hp is what gets you around a track.

That is the most antonymistic explaination I have ever seen. Not to mention almost everything you have mentioned in this thread is the complete opposite or unrelated or diversion about energy to the ground.

"...On modern day dynamometers horsepower is a calculated value. It's important to remember the dyno measures torque and rpm and then from these calculates horsepower. On the dyno it takes more water flow to the water brake to increase the load on the engine being tested..."

http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer/torque_vs_horsepower.html

Norm

gto_in_nc
02-08-09, 08:41 AM
Which of these two (totally fabricated) power curves will result in more acceleration?

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47545

Both have equal peak HP and both have equal energy integrals...

Heavychevy1
02-08-09, 09:16 AM
That is the most antonymistic explaination I have ever seen. Not to mention almost everything you have mentioned in this thread is the complete opposite or unrelated or diversion about energy to the ground.

"...On modern day dynamometers horsepower is a calculated value. It's important to remember the dyno measures torque and rpm and then from these calculates horsepower. On the dyno it takes more water flow to the water brake to increase the load on the engine being tested..."

http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer/torque_vs_horsepower.html

Norm

Ok so I got the dyno process backwards, still doesn't change the fact that hp is the more complete figure as it relates to power application. Hp is the complete application of torque including revs.

Also the max speed characteristics will change even though the dyno shows the same amount of torque and hp. From this you can derive optimal gearing and shift patterns based on your hp curve.

The point is that torque alone doesn't tell you jack squat when it comes to putting power down. You have to have the hp which is a more complete calculation of the torque, and then you have to know gearing and max speed characteristics to know which one is shifting and when.

Heavychevy1
02-08-09, 09:38 AM
Which of these two (totally fabricated) power curves will result in more acceleration?

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47545

Both have equal peak HP and both have equal energy integrals...


Not sure how you came up with a power plant that's not strong enough to turn a dyno wheel until 12,000 rpm and even then starting at what is about 15 whp.

Not sure if that is even possible. No cross in the hp and torque curve on that dyno either. Make a realistic two dyno plots and then re-ask the question.

NormV
02-08-09, 10:01 AM
Ok so I got the dyno process backwards, still doesn't change the fact that hp is the more complete figure as it relates to power application. Hp is the complete application of torque including revs.

Also the max speed characteristics will change even though the dyno shows the same amount of torque and hp. From this you can derive optimal gearing and shift patterns based on your hp curve.

The point is that torque alone doesn't tell you jack squat when it comes to putting power down. You have to have the hp which is a more complete calculation of the torque, and then you have to know gearing and max speed characteristics to know which one is shifting and when.

Just the opposite.

"You want to shift your car to optimize torque delivery (at the wheels!).

At 7000 rpm in second gear, you still have more torque to the wheels than you do at 4600 rpm after the shift, despite the engine having more torque at 4600 rpm. This is too bad, since we fall out of our power band, but it only gets worse if you shift earlier...Figuring with HP instead of torque simply includes the already integrated speeds. If you want to work with the two components of HP, torque and speed, you need to remember to use both of them all the time. Whenever you do use both, you have the same thing.

For example, when we shift from 7000 to 4600 rpm, from either the horsepower or the torque frame of reference, the same "reality" is still in effect. This means that torque at the wheels (you must including gearing while in the torque frame of reference) times the speed of the wheels equals the power at the wheels. If you use HP figures, the gearing, other than contributing to choosing the spot on the power curve, simply cancels itself out."

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e39-m5-e52-z8-discussion/4994-optimal-shift-points-its-7000-a.html

Norm

gto_in_nc
02-08-09, 10:07 AM
Ummm... You are aware that hi-rev/low-tq engines like in F1 don't idle at 800 RPM, right? These two curves are quite realistic. If the low Hp at the beginning of the curve bothers you, imagine that the pull starts 2k RPM higher (and, to keep things even, whack a little off the bottom of the other curve too in order to maintain equal areas.) The "cross" would be at 5252 RPM, an artifact of the totally arbitrary definition of the unit of measure named "horsepower" some two hundred years ago, and said cross-point being completely meaningless for any conversation or calculation of acceleration.

Here you have two very different power curves, one for a high-torque engine that revs to only 6500 RPM and the other for a low-torque engine that revs to 18000 RPM. Both have the same peak HP, both have the same "area under the curve", both cars would have equal power-to-weight ratios, both cars would be geared to make best use of their power curves -- which would have the "acceleration advantage"?

Luna.
02-08-09, 07:23 PM
Yes, but dyno's do not work that way, they calculate hp and then convert the dyno values into torque based on the equation.


Hp = tq x rpm

5252


So hp is the application of your torque to the track. Torque only tells you how much twisting force your car has. Hp tells you how your car is using the applied torque on the track. Hp is the key figure because it takes into account all of the given factors of acceleration.

For exmaple: You can have the exact same car and put a different set of gears in it and it accelerates differently. Hp takes this into account, torque does not and is therefore inconclusive to power application. HP curves are what counts because they measure the big picture.

And all the dyno sheets we have implanted in our minds work in reverse order and calculate HP which is why you have to have the tachometer connected to derive a torque number.

That is the simplistic explanation without getting into all of the details, but should be easy to understand. Everything goes back to torque, but is measured in hp which is why hp is what gets you around a track.

The point I'm making is a subtle one, so I don't want to go overboard with it, but...

ALL an engine can produce is torque, nothing more. An engine NEVER produces HP. HP is a calculated number. Torque is the actual twisting force that a motor produces.

As such, if all an engine can do is produce torque, that's all the dyno can measure.

I agree that WHERE an engine produces said torque is very important, hence, HP has some value & dynos also consider RPM, but HP isn't measured, it's calculated.

The Tony Show
02-08-09, 08:46 PM
Well obviously I was reffering to the course of a whole racing season. You cannot possibly go corner by corner on every track and deduce which turn would be hypothetically better for which car or you'll go crazy.

Provide a track where 14000 rpm in F1 style with 800 hp 800 lb ft is better than 18000 with 800 hp and 250 ft lbs and you'll be on to something. But you'll be hard pressed to find cars that light that can effectively use all of that torque. The lighter your car, the less torque is typically used.

I'm still trying to figure out what on Earth am 18,000rpm F1 car has to do with the CTS-V and M5 on a road course.

This isn't apples and oranges- it's apples and orangutans.

Mikels
02-08-09, 09:59 PM
The point I'm making is a subtle one, so I don't want to go overboard with it, but...

ALL an engine can produce is torque, nothing more. An engine NEVER produces HP. HP is a calculated number. Torque is the actual twisting force that a motor produces.

As such, if all an engine can do is produce torque, that's all the dyno can measure.

