Confusing and Disapointing- SSuperchargedEi?
 

Well, I thought that by the time the LSS clicked 200K I would buy a nice used STS-V. Well, Motor Trend Jan 06' came out with the the test. With 469hp and a new high tech 6 speed auto I was expecting mid 12s out of this 4100lb beast. After all the 300C SRT-8 with 420hp ran a 13.2@109 and weighs 4200lbs. The 4200lb 469hp (same as STS-V) E55 AMG ran mid 12's. Its only a 5 speed auto. So, how did the STS-V do? 13.3@105mph. WTF- the N* king of freeway power, with a M112 Eaton trapping only 105mph!?!? Here are the results of the V getting its a$$ whopped by an AMG.

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...ad.php?t=59104

Jeez, the 300C SRT-8 just becomes more and more appealing every day. SSuperchargedEi- you can now point at me, laugh, and say, "I told ya so".

well the C&D tests arnt always the fairest things in the world

True.Something about 469hp and a 105mph trap speed just do NOT add up. That car shoud be trapping at LEAST 112mph. Where talking about a N* with a supercharger and intercooler here folks. Hell, I knew a kid that ran a 13 flat @ 105mph in his GTP with just a intercooler, 3.0" pulley, and full exaust/ intake.

Yeah, for sure it run over 110 mph, cant be lower, was may be a crappy condition/wheather for a supercharged car. Even with high temp outside...

How's the gearing on the STS-V? And not just final drive... it should be in the C&D article.




I'm still a 300C SRT-8 fan. It's a design that really grew on me. If I wanted RWD, bar none, it'll be the 300. If I wanted FWD -- no wait, I don't ;)

This was Motor Trend. I don't know the garing, but its a SIX speed. So it shoud be good. The car does lack torque, only 439ftlbs. But, that wouldn't affect topend so much, would it?

I still prefer the look of the STS-V over the 300C, although the SRT-8 as a machine is impressive.

Despite the glaring price comparision, I would still rather have the STS-V as a pretige car.

Chrysler still hasnt won me over with its boxy land yacht hacked from a block of wood.

Now that I think about it, this CANNOT be true. It has to be specualtion.

1) I found nothing of the sorts on motor trend.
And most of all
2) A 469 hp car does NOT trap just 105mph unless its in a 5900lb Suburban or something to that affect. I don't care if it has 200ftlbs. Trap speed is representive of you're top end- horsepower. It should trap 112mph minimum. Even 469hp L67's trap around 114mph.


Someone is lying. :x

they must've got paid off by chrylser

Jeee. you don't think. They got away with flawed cars for over ten years costing customers over millions of $s of repaires. I can see it now with just the regular C. Customer report.. Oh god 80,000miles and 5 years the cylinder activation thing for mileage failed, and i'm running on 4 cylinders. The dealor says it'l cost me $6000 to replace.
Dayum.. then they'll be able to have 800hp muscle cars by 2010. :roll: