: New production numbers?



kevm14
07-09-10, 08:40 PM
Some of you may be aware of Compnine.com. It's an online vehicle build database, capable of displaying RPO code statistics, and more.

I used it to try to get CTS-V build info. I simply selected 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 CTS-V and for the 04s-05s I put in LS6 in the RPO query. This would theoretically return CTS-V production numbers for those years. I did the same thing for the 06s-07s, but with LS2. Since all CTS-Vs have one of these engine designations I figured it was a good bet.

Here are the numbers I got out of it:

2004: 2509
2005: 4194
2006: 1201
2007: 898

This is the specific link I used: http://compnine.com/rpocheck.php#

Try it yourself. I had previously thought there were about 3500 05s in circulation and about 3000 06s, yet my searches turned up significantly more 05s. Now I can see why. These numbers are more believable.

tweeter81
07-10-10, 11:42 AM
Wow. Those are some really interesting numbers.

I always thought the 2004 production numbers were 2,461...

How accurate do you believe those numbers are?

I guess the 2007s are twice as rare as the next lowest production year, but in the long run, I still believe low mileage 2004s will be worth the most on the collector car market being the originals.

rand49er
07-10-10, 01:11 PM
... I always thought the 2004 production numbers were 2,461...Difference must be fleet sales. :D


Another interesting set of numbers would be how many of each year are still on the road.

Aurora40
07-10-10, 01:56 PM
I noticed the same thing when running VIN's while looking. Seems to go with common sense too, that they would sell more the first year or two than they would later. I don't think the V debuted at the start of the 2004 MY if I recall? Which may explain the lower numbers than '05.

I also noticed way more '05 cars for sale. I would have expected 2006's to be the most common, as they would have been coming off lease (by now that would be 2007's). You can see this really clearly with STS's (V's also), that the lease-return cars seem to dominate the used car market for them.

kevm14
07-10-10, 04:19 PM
That's why I see more 07s than 06s. The 06s have already been scooped up last year, I suppose.

Houdini
07-10-10, 06:52 PM
I'm pretty sure those numbers are low. I thought there were more like 1700 07s made.

mitchntx
07-11-10, 09:20 AM
In 06 is when the housing market began to decline and home foreclosure rates doubled and tripled.
After great 04 and 05 seasons in SCCA World Challenge, rules got to the V and it was no longer in the headlines.

I don't find it odd at all that 06 and 07 numbers are low.

UnsafeAtAnySpd
07-11-10, 11:55 PM
I'm sure there's a truck motor joke or two here...

kevm14
07-12-10, 06:34 AM
A C6 or GTO isn't a truck. Why does the engine need to be from something called a Z06 to be considered worthy?

Aside from the intake manifold manufacturing issue, there's nothing wrong with the LS2, except that the torque curve is flat, so torque doesn't build up like the LS6. But it started higher, so....

But this isn't the thread for that. I just was wondering if those numbers are right. They mirror what I see in the market more than the other numbers I've seen so I'm inclined to believe them.

whisler151
07-12-10, 07:28 AM
I'm pretty sure those numbers are low. I thought there were more like 1700 07s made.

I was always told the 2007 V numbers were just under 1000.

TroyFleming
07-12-10, 09:13 AM
The 06 numbers are even lower when you take into account the amount totaled. I have seen atleast 100-150 of them go across the salvage auction floor. Give it a bit of time, there won't be many left the way people drive.

repenttokyo
07-12-10, 04:59 PM
A C6 or GTO isn't a truck. Why does the engine need to be from something called a Z06 to be considered worthy?

Aside from the intake manifold manufacturing issue, there's nothing wrong with the LS2, except that the torque curve is flat, so torque doesn't build up like the LS6. But it started higher, so....
.

it's just a joke. if you take it too seriously, you won't survive V ownership.

kevm14
07-12-10, 06:37 PM
I can survive, but I'm getting annoyed at the suggestion that the LS6 is superior because it comes from a Z06 and because it has a torque curve that builds, rather than a "less exciting" flat one. Preference is ok, but in that respect, neither is better than the other. They are just different.

mitchntx
07-12-10, 06:47 PM
Was at a local Mom & Pop car show a couple years ago. A guy there was proudly displaying his Viper and SRT10 Ram side by side.

With both hoods open, I looked at the Viper motor, then back at the Ram and then back at the Viper and said ... "This thing's got a daggum ole truck motor in it."

The owner was not amused ...

