CTS-V Officially Rated at 556 Horsepower

[overst33r]

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/0...y-make-556-horsepower/

The 2009 CTS-V will officially be rated at 556 horsepower, hit 60 mph in 3.5 seconds and run the quarter mile in 12 seconds flat. No offense to Bentley, but a sub-3-second sedan is about as exciting as it can get on a Monday. For the record, the Edmunds' Straightline Blog reports that the sport sedan's 6.2L supercharged V8 will produce 556 hp at 6,100 rpm and 551 pound-feet of torque at 3,800 rpm. That engine is the LSA, derived from the new Corvette ZR1's LS9 motor and detuned for duty in the CTS-V. Fortunately, the LSA wasn't detuned too much and the '09 CTS-V should destroy its German competition, specifically the BMW M5 with its - can't believe we're saying this - relatively meager 500-hp 5.0L V10.

Can you imagine grandma jane embarrassing 99% of the cars out there at a stoplight?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: mariok2006
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/0...y-make-556-horsepower/

The 2009 CTS-V will officially be rated at 556 horsepower, hit 60 mph in 3.5 seconds and run the quarter mile in 12 seconds flat. No offense to Bentley, but a sub-3-second sedan is about as exciting as it can get on a Monday. For the record, the Edmunds' Straightline Blog reports that the sport sedan's 6.2L supercharged V8 will produce 556 hp at 6,100 rpm and 551 pound-feet of torque at 3,800 rpm. That engine is the LSA, derived from the new Corvette ZR1's LS9 motor and detuned for duty in the CTS-V. Fortunately, the LSA wasn't detuned too much and the '09 CTS-V should destroy its German competition, specifically the BMW M5 with its - can't believe we're saying this - relatively meager 500-hp 5.0L V10.

Can you imagine grandma jane embarrassing 99% of the cars out there at a stoplight?

Wow, in a straight line, it's actually a threat to the current Z06 :Q

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: mariok2006
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/0...y-make-556-horsepower/

The 2009 CTS-V will officially be rated at 556 horsepower, hit 60 mph in 3.5 seconds and run the quarter mile in 12 seconds flat. No offense to Bentley, but a sub-3-second sedan is about as exciting as it can get on a Monday. For the record, the Edmunds' Straightline Blog reports that the sport sedan's 6.2L supercharged V8 will produce 556 hp at 6,100 rpm and 551 pound-feet of torque at 3,800 rpm. That engine is the LSA, derived from the new Corvette ZR1's LS9 motor and detuned for duty in the CTS-V. Fortunately, the LSA wasn't detuned too much and the '09 CTS-V should destroy its German competition, specifically the BMW M5 with its - can't believe we're saying this - relatively meager 500-hp 5.0L V10.

Can you imagine grandma jane embarrassing 99% of the cars out there at a stoplight?

Wow, in a straight line, it's actually a threat to the current Z06 :Q

So is it safe to say that the M3 and M5 for that matter our out-gunned here?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Does it come with its own gas station?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: mariok2006
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/0...y-make-556-horsepower/

The 2009 CTS-V will officially be rated at 556 horsepower, hit 60 mph in 3.5 seconds and run the quarter mile in 12 seconds flat. No offense to Bentley, but a sub-3-second sedan is about as exciting as it can get on a Monday. For the record, the Edmunds' Straightline Blog reports that the sport sedan's 6.2L supercharged V8 will produce 556 hp at 6,100 rpm and 551 pound-feet of torque at 3,800 rpm. That engine is the LSA, derived from the new Corvette ZR1's LS9 motor and detuned for duty in the CTS-V. Fortunately, the LSA wasn't detuned too much and the '09 CTS-V should destroy its German competition, specifically the BMW M5 with its - can't believe we're saying this - relatively meager 500-hp 5.0L V10.

Can you imagine grandma jane embarrassing 99% of the cars out there at a stoplight?

Wow, in a straight line, it's actually a threat to the current Z06 :Q

So is it safe to say that the M3 and M5 for that matter our out-gunned here?

Yep, that's just psychotic, and it's amazing to me that GM would shotgun the Vette like this, but what can I say? Impressive!

