what if XLR-V > m6 @ nordschleife?

[lemming]

there are some serious reports coming out that with the final baseline numbers being set, the STS-V and the XLR-V will have not just the 440hp but more like 470hp with almost the same torque.......makes one wonder how fast each car will be now on the nurburgring.

is it possible that the XLR-V (really a c6 with some ballast) could be quicker than the much vaunted M6? remember, the c5 z06 is 7:56-7:58 and the c6 z51 is supposed to be very close to that --the XLR-V could very well be a sub-8min car.

i hope this is true. because it will mean that torque is as important as peak HP and it will be proven on the same track.

[FC]

there are some serious reports coming out that with the final baseline numbers being set, the STS-V and the XLR-V will have not just the 440hp but more like 470hp with almost the same torque.......makes one wonder how fast each car will be now on the nurburgring.

is it possible that the XLR-V (really a c6 with some ballast) could be quicker than the much vaunted M6? remember, the c5 z06 is 7:56-7:58 and the c6 z51 is supposed to be very close to that --the XLR-V could very well be a sub-8min car.

i hope this is true. because it will mean that torque is as important as peak HP and it will be proven on the same track.

I honestly doubt GM will ship Caddys over the pond for testing at the 'ring. I hope they do, but I'm not holding my breath.

Still, there is no reason to doubt that the XLR-V will at the very least come close to the the M6 if they were to test it.

But honestly, let's be fair. A vanilla XLR costs close to 80K. An XLR-V is bound to push 90K. At that price, styling aside, most people will go with the M6 for the obvious reasons given the small price difference for the segment in question.

[Roadstergal]

because it will mean that torque is as important as peak HP and it will be proven on the same track.

And suspension, tires, and brakes are not a factor.

:P

[Jason C]

I honestly doubt GM will ship Caddys over the pond for testing at the 'ring. I hope they do, but I'm not holding my breath.

:? :? :?

What are you talkin' about? GM has publicized the useage of the Nordschleife for a lot of their cars (amusingly enough, the latest is their Trailblazer SS, polishing a turd if I ever saw it). This kind of testing by GM dates back to at latest the basic CTS.

http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/1264838737214684.jpg

[Jason C]

because it will mean that torque is as important as peak HP and it will be proven on the same track.

And suspension, tires, and brakes are not a factor.

:P

But weight is. A very big factor indeed. Is the Caddy the fat pig in this instance, or the Bimmer?

^^Imagine that being a serious question 5 years ago. :lol:

[FC]

I honestly doubt GM will ship Caddys over the pond for testing at the 'ring. I hope they do, but I'm not holding my breath.

:? :? :?

What are you talkin' about? GM has publicized the useage of the Nordschleife for a lot of their cars (amusingly enough, the latest is their Trailblazer SS, polishing a turd if I ever saw it). This kind of testing by GM dates back to at latest the basic CTS.

http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/1264838737214684.jpg

Impressive. I new the MEGA CTS was being tested there. I didn't know it had become policy. That is great. :thumbup:

[Jason C]

Impressive. I new the MEGA CTS was being tested there. I didn't know it had become policy. That is great. :thumbup:

I think the GM cars that have been somewhat to extensively tuned there includes AFAIK:

All Cadillacs CTS and later (excluding variants of escalade). V-models get a whole lot of 'Ring time.
Cobalt SS, Trailblazer SS. It may become policy to wring out all SS cars there.
Corvette C5 Z06 and up. C6 received a lot of 'Ring time, though lemming would never believe it. C6 Z06 practically is a Nordschleife/Milford special.

A bunch more makes tests there of course, the usual Porsche/BMW models that seem to spontaneously generate themselves over there, etc etc.

[lemming]

Impressive. I new the MEGA CTS was being tested there. I didn't know it had become policy. That is great. :thumbup:

I think the GM cars that have been somewhat to extensively tuned there includes AFAIK:

All Cadillacs CTS and later (excluding variants of escalade). V-models get a whole lot of 'Ring time.
Cobalt SS, Trailblazer SS. It may become policy to wring out all SS cars there.
Corvette C5 Z06 and up. C6 received a lot of 'Ring time, though lemming would never believe it. C6 Z06 practically is a Nordschleife/Milford special.

A bunch more makes tests there of course, the usual Porsche/BMW models that seem to spontaneously generate themselves over there, etc etc.

my opinion: the BMW v10 is a technological gem, but an exercise and more about the display more so than execution. you could have very well gotten this level of power from a v8 or v12, but it HAD to be a v10.

my hypothesis: the XLR-V is based on the c6 and the c6 z51 is within seconds of the c5 z06 on the nurburgring. the XLR is about 3500 pounds (mainly the retractable hardtop) but has an automatic but an amazingly flat power curve --think AMG. cubic inches plus forced induction plus DOHCs driving the pistons and valves.

furthermore: the XLR-V will have multipiston brakes and tires as good as those found on the M6.

to the question: will it be faster than the vaunted M6 on this famed german road course? if it indeed is, what does that say about which car is the driver's car and which one isn't? and what does that say about keeping things simple, as opposed to complex? execution is what matters, no? ergo, if the XLR-V is faster, it proves two points: power doesn't need to be complex from an engine and second, lighter weight is probably better than SMG or any rubber compound BMW will put on the M6 to keep it driveable.

[Rob]

Lots of "ifs" in there. Plus, the M10 is normally aspirated. Does that matter? What about heat soak from the caddy?

Seriously, the fact that Cadillac is competing in this contest at all is great all by itself.

mbr, GM liked the results of the testing the CTS-V on the 'ring so much, they are building a mini ring in Michigan for testing. Come to think of it, it's probably done now. Not as long, but supposedly contains all of the great bits for testing. I would be VERY surprised if all of the V models didn't get 'ring testing, even if it's just for marketing purposes.

