Dreamin

This is really frustrating...

Z06s dyno 350-360rwhp all day long:
http://www.z06vette.com/forums/poll....lts&pollid=533

V's are dyno'ing at 310-330rwhp:
DgtalPimp: 312rwhp -- http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...ad.php?t=14372
R.Ketcham: 317rwhp -- http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...ad.php?t=13044
MTI: 318rwhp -- https://ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-2004-2007-gen-i/143117-cts-v-dynoed.html
Moreperf: 324rwhp -- https://ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-2004-2007-gen-i/154088-new-cold-air-cts-v-proves-great-improvements.html
Cal: 332rwhp -- http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...ad.php?t=11476

I have read all the info on the intake and exhaust being restrictive and GM wanting to keep the interior quiet, etc. That's fine... then GM should rate the hp accurately: it's not making 5hp less than the Z06...
The CTS-V is a 365hp car!

I know that the LS6 motor opens up after 1K miles or 5K miles... but plenty of Z06 guys are dynoing <1000 miles, and making 350rwhp+

What's going on here??

Oh... and the best part... I have to pay $6500 and completely void the warrentee to get to 375rwhp... 20 more than the stock Z06... and it takes: heads, cam, intake, x-pipe, programming...

http://www.motorsporttech.com/cts-v_engine01.asp (scroll down and look at the graph)

That's probably what Mallett is getting out of their car too


At this rate, GM is going to have a class-action lawsuit on their hands... (can you say: 1999 SVT Cobra?)

C5 CU

i am really not that familiar with the CTS-V - but possible reason for less RWHP could be restrictive exhaust, extra pup cats or different less high flow cats than the ZO6, drivetrain power loss, GM tuning, restrictive air intake, etc....my guess is a good tuner could pick-up some power, even more than what good tuners get out of a ZO6 becuase GM factory ZO6 tune is pretty aggressive.

02-04 - ZO6 commonly dyno about 10rwhp more after 2000 miles, so 344rwhp is common at say 1000miles but when dynoed at 3000 miles they see 355rwhp...

my ZO6 bone stock was 354rwhp, I added air intake to make 360rwhp, added headers to make 376rwhp and tuning to make 383rwhp...then i opened the flood gate and added H/C to get 453rwhp...my point is tuning added less than 8rwhp and that was after some mods that affected A/F ratio, but tuning on a CTS-V could possibly get better results and simple air-intake and removal of pup-cats could get the car in the 355rwhp area.

all said still not correct for GM to advertise misleading HP...

Shinkaze

I'm going to Copy this is over to the Automotive news section. FWIW the same this happened with the Ford Mustang Cobra, the cars were dynoing well below their stated HP. Cobra owners threatened a class action law suit for false advertising and Ford stepped in and corrected the problem issuing a new Cylinder head and intake to raise HP back to advertised.

Shinkaze

FWIW if that is the case then GM still should advertise the CTS-V at it's proper Hp rating.

Shinkaze

Link to new Article in Autmotive News, feel free to post this on the cadillac board as well:

Does the CTS-V Make it's Advertised 400hp?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...87#post1443687

WECIV

Get some folks together and threaten to sue, GM cannot afford to look like a panzie company now that they are supposedly a performance company!!!

TTopJohn

GM doesn't rate horsepower at the rear wheels, they rate it at the flywheel. For a car with normal to heavy drivetrain losses, 310-330 at the rear wheels is consistent with 400hp at the flywheel. For instance, the CTS-V uses a dual mass flywheel, which is heavier than a Corvette flywheel, soaking up more power.

We've been spoiled by recent Camaros and Corvettes, which have VERY low drivetrain losses relative to other cars. That's why the Z06 can dyno as high as 350 rwhp with a 405 hp flywheel rating.

Mix in the Dyno to Dyno margin of error, along with the error created by broken in engine v. tight fresh engine, and 350rwhp for a z06 with a flywheel rating of 405, and 310-330rwhp for a CTS-V with a flywheel rating of 400 sounds accurate to me, no conspiracy and nothing to whine about.

I'm still amazed at all the complaining about this car and the GTO. Don't y'all see how good we have it now? 10 to 15 years ago we couldn't fathom cars this good at this obtainable price level. Cadillac and GM are to be applauded, not threatened with lawsuit.

JBsC5

CTS V series also has 3.73 gears which grabs a few ponies..IMHO

Not many but a few..

