Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
2003 CTS Manual Trans., '93 STS
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, the dyno results for my 3.2l are in, and the results are interesting. Many thanks the the crew at AED performance in Richmond. The owner himself came out and helped out the technicians for the 3 hours I was on the dyno. They really know there stuff and build racing carburators for many of the winning teams in all forms of international auto racing. They had a very sweet Z06 pimped for SCCA road racing that puts out 370 RWHP on the stock motor, intake and full cats. We had an 'incident' during one run, where the nylon strap holding my car down on the rollers touched the hot exhaust and burned through. If it wasn't for the wheel chocks and the other strap, the car would have launched itself into the parking lot, since I was turning 110 mph at the time! Since I was in the drivers seat, it was quite the pucker factor. I also had one tech take a video with my digital camera that I'll send to Reed for the FAQ.

All runs were on a Mustang 1750 chassis dyno, and are SAE corrected. All runs were started at 70 mph (~3700 RPM) to the max of around 120 mph (6000 RPM). The car has a Borla exhaust. I asked for the raw data printouts, and after the runs realized that the plots would have been nice too. We couldn't find what directory the data was stored with their new software, so they're calling Mustang on Monday, and will mail me a disk with all of the data. The 3.2L has a very nice flat torque curve. I found that even my manual trans sport model has a speed limiter on it around 120 mph, so the engine wouldn't turn more than 6000 RPM in fourth gear. I'm sure there's more power in it, but the limiter wouldn't let us measure any higher in fourth.

Without further adeaux (drum roll).


'As driven' baseline run with 18" Mille Miglia wheels (55lbs each at 32psi)

Volant CAI
196 HP @ 5500 RPM, 204 Ft-lbs @ 3700 RPM

All other tests run with stock 17" wheels (46 lbs each with tires at 32psi):

K&N
203 HP @ 5900 RPM, 204 Ft-lbs @ 3750 RPM

Volant
200 HP @ 5600 RPM, 201 Ft-lbs @ 3750 RPM

TonyA CAI
199 HP @ 5700 RPM, 201 Ft-lbs @ 3800 RPM

Stock airbox and filter
195 HP @ 5600 RPM, 200 Ft-lbs @ 3800 RPM

The K&N was very loud, but has a nice 'velocity stack' transition between the giant filter and the MAF. It also includes a nice plastic intake tube to replace the rubber accordian one. I tried, but could not adapt any of the K&N parts with the Volant airbox, since the dimensions are all wrong.

Assuming 20% drivetrain loss, with the K&N, the 3.2L was putting out 244 HP at the flywheel, which is 24 HP over stock. The tests were run with the hood open, so the K&N would likely suffer from ingensting hot underhood air, since it has no airbox.

I hope to have plots after they send me the data (or I type in the printouts of raw data that I have).

Many thanks to TripleOught and HaveBlue for sending the K&N and stock airboxes for me to test with my TonyA and Volant.
 

·
Registered
03 CTS
Joined
·
1,353 Posts
Good stuff, so the K&N won for the 3.2L. When do u think u'll have that video up. I'm interested in seeing how loud that k&n really is...

So with ur Borla and the k&n u pushed out 244 hp, that's nice!!
 

·
Registered
2003 Cadillac CTS, 2005 Cadillac STS4 1SG
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
so the K & N won, but you said yourself the hood was open, i wonder how it would have done compared to the volant with the hood closed. I think the Volant would have done better.
 

·
Registered
'04 CTS, '79 Coupe DeVille, '78 Sedan De Ville, '77 Firebird
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
thanks for the info, and thanks for taking the time & $ to get this info to us 3.2l owners. sucks about the limiter, tho.
 

·
Registered
2003 CTS Manual Trans., '93 STS
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
So the $40 TonyA made 4 RWHP over stock, the $250 Volant 5 RWHP and the $200+ K&N (with the hood open) made 9 RWHP. What amazed me is that going from 17's to 18 inch 'lightweight' wheels robbed 4 RWHP! I'm wondering what the Marine finds between his stock 16's and his chrome 20's! I'm guessing a 15 RWHP loss!