[JST]

Lots of "ifs" in there. Plus, the M10 is normally aspirated. Does that matter? What about heat soak from the caddy?

Seriously, the fact that Cadillac is competing in this contest at all is great all by itself.

mbr, GM liked the results of the testing the CTS-V on the 'ring so much, they are building a mini ring in Michigan for testing. Come to think of it, it's probably done now. Not as long, but supposedly contains all of the great bits for testing. I would be VERY surprised if all of the V models didn't get 'ring testing, even if it's just for marketing purposes.

The articles on the so-called "Lutzring" at the GM Proving Ground in Milford, Michigan, mentioned that GM would be doing much of the heavy development work in Milford, but that occasional visits to the real 'ring in Germany would continue, possibly annually.

[FC]

Lots of "ifs" in there. Plus, the M10 is normally aspirated. Does that matter? What about heat soak from the caddy?

Seriously, the fact that Cadillac is competing in this contest at all is great all by itself.

mbr, GM liked the results of the testing the CTS-V on the 'ring so much, they are building a mini ring in Michigan for testing. Come to think of it, it's probably done now. Not as long, but supposedly contains all of the great bits for testing. I would be VERY surprised if all of the V models didn't get 'ring testing, even if it's just for marketing purposes.

I knew about their "mini" 'ring. But it is not identical, therefore time comparisons can't be made. Cars still need to be shipped to das Vaterland for time trials. It is great that they ARE doing that.

Cadillac has earned the respect of many for their dedication to performance recently, no doubt.

[The HACK]

Do I smell another bet coming on? :eeps: :)

[clyde]

But it is not identical, therefore time comparisons can't be made.

It sounds like you are suggesting that comparing ring times from different cars run there at different times on different days, in different weather conditions at different times of the year is a meaningful exercise.

Interesting.

[FC]

But it is not identical, therefore time comparisons can't be made.

It sounds like you are suggesting that comparing ring times from different cars run there at different times on different days, in different weather conditions at different times of the year is a meaningful exercise.

Interesting.

Of course not. But given that we still do compare numbers (whether right or wrong), using the same track would actually make sense. GM's track is not an identical reproduction. Even if it were, elevation, surface, landscape, etc woul dstill make a big difference.

So, basically, instead of apples and oranges, you at least would have a Macintosh and Granny Smith comparison.

[lemming]

engineers and test drivers will still report the best laptimes, no matter what day or conditions.

some test drivers are so consistent that it is meaningful, when they test different cars on different days.

[Jason C]

some test drivers are so consistent that it is meaningful, when they test different cars on different days.

All we need now is Horst von Saurma to run the C6 Z06 on a day with good weather conditions.

[lemming]

some test drivers are so consistent that it is meaningful, when they test different cars on different days.

All we need now is Horst von Saurma to run the C6 Z06 on a day with good weather conditions.

john heinricy is fine.

he's the one who ran the 7:56 lap in the c5 z06. am sure you could just use laptimes from him. he's only the SCCA T1 champion. :)

[Jason C]

some test drivers are so consistent that it is meaningful, when they test different cars on different days.

All we need now is Horst von Saurma to run the C6 Z06 on a day with good weather conditions.

john heinricy is fine.

he's the one who ran the 7:56 lap in the c5 z06. am sure you could just use laptimes from him. he's only the SCCA T1 champion. :)

Remember the official 'ring lap time thread a while back? You know who drove 99% of the street-legal cars that had a time posted?

Horst von Saurma.

Ergo, if you want your meaningful times to compare with everything else, I think you're going to want Sport Auto to run the Z06 around the Ring. Not that Heinricy won't run a great time, but we're talking about consistency here.

ADDED: He set their (unofficial) production car record in the Carrera GT, so it'll be no doubt interesting to see the vette time from him.

[lemming]

good point.

Horst would be the best barometer of how good the car is; even walter rohrl who has the best in-house Porsche times.

[clyde]

engineers and test drivers will still report the best laptimes, no matter what day or conditions.

all...best, worst, middlin', all

some test drivers are so consistent that it is meaningful, when they test different cars on different days.

Meaningful when considered within the context of the variables but not as the simple times in the air that make it into the rags and are regarded as the gospel of wht's best, what's fastest, what's mostest.

[clyde]

But it is not identical, therefore time comparisons can't be made.

It sounds like you are suggesting that comparing ring times from different cars run there at different times on different days, in different weather conditions at different times of the year is a meaningful exercise.

Interesting.

Of course not. But given that we still do compare numbers (whether right or wrong), using the same track would actually make sense. GM's track is not an identical reproduction. Even if it were, elevation, surface, landscape, etc woul dstill make a big difference.

So, basically, instead of apples and oranges, you at least would have a Macintosh and Granny Smith comparison.

You missed the point, but that's okay. :devcool:

[lemming]

i usually view the laptimes as an avid car fan --but it's relativistic. if you just slice up the cars into 5 second intervals, that is usually a good divider of cars and their respective capabilities. a lot of the quoted times are by test drivers or experienced merc's --the times are general comparable from the standpoint that you're comparing the factory's best against another factory's best.

there are few cars that break 8:20, 8:15, or 8:10, let alone 8 minutes. the e46m3 and e39m5 did not break 8:20 when driven by BWM test drivers. you could give them leeway with some standard deviation, but even BMW accepts those times.

if cadillac says they've broken 8 minutes in the XLR-V, then i believe them. it's really down to whether or not the car is capable of doing it.