 

[KentState]

Hmm, maybe when the lease is up on my '08 CTS, I will be able to afford the CTS-V. I always wondered how the car would feel with another 100hp.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Does it come with its own gas station?

Forget gas. What sort of rubber does it take to keep this thing planted? I'm guessing you are looking at $4,000+ a year in just tires.

 

[Pariah]

Jesus, impressive numbers. Is that 0-60 time the theoretical ability of the car? Doesn't a Z06 have 325's in the back and is considered traction limited? I can't imagine GM got anything that big on the CTS-V. What kind of stock rubber do they have out back to produce that sort of time for a car that large?

So is it safe to say that the M3 and M5 for that matter our out-gunned here?

In a straight line at least, it will be no competition whatsoever. Once a corner comes...who knows, the M3 might still just win.

This car isn't competing with the base Corvette. The Z06 will still handily beat a CTS-V on the track, and they're probably going to be similar in price. The ZR1 will be on a completely different level.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: mariok2006
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/0...y-make-556-horsepower/

The 2009 CTS-V will officially be rated at 556 horsepower, hit 60 mph in 3.5 seconds and run the quarter mile in 12 seconds flat. No offense to Bentley, but a sub-3-second sedan is about as exciting as it can get on a Monday. For the record, the Edmunds' Straightline Blog reports that the sport sedan's 6.2L supercharged V8 will produce 556 hp at 6,100 rpm and 551 pound-feet of torque at 3,800 rpm. That engine is the LSA, derived from the new Corvette ZR1's LS9 motor and detuned for duty in the CTS-V. Fortunately, the LSA wasn't detuned too much and the '09 CTS-V should destroy its German competition, specifically the BMW M5 with its - can't believe we're saying this - relatively meager 500-hp 5.0L V10.

Can you imagine grandma jane embarrassing 99% of the cars out there at a stoplight?

Wow, in a straight line, it's actually a threat to the current Z06 :Q

So is it safe to say that the M3 and M5 for that matter our out-gunned here?

Yep, pretty safe to say. The CTS-V should handle too given the under 8min 'Ring time. Also, since it's supercharged, 700+hp shouldn't be hard to get out of it too.

My guess would be that it gets better gas economy than the M3 as well (and easily better than the M5/M6).

 

[bananapeel42]

4,000+ a year just in tires? are you fucking crazy?

even if you bought the michelin pilot sport ps2's and say they were probably 275's in the back and 255's in the front you'd need to go through 3 sets of tires in a year to spend even close to that if you got ripped off every time you bought tires.

if you go through 3 sets of tires on this car you'd have to be racing it every week i guess. but who cares anyway because people who buy this car can afford the tires

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Sweet merciful crap! Those numbers are insane. I hate to say it, but I think the horsepower wars of the past few years are at an end - $5/gal gas isn't a good match for 500-600 bhp cars. This should be RELATIVELY fuel efficient for what it is, but the laws of physics just don't allow a car like this to run cheaply.

EDIT: I'm not sure where they got the 3.5-second number - the actual press release says 3.9, still insane but not AS insane.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Pariah
Jesus, impressive numbers. Is that 0-60 time the theoretical ability of the car? Doesn't a Z06 have 325's in the back and is considered traction limited? I can't imagine GM got anything that big on the CTS-V. What kind of stock rubber do they have out back to produce that sort of time for a car that large?

So is it safe to say that the M3 and M5 for that matter our out-gunned here?

In a straight line at least, it will be no competition whatsoever. Once a corner comes...who knows, the M3 might still just win.

This car isn't competing with the base Corvette. The Z06 will still handily beat a CTS-V on the track, and they're probably going to be similar in price. The ZR1 will be on a completely different level.

Motor Trend says Z06 Ring time is 7:42

http://forums.corvetteforum.co...t=1170366&forum_id=100

Considering the CTS-V seems to have an easier time with the 0-60 and 1/4 times, and is less than 20 seconds off on a technical course, they're pretty closely matched. I'd think that in most street situations the Z06 will go down like a sack of potatoes.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pariah
Jesus, impressive numbers. Is that 0-60 time the theoretical ability of the car? Doesn't a Z06 have 325's in the back and is considered traction limited? I can't imagine GM got anything that big on the CTS-V. What kind of stock rubber do they have out back to produce that sort of time for a car that large?