I agree that WHERE an engine produces said torque is very important, hence, HP has some value & dynos also consider RPM, but HP isn't measured, it's calculated.

Engines produce work (measured in HP) - TQ is result of that work at a particular RPM.

If it were just torque, I could hang a 500 # mass 1 foot from crank centerline and make 500#/FT of torque. How much work can I do?

Area under the curve for acceleration performance is measured from HP curve, not torque. Torque is a force. HP is measure of work.

Torque can be multiplied by gear ratios (and final drive ratio) to match engine power to desired range of power, but HP is the one and only measure that matters for acceleration.

People talk about 'good usable RPM range' what they usually mean is the engine produces HP in a lower RPM band that results in high torque. Not nice to cruise around @ 5000+ rpm all the time, even if same performance can result.

Dynos can be made that either measure HP or TQ and other is calculated. A Dynojet measures HP (work required to accelerate a given mass (the rolls) at a certain rate of acceleration. TQ can be calculated from that HP if RPM is known to correlate with HP numbers. Other dynos (Superflow 901 engine dyno) measure a force from load cell (torque) and calculate HP based on force at a given RPM.

gto-in-nc has correctly stated the relationships of all these values. Physics do not change based on engine design, rpm or anything else.

Acceleration is based on area under the HP curve. Transmission ratios can be optimized to get most area under the curve for a given speed range (i.e. 0-60, 1/4 mile, road coarse). Time taken to shift must be taken into account as well. as a 16 speed gearbox may result in most area under curve to reach a certain speed, but time to complete 15 gear changes totally negates the result.

NormV
02-09-09, 10:40 AM
Both hp and trq play a role but since we're talking about cars with 6-7 speed transmissions, it is mute to talking about 15-16 speed transmissions and dyno plots because neither explain the effects of torque at the wheels multiplied by transmissions and differentials. Because the trans and diff play a major factor in acceleration, they will determine the quickest accelerating car and that goes to the '09 CTS-V. Whether at the drag strip or exiting a turn on the road course wheel torque, or torque multiplied through the trans and diff, is what wins races.

"...So, which is more important - torque or horsepower? Well, both are important, but torque at the drive wheels is what's really important to the performance of your vehicle."
http://www.rubydist.com/Family/Power.html

"...Maximum acceleration at any speed occurs at the peak HP.
Maximum acceleration in any single gear occurs at the torque peak (but switching gears to one at any given speed with the most power gives you more acceleration)."
http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103041

Norm

atdeneve
02-09-09, 10:40 AM
Engines produce work (measured in HP) - TQ is result of that work at a particular RPM.

If it were just torque, I could hang a 500 # mass 1 foot from crank centerline and make 500#/FT of torque. How much work can I do?

Area under the curve for acceleration performance is measured from HP curve, not torque. Torque is a force. HP is measure of work.

Torque can be multiplied by gear ratios (and final drive ratio) to match engine power to desired range of power, but HP is the one and only measure that matters for acceleration.

People talk about 'good usable RPM range' what they usually mean is the engine produces HP in a lower RPM band that results in high torque. Not nice to cruise around @ 5000+ rpm all the time, even if same performance can result.

Dynos can be made that either measure HP or TQ and other is calculated. A Dynojet measures HP (work required to accelerate a given mass (the rolls) at a certain rate of acceleration. TQ can be calculated from that HP if RPM is known to correlate with HP numbers. Other dynos (Superflow 901 engine dyno) measure a force from load cell (torque) and calculate HP based on force at a given RPM.

gto-in-nc has correctly stated the relationships of all these values. Physics do not change based on engine design, rpm or anything else.

Acceleration is based on area under the HP curve. Transmission ratios can be optimized to get most area under the curve for a given speed range (i.e. 0-60, 1/4 mile, road coarse). Time taken to shift must be taken into account as well. as a 16 speed gearbox may result in most area under curve to reach a certain speed, but time to complete 15 gear changes totally negates the result.

You acknowledge that gto-in-nc has correctly presented the relationship between the different measures/values and the underlying physics, but you begin, right off the bat, by pretty much mangling the basics of that relationship. But, I guess, this always seems to happen with these types of discussions.


Engines produce work (measured in HP) - TQ is result of that work at a particular RPM.

Yes, engines produce work. That is not measured in horsepower. That work the engine produces over a certain amount of time, is measured in horsepower.

Engines also produce torque. Torque is not a result of that particular work. Work is a result of that particular force, torque, over a certain distance.

Rpm does not figure into the equation when you're talking about torque and work. Rpm (revolutions per minute) is introduced when talking about horsepower. Horsepower is a result of that particular torque at a particular rpm (distance over time).

You've totally twisted the relationship within your first sentence.


If it were just torque, I could hang a 500 # mass 1 foot from crank centerline and make 500#/FT of torque. How much work can I do?

Depends on how far (i.e., distance) that mass is allowed to drop and, thus, perform work.

An engine exerts torque on that crank and performs work as the crank is forced to rotate through a distance. Horsepower is a measure of the amount of that work that can be done over a certain amount of time.


Area under the curve for acceleration performance is measured from HP curve, not torque. Torque is a force. HP is measure of work.

Yes, torque is a force. But, again, horsepower is not a measure of work. Joules is a measure of work - force throughout a distance. Joules per second or Kilowatts per hour or horsepower is a measure of power - work over time.


Torque can be multiplied by gear ratios (and final drive ratio) to match engine power to desired range of power, but HP is the one and only measure that matters for acceleration.

How is horsepower the one and only measure that matters for acceleration. Horsepower and torque are both interrelated. Horsepower is derived from torque. Torque is what produces horsepower.

Starting from your opening sentence, you seem to have the relationship totally reversed. You seem to think that torque is somehow produced by horsepower.


People talk about 'good usable RPM range' what they usually mean is the engine produces HP in a lower RPM band that results in high torque.

No, they mean the engine produces torque in a lower rpm band. Again, horsepower is derived from torque. It is a result of torque throughout a distance over time (rpm; revolutions per minute or distance over time). Therefore, the higher the rpm, the more horsepower the engine is capable of producing. Most any engine is not producing significant amounts of horsepower in the lower rpm band, as there is just not enough work being done in a given unit of time.

Unless of course, you're producing prodigious amounts of monster torque at low rpms. Only then would you be able to get copious amounts of horsepower at low rpms. Again, you've got it totally reversed, which makes me question the basis on which your arguments are formed.

This is why discussions like this get so out of control. Once the underlying basics get so fubar'd, any resulting conclusions are totally unfounded. And you have no idea on what basis the foundations of an argument are formed until people actually start to spell it out. I guess it's a good way to kill some time though. Well, not really.