Then add in the under 2000 miles on the engine...(a few ponies)

Then add in the drivetrain loss and even better the variables of the dyno and the temperature of the coolant and the cars right on the money..

The CTS V series is an unbelievable cadillac!

Who ever would have thought they finally leave that northstar out of the engine bay and drop in a lighter, smaller more powerful 400 hp OHV motor..

Great car and done up the right way.

The interiors' great..the exterior is sharp..

The tires and brakes..

the price...

Sure the axle hop blows but I hear the aftermarket has a cure so what the hell!

Wish it came with dual clutch sequential shifter and I'd have one as a daily driver!

cvp33

The 14" rotors actually rob horsepower as well. Rotating mass plays a big role in net HP. This was actually proven on tuner television about a month ago. During their build up of their RSX they added a CAIK, exhaust and larger brakes. Went to the dyno and actually LOST horsepower. Certainly the CAIK and exhaust had increased the power? The engineers got involved and sure enough the larger rotors had taken all the power gains because of the increased rotating mass.

Shinkaze

Maybe for an automatic, but not a T56.

...and the corvette uses a Torque Tube, rear mounted tranny that has been shown (F-Body to Y-Body) to be less efficient than a standard lay-out, such was the sacrifice for handling. Regardless HP is measured at and including the flywheel so the 400hp number includes the heavier flywheel and more restrictive exhaust and intake.
the CTS-V Chassis (Sigma) is being economized for less expensive cars like the next gen GTO and 5th gen Camaro (Zeta platform) Are you saying the next gen Camaro will have way higher driveline losses?

Okay how about this. The CTS-V is based on the Sigma Chassis which is the next generation version of the Opal Omega chassis that currently underpins the GTO. The Driveline of these two cars is pratically identicle, and the chassis similarities between the GTO and CTS-V are about as similar as a Third Gen and 4th Gen F-Body.

Some dynos of the new New Pontiac GTO (Manual)
298 RWHP
http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthr...highlight=dyno
298.6 RWHP
http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthr...highlight=dyno
297.5 RWHP
http://www.highperformancepontiac.co...407pon_engine/

The Goat is rated at 350hp. 298RWHP at 15% drivetrain loss is 350.58 HP.

The GTO driveline is almost identicle to the CTS-V, and they should see almost identicle drivetrain losses. On those dynos on those days with the same 15% drivetrain loss as experienced by the GTOs, a CTS-V should have made 340RWHP. I haven't seen anyone close to that number yet?

Now looking at LS1 Corvettes to Z06 Corvettes, off the top of my head I recall they tend to range from 300-310 Rwhp for the LS1 and 355-ish for the Z06 LS6. On the exact same car exact same platform.

So why do we not see that same spread (45-55 RWHP) between the GTO(ls1) and CTS-V(ls6)? Rather we see a 10-20 RWHP spread at the wheels for a 50 hp crank diff?


-Adam

Shinkaze

Okay I'll give you 3hp for that... wait a sec Vettes have big-*** brakes too, nevermind

FWIW Though Here is a dyno showing a similar result by adding ~15 pounds to the rear wheels by going from 17x9" 275 to 17x11" 315 he lost 3.6 hp.
http://www.ws6.com/wheels.htm

Still not enough.

TTopJohn

I sure hope the next gen Camaro has higher driveline losses - particularly in the form of a beefier heavier axle that can better handle the power the car puts out and wasn't originally designed for a S-10 pickup.


I think this is way to much worrying over a piddly amount of horsepower difference that only exists on dynosheets and doesn't show up in performance tests or in the seat of your pants. Comparing horsepower spread between different cars (C5s, GTOs and CTS-Vs) is not too terribly scientific. If someone pulls the LS6 out of a CTS-V, and pulls the LS6 out of a Z06, puts them on the same engine dyno and comes up with different numbers, then get upset. Till then, it's just a more elaborate level of bench racing.

Or just go drive the thing and enjoy the perma-smile it puts on your face

Shinkaze

Well as I showed above the GTO with a nearly identicle Chassis and driveline is showing 15% loss very predictably. I think that's a very efficient number...of course I don't know how solid the rear is. GM builds these things to handle stock HP which it does. Can you blame GM if the rear grenades under 550 RWTorque? I'm not, and I've been through three rear ends!
35 hp is not a piddly amount. Thats the difference between a 2001 LS1 and LS6. Not to mention the times shown the CTS-V are not superb, though it's reputed to be due to wheel hop, 35 fewer ponies has to hurt as well.

