: Performance of Auto vs Manual



nradcad
08-02-09, 03:50 PM
I'm not trying to start an auto/manual debate and I apologize if this has also been discussed, but.....

Why does the auto have better performance numbers than the manual? Reviewers consistently give the auto the nod, especially since it is a few ticks quicker to 60 and better 1/4 mile time.

I would just like to understand why it performs better.

tedcmiller
08-02-09, 03:56 PM
The automatic performs better because it shifts faster than can be done with the manual. However, there is some loss of top end when the automatic is selected over the manual because the speed limiter is set lower. Who cares?

Gary Wells
08-02-09, 04:33 PM
I have read on this forum that the auto is more aggressively geared that the stick, also, but have not personally verified this.

musclesbmf
08-02-09, 04:49 PM
I would like to see how the auto performs with the 3.73 rear that the manual comes with.

Mark

4gear70
08-02-09, 04:59 PM
I would like to see how the manual performs with the 4.02 first gear that the auto comes with.

kck
08-02-09, 05:06 PM
I'm not trying to start an auto/manual debate and I apologize if this has also been discussed, but.....

Why does the auto have better performance numbers than the manual? Reviewers consistently give the auto the nod, especially since it is a few ticks quicker to 60 and better 1/4 mile time.

I would just like to understand why it performs better.

I’ve seen a number of articles that appear to confirm Gary’s understanding that the auto V has lower gearing (higher gear ratios) – at least in the lower-numbered gears (the first 3 gears?) used for 0-60 and ¼ mile runs. Accordingly, even though the horsepower & torque of the manual V is likely to be a bit higher than the auto V (due to less “powertrain loss” from crank to the rear wheels in manuals), the auto gains the upper-hand in the acceleration contests.

However, I’m not sure if “faster shifting” of the auto is a factor in the better times that the auto obtains in almost every review by car magazines. It is my (admittedly vague) understanding that the more “professional” drivers who typically do the car reviews can actually do faster “power-shifts” with the manual such that they beat the auto in shift time (especially given the “torque management” imposed on the auto). Of course, in “real-world” settings, typical “amateur” drivers are likely to realize faster shifts using an auto than a manual. And my guess is that it is likely easier to more quickly (or “consistently”) “launch” an auto than a manual from a standing start.

Some of these auto vs. manual issues are also being discussed on another current thread: http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2009/176135-mods-installed-then-dyno-run-2.html

Kyle

CadV
08-02-09, 05:09 PM
I would like to see how the auto performs with the 3.73 rear that the manual comes with.

Mark

That would be very interesting indeed.

edsuski
08-02-09, 05:27 PM
I think we have all seen this progression happening over time. There was a time when virtually everyone thought that manuals were "faster" than automatics. I suspect that this was in deed the fact. Now, automatics have gotten better and better over time. We are now seeing, more and more often, that the automatic version of sports car "X" is "faster" than the manual. I know there is a lot of bravado involved in this subject, but should one really be surprised that the on-board computer "should" be better able to shift than the person in the drives seat? Yes we all contain even more powerful "on-board computers" in our heads, but are they as aware of the cars mechanicals?

I like to "think" that I am a marvelous shifter, but I have to admit that I have, on several occasions, when it really counted (i.e. Turbo Porsche driver needs a spanking, girlfriend wants me to race someone etc.) missed the occasional shift. Automatics are often more attuned to the car and thus "faster". Not always, not in every situation but, I have never once missed a shift from a stop in my auto V.

Caroutisine
08-02-09, 06:19 PM
Yes. All good points, old school manuals were thought to be faster than Autos. And the top end of the V2 manual is limited to 198 versus 175 for the auto. It's all personal preferance. I prefer to have an auto, as the matter of fact that's one of the reasons I didn't get one of the first generation CTS-Vs since they were manual only. The V2 has gotten more buyers because of the transmission choice now.

nradcad
08-02-09, 06:23 PM
Currently I drive an M3 with SMG. I've been looking for a reason to come back to my roots for awhile and I think the CTS-V could be that car. Issue I have is I love the flappy paddle gear box of the SMG. When I'm on a track it's like playing a video game. That gear box makes it seamless to shift and not upsetting the car. When I test drove the auto CTS-V, its shifts were very delayed from when I initiated the shift to when it occurred. Now the gear exchange was fast, albeit not 80ms SMG fast, but decent. But what concerned me was "I want the gear when I want the gear!" not when-the-car-feels-like-it-amount-of-time later. With the limited time I had in the car, I didn't get the feeling of good throttle matching either. With regard to sprint speed, the first reply stated "Who cares?" Well, I most certainly do. Three tenths is quite a lot.

commander112
08-02-09, 06:42 PM
Another reason that the auto appears faster and you folks may actually know for sure but I believe that most magazine tests state that they granny shift the manuals. That lift off the throttle allows the supercharger to come off load and thus will produce slower times than the auto where the supercharger is spooled the whole way up. Same issue for turbocharged cars in tests the manual is typically slower. The manual transmission V allows no lift shifting and can really take off when hammered. I often get a chirp hitting third gear.

edsuski
08-02-09, 06:43 PM
Keep in mind that the record lap at the Nurburgring was set with an auto and the paddle shifters were never touched.

kck
08-02-09, 06:54 PM
Another reason that the auto appears faster and you folks may actually know for sure but I believe that most magazine tests state that they granny shift the manuals. That lift off the throttle allows the supercharger to come off load and thus will produce slower times than the auto where the supercharger is spooled the whole way up. Same issue for turbocharged cars in tests the manual is typically slower. The manual transmission V allows no lift shifting and can really take off when hammered. I often get a chirp hitting third gear.

commander112:

That’s interesting information. I had always assumed the “pros” doing the car magazine testing would “power-shift” a manual – and especially so, given that the V has the “no-lift” shifting feature that you mention.

Kyle

kck
08-02-09, 07:20 PM
Currently I drive an M3 with SMG. I've been looking for a reason to come back to my roots for awhile and I think the CTS-V could be that car. Issue I have is I love the flappy paddle gear box of the SMG. When I'm on a track it's like playing a video game. That gear box makes it seamless to shift and not upsetting the car. When I test drove the auto CTS-V, its shifts were very delayed from when I initiated the shift to when it occurred. Now the gear exchange was fast, albeit not 80ms SMG fast, but decent. But what concerned me was "I want the gear when I want the gear!" not when-the-car-feels-like-it-amount-of-time later. With the limited time I had in the car, I didn't get the feeling of good throttle matching either. With regard to sprint speed, the first reply stated "Who cares?" Well, I most certainly do. Three tenths is quite a lot.

nradcad:

The “sluggish” auto transmission on the V is an issue that others have also noted. However, Tony407 and other posters have indicated that a “transmission tune” (from Wait4me) apparently overcomes this problem.

Also, I believe you may have misinterpreted the “who cares” comment from tedcmiller. I don’t think he was suggesting that one should not care that the auto is the faster “sprinter.” I think he was suggesting that one should not care that the auto has a speed governor that limits the top end to 170 mph. I’m assuming he doesn’t care about this difference in top-end speed that favors the manual because he does not plan on ever driving at that speed!

Kyle

jwa999
08-02-09, 07:21 PM
Manual 996 turbo owner here, and Auto cts-v owner with w4m tune.

'let me tell je something'
One more than one occasion when I wanted quick performance, i wished I had an automatic shifter in the porsche. Now i love the manual, although when I first got it, I didn't do proper shifts and ran through the clutch after 23K. But now i'm at 53K and the clutch is still good. The porsche has a very wide powerband. Usually i'm in 5th gear on the highway and if anybody challenges me i barely have to put my foot down and i have tons of power.
In the cts-v i'd be in sport mode and instead of putting my foot down and waiting for a downshift, i manually downshift. That's always quicker.

On a race track, your shifts are much more predictable. I find the manual shifters on the steering wheel work very well. The car shifts very smooth between 3-4-5-6. There is the occasional hickup from 2-3, not always not at high revs. You don't really use 2nd gear all that much. The manual mode in the auto is very very nice. I'm waiting for jesse's tune that will shift to the next gear at redline in manual mode, so you can be more aggressive.
You can linger in a lower gear through a corner in your preferred gear and then stomp on it without worrying hitting cutoff. You can downshift all day long and not have to worry about hitting a cutoff.

So, all in all, the manual shifts in an auto are very good. I love it. On the highway i use the shifter to go down and up. Just like a manual only quicker. I haven't driven the manual V, I'm sure i'd love it too.

