propain

I posted "Real word, direct results" a few times. Dragtimes would be another source..

Mike is Dodger. Currently the fastest known C63.

I appreciate your input being an owner but you still havent proven my point wrong. I still dont see a 10.7 CTSV with under 800 crank HP. I do see many CTSV's with 800 crank HP doing 10.7 however. I see your CTSV with 690 crank HP (By your word ) above a 10.7.

As you said "Real world, direct results" Show me...


Ive stated earlier in this thread the CTSV is superior in response to mods and no question the winner in every aspect when modding. My only reply to such a huge overall victory is that it takes GOBS of HP for it to get there. HP that is easily and cheaply found compared to the NA C63. Thats it.

I owned a CTSV, albeit an inferior one to the 2009 version, but trust me when I tell you I follow the vehicle very closely and I am very interested in it as a potential buyer in the future. I almost purchased one in 2009 instead of the C63.

derspi

They left them off because they're simply not needed. Manufacturers have been caving in to the fast & furious crowd (a la Mr. I can walk XYX with my tuned blah blah blah) for a while now and drilled rotors along with heavy-*** 19" wheels are simply there to appease them.

For the most part, drilled rotors are for LOOKS and simply not needed on a road vehicle. I was merely using an F1 car's brakes to illustrate a point, not as a means of comparison.

gnxs

Nobody on the ET/Modification list I maintain on the Caddy Forums has an exact 10.7 timeslip at the moment.

However, although he's never submitted his timeslip on the Caddy Forum this is an older video of the only exact 10.7 (to the tenth) run I've seen a Caddy make where I also saw a hp # mentioned. Using the correction factor you applied to my #'s for drivetrain loss (15%, which is the common baseline), this car makes about 760 crank hp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXbGV5FHqFk

Run was made ~ two years ago at the LSX Shootout. His dyno and mod information were submitted with the video. Sufficient?


Yes, I'm familiar with Dodger's car and it's very impressive. I'm not sure what power it makes, but since he's gutted well over 200 pounds of weight out of a car that starts out substantially lighter than a "V", he'll always need less hp to run a similar # by comparison (as will any C63). Something I've never disagreed with in this thread BTW.

sknight

Too bad for you that you don't even know the CTS-V was developed in Rüsselsheim by Germans.

hhughes1

Wow, with the exception of the usual suspect, a civilized conversation. There is no doubt that American car manufacturing is making a rebound in all three of the major attributes, Quality, Styling and of course Performance. I have zero hesitation in purchasing USA built in the future. A new Durango will be replacing my GLK when they offer the 8 speed tranny and I will be looking for Boss302 LS version for a track toy when they hit the used market in a year or so.

emericr

Yes, it has been pretty civilized and we are beating a dead horse.
I did try to make a point on a similar thread that a tuned only C63 is "faster" not quicker in the mile run.
https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...s-v-amg-6.html post#138
I think we are forgetting the original post. The OP stated "value" and that includes the depreciation factor.
We all know the AMGs get hit hard. I would venture to say that an 09 can be found for as low as $45K and a CPO a bit more. That is about 30% depreciation from MSRP.
I did a quick search and I found as low as 43K and 47K certified one for a 2009 CTS.
So Cadillac MSRP being a bit higher than 63, the edge would be slightly to C63 on a pure value perpective but not enough to be a factor in decision making IMHO.
Both cars are great and I think it comes down to personal preferences and look. Go drive both and buy the one that your heart tells you to.

propain

Fair enough, the video stated 700RWHP and the description said 647. I used 18% on you for drivetrain loss. I was applying to the 700RWHP as stated in the video, but yes, if you use the description its only 763 crank HP. So you are correct saying under 800HP using the 647. Close though..


I really do want the caddy though. So much power. Exhaust is the first replacement though because its far to quiet stock!

YellowJacket

The 09 C63 value will plummet this summer as soon as the new 2012's hit. Its more than just a minor refresh.

I don't think Caddy has any big changes planned this new year, especially since the new coupe just came out.

gnxs

I hear ya and didn't seek to argue with you (I know from previous posts you're pretty unbiased), just wanted to be clear about what I was claiming in my posts.

Yes the CTS-V exhaust is pretty quiet. My stock exhaust has become a bit louder after putting in the cam and accumulating almost 50,000 miles, but it will never sound like a C63 without modding it. I don't think GM believes their target audience wants the car too loud.

Here's what the stock exhaust sounds like after some miles/cam install if you're curious for a listen (RIGHT CLICK, SAVE AS):

http://home.comcast.net/~gnxs2/gnxsctsvidling.wmv

A 1/4 mile pass is in my sig and it's obvious it's nothing like Dodger's car which really screams down the 1/4.