If I was comparing loss between a FWD honda civic and a 4WD Hummer, then yea I might agree, but not in this case. The CTS-V is the next gen chassis of the GTO and is largely evolutionary. The Third Gen to 4th Gen Camaro is a greater change that that of the GTO-> CTS-V. At least they have the same architecture motor and same trannies. A 10-20 RWHP spread between an LS1 and LS6 says "problem". It's entirely possible that something is screwed in the computer, or some sensor is going haywire and there needs to be a recall, who knows maybe there is a more "Cadillac-ish" cam than was swapped in last minute?

Remeber, Ford thought they had a 320hp motor in their 1999 Cobra, and it wasn't until the car was mass-produced that they realized there was a problem making the 320hp Cobra Dyno less than the 305 hp 98 Cobra. Who brought this to Ford? The Automotive community (us) discovered this, we used the Internet to join forces and make Ford accountable for fixing the problem (which they did). Same thing happened with the BMW M3. The Internet is the most powerful consumer advocacy group ever.

I posted this elsewere too but, maybe a better way to sum it up is this. Your shifter shows a 6 speed pattern.


How would you feel if you went to shift into 6th and found it wasn't there? I mean the car is just as fun with a 5 speed as a six speed right? Never mind you paid for a 6 speed car and were told it was a 6-speed car, and it even shows 6th gear on the shifter...but oddly enough, not there.

I would be pissed, not sure why you all are not pissed off too.

We have to find out why the car won't engage 6th gear. Is it because it was never there and it was just marketed wrong? Is it there and some crud is keeping us from engaging it? Either way this problem needs to be aknowledged so those affected can start to analyze it. Right now I'm getting the feeling folks are just sticking their heads in the sand about this.

TTopJohn

Because if 6th gear is not there as advertised, it is a verifiable fact. This "missing horsepower" is not, not until you pull the engines from a Z06 and a CTS-V and run them on the same engine dyno. Which I bet Lingenfelter has already done, they do it as part of their packages.

If you want to use RWHP spread between the GTO and the CTS-V, how about these numbers: MTI got 297 rwhp from their GTO, and 318 from their CTS-V. 21 RWHP difference sounds plausible if the flywheel horsepower difference is 50 and the CTS-V has beefier things sucking up power (rotors, tires, 6 lug hubs, etc...)

Shinkaze

You're saying to takes 30 more HP to spin the same driveline in the CTS-V over the GTO? The ENTIRE DRIVELINE LOSS of a GTO at 297 RWHP is 53 hp!

The weight of 1 extra lug per rim and larger brakes doesn't make that much of a difference. Keith at WS6.com dynoed 3.3 RWHP difference going from 2759" rims to 315 11" rims. That's well over a 30 Lb Gain in rotational mass. For driveline weight gain to equal the missing power, based on Keith's data the CTS-V would have to have 300 lbs more of rotational Mass over the GTO to account for the power delta.

I think the more plausable explanation is something mechnical is messed up with these cars as was the case with the Cobra and the RX8 when they were short of their dynos as well.

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

I recall a shop telling me that the stock CTS-V exhaust is pretty restrictive.

TTopJohn

Yep, that's what I'm saying. Except it's not exactly the same driveline. It's the same tranny. Other than that, we don't know without crawling under a CTS-V. If the dual mass flywheel is any sign of the way the engineers were going with the V program, I bet there is a lot of extra beefiness in the driveline in the name of smoothness, low NVH and holding up to the extra power. Maybe a driveshaft flex disk (guibo in BMW circles). Maybe a beefier driveshaft.

The CTS isn't even on the same platform as the GTO. The GTO is on the older platform that brought us the Catera, the CTS is on the current Sigma architecture.

Another thing - how do we know the GTO flywheel horsepower number isn't underrated?

When you attempt to determine the exact FWHP of one car by comparing its RWHP to rated FWHP ratio with the the RWHP to Rated FWHP ratio of another car, (with a similar engine and similar driveline) , there is plenty of margin of error. And 30 rwhp is within that margin.

