CTS-V Officially Rated at 556 Horsepower

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: 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

you are going to be here a long time thinking everyone is spouting off exact figures.

Run flats which cadillac is offering usually are about $400 a tire. Most high end drivers are paying about $25 to $50 a corner for mount and balance. Thats about 2 sets.

When I was driving Mustangs I would go through almost 10 tires a year.

now I am lucky to last 9-10k miles.

 

[alkemyst]

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.

he is still learning.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: 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

you are going to be here a long time thinking everyone is spouting off exact figures.

Run flats which cadillac is offering usually are about $400 a tire. Most high end drivers are paying about $25 to $50 a corner for mount and balance. Thats about 2 sets.

When I was driving Mustangs I would go through almost 10 tires a year.

now I am lucky to last 9-10k miles.

run flats also increase the unsprung weight of the car and decrease your times.
who puts oem tires back on a car??? you must have been trying to wear them out or getting crappy tires. i am guessing the people buying this will know how to drive their car so they don't spin them, ruin the tires.

 

[kevman]

This totally bums me out. I'm looking at getting an LS3 C6, but now this 4 door grandma mobile will woop its ass. oh well.

 

[JulesMaximus]

CTS-V Officially Rated at 556 Horsepower

That's great. And with gas at over $4.50/gallon for premium it's about as relevant as tits on a bull.

 

[Q]

That's crazy, but a nice looking car.

Props to GM

 

[Baked]

I'm blinded by CTS-V's pure awesomeness, again. This car is just badass!

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

CTS-V Officially Rated at 556 Horsepower

That's great. And with gas at over $4.50/gallon for premium it's about as relevant as tits on a bull.

Cus I'm sure that people who buy this type of car buy it for the mpg

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

CTS-V Officially Rated at 556 Horsepower

That's great. And with gas at over $4.50/gallon for premium it's about as relevant as tits on a bull.

People who purchase a vehicle like that aren't exactly the kind of people who care about that.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

CTS-V Officially Rated at 556 Horsepower

That's great. And with gas at over $4.50/gallon for premium it's about as relevant as tits on a bull.

so if BMW unveils a new M5, audi a US spec RS6, etc... what would you say about those cars?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: herm0016
run flats also increase the unsprung weight of the car and decrease your times.
who puts oem tires back on a car??? you must have been trying to wear them out or getting crappy tires. i am guessing the people buying this will know how to drive their car so they don't spin them, ruin the tires.

Many of this segment just put back on what came on the car. They don't mess around with things.

It's hard to race without tire wear son...even if you aren't spinning your tires on the launch.

You are right though driving this back and forth to the grocery store and the dollar theatre will probably have your tires lasting many 10's of thousands of miles.

 

[Arkaign]

Yep, I was fully wrong about the Z06 times, and that throws my whole idea of the CTS-V being able to outgun a current Z06 on the streets in doubt. I still think it'd be a helluva close run. I also still maintain that launching the Z06 seems to be a learned art for very skilled drivers. ~500hp over a lightweight back end on those runflats seem to be a recipe for interesting times. Even with expert drivers, it seems to even influence the ability to actually connect that power to the ground, which may explain why the GT-R, with a massive power/weight disadvantage, cuts a better 'Ring time by such a surprising degree.

The point of this post is to fully admit that I was wrong, but also to point out that there are some interesting factors at work here, and it's not a cut and dry situation. I wonder when the curtain will raise on the ZR-1? If I were GM, I'd let Caddy have their moment in the sun before stealing the thunder with that devil.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

CTS-V Officially Rated at 556 Horsepower

That's great. And with gas at over $4.50/gallon for premium it's about as relevant as tits on a bull.

so if BMW unveils a new M5, audi a US spec RS6, etc... what would you say about those cars?

A guy who works next door to me has a new M5 and I think it's a ridiculous car. It's annoyingly loud and there really is no practical need for that much power on the street. Really, it's just bragging rights at that point.

 

[ayabe]

Impressive, I guess, though not really sure who the target audience is.

As some have said, it's a purely ridiculous vehicle, but so is the M5, AMG Benz's etc.

They aren't meant to be practical, they are specifically designed to liquidate rear tires while providing maximum comfort, which they all do.

But yeah I would be a sad Corvette owner getting owned by a luxo mobile that weighs 5000lbs or whatever, that's a hard pill to swallow.

It all depends on what you want, chances are, even if you have a car with 300hp you aren't going to do much WOT driving, there's just no room to do it safely.

