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'*. 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'* 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'* 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'* trap around 114mph.


Someone is lying.

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 $* 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.