Hi, there
look what I found today at Road&Track!!!
The new STS V Supercharged 440 hp - that`s it!
look what I found today at Road&Track!!!
The new STS V Supercharged 440 hp - that`s it!
The E55 also uses a 5spd automatic vs. the STS-Vs 6.Afreet1 said:Under-hood mechanics aside, look at the two "benchmarks" that Cadillac is aiming for: the E55 and M5. The E55 is an automatic transmission car with 465HP (and 300 less lbs) that does so well in performance due to its amazing traction systems (or so I have read).
The STS-V has no torque advantage over the E55 whatsoever. 516 lb-ft. @ 2,650 - 4,500 rpm.b4z said:I am not at all disappointed in the STS-V.
It is not only the peak hp., but what is under the curve.
I imagine that there is a boatload of torque at 1500 rpms w/ that roots type supercharger.
Also I have heard that the new MB 7 speed transmission hunts for gear like crazy.
Something a Turbohydramtic will not do.
And you guys are forgetting that the 1st gear of the STS-V is a
4.02!!!
Think about that for a minute.
The 2nd gear ratio is lower than the 1st gear of a Muncie M-22 4 speed.
This car will have a huge amount of low end power and it's 0-60 times without traction control on will be interesting to say the least.
Probably a smoke show.
I am sure it will only be a couple of months before the aftermarket boosts the pressure of the supercharger.
Lastly, I find it hard to believe that we are complaining about a car with ONLY 440 hp.
No for sure!....you are not the only one that is disappointed in the CTS-V. At least the STS-V is a true genuine proprietary Cadillac Northstar engine that has been reduced in size to a 4.4 Liter Northstar engine from its current 4.6 and then re-engineered to handle the additional HP of the supercharger to arrive at the base rated 440HP. The dyno slip for sure will tell the tale, but there is some comfort in knowing that in spending $75K f, I received a Cadillac Northstar Engine.BUILDINGCTSAMG said:Am i the only one dissapointed by the 440hp? Considering how low the cts-vs are dynoing, and then you add in the wheel hop, 440 in real terms is more like 350....Maybe i was crazy to be thinking it should be in the 475 range
The XJR is 50hp off, that's a big difference.....although it is aluminum and that certainly helps. I find the interior rather cheap, tons of plastic and the leather is not very nice for a $75k base car (the Vanden Plas and Super V8 come with nice leather).Afreet1 said:pietroraimondi,I think car and driver said it best about the STS-V in their latest issue when they said: "it doesn't exactly set new standards for the class. The R versions of the Jaguar S-type and XJ have 390 ponies. The Audi RS 6 had 450 horses. The Mercedes E55 has 476 horsepower. And the upcoming BMW M5 will have 500."
Afreet1 said:The two things that really stand out are the weight issue and what seems like a lackluster engine that is pushed to its limits to get near the competitive horsepower range.
As do I, much more entertaining car to drive.......which isn't a surprise really. The car is lighter, sportier, and has more power than both the A8 (V8), S430/500 and 745.berkin said:I like it a lot more than the Audi A8, the MB S class, and the BMW 7 series.
Afreet1 said:Also if they are going the supercharger route, why not use a screw-type supercharger instead of a roots type? They have a flat torque curve and are more efficient.
B4Z:b4z said:pietro,
I share your frustration with Cadillac's service experience.
It starts with the service advisors, the waiting room, and that fact that things are rarely fixed the first time.
I wish the whole dealership experience was at a higher level.
It is kind of embarassing to tell you the truth.
I think where we part ways to some extent is with the powertrain.
Several months ago I started a thread about getting OHC motors in the"V".
Some very educated engine guys on this thread gave me the some very convincing arguements that pushrods are not so bad.
Since that time I have bought a Pontiac GTO and I love the LS1 motor.
It pulls like a freight train at higher rpms. Much beter than te 2valve Ford mod motor.
Does it shake a little at idle. Yes. Could it be fee dbs quieter? Yes.
But it is a fantastic motor. Period.
I also own a SRX with the 3.6L VVT.
Lots of low and midrange power.
You did not say whether your's is a '04 or '05.
This is a great motor too, but my '04 has a noisy valvetrain.
It could be quieter and it could be smoother.
For '05 changes were made to quiet it down.
There are better V6's out there than the 3.6L. Honda's comes to mind.
I am really not sure why you are so fascinated with the 3.6L and down on the LS6?
IMHO opinion the LS has taken the pushrod to new heights. The 3.6L is just adequate. Cadillac needs to come out with the 270-280hp version, as it is a little weak in the high end.
Anyway, I agree with your criticisms in general, but i think you are being a little hard on some of the fine points.
Again, I am not disspointed in the STS-V and don't think that Cadillac has overrated hp in the CTS-V.
P.S.
The LS6 is a GM motor not a Chevy motor.
The Escalade is still 80-90% Chevy Tahoe/ GMC Denali.
The great and eternal DOHC vs. pushrod debate will go on forever. Lots has been posted on this already if you search...try "OHV" and some posts will come up that may be informative. The bottom line is that there is NO SINGLE BEST ANSWER. Both pushrod and DOHC engines have certain advantages that the other cannot achieve. Anyone who insists that one is better than the other does not understand all the factors affecting engine design....period. Regardless of the application a DOHC or pushrod engine would be a compromise in some respect.Nocturn said:While DOHC may appear to be higher tech, they are no better than pushrods, its just reputation. DOHC does allow for higher RPMs, but that isn't anything that can't be done in a pushrod engine with stronger valve springs.
pietroraimondi said:Cadillac's reasoning for using the LS6 was simply because the small block fit the parameters of the engine bay compartment .......If Cadillac had the luxury of time with the CTS-V, we would have seen a similiar supercharged Northstar engine that will appear in the STS-V,
There is also severe problems with regard to rear brake bias on the CTS-V. The four piston rear Brembo caliper pistons are oversized and were actually designed, rather engineered by Brembo for front brake application. Cadillac took a front brake Brembo 4 piston same bore 4 piston caliper and shaved the outer body of the caliper in order to "make it fit the rear" spindle/knuckle and clear the wheel spokes. Are you still holding onto your hat after hearing that one?......They actually took a radial mount Brembo 4 piston front "off the shelf" same bore large piston front brake caliper and shaved the outer body case to make it fit the rear without any regard to brake bias.
FORGED, FORGED, FORGED! Not a single bit of sand cast steel or aluminum in the combustion chamber....
and sinter forged(cryo treated) connecting rods
********* said:Please explain to me how an engine that makes 100 HP per liter could be classified as "lackluster"...???? There are very very few engines in production in the world that achieve that specific output supercharged or otherwise. None of the STS-V's competitors come close to this state of tune. Lackluster..???...hardly.