: CTS-V horsepower



Big Jay
07-22-13, 06:20 PM
I have always wondered why GM had such an odd HP number for the V. Why not just 550. This weekend we spotted a Bentley Flying Spur while out driving. I said to my wife, "How can cad call your car the most powerful production sedan in the world? I know the Flying Spurs are twin turbo V12".

Later that night we met a guy that owns one. He was going on about it and says, "You know, that thing is 553 HP". So that is why Caddy tweaked the V to 556.

However, there is an AMG Benz on the way here that makes 577.

Xaqtly
07-22-13, 06:24 PM
"The most powerful sedan in the world" thing was from 2008/2009, it doesn't hold true any more. New M5 is 560, as an example.

Trapspeed
07-22-13, 06:39 PM
Power is one part of the equation. How well it drives another. The V overall is still a damn strong player.

Club Malibu
07-22-13, 06:39 PM
I was told that sometime in the 2006-2008 period (correct me if I am wrong) are the days gone when the manufacturer can say what ever horse power number they wanted and now they only can they publish what the SAE has tested and confirmed. That that's why we have the "odd" numbers of horsepower now such as our 556 hp for the CTS-V and the ZR1 has 638.

Xaqtly
07-22-13, 07:05 PM
Power is one part of the equation. How well it drives another. The V overall is still a damn strong player.

Oh yeah I just meant that the most powerful sedan in the world thing was part of their ad campaign when the car first came out. They were able to use it in the ad because at the time it was the only sedan with over 555 HP.

I found the ad, it says "the world's fastest production sedan" and the ad was in 2010 so I guess it was still true at least through 2010.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3OI02BsVBM

pat2t2f
07-22-13, 07:12 PM
Fastest production sedan is different. That's not power. With the Manual tranny it goes 191 mph. What other production sedan does that??

PNBLWZD
07-22-13, 09:28 PM
I remember that commercial, very cool. Even older was when the V series was first introduced in 06, they had the STS-V backing up into a tunnel like the barrel of a rifle after which it shot out.

cruiser68
07-22-13, 09:57 PM
I thought it was fasted 4 door production car on the Nürburgring.

OldRoadDawg
07-22-13, 10:54 PM
I remember that commercial, very cool. Even older was when the V series was first introduced in 06, they had the STS-V backing up into a tunnel like the barrel of a rifle after which it shot out.
Actually, the CTS-V was introduced in 2004.
The commercial you are referring to featured the 2005 STS-V, XLR-V and the CTS-V.
It was a great commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z3B4IlKJls

----------


"How can cad call your car the most powerful production sedan in the world?
May 9, 2008 was the date that the 2nd generation CTS-V ran Nordschleife at 7:59.32. This time appeared to be the fastest ever publicly documented for a production sedan. Subsequent to that Cadillac did the actual SAE certification at 556 BHP.

So when the media releases went out they touted the 2009 CTS-V as the "fastest production V-8 powered sedan in the world". (operative words being V-8 and sedan)

Jinx
07-23-13, 12:02 AM
In 2005 SAE tightener up horsepower testing specs and created the optional SAE Certified horsepower rating. SAE Certified carries a 1% margin of error, IIRC, i.e. published numbers within 1% of verified test results are okay. Prior to that it was common to just round to the nearest 5hp.

GM was an early adopter of SAE Certified horsepower ratings, and when you're going up against the AMG E-Class and BMW M5 you don't round down :)

.Jinx

Moparman4444
07-23-13, 08:19 AM
I agree. 554 is just an odd number, it should be 600 and call it a day. 554 just isn't enough.

blksnk
07-23-13, 10:16 AM
Neither is 545 but you wouldn't want to pull up next to one at a stoplight!
128834

neuronbob
07-23-13, 10:45 AM
I agree. 554 is just an odd number, it should be 600 and call it a day. 554 just isn't enough.

It was plenty enough for me to drool over the car when it was announced in 2008, then to purchase two of the cars. :) This is one of the few cars out there that lives up to its hype. IMHO, the 2G V series represents a seminal moment for both GM and motoring. I don't know how the V3 will live up to it with its plain-Jane styling. It'll have to be insanely fast to get my attention.

Meanwhile, my "not enough" 556 hp V and I will be just fine. :thumbsup: ;)

jsherid1
07-23-13, 10:53 AM
They have also not re-certified the rating to reflect the tighter tolerances on the Eaton superchargers for the later production cars. The ZL1 is rated at 580hp and has only minor differences from our engine...electric PS and a different exhaust. We may be a bit under-rated.