Main reason I got the auto, if my wife needs to drive it, she won't have a problem with her wrist and hips pushing the clutch. I also have a sensitive back and i've had times where the engine vibrations from the clutch and the shifter have affected my nerves. My the left foot would hurt for hours. Had to put a foam block on the clutch to relieve the vibrations. All better now, vibrations in the porsche are all gone now. Some times you get bad gas...

Hans.

nradcad
08-02-09, 09:07 PM
nradcad:

The “sluggish” auto transmission on the V is an issue that others have also noted. However, Tony407 and other posters have indicated that a “transmission tune” (from Wait4me) apparently overcomes this problem.

Also, I believe you may have misinterpreted the “who cares” comment from tedcmiller. I don’t think he was suggesting that one should not care that the auto is the faster “sprinter.” I think he was suggesting that one should not care that the auto has a speed governor that limits the top end to 170 mph. I’m assuming he doesn’t care about this difference in top-end speed that favors the manual because he does not plan on ever driving at that speed!

Kyle

Good call. You're prolly right on the 'who cares' comment. So my next question is: Is the Wait4me tune a warrantee voider? I'd be very interested in knowing the specifics of that tune. If we can get those paddle shifters to feel like an SMG, I'm sold and I'll buy one this week.

A comment to the non nolift shifting for car mags -> really? why? On the kill or be killed playing filed of mass opinion formed by car magazine reviews, you'd figure the tester would post the absolute best performance obtainable from the car.

Something also I'd like to note, you guys are really polite, nice, entertaining and very informative to talk to. Quite a change from the M3 forums.....

Me Wanna A V
08-02-09, 10:02 PM
I could care less if the auto is quicker to 60mph or in the 1/4 mile. The true measure of power is the MPH at the end of the quarter mile (trap speed).
The latest Road and Track has a manual trapping 118.8 mph in the quarter. Anyone seen an auto trap faster?
I don't know about you guys, but would you rather have an auto that does 12.2@116 or a manual that does 12.3@118.8 That extra 2+ mph will show up during most street races (closed track of course!!!!) where the manual will pull away.
Also, I'm sure the manual is easier to fit some nice long tube headers on.:thumbsup:

Gary Wells
08-02-09, 10:13 PM
Somebody posted a while back that they had an auto, bone stock, and was running 12.00 & small change.

jwa999
08-02-09, 10:16 PM
I'd be very interested in knowing the specifics of that tune. If we can get those paddle shifters to feel like an SMG, I'm sold and I'll buy one this week.

I don't know about SMG, but the tune does make the car behaviour night and day.
First of all, you will get more low end hp/torque, so that makes the car snappier.
Then the transmission tune makes the sport auto a lot better. It upshifts and downshifts on command, stays very close to where you'd like it. the rev limiter has been raised a little, so it shifts at the ideal moment.
The manual shifts also react quicker, but not as quick as say the Dual clutch I played with the latest m3. There are tradeoffs in price/performance.

Oh, and you can return back to stock for warranty work. I had my transmission go out, and they replaced it without asking.

Hans.

edsuski
08-03-09, 12:08 AM
I could care less if the auto is quicker to 60mph or in the 1/4 mile. The true measure of power is the MPH at the end of the quarter mile (trap speed).
The latest Road and Track has a manual trapping 118.8 mph in the quarter. Anyone seen an auto trap faster?
I don't know about you guys, but would you rather have an auto that does 12.2@116 or a manual that does 12.3@118.8 That extra 2+ mph will show up during most street races (closed track of course!!!!) where the manual will pull away.
Also, I'm sure the manual is easier to fit some nice long tube headers on.:thumbsup:

Think about what you are saying. Do you really race 1/4 mile on the street? You realize that exceeding 100 can be a felony and result in the loss of your driver’s license for a whole year - don't you? Even if you do race 1/4 miles at over 110 mph - the vast majority of people don't. Also - I have never missed a shift from a standing start - can you say that?

To each his/her own, but the auto is my choice, especially in LA traffic.

CadV
08-03-09, 12:39 AM
Gonna finally get off my butt and sync EFILive up to my car. I know Jesse is changing 2 tranny values in his tune. I will post what they are when I get a chance.

marktanner
08-03-09, 12:44 AM
Acceleration runs are very complex, indeed. In the past, manuals were definitely faster than automatics, because they were lighter, had more gears, and had much less power loss. Engines with low torque are definitely handicapped by automatics. My 1987 Sterling with a 2.5 liter 6 did 0-60 in 8-8.5 sec with a stick, and a leisurely 13 sec with a 4-sp auto! The converse is true for cars with lots of low end torque. The legendary Chaparral race car of the 60's won races with a big engine and Powerglide!

With the V, we have a car with tons of torque, and relatively limited traction. It's not easy to launch the manual at full throttle, because it's so easy to overwhelm the tires, and if the traction control cuts in, you lose boost. The car could definitely use launch control. The auto is easier to launch from a standstill, for sure. This could account for up to 0.5 sec, in some cases, less for an expert driver. At higher speeds, the lower weight and more efficient power transfer help make up the difference. No-lift shift could also help, if you can remember to do it and force yourself to undo years of habit. When it's all said and done, the auto seems to test 0.1 sec faster 0-60, and 0.1-2 sec in the quarter, though a faster trap speed means it's gaining. The manual in the proper gear would win a highway pull, I believe.

A road course test would be very interesting. Launch is not an issue. The lighter transmission could help the handling balance and braking. One would more likely use the no-lift shift when getting into a rhythm on the track. Plus, you always know when the gears are changing with a stick, not so with an auto. This is much more important on the track than drag racing, especially when down shifting. No worries about auto transmission temperatures and longevity, either. Overall, I think a stick would be slightly faster on the track. Heinricy has stated that he prefers the stick, but that he made the run at the 'Ring with an auto because that's what he had been driving there all week, and I don't blame him for not switching at the last minute at that very challenging track.

In the end, the differences are pretty small. If you want to drag race, get the auto. If you want to track it, consider the stick. For just street driving, get what you enjoy the most. The stick is a great transmission, and the auto, especially with a tune, seems to be equally good. The stick is $1300 cheaper and gets a bit better mileage, but fewer people can drive it. People are always stunned when they see a stick in a Cadillac, though. Seems to give the car more credibility as a serious driver's car, if they're not that familiar with the V.

SlvrBullIT
08-03-09, 02:45 AM
Stick is ~100lbs lighter to I think.

jwa999
08-03-09, 04:18 AM
Stick is ~100lbs lighter to I think.

One tank of gas is 108lbs.

SlvrBullIT
08-03-09, 05:18 AM
So a 6sp manual with 1/2 tank of gas is 154lbs lighter...... about the size of 1 avg passenger :)
Nice way to shed some fat from this heavy dancing porker.....

commander112
08-03-09, 07:54 AM
Agree about the stick having more street cred and marktanner's comments in general. Having owned a V1 and now a V2 it is still amazing to a lot of people that get in my car that this is a Caddy with a stick. I then have to explain about the power and they are always amazed. Valets always love when I pull in with the V.

nradcad
08-03-09, 09:21 AM
I don't know about SMG, but the tune does make the car behaviour night and day.
First of all, you will get more low end hp/torque, so that makes the car snappier.
Then the transmission tune makes the sport auto a lot better. It upshifts and downshifts on command, stays very close to where you'd like it. the rev limiter has been raised a little, so it shifts at the ideal moment.
The manual shifts also react quicker, but not as quick as say the Dual clutch I played with the latest m3. There are tradeoffs in price/performance.

Oh, and you can return back to stock for warranty work. I had my transmission go out, and they replaced it without asking.

Hans.

Do you think the tranny retune caused your issue to have to get it replaeced?

jwa999
08-03-09, 01:16 PM
Do you think the tranny retune caused your issue to have to get it replaeced?

no. the tranny was locking up 5th gear. burned up the clutches.
They could never identify the cause.
I'm running the new tranny with the same tune, no problems.

Hans.

kck
08-03-09, 02:00 PM
marktanner:

Nice summary!

In the various car magazine reviews, I have focused on the quarter mile time, not the trap speed. So when you look across the many reviews, is it the case that the manual is consistently a couple of mph faster in trap time? If so, then it makes sense that from a “rolling start” (which I understand that the “pro” street drag racers prefer because it is far less hard on the tranny) the manual would have a slight edge.

It also would appear that the wait4me tranny tune benefits the auto even more than the manual. So I wonder if the comparable quarter mile times with tranny tunes would show an even greater advantage for the auto, and the differences in the track times that are likely to favor the manual would “narrow” somewhat?