Mikels
02-09-09, 12:51 PM
atdeneve - you are correct in that my post was poorly worded. Bottom line is power is what accelerates the vehicle.

When you calculate estimated 1/4 mile ET and MPH, you use the following formulas:
1/4 ET = cubed root (weight/power)*5.825
1/4 MPH = cuber root (power/weight)*234

Nowhere do you use torque to calculate this as power is what is used to accelerate the vehicle. Yes, power is torque over time, but will you at least agree that to accelerate a given mass to a given speed in a certain amount of time is a measure of power, not torque?

gto_in_nc
02-09-09, 03:43 PM
<sigh>

The only things that matter in calculating the car's motion are adequate traction, the mass of the vehicle and the net force on it. To calculate the net force, you need to know two things -- the propelling force applied to the road at the road/tire interface and the parasitic forces due to friction.

This comes directly from first principles by employing Netwon's F=ma and the definitions of velocity & acceleration that underlie the equations of motion. Any other approaches to to solving this problem either mask this foundation, are rule-of-thumb approximations or are just plain wrong.


:D

concorso
02-09-09, 04:07 PM
GT-RRRR defies all.

atdeneve
02-09-09, 04:21 PM
atdeneve - you are correct in that my post was poorly worded. Bottom line is power is what accelerates the vehicle.

In actuality, a force is what accelerates a mass. It is the impetus for setting things in motion. How fast that occurs is horsepower. Horsepower is not the acting force. So, horsepower is not what accelerates a vehicle. Torque is. Horsepower is a measure of how fast torque gets that vehicle from point A to point B. It really is a subtle, but vital distinction.


When you calculate estimated 1/4 mile ET and MPH, you use the following formulas:
1/4 ET = cubed root (weight/power)*5.825
1/4 MPH = cuber root (power/weight)*234

Nowhere do you use torque to calculate this as power is what is used to accelerate the vehicle. Yes, power is torque over time, but will you at least agree that to accelerate a given mass to a given speed in a certain amount of time is a measure of power, not torque?


No, power is work over a certain amount of time. In other words, power is force (in this case, torque) applied through a distance over a certain amount of time.

And yes, trap speeds are indicative of the power that an engine is producing, but, again, horsepower and torque are intrinsically related. Horsepower already takes into account the torque in its formulation.

Heavychevy1
02-09-09, 04:33 PM
Both hp and trq play a role but since we're talking about cars with 6-7 speed transmissions, it is mute to talking about 15-16 speed transmissions and dyno plots because neither explain the effects of torque at the wheels multiplied by transmissions and differentials. Because the trans and diff play a major factor in acceleration, they will determine the quickest accelerating car and that goes to the '09 CTS-V. Whether at the drag strip or exiting a turn on the road course wheel torque, or torque multiplied through the trans and diff, is what wins races.

"...So, which is more important - torque or horsepower? Well, both are important, but torque at the drive wheels is what's really important to the performance of your vehicle."
http://www.rubydist.com/Family/Power.html

"...Maximum acceleration at any speed occurs at the peak HP.
Maximum acceleration in any single gear occurs at the torque peak (but switching gears to one at any given speed with the most power gives you more acceleration)."
http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103041

Norm


I can find as many articles that say hp is the determining factor in acceleration. This is an age old arguement that will not be settled with a couple of random articles.

Torque at the wheels arguement is bs.

Let's see how the Corvette's do with their abundance of Torque in GT2 ALMS this year vs all high revving (low torque) BMW's, Ferrari's and Porsches. That should tell us plenty, all factory backed efforts.

Hint. Only high revving motors have ever won in GT2.

You continue to state torque wins races when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. All of these equations are getting over my head (and yours), but high revving motors have proven their worth in the world of racing time and time again.

Heavychevy1
02-09-09, 05:51 PM
BTW does anyone know of race series that operate based on weight/torque ratio, because all that I know of operate by weight/power ratio. All cars are limited by how much HP they put out and have nothing to do with torque when it comes to classification. In many cases GPS is used to calculate hp based on acceleration data and restrictors are added so that the cars will acclerate more slowly. In other cases care are strapped to a dyno an tested for HORSEPOWER. Though the forms of power output vary far and wide in their torque curves, the one that racing series have deemed most important in accleration is good ole' HORSEPOWER (and rpms)

So if torque wins races, why then is there no classification of limit put on it, IN RACING?

You can limit displacement, but other than F1 pretty much any rule set allows motors big enough to make as much torque as they do hp. The GT3 has won SCCA Speed GT series 3 years straight vs Vipers, Mustangs, Corvettes and CTS-V's. In all of the other forms you see Vipers and Vettes and while they do win some.

In fact you now see ALMS limiting how much HORSEPOWER can be made at certain revs. Once again because HP tells the complete story in work being accomplished with rpms to tell you how long that work is being accomplished.



Norm?

The Tony Show
02-09-09, 06:09 PM
The GT3 has won SCCA Speed GT series 3 years straight vs Vipers, Mustangs, Corvettes and CTS-V's. In all of the other forms you see Vipers and Vettes and while they do win some.

Incorrect. Cadillac won the championship in 2007 (and 2005). It really doesn't matter though, since using Speed GT as a comparator is ridiculous due to the wildly varying penalties/modifications to the cars. The GT3s basically run with no restrictions since they're the lowest hp cars (except REWARDS weight for wins). None of those cars resemble the stock versions, and have radically different hp, tq, weight, gearing and even transmission types.

The CTS-V absolutely dominated the Porsches at their Sebring debut- Andy Pilgrim stalled on the line and was 30 seconds behind the field, and ended up passing the entire field and coming in second (behind another CTS-V) in 45 minutes of racing. I know, because I was there to witness it in person. Since that display, the CTS-V has been the most cripplingly handicapped car in Speed GT: First they pulled the crashbox out and made them run synchromesh, then they threw a TB restrictor on it, then they added weight, etc, etc. Even with all the handicaps, they still pulled out two Championships in a 3 year period and the most wins of any team in a 4 year period.

Heavychevy1
02-09-09, 06:43 PM
Incorrect. Cadillac won the championship in 2007 (and 2005). It really doesn't matter though, since using Speed GT as a comparator is ridiculous due to the wildly varying penalties/modifications to the cars. The GT3s basically run with no restrictions since they're the lowest hp cars (except REWARDS weight for wins). None of those cars resemble the stock versions, and have radically different hp, tq, weight, gearing and even transmission types.

The CTS-V absolutely dominated the Porsches at their Sebring debut- Andy Pilgrim stalled on the line and was 30 seconds behind the field, and ended up passing the entire field and coming in second (behind another CTS-V) in 45 minutes of racing. I know, because I was there to witness it in person. Since that display, the CTS-V has been the most cripplingly handicapped car in Speed GT: First they pulled the crashbox out and made them run synchromesh, then they threw a TB restrictor on it, then they added weight, etc, etc. Even with all the handicaps, they still pulled out two Championships in a 3 year period and the most wins of any team in a 4 year period.