Jinx
07-23-13, 11:15 AM
Are there not enough guys drag-racing bone-stock V2s to reveal such a covert bump in output of late vs early cars? Or not enough modders taking "before" dyno readings? I would think if later cars had more power it would have been uncovered by now.

quikag
07-23-13, 12:28 PM
Are there not enough guys drag-racing bone-stock V2s to reveal such a covert bump in output of late vs early cars? Or not enough modders taking "before" dyno readings? I would think if later cars had more power it would have been uncovered by now.

It has to those that pay attention. The later model V cars consistently make more horsepower on the dyno. My airaid only 6spd automatic '12 V sedan made 493rwhp on a 97F day here in DFW a few weeks ago on a dynojet.

Gary Wells
07-23-13, 06:15 PM
IMHO, the variation in RWHP & RWTQ #'s from different dynos, different dyno types,
different dyno models, including the variation between same exact model year CTS-V's
would make any noticeable verified values insignificant.
Additionally, very few peeps list their bone stock baseline run information anymore.

I have not updated this chart for a while, & will be doing so in the next few months,
But this will give you a rough idea of the results of the variations regarding this issue.


8) Cad bone stock ’09 & up RWHP & RWTQ averages:

1) Cad bone stock RWHP & RWTQ (A6 (53) + M6 (26)) (all dynos): 07-09-2013
RWHP average (79 samples): 36947/79= 467.68 average
RWTQ average (79 samples): 36755/79= 465.23 average

2) Cad bone stock RWHP & RWTQ (A6 (40) + M6 (16)) (dynojet only): 07-15-13
RWHP average (56 samples): 25972/56= 463.79 average
RWTQ average (56 samples): 25615/56= 457.41 average

3) Cad bone stock RAHP & RATQ (A6 (3) & M6 (2)) (Dynapack only): 07-15-13
RAHP average (5 samples): 2484/5= 496.80 average
RATQ average (5 samples): 2570/5= 514.00 average

4) Cad bone stock RWHP & RWTQ (A6 only (40)) (dynojet only): 07-01-2013
RWHP average (40 samples): 18164/40 = 454.10 average
RWTQ average (40 samples): 17976/40= 449.40 average

5) Cad bone stock RWHP & RWTQ (M6 only (16)) (dynojet only): 07-15-2013
RWHP average (16 samples) = 7808/16= 488.00 average
RWTQ average (16 samples) = 7639/16= 477.44 average

6) Cad bone stock RWHP & RWTQ (A6 only (53)) (all dynos): 07-15-2013
RWHP average (53 samples): 24235/53= 457.26 average
RWTQ average (53 samples): 24140/53= 455.47 average

7) Cad bone stock RWHP & RWTQ (M6 only (26)) (all dynos): 07-15-2013
RWHP average (26 samples): 12712/26= 488.92 average
RWTQ average (26 samples): 12615/26= 485.19 average
Updated & verified: 07-15-2013


----------------------------------------Averages-------------------------------------

------Dyno type.---------------------RWHP------------------RWTQ--------------

56 Dynojet readings: 07-15-2013
40 automatic (A6).----------------454.10------------------449.40--------------
16 manual (M6).-------------------488.00------------------477.44--------------

09 Mustang readings: 17-15-2013
06 automatic (A6)-----------------449.17------------------448.50--------------
03 manual (M6).-------------------478.33------------------494.66--------------

05 Dynapack readings: 07-15-2013
03 automatic (A6)-----------------500.00------------------521.00--------------
02 manual (M6).-------------------492.00------------------503.50--------------

04 Dynomite readings: 017-15-2013
01 automatic (A6)-----------------466.00-------------------476.00--------------
03 manual (M6)--------------------497.00-------------------502.33--------------

02 Land&Sea readings: 07-15-2013
02 manual (M6).-------------------497.00-------------------489.00--------------

02Dynacom readings: 07-15-2013
02 automatic (A6)----------------472.00.-------------------492.00--------------

01 Dyno Dynamics: 07-15-2013:
01 automatic (A6)----------------466.00.-------------------450.00--------------

----------


It has to those that pay attention. The later model V cars consistently make more horsepower on the dyno. My airaid only 6spd automatic '12 V sedan made 493rwhp on a 97F day here in DFW a few weeks ago on a dynojet.

I don't believe so, and I have been collect bone stock CTS-V RWHP & RWTQ #s for some time now.


This is what my chart shows for an average of 16 different samples throughout the country all '09 & up, all M6, all on Dynojet.