So is it safe to say that the M3 and M5 for that matter our out-gunned here?

In a straight line at least, it will be no competition whatsoever. Once a corner comes...who knows, the M3 might still just win.

This car isn't competing with the base Corvette. The Z06 will still handily beat a CTS-V on the track, and they're probably going to be similar in price. The ZR1 will be on a completely different level.

Motor Trend says Z06 Ring time is 7:42

http://forums.corvetteforum.co...t=1170366&forum_id=100

Considering the CTS-V seems to have an easier time with the 0-60 and 1/4 times, and is less than 20 seconds off on a technical course, they're pretty closely matched. I'd think that in most street situations the Z06 will go down like a sack of potatoes.

It's weight sure helps it gain traction over the Z06, that's for sure.

 

[ElFenix]

jesus christ!

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pariah
Jesus, impressive numbers. Is that 0-60 time the theoretical ability of the car? Doesn't a Z06 have 325's in the back and is considered traction limited? I can't imagine GM got anything that big on the CTS-V. What kind of stock rubber do they have out back to produce that sort of time for a car that large?

So is it safe to say that the M3 and M5 for that matter our out-gunned here?

In a straight line at least, it will be no competition whatsoever. Once a corner comes...who knows, the M3 might still just win.

This car isn't competing with the base Corvette. The Z06 will still handily beat a CTS-V on the track, and they're probably going to be similar in price. The ZR1 will be on a completely different level.

Motor Trend says Z06 Ring time is 7:42

http://forums.corvetteforum.co...t=1170366&forum_id=100

Considering the CTS-V seems to have an easier time with the 0-60 and 1/4 times, and is less than 20 seconds off on a technical course, they're pretty closely matched. I'd think that in most street situations the Z06 will go down like a sack of potatoes.

Everywhere else has the CTS-V at 3.9 seconds 0-60, so the Z06 wins in both acceleration measures. How does losing by 20 seconds around the ring (which is a loss by a significant margin) coupled with losing in the quarter and 0-60 in anyway a indication that the Z06 will go down like a sack of potatoes on the street? I don't follow that line of reasoning at all.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pariah
Jesus, impressive numbers. Is that 0-60 time the theoretical ability of the car? Doesn't a Z06 have 325's in the back and is considered traction limited? I can't imagine GM got anything that big on the CTS-V. What kind of stock rubber do they have out back to produce that sort of time for a car that large?

So is it safe to say that the M3 and M5 for that matter our out-gunned here?

In a straight line at least, it will be no competition whatsoever. Once a corner comes...who knows, the M3 might still just win.

This car isn't competing with the base Corvette. The Z06 will still handily beat a CTS-V on the track, and they're probably going to be similar in price. The ZR1 will be on a completely different level.

Motor Trend says Z06 Ring time is 7:42

http://forums.corvetteforum.co...t=1170366&forum_id=100

Considering the CTS-V seems to have an easier time with the 0-60 and 1/4 times, and is less than 20 seconds off on a technical course, they're pretty closely matched. I'd think that in most street situations the Z06 will go down like a sack of potatoes.

Everywhere else has the CTS-V at 3.9 seconds 0-60, so the Z06 wins in both acceleration measures. How does losing by 20 seconds around the ring (which is a loss by a significant margin) coupled with losing in the quarter and 0-60 in anyway a indication that the Z06 will go down like a sack of potatoes on the street? I don't follow that line of reasoning at all.

Well, I was taking this time of 3.5 0-60 for granted, so if it actually does test out at 3.9, then it's a bit of a different story.

From everything I can tell, the Z06 is a very tricky beast to get good times out of, with experts able to pull 11s (!!!), and with poor/average drivers in the 13s. 0-60 and launch seems to be trickiest of all.