Also not true. The V is a tube framed car and I think maybe the mustang too, but the Corvette's, Vipers and GT3's very much resemble the street cars. The GT3 is a cup car which shares 80% parts with the street car. The Viper is a comp coupe of which lots of guys have and race at Viper Days. Even with the Corvette's Vipers and V's running past it on the straights the GT3 still won the last two years running because it was faster around the corners, and that weight penalty makes a big difference when you are already the weakest power plant.

GM wasited money racing the V in the first place as it hasn't accomplished anything. They've only shown that you can waist a bunch of money on developing anything and slap a shell that looks like the subject car and try and advertise it, but it wont sell the cars (GTO). Even though it's tube framed, the V's and GTO's are still heavy and they are already given tons of hp because of the weight. The Aston Martin V12 ran through the field like that and got penalized just like everyone else. The V hasn't seen any undeserved penalties.

Not to mention GM entered what was basically a factory team with factory drivers vs a bunch of freelance and performance shops. They almost killed the series with that crap.

CVP33
02-09-09, 06:55 PM
This thread makes me want to kill small animals. And no I'm not kidding.

The Tony Show
02-09-09, 06:56 PM
Here you go again- you said Porsche won three years in a row. I proved you wrong, so you just ignored that and changed the subject to be about tube frames. Just like you won't admit that your statement about RPM always being better than torque, now you won't even admit that you were wrong about Porsche's record in Speed GT.


...GT3 still won the last two years...

No, they didn't. You're not even reading what other people are writing before responding. Cadillac won the manufacturer's championship in 2007, not Porsche. Porsche's 2008 Championship does not equal "two in a row".


Even with the Corvette's Vipers and V's running past it on the straights the GT3 still won the last two years running because it was faster around the corners,

I thought you've been arguing all this time that the more aerodynamic and higher revving car would pass the high powered car in the straights, yet now you're admitting that the Porsches get stomped in the straights? You're ridiculous man.

Heavychevy1
02-09-09, 07:20 PM
Who's talking about manufacturer championships? I'm talking about the fastest car on the grid over the season. Which has been Randy Pobst for the last two years. In the face of factory efforts from GM in the V's.

I've never said anything about straights if you bothered to read anything other than the M5 would pass the V on long sprints into high speeds, but that has little to do with the track as these cars are too heavy to reach 160 mph at most any track, heck, they are lucky to reach 150 and be able to brake lap after lap without killing the brakes.

Straights do not win you a championship unless you have so much power that you just drive past everyone on every straight like the Caddy's did when they first came about, and like the Vipers did before they got the penalty stick.

The fact is the car with less hp is making up for it with revs, braking and skill. IN A FIELD FULL OF TORQUE MONSTERS!!!! Corvette, Viper, Mustang, CTS-V...........


GM built those cars specifically to win Speed GT. If you know anything about racing you'd know that Tube Frame cars are easier to race especially when they are built around a series and backed with a factory effort vs all privateers. I'm sure GM felt great about taking a bunch of tube frame cadillacs with their factory drivers into a series and beating up on the likes of LG motorsports and Woodhouse dodge.


Comon dude.

Here you go again- you said Porsche won three years in a row. I proved you wrong, so you just ignored that and changed the subject to be about tube frames. Just like you won't admit that your statement about RPM always being better than torque, now you won't even admit that you were wrong about Porsche's record in Speed GT.



No, they didn't. You're not even reading what other people are writing before responding. Cadillac won the manufacturer's championship in 2007, not Porsche. Porsche's 2008 Championship does not equal "two in a row".



I thought you've been arguing all this time that the more aerodynamic and higher revving car would pass the high powered car in the straights, yet now you're admitting that the Porsches get stomped in the straights? You're ridiculous man.

Heavychevy1
02-09-09, 07:28 PM
Not only that but I was right anyways, Lawson won in 2006 in guess what kind of car???????


A PORSCHE!!!!!!!!


Randy 2007 and 2008 + Lawson 2006 = how many Porsches at the front of the pack in three years?

Manufacturers Championship..... BWAHAHAHAHAAHA.

poor-sha
02-09-09, 07:41 PM
For the most part this thread makes me want to go get a drink.

However, I do agree that I hate it when folks build tube frame cars, slap a shell on them, and pretend they are racing a street car (DBR9, CTS-V, GTO-R, "GXP.R" what the heck is that supposed to be). I'm still a fan of P&M but if a factory is going to go racing let's see them run something that has something in common with the street car. At least Porsche and Ferrari (ProDrive 550's aside) do this.

Double Gin & Tonic please...

The Tony Show
02-09-09, 07:50 PM
This thread makes me want to kill small animals. And no I'm not kidding.

:yeah:

NormV
02-09-09, 07:53 PM
A passenger car like the E92 M3 become competive with V8 torque monsters ALMS by dropping 1100 lbs or about 30% of their weight. That is how torqueless cars become competitve. GT3 has AC as an option amoung other things so don't think it was designed and marketed to do more than one thing.

Time to take the Porsche colored glasses off and get to the topic.

The next gen M5 will probably not weigh any less than the current one as has been the trend recently in passenger cars. When you add weight torque will carry them down the drag strip and out of the corners faster! Torque gets fuel economy also. It's win-win for torque! :) Remember we're talking acceleration of passenger cars in drag strip or road course conditions, not race cars which passenger cars are not.

Norm

jvp
02-09-09, 08:49 PM
For the most part this thread makes me want to go get a drink.

Double Gin & Tonic please...

Make mine a Diet Pepsi, and you're on. Shall we hit, say, Sweetwater? :-)

jas

poor-sha
02-09-09, 08:51 PM
Next time give me some notice, at this point I shouldn't be driving ;)

whisler151
02-09-09, 10:56 PM
...This is an age old arguement that will not be settled with a couple of random articles.

Torque at the wheels arguement is bs.

I'm sorry...I want to read your BS posts but the spelling is pissing me off. ARGUMENT...no E after U.

GMX322V S/C
02-09-09, 10:58 PM
:pop2:

Heavychevy1
02-10-09, 04:28 AM
A passenger car like the E92 M3 become competive with V8 torque monsters ALMS by dropping 1100 lbs or about 30% of their weight. That is how torqueless cars become competitve. GT3 has AC as an option amoung other things so don't think it was designed and marketed to do more than one thing.

Time to take the Porsche colored glasses off and get to the topic.