Now, I'm wondering how I can modify a K&N kit to fit in an airbox. That would likely produce max HP, and less noise. I'm not willing to put up with the noise as-is for an additional 4 RWHP, that may actually be less in real world driving due to engine heat. For the 3.2L, the TonyA looks like a great mod for the buck.

The video that the tech took was my 'as driven daily' run with 18's and the Volant. He took it from the rear quarter, so you can hear those Borla's! You can tell when it's close to 6000 RPM, the engine is just straining to raise the RPMs to no aviail (likely due to a 120 mph limiter that cuts back the fuel). I emailed the movie to Reed for the FAQ. I'm sure it will be posted soon, and I'll past the link in this thread.
 

·
Registered
2007 CTS-V, 2001 Honda Shadow Sabre
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
:worship: :worship: :worship:

Thanks Ody for getting the data! I guess I just saved myself $250. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
2003 CTS Manual Trans., '93 STS
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
It cost me $225 for the dyno time to find out the TonyA put out within 1 RWHP of the Volant I'm running, on the 3.2L. I think I'm going to pick up a K&N and see if I an modify it into a TonyA-2 setup with the cone filter, velocity stack, and a modified intake tube.

BTW, I did a calculation wrong, with the Borla and the K&N, it puts out ~254 HP at the crank. (203/0.80=254). That's on par with a stock 3.6L car!

A note to those with the Volant. The day before the runs, I pulled the filter, cleaned and lightly re-oiled it. It was almost PURE WHITE, after only about 10,000 miles. It was still clean, but the oil was almost gone. Check it at every engine oil change!

I can't wait to see the Marine's results. If he runs on the dyno with the stock tires on, he may be pushing 240-250 RWHP (~300 HP at the crank)!

Oh, yeah, one more thing. These computer controlled cars don't like dyno's. Even though I turned the A/C off and TCS off for the runs, at 70mph, bells started going off, and I got a 'Service Stabillitrac' message, along with the stabillitrac and ABS lights on! I guess the rear wheels spinning over 70mph while the fronts are stationary somehow confuses the computer into thinking that you're doing a hefty burnout, or spinning on ice. They went away each time I restarted the car, and never came on for the drive home. I was worried the tech knocked some wires loose trying to find a coil wire to connect to (which is impossible since the coil packs are on top of the plugs . . . he had to find a wire feeding the coil packs the signal to fire, which took almost an hour).
 

·
Registered
2005 CTS 3.6L, 2006 350Z, Ducati 996s
Joined
·
2,449 Posts
Ody, I've got a few questions.

Why is the speed limited to 120mph? Is that becuase you started off with a 16" wheel packed? IIRC, Caddy has a lower speed limit on the 16" CTS's.

Also, you mentioned your 18's weighed 55 lbs, with tires right? And the 17's weighed 46 with tires. How heavy are your 18 " rims? Aren't the stock rims about 30lbs each?
 

·
Registered
2005 Black Raven CTS 1SB, Luxury and Sport packages
Joined
·
172 Posts
The Lund CTS was claimed to have a 20 horsepower increase from adding the Volant intake and B&B exhaust:

"The stock 3.2L V-6 benefits from a free-breathing Volant fresh-air intake and a B&B low-restriction cat-back exhaust system. The upgrades team to deliver a claimed 20-hp gain and yield a decidedly more aggressive sound. It's still no powerhouse, but the engine mods improve 0-60 acceleration by 0.12 sec and lop 0.14 sec from the quarter mile."
 

·
Registered
2003 CTS Manual Trans., '93 STS
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
My car is a very early 1SC (lux-sport with 17's) manual shift car, which R&T tested to 142 mph when it hit the limiter. When I was futzing around with getting XM to run at the dealer last month, they downloaded the 'latest' engine management firmware to the PCM. I'm willing to bet that's where the limiter got installed (likely ment for the luxury model with 16" wheels). I can easly rev to about 6700 in the first three gears. Since the car was only pushing rollers, with no aerodynamic drag, the only thing I can think of is a speed limiter. It simply would not go past 6000 RPM or about 122 mph. It rev'ed cleanly up to about 5800, when it started to struggle. It was very noticable. You'll be able to hear it, when Reed posts the video.