~17 seconds on an 8-minute technical course isn't too huge. BUT, I have to say, I'd bet a lot more effort went into getting that 7:59 out of the CTS-V than the 7:42 from the Z06. An excellent driver with tires as good as those on the CTS-V might be able to break down to the 7:30 range I'd guess, with the same amount of effort that was in the CTS runs.

Anyway, on the street, traction is questionable, and there are few areas with hardcore twisties that you'd really want to be testing your limits on. After all, we don't drive on race tracks The CTS-V's transmission, higher weight (traction!), and the launch/traction control probably = better 0-60 stoplight runs than any but the best Z06 drivers can pull off.

In other words :

Expert drivers in both = Z06 win, or about a tie.
Better than average drivers in both = CTS-V win, or about a tie.
Average drivers in both = CTS-V win, no question.
Etc.

 

[Pariah]

Only autoblog is reporting 3.5 seconds, so it's probably a typo. I don't think anyone outside of GM has driven the new CTS-V, so any assumptions on how it drives are extremely speculative at this point. The base Corvette is a mid 12's car, so if you are pulling 13's in a Z06, you're not just a below average drive, you're an awful driver and that isn't the fault of the car. The CTS-V in the lighter form is 1000lbs heavier than the Z06. You can go on and on about traction all you want, but I have never heard of anyone adding weight to make their car faster around a track or in the quarter mile. Given any two comparable drivers who are capable of controlling a 500+HP vehicle, the Z06 will not be beaten let alone sacked by the CTS-V, without having any knowledge of how easy or difficult it is to drive the new V.

 

[Arkaign]

Motor Trend tested the Z06 and got these numbers :

Z06
0-60- 4.24
0-100- 9.88
1/4 mile-12.64 @113.89MPH
60-0 ft- 105
skidpad- 1.00
slalom- 68.99 MPH

Then, Car and Driver was able to squeeze 3.6 (!!!) out of the same model Z06!

The base C6 / Z51 puts down about the same 0-60, yet fell behind on the 1/4, showing the lack of that 100 extra hp.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/05-corvette2.htm

IDK, but with so many different numbers on the Z06, it really does seem to be an 'expert' car. Look on various Vette forums to see how disparate the quarter times are for stock vehicles, with lots of people asking for help hooking up.

Oh, and extra weight is actually helpful over your drive wheels to get out of the hole. If the GT-R was lighter, the 0-60 time would likely increase, not decrease. The quarter trap speed would probably go up, as the less weight to hold you back once traction is no longer a limiting factor is a good thing, but as I said, launching + extra weight = win.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Motor Trend tested the Z06 and got these numbers :

Z06
0-60- 4.24
0-100- 9.88
1/4 mile-12.64 @113.89MPH
60-0 ft- 105
skidpad- 1.00
slalom- 68.99 MPH

Then, Car and Driver was able to squeeze 3.6 (!!!) out of the same model Z06!

The base C6 / Z51 puts down about the same 0-60, yet fell behind on the 1/4, showing the lack of that 100 extra hp.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/05-corvette2.htm

IDK, but with so many different numbers on the Z06, it really does seem to be an 'expert' car. Look on various Vette forums to see how disparate the quarter times are for stock vehicles, with lots of people asking for help hooking up.

Oh, and extra weight is actually helpful over your drive wheels to get out of the hole. If the GT-R was lighter, the 0-60 time would likely increase, not decrease. The quarter trap speed would probably go up, as the less weight to hold you back once traction is no longer a limiting factor is a good thing, but as I said, launching + extra weight = win.

There are different conventions for launch, shifting, and measuring, which is the reason for most of these time differences. Some magazines use a lead in time, some drop clutch, some slip, some full throttle shift, others don't, etc.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Motor Trend tested the Z06 and got these numbers :

Z06
0-60- 4.24
0-100- 9.88
1/4 mile-12.64 @113.89MPH
60-0 ft- 105
skidpad- 1.00
slalom- 68.99 MPH

Then, Car and Driver was able to squeeze 3.6 (!!!) out of the same model Z06!