The next gen M5 will probably not weigh any less than the current one as has been the trend recently in passenger cars. When you add weight torque will carry them down the drag strip and out of the corners faster! Torque gets fuel economy also. It's win-win for torque! :) Remember we're talking acceleration of passenger cars in drag strip or road course conditions, not race cars which passenger cars are not.

Norm

Why? Because Porsche is owning your theory with tons of race wins and being the winningest manufacturer in history, despite being one of the smallest. And at the same time producing the most race cars in the world year in and year out, none of which are torque monsters?

Your guess on the M5 is illogical at best, Turbo kits ADD WEIGHT, just like the SC, beefier rear end and overall size added some 300+ lbs to the V. The M5 will more than likely be heavier with a Turbo kit.

I will agree that more weight added could use a little more torque vs keeping the same powerband. But still only needs to be in the 85-90% range, not 99+%. What's most important though is the hp bump which is and always will be the most important factor in racing which is why it's the only one used for classing in motorsport.

But you can't eliminate racing cars from passenger cars because the principals are the same. And the same principals are used with stock/spec class street cars in NASA, PCA, PBOC, SCCA and everywhere else so they don't just all of a sudden vanish when you get to the street. The same things that apply to racing have been pushed into street cars since shortly after racing began.

Torque does not get you out of corners faster and you have nothing to proove it. You're just making statements that have no substance to them at all whereas I have provided tons of examples of cars that get the job done with high revs.

And in street cars you are doubly nixed because torque only spins street tires, it doesn't get you anywhere quicker because you can't use all of the torque anyways on corner exit.

V-Love
02-10-09, 05:19 AM
Anybody got any more time slips?

NormV
02-10-09, 07:59 AM
[QUOTE=Heavychevy1;1763378]...But you can't eliminate racing cars from passenger cars because the principals are the same. And the same principals are used with stock/spec class street cars in NASA, PCA, PBOC, SCCA and everywhere else so they don't just all of a sudden vanish when you get to the street. The same things that apply to racing have been pushed into street cars since shortly after racing began.

Torque does not get you out of corners faster and you have nothing to proove it. You're just making statements that have no substance to them at all whereas I have provided tons of examples of cars that get the job done with high revs...[QUOTE]

Are you denying the fact that any car will acclerate faster in a lower gear? If you are as you stated above then your ignoring torque to the rear wheels via torque multiplier, or gear ratios. If you don't have the torque from the engine, E60 M5 struggle to get 299 trq to the wheels, then you can change weight, trans gearing(electronics-quick SMG), differential ratio, or make more torque. Which yields more hp and more torque at lower RPMs. Are you say adding 35 hp to an M5 that no more torque is made? More torque is made across the operating range than hp.

If the SMG equipped M5 is nipping at the heels of the 09 CTS-V, I cannot imagine how far behind the 6-speed M5 would be. BMW made the change at the track in Road & Track and it still lost.

Show me a race prepped car that weighs the same or more than it's street going counter part? You'll be hard to find one race that weighs more than it's street car equivalent. Same thing in race cars is pushed to the street in weight and allot of it! :)

Norm

Heavychevy1
02-10-09, 11:54 AM
Are you denying the fact that any car will acclerate faster in a lower gear? If you are as you stated above then your ignoring torque to the rear wheels via torque multiplier, or gear ratios. If you don't have the torque from the engine, E60 M5 struggle to get 299 trq to the wheels, then you can change weight, trans gearing(electronics-quick SMG), differential ratio, or make more torque. Which yields more hp and more torque at lower RPMs. Are you say adding 35 hp to an M5 that no more torque is made? More torque is made across the operating range than hp.

If the SMG equipped M5 is nipping at the heels of the 09 CTS-V, I cannot imagine how far behind the 6-speed M5 would be. BMW made the change at the track in Road & Track and it still lost.

Show me a race prepped car that weighs the same or more than it's street going counter part? You'll be hard to find one race that weighs more than it's street car equivalent. Same thing in race cars is pushed to the street in weight and allot of it! :)

Norm


SCCA T1 Vipers weigh more than the Street cars. Their race weight is something like 3700 lbs. The street Vipers only weigh 3475. :thepan:

How many times do I have to tell you that lower RPM's are irrelevant because you only use the top 25-35% of the rev range on the track, unless of course you drive like molasses.

Where the V takes a turn in 3rd gear, the M5 can take it in 2nd gear because of higher revs and put the same amount of torque to the wheels. Were the M5 to take the turn in 3rd gear, it would have to shift much later at a higher speed where the effect of the torque disruption is less of a disturbance.

CVP33
02-10-09, 05:46 PM
You "gentlemen" have no one to blame but yourselves. Late last night, due to your ongoing bickering, I took the life of my pet gerbil. Yes, Florian (my life mate) was devastated but frankly I had no choice. We will all miss you Senior Tunnel Muffin. :(

Jayrcr3
02-10-09, 06:06 PM
Man, I thought I was gonna see some new times posted. You guys have been arguing for days. lol

NormV
02-10-09, 06:24 PM
SCCA T1 Vipers weigh more than the Street cars. Their race weight is something like 3700 lbs. The street Vipers only weigh 3475. :thepan:

How many times do I have to tell you that lower RPM's are irrelevant because you only use the top 25-35% of the rev range on the track, unless of course you drive like molasses.

Where the V takes a turn in 3rd gear, the M5 can take it in 2nd gear because of higher revs and put the same amount of torque to the wheels. Were the M5 to take the turn in 3rd gear, it would have to shift much later at a higher speed where the effect of the torque disruption is less of a disturbance.

It’s 3650 for the for SCCA 2008 Viper. 175 lbs that that you made reference too but did not point out, let’s not mix apples and oranges. 175 lbs for driver, fire suppression, roll cage…Looks like something had to be removed to make sure they are at the 175 difference. The weight penalty goes up when the engine makes new power for and later 08. About 45-ft lbs improvement from displacement and variable valve timing as a result increased hp 90. SCCA 06-07 CTS-V with 6.0l gets a 50 lbs weight penality vs. 04-05 5.7l. Got to love torque down low in the operating range. There are weight penalties for other things like AWD. Ever wonder why AWD Porsches are not see in the series you mention? It takes torque to move that extra equipment.

*Your torque to the wheel theory, with them being the same, is wrong. Both cars have similar MPH in each gear. Divide by 2 to get results to each wheel.

M5 2nd gear SMG Vs V 3rd gear auto-torque multiplied to the wheels (Heavy example).