So me for, this is a vehicle that would never be in the cards, dropping that kind of money for power that I could never use would just make me depressed. I can't even make time to track my WRX lately so I doubt that would change if I bought a Caddy.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Yep, I was fully wrong about the Z06 times, and that throws my whole idea of the CTS-V being able to outgun a current Z06 on the streets in doubt. I still think it'd be a helluva close run. I also still maintain that launching the Z06 seems to be a learned art for very skilled drivers. ~500hp over a lightweight back end on those runflats seem to be a recipe for interesting times. Even with expert drivers, it seems to even influence the ability to actually connect that power to the ground, which may explain why the GT-R, with a massive power/weight disadvantage, cuts a better 'Ring time by such a surprising degree.

The point of this post is to fully admit that I was wrong, but also to point out that there are some interesting factors at work here, and it's not a cut and dry situation. I wonder when the curtain will raise on the ZR-1? If I were GM, I'd let Caddy have their moment in the sun before stealing the thunder with that devil.

One thing not to forget is the supertall first gear of the Z06, which helps it get a cleaner launch than most high powered RWD cars. I agree though, launching any 500hp car will have a lot of variations from driver to driver.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Yep, I was fully wrong about the Z06 times, and that throws my whole idea of the CTS-V being able to outgun a current Z06 on the streets in doubt. I still think it'd be a helluva close run. I also still maintain that launching the Z06 seems to be a learned art for very skilled drivers. ~500hp over a lightweight back end on those runflats seem to be a recipe for interesting times. Even with expert drivers, it seems to even influence the ability to actually connect that power to the ground, which may explain why the GT-R, with a massive power/weight disadvantage, cuts a better 'Ring time by such a surprising degree.

The point of this post is to fully admit that I was wrong, but also to point out that there are some interesting factors at work here, and it's not a cut and dry situation. I wonder when the curtain will raise on the ZR-1? If I were GM, I'd let Caddy have their moment in the sun before stealing the thunder with that devil.

One thing not to forget is the supertall first gear of the Z06, which helps it get a cleaner launch than most high powered RWD cars. I agree though, launching any 500hp car will have a lot of variations from driver to driver.

Interesting, and I didn't know that about the gearing on the Z06 being so unique. 🙂 This is why I love the garage. Hopefully I get to drive a Z06 someday. I rode along in a C5 Z06, and that was loads of scary fun.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Impressive, I guess, though not really sure who the target audience is.

As some have said, it's a purely ridiculous vehicle, but so is the M5, AMG Benz's etc.

They aren't meant to be practical, they are specifically designed to liquidate rear tires while providing maximum comfort, which they all do.

But yeah I would be a sad Corvette owner getting owned by a luxo mobile that weighs 5000lbs or whatever, that's a hard pill to swallow.

It all depends on what you want, chances are, even if you have a car with 300hp you aren't going to do much WOT driving, there's just no room to do it safely.

So me for, this is a vehicle that would never be in the cards, dropping that kind of money for power that I could never use would just make me depressed. I can't even make time to track my WRX lately so I doubt that would change if I bought a Caddy.

One thing is for sure, you'd be a lot poorer if you bought the Caddy. 😉

 

[Pariah]

Even with expert drivers, it seems to even influence the ability to actually connect that power to the ground, which may explain why the GT-R, with a massive power/weight disadvantage, cuts a better 'Ring time by such a surprising degree.

It's not the additional weight that makes the GT-R faster. I don't know why anyone would think that. The GT-R is known as the car for the playstation generation because it's as close to a point and shoot car as there is; it practically drives itself. The combination of ATTESA E-TS AWD system and VDC-R stability control allows it to launch like it's being shot of a canon and corner like it's on rails. The phenomenal DSG-like dual clutch transmission helps track times as well. Being a huge pig is not what makes the GT-R fast, it's all the technology built into the car which makes it so fast, and also weighs it down so much.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: ayabe
Impressive, I guess, though not really sure who the target audience is.

As some have said, it's a purely ridiculous vehicle, but so is the M5, AMG Benz's etc.

They aren't meant to be practical, they are specifically designed to liquidate rear tires while providing maximum comfort, which they all do.

But yeah I would be a sad Corvette owner getting owned by a luxo mobile that weighs 5000lbs or whatever, that's a hard pill to swallow.

It all depends on what you want, chances are, even if you have a car with 300hp you aren't going to do much WOT driving, there's just no room to do it safely.

So me for, this is a vehicle that would never be in the cards, dropping that kind of money for power that I could never use would just make me depressed. I can't even make time to track my WRX lately so I doubt that would change if I bought a Caddy.

One thing is for sure, you'd be a lot poorer if you bought the Caddy. 😉

That's debatable, I just picked up a spare tranny and a set of rear half axles for if and when my drivetrain explodes after I get the 20G spooling.....kaboom!