Finally, I’m still not clear how much of a weight advantage the manual has over the auto. I think I recall seeing something like a 50 lb. difference. Does anyone have more definitive information on what GM states regarding the weight for these 2 versions of the V?

Kyle

tedcmiller
08-03-09, 02:00 PM
To kck, actually I don't care about either the difference in auto vs. manual times or the loss of top end with an auto. You are correct that I don't plan to drive at top end speeds. I "suffered" through a manual transmission with both my 2004 and 2005 CTS-V (and many cars I had before them including a 1966 GTO) and was vary glad to see the 2009 CTS-V was available with an automatic transmission. I ordered and received my 2009 CTS-V with an automatic and I have never looked back. I hated having to shift gears all of the time, especially in stop and go traffic, and really enjoy not having to do that anymore. When I had my 1966 GTO I was a lot younger and did not mind shifting gears (it was a 4-speed floor shift). Now I am an "old fart" and I like automatics.

wait4me
08-03-09, 02:10 PM
Gonna finally get off my butt and sync EFILive up to my car. I know Jesse is changing 2 tranny values in his tune. I will post what they are when I get a chance.




All the changes i do will not show up in any software. I helped set up/ida pro/emulate the cals for that controller in efilive. I left out quite a few tables that people wouldnt understand and could cause damage if modified incorrectly.

There are about 40 changes i believe all made in Hex to the raw cals. Then i just do the math for the checksums.

Gary Wells
08-03-09, 02:12 PM
Somebody very recently advised a 100 lb. difference, but the person did not quote a reference, I don't believe.

Gary Wells
08-03-09, 02:16 PM
Stick is ~100lbs lighter to I think.
Aha, here it is. SlvrBullIT generally has reliable information, I think.

kck
08-03-09, 02:21 PM
To kck, actually I don't care about either the difference in auto vs. manual times or the loss of top end with an auto. You are correct that I don't plan to drive at top end speeds. I "suffered" through a manual transmission with both my 2004 and 2005 CTS-V (and many cars I had before them including a 1966 GTO) and was vary glad to see the 2009 CTS-V was available with an automatic transmission. I ordered and received my 2009 CTS-V with an automatic and I have never looked back. I hated having to shift gears all of the time, especially in stop and go traffic, and really enjoy not having to do that anymore. When I had my 1966 GTO I was a lot younger and did not mind shifting gears (it was a 4-speed floor shift). Now I am an "old fart" and I like automatics.

tedcmiller:

I am in total agreement with you! Way back in my early 20s, I had a modified Z-28 with the “rock-crusher” 4-speed that made a wonderful “whine” in the lower gears when cruising main street. I absolutely loved that car. But now that I’m an “old fart,” I would not think of ordering my V with other than an auto. In fact, the availability of the V with the auto option is one of the major reasons I bought the V rather than, say, the Z06 (OK, it’s also the case that the Z06 is out of the price range I was considering).

Kyle

Gary Wells
08-03-09, 03:09 PM
tedcmiller:

I am in total agreement with you! Way back in my early 20s, I had a modified Z-28 with the “rock-crusher” 4-speed that made a wonderful “whine” in the lower gears when cruising main street. I absolutely loved that car. But now that I’m an “old fart,” I would not think of ordering my V with other than an auto. In fact, the availability of the V with the auto option is one of the major reasons I bought the V rather than, say, the Z06 (OK, it’s also the case that the Z06 is out of the price range I was considering).

Kyle

I totally agree with both of you gentleman and a new '07 or '08 C6ZO6 was within the price that I was considering. In fact, I originally was looking for a new '07-'08 C6ZO6 but, I couldn't have white, couldn't have an automatic, in addition to age, arthritic conditions, about 40 lbs. overweight, & last but not least, height to the ground (getting in & out), the Cad became the choice for me. Before long, everyone of your neighbors will have a new C^ZO6 parked in their garage excepting you will have the only Cad CTS-V within a mile radius. Now how kool is that?

CadV
08-03-09, 03:13 PM
I am with you guys. I am 32 and drive in heavy traffic everyday. I have been there and done that with manuals and I prefer the ease of an auto.

JFJr
08-03-09, 03:43 PM
For those that do not want to burn expensive rubber while shifting, but still get exceptional acceleration performance, wouldn't the manual transmission provide more control in certain circumstances?

CadV
08-03-09, 03:52 PM
For those that do not want to burn expensive rubber while shifting, but still get exceptional acceleration performance, wouldn't the manual transmission provide more control in certain circumstances?

I would think you would wear tires more with a manual. Acceleration would probably go to the automatic with top end going to manual. Manual would provide a lot more control but the paddle shifters close the gap.

mik2718
08-03-09, 06:56 PM
When I had my 1966 GTO I was a lot younger and did not mind shifting gears (it was a 4-speed floor shift). Now I am an "old fart" and I like automatics.

Heck, I always liked automatics. I put a TH400 in my 1966 GTO. And, I didn't even consider getting a CTS-V until the 2009 came out. The auto is a pleasure to drive and is not a performance slouch. If others want the extra "fun" of rowing a manual all day, every day, I'm really glad that the V offers them that opportunity.

GPat599
08-03-09, 08:22 PM
I second that...this auto is awesome with the W4M tune. I can scratch 3rd all day long using the paddles. Being able to drink a coke and eat a burger while I shit on some kid in his "badass" mustang is one of the great joys in life.

Me Wanna A V
08-03-09, 08:41 PM
Think about what you are saying. Do you really race 1/4 mile on the street? You realize that exceeding 100 can be a felony and result in the loss of your driver’s license for a whole year - don't you? Even if you do race 1/4 miles at over 110 mph - the vast majority of people don't. Also - I have never missed a shift from a standing start - can you say that?

To each his/her own, but the auto is my choice, especially in LA traffic.

I suppose I should have clarifed a little better!
Most street races don't actually involve two cars revving their motors waiting for the light to turn green. 99% of the time, it involves both cars already rolling, therefore the vehicle with more power (trap speed) should pull away. I agree the manual driver better not miss a gear, or even sneeze for that matter, making the auto a great all around choice.
Also, please spare the P.C. comments about street racing, as I'm sure we've all engaged in some deviant road behavior in the past. :rolleyes:

Gary Wells
08-03-09, 09:03 PM
All kidding aside regarding street racing, almost all cities & counties in the Republik of Kali have enacted a law that if you are caught in a street race, or speed contest, if you will, your car will be impounded, it will be crushed, and you will receive an invitation from the local law enforce jurisdiction to observe the crushing. It does not matter if it is paid for or not, yours or your friends, relatives, or your spouse. Now, everybody start your motors & line them up. You will also lose your license for a year, I believe.

SlvrBullIT
08-03-09, 09:35 PM
Aha, here it is. SlvrBullIT generally has reliable information, I think.


"Curb weight: 4200 lbs (manual) or 4300 lbs (automatic)"

Still trying to get the spec sheets for the
TR6060 (MH3 MG9) 6sp manual and
6L90 6sp Auto so it'll show the weights

Gary Wells
08-03-09, 09:39 PM
"Curb weight: 4200 lbs (manual) or 4300 lbs (automatic)"

Still trying to get the spec sheets for the
TR6060 (MH3 MG9) 6sp manual and
6L90 6sp Auto so it'll show the weights

Damn good thing that I said that your information was reliable. I didn't expect you to cough up verification quite that quick.

Low_ET
08-03-09, 09:59 PM
The car weight thread is at:
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2009/167722-car-weight.html

My V2 automatic with sunroof is 4170 empty and 4280 with a full tank of gas.

Somebody with a manual transmission should weigh their car and post the result.

SlvrBullIT
08-03-09, 10:14 PM
Damn good thing that I said that your information was reliable. I didn't expect you to cough up verification quite that quick.

I like empirical evidence, hence I always challenge when someone says, "A is better than B" ..... Well how is A > B?

I had once looked at the weights and the 6sp man was ~100lbs lighter (curb weight) than the auto...I can see it in just the tranny fluid fill jeebus!!

kck
08-03-09, 10:40 PM
I totally agree with both of you gentleman and a new '07 or '08 C6ZO6 was within the price that I was considering. In fact, I originally was looking for a new '07-'08 C6ZO6 but, I couldn't have white, couldn't have an automatic, in addition to age, arthritic conditions, about 40 lbs. overweight, & last but not least, height to the ground (getting in & out), the Cad became the choice for me. Before long, everyone of your neighbors will have a new C^ZO6 parked in their garage excepting you will have the only Cad CTS-V within a mile radius. Now how kool is that?