Shinkaze

As I showed above it's already been shown that 30 lbs of rotational power reduces RWHP by 3RWHP. You're talking about 300 pounds more beefiness, the scales don't show that. If anything the GTO has been overbuilt by Holden to handel off-roading in the outback, so I would be surprised if the CTS was equally as beefy. Eitherway you're saying that the CTS-V looses 30 more HP in the driveshaft, differential and halfshafts than the GTO. Unless Caddy fills their differentials with Sand that is highly unlikely.

Actually the GTO is based on the Catera/Omega that was replaced by the Sigma, thus the Sigma (CTS-V) is the next gen chassis of the Omega (GTO). The differences under the car between the CTS and GTO from the Driveshaft back are significantly less than that between the 4th gen Firebird and Third Gen.

Yet your hypothosis for why the numbers are so low is that the "Next Generation Chassis" is 5% less efficient? With tightening fuel restrictions, I find that a hard line to believe. The more likely scenario is the motor is just simply not making 400hp.

That "Margin" is more than 50% of the total power required to spin the GTO driveline????, as I said above the more likely scenario is the motor simply isn't making 400hp, whether by some mechnical fault, intetional design or shortcoming. Ford didn't intetionaly overrate the RX8 and 99 Cobra, the production cars just had some minor differences that was enough to cause a fault.

Shinkaze

It may well be, but GM rates their motors in "full dress". That includes intakes, accesories, exhuast, etc. 400hp should be the rating at the flywheel. FWIW they rate the CTS-V 5 hp below the Z06 at the crank... of course the average dynos are showing a 30 RWHP difference which tells me there is something wrong, since the Vette driveline isn't exactly the model of efficiency.

Anyhow this really ticks me off as the CTS-V was high on the list for a Fall purchase..... of course I might not have the luxury of waiting till the fall with the way my TA is acting up.

WhiteDiamond

Adam,

Your arguments, while intentions may be somewhat good, are truely baseless. Just because so and so at ws6.com got a 3.x rwhp gain/loss for X amount of weight does not mean it translates to another vehicle the same. The Corvettes torque tube and rear mount tranny are a negligible issue in the dyno numbers between a Vette and F-body. The much larger difference is the IRS versus a live rear axle.

Also, before you go getting all hyped up about some lawsuites and such, it is wise to remember that you have very little to gain from pushing such action. The owners will loose value, GM will reconsider the vehicle and in the end the consumer who purchased looses(ask any of the Cobra owners affected).

It would be wise to see some higher milage dyno's of the CTS-V and find out what TM parameters exist in the PCM. This car is, after all, a Cadillac and may have much more TM parameters present than the Z06.

Also, the Vette does not enjoy the luxury of 14" Brembo's and actually has smaller rotors(even the new C6 has smaller rotors). The CTS-V does not enjoy the lightweight wheels the Z06 has(don't start the WS6.com says stuff again, even day to day dyno'ing on the same dyno can produce the difference you are talking about).

The reality of the situation is that 17% to 20% is the drivetrain loss expected from a vehicle such as the CTS-V with IRS. It would be closer to the 20% number is the flywheel is truely a dual mass unit(for your own dyno information, I got over 10rwhp for a aluminum flywheel and ACPT CF driveshaft on my 98 WS6). The last time I did some math, 20% of 400hp is 80hp. 320rwhp is about right. Lets see some higher milage dyno's now.

Todd

TTopJohn

Adam, and everyone else who wants to sue:

I can't believe I'm saying this (since I'm in law school) but suing is not the answer.

If car enthusiasts keep up this "sue the people who build the cars we love" thing, the automakers will quickly abandon us.

With rare exception, they don't make any money on limited edition performance specials like the CTS-V, since they cost a lot to develop and sell in small numbers. They justify them as halo cars for the rest of the lineup. If we, the enthusiasts, make it MORE expensive for them to serve up these cars, they are very likely to wash their hands of the likes of us, and shift their energy to normal family cars, trucks and SUVs.

We're a small but passionate market - but we are a SMALL market. And if the automakers have to worry about a lawsuit everytime they rate the horsepower of a performance cars, that makes it that much tougher for the car nut engineers to justify a program like the CTS-V to the bean counters.

Shinkaze

I didn't articulate myself properly then, I was being sarcastic above where TT John said that maybe larger brakes acounted for the 30 RWHP difference. I pointed out Keith Locklier's 3 RWHP dyno to show that while a factor, it's not as large as one might think.
(I) am not pushing a lawsuite because (I) do not have a CTS-V and thus would gain nothing from it. However, This is a similar event to what happened when the Cobras were down 15 RWHP, the owners sued Ford for False advertising, and Ford was required to fix the situation.