Chances are the Caddy would have a more robust drivetrain, so I might save money in parts.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: ayabe
Impressive, I guess, though not really sure who the target audience is.

As some have said, it's a purely ridiculous vehicle, but so is the M5, AMG Benz's etc.

They aren't meant to be practical, they are specifically designed to liquidate rear tires while providing maximum comfort, which they all do.

But yeah I would be a sad Corvette owner getting owned by a luxo mobile that weighs 5000lbs or whatever, that's a hard pill to swallow.

It all depends on what you want, chances are, even if you have a car with 300hp you aren't going to do much WOT driving, there's just no room to do it safely.

So me for, this is a vehicle that would never be in the cards, dropping that kind of money for power that I could never use would just make me depressed. I can't even make time to track my WRX lately so I doubt that would change if I bought a Caddy.

One thing is for sure, you'd be a lot poorer if you bought the Caddy. 😉

That's debatable, I just picked up a spare tranny and a set of rear half axles for if and when my drivetrain explodes after I get the 20G spooling.....kaboom!

Chances are the Caddy would have a more robust drivetrain, so I might save money in parts.

Maybe you should have bought a WRX-STi instead? 😉 It's a lot more robust than the WRX but either car will break if you drag race it frequently. That car really shines on the track or twisty mountain roads.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Even with expert drivers, it seems to even influence the ability to actually connect that power to the ground, which may explain why the GT-R, with a massive power/weight disadvantage, cuts a better 'Ring time by such a surprising degree.

It's not the additional weight that makes the GT-R faster. I don't know why anyone would think that. The GT-R is known as the car for the playstation generation because it's as close to a point and shoot car as there is; it practically drives itself. The combination of ATTESA E-TS AWD system and VDC-R stability control allows it to launch like it's being shot of a canon and corner like it's on rails. The phenomenal DSG-like dual clutch transmission helps track times as well. Being a huge pig is not what makes the GT-R fast, it's all the technology built into the car which makes it so fast, and also weighs it down so much.

Well that certainly plays into it as well, but what I'm getting at is some examples in physics.

The driver in the Vette coming off a curve cannot in many cases give full throttle, because there's not enough weight over the rear tires, nor enough traction, for the tires to maintain grip. If the driver applies too much throttle, the traction breaks completely, and we're in for a slippery messy time.

The driver of the GT-R has two advantages in being able to put on throttle. First, as you mentioned, AWD. Being able to effectively double the small patches of ground that you can use to grab onto and apply throttle to is a huge advantage. Adding to that, there is added weight pressing down upon those small patches, so that when significant power is delivered, the traction is much less likely to break.

I've said in other threads on this subject, that I feel the added weight to be a somewhat double-edged sword, of course it's a negative in pretty much every area when traction is no longer a limiting factor, but it seems to help in two areas : (1)- applying power to a higher degree when coming from a stop or out of a curve that demands low speed, and (2)- at very high speeds when stability is difficult. Weight is part of the reason I think the Veyron is so rock-stable at ridiculous speed. Whereas the Saleen supercar was notoriously wiggly and unstable at 190+, the Veyron is like riding a bullet train, just straight, even, and uneventful. The downforce, tire grip, and weight holding you down is a good recipe for that kind of application.

It's a complex formula, and I'm just trying to get across that weight is not always bad in all respects. In some instances, particularly with extreme high-powered applications, it may be a way to get more power connecting to the track than would otherwise be possible.

Think of it this way, there are many design aspects that are specifically engineered to give additional downforce to vehicles. They almost universally employ air resistance to achieve this, which means that they are primarily useful only after achieving a certain speed. This is good, right? See the Konigsegg pre and post wing on Top Gear for a good example. All I'm saying is that weight is another way of adding downforce to gain traction in difficult circumstances. I'm well aware that there are many disadvantages to go with it. The added weight increases difficulty on braking, puts added stress on the tires under cornering, stresses the suspension system more, and makes acceleration in non-traction-limited circumstances slower.

Whichever the case and exact details, the GT-R seems to do very well with the recipe it holds.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Yep, I was fully wrong about the Z06 times, and that throws my whole idea of the CTS-V being able to outgun a current Z06 on the streets in doubt. I still think it'd be a helluva close run. I also still maintain that launching the Z06 seems to be a learned art for very skilled drivers. ~500hp over a lightweight back end on those runflats seem to be a recipe for interesting times. Even with expert drivers, it seems to even influence the ability to actually connect that power to the ground, which may explain why the GT-R, with a massive power/weight disadvantage, cuts a better 'Ring time by such a surprising degree.

The point of this post is to fully admit that I was wrong, but also to point out that there are some interesting factors at work here, and it's not a cut and dry situation. I wonder when the curtain will raise on the ZR-1? If I were GM, I'd let Caddy have their moment in the sun before stealing the thunder with that devil.

