STS-V beats C55?!
01-12-2005, 10:55 PM
#26
Super Member
Here are some specs, sourced from the February 2005 issue of Car and Driver magazine and posted on AutoWeek 's Combustion Chamber forums":
Estimated base price $75,000
Supercharged and intercooled 32 valve DOHC 4.4 liter Northstar V8
Roots-type supercharger with 12.0psi boost
4371cc (bore was reduced from 93mm to 91mm)
440hp at 6400rpm
430lb-ft of torque at 3500rpm
Redline is 6700 rpm
Six-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
Pirelli Eufori run-flat tires
Front: 255/45R-18 tires on 8.5-inch wide wheels
Rear: 275/40R-19 tires on 9.5-inch wide wheels
Brembo brakes
Wheelbase 116.4 inches
Length/width/height 197.6/72.6/58.2
Curb weight:4300 pounds (!)
C&D performance estimates:
0-60 mph in 4.9 seconds
Quarter mile in 13.8 seconds at 101mph
Top speed: 165mph "drag limited"
Fuel economy:16 mpg city / 25mpg highway
Estimated base price $75,000
Supercharged and intercooled 32 valve DOHC 4.4 liter Northstar V8
Roots-type supercharger with 12.0psi boost
4371cc (bore was reduced from 93mm to 91mm)
440hp at 6400rpm
430lb-ft of torque at 3500rpm
Redline is 6700 rpm
Six-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
Pirelli Eufori run-flat tires
Front: 255/45R-18 tires on 8.5-inch wide wheels
Rear: 275/40R-19 tires on 9.5-inch wide wheels
Brembo brakes
Wheelbase 116.4 inches
Length/width/height 197.6/72.6/58.2
Curb weight:4300 pounds (!)
C&D performance estimates:
0-60 mph in 4.9 seconds
Quarter mile in 13.8 seconds at 101mph
Top speed: 165mph "drag limited"
Fuel economy:16 mpg city / 25mpg highway
01-12-2005, 10:58 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Send me that link if you can because it isnt on Cadillac's website.
01-12-2005, 10:59 PM
#28
Super Member
01-12-2005, 11:03 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by EKaru
You're killin me man! That says the year 2006 
thanx for the info though!Wow GM's not playing! They are really going after the Europeans.I think I will delete my other posts.Thanx again for the info!
.
Last edited by ProjectC55; 01-12-2005 at 11:11 PM.
01-12-2005, 11:10 PM
#31
Super Member
Originally Posted by smgC32
Well, I guess we have some car enthusiasts who appreciate a job well done by an auto manufacturer, and then we have the Mercedes lovers.
If you'd do a history of my posts, you'll see that I've had a lot of issues with my C55 mostly due to reliability and quality (especially compared with my wife's S4, which is a better thought out car imho). So I'm not your typical unconditional lover of Mercedes products.. I do however think the C55 is superior to the CTS-V, which are blowing out rear ends left and right... The STS-V has 440hp yet, C&D estimates only 13.8 quarter at 101mph and they are charging $75K for it??? Sorry, I'm not impressed and would never consider one...
Eric...
Last edited by EKaru; 01-12-2005 at 11:15 PM.
01-12-2005, 11:11 PM
#32
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I definitely think the STSV is a nice car. Maybe not on the same level as a Merc - but pretty damn nice for its price. Congrats definitely should be given to GM.
01-12-2005, 11:23 PM
#33
Super Member
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
You're killin me man! That says the year 2006 thanx for the info though!Wow GM's not playing! They are really going after the Europeans.I think I will delete my other posts.Thanx again for the info!
.
no prob bro... Yeah it will be out later this year as an 06'... Personally though I'd rather have a slightly used E55 for the same dough or 03' RS6 for less...Eric...
Last edited by EKaru; 01-12-2005 at 11:27 PM.
01-12-2005, 11:32 PM
#34
Great Engineering
I appreciate this change in GM engineering philosophy. Considering their source, these two are engineering marvels. I am particularly amazed by their handling prowess.
The STS-V and CTS-V play a key part in the attempt to change the GM/Cadillac corporate image, but the bottom line is there won't be many sold. They are trying hard to retarget their market and image simultaneously. I don't think great engineering can overcome rather poor marketing. Great cars nonetheless.
The STS-V and CTS-V play a key part in the attempt to change the GM/Cadillac corporate image, but the bottom line is there won't be many sold. They are trying hard to retarget their market and image simultaneously. I don't think great engineering can overcome rather poor marketing. Great cars nonetheless.
01-14-2005, 05:53 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by EKaru
no prob bro... Yeah it will be out later this year as an 06'... Personally though I'd rather have a slightly used E55 for the same dough or 03' RS6 for less...Eric...