5) Cad bone stock RWHP & RWTQ (M6 only (16)) (dynojet only): 07-15-2013
RWHP average (16 samples) = 7808/16= 488.00 average
RWTQ average (16 samples) = 7639/16= 477.44 average


So your car dynoed about 5 RWHP more than my average of 488,
which is about what I would expect from a typical M6 in hot weather
with an Airaid CAI. About 90% of all CAI's gain on the average of 6-8 RWHP.

----------

If anybody would like to see my original #'s where these figures came from,
please speak up. I have approximately 80 datasets where these #'s came from.

Xaqtly
07-24-13, 12:54 PM
Hey this is off topic a bit but in the context of SAE ratings does anybody know how BMW is able to get away with consistently underrating the power their engines make? The new M5 allegedly makes 560 HP but on the dyno it consistently makes almost that much at the wheels, between 620 and 640 at the flywheel. Do the same standards not apply to cars based in other countries? And it's not just the M5 either, it's all of BMW's cars. The 335i makes closer to 360 HP not 300, the M3 makes closer to 450 HP than 414.

I'm assuming whatever they're doing is legal or they would have been nailed for it by now, I just don't know how it's legal.

Big Jay
07-24-13, 06:17 PM
NIssan did that with the GTR

Gary Wells
07-24-13, 06:43 PM
Could it be to be able to it stateside?
Isn't the Porsche Panameria governed 1 MPH less than the M6 CTS-V?

Jinx
07-25-13, 04:12 AM
Why would it be illegal to underpromise and overdeliver?

Gary Wells
07-25-13, 10:22 AM
If I were to guess, to boost American economy.
I am sure that they have laws regarding what can be brought in.

Dogbreath
07-25-13, 10:41 AM
During the last muscle car war in the 60's, manufacturers always underrated hp in an effort to keep insurance rates down. High insurance meant lower sales. I suspect that is still the case. I doubt that that there is any import restriction based on HP since you can buy 600+ HP Benzs or a nice 1000HP Bugatti.

quikag
07-25-13, 01:05 PM
This is what my chart shows for an average of 16 different samples throughout the country all '09 & up, all M6, all on Dynojet.

5) Cad bone stock RWHP & RWTQ (M6 only (16)) (dynojet only): 07-15-2013
RWHP average (16 samples) = 7808/16= 488.00 average
RWTQ average (16 samples) = 7639/16= 477.44 average


So your car dynoed about 5 RWHP more than my average of 488,
which is about what I would expect from a typical M6 in hot weather
with an Airaid CAI. About 90% of all CAI's gain on the average of 6-8 RWHP.

----------


Thanks for the data, but you are pulling manual transmission for the power figures. I have a six-speed automatic. So, I am 39rwhp above average for the automatic cars, but I do have the Airaid. Not thinking an Airaid adds that much power.

Xaqtly
07-25-13, 03:00 PM
Why would it be illegal to underpromise and overdeliver?

SAE J1349 Certified Power (http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm)


Certification of engine power and torque to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 is voluntary, however, this power certification process is mandatory for those advertising power ratings as "Certified to SAE J1349".

So what I guess this means is BMW is choosing not to certify their engines, while GM is. Because certification is voluntary there's nothing illegal about not doing it, I just wanted to know if there was anything else going on. I guess I'm wondering how it's legal for BMW to lie about their engine output. It's misrepresentation, regardless if it's more or less than advertised.

Gary Wells
07-25-13, 03:47 PM
Thanks for the data, but you are pulling manual transmission for the power figures. I have a six-speed automatic. So, I am 39rwhp above average for the automatic cars, but I do have the Airaid. Not thinking an Airaid adds that much power.


Oops, my bad, evidently I saw only the "6 speed" & didn't notice the "automatic"
They can't & don't.
No tune?
A tune & a CAI addition will.
Was your baseline done on the same dyno?

quikag
07-26-13, 01:13 PM
No tune at all. 100% stock besides Airaid CAI. I didn't get a baseline. I found out it was actually a brand new 2500hp Dynocom, not a Dynojet. It's at a very well-respected speed shop here in DFW that does a lot of full engine builds/roll cages, etc. for Mustangs. I went to a dyno day and many people commented the rwhp they put down was very similiar to what they had done at a Dynojet, so I thought it was a dynojet, but it's apparently a 2500hp capacity 250mph Dynocom model.

Anyway, dyno operator/shop owner said 493rwhp was stout from what he knew about CTS-V automatic cars with an air intake.

----------

Here's a copy of the chart. Ignore the first torque pull, he forgot to correct a setting before that pull:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/quikag/b67cebf2-fa46-49cc-b446-adcd45bdb256_zps7f9b8c24.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/quikag/media/b67cebf2-fa46-49cc-b446-adcd45bdb256_zps7f9b8c24.jpg.html)