Gary Wells:

Geez, Gary, I don’t what kind of neighborhood you live in, but mine definitely does not have new Z06s parked in their garages! In fact, in the entire city of Omaha (which has considerable affluence, and not because Warren Buffett lives here) I’ve seen no C6-Z06s this summer, and only 1 last summer. (Of course, all Vettes disappear during our winter season.) My local Caddy dealer has told me they did service a ZR-1 a few months ago.

But you are certainly correct that the V2s are rare. In Omaha I have not seen even one other V2, although my local Caddy dealer says they have sold one (Raven Black) V2. When I stopped at Advanced Auto recently, the sales guy said someone with a Black Raven V had been at the store a few weeks earlier.

Kyle

kck
08-03-09, 10:49 PM
All kidding aside regarding street racing, almost all cities & counties in the Republik of Kali have enacted a law that if you are caught in a street race, or speed contest, if you will, your car will be impounded, it will be crushed, and you will receive an invitation from the local law enforce jurisdiction to observe the crushing. It does not matter if it is paid for or not, yours or your friends, relatives, or your spouse. Now, everybody start your motors & line them up. You will also lose your license for a year, I believe.

Gary:

Thanks for the information. My brother still lives in California and occasionally gets into ("mature") street races with his Mercedes sports car. I don't think he is aware that he could have his car crushed, if he is caught.

Kyle

Gary Wells
08-03-09, 10:52 PM
I'll give you a hint:
I have a 3 car almost fully enclosed driveway adjoining my 2 bedroom "Desert oasis" tent. Seriously, I'm in a mobile home park, but I've got the only Cad CTS-V up here out of 511 homes. I've also got the only turbo brick up here. I had 3 turbo Buicks parked in my driveway at one time, and the neighbors stopped by to see what was the matter with me. Now they know something is the matter with me, they are just too afraid to stop by and ask. Sometimes not playing with a full deck has its advantages. I did hear rumors once that somebody referred to my turbo Buick as the "Masarati of the trailer park"

Gary Wells
08-03-09, 10:59 PM
Gary:

Thanks for the information. My brother still lives in California and occasionally gets into ("mature") street races with his Mercedes sports car. I don't think he is aware that he could have his car crushed, if he is caught.

Kyle
They can't do it for exhibition of speed nor reckless driving, nor speeding, but they can for an actual street race, or speed contest as they call it.
About 6 or 7 years ago, it was in the Orange County register newspaper that 60 something cars were going to be crushed under the new at that time law.

Who would all believe what Henry Gregory Felsen would start? I really doubt if anybody here is old enough to remember that name & who he was.

kck
08-03-09, 11:27 PM
They can't do it for exhibition of speed nor reckless driving, nor speeding, but they can for an actual street race, or speed contest as they call it.
About 6 or 7 years ago, it was in the Orange County register newspaper that 60 something cars were going to be crushed under the new at that time law.

Who would all believe what Henry Gregory Felsen would start? I really doubt if anybody here is old enough to remember that name & who he was.

Gary: Thanks for the clarification! (And I'd love to see that "Maserati" you mention in your previous post!!)

OK, I'll bite: Who is Henry Gregory Felsen?

Kyle

kck
08-03-09, 11:31 PM
Here’s what GMX322V S/C has to say on a previous “weight” thread that Low_ET gave us on the current thread:


Remember back when all of the published curb weights had (est.) next to them? The cadillac.com website now specifies exact weights:

4,222 lbs. (manual)
4,255 lbs. (automatic)

...a difference of only 33 lbs?? :bouncy:

Last time I checked (GM Media), the wet weights between the two trannys was almost exactly 100 lbs, which coincided with the early overall estimates. What could possibly have brought the overall weights so much closer together? Could the individual specs for the trannys have been that far off? :shhh:

But a subsequent post on the above thread might be interpreted as suggesting that this very small weight difference is without fluids added (i.e., “dry weights”) – and someone else has suggested that the fluids in the auto add considerably more weight than the fluids in the manual.

For weights of auto vs. manual, see GM web page at: http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/po_specification.jsp?model=ctsv&year=2009


Also, with regard to questions concerning the gear ratios on the auto vs. manual, I’ve included the information below that I took from the following GM web page: http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/po_package.jsp?model=ctsv&trim=CTS-V&year=2009&package=&showAllStdOpt=all&section=Powertrain

Gear Ratios:

Manual - 1st: 2.66; 2nd: 1.78; 3rd: 1.30; 4th: 1.00; 5th: 0.80; 6th: 0.63; Reverse: 2.90; Final Drive: 3.73

Automatic - 1st: 4.02; 2nd: 2.36; 3rd: 1.53; 4th: 1.15; 5th: 0.85; 6th: 0.67; Reverse: 3.06; Final Drive: 3.23

Kyle

Gary Wells
08-03-09, 11:57 PM
Gary: Thanks for the clarification! (And I'd love to see that "Maserati" you mention in your previous post!!)

OK, I'll bite: Who is Henry Gregory Felsen?

Kyle

Kyle:

http://www.scandc.com/images/New%20pics%2087%20turbo-t%20after%20SC&C%20install%20001.jpg

Henry Gregory Felsen was the dude that wrote all of the paperback "hot Rod" books back in the late '50's- early '60's. He did not start the hot rod movement, but he was one of the 1st ones to make them famous with his books.

nradcad
08-04-09, 12:11 AM
with regards to the wait4me tune, does anyone live in the Houston area that has this tune that I might be able to feel the performance? I'm considering getting this car, and I would really like to experience it. I think some of you may know Matt Reiland. He is a good friend of mine and has been trying to get me to buy a CTS-V for years.

kck
08-04-09, 12:34 AM
with regards to the wait4me tune, does anyone live in the Houston area that has this tune that I might be able to feel the performance? I'm considering getting this car, and I would really like to experience it. I think some of you may know Matt Reiland. He is a good friend of mine and has been trying to get me to buy a CTS-V for years.

nradcad:

I’m planning on a trip to Indiana in the next couple of weeks to have Jesse install his tunes and performance mods on my V. But I’m assuming you don’t want to drive to my place in Omaha to see what he has done!

I’ve never had the pleasure of exchanging "posts" with Matt Reiland, but I know that he has been incredibly generous in helping forum members obtain GM employee pricing. His reputation on this forum would certainly indicate that you are very fortunate to have him as a friend.

Kyle

GPat599
08-04-09, 02:03 AM
with regards to the wait4me tune, does anyone live in the Houston area that has this tune that I might be able to feel the performance? I'm considering getting this car, and I would really like to experience it. I think some of you may know Matt Reiland. He is a good friend of mine and has been trying to get me to buy a CTS-V for years.

I'm in Austin and I have the W4M tune and W4M exhaust. I'll meet up with ya if you're ever in the area.

SlvrBullIT
08-04-09, 02:39 AM
I'm in Austin and I have the W4M tune and W4M exhaust. I'll meet up with ya if you're ever in the area.

We will have to meet up since I live in New Braunfels and am in Austin on most weekends..... :yup:

MReiland
08-04-09, 08:04 AM
with regards to the wait4me tune, does anyone live in the Houston area that has this tune that I might be able to feel the performance? I'm considering getting this car, and I would really like to experience it. I think some of you may know Matt Reiland. He is a good friend of mine and has been trying to get me to buy a CTS-V for years.

Whatever I can do to get you out of that M3 ....... :lildevil:

nradcad
08-04-09, 06:56 PM
Whatever I can do to get you out of that M3 ....... :lildevil:

Aahh...just like old times....:thumbsup:

In all seriousness, I’ve recently done some soul searching and I would like to outwardly support American ingenuity, engineering and prowess. I’m a big fan of competition, and don’t believe that we should buy American cars, to solely support American products. I don’t believe that’s how a country continues to lead the world in innovation. We should buy American cars, however, when they are better. What I found myself doing was justifying why I was driving a car that wasn’t performing as well, wasn’t priced as nice, and didn’t have comparable technology. When I realized that, I asked myself, “Self, why do I keep supporting the engineering of another nation and perpetuating their products that ultimately take away American buyers from superior American cars?”

Well, it ends now....or whenever Reiland gets me the GM pricing!

Luna.
08-04-09, 07:19 PM
Gear Ratios:

Manual - 1st: 2.66; 2nd: 1.78; 3rd: 1.30; 4th: 1.00; 5th: 0.80; 6th: 0.63; Reverse: 2.90; Final Drive: 3.73

Automatic - 1st: 4.02; 2nd: 2.36; 3rd: 1.53; 4th: 1.15; 5th: 0.85; 6th: 0.67; Reverse: 3.06; Final Drive: 3.23



I would find it a fascinating read if someone "in the know" could explain the logic of how GM came to gear the manual and the auto the way they did. Not that I'm complaining, I'd just love to hear/read the reasoning.

