STS-V vs. CTS-V

[KQQL V]

Actually it's the reverse. In pure stock form, equal drivers, the STS-V is actually a few ticks faster than the CTS-V1. The average ET for the STS-V is 13.1 and the CTS-V1 is 13.3. Yes, I know, there are plenty of stock CTS-V's out there that have run high twelves. But at the same time there are several STS-V's that have run 12.7-12.8 consistently in complete stock form.

Now seeing as there really are no stock CTS-Vs out there thanks to the aftermarket options, and there really are no modded STS-Vs out there, again, thanks to the (lack of) aftermarket options, well none of this stock talk really matters. But it is important to note to a potential buyer who, in this case, will probably not mod their car anyway.

I have a graduate degree in the V Series. These two cars have been tested numerous times by people who test cars for a living and publish the results for all to see. All things being equal the CTS-V is a tick or two quicker even though the STS-V has an ever so slight better HP/wt ratio. Cadillac marketed the CTS-V1 at 4.6 sec 0 to 60 MPH and 13.1 in the 1320. The STS-V was marketed at 4.7 and 13.3. Either of these cars being reported to run 12.7 totally stock is pure bull crap. Can't be done.

[Blakbird24]

I have a graduate degree in the V Series. These two cars have been tested numerous times by people who test cars for a living and publish the results for all to see. All things being equal the CTS-V is a tick or two quicker even though the STS-V has an ever so slight better HP/wt ratio. Cadillac marketed the CTS-V1 at 4.6 sec 0 to 60 MPH and 13.1 in the 1320. The STS-V was marketed at 4.7 and 13.3. Either of these cars being reported to run 12.7 totally stock is pure bull crap. Can't be done.

That's great that you think you know so much about these cars. It's also great that you have all these personal experiences...unfortunately here they don't mean squat. I have lots of personal experiences too...but i'm not going to bother to list them here because just like yours, they don't matter.

Again the generally accepted times, as established by GM's own PBC, not to mention the Cadillac-sponsored enthusiast communities are 13.1 for the STS-V and 13.3 for the CTS-V. It doesn't matter what you or I think of these times, they are what they are.

[sercastiK]

NO QUESTION the cts's are a better car. Northstar engines are the DEVIL. They run great when they aren't broken but the LS6/LS2 is proven!

[Blakbird24]

...but the LS6/LS2 is proven!

Can't argue that. Though I must clarify...most people think of the older Northstars when they talk about them as being problematic engines. The newer (Epsilon) STS, and XLR have the new Northstars which really are problem free. They are 99% as reliable as the LS motors.

The point to be made here is that the LC3 outputs 469hp (in sts-v trim) and 430lbft of torque while sucking down gas at a 16mpg rate. Highway mileage is about 20mpg (at best) in the STS-V. The LSA outputs nearly 100hp more while achieving 24mpg on the highway in a very similar car. All this is accomplished without all the exotic tech that the LC3 relies on. Thus, on the rare occasion that the LSA does need something, it's going to be alot easier (and cheaper) than the rare occasion when the LC3 needs something.

I definitely agree that GM's OHV motors are unmatched overall. Nothing on earth delivers the level of output, efficiency, and simplicity in a single package like the LS-series motors. Even to those who will say that the Northstars are more refined, I disagree. The LSA with the Cadillac engine mounts is easily as smooth and quiet as the LC3.

[Cutlass]

Can't argue that. Though I must clarify...most people think of the older Northstars when they talk about them as being problematic engines. The newer (Epsilon) STS, and XLR have the new Northstars which really are problem free. They are 99% as reliable as the LS motors.

I've been working on Northstar V8s for about 11 years now and I have to agree. They are more reliable now.
The only somewhat regular things I fix on them now is oil leaks and a few waterpumps. Even those are considerably less frequent then the past.

[KQQL V]

That's great that you think you know so much about these cars. It's also great that you have all these personal experiences...unfortunately here they don't mean squat. I have lots of personal experiences too...but i'm not going to bother to list them here because just like yours, they don't matter.

Again the generally accepted times, as established by GM's own PBC, not to mention the Cadillac-sponsored enthusiast communities are 13.1 for the STS-V and 13.3 for the CTS-V. It doesn't matter what you or I think of these times, they are what they are.

To be honest I have to admit the CTS-V or STS-V may be able to run a 12.7 in the 1/4......if u drove them off a cliff. I think we all admire the V series. I have heard several 12.8's and 12.7's on the CTS-V from their owners....but these numbers come from the use of personal dash plug in Performance Calculators that are not near as accurate as the Vbox set ups the pros use. I met a 22 yr-old at a car show in the Dayton, Oh area who owned a nice black 2005 CTS-V that was BONE STOCK and he was boasting to me his car could turn 0-60 times in the 4.3 to 4.4 sec range and he once turned in a 12.8 sec 1320 time on I-75 south no less........his Bellronic Car Performance Calculator plugged into his lighter socket could prove it.

[Cutlass]

Last time I was down at Byron, Illinois Dragway, I watched a old guy run 13.1 in his STSV. I talked with him a bit. He said he usually runs about a 13.1ish. He did have a programmer with him and said he wanted to try a couple different tunes he had and was hoping for a 12.9. I didn't get a chance to watch any more of his runs.
But to be fair, I don't know if the 13.1 was with a tune or bone stock.

[Blakbird24]

To be honest I have to admit the CTS-V or STS-V may be able to run a 12.7 in the 1/4......if u drove them off a cliff. I think we all admire the V series. I have heard several 12.8's and 12.7's on the CTS-V from their owners....but these numbers come from the use of personal dash plug in Performance Calculators that are not near as accurate as the Vbox set ups the pros use. I met a 22 yr-old at a car show in the Dayton, Oh area who owned a nice black 2005 CTS-V that was BONE STOCK and he was boasting to me his car could turn 0-60 times in the 4.3 to 4.4 sec range and he once turned in a 12.8 sec 1320 time on I-75 south no less........his Bellronic Car Performance Calculator plugged into his lighter socket could prove it.

Well I certainly would not say that I could drive my STS-V to a 12.7 or 12.8 (or even a 12.9 or 13.0 for that matter). I'm just saying that it has been done.

[KQQL V]

Well I certainly would not say that I could drive my STS-V to a 12.7 or 12.8 (or even a 12.9 or 13.0 for that matter). I'm just saying that it has been done.

When all is said and done 13.1 sec 1/4 mile time is still very fast for a stock anything !!!

[Blakbird24]

When all is said and done 13.1 sec 1/4 mile time is still very fast for a stock anything !!!