3683 lb ft = 384 lb ft x 2nd gear 2.65 x dive ratio 3.62
2718 lb ft = 550 lb ft x 3rd gear 1.53 x dive ratio 3.23

=============================================

2nd gear heads up SMG vs auto V
3683 lb ft = 384 lb ft x 2nd gear 2.65 x drive ratio 3.62 (smg)
4192 lb ft = 550 lb ft x 2 gear 2.36 x drive ratio 3.23 (auto)

3rd gear SMG vs auto V
2516 lb ft = 384 trq x 3rd gear 1.81 x drive ratio 3.62 (smg)
2718 lb ft = 550 trq x 3rd gear 1.53 x drive ratio 3.23 (auto)

2nd gear Manual for both
3336 lb ft 384 trq x 2nd gear 2.4 x drive ratio 3.62 =3336 LB ft (manual)
3651 lb ft 550 trq x 2 gear 1.78 x drive ratio 3.73 = 3651 lb ft (manual)

3rd gear Manual for both
2196 lb ft =384 trq x 3rd gear 1.58 x drive ratio 3.62 = 2196 LB ft (manual)
2667 lb ft 550 trq x 3rd gear 1.3 x drive ratio 3.73 = 2667 LB ft (manual)

*Doesn’t take in effect many variables like weight, torque converter, torque mgt… but you get the idea the V and its torque rule the M5! You still have not presented a case for the M5.

Norm

Luna.
02-10-09, 11:10 PM
You "gentlemen" have no one to blame but yourselves. Late last night, due to your ongoing bickering, I took the life of my pet gerbil. Yes, Florian (my life mate) was devastated but frankly I had no choice. We will all miss you Senior Tunnel Muffin. :(

The previous "threat" post was classic, but this response made me post...

:histeric:

And I hate reading that torque doesn't mean anything. Maybe it's just terminology that I'm ignorant to, but I believe the appropriate way to say it would be that lower torque, higher RPM cars/motors are superior to higher torque, lower RPM motors on the road course...

TORQUE IS ALL A MOTOR CAN PRODUCE...nothing more. I don't care what anything, anywhere says differently. All a motor can do is spin and produce torque, which causes the car to move. Before anything else can even be considered, the motor produces torque. Let's not make this harder than it really is.

NOTE that I have no idea what answer is right. All I know is that this debate is pretty classic...

Heavychevy1
02-11-09, 07:56 AM
The previous "threat" post was classic, but this response made me post...

:histeric:

And I hate reading that torque doesn't mean anything. Maybe it's just terminology that I'm ignorant to, but I believe the appropriate way to say it would be that lower torque, higher RPM cars/motors are superior to higher torque, lower RPM motors on the road course...

TORQUE IS ALL A MOTOR CAN PRODUCE...nothing more. I don't care what anything, anywhere says differently. All a motor can do is spin and produce torque, which causes the car to move. Before anything else can even be considered, the motor produces torque. Let's not make this harder than it really is.

NOTE that I have no idea what answer is right. All I know is that this debate is pretty classic...

The point is that you can go without a torque value and still have a race class and determine acceleration based on the calculated hp numbers. Torque is the foundation, but the amount of it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because HP is the more complete application of Torque. Purely speaking in numbers, a torque value is less relevant than a hp curve.




It’s 3650 for the for SCCA 2008 Viper. 175 lbs that that you made reference too but did not point out, let’s not mix apples and oranges. 175 lbs for driver, fire suppression, roll cage…Looks like something had to be removed to make sure they are at the 175 difference. The weight penalty goes up when the engine makes new power for and later 08. About 45-ft lbs improvement from displacement and variable valve timing as a result increased hp 90. SCCA 06-07 CTS-V with 6.0l gets a 50 lbs weight penality vs. 04-05 5.7l. Got to love torque down low in the operating range. There are weight penalties for other things like AWD. Ever wonder why AWD Porsches are not see in the series you mention? It takes torque to move that extra equipment.

*Your torque to the wheel theory, with them being the same, is wrong. Both cars have similar MPH in each gear. Divide by 2 to get results to each wheel.

M5 2nd gear SMG Vs V 3rd gear auto-torque multiplied to the wheels (Heavy example).

3683 lb ft = 384 lb ft x 2nd gear 2.65 x dive ratio 3.62
2718 lb ft = 550 lb ft x 3rd gear 1.53 x dive ratio 3.23

=============================================

2nd gear heads up SMG vs auto V
3683 lb ft = 384 lb ft x 2nd gear 2.65 x drive ratio 3.62 (smg)
4192 lb ft = 550 lb ft x 2 gear 2.36 x drive ratio 3.23 (auto)

3rd gear SMG vs auto V
2516 lb ft = 384 trq x 3rd gear 1.81 x drive ratio 3.62 (smg)
2718 lb ft = 550 trq x 3rd gear 1.53 x drive ratio 3.23 (auto)

2nd gear Manual for both
3336 lb ft 384 trq x 2nd gear 2.4 x drive ratio 3.62 =3336 LB ft (manual)
3651 lb ft 550 trq x 2 gear 1.78 x drive ratio 3.73 = 3651 lb ft (manual)

3rd gear Manual for both
2196 lb ft =384 trq x 3rd gear 1.58 x drive ratio 3.62 = 2196 LB ft (manual)
2667 lb ft 550 trq x 3rd gear 1.3 x drive ratio 3.73 = 2667 LB ft (manual)

*Doesn’t take in effect many variables like weight, torque converter, torque mgt… but you get the idea the V and its torque rule the M5! You still have not presented a case for the M5.

Norm

Oh, they finally took some weight from the Vipers then. Still, you asked for a race car that weighs the same or more as the street car and I gave you one. It doesn't matter if you add a cage, you took out the interior and put on lighter tires, lighter seats, removed the AC and you are still at or around the same weight. PERIOD. Weight is weight, and though location will have some affect on balance, it won't be any huge change.

I have presented a case for the M5. THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!!!!! With almost a 1/2 point deficit in weight/power ratio, lesser brakes and lesser suspension, the M5 is right there with the V. The only thing that needs balancing in this case is the weight/power ratio and the M5 would be equal to or ahead. The V can still keep the braking, and slightly better handling, HUGE torque, and road holding advantages.

If you plug the gear ratios, redline, and tire specs into a optimum shift calculator you'll get these numbers. Both manual transmissions.

CTS-V (redline 6200)
1st - optimal shift - 5769
2nd - optimal shift - 5203
3rd - optimal shift - 4940
4th - optimal shift - 4750
5th - optimal shift - 4825

M5 (redline 8250)
1st - optimal shift - 8250
2nd - optimal shift - 8250
3rd - optimal shift - 7930
4th - optimal shift - 7625
5th - optimal shift - 7746


What does that tell you? The M5 has a much more useable powerband. It maximizes both time and power between shifts while to use all of the V's power you have to shift up to almost 1400 rpm early. This leads to more shifting and lost time on the track.