The base C6 / Z51 puts down about the same 0-60, yet fell behind on the 1/4, showing the lack of that 100 extra hp.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/05-corvette2.htm

IDK, but with so many different numbers on the Z06, it really does seem to be an 'expert' car. Look on various Vette forums to see how disparate the quarter times are for stock vehicles, with lots of people asking for help hooking up.

Oh, and extra weight is actually helpful over your drive wheels to get out of the hole. If the GT-R was lighter, the 0-60 time would likely increase, not decrease. The quarter trap speed would probably go up, as the less weight to hold you back once traction is no longer a limiting factor is a good thing, but as I said, launching + extra weight = win.

Z06's are trapping 125+... that trap speed suggests somethign is wrong with the car... I bleive they got a better time out of a bone stock LS3 C6, which did it in 12.4s @ 116.

I disagree about a weight decrease likely raising the 0-60 time of the GT-R. Don't forget, as soon as the AWD system senses loss of traction in the rear, more power goes to the front. If anything, the time would drop IMO. You might have a point if the car was RWD, e.g. Z06 and ZR1 will probably have identical 0-60 times.

 

[melchoir]

Motor Trend tested the Z06 and got these numbers :

Z06
0-60- 4.24
0-100- 9.88
1/4 mile-12.64 @113.89MPH
60-0 ft- 105
skidpad- 1.00
slalom- 68.99 MPH

Sounds even slow for a C5 z06. C5 Z06s regularly trap 116mph in stock form.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: melchoir

Motor Trend tested the Z06 and got these numbers :

Z06
0-60- 4.24
0-100- 9.88
1/4 mile-12.64 @113.89MPH
60-0 ft- 105
skidpad- 1.00
slalom- 68.99 MPH

Sounds even slow for a C5 z06. C5 Z06s regularly trap 116mph in stock form.

That's what I think the time is for. A C5Z.

EDIT: It is, the time is for a C5 Z06 that was pitted against an M3 and Boxster S in a performance test done by MT.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: melchoir

Motor Trend tested the Z06 and got these numbers :

Z06
0-60- 4.24
0-100- 9.88
1/4 mile-12.64 @113.89MPH
60-0 ft- 105
skidpad- 1.00
slalom- 68.99 MPH

Sounds even slow for a C5 z06. C5 Z06s regularly trap 116mph in stock form.

That's what I think the time is for. A C5Z.

EDIT: It is, the time is for a C5 Z06 that was pitted against an M3 and Boxster S in a performance test done by MT.

Ah, that makes much more sense

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: melchoir

Motor Trend tested the Z06 and got these numbers :

Z06
0-60- 4.24
0-100- 9.88
1/4 mile-12.64 @113.89MPH
60-0 ft- 105
skidpad- 1.00
slalom- 68.99 MPH

Sounds even slow for a C5 z06. C5 Z06s regularly trap 116mph in stock form.

That's what I think the time is for. A C5Z.

EDIT: It is, the time is for a C5 Z06 that was pitted against an M3 and Boxster S in a performance test done by MT.

That would explain why I couldn't find that time. I found 4 articles on the current z06 at MT:

12sec @ 124.0; 4.0sec
11.5sec @ 127.1; 3.5sec
11.6sec @ 126.6; 3.8sec
11.7sec @ 125.2; 3.8sec

I doubt we're going to see any reviews of the CTS-V matching the bottom 3 times.

Oh, and extra weight is actually helpful over your drive wheels to get out of the hole.

To a point, though 1000 additional lbs spread over the whole car is not going to have that effect. If a Z06 was shipped with stock CTS-V tires which I'm guessing are in the 275 range, care to wager which would improve traction more, the actual 325 rubber on the Z06, or 1000 additional lbs? I'm going to go with the wider tires. Which is another reason I don't think the V is going to be any easier to launch than the Z06. More HP with less rubber is not a good way to improve traction from a dig.

If the GT-R was lighter, the 0-60 time would likely increase, not decrease.

Guess that would explain why everyoneis ripping Nissan for dropping the weight of the V-Spec model. Nissan must be run by a bunch of morons.

 

[SAWYER]

Why this is an outrage, this car should be banned! Just look at the horrible mileage, we should all be driving boring hybrids!