: Lingenfelter 700hp CTS-V Coupe Tested by Car & Driver



TMC CL65
06-08-11, 05:02 PM
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q2/2011_lingenfelter_cadillac_cts-v_coupe-specialty_file

It seems a little slower than the Hennessey V700 Car & Driver tested a few months back.

Tom

EVIL_C5
06-08-11, 05:13 PM
11.8 and only 7 mph faster than stock? my 630 LPE is always 7-8 mph and 6-7 tenths faster than my buddys stock V at the same event....i would think that the 700 would easily trap 126-129 ore more even....et would be an issue with pilot sports...

TMC CL65
06-08-11, 05:19 PM
I think the problem with both the Hennessey car and the Lingenfelter cars tested by C&D (both with 700hp claimed at the crank) is that they are also both 6 speed manuals. The time lost to shifting could account for some lost mph (more than the additional rear wheel hp that a manual would put down due to less parasitic driveline loss).

Tom

Tim@Lingenfelter
06-08-11, 05:29 PM
http://www.lingenfelter.com/Forum/cts-v%20coupe%20c&d.JPG


Here is a link to the recently posted Car & Driver article on a 700 Horsepower Lingenfelter 2011 CTS-V Coupe

Lingenfelter’s 700-hp Cadillac CTS-V is a study in physics and “holy crap!”
Like Red Bull–quaffing preteens laying waste to digital innocents by the dozen in Grand Theft Auto, we’re being desensitized. It isn’t graphic violence we’re being hardened against, though; it’s gratuitous horsepower. Outputs that once stopped us in our tracks and slackened our jaws now merit an entitled shrug. Well, good. A Cadillac needs 556 horsepower to, you know, feel like a Cadillac. But 700 is one of those numbers that still widens our eyes and brings a silent “wow” to our lips. Seven hundred horsepower is a reality check.
Read More (http://blog.caranddriver.com/tags/lingenfelter-cadillac-cts-v/)

The Lingenfelter V was tested with stock exhaust manifolds and stock catalytic converters.

CTSV4now
06-08-11, 05:40 PM
What are the specs on the cam in that beast?

kirbyCTSV
06-08-11, 07:07 PM
What are the specs on the cam in that beast?

Competition Cams valve springs, titanium retainers, 10 degree locks
- Lingenfelter GT9 camshaft by Competition Cams 215/247 .629/.656 121 CL

http://www.lingenfelter.com/engine-packages/cadillac-cts-v-2004-2011/cadillac-cts-v-lsa-2009-2011/378-cid-lsa-supercharger-syst-1

aj660
06-08-11, 08:04 PM
11.8 and only 7 mph faster than stock? my 630 LPE is always 7-8 mph and 6-7 tenths faster than my buddys stock V at the same event....i would think that the 700 would easily trap 126-129 ore more even....et would be an issue with pilot sports...

I think traction was a pretty big issue. They should have also tested the car with drag radials.

EVIL_C5
06-08-11, 08:08 PM
I think traction was a pretty big issue. They should have also tested the car with drag radials.

Even my car on pilot sports would trap 122 with essentially 70 less hp. Should translate to 6-7 mph even with bad traction. Numbers don't add up. The manual car should actually trap a little higher since the drivetrain isn't eating up as much power.

TMC CL65
06-09-11, 10:02 AM
Even my car on pilot sports would trap 122 with essentially 70 less hp. Should translate to 6-7 mph even with bad traction. Numbers don't add up. The manual car should actually trap a little higher since the drivetrain isn't eating up as much power.

I would generally agree with that (see my post above where I say as much). However, I have done some datalogging with my vbox at drag strip when my auto tranny was hitting a rev limiter and started to notice the impact of non-acceleration at nearly 100mph on trap speeds. What I noticed is that when the shifts are not perfect and the car is not accelerating for even 2/10 of second it will lower the trap speed a couple of mph. The manual transmissions CTS-V's are at the mercy of how good/quick the shifts can be completed. A stock manual CTS-V needs to shift from 3rd to 4th at around 100mph...this LPE CTS-V Coupe would likely do it closer to 110mph given the higher redline. At 110 mph the car is covering 161.33' per second...if it takes .25s to shift it will not be accelerating for a little over 40' (and that is also assuming the car doesn't actually decelerate during the shift). If an automatic can accomplish the same shift in .125s it will be on throttle 20' sooner. What this does is effectively lower the trap speed of the manual cars because they are getting less effective distance to put power down over the 1/4 mile run.

Also, I recall that Car & Driver weather corrects their acceleration data. I wonder if the lower 48 deg temps that the car ran in helped the car run a much better "raw" #'s... but had to be adjusted "down" for the lower sub-sea-level DA weather conditions to get it back to sea level.

Tom