All I know is my LS2 pulls like a truck right off of idle. I can live with that.

tweeter81
07-12-10, 08:58 PM
I can survive, but I'm getting annoyed at the suggestion that the LS6 is superior because it comes from a Z06 and because it has a torque curve that builds, rather than a "less exciting" flat one. Preference is ok, but in that respect, neither is better than the other. They are just different.

The difference for me is the fact that the LS6 was only ever available in two production cars. The 01-04 C5 Z06 and the 04-05 CTS-V. That makes it much rarer and potentially more collectible than the LS2, both of those are things that I love about my badass 04 V. Oh yeah, and the sweet, aggressive cam that makes the car rock side to side just slightly.

Oleksakjr
07-14-10, 05:46 AM
Me too :cloud9:

But I do wish I had steering wheel controls...

Houdini
07-14-10, 10:01 AM
and black centercaps and later revision t56 and later revision axles :)

trukk
07-14-10, 11:05 AM
Played with the numbers a bit more. The only real 'option' (or in 06/07 'delete'), was the moonroof (RPO:CF5).

2004: 272 of 2,509
2005: 315 of 4,194
2006: 23 of 1,201
2007: 23 of 898


Colors & Moonroofs:

2004:

Black Raven (41u): 1,582

No Moonroof: 131

Light Platinum (67u): 927

No Moonroof: 141

2005:

Black Raven (41u): 1,924

No Moonroof: 141

Light Platinum (67u): 1,180

No Moonroof: 107

Red Line (29u): 607

No Moonroof: 43

Stealth Gray (46u): 471

No Moonroof: 21

2006:

Black Raven (41u): 627

No Moonroof: 12

Light Platinum (67u): 273

No Moonroof: 2

Infrared (80u): 192

No Moonroof: 6

Stealth Gray (46u): 109

No Moonroof: 2

2007:

Black Raven (41u): 508

No Moonroof: 7

Light Platinum (67u): 190

No Moonroof: 7

Infrared (80u): 89

No Moonroof: 5

Thunder Gray (???): 111

No Moonroof: 4



Interesting numbers. I'm one of 107 2005 Light plats with no moon roof :cloud9:

-Chris

Houdini
07-14-10, 11:22 AM
What about FG2s? The site says there are only two cars in their database with my options but if I break it down to just 2007, light platinum, fg2s, and sunroon; I am 1 out of 71. :)

lollygagger8
07-14-10, 11:33 AM
You can take 2 off the 2004 list....some local moron has totalled 2 of em within the last year. :lol:

Yaaaay, keep making em more rare :2thumbs:

trukk
07-14-10, 12:14 PM
What about FG2s? The site says there are only two cars in their database with my options but if I break it down to just 2007, light platinum, fg2s, and sunroon; I am 1 out of 71. :)

FG2's are an RPA (regular production accessory, installed by the dealer not at the factory) not an RPO, and thus probabaly doesn't figure accurately into their database.

I bet it would be pretty granular based on interior color. I couldn't find the RPOs for those combinations, thus couldn't look it up. Have to be some 1 of 1's for the no moonroof 06/07 guys.

-Chris

kevm14
07-14-10, 12:28 PM
But that database does appear to track FG2.

I've seen a couple FG2 cars as I look for a car.

And according to the database, the by-year breakdown for FG2 cars (at least as known by GM) is:

2004: 119
2005: 870
2006: 347
2007: 306

crankedupforit
07-14-10, 12:34 PM
Model Year Total U.S sales
2004 2,461
2005 3,508
2006 3,052
2007 1,176


How come the Wiki numbers are so different?

shadybx7
07-14-10, 12:34 PM
FG2 was a dealer option.. i wouldn't think GM would track it

im fine with 1 of 8802... or is it 10197???

+1, i wanna see how many have been wreaked.. these cars attract trouble

Houdini
07-14-10, 01:38 PM
FG2 is tracked on that site...I know because it shows up on that site for my VIN. Also, FG2s show up on GMVIS reports..so GM does track it.

repenttokyo
07-14-10, 02:45 PM
nice, so my car is 1 of 131.

yooper
07-14-10, 02:55 PM
I can survive, but I'm getting annoyed at the suggestion that the LS6 is superior because it comes from a Z06 and because it has a torque curve that builds, rather than a "less exciting" flat one. Preference is ok, but in that respect, neither is better than the other. They are just different.

LS2 can be bored and stroked to a 7litre and use ls7 heads (big advantage) for modding. Let me know if you want to trade your LS2 For my LS6.:stirpot:

Aurora40
07-14-10, 03:08 PM
FG2 was a dealer option.. i wouldn't think GM would track it

im fine with 1 of 8802... or is it 10197???

