Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V, 3K miles & '87 Turbo Buick, 29K miles
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
'09 CTS-V, Bone stock, 520 miles, automatic, embarrassingly bone stock, dynoed on a Dynapack, at Church Automotive Testing (CAT), standard SAE correction method: all readings are best best of a 3 run string.
RWHP: 498 @ 6K RPM @ 98 MPH, RWTQ: 515 @ 3667 RPM @ 60 MPH, AFR: 11.64 @ 3638 RPM @ 60 MPH, & 10.99 @ 5610 RPM @ 92 MPH, boost: 8.41 PSI @ 3843 RPM @ 63 MPH & 8.12 PSI @ 5931 RPM @ 97 MPH.
On a side note, I am extremely happy with the #'s (results), even knowing that a Dynapack will register about 6%-8% higher that a Dynajet dyno.
I was extremely impressed with Church's knowledge, teamwork, & professional yet friendly attitude. I would say more good about them, but I don't want them to get too big-headed. Great people to do business with. Mark @ PSR's recommendation was right on the money. BTW, Mark, Shawn & all from CAT said "Hi".
 

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V
Joined
·
217 Posts
Those are very good numbers!
My caddie did 454 rwhp on dynapack headers but the ambient temperature was 100F and my psi was somewhere around 7.5 PSI.
you better be happy >:p
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS-V , 2010 SRX 2.8T
Joined
·
3,085 Posts
Some great #'s for stock !! did you end up changing any of your fluids yet or you still running on the originals ?
 

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V, 3K miles & '87 Turbo Buick, 29K miles
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
Well, keep in mind that this was my whining post about 3 weeks ago:

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2009/180957-somewhat-disappointed-my-dyno-s-today.html

The differences are: The earlier dyno #'s done about 3 weeks ago were:
Off of a dynajet Dyno, a different type of dyno, different dyno company, different dyno operator, & one that does not believe that SAE correction factor #'s should be used on a non-normally aspirated *motor*, on a dyno that had just been moved about a month previously and I suspect was not calibrated after its move, and an operator that is not entirely familiar with and never dynoed a '09 CTS-V.
Probably somewhere between the 2 lie my real or niminal RWHP & RWTQ #'s.
I am still ecstatic as the 1st operator said that I was pig rich, and this last dyno the A/F looked real good, in fact, almost too good without a tune on it.
Boost record looked a little more better or steady that the first dyno 3 weeks, probably meaning that the dyno may not have been recording accurate 3's for the boost.
And keep in mind that a DynaPack takes readings direct off of the axles deleting the rims / tires out of the equation.
I am still totally stoked about everything in general. At least I am not worried about the health of the *motor*.

Fluids have not been changed yet, I am still debating whether to go Amsoil or not, fluids will be next. Then maybe a bra to protect the paint, still need a good cover.
I am seriously considering Corsa touring axle back set-up & re-dyno. If I do that, I will know for sure whether the 16 RWHP #'s for the Corsa touring are correct or not.
 

·
Registered
2013 6MT V wagon, OBM, 2009 silver V sedan (traded)
Joined
·
4,537 Posts
Better numbers. Great job!
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS-V , 2010 SRX 2.8T
Joined
·
3,085 Posts
Go with 'ventureshield" over 3m...much more durable. Actually so damn durable that 3m bought out ventureshield a little while ago but kept the name the same-lol. Get your fluids changed NOW !....trust me on this- esp. the diff.
 

·
Registered
Cadillac
Joined
·
354 Posts
'09 CTS-V, Bone stock, 520 miles, automatic, embarrassingly bone stock, dynoed on a Dynapack, at Church Automotive Testing (CAT), standard SAE correction method: all readings are best best of a 3 run string.
RWHP: 498 @ 6K RPM @ 98 MPH, RWTQ: 515 @ 3667 RPM @ 60 MPH, AFR: 11.64 @ 3638 RPM @ 60 MPH, & 10.99 @ 5610 RPM @ 92 MPH, boost: 8.41 PSI @ 3843 RPM @ 63 MPH & 8.12 PSI @ 5931 RPM @ 97 MPH.
On a side note, I am extremely happy with the #'s (results), even knowing that a Dynapack will register about 6%-8% higher that a Dynajet dyno.
I was extremely impressed with Church's knowledge, teamwork, & professional yet friendly attitude. I would say more good about them, but I don't want them to get too big-headed. Great people to do business with. Mark @ PSR's recommendation was right on the money. BTW, Mark, Shawn & all from CAT said "Hi".

