Joncl

street tires? maybe pushing it lol but you are proof that a 55 can go 10s with full trim and without negative DA so V guys pay attention

Hammer Down

My thought is if I could repeat my 1.63 60' on street tires I will run in the 10's

Joncl

better have crazy glue as track prep lol

try m3

I'm not a big fan of the way the CTS-V looks but definitely love the fact that the car can be had with a proper transmission (6MT). Definitely a fast car but I highly doubt the build quality is comparable to a Benz. I know LS motors are pretty reliable but I'd like to see how these supercharged LS motors perform with over 100k miles.

Hammer Down

I have a gallon of VHT that I use on my supercharger belt that I can pour down in the burnout section in front of my tires (if the track will let me me )

Joncl

have you really seen a difference with putting the vht on your blower belt?

e55amgrocket

I went 10.51 at 4400lbs BUT it would be a lot easier to do the same with a CTS-V for sure. It's a lot easier when you have a engine/drivetrain platform that has been applied to millions of cars/trucks.

LOCO 05' E55

Correct me if im wrong but most if not all "Caddy" owners in this forum didnt quiet get that elusive low 11 1/4 pass let alone 10 sec pass on their "Mercedes Benz" whether was full trim/gutted Negative/Positve DA, to then come in here to sing about how great fast with such little $$$ Vs can go then we all keep forgetting these cars are 90s technology..Do the math

Same applies to the GT'Rs Vs 911tt..Newer Tech in 09 when unleashed until Porsche unveiled their new tech as well.

Then the old saying applies "GIRL SEES NISSAN KEY VS GIRL SEES PORSCHE KEY"

Sir-Boost-a-Lot

iTrader: (1)

They run remarkably well with high miles on them, indistinguishable from one with low miles as a matter of fact. And can be repaired/replaced remarkably inexpensive compared to our engines.

rios

I get it. When dude said he could not hook up I took that to mean exactly that. Too much power he could not put down to the asphalt. In the end that's what it is in a street race. One run you spin too much tire and lose, you don't get your money back. Again not sure what he had or even really, really knew. I'm not even sure exactly what my car is doing but I'm sure you all can get a decent number in comparison to other members and mods. It's was just a random run with a CTS that I felt good about and he didn't. If I were him in that car and the same race happened I'd say to myself damn! I messed up didn't drive the car correctly and lost that ONE. I would hate to start another thread where I mentioned going down PCH. On my way to Mullhalland with my friend on his Yamaha 600 and the old E pulled on the bike from 65-130.... Don't know what his bike is putting down or even how it would compare but I don't want to provoke the guys on sport bikes . Beautiful drive down the coast we gotta get something put together for Benz guys in SoCal.

Joncl

Rios don't sweat it bro

Hammer Down

To be honest I couldn't tell you. I started using it when I was stock with the mindset that it couldn't hurt so I apply some at the track with a 1 inch paint brush.

lowprofile

Damn, that's an excellent question!

C'mon URB, you know more than what you are saying!

dllhg

I dont think you got it either. I simply stated the Vs can be had for low 30K range and the other member stated no you cant because any self respecting car enthusiast wouldnt get a V without those seats. Went on to say I was spreading misinformation lol. Like I said, what he was saying makes no sense at all. Just because you can't get the car for low 30s with those seats sure as hell doesnt mean you cant get that particular car for that price. He was the tard who brought seats into the conversation. WTF do seats/options have to do with what you can buy a car certain for ? Yeah of course options raise the price of a car if you really want that option. You wouldnt say you cant get a new corvette for X amount of dollars if it doesn't have a certain performance package you want. The base price of the car doesnt change, it only changes with more options. I think what he was saying was so far from left field it didnt sink in with some people

I will say after rereading that response I made to him I can see how that sounded. Go back and look and what he was posting , I think that will clear things up.

99lightning

i love the cts-v but id have to keep my car and get a cts-v since i cant be without the e55 now.

V12Godspeed

I love it when you compare Old technology Vs new technology. The E55 is an amazing car, so amazing that even 10+ years down the road it's still giving new cars the run for the money. Gotta love them.

chawkins2001

For the 10 sec e55's in this thread, there is a much of a muchness when comparing them to the CTS V. All the E55's I have mentioned below, are on stock heads and cams, some ran in cold weather, and some ran in fall/spring weather. Some had pulled front seats, some were full weight. You can see that track prep based on 60ft's below were all different, so lets assume that the best 60ft the e55 is going to see is what RBJ and Low Pro hit of 1.50. For all the cars below to try and bring a constant to the table, I calculated the best ET below by taking each cars 60ft and subtracting it by 1.50... Example 1.65 60ft-1.50 60ft =.15 I then doubled that to .30 and subtracted that off the 1/4 mile time.

This calculation obviously would be the best possible outcome that day, that particular temp, and at that particular track.