You'll also notice that the M5 only has shorter shifts in 1st and 2nd gears to deal with lack of torque, after that the gears actually become much longer than the V's and yet the M5 still has better pull with longer gearing at higher speeds. Torque will only get you to 60-90 mph after that the HP curve takes over as the dominant force, and the V just doesnt make any until right before shift time which results in lesser top end speed. You should also note that 1st is never used and 2nd rarely on any track so the primary torque advantage of the V is pretty much usless in this capacity. This is why you'll feel the V start to level out in acceleration feel after 100 mph whereas the M5 pulls the same from about 2nd all the way through and doesn't get into the optimal gear until 5th which is it's 1:1 gear. That's why the M's dyno lower because they are dynoed in 4th most times because many dyno's wont go to the top speed of 5th gear which is almost 180 mph.

The NA motor of the M5 has a much more useable and better powercurve than the V, it just isnt using boost so the power is harder to get, but keep that same weight/power ratio and put the M5 motor in the V and it's over. That is a sure thing.

NormV
02-11-09, 10:01 AM
A calculator? Which calculator?

I have no idea what you just said!

“Torque will only get you to 60-90 mph after that the HP curve takes over as the dominant force, and the V just doesnt make any until right before shift time which results in lesser top end speed.”
“…M5 has a much more useable and better powercurve than the V, it just isnt using boost so the power is harder to get…”

Put the M5 motor in the V and the M5 motor would fall flat on it’s face with the extra chassis weight and the robust drive train needed to handle the V’s torque. I really think the M5 “girl-man” motor, which is used to aluminum drive shaft, would be challenged in just turning the steel drive shaft of the V! No torque, no need to apply!

Remind you from R&T about the V in the straightaway at Monticello:

“…puts the power to good use and stretches the legs of his V to 149.18 mph…”

More proof than your empirical data, theories, and calculators already presented. It’s race over at 155 MPH speed limiter of the M5 where the V is already leading it. Don’t think your going to convince us that the M5’s top end is going to overtake the V in it’s last 6 MPH?! The .16 gear ratio difference between the two cars is worth 2hp comparing the V auto and manual transmissions. Your point is just the opposite as lower numerical gears increase wheel torque and would give higer readings on any dyno. That is why a car accelerates faster in lower gears, not slower. So that point is mute.

BMWUSA.com does not offer a raising the limiter as an option. The V continues to 161 MPH in 5th gear, then shifts to 6th for another 30 MPH. Bye-bye!

Heavychevy1
02-11-09, 01:16 PM
You can pick any shift calculator and plug the gear ratios and it will give you an optimal shift RPM. Not different than how you find shift points to plug in a shift light. You do the same thing on data loggers and units like traqmate, aim and motec and they will tell you your optimal shift point and program a light accordingly. It's not rocket science.

Like I said before, the V will likely be faster in many areas because it has every accleration advantage other than overall weight, but the power it has makes up for all of that and some.

But of course you aren't bright enough to understand the different dynamics that go into a roll race to a certain speed and road course speed trap speeds. I should have figured as much.

NormV
02-11-09, 02:33 PM
Don't have to get personal.doesn't get you point across.

Road course traps speeds! That's a new one. :)


Norm

Heavychevy1
02-12-09, 06:01 AM
My apologies.

I heard it in the mags, but it's the same principal. Except it's actual speed instead of averaged. But what some people don't realize is that you can get higher speeds in some cars and still lose out in the braking zone and faster/deeper in the braking zone has a law of diminishing and then negative returns.

Luna.
02-12-09, 12:47 PM
Guys---just keep in mind, since this thread has been going on for so long, one might want to realize that changing opinions at this time just isn't going to happen....

I found this interesting though...



If you plug the gear ratios, redline, and tire specs into a optimum shift calculator you'll get these numbers. Both manual transmissions.

CTS-V (redline 6200)
1st - optimal shift - 5769
2nd - optimal shift - 5203
3rd - optimal shift - 4940
4th - optimal shift - 4750
5th - optimal shift - 4825


Am I interpreting this correctly? To get the best acceleration from the V2, we should short shift that much??? What dyno sheet are you using to calculate this?

Ummm...WOW though...

NormV
02-12-09, 02:31 PM
In a an old school, push rod engine with no electronic intakes and no boost to change the torque curve you can figure this for most motors. Just divide gear ratios and multiple by peak torque rpms(3800 rpms for the V). Boost and VANOS can change this. That is why I asked for the calculator he did not provide.

Add in a differential swap and the resultant wheel torque changes too.

Norm

The Tony Show
02-12-09, 02:48 PM
Just a little more fuel for the fire:

Since the only head to head test anyone's done of the M5 and CTS-V (which surprises me) was the Monticello match between Auberlen and Heinricy, I looked the article up to see some of the data that was only in the magazine (and not on their web site).

It would appear that the CTS-V is gripping better and carrying higher speeds through 6 of the 8 corners listed. After looking over the data and visualizing the runs, it seems that the only reason Auberlen was able to run a similar lap time was a better exit speed in Turn 18 right before the S/F line (as evidenced by the speed at S/F shown in #18).

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=109&pictureid=2200

If you look up to Turn 1 though, the data shows that both cars are equal at 150mph through the right hand kink, so it would appear that the CTS-V is able to overcome a 4mph exit speed deficit going into a long straightaway- but how? So far in this thread, it has been argued that the higher redline would become even more of an advantage as speeds rise on long straights.

If the M5 truly had the advantage you're claiming due to the higher redline, it should take that 4mph exit speed advantage and turn it into an even bigger difference by the end of that massive straight, but the data doesn't agree with your hypothesis. If the CTS-V comes out of that corner at a lower speed and lower RPM than the M5, there's only one possible answer to how it is able to regain the lost time and speed:


TORQUE

Heavychevy1
02-12-09, 02:48 PM
Guys---just keep in mind, since this thread has been going on for so long, one might want to realize that changing opinions at this time just isn't going to happen....

I found this interesting though...



Am I interpreting this correctly? To get the best acceleration from the V2, we should short shift that much??? What dyno sheet are you using to calculate this?

Ummm...WOW though...

http://www.my330i.com/gears.php

Here is an example. It's really a tool that tells you at what mph you will get in each gear, but by entering a torque peak it will tell you when to shift to optimize your powerband which is from peak torque to redline.

The problem with the V making peak torque at 3800 rpm is that is where you want the RPMs' to drop to to maximize the powerband and leave nothing on the table. The V is powerful enough to cover it, but it's not making the best use of the powerband unless you shift at those RPMs. Good thing is there isn't much torque drop off at the top end of the RPM range so the difference isnt all that big.

Luna.
02-12-09, 02:50 PM
Interesting...

Bear with me, as I'm learning as I go here, but...

The "best" way to do that would be to have a dyno sheet, by gear, yes?

