C6 vs. CTS-V
09-09-2005, 01:45 PM
#1
Advanced
Thread Starter
Member Since: May 2005
Location: St. Lucie West Florida
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C6 vs. CTS-V
Going to the track tonight. The owner of the CTS-V is the better driver. We are both running similar 0-60 times according to G-Tech. Who will win? Any tips...
09-09-2005, 02:00 PM
#4
Advanced
Thread Starter
Member Since: May 2005
Location: St. Lucie West Florida
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, it's an 2004 CTS-V with the Z06 engine. I am aware of the distinct weight advantage. I figure I should take him. His car has traction problems too. It suffers from severe wheel hop. I rode with him the other day, and I have never seen anybody shift as hard as he did from 1st to 2nd. He has an old Mustang drag car, and it much more experienced with 1/4 mile racing. I have only used the G-Tech for 4 runs, 2 with the traction control on, and my best 0-60 was 5.30, so I know I need some practice on launching the car.
09-09-2005, 02:32 PM
#7
Racer
Member Since: May 2005
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll have to agree with above in terms of driver lead footedness. Weight advantage or not, The CTS-V can scoot. I think it makes up for its weight disadvantage by having like a 9.53:1 rear end ratio. Geared pretty short. If you do win, it probably won't be by much. Seems like these Vettes don't run as strong as a 400hp 3200 lbs car should. Lingenfelter!!!
09-09-2005, 03:03 PM
#8
Originally Posted by WEEZEL
I'll have to agree with above in terms of driver lead footedness. Weight advantage or not, The CTS-V can scoot. I think it makes up for its weight disadvantage by having like a 9.53:1 rear end ratio. Geared pretty short. If you do win, it probably won't be by much. Seems like these Vettes don't run as strong as a 400hp 3200 lbs car should. Lingenfelter!!!
rear ends keep blowing up in large numbers, no doubt in
part to the wheel hop problems they have.
By the way, a very interesting experiement is about to be
run by GM. The 2004 and 2005CTS-V models came with
the 405hp LS6 engine, a 6 spd manual, and a 3.73:1 rear.
In 2006, they are moving to the LS2 but with the same
drivetrain. You couldn't ask for a better comparison
between the LS2 and the LS6, with so much being kept
identical between the model years. It will be very
interesting to watch how that plays out.
Pat
09-09-2005, 04:31 PM
#10
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by catpat8000
Yes, the V is an excellent car. Its only problem is that the
rear ends keep blowing up in large numbers, no doubt in
part to the wheel hop problems they have.
By the way, a very interesting experiement is about to be
run by GM. The 2004 and 2005CTS-V models came with
the 405hp LS6 engine, a 6 spd manual, and a 3.73:1 rear.
In 2006, they are moving to the LS2 but with the same
drivetrain. You couldn't ask for a better comparison
between the LS2 and the LS6, with so much being kept
identical between the model years. It will be very
interesting to watch how that plays out.
Pat
rear ends keep blowing up in large numbers, no doubt in
part to the wheel hop problems they have.
By the way, a very interesting experiement is about to be
run by GM. The 2004 and 2005CTS-V models came with
the 405hp LS6 engine, a 6 spd manual, and a 3.73:1 rear.
In 2006, they are moving to the LS2 but with the same
drivetrain. You couldn't ask for a better comparison
between the LS2 and the LS6, with so much being kept
identical between the model years. It will be very
interesting to watch how that plays out.
Pat
LS2 outperforms LS6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just saw this in the October Motor Trend, page 102 Cadillac CTS/CTS-v; Quote, "The high-performance CTS-v gets a new (LS2) V-8 engine that still produces 400 horsepower, but now propels the car to 60 mph even quicker."
It seems when everything else is equal the LS2 gets the job done better than the previous LS6.
09-09-2005, 04:58 PM
#11
Team Owner
I think the C6 will have the slight advantage here. 
Good point, I might be checking the CTS-V boards in the coming months to see how that all goes down. 