Originally Posted by rrf
I appreciate this change in GM engineering philosophy. Considering their source, these two are engineering marvels. I am particularly amazed by their handling prowess.
The STS-V and CTS-V play a key part in the attempt to change the GM/Cadillac corporate image, but the bottom line is there won't be many sold. They are trying hard to retarget their market and image simultaneously. I don't think great engineering can overcome rather poor marketing. Great cars nonetheless.
The STS-V and CTS-V play a key part in the attempt to change the GM/Cadillac corporate image, but the bottom line is there won't be many sold. They are trying hard to retarget their market and image simultaneously. I don't think great engineering can overcome rather poor marketing. Great cars nonetheless.
Last edited by ProjectC55; 01-14-2005 at 05:59 PM.
01-14-2005, 08:11 PM
#36
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Miami
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BenzoAMGpower
seriously i dont care what anybody says, the interior quality on the Cadillac STS and CTS-V are garbage compared to the C55 and C32!!!
01-14-2005, 10:47 PM
#37
I guess I would have had a better case statement if my title was STS-V vs. C32, which have similar times at the Ring. These cars don't compete with each other as they are in different classes, but none the less, it makes an interesting comparison. Very impressive for a Caddy that weighs about 600lbs more than a C32 to perform so well. Same for the CTS-V. As for a previous statement about the C55 handling better because it is significantly lighter, I don't think that you would say a SL55 AMG handles worse than a C55 because it is heavier.
01-14-2005, 11:09 PM
#38
Super Member
Originally Posted by smgC32
I guess I would have had a better case statement if my title was STS-V vs. C32, which have similar times at the Ring. These cars don't compete with each other as they are in different classes, but none the less, it makes an interesting comparison. Very impressive for a Caddy that weighs about 600lbs more than a C32 to perform so well. Same for the CTS-V. As for a previous statement about the C55 handling better because it is significantly lighter, I don't think that you would say a SL55 AMG handles worse than a C55 because it is heavier.
Obviously weight doesn't hold through for all cases, but it is definitely a factor in most cases... If a heavy car handles well it simply means that it's a well engineered car. The Audi RS6 is a phenomenal machine and it's absolutely mind blowing that it had lap times better than some serious sports cars.. The E55 on the other hand is heavy and it feels heavy when the roads get twisty...
Eric....
Last edited by EKaru; 01-14-2005 at 11:15 PM.
01-15-2005, 12:23 AM
#39
Super Member
Originally Posted by neoprufrok
So I answered my own question:
Yes, the C55 is faster than the STS-V around the 'ring (est 8min 31sec) but the STS-V is faster than the E55amg which is more its competitor. The STS is a bigger car by far than the C55 - so I don't think you can compare the two. Comparing the C55 with a CTS V is much more apt.
I'm surprised still how fast the STS-V gets around the ring. So even though I know a few here dislike Caddy's in general - I like the STS-V.
8:20 --- Audi RS6 (2002)
8:22 --- BMW E46 M3 (12/2000)
8:22 --- BMW M Coupe, 321 PS (10/1998)
8:22 --- Mercedes-Benz C55 (07/2004)
References:
All times in bold print were tested by Horst von Saurma, sport auto magazine
Yes, the C55 is faster than the STS-V around the 'ring (est 8min 31sec) but the STS-V is faster than the E55amg which is more its competitor. The STS is a bigger car by far than the C55 - so I don't think you can compare the two. Comparing the C55 with a CTS V is much more apt.
I'm surprised still how fast the STS-V gets around the ring. So even though I know a few here dislike Caddy's in general - I like the STS-V.
8:20 --- Audi RS6 (2002)
8:22 --- BMW E46 M3 (12/2000)
8:22 --- BMW M Coupe, 321 PS (10/1998)
8:22 --- Mercedes-Benz C55 (07/2004)
References:
All times in bold print were tested by Horst von Saurma, sport auto magazine
I was just wondering if you happen to have a link to these lap times.. how did you compile them?
Eric...
01-15-2005, 02:47 AM
#40
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EKaru
I was just wondering if you happen to have a link to these lap times.. how did you compile them?
Eric...
Eric...
Here's a thread from germancarfans.com:
GCF Nurburgring Thread
I believe over at Supercarfreak.net they started to compile these times from various sources (mostly Top Gear, Car, EVo, etc) and then they updated it every once in awhile.
Thus, its not controlled for driver, weather, road conditions, etc - but it gives you an idea of the rough times between cars.
01-15-2005, 04:55 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Originally Posted by Fr0zen
Agreed all american cars interiors are garbage. Doesnt matter what brand... The STS-V and CTS-V cant compare to anything from AMG.
01-15-2005, 11:29 AM
#42
Super Member
Originally Posted by neoprufrok
I acutally did a google search for them, and came up with the same list posted at various sites - so I figured it must have been somewhat accurate.