(I) am saddened that people buying CTS-Vs are not getting what they paid for, and the reason I mention litigation is because they need to be aware of their rights, including the right that Cadillac explain why the car is not making the power it should.

Again Differences aside there should be a "range" of high and low numbers shwoing an "average" power. The Range of Dynos seen are 312-336 rwhp withthe average at 320 RWHP over the 7-8 dynos I've seen. Of those only (1) has crested 330 RWHP Most fall inthe mid teens to low 20s.

As for the weight of the wheels and brakes again that is BS. That can account for some difference but not 30 RWHP.

Here is a point of fact I DO have some experience with the e39 BMW M5 rathed at 390 hp crank they make 330 RWHP. Thats 15% drivetrain loss. That number and better has been shown for the GTO, F-Body, Corvette, Viper, etc. If you are right and the Caddy is 5% less efficient than the BMW's dodges, Chevys and Pontiacs, then the question becomes why is the Caddy so horribly inefficient when all the other cars int he category are so much moreso?

The simpler solution is the motor jusst isn't making it's advertised power.

Shinkaze

Thats fine if you feel that way. And again I'm not saying we should Sue as I've stated before I don't own a CTS-V so I have no stake in the matter other than the fact tht until this week the car was high on my list of possible cars for a Fall purchase.

I am however saddened by people that get shafted and then feel they aren't empowered to do something about it, especially when there is precedent. If I bought a VCR took it home and the record button didn't work or played movies with the tracking off, I would take it back and ask for a repair If they told me the poor tracking was "in spec" when they advertised otherwise I would then ask for a refund. I wouldn't be scared that Sony would quit making VCRs.

WhiteDiamond

Adam,

Again, you are trying to compare the numbers to a Corvette Z06 which has a engine rated higher and may have much less computer interference. The fact of the matter is that a 330rwhp CTS-V is making more than the advertised 400bhp. You may compare the CTS-V to your M series, but there are way too many variables in a driveline to make this comparision. Reciprocating mass taxes power and the BMW may be less in this scenerio.

It is also important to take notice of the current Z06 dyno numbers. The 405hp Z05(2002 - 2004) is dynoing in the 355hp to 360hp range at the rear wheels. Some are higher. This shows that the LS6 in the Z06 is underrated. Even using a low 15% loss through the drivetrain, the car should only see 340rwhp +/- a few and most of the Vette dyno operators will tell you that 17% is the current loss factor they use for the M6 cars.

So, Chevy gives us an underrated 405bhp Z06 Corvette and a damn near perfectly rated 400bhp CTS-V. I believe this is the way it should be, as the Vette is GM's supercar. More power to Caddy, but they are delivering the numbers they advertise and magazine track testing has shown the dyno numbers may actually be inacurate, as times tested show the motor to be closer to the 350 to 360rwhp range.

Todd

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

The engine rating is accurate. The restriction is in the exhaust and the intake airbox. Since these cars are Caddys, they were designed to minimize engine and exhaust noise. They are very quiet in stock form. Simply replacing the silencer/resonator on the midpipe of the exhaust system with an X-pipe setup will get you about 18-20 rwhp (dynojet proven), and it will sound much better. The stock mufflers on the back are restrictive as well, but I'd give up some power for quieter exhaust.

The potential is under the hood, and extracting the power is the fun part. The '99 Cobra simply had an engine that was a piece of crap, that isn't the case with the proven LS6.

Tony

Dreamin

It was my understanding that mfg hp claims are hp at the crank with everything in place... smog equip, intake, full exhaust... not the "raw" engine numbers.

WECIV

There will always be factory freaks some of our members have freak FBods. Of course some ZO6's will have higher numbers than others, but the CTS-V must be properly marketed.

WhiteDiamond

I won't speak for Tony, but I take his comment as the CTS-V is delivering the 400hp Cadillac rates it at in stock form(320rwhp + 20% is 400bhp) and if you want more out of it, aka Z06 levels, the restriction is known and fixable. If Tony is correct, he has plenty of dyno info, the CTS-V should dyno in the 340 to 350rwhp range with just some exhaust work. Now, at that level, your CTS-V is actually producing more than the 400bhp claimed, but some may feel better about it.