One thing not to forget is the supertall first gear of the Z06, which helps it get a cleaner launch than most high powered RWD cars. I agree though, launching any 500hp car will have a lot of variations from driver to driver.

Interesting, and I didn't know that about the gearing on the Z06 being so unique. 🙂 This is why I love the garage. Hopefully I get to drive a Z06 someday. I rode along in a C5 Z06, and that was loads of scary fun.

1st is good until 60mph and the others are good for much more than that... 😀

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6EiNFiLhV0

 

[Pariah]

There really isn't anything I can tell you Arkaign, you fundamentally don't understand the basics of automobile performance. I'll just post this video for you to watch:

Weight is the root of all evil

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Pariah
There really isn't anything I can tell you Arkaign, you fundamentally don't understand the basics of automobile performance. I'll just post this video for you to watch:

Weight is the root of all evil

Great, power to weight ratio better than almost anything on the planet, but it runs out of steam at ~155mph with the supercharger, 140mph without. My old Prelude would break 140.

You still don't get my relatively simple point. I am well aware of the negatives associated with weight. However, take a hypothetical Veyron that weighed as much as the Ariel Atom. What do you think it's actual top speed would be? The downforce involved in keeping the car planted is not purely aerodynamic, but a combination of the natural weight of the vehicle with the downforce added by the body design.

You like to come back with these quasi insulting condescending retorts, but apparently want to ignore the fact that at high speeds, and any time you want as much grip as possible, you want downforce to make that happen, and inherent weight is an element in that equation. Natural weight has another advantage, that it produces less drag than giant wings to compensate. Go back and look at the stability of the Veyron at 250+. 4,100lbs keeps it steady like nothing else. Contrast that with the Shelby SSC, which weighs 2750lbs, and it took several attempts over a long period of time for it to achieve the 3mph advantage, all the while being notoriously unstable at high speed.

Also, the Shelby SSC has a power-to-weight advantage over the Veyron, but is significantly slower at 0-60. Part of this is AWD>RWD, but another is the force holding the tires to the ground so that they have a chance to dig and not slip.

In NO way am I saying that added weight is always, or even very often, a good thing. I'm just saying that it's not fully negative. I used to throw sandbags in the back of my El Camino to get traction, the concept is not unique.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pariah
There really isn't anything I can tell you Arkaign, you fundamentally don't understand the basics of automobile performance. I'll just post this video for you to watch:

Weight is the root of all evil

Great, power to weight ratio better than almost anything on the planet, but it runs out of steam at ~155mph with the supercharger, 140mph without. My old Prelude would break 140.

You still don't get my relatively simple point. I am well aware of the negatives associated with weight. However, take a hypothetical Veyron that weighed as much as the Ariel Atom. What do you think it's actual top speed would be? The downforce involved in keeping the car planted is not purely aerodynamic, but a combination of the natural weight of the vehicle with the downforce added by the body design.

You like to come back with these quasi insulting condescending retorts, but apparently want to ignore the fact that at high speeds, and any time you want as much grip as possible, you want downforce to make that happen, and inherent weight is an element in that equation. Natural weight has another advantage, that it produces less drag than giant wings to compensate. Go back and look at the stability of the Veyron at 250+. 4,100lbs keeps it steady like nothing else. Contrast that with the Shelby SSC, which weighs 2750lbs, and it took several attempts over a long period of time for it to achieve the 3mph advantage, all the while being notoriously unstable at high speed.

Also, the Shelby SSC has a power-to-weight advantage over the Veyron, but is significantly slower at 0-60. Part of this is AWD>RWD, but another is the force holding the tires to the ground so that they have a chance to dig and not slip.

In NO way am I saying that added weight is always, or even very often, a good thing. I'm just saying that it's not fully negative. I used to throw sandbags in the back of my El Camino to get traction, the concept is not unique.

Um, at high speed the only thing keeping your car planted is aerodynamics. I've felt a Mustang get light at 130 mph and that car weighs 3500lbs. 4100lbs would make almost zero difference at speeds above 150. It's aerodynamics that keep that car planted, not weight. The Veyron engine is powerful enough to load the car up with all the downforce the engineers can get on that shape and still overcome the drag.

BTW-I read that the first test versions of the Veyron were unstable at speed and that they had to redesign the vehicle's aerodynamics...despite the weight.

If what you're saying were true a NASCAR race car would be able to handle better than a Formula One car. They make about the same power but the NASCAR race car weighs more than twice as much and we all know which one would win that race and it isn't the heavier one.

You're confusing traction with grip. They aren't the same thing.