A 3.73 seems like a terrific choice for a differential ratio given the curb weight of the V, but the auto changes that and goes with a taller gear, but then changes the 1st through 3rd ratios to more than make up for it in terms of gear multiplication.

Why would they do that?!?!?!?!

Argh--this is so confusing!

TAGZO
08-04-09, 07:33 PM
Well here you go guys :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7M-5YENS4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7M-5YENS4

TAGZO
08-04-09, 08:13 PM
I would find it a fascinating read if someone "in the know" could explain the logic of how GM came to gear the manual and the auto the way they did. Not that I'm complaining, I'd just love to hear/read the reasoning.

A 3.73 seems like a terrific choice for a differential ratio given the curb weight of the V, but the auto changes that and goes with a taller gear, but then changes the 1st through 3rd ratios to more than make up for it in terms of gear multiplication.

Why would they do that?!?!?!?!

Argh--this is so confusing!
Well, they are just lazy! The manual transmission is the same what they have been using all the time! Camaro, Firebird, Corvettes, etc. use almost the same one! Recently they changed the 5th and 6th gear ratio only. I think it started 2005 when the new ZO6 came out, it think it is the exact same transmission the V has; which is designed for the Vette and not for the CTSV; but they used it anyway! But when they did the Automatic for the V, it had to be a 6 speed like all other manufactures are doing; therefore, they designed a new trans from the start and made it for the car exactly!

wait4me
08-04-09, 09:39 PM
If you follow what Short throw was saying on the max volocity of the transmissions, He said that the max speed on the auto was limited to 176 as that was the fastest safe speed internally allowed by the rotating parts... so, if they had a 3.73 that the manual had, that number would be ALOT lower to around 148-149 miles per hour before they would supposedly trash the transmission internals.

So, That is why.

Razorecko
08-04-09, 09:49 PM
^ yep. And as a member in dubai clearly has shown by going nearly 190mph in an auto. That the limiter is a software restriction. Obviously if you wanna nuke your trans above 176mph those would be your balls on the line not mine. :yup:

Luna.
08-04-09, 10:59 PM
If you follow what Short throw was saying on the max volocity of the transmissions, He said that the max speed on the auto was limited to 176 as that was the fastest safe speed internally allowed by the rotating parts... so, if they had a 3.73 that the manual had, that number would be ALOT lower to around 148-149 miles per hour before they would supposedly trash the transmission internals.

So, That is why.

Really?

Because of max speed?

That would seem strange, for I'm willing to bet 95% of the owners never see 150+, to say nothing about 170+. I bet most owners would trade, say, 1/4 miles times, 0-100, etc. over top speed frequently.

And I remain baffled as to why the manual has such different overall gear ratios. In my mind, the manual and the auto shouldn't be geared such that one out-accelerates the other.

If that really is a true statement, then GM is foolish for that decision. Then again, they are foolish for many decisions, but adding this one to their resume would be stunning...

ctsv5005
08-04-09, 11:28 PM
the auto is not limited to 176mph, it is limited to 186 mph. and i am that member from dubai who posted the video from 0-300kmh (186mph) manuals are great too.

jwa999
08-04-09, 11:30 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Build a manual that can go 190+ and the automatic can't reach 150?????

I believe speeds over 170 where reached on nurburgring during fasted lap.

TAGZO
08-05-09, 01:05 PM
the auto is not limited to 176mph, it is limited to 186 mph. and i am that member from dubai who posted the video from 0-300kmh (186mph) manuals are great too.
The auto in Bahrain, at least, is limited to 205 MPH stock!

wait4me
08-05-09, 01:59 PM
The auto in Bahrain, at least, is limited to 205 MPH stock!



That is not correct. The ECM is not the only thing in charge on the comm bus that can request a speed limit. At 176 the abs and bcm send out a speed limit request. "IN STOCK FORM"

You have to change the BIT in the file that allows the ecm to be in charge only, Then the speed limit would be 205 as you post.
But, then you also have torque requests that are set to 0 in the tune and IN THE TRANSMISSION controller that have to be moved up to allow torque past that rpm in gears.

Short-Throw
08-05-09, 03:53 PM
the auto is not limited to 176mph, it is limited to 186 mph. and i am that member from dubai who posted the video from 0-300kmh (186mph) manuals are great too.

The A6 is limited to 175mph. See below.......


^ yep. And as a member in dubai clearly has shown by going nearly 190mph in an auto.

Razor,

The HP Tuner cal can read what ever you want it to.

Selection of the 3.23:1 FDR for automatics allowed performance of the automatic to be equal to the manual in all aspects. Vmax is limited to 175mph for all automatic transmissions. Export cars are REQUIRED (by compliance laws) to have a 7% offset on speedometer, so while they might read higher than 175mph (282kph), they are actually traveling @ 175mph.

Verify with GPS if you doubt it.


186 x 0.93 = 173mph




Well, they are just lazy!

Sorry, but that's simply an uninformed reply. Let me shed some light below:



I’ve seen a number of articles that appear to confirm Gary’s understanding that the auto V has lower gearing (higher gear ratios) – at least in the lower-numbered gears (the first 3 gears?) used for 0-60 and ¼ mile runs. Accordingly, even though the horsepower & torque of the manual V is likely to be a bit higher than the auto V (due to less “powertrain loss” from crank to the rear wheels in manuals), the auto gains the upper-hand in the acceleration contests.

However, I’m not sure if “faster shifting” of the auto is a factor in the better times that the auto obtains in almost every review by car magazines. It is my (admittedly vague) understanding that the more “professional” drivers who typically do the car reviews can actually do faster “power-shifts” with the manual such that they beat the auto in shift time (especially given the “torque management” imposed on the auto). Of course, in “real-world” settings, typical “amateur” drivers are likely to realize faster shifts using an auto than a manual. And my guess is that it is likely easier to more quickly (or “consistently”) “launch” an auto than a manual from a standing start.

Kyle


I would find it a fascinating read if someone "in the know" could explain the logic of how GM came to gear the manual and the auto the way they did.




Let's see if I can tidy this up a bit.

Some of this was disclosed to the press on launch but 'power of the pen' decides what's important and what's not.

Here we go!

Gearing:

The final drive ratio's (FDR) were selected (and not by accident) to allow both the automatic and manual V 's to have equal performance. By equal performance, talking acceleration (0-60, 1/4 mile), and track performance. Simulations were run on several different FDR and gear ratios in the transmissions. Lap time simulations of tracks used for development (including the Nurburgring) were run with all available combinations before final selection was made. This also had to be balanced for fuel economy and drivability.

To further explain the complexity of selecting a trans,

Working closely with the manual trans supplier (Tremec), balancing gear loads with desired ratios was necessary. Not all Tremec transmissions are rated for the same load capacity.

Why are load capacities worthy to note?

The reason to mention Tremec trans rated capacities is that the individual gear sets are also a deciding factor in gearbox strength. Gear load capacity is dictated by gear width, diameter, and tooth count, so some ratios are stronger than others. Ratio's chosen were done so based on load calculations along with desired performance attributes. Within the automatic, gear ratios were also determined by balancing vehicle performance requirements to load requirements. So you can bet your last dollar that these were not arbitrary choices, but engineered decisions.

As I posted some time back,

Simulations and actual performance on the Nurburgring showed limiting speed to 175mph did not adversely affect performance. Vmax is reached on straight heading toward Tiergarten with the automatic car just bumping rev limiter in 5th gear (Vmax of 175mph) just before braking point.

Acceleration testing also verified model simulations with both the automatic and manual. The Performance numbers released were 3.80 0-60 and 12.0 @ 118 in quarter mile. Don't be surprised if an extra 0.1 or a couple mph can be found. Why? Performance numbers were generated by running a total of eight acceleration runs (4 each direction on test track) and taking best 2 from each direction then averaging them together. While this prevented any ‘flyer’ runs, cars are consistent enough to run all eight runs with less than a tenth total spread high to low.

As far as the A6,

They were calibrated to do second gear starts in normal drive gate for following reason: It was desired to have a Jekyll & Hyde personality with the V – or totally civilized when driving under normal conditions, but a raging beast when desired. Automatic transmission calibrations allowed GM to do so by offering 3 distinct modes: Tour, Sport and TAP.

Tour does second gear starts to generate a more relaxed launch feel and also slightly softer shifts.

Sport does first gear starts and more aggressive shifts.