Todd

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

Nope, GM rates the engines based on the engine itself. It is only the internet crowd that tries to correlate the actual rwhp figures with the rated figures. Why should we trust GM hp ratings anyways, look how much they underrated the LS1 f-bodies at 305 hp, when they were making 305+ rwhp stock. Would that be 0% drivetrain loss? lol

TTopJohn

But Tony, doesn't the protocol for SAE NET horsepower figures call for the engine to be tested with full exhaust and intake that it will have when it is installed in teh car? This doesn't have anything to do with rwhp, it's just the way SAE says to measure net flywheel horsepower.


307 rwph here with a lid and a cat back God love GM for underrating these things

ls6caddy

GM rates their engines with everything attached (exhaust, accessories, etc.).

The Z06 LS6 and the CTS-V LS6 engines are exactly the same, except for oil pan and exhaust. And that is why the CTS-V LS6 makes 5 less HP than the Z06 LS6, because of the different headers/exhaust.

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

My point on that subject is that GM isn't exactly known for rating their vehicle HP levels properly or consistently. Sometimes they rate high, sometimes they underrate quite a bit.

If they always rate the vehicles with the engine in the car, then the 98-02 Camaros/Firebirds would have been rated at 345-360 hp. Not 305 hp.

Inconsistent rating methods it appears. I know the LS6 under the hood of the CTS-V is the same engine as the Z06, so at least we know the engine itself isn't a piece of junk, haha.

Ratings? Who cares. I know the potential

STRIPSTAR

iTrader: (4)

He is comparing the HP from the M5 and the RWHP but dont the German calculate the HP different? I had a VW That was supposedly 150 hp. It make 148 at the wheels so its not just GM or a capital case.

OWENMUSTANG

iTrader: (2)

to the tune of 12 fwhp! and the larger brakes were slightly lighter to boot!

MorePerformanceInc

After much dyno testing on our Mule Caddy, we have found that ours makes about 402FWHP. Of course we are going by the standard 17% loss based on our previous knowledge and what has come in the shop. Most corvettes lose 17-18% while camaros only loose about 15%. I would not say that Cadillac is lying to everyone. I think that for the most part it is accurate in the horsepower numbers they give. We have been dyno testing an Engine for GM High Tech and on the Engine Dyno it made 412FWHP. It is the same engine that the 2004-2005 Caddy has and was supplied from the same. In the car it lost 17% and the air was horrible on the day of the testing. I am not sure the numbers are really that bad. We are makeing 625FWHP/524RWHP with our caddy right now.

Dreamin

Moreperf: So your test mule made 334rwhp (402 *.83) ?

What about the car used for the intake testing, it only made 324rwhp ?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154088

But the real question is: what do stock 02+ Z06s make on your dyno?

MorePerformanceInc

The last bone stock Z06 we dyno'ed made 339RWHP. It had no performance modifications at the time of the dyno. After a Cam, Springs, VaraRam, Headers and Exhaust it made 419RWHP. Our test mule was made 412FWHP. We estimate a 17% loss on our Caddy (Which dyno'd at 324RWHP). You multipy the 400FWHP (That caddy says you have) X17% and subtract that gives you 332RWHP. You also have to account for the horrible exhaust and headers and the numbers you see are very close to accurate. There is no accurate % for what you should go by. The only sure fire way is to pull an engine, engine dyno it, reinstall it and chassis dyno it for accurate readings. I think this is a waste of everyone's time since there is no sure fire way of telling what the % rate should be. What we have found is close to what GM specs are.

StealthV

Amen.

vettedriver32

iTrader: (3)

White diamond has hit the nail on the head.

CTSV rear Rotors weigh almost 10 pounds more than a Corvette rear rotor.

Plus the IRS soaks up some additional power.

we have dynoed five or six CTSV's and have consistently produced 325 to332 HP at the rear wheels.

When they heat up, they fall off as computer compensates...

Also, low results may be caused by one of the air intake ducts becoming dislodged or partially blocked, which may trigger a lean condition and a low octane table reversion...

Anyway, this is a great car. I love mine. And it is so easy to make faster!!!

J. Brown

Its simple.......intake and exhaust. You people that are complaining actually think GM would build a different LS6 for the caddy?? come on. I'm not saying I would be happy with my $70K (cdn) caddy making the same horsepower at thr real wheels as my $40K SS.