VCA_AMG

You play dumb really well. If you educate yourself on engine design and drag racing (two topics you clearly don't understand; I've read your other posts) you'll know why I (and others) don't want you speaking for MBZ owners.

Just out of morbid curiosity, let's imagine a C63 with 600HP as you suggest. What are you under the impression it could do that a CTS-V with the same power couldn't do?

What the CTS-V *does* stock, much less with simple parts swaps and tune, murders the C63 for a fraction of the cost. It's undeniable.

propain

Your car sounds sick!

The thing I hate most about these threads with the CTSV is that it makes me want to go buy one ASAP! Damn you!

Jons95c36amg

Dude the ctsv is a archaic push rod 6.2L with a blower. My point is if it was a modern Dohc 6.2L with a blower like the 6.3 AMG the hp would be insane given that if both motors had the same boost. For example the 7.0L push rod Z06 only puts out 505hp. Unlike the most powerful NA 6.2L AMG putting out 520hp+. The bottom line is GM,Dodge took the short cut and still use the archaic motor on their high end sports cars to cut costs. BTW I never dispute the fact the Ctsv is very mod friendly.

VCA_AMG

What type of engine is used in top fuel dragsters? Which engine type has the smaller physical dimensions?

As you prove in nearly every post, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

sknight

This one is hysterical. You're calling the engine archaic, which, I can tell you, is not. You must not have been there when they first developed the LT1, in about 1994 and they turned the small block into a modern machine, even down to the cooling system. While it might have pushrods, they simply have proven themselves to have made an alternate valvetrain system, as opposed to an inferior one. I'm all for overhead cams, but even I can't deny how far Chevy has pushed that development and won.

Now, you also talk about archaic. NOTHING is more archaic than the type of supercharging Mercedes uses. It only took them 40 years to go turbo gas. Superchargers, especially the Roots type, are extremely inefficient and consume loads of HP to make HP. In effect, they make more HP than you think, but they're consuming a huge amount of it, finally yielding a modest boost of power. On the 4 cylinder cars, Mercedes has no excuse to have not used a turbo because they had room. The only other excuse is they wanted to save on development costs while Audi/VW, Alfa Romeo, and others outfitted theirs (intelligently) with turbos. I'll give it to them that they used Mad Max inspired bypasses, but it was only an effort to make them more turbo-like and deliver the power variably, without the further efficiency advantages of turbocharging. For the rest, the supercharger is only there to save space and/or development costs. I would reckon that on the Chevy, the SC is for space, while Mercedes went for development costs. The new RS4 has a supercharger, and that's ONLY because they have no room for the turbos anymore. At least in their corner, they developed a new engine for the usage, something Audi figured out some 30 years ago, and has done each time- they redesign the engine from the ground up for the forced-induction application.

Your 505 vs 520 hp argument is not valid, while these numbers are statistically and practically the same. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the engines are designed for different cars, different home markets (emissions), different driving, and different mileage concerns. I am 100% certain that the former engine can put out more power, but there were other concerns, such as the above, development, reliability, drivability, etc. You have absolutely zero evidence that any engine, based on what boils down to a "feature on a spec sheet" for you, can make more power and why. You simply haven't got a clue if you really think that this single feature of the Mercedes valvetrain is what unlocks more power.

"Archaic" may be your opinion, but in the end, the driver decides, efficiency decides, and what goes to the ground decides. The Chevy V8 is a viable, modern alternative and you can slam it if you want, but you're only revealing your own lack of knowledge and insecurity and wanna-be-gearhead status. They looked at the entire engine, not just the valvetrain, and reinvented it.

VCA_AMG

+1

Don't expect him to understand you, sknight. I think he's about 19yrs old. He will post something about his "tuned" C63 "walking" cars with lots of trap speed references he doesn't understand. It's one thing to be naive or uninformed; it's another to make posts like his and claim knowledge with absolutely zero mechanical or design knowledge to support ANY of it.

CELLryuu

LOL....I cant believe this thread is still going.

Anyway; yes, your right. Im a complete idiot. Thank you for pointing out how smart you are and how stupid I am. Just trying to help the guy out. Feel better about yourself?

Quote by the one-upper "salsa....obviously you havent been to Equador" LMFAO

sknight

Sure, Mr. Posttwopageslaterwonderingwhythisthreadisstillgoin g.

I don't see how being over-Germanocentric on the forum, when you're not even German, helps someone when speaking about cars. When I was 17, I was all about Germany. Now that I moved here, I see that this esteem I held Germany in was not necessarily founded, which includes the engineering, and how they view America and Anglicans.