Urbamworm-
-10.75 @ 130.8, 60ft 1.66----possible best with 1.50 60ft-10.43
LowProfile
-10.50 @132mph, 60 ft 1.50----possible best with 1.50 60ft-10.50
RBJ
-10.74 @ 120mph, 60ft 1.49----possible best with 1.50 60ft-unknown due to aborted run
chawkins
-10.84 @127mph, 60ft 1.65-possible best with 1.50 60ft-10.54
Hammer Down
-10.87-possible best with 1.50 60 ft-need to know 60ft here
Loco E55
-10.84 @129mph, 60 ft 1.61-possible best with 1.50 60 ft-10.62

When you look at pure track data, there is not much in it. The CTS V that ran this time of 10.75 was full weight and on 93 pump, but it also has more mods than the E55's that ran these times above.

E55AMGRocket had heads and cams and ran 10.51 at 4400lbs in 80* weather. That car would be a perfect car to compare to Davids CTSV. It still probably was not as modded as the V either. This is obviously just a small sample, but it does show there is not much difference in performance between the two cars.

Joncl

There's more 10 sec cars also including bassn, Forrest etc not to mention lowpro from what it seems is consistent at 1.50 60' on different tracks from what I see on videos so that can not be regarded as a fluke either

urbamworm

Cadillac obviously has a superior performance market but really there isn't anything different being done that everyone doesn't do to the E55 as well. Being able to go to several different tuners is the only difference but it isn't like there aren't tuners available to custom tune the E55 either.

Then there are only like 5 or 6 E55s out of hundreds to run a 10 doing whatever they needed to do to get there, whether it be running in good weather, running missing a lot of parts to be lighter, running drag wheel setups, running 5 gallon tanks packed with ice and spraying their engine and heat exchanger with nitrous or Co2 whatever it was (Loco), race gas tunes, etc. Most of the E55s if not all that have ran a 10 had something special going on, not just jump in a daily driver style car other than a few bolted on mods and go run a 10 any day of the week, summer or winter.

To be fair, you went 10.5 with a skinnies up front smaller/lighter drag pack setup right? Not on the stock wheels which even on stock wheels are 1" smaller than the stock 19s of the V which we all know matters for tenths or mph or people wouldn't be buying the drag setups and running faster with the little light 16" wheels. And this was also on the best race gas money can buy right, Q16 fuel and tune not on Shell 93?

These are all things most people overlook that make a big difference. People see E55 10 seconds and then think they all do it but there were special things going on in all circumstances to get the select few E55s to get in to the 10s or even low 11s and a few that just cracked in to the 10s can't go run a 10 every run, they are sitting for an hour with ice on their engine and all the tricks to do it.

There are a few guys that have had oil pressure problems, it is said that some had bad oil pumps and ended up spinning a bearing, one or two others that are running high boost and timing have had a problem after doing a long pull (high speeds) where maybe the tune wasn't right and something got to hot or lean, like one guy added more timing while running race gas at the track and never put the timing back down and blew it up after a pull to 160+ on pump gas. But yeah there are guys that have had engine problems from one thing or another.

To be honest 90% of the people that are looking for a V that are on the forums all want the Recaro seats. Yes of course there are guys out there with not quite enough money that want the car and will give up options or buy a car with a lot of miles on it compared to others for much cheaper but that is not the norm at all. So yes you can buy one for lower 30s but the ones that "most" want is upper 30s at the low end of the spectrum then going on up from there.

TMC M5

[QUOTE=e55amgrocket;5889245]I had an '09 CTS-V with lower pulley (9.55"), intake, tune, Kooks headers w HFC and aux H/E. The best 60-130mph I ran was a 7.71s time. I never made it to the track in that state of tune but it did put down 550whp on a Dynojet and would have been in 126-127mph trap range. So I imagine urbanworm's 60-130mph time would be significantly faster than my 7.71s time.

Hammer Down

My 60' was 1.63

chiromikey

Who's the tard? The one talking about what he reads on the internet or the one that was test driving and negotiating offers on low mileage V's over the last few months? Guys around here are not going to go from an E55 to a stripped down CTS, so trying to make that comparison is silly.

urbamworm

Unfortunately some people around here don't think very logically. Just like being upset on one hand comparing a V to an E because "you can get a E for $20k but a V cost $35k" then they say "you should compare it to the biturbo E," you know the ones that are selling used for more than a brand new 2014 V goes for.

**** don't make any sense.

e55amgrocket

1- the tuning we have available for these cars isn't even close to what's available for the GM cars and that's a fact.
2- the old saying of there's no replacement for displacement is true. 330ci vs 376ci. I would take the 376 any day.
3- you know as well as I do how easy it is to make power with a LS motor. M113's are a lot more challenging and take trial and error that has already been done on the LS engines.
4- my 10.51 pass was with stock front tires and full interior at 4430lbs I think it was and DA was almost 2000ft per a race team from Puerto Rico that was testing.
5- yes we tuned with Q16 for the safety margin it gave me. I could of ran Meth for the same effect but didn't have a kit on the car then.
6- I asked about the 60-130 because I ran a 6.9 with Blackbenzz Vbox on motor and a 6.7 with a 50 shot. Just trying to see if the V's pull as hard up top compared to a somewhat comparable E55 with heads/cams. And for what it's worth from 50-90 (3rd gear shift) I would have to roll into it to keep wheel spin down.
7- if my other half like the CTS-V we test drove I would have one out front too . Instead she ended up with a hybrid lol. I'm not a CTS-V hater I'm just comparing.

Joncl

Hammerdown why not run MT streets technically they are a street tire