Originally Posted by catpat8000
By the way, a very interesting experiement is about to be
run by GM. The 2004 and 2005CTS-V models came with
the 405hp LS6 engine, a 6 spd manual, and a 3.73:1 rear.
In 2006, they are moving to the LS2 but with the same
drivetrain. You couldn't ask for a better comparison
between the LS2 and the LS6, with so much being kept
identical between the model years. It will be very
interesting to watch how that plays out.
run by GM. The 2004 and 2005CTS-V models came with
the 405hp LS6 engine, a 6 spd manual, and a 3.73:1 rear.
In 2006, they are moving to the LS2 but with the same
drivetrain. You couldn't ask for a better comparison
between the LS2 and the LS6, with so much being kept
identical between the model years. It will be very
interesting to watch how that plays out.
09-09-2005, 10:36 PM
#14
Team Owner
Originally Posted by jschindler
How fast do you think they should run?
I would think that with 400hp and at 3200 pounds the C6 manuals should run anywhere from 11.9s to 12.2s under similar circumstances/conditions.
09-09-2005, 10:40 PM
#15
Team Owner
Originally Posted by LS1LT1
2002-2004 Z06s had 405hp and weighed just under 3200 pounds, in skilled hands they have gone as quick as 11.7/11.8 in bone stock trim, though those numbers are not the norm of course.
I would think that with 400hp and at 3200 pounds the C6 manuals should run anywhere from 11.9s to 12.2s under similar circumstances/conditions.
I would think that with 400hp and at 3200 pounds the C6 manuals should run anywhere from 11.9s to 12.2s under similar circumstances/conditions.
Many people - myself included, have run our C6's against Z06's in real world conditions. Fact is, stock to stock, the cars are even.
09-09-2005, 10:45 PM
#16
Team Owner
Originally Posted by jschindler
Those sub 12's were very rare - as you well know. The C6's simply have not been treated to the same drivers and abuse to get to those kinds of times. Typical Z06s ran 12.4 - 12.6.
Many people - myself included, have run our C6's against Z06's in real world conditions. Fact is, stock to stock, the cars are even.
Many people - myself included, have run our C6's against Z06's in real world conditions. Fact is, stock to stock, the cars are even.
The C6 has been out over a year now, I'm still waiting for those same hardcore types to wring the car out a bit like those few 11.7-11.9 second Z06 drivers have.
09-09-2005, 11:00 PM
#17
Team Owner
Originally Posted by LS1LT1
True, though I do recall quite a few claims of stock Z06s running very low 12s (12.0s-12.2s) in an attempt to duplicate those rare 11 second passes as well.
The C6 has been out over a year now, I'm still waiting for those same hardcore types to wring the car out a bit like those few 11.7-11.9 second Z06 drivers have.
The C6 has been out over a year now, I'm still waiting for those same hardcore types to wring the car out a bit like those few 11.7-11.9 second Z06 drivers have.
09-09-2005, 11:10 PM
#19
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by LS1LT1
True, though I do recall quite a few claims of stock Z06s running very low 12s (12.0s-12.2s) in an attempt to duplicate those rare 11 second passes as well.
The C6 has been out over a year now, I'm still waiting for those same hardcore types to wring the car out a bit like those few 11.7-11.9 second Z06 drivers have.
The C6 has been out over a year now, I'm still waiting for those same hardcore types to wring the car out a bit like those few 11.7-11.9 second Z06 drivers have.
09-09-2005, 11:22 PM
#20
Melting Slicks
As a 2004 and 2005 CTS-V owner I can tell you that the V will run 13.1-13.3 stock on a decent track. Usual bolt-ons and a tune and your looking at 12.9. The problem with our V's is we can't get off the line. Breaking under a 2.0 60ft. time is a miracle.
The other way you can take him is to just be there when his rear differential breaks. I'm on my 5th.
The other way you can take him is to just be there when his rear differential breaks. I'm on my 5th.