Gary,

Thats awesome!!! I'm glad that your car performed better this time around, and that you had a better experience...

I'll be sure to give Shawn and the guys a call.

If you have any further wants/needs/questions you know my number :)
 

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V
Joined
·
217 Posts
I'd just like to update my numbers
mods: -9" pulley -W4M CAI -90mm Throttle body -160 T-stat -SCT tune -W4M Heat Exchanger -Kooks Longtube Headers
Stock pull on dynapack was 454rwhp, I did 530rwhp with this setup (ambient temp for both pulls were in the high 90s Fahrenheit. Really happy with the results and I think the Kooks long tube headers is pretty well worth it if you're doing a pulley mod. before the headers my psi was around 11.4, now it is 10.4. before the kooks I did 484 rwhp but I don't want to count it because I messed up and uploaded the wrong tune (2.55 pulley performance instead of max performance). I am loving the sound in combination with the stock mufflers, sounds like a CLK blackseries (Very sporty but not obnoxious, no drone, and finally a sound that doesn't from the supercharger!!)
Gary if you had my setup i'm sure you'd be VERY close to the 600rwhp mark, your environment is much friendlier to engines than mine (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) lol
 

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V, 3K miles & '87 Turbo Buick, 29K miles
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Aceofblitz:
Your dyno run of 454, was that bone stock and is yours an auto of a stick tranny?
Also, was your dyno run #'s corrected to SAE correction factor? It will generally say on the dyno sheet if it was corrected to SAE correction factor? I suspect that my #'s are somewhat inflated, but I sincerely felt that my #'s on the previous Dynajet dyno run were somewhat underrated at 428 RWHP.
 

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V
Joined
·
217 Posts
Not sure but im guessing they use SAE correction cuz everyone uses it as a standard now. My car is an Auto. My main point of dynoing is to see the before and after output of the car stock vs mods to see how much power i gained. 83 rwhp increase on the exact same dyno with the exact same settings and almost exact same ambient temperature. I left my dyno sheet in the car.. I'll share the details once I get it.
 

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V, 3K miles & '87 Turbo Buick, 29K miles
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
One of the things that is corrected or standardized on a SAE correction factor is the air temperature is corrected to ambient air temperature of 72˚F so it really wouldn't matter theoretically what the temperature really was.
 

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V, 3K miles & '87 Turbo Buick, 29K miles
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I do not know if the RWHP & RWTQ go up or down when they go from non-corrected to corrected, but my guess is that they would go up, and that your dyno #'s might be non-corrected, and be higher if they were corrected, but that is just a wild guess though. How do you like the cooks, and what pipe / exhaust system are you running from the Kooks to the muffs?
 

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V
Joined
·
217 Posts
The top part of the printout says "SAE J1439" so I guess it IS corrected. Not sure what it means though lol.
Kooks is awesome man I LOOOOVE how it sounds like right now, perfect balance of intake + exhaust sounds, was waaay too quiet before. Kooks setup comes with the headers, high flow cats, and pipes that reach just before the stock muffler. They had to cut the pipes that lead to the muffler and weld it. So as a result I got rid of all the cramps and bends which were there for no reason at all. and I lost 4 cats in the process which are now replaced by 2 high flow cats from kooks. nice straight pipes up to the muffler.
 

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V, 3K miles & '87 Turbo Buick, 29K miles
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
Discussion Starter #18 (Edited)
The SAE part of SAE J1439 is an acronym for Society of Automotive Engineers who write & publish most of the specifications / requirements designed to sort of standardize the automotive industry. J1439 will be the specification #. I am sure if you are to google it, you might find it interesting. I am planning on going the Corsa touring set-up, but I notice that most of the peeps that go to the kooks headers afterwards, remove the Corsa muffs and return to stock muffs.
 

·
Registered
'09 CTS-V
Joined
·
217 Posts
The kooks + stock mufflers make the sound perfect, enough SC whine and enough exhaust rumble. perfectly balanced for my ears, and not excessive at all. If you're doing a pulley swap, then i suggest the kooks instead of the corsas. I still have corsa's on my chrysler srt8, they're awesome but kinda sound loud now.
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS-V, 2009 535i
Joined
·
1,840 Posts
Gary,

Wanted to resurrect this thread and add a data point for you since we may have comparable Dynapack numbers (though not from the same, exact dyno, apparently). James at D3 informed me she made around 526 HP at the hubs. Mods: modified stock airbox, custom 2.5" mandrel cat-back (all cats retained), Corsa Touring, dyno-tune. This is about what I was hoping for, so I'm happy with the results :D
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top