TAP allows driver full control over gear selection. It will not override the desired gear unless it exceeds mechanical capability limits of the engine or transmission. It will bang against rev-limiter during acceleration until the driver selects a higher gear, just as a manual is intended.

Now before we all go out and start thrashing our Vs with 'street science experiments', know this:

Nearly same acceleration times can be generated in all 3 modes. 1st gear start in sport mode is offset by the time required to complete the 1-2 shift, so acceleration remains nearly the same. TAP mode, while allowing same acceleration as Sport, is much more difficult to nail every shift at proper time. Electronics are much more consistent as well.

Now let's dispel a lot of the misinformation regarding torque management:

The only time torque management comes into play is during automatic shifts. The trans is not designed to withstand full load upshifts, and removal (or reduction) of this WILL sacrifice transmission durability / longevity and void warranty. Note that during a shift, there is not only the engine power being absorbed, but the inertia of the engine and trans as well.

Manual trans cars do not use torque management.

Fixing power-hop was a mandate – There will be no power-hop. Rest assured the solution was complex, but included components unique enough to pursue patents. Fixing power-hop also increased performance as a perfect launch puts the tire in the exact range of slip-velocity load range which is exactly where (and why) power-hop occurs.

As always, the best mod to spend money on is us, the driver, despite most denying the need.

Hopefully, this helps clarify that there were no accidental selections made for trans ratios and FDR. They were the result of specific goals and meticulous analysis to achieve desired results.




Mike

kck
08-05-09, 06:54 PM
Short-Throw:

Thanks for the information updates.

If I have correctly interpreted a recent conversation I had with Jesse (Wait4me), he confirms that Torque Management only occurs on the auto, and only during shifting. I also think he said that removing it is not a good idea, and you gain almost no advantage in speed. He also mentioned something like “abuse management” in the auto. Again, if I understood him correctly, this option will essentially reduce power when the auto transmission is subjected to extremely high stress loads. But he seemed to indicate that this control would not occur in most “real-world” settings. He gave the example of WOT going up a very steep grade as a situation where the abuse management control might kick in. He also noted that this control might occasionally occur in some dyno situations because of the extra load created by moving the drum. I believe he indicated that this latter situation might lead to underestimates of the actual horsepower that the auto would generate in most street (non-dyno) settings.

Jesse also suggested that the new-generation auto transmission in the V is more efficient than past auto trannys, so that the past advantage of the manual in generating less powertrain loss than an auto is less certain now.

Short-Throw, am I interpreting your comments correctly that GM designed and tested the auto and manual to provide the same 0-60 and ¼ mile times? If so, do you have any insight into why reviews in car magazines that compare the auto vs. the manual consistently find .1 to .2 faster times for the auto?

Kyle

Luna.
08-06-09, 12:53 PM
Short-Throw, am I interpreting your comments correctly that GM designed and tested the auto and manual to provide the same 0-60 and ¼ mile times? If so, do you have any insight into why reviews in car magazines that compare the auto vs. the manual consistently find .1 to .2 faster times for the auto?

Kyle

Thanks Kyle, I was going to ask the same question.

It just seems strange that with, how detailed they were in their testing/review, the auto sometimes performs better. :hmm:

Then again, a 0.1/0.2 difference is pretty minute and nothing that anyone would ever really notice, especially on the street.

Short-Throw
08-06-09, 06:42 PM
Short-Throw:

Thanks for the information updates.

Short-Throw, am I interpreting your comments correctly that GM designed and tested the auto and manual to provide the same 0-60 and ¼ mile times? If so, do you have any insight into why reviews in car magazines that compare the auto vs. the manual consistently find .1 to .2 faster times for the auto?

Kyle


Thanks Kyle, I was going to ask the same question.

It just seems strange that with, how detailed they were in their testing/review, the auto sometimes performs better. :hmm:


The A6 and M6 are virtually identical in performance.

The disparity we all read about comes from magazine testers not having enough seat time and let's face it, as a result not being proficient at shifting. Although there is still a skill to launching an A6 perfectly, it is consistently easier than a M6 which requires both launcing and shifting down the strip. More often than not, it's the owners over time that put down the best performance stats for said given vehicle, not any magazine 'expert.' I suspect we will see many M6 owners who will back this up.


Then again, a 0.1/0.2 difference is pretty minute and nothing that anyone would ever really notice, especially on the street.

It's less than a 0.1 difference and absolutely unmeasurable on the street, of where I never race anyway. Those M6 owners that find themselves looking at A6 taillights, don't need different gearing or HP, just more practice and driving lessons, which are beneficial for all levels of drivers, that's why the pros still take them too.

Mike

haterinc
08-06-09, 06:52 PM
every time I see A6 and M6 I think wtf is he talking about Audi and BMW?... and then the light comes back on... LOL

Short-Throw
08-06-09, 07:01 PM
every time I see A6 and M6 I think wtf is he talking about Audi and BMW?... and then the light comes back on... LOL

Don't think I didn't consider revising the acronyms a few times. Then I figured you guys were so smart it wouldn't matter! :hammer:

Luna.
08-06-09, 07:32 PM
every time I see A6 and M6 I think wtf is he talking about Audi and BMW?... and then the light comes back on... LOL

I did the same thing at the beginning...too funny... :histeric:

nradcad
08-08-09, 10:11 AM
Still have no idea of which one to buy - the Audi or the BMW..er, I mean the A6 or the M6.

Vlakaz
08-09-09, 12:52 AM
And I remain baffled as to why the manual has such different overall gear ratios. In my mind, the manual and the auto shouldn't be geared such that one out-accelerates the other.

If that really is a true statement, then GM is foolish for that decision. Then again, they are foolish for many decisions, but adding this one to their resume would be stunning...


Maybe thats why GM charges for the Auto and the Manual is a N/C option?

Why charge more for the auto if performance is the same, GM makes us Auto V drivers feel a little better for having chosen and charged for the auto.

aco
08-09-09, 01:11 AM
Maybe thats why GM charges for the Auto and the Manual is a N/C option?

Why charge more for the auto if performance is the same, GM makes us Auto V drivers feel a little better for having chosen and charged for the auto.

Auto is a no cost option. However, you get hit with an additional $1300 in gas guzzler tax. Manual GGT = $1300 and Auto GGT = $2600.

nradcad
08-10-09, 12:58 AM
How do you guys think the auto would hold up with track use? I do track events about once a quarter.

wait4me
08-10-09, 11:31 AM
It should do just fine. I have beat the crap out of both on the track, and they both do perfect.

Short-Throw
08-10-09, 11:39 AM
How do you guys think the auto would hold up with track use? I do track events about once a quarter.

Are you asking as compared to the manual transmission, or the car overall?

Do you plan on running your car bone stock at such events?

You are talking road racing and not the strip, correct?


Mike

Razorecko
08-10-09, 12:11 PM
The only thing i'd suggest for the auto trans is a nice additional tranny cooler. A nice setrab would do a great job in helping temps AND shifts.

CadV
08-10-09, 12:49 PM
The only thing i'd suggest for the auto trans is a nice additional tranny cooler. A nice setrab would do a great job in helping temps AND shifts.

I thought our car already has a tranny cooler

Razorecko
08-10-09, 01:47 PM
I thought our car already has a tranny cooler

Most performance auto's do but remember its probally the bare miniumum. You can never go wrong with lower auto trans temps.

Short-Throw
08-10-09, 01:54 PM
It should do just fine. I have beat the crap out of both on the track, and they both do perfect.

Let's clarify here:

At the drag strip or on a road course? How many events have you run the cars?

There are several required steps to prep the cars for track to ensure minimal damage, especially for a highly skilled driver. I'm happy to address this further if anyone is interested. I'm not suggesting you haven't had any issues, which is great to hear, but I'm led to believe you haven't been driving the car to it's limit despite how hard you think you have (no disrespect as 99.9% of the drivers will never achieve such a feat).

The car wasn't designed to be a track car. Rather, it's the best performing 4 door car made that behaves great on the track, big difference. Driver ability or lack of will dictate issues revealed from track use. This is the case for any car coming off a factory floor.


The only thing i'd suggest for the auto trans is a nice additional tranny cooler. A nice setrab would do a great job in helping temps AND shifts.

Razor,

This is incorrect as the stock trans cooler is sufficient.

However, for BOTH manual and automatic, the SPO diff cooler is an absolute requirement. The diff becomes very hot and in quick fashion under track usage, don't risk it.


Mike

Vlakaz
08-10-09, 02:00 PM
Auto is a no cost option. However, you get hit with an additional $1300 in gas guzzler tax. Manual GGT = $1300 and Auto GGT = $2600.