It stands to reason that all one would need to do is compare wheel torque, at a given RPM, and one could calculate that fairly simply.

Or am I missing something??

Heavychevy1
02-12-09, 02:58 PM
Funny how the hp advantage seems to be forgotten in each and every post by some of you. As if the hp advantage isn't enough to provide that amount of distance by itself.

But regardless, the speed it peak speed which as I've mentioned before has everything to do with the ability of the car to take turn 1 flat out (or not) and how long you can go before hitting the brakes. If you look, you'll see the V is able to brake harder going into turn 2 despite being heavier and on the same tires. That is a big difference in braking. A split second later from throttle to brake is a few mph.


HORSEPOWER!!!!!



Just a little more fuel for the fire:

Since the only head to head test anyone's done of the M5 and CTS-V (which surprises me) was the Monticello match between Auberlen and Heinricy, I looked the article up to see some of the data that was only in the magazine (and not on their web site).

It would appear that the CTS-V is gripping better and carrying higher speeds through 6 of the 8 corners listed. After looking over the data and visualizing the runs, it seems that the only reason Auberlen was able to run a similar lap time was a better exit speed in Turn 18 right before the S/F line (as evidenced by the speed at S/F shown in #18).

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=109&pictureid=2200

If you look up to Turn 1 though, the data shows that both cars are equal at 150mph through the right hand kink, so it would appear that the CTS-V is able to overcome a 4mph exit speed deficit going into a long straightaway- but how? So far in this thread, it has been argued that the higher redline would become even more of an advantage as speeds rise on long straights.

If the M5 truly had the advantage you're claiming due to the higher redline, it should take that 4mph exit speed advantage and turn it into an even bigger difference by the end of that massive straight, but the data doesn't agree with your hypothesis. If the CTS-V comes out of that corner at a lower speed and lower RPM than the M5, there's only one possible answer to how it is able to regain the lost time and speed:


TORQUE

Luna.
02-12-09, 02:58 PM
http://www.my330i.com/gears.php

Here is an example. It's really a tool that tells you at what mph you will get in each gear, but by entering a torque peak it will tell you when to shift to optimize your powerband which is from peak torque to redline.

The problem with the V making peak torque at 3800 rpm is that is where you want the RPMs' to drop to to maximize the powerband and leave nothing on the table. The V is powerful enough to cover it, but it's not making the best use of the powerband unless you shift at those RPMs. Good thing is there isn't much torque drop off at the top end of the RPM range so the difference isnt all that big.

I guess I need to put some more thought into this...

Wouldn't just looking at the engine's peak torque be very limited in terms of deciding when to shift? :confused:

The Tony Show
02-12-09, 03:02 PM
http://www.my330i.com/gears.php

Here is an example. It's really a tool that tells you at what mph you will get in each gear, but by entering a torque peak it will tell you when to shift to optimize your powerband which is from peak torque to redline.

The problem with the V making peak torque at 3800 rpm is that is where you want the RPMs' to drop to to maximize the powerband and leave nothing on the table. The V is powerful enough to cover it, but it's not making the best use of the powerband unless you shift at those RPMs. Good thing is there isn't much torque drop off at the top end of the RPM range so the difference isnt all that big.

The V's torque curve is so flat that you should keep accelerating until just before redline before shifting. Yes, using the earlier shift points mentioned above will drop you right onto the "peak" torque of the LSA, but by doing so you'll be sacrificing all the time accelerating in a lower gear (and the resulting torque multiplication granted by the lower gear).

Here's a graph for the Gen 1 CTS-V that factors in both the engine torque at a given RPM as well as the actual produced torque through gear multiplication to illustrate the point:

http://www.cadillacfaq.com/faq/answers/img/shiftperf.jpg
(Image borrowed from www.cadillacfaq.com- go donate some money there!)

EricVonHa
02-12-09, 03:02 PM
Don't read too much into the Turn 18 speeds of both cars. When you look at the rest of the track and the fact that the CTS-V had higher exit speeds from the majority of those turns-- it should've also had a higher exit speed from Turn 18.

But, there are many many many speculative factors that could've caused the V to be slower from Turn 18. The driver could've lost confidence from the cars brakes, perhaps the Bimmer transitions weight better on tighter turns, perhaps the Bimmer gearing for that turn was more better... and on and on.

All in all, from looking at the track map and the listed corner exit speeds-- I'd suggest that the CTS-V had the lowest elapsed time for that lap. If not, then it was "tires" or "brakes" and not just raw power (or torque or whatever you guys are clammering about). The thing obviously makes massive power, but if you can't put it down everywhere (i.e. Turn 18) then your next corner speed is going to be lower/slower.

Oh, and let's not forget aerodynamics too...

The V is definitely the more "fun" car to drive at that track. It was all over the place with higher speeds-- and on a track like that-- speed is where it's at.

Heavychevy1
02-12-09, 03:10 PM
I guess I need to put some more thought into this...

Wouldn't just looking at the engine's peak torque be very limited in terms of deciding when to shift? :confused:

I made a mistake earlier, your ideal power band is from peak torque to peak hp (not redline) as seen on a dyno sheet. This is where your motor makes the most power for the longest period of time at WOT. Go below peak torque and you bog the motor, and too far above peak torque and you miss out on time that could be used staying in that power band.

Obviously when you shift your car, the idea is for the RPM's to drop right to peak Torque and run exactly to peak HP and then shift again. This is the ideal power band and this calculator helps to tell you how your car will shift.

In many cars it is NOT ideal to run to redline before shifting which is where shift lights come in. You may need to short shift to maximize the rpms because the hp may drop off right before redline. You want to shift right before it drops off. The faster you are going, the bigger the effect of getting out of your power band will be.

Luna.
02-12-09, 03:21 PM
The V's torque curve is so flat that you should keep accelerating until just before redline before shifting. Yes, using the earlier shift points mentioned above will drop you right onto the "peak" torque of the LSA, but by doing so you'll be sacrificing all the time accelerating in a lower gear (and the resulting torque multiplication granted by the lower gear).

Here's a graph for the Gen 1 CTS-V that factors in both the engine torque at a given RPM as well as the actual produced torque through gear multiplication to illustrate the point:

http://www.cadillacfaq.com/faq/answers/img/shiftperf.jpg
(Image borrowed from www.cadillacfaq.com- (http://www.cadillacfaq.com-) go donate some money there!)

That makes sense Tony, especially the part about gear multiplication. I mean, isn't that why a car/motor, like in the M5, can accelerate on par with the CTS-V, despite having a huge deficiency in wheel torque?

Gear multiplication seems to be the advantage of the higher RPM/lower torque motors.

I'd love to learn how to calculate that though. :)