You should learn of the history of the Sigma platform. It's quite interesting, really, being a true world car, with roots from Australia, Germany, and the US. And lord knows, if anyone knows sport sedans, it's Australia. Their 400hp mark is pretty much like the US's 200hp benchmark.

sknight

Yup, I see lots of that here. Then kids like him (not that I'm even old) talk about how ownership of these cars exudes "class", yet they talk to one another no differently than anyone they flame on a mustang, corvette, or asian forum for being "white trash" or "rice". Hell, I posted a discussion about streetracing where a Mercedes driver killed a couple in my town and no one acknowledges the article, yet the Corvette forum discussion is more respectful and realistic than any discussion about dragracing I see here. What looks worse: drag racing a Mustang or a Corvette, or dragracing a Mercedes against them, when the car was designed for the Autobahn? I know which driver looks worse.

black-clk500

These discussions always end up accomplishing very little other than personal attacks and **** measurements
Pesonally, I could care less about which engine can do what with this mod or that mod and which company makes a better engine design, etc.
I understand why some people like discussing this stuff and why they like being the smartest and most knowledgeable guy in the "room."
I'm passionate about learning everything and have many many hobbies and interests in life, I've always been that way.
Cars for me are one of those passions, however, I approach my car passion in a much simpler way.

For me it goes like this, research the car, look at the car, drive the car, then evaluate my response to driving the car, now pass or buy the car.
For me, a car is a whole package wrapped together, you can discuss engine, tranny, chasis, interior, exhaust, etc., but at the end of the day you have to decide which car has the total package.
This thread was started by asking which car is the better value.
Everyone has an opinion and different ways to reach it.
I've already expressed my opinion and I drive it too, (well sometimes when the moon and stars and road are just right)

A couple guys have taken some heat in this thread, especially Jon.
And of course we have some know-it-alls that feel the need to puff up!
I don't know much about Jon other than reading some of his posts.
To me, it sounds like Jon enjoys his car and racing it against others on the streets--hmm, that sounds very strange who would do such a thing
Seriously, most of us enjoy a little red light mayhem.
And those that don't it's because of that damn pole that keeps poking you on every bump

I can say this, I know who I'd rather be having a beer with
I wouldn't want to have a lecture on which brewery makes the best beer and has the best process, blah blah blah--I just want to enjoy a good brew and check out the nice birds
God, it's nice to be an Neanderthal!

gnxs

I think if you had the opportunity to sit down for a cold one with most of the guys you consider "lecturers" in this thread you'd find that they are hard-core "car guys". Before the internet, random gatherings (hangouts, the track, garages, etc.) is where car guys had just these types of discussions/arguments. At least that's where I did. Part of being a car guy is being able to hold these discussions intelligently across multiple brands, platforms, etc.

You are right on the money though, the OP should drive both and choose the one that pushes HIS buttons the best.

ZephyrAMG

black-clk500, Well Put! I agree totally.

Jons95c36amg

So if the push rod is so efficient and good. I wonder why exotic cars like the Ferraris,lambos,GTRs,Porshes,etc. DONT use the magnificent "push rod" BTW the top fuel dragsters use the push rod because the motor has to rebuilt after one day of racing. So why use a expensive modern DOHC?

Jons95c36amg

Whats all this? I'm just stating the fact the push rod can't put the power down as a DOHC given both motors have the same displacement on Street cars-emission legal. LT1? thats like saying when the cell phones first came out. I guess you still live in the stone age.

sknight

How about adding to that argument:

-timing belts vs. timing chains vs. timing gears
-solid vs hydraulic tappets/lifters
-auto vs manual
-air to air vs. water to air intercooling
-struts vs multilink
-rack and pinion vs. recirculating ball
-projector vs ffr headlights
-vw vs mb coolant
-paint colors

It's simply a different philosophy, and in case you don't remember, Chevy did make a DOHC engine, and it was in the form of the original ZR1 and considered fairly exotic at the time. 375-405 hp in 1990 from 5.7 liters, normally aspirated, with old technology. It actually put enough power to the ground at the time to break world land speed records. That was well ahead of Mercedes and many exotics at the time. GM has no problems producing OHC engines, in varying forms, around the world. The design philosophy is not only what the engine is, but how it will be used, and you don't seem to be able to get over yourself and internet speculation about what is better, when the evidence would likely prove you wrong, in the form of a test drive. I love ****ting on GM, but you're very wrong about this and your grounds for establishing "power capability". You still don't even know what OHC was developed for, something that Chevy, using new technology, addressed in the developments of their pushrod v8 since 1993. Personally, I like OHC, but in this case, it's truly a preference, rather than any definitive "one is better than the other". You still don't know why, which is unfortunate.

The fact that you are equating the valvetrain design ONLY to power is truly indicative of how little you know of this topic.

Jons95c36amg

Yes the 90s Zr1 was a DOHC-not GM built if I recall. They stopped using it because of cost issues. Again I said the "displacement" argument. They have to use a bigger displacement compare to a DOHC to get the hp-emission legal.