Here's a thread from germancarfans.com:
GCF Nurburgring Thread
I believe over at Supercarfreak.net they started to compile these times from various sources (mostly Top Gear, Car, EVo, etc) and then they updated it every once in awhile.
Thus, its not controlled for driver, weather, road conditions, etc - but it gives you an idea of the rough times between cars.
Here's a thread from germancarfans.com:
GCF Nurburgring Thread
I believe over at Supercarfreak.net they started to compile these times from various sources (mostly Top Gear, Car, EVo, etc) and then they updated it every once in awhile.
Thus, its not controlled for driver, weather, road conditions, etc - but it gives you an idea of the rough times between cars.
Thanks for the link... Yeah obviously the real kicker is that the times were not done in controlled conditions, but the RS6 is fantastic... Have you driven one?
Eric..
01-15-2005, 01:02 PM
#43
Originally Posted by EKaru
Obviously weight doesn't hold through for all cases, but it is definitely a factor in most cases... If a heavy car handles well it simply means that it's a well engineered car.
01-15-2005, 01:54 PM
#44
Super Member
Originally Posted by smgC32
This is exactly my point. Caddy's engineers have done a fantastic job with this platform and have designed a car to actually feel like you are on the pavement, not the water. As for the Ring, the STS-V is six seconds quicker at 8:31 vs 8:37 for the C32. And the heavier SL55 AMG put down a lap time of 8:06!
I want to see lap times for these cars done with the same driver, road conditions, weather etc... I bet the lap times would be very different because these variables can make a significant difference in lap times... As far as weight is concerned, there's engine power, weight balance, suspension set-up.. A 4,000 lb car with a sports suspension is going to handle better than a 3000 lb Buick... Cars are just too damn heavy these days. The STS-V at 4,295 weighs more than a 1994 BMW 750iL which weighed 4,235.. My favorite BMW motorsport model is still the E30 M3, followed by the E36, and E46 because the car progressively got bigger & heavier.. The reason I went for the C55 instead of E55 because the E55 felt like a boat in comparison..
Eric....
Last edited by EKaru; 01-15-2005 at 02:02 PM.
01-17-2005, 01:25 PM
#46
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EKaru
Thanks for the link... Yeah obviously the real kicker is that the times were not done in controlled conditions, but the RS6 is fantastic... Have you driven one?
Eric..
Eric..
01-17-2005, 01:30 PM
#47
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by noka
Anyone know how the C55 did at the 'ring'?
Rgds,
Norm
Rgds,
Norm
If only you read my thread more carefully...
From the top of the list I posted....
8:20 --- Audi RS6 (2002)
8:22 --- BMW E46 M3 (12/2000)
8:22 --- BMW M Coupe, 321 PS (10/1998)
8:22 --- Mercedes-Benz C55 (07/2004)
8:23 --- Aston Martin DB7 GT (2003)
8:23 --- Porsche 996 Carrera 4
8:24 --- Subaru Impreza WRX STi (2004)
01-17-2005, 02:55 PM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
'15 E350 4M Sport
Originally Posted by neoprufrok
LOL Norm!
If only you read my thread more carefully...
From the top of the list I posted....
8:20 --- Audi RS6 (2002)
8:22 --- BMW E46 M3 (12/2000)
8:22 --- BMW M Coupe, 321 PS (10/1998)
8:22 --- Mercedes-Benz C55 (07/2004)
8:23 --- Aston Martin DB7 GT (2003)
8:23 --- Porsche 996 Carrera 4
8:24 --- Subaru Impreza WRX STi (2004)
If only you read my thread more carefully...
From the top of the list I posted....
8:20 --- Audi RS6 (2002)
8:22 --- BMW E46 M3 (12/2000)
8:22 --- BMW M Coupe, 321 PS (10/1998)
8:22 --- Mercedes-Benz C55 (07/2004)
8:23 --- Aston Martin DB7 GT (2003)
8:23 --- Porsche 996 Carrera 4
8:24 --- Subaru Impreza WRX STi (2004)
Rgds,
Norm
01-17-2005, 11:16 PM
#49
I don't care who drives the car - on the same day, same conditions, the STS-V is going to beat the C32, but not the C55. 7 seconds is huge. Why don't you make the same argument about the C55 beating the RS6 due to driver and weather differences? Those two cars are only 2 seconds apart...
And what about that pig of a car, the X5 special? At close to 5,000lbs, it must be a misprint that it turned better than a 7:50? Or Hans must have cut a few burms across the infield? BMW's feat is a remarkable engineering accomplishment as was the 959 project car.
And what about that pig of a car, the X5 special? At close to 5,000lbs, it must be a misprint that it turned better than a 7:50? Or Hans must have cut a few burms across the infield? BMW's feat is a remarkable engineering accomplishment as was the 959 project car.