+1, i wanna see how many have been wreaked.. these cars attract trouble
It was a GM option, but installed at the dealer. It appeared to be an orderable option, thus GM would be aware. I bet it's on your RPO label on the car, if it was ordered with it.

Of course GM won't know how many cars had it added afterwards.

k61kgsxr
12-09-10, 04:38 AM
1 of 111 07 Thunder Gray

tweeter81
12-09-10, 10:30 AM
and black centercaps and later revision t56 and later revision axles :)

I got all that covered with aftermarket parts, shooter! And I still love my original, no steering wheel controls, LS6 V.

Houdini
12-09-10, 01:44 PM
LS2 ftw! :p

Fasciaguy
12-09-10, 03:02 PM
O4 numbers are low because the car did not launch on schedule and was delayed a couple months. It did not get a full year of production. If memory serves me right the CTS launched in July 03 as normal and the V did not launch until almost Jan 04 and both switched over to 05 models in July of 04. So had it launched at the same time 04 might have been the biggest production run.
As for LS6 over LS2. Being rare may be a good thing for collection but they changed for a reason. I will just say that the first year of production is typically the worse. Lots of flaws are found and many, I mean many engineering changes were pushed through from 04 to 05 and on.. The last production year is typically the best. Which is ironic since about the time they have the car right it goes out of production. Perfect example was the Fiero. They borrowed crap parts from other programs and just when it started to evolve into a decent car they 86 it.

repenttokyo
12-09-10, 03:45 PM
i don;t think there were really that many, if any "flaws" corrected during the first gen V's production run, save perhaps the diff upgrades. Are you really stating that the LS6 is a flawed engine compared to the LS2?

kevm14
12-09-10, 09:31 PM
Revived thread? Anyway, LS2 has the same HP and torque output (from our perspective stock and GM's as they deliver the car) but it also has MANY more instances of oil consumption issues. The LS6 has no oil consumption issues as the LS6's use in the CTS-V was actually the 4th year that GM used it in a car. The LS2 was a lot newer at the time. Any other 04-05 issue has nothing to due with LS6 vs LS2 and either something GM actually corrected (not many examples of this) or because the 04-05s are simply older with higher miles, on average.

The CTS-V did not follow GM's old "formula" about tweaking and perfecting a car. Adding an LS2 is not a "perfection move," it's an evolution move because the LS6 program was done. The cars are pretty much the same anyway. And they didn't kill it, they just revised Sigma, took a year off and made the superb 09 CTS-V. All previous comparisons to GM killing a car as it got good require that the car go away with no replacement. The V1 was replaced by the V2 and...it's much, much better!! Sounds like progress to me.

Aurora40
12-10-10, 09:40 AM
Revived thread? Anyway, LS2 has the same HP and torque output (from our perspective stock and GM's as they deliver the car) but it also has MANY more instances of oil consumption issues. The LS6 has no oil consumption issues as the LS6's use in the CTS-V was actually the 4th year that GM used it in a car. The LS2 was a lot newer at the time. Any other 04-05 issue has nothing to due with LS6 vs LS2 and either something GM actually corrected (not many examples of this) or because the 04-05s are simply older with higher miles, on average.

Just FYI, the power and torque output are not the same. The max of each are the same. You can see both curves here:
LS6: http://archives.media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/powertrain/2005 HPT Library/Gen III/Gen III/Gen III/2005_5700_LS6_CST-V.pdf
LS2: http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2006/HPT%20Library/Gen%20IV/Gen%20IV%20Car/2006_LS2_CTSV.pdf

The LS2 CTS-V also got 16/25mpg from the EPA vs 15/23mpg for the LS6 powered car.

I'm in no way trying to suggest there's anything wrong with the LS6 powered car, but it's silly to think the LS2 is anything but better. That's how things go, cars and engines get better and better (barring some kind of external influence like the upcoming CAFE increases, etc). It makes more power under the curve, and does it while getting better driving economy. Not way more power under the curve, or way more economy, but unequivocally more.

Aurora40
12-10-10, 10:23 AM
LS6: http://archives.media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/powertrain/2005 HPT Library/Gen III/Gen III/Gen III/2005_5700_LS6_CST-V.pdf
LS2: http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2006/HPT%20Library/Gen%20IV/Gen%20IV%20Car/2006_LS2_CTSV.pdf


Here are those two graphs overlaid:
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/aurora402002/ls2ls6.jpg

kevm14
12-10-10, 10:45 AM
Just FYI, the power and torque output are not the same. The max of each are the same. You can see both curves here:
LS6: http://archives.media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/powertrain/2005 HPT Library/Gen III/Gen III/Gen III/2005_5700_LS6_CST-V.pdf
LS2: http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2006/HPT%20Library/Gen%20IV/Gen%20IV%20Car/2006_LS2_CTSV.pdf

The LS2 CTS-V also got 16/25mpg from the EPA vs 15/23mpg for the LS6 powered car.


