Quote:
Originally Posted by gmd2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bönz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpine535Msport
It has to do with it being rear wheel drive. The better a car can put down all that power with proper traction the better it is capable of utilizing all the high horsepower and torque more effective to produce quicker acceleration times. This is why AWD makes the M5, E63 produce the numbers it did.
|
Very true. Also if history has taught us anything, the Germans under-report their horsepower. Plus, the turbo engines with variable cam phasing produce peak torque earlier and hold it flatter through the RPM range; whereas the supercharged GM engine's torque production peaks later and rolls off sooner. It's the area under the torque curve the moves the car. |
Actually no the 6 liter Lt-4 in the CTSV makes 450 lb feet of tq off idle lol . It makes more tq and hp everywhere vs the German motors . Thus the 30-50 time being the fastest from a roll and the 50-70 being equal to the M5. What you are seeing here is an advertisement as to why a car with 650 lb feet needs awd . The 1/4 mile differences are traction and traction control kicking in on the CTSV on the launch and killing power well into the run . The caddy has much taller gearing which hurts it over a 100 mph as well. It def has the best handling chassis though , too bad they stopped spending money on the interior after the chassis and the drive train lol . |
Ok the tall gear makes sense that top acceleration is poor.