With the stock tires, the Borla, and the Volant, this thing put out 200 RWHP, which translates to about 250 at the flywheel, if you assume the normal 20% drivetrain losses. This is a 30 HP increase from the stock 220 HP.

The wheel and tire weights were with tires mounted and with 32 psi in each. The 18x8" Mille Miglia EVO5s were 27lbs each. I don't know what the stock 17" wheel weighs, since mine still have tires on them. Remember though, 245/45R18's weigh more than 225/50R17's too, since they're almost an inch bigger diameter as well as wider. Air also has weight, and the bigger tires take more air volume.
 

·
Registered
2003 Cadillac CTS, 2005 Cadillac STS4 1SG
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
odysseus said:
The wheel and tire weights were with tires mounted and with 32 psi in each. The 18x8" Mille Miglia EVO5s were 27lbs each. I don't know what the stock 17" wheel weighs, since mine still have tires on them. Remember though, 245/45R18's weigh more than 225/50R17's too, since they're almost an inch bigger diameter as well as wider. Air also has weight, and the bigger tires take more air volume.
hey ody, i have some stock 2004 17x7.5 polished wheels sitting here, no tires, i just went and weighed them, they are 20.5 pounds each. Not sure how it relates to the 2003 Lux/Sport wheels, since these are the 2004, but I dont think the differnce is much if any.
 

·
Registered
2005 CTS 3.6L, 2006 350Z, Ducati 996s
Joined
·
2,449 Posts
Caddy Man said:
hey ody, i have some stock 2004 17x7.5 polished wheels sitting here, no tires, i just went and weighed them, they are 20.5 pounds each. Not sure how it relates to the 2003 Lux/Sport wheels, since these are the 2004, but I dont think the differnce is much if any.
So that would mean that most aftermarket lightweight rims are STILL HEAVIER then the stocker's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
damn, i go up north for a while and you guys have all the fun. interesting results about the k&n. as someone mentioned, i'd be curious to see if putting the hood down would change the k&n results, having to suck up all the engine compartment air. i'm pumped that my borla's increase HP that much, so with my volant and borla's i'm lookin pretty decent.

i probably won't even put the k&n back on...the 4 hp gain for the noise/whistle just isn't worth it (to me).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
you're really not out 250 bucks, i mean you have the 3.6L, so haveblue's results are definitely more appealing to a volant. for some reason, besides the engine comp being open...not sure why the receptiveness between the intakes is different from the 3.2 to 3.6
 

·
Registered
CTS-V
Joined
·
159 Posts
Just my opinion, but it would seem to me that the volant is designed to work better with having forced air into the box (more so than the open K&N setup). Wouldn't the volant show a greater HP increase with the air flow that does not show up during a Dyno run??? The Volant still seems like it should be a better setup over the stock version...
 

·
Registered
2003 CTS Manual Trans., '93 STS
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I agree. The K&N would do well, if one opened up the rubber flap next to the radiator, and closed off the rear of the filter like the engine side panel does. Then it would benefit from the cold air from outside the engine bay and likely flow just as well as with the hood open. The K&N is a high flow intake, but not necessarily 'cold air' without some mods.

Volant should benefit from some ram air affect, since the snorkel faces straight ahead. That's the problem with dyno runs . . . the car's not moving.

Robert, you didn't waste your money. HaveBlue's runs apply to your 3.6L much more than my 3.2L results. I found that they're completely different animals, and the 3.6L obvously has a larger appetite for air. The Volant had 236 square inches of filter area, compared to 132 on the AirHog (but the K&N had a whopping 330 square inches!).
 

·
Registered
2005 & 2008 CTS
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
Was there no fan blowing in front of the car during the runs? I always thought that when you run your car on a dyno, you had one of those indusrtial fans blowing to get more accurate info. At least thats what they do when they dyno vettes at different shows I go to.
 

·
Registered
Black the Darkside
Joined
·
22,415 Posts
05CTS said:
Was there no fan blowing in front of the car during the runs? I always thought that when you run your car on a dyno, you had one of those indusrtial fans blowing to get more accurate info. At least thats what they do when they dyno vettes at different shows I go to.
I think HaveBlue had a fan in his test.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top