No doubt the curves are different. But I don't think GM offered it so much because it had a little more mid-range torque. That was my point.

On the fuel economy, you compared 05 to 06. In that light it looks like the LS2 is more efficient. Yet, the 04 was also rated at 16/25. And the 07 was rated at 15/24. Doesn't seem to be an engine thing, as fuel economy ratings were all over the place. I have yet to figure this out.

tweeter81
12-10-10, 10:59 AM
i don;t think there were really that many, if any "flaws" corrected during the first gen V's production run, save perhaps the diff upgrades. Are you really stating that the LS6 is a flawed engine compared to the LS2?

I agree with this totally. There were really no sweeping changes to the first gen V from it's first year to it's last. You would be hard-pressed to actually tell the difference in performance between an '04 V and an '07 V. The diff casing, internal tranny changes, and beefier axles are all a good thing, but I don't think those things were changed for anything other than longevity. And by the time most of these cars are old enough or high-mileage enough to need to change those things, they will probably already have been changed out for aftermarket stuff. IMO, the biggest upgrade to the V's was the steering wheel controls, which we can all agree is fairly minor in the grand scheme of things.

Alos RE: fuel economy - My LS6 has actually always gotten 24-26 mpg @ 75-80 MPH.

Aurora40
12-10-10, 11:15 AM
No doubt the curves are different. But I don't think GM offered it so much because it had a little more mid-range torque. That was my point.

On the fuel economy, you compared 05 to 06. In that light it looks like the LS2 is more efficient. Yet, the 04 was also rated at 16/25. And the 07 was rated at 15/24. Doesn't seem to be an engine thing, as fuel economy ratings were all over the place. I have yet to figure this out.
Oh, I'm sure they offered it because the LS6 was done, and the LS2 was the new motor. I'm sure it wasn't because they perceived the midrange torque was a problem. But they also developed the LS2 from lessons learned with the LS1/6, so it stands to reason it would be better than them. It was a pretty evolutionary motor, in spite of the "Gen IV" moniker.

Thanks for the heads-up on the fuel economy. I've only ever looked at '05-06 as that was the change-over. That is totally bizarre that every model year has a different fuel economy rating.

Houdini
12-10-10, 12:16 PM
From everything I've seen the 04s and 05s get better gas mileage than my 07. I wish I could get 24-25 going 75-80mpg but 23 is about tops. I've seen 24-26 a few times but it was going slower than 75. Having said that, i didn't buy the car for gas mileage lol.

Performance wise they are about as close as you can get. When shopping for my car, I drove an 05 and the 07. I liked the seat of the pants feel of the 07 better but it could have been placebo.... those steering wheel controls clouded my judgment :)

Both awesome engines period.... I do wish my ls2 didn't eat oil though. But don't all truck...I mean torque motors burn oil? haha

06BlackonBlackCTSV
12-10-10, 01:08 PM
Difference must be fleet sales. :D


Another interesting set of numbers would be how many of each year are still on the road.

Well I know there is one less 07 on the road, I guess you can say that I made the 07's on the road a little more rare, when I wrecked my first V. LOL thank god for insurance.

repenttokyo
12-10-10, 05:04 PM
Oh, I'm sure they offered it because the LS6 was done, and the LS2 was the new motor. I'm sure it wasn't because they perceived the midrange torque was a problem. But they also developed the LS2 from lessons learned with the LS1/6, so it stands to reason it would be better than them. It was a pretty evolutionary motor, in spite of the "Gen IV" moniker.


not better, just different. different feel, different characteristics, etc.

Fasciaguy
12-10-10, 11:49 PM
Both of these motors are basically the same thing. I have the LS6 and am very happy with it. My comment about GM making improvements each year is true most of the time, however what they consider to be an improvement isnt always the same from the perspective of the consumer. The change to the LS2 may have been to achieve better fuel economy or for a flatter torque curve or due to plain old end of the LS6 production. But having worked with exhaust, fuel systems, convertible tops, electronic gas pedals and now fascias I see a ton of changes cycle through each year to make parts fit better last longer or just plain fix an issue that was discovered after production launch. Which makes no sense why I bought the 04 model but I wanted one as soon as I saw the first one roll off the line. I think the LS6 and LS2 are both great motors though.

CancerJCC
12-11-10, 11:52 AM
....And the debate rolls on.