Unfortunantly, in Canada the Auto is a $1700 option. Not sure how the gas guzzler is affected up here though.

kck
08-10-09, 08:47 PM
...There are several required steps to prep the cars for track to ensure minimal damage, especially for a highly skilled driver. I'm happy to address this further if anyone is interested....

Short-Throw:

I would be very interested in hearing about the steps required to prep the V for the race track.




...However, for BOTH manual and automatic, the SPO diff cooler is an absolute requirement. The diff becomes very hot and in quick fashion under track usage, don't risk it.

Am I correct to assume that your comments about the need to add a differential cooler apply only if a person is going to do track racing – i.e., no cooler is needed for hard runs on the street or at the drag strip? For us newbies, could you explain why track racing puts such pressure on the differential? Is it because the differential never gets any chance to cool down? If so, wouldn’t repeated hard runs on the street in very hot weather also stress the differential in a similar way?

I’ve heard that the GM differential cooler for the V may never be offered, and that it would be very expensive if it is ultimately offered. What company do you recommend that would have a differential cooler for the V, and possibly not as expensive?

Kyle

commander112
08-10-09, 10:31 PM
Unfortunantly, in Canada the Auto is a $1700 option. Not sure how the gas guzzler is affected up here though.

That is to pay for your national health care. LOL.

nradcad
08-10-09, 11:21 PM
Sorry guys, I should have been more specific. I do road course events. Not really interested much in the drags strip, just aint my thing. Like a said, I do about 4 events a year. Would like to do more, but it's costly. Drive out at Texas World Speedway and Motor Sports Ranch - Houston mostly. Typical 2 day event, 4 sessions per day, 20 min sessions. Tire temps usually hit about 180F-190F, so fairly aggressive driving. Just wanna be sure the auto would take that abuse.

nradcad
08-10-09, 11:22 PM
It should do just fine. I have beat the crap out of both on the track, and they both do perfect.

As soon as I get a V man, you and I are gonna do some business. I hear you are the shiznit. Can't wait to work with ya.

Vlakaz
08-11-09, 01:15 PM
That is to pay for your national health care. LOL.

Naaa they get that out of the 50% they take from my income ;)

Short-Throw
08-11-09, 01:46 PM
Short-Throw:
I would be very interested in hearing about the steps required to prep the V for the race track.


Kyle,

If you plan on tracking the car bone stock, here's what is needed.

Alignment:

First task is to assess how often the car will be on track. The cheapest and most important spec out there for ANY car is a proper alignment. Dialing in more negative camber will result in better turn-in but will sacrifice tire life, so pick your poison. Nevertheless, it's still good to have it checked out even if you're going to make no major adjustments.

Brakes:

CHANGE YOUR BRAKE FLUID.

The factory DOT 3 will boil on the track and you will lose your brake pedal. Don't play games with this, a few extra bucks is worth saving your life.

Flush the entire system and replace with DOT 5.

I recommend two brands:

1) AP600 which has been tested in the V with great results.

2) Castrol SRF which is the best fluid on the market. (expensive, but worth it and what I run in my race cars.)

The brake pads are sufficient. Employing a harsher compound may yield slightly better performance but can produce squeal (in Europe it's called music) and more importantly, the rotor wear incurred will not be worth it.

Suspension:

As most Corvette owners already know, wrap the lower ball joints and outer tie-rod ends with heat shield. You can use safety wire to keep in place. Ignoring this will result in frying the rubber boots.

If any vendors offer such a product maybe they can chime in. I know you can purchase material at hosenow.com and click on Fire Sleeving.

Diff Cooler:

As mentioned earlier, this is a must.

I believe part # 25534463

The differential is made of cast iron which is very very strong, but will not dissipate the heat (from track use), hence the need for the add-on cooler.


[B]
Am I correct to assume that your comments about the need to add a differential cooler apply only if a person is going to do track racing – i.e., no cooler is needed for hard runs on the street or at the drag strip?

Kyle

The diff cooler is not needed for sporadic moments of stupidity on public roads, or the drag strip.


For those that have never driven a heavier car like the V on track be careful trying to be a hero by turning off all safety nannies. A heavier car can carry more momentum, more violently when you lose tire slip angle an incur over/understeer.

Remember as good as the Brembos are, tire grip dictates stopping distances so let the rubber heat up a few laps.


Mike

Silver -V-
08-11-09, 05:59 PM
I can back up Short Throw on many of his prep set up pieces. I have been lucky enough to put quite a few track days on my car already.

What I can offer:

The Differential cooler is a very needed item. I have not had issues with mine, but the very first day out with another V2, his Diff light came on very quickly. I know from temperature readings I have taken, that my differential was running very hot, and definitely could use some extra cooling.

The stock brake pads are very good for a street car. take care in cooling them down, as the rotors tend to get hot spots, especially the rears. Take great care in cooling them down after each session, and you won't have any issues. If you want to upgrade pads, many vendors are coming out with pads, and you will have a good aftermarket selection in the near future.

Brake fluid - Change it immediately, and run a good racing fluid. I suggest Castrol SRF, or Motul 660.

Tires - Warm up the tires before you try to take them to the edge of grip. These Michellin tires are good, but this is a big and heavy car. Running low on pressure will scrub the sidewalls and cost you a new set of tires prematurely. Make sure there is a good alignment, and be sure that if you increase the toe-in, you are prepared to buy tires soon while daily driving, or re-set your alignment after a track day. For most novice drivers, the stock alignment is very good, and a makes a nice comprimise between tire wear and performance. I wouldn't suggest changing anything unless you are hitting a track more than a weekend a month or more.

Wrapping the lower ball joints and tie rods is a good idea. The boots get hot, sticky and melt (or burn) quickly. A track day or DE event doesn't hurt too badly, until you begin going faster, and running harder. As soon as you do, this is a must-do to prolong your suspension pieces.

As for the settings on your car, the sport mode and sport suspension settings will please almost all drivers except for a very few track pros who would rather slide the car around the corners. The Sport programming on this car allows the driver to go to a very deep limit before it will kick in and save 99% of the drivers out there.

nradcad - wait until you drive the car on TWS clockwise. Exiting the high bank oval down to turn 1 will make you a believer in GM for life. When you get ready, come up to Dallas, and run with us at Eagles Canyon known as a torque track.

nradcad
08-12-09, 01:40 AM
DOT 5? Isn't that something weird? I've heard to stay away from it (at least in Bimmers). Does the caddy handle it fine?

nradcad
08-12-09, 01:45 AM
nradcad - wait until you drive the car on TWS clockwise. Exiting the high bank oval down to turn 1 will make you a believer in GM for life. When you get ready, come up to Dallas, and run with us at Eagles Canyon known as a torque track.

Oh I have. I love it that way. I thought I was gonna hate it, cause I was so used to CCW. But I think it is much better CW.

I'd love to come run with you guys in Dallas. I think I have a buyer for the M3, so the count down begins. CTS-V, here i come.

kck
08-13-09, 12:36 AM
Kyle,

If you plan on tracking the car bone stock, here's what is needed.....

Mike


I can back up Short Throw on many of his prep set up pieces. I have been lucky enough to put quite a few track days on my car already.

What I can offer.....


Short-Throw & Silver -V-:

Thanks for the really informative posts on prepping the V for the race track. I’m not sure I can bring myself to putting my V through the severe abuse. But even if I never take my V to the race track, your comments still provide very useful information for performance off the race track. In particular I really appreciate your warnings not to completely remove the “nanny” controls on the V.

I have a few questions regarding this issue (ones that I also posted for marktanner on another thread where he was discussing how to change the Stabilitrack and Traction Control settings in the V). I understand why you might want to select the V’s “Competition Mode” to reduce how quickly the Stabilitrack takes over, so that you can push the V to potentially greater speeds when cornering by allowing the tail to hang out a bit before the stability control takes over. However, this Competition Mode also turns off Traction Control (at least as I understand it). So can you explain for us “newbies” why one might want to turn off Traction Control to somehow enhance performance? Wouldn’t we want to keep wheel spin as low as possible (i.e., just below the “threshold” where spin will start) in order to “maximize” acceleration – other than possibly when launching the V from a stand-still, where a little spin allows the V to get into its “power band” (which with all its torque, of course, occurs at a relatively low rpm)?

You mention the very excellent “Sport” setting for the suspension system. But I’ve read some car magazine reviews of the V where they claim that the “Tour” setting may actually work better under some race track conditions (and slalom maneuvers). Have either of you encountered performance situations where the Tour setting for the suspension might be preferred to the Sport setting?

Also, you mention the “squealing” and excessive rotor wear issues of higher-performance brake pads. Do your comments apply to the new ceramic brake pads for the V that were recently released by Hawk Performance (see http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2009/175366-hawk-performance-ceramic-brake-pads-now.html)? I was interested in this option not primarily because they are supposed to be higher performance, but because they would apparently dramatically reduce all the brake dust that occurs with the stock pads on the V.

Finally, am I correct to assume that you don’t think it is necessary to run the higher-quality (racing) brake fluid for typical street applications? And do you recommend yearly brake fluid changes, even if you don’t race track your V?

Kyle

MReiland
08-13-09, 08:42 AM
I'd love to come run with you guys in Dallas. I think I have a buyer for the M3,

Is he buying your pink shirts and bluetooth headset with the car or do you have to get that at the dealer....
:hide:

Couldn't resist.

Short-Throw
08-13-09, 08:41 PM
Short-Throw & Silver -V-:

Thanks for the really informative posts on prepping the V for the race track. I’m not sure I can bring myself to putting my V through the severe abuse. But even if I never take my V to the race track, your comments still provide very useful information for performance off the race track. In particular I really appreciate your warnings not to completely remove the “nanny” controls on the V.

I have a few questions regarding this issue (ones that I also posted for marktanner on another thread where he was discussing how to change the Stabilitrack and Traction Control settings in the V). I understand why you might want to select the V’s “Competition Mode” to reduce how quickly the Stabilitrack takes over, so that you can push the V to potentially greater speeds when cornering by allowing the tail to hang out a bit before the stability control takes over. However, this Competition Mode also turns off Traction Control (at least as I understand it). So can you explain for us “newbies” why one might want to turn off Traction Control to somehow enhance performance? Wouldn’t we want to keep wheel spin as low as possible (i.e., just below the “threshold” where spin will start) in order to “maximize” acceleration – other than possibly when launching the V from a stand-still, where a little spin allows the V to get into its “power band” (which with all its torque, of course, occurs at a relatively low rpm)?


Kyle,

While you are correct striving to minimize wheel spin (or sliding) to maximize traction, the T/C system when engaged is a full safety net that intervenes beyond what is desired in performance situations. T/C not only applies the rear brakes, but also reduces power. Reduced power on a race track does not allow the immediate control to transfer the weight on demand needed to keep the car in balance. For example: If the car exhibits over-steer (tail end comes around because it is light = weight transfer), the immediate remedy is to counter-steer with your hands, followed by throttle.....if needed. If T/C is engaged, we are prevented from applying throttle in a timely matter to transfer weight back to the rear. On the street if such a situation arose, we want the car brought to a safe controlled speed immediately, there is no margin for error, hence the abrupt intrusion.

When we select Comp Mode, any of the brakes can be selectively applied when needed to maintain intended direction, but power is not cut.

If you can find an empty parking lot with no parking curbs or cemented-in light poles (and no law enforcement that will stop you), go out next time it rains and try running a friction circle with everything on, then try everything off. You will see immediately what I'm talking about.







Here is an article written by Randy Pobst I posted on the Corvette site.

Found on page 18 of Sep 09 edition of Sportscar Magazine (SCCA)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3574/3814142945_7eeba91946_b.jpg


True enough that driving with all features on can be invasive, getting them not to engage while employed does help with learning smoothness and not over-driving the car.



You mention the very excellent “Sport” setting for the suspension system. But I’ve read some car magazine reviews of the V where they claim that the “Tour” setting may actually work better under some race track conditions (and slalom maneuvers). Have either of you encountered performance situations where the Tour setting for the suspension might be preferred to the Sport setting?



At the higher racing levels, drivers will set their suspension up differently for each track. Some tracks are bumpy (Sebring), some tracks have high curbs, while others have jarring, grooved curbs (Road America). Remember, you never want a stiff suspension, you want a stiff chassis and a compliant suspension. Running over grooved curbing can make a car skip. If the suspension is softer, it accepts it more graciously and doesn't disrupt the balance as much. Driving the car in the rain may best be suited in Tour mode as well. Many racers select soft, or no sway bar at all in the wet to allow the suspension to work as having it too 'tight' can cause snap over-steer. The GM engineers did a great job with the MR logarithms and I'd be very surprised if many really could differentiate the two modes while driving the car to it's (as opposed to the owner's) full potential.


Also, you mention the “squealing” and excessive rotor wear issues of higher-performance brake pads. Do your comments apply to the new ceramic brake pads for the V that were recently released by Hawk Performance (see http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2009/175366-hawk-performance-ceramic-brake-pads-now.html)? I was interested in this option not primarily because they are supposed to be higher performance, but because they would apparently dramatically reduce all the brake dust that occurs with the stock pads on the V.


Everything is a trade off. GM didn't select the current pad randomly, There really isn't a dual street/track pad despite marketing claims. Performance pads require heat, hence the squealing when they are cold. In colder climates these are not the best choice for the street. I haven't had any issues with front brake dust, are you standing on your brakes hard?

Hawk Performance pads are in fact one type I run in my T1 car and they do make a very good product.


Finally, am I correct to assume that you don’t think it is necessary to run the higher-quality (racing) brake fluid for typical street applications? And do you recommend yearly brake fluid changes, even if you don’t race track your V?

Kyle

If your car never sees the track there is no reason to run a higher 'boiling point' brake fluid, save your money. Yearly maintenance is a function of mileage and driving habit. Aside from a little spirited driving here and there, I don't see any reason to change fluid beyond what the OM calls for.



Mike

kck
08-13-09, 10:28 PM
Mike:

Thanks so much for your very detailed and helpful comments!

In answer to your question: I don’t consistently stand on my brakes hard. I’ve just noticed (as others have repeatedly reported on the forum) that I accumulate a lot of junk on my wheels, especially the front ones. However, based on your feedback, I’ve taken the Hawk Performance ceramic brake pads off my shopping list!

Kyle

nradcad
08-14-09, 12:13 AM
Is he buying your pink shirts and bluetooth headset with the car or do you have to get that at the dealer....
:hide:

Couldn't resist.

To be fair, you know I have never owned a bluetooth headset. :tisk:, and pink shirts are just COOL!

MReiland
08-14-09, 07:36 AM
You better give me a ride next time I am down there!

OldRoadDawg
08-14-09, 10:01 AM
Brakes:

CHANGE YOUR BRAKE FLUID.

The factory DOT 3 will boil on the track and you will lose your brake pedal. Don't play games with this, a few extra bucks is worth saving your life.

Flush the entire system and replace with DOT 5.

I recommend two brands:

1) AP600 which has been tested in the V with great results.

2) Castrol SRF which is the best fluid on the market. (expensive, but worth it and what I run in my race cars.)


Mike


DOT 5? Isn't that something weird? I've heard to stay away from it (at least in Bimmers). Does the caddy handle it fine?

Mike, great info. Thanks

I do need clarification on one item. You recommend DOT 5 and yet the owners manual specifically reads "Do not use silicone or DOT-5 brake fluids" (pg 4-14) :confused:

nradcad
08-15-09, 11:25 AM
You better give me a ride next time I am down there!

Just waiting on GMS.

Short-Throw
08-18-09, 07:15 PM
Mike, great info. Thanks

I do need clarification on one item. You recommend DOT 5 and yet the owners manual specifically reads "Do not use silicone or DOT-5 brake fluids" (pg 4-14) :confused:

Dawg,

Great question. These permaposts don't allow us mortal posters to edit anything. DOT 4 is what I should have posted.

It's possible that some DOT 5 variety's with silicone can ruin the seals hence the warning.

One other option that I ran in my T1 car last year with no issues is:


ATE Super Blue (pronounced Ah-Tay), it is comparable to AP600 but is a darker color.

http://www.ogracing.com/images/products/12-ATE-SUPER-BLUE-TYPE-200-GOLD-BRAKE-FLUID.jpg


Again,

both AP600 and ATE Blue have been tested on the V during extreme driving conditions on track with no issues.


Remember, worn brake pads do not allow heat dissipation and can lead to boiling any fluid, so always check you pad thickness before a track event. Although fine for the street, once the pad depth equals the backing plate, swap them out, it's not worth the risk.


Mike

demorgan59
08-19-09, 11:49 AM
I believe the correct part number for the rear diff cooler is 20792934.


Check out this link:
http://www.rmsautoparts.com/proddetail.php?prod=20792934 (http://www.rmsautoparts.com/proddetail.php?prod=20792934)

Mike: Any way you can put the good word in on this to get it in production?