Speed GT: Caddie CTS

[oddlycalm]

Anyone have the story on what's up with the rules relative to the Cadillac CTS? From what I saw of the Sebring race, it's hard to imagine that the CTS running similar specs to the rest of the field. The production CTS is right at 1000lbs. heavier than a Z06, and the power should be similar to identical if the same engine specs are allowed. Even if they are allowed to run at the same weight as Corvettes and Vipers, the results were so skewed that it was like there were two different classes running. :confused:

oc

[Railbird]

SCCA discussion thread (http://bbs.sccaproracing.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003185.html)

Some interesting info/debate plus one complete azzbag.

Looks like the Caddy is a chop job with a considerable advantage.

I wish they would have continued their prototype program. It wasn't too quick but it was good looking and helped fill out the field. Typical GM.

[pchall]

Typical GM.

Yup.

They pulled the plug on the LMP just when the program started sucking a lot less than before.

[oddlycalm]

Agreed 'bird, and thanks for the link. Mostly good discussion as you said.

I have strong suspicions that, like the CTS platform itself, much of the speed is a result of tricks cribbed from Holden's V8 supercar program. The end result is closer to a GTS car than a Speed GT, but I suspect that the SCCA will find a way to dial them back.

I wish Caddie had stuck with the LMP program as well, and not as a farmed program/purchased ride. If they did, there's always an outside chance they would actually learn something... ;)

oc

[RacinM3]

I missed seeing this here earlier.

The problems with the Cadillac in SWC GT are the following:

1. Whereas virtually all of the other cars in the series are true to their production versions (in fact all are built from production version bases), the Cadillacs are chopped in their midsection, allowing a much lower center of gravity. Estimates are that six inches have been removed from the height of the car.

2. The engine has been allowed to be moved back nearly 4" in the chassis, again, better balance, whereas the other cars are required to have their engines in the stock location.

3. The driver sits basically in the back seat. The data logger (dash) is about 12" back from where the factory dash would be. Although this isn't explicitly ruled out in the reg's, most are questioning whether it (and many other details) are in the 'spirit of the rules'.

4. Cadillac was allowed to run a Hewland racing gearbox, instead of the standard Tremec 6-speed that comes in the car (everyone else has to run their standard gearbox). SCCA Pro has promised that they will have the Tremec for Lime Rock.

5. Although the Cadillac weighs more than a Corvette in stock form, SCCA Prop has allowed a power to weight ratio on the Cadillac that is better than that of a GT Corvette.

The Cadillac was running laps in traffic 2 secs. faster than the leaders, and the in-cars showed Pilgrim breathing the throttle in places where the other guys were flat out. This led everyone to believe that there's a lot in reserve, and that it may take SCCA pro more than a few races to 'catch up' with the actual abilities of the Cadillac with regards to rulesmaking that will level the field.

Photos pilfered from the SCCA board:

http://www.cadillac.com/images/models/cts/gallery/photoExt7_big.jpg

http://www.speedarena.com/gallery/albums//Sportscar/Speed%20GT/2004/01%20Sebring/049.jpg

http://www.speedarena.com/gallery/albums//Touring%20Cars/Speed%20WC/2004/01%20Sebring/008.jpg

http://www.speedarena.com/gallery/albums//Sportscar/Speed%20GT/2004/01%20Sebring/064.jpg

[RacinM3]

Here's the VTS (Vehicle Technical Sheet) on the Cadillac: http://www.world-challenge.com/competitors/vts/2004-VTS-CADILLAC-CTS-V.pdf

And for comparison, the Corvette VTS: http://www.world-challenge.com/competitors/vts/2004-VTS-CHEVROLET-CORVETTE-ZO6.pdf

BMW M3: http://www.world-challenge.com/competitors/vts/2004-VTS-BMW-M3-E46.pdf

Audi RS6: http://www.world-challenge.com/competitors/vts/2004-VTS-AUDI-RS6.pdf

The most telling thing is looking at the body panels allowed. The Cadillac has a new p/n for every body panel, whereas the Audi/Corvette/BMW specs basically allow alternate materials of the same size/shape as stock.

[oddlycalm]

The most telling thing is looking at the body panels allowed. The Cadillac has a new p/n for every body panel, whereas the Audi/Corvette/BMW specs basically allow alternate materials of the same size/shape as stock.

Thanks for confirming what I assumed was the case. No idea why the SCCA allowed this, as it seems certain to leave a bad taste in the mouth of the rest of the field and some fans as well. I notice on the spec sheet that the weight of the CTS is TBA.

Any idea of who Caddie contracted to build the cars and engines? Whoever it was did a really nice job, issues of specs aside. They actually made a fugly car look pretty good as well.

BTW, I know what is necessary to take 700lbs. out of a stock M3, and I'm pretty certain that you don't get 850lbs. out of a CTS without cutting away a serious amount of meta.

oc

[Joe in LA]

They actually made a fugly car look pretty good as well.

oc


You're not kidding. They should do that to the production car.

[Sean O'Gorman]

Chopped or not, the front end of that car is hideous. In fact, I think it looks worse now since the grille and headlights take up even more space on the front end of the car. The rest of the World Challenge car, however, looks REALLY nice. The thing I dislike most about the styling of the CTS was the huge gap between the front wheels and the top of the hood...the GT car looks much sleeker, thats how it should've looked on the production model.

[oddlycalm]

Chopped or not, the front end of that car is hideous. In fact, I think it looks worse now since the grille and headlights take up even more space on the front end of the car. The rest of the World Challenge car, however, looks REALLY nice. The thing I dislike most about the styling of the CTS was the huge gap between the front wheels and the top of the hood...the GT car looks much sleeker, thats how it should've looked on the production model.

Absolutely, the 'cow catcher' front end is garish and tasteless even for GM. That, and their advertising, gives a lot of clues as to who they think their market is. The picture is not flattering. We know that the braintrust that designed this thing has had plenty of chances to see what their cousins in Oz did with the Holdens on the same platform, so the CTS is even more of a puzzle. Pontiac was wise to get it's new GTO from Holden mostly unchanged (i.e. undamaged).

I agree, the 'four wheel drive' look on the stock car make the profile almost as silly as the front end. Even BMW M3's look better when lowered 1" - 1.5" (my Schnitzer suspension brings it down 30mm front and rear), but the CTS needs to be lowered 3" to even begin to look right. Must be those snowy Michigan winters... ;)

I guess that's what really pissed me off about the Speed GT versions being complete ringers. The stock car is such a goat in every way, it seems grossly unfair to have the competition version be such a radical departure. The other cars in the class have relatively stock platforms, which is a large part of the attraction for the series, but the CTS-V race car has very little in common with the stock version. :thumdown:

oc

[Sean O'Gorman]

Actually, I wasn't talking about fender gap (although that does apply too), but I was talking about the sheet metal from the wheel well to the top of the hood. Theres just so much of it!

[Dirty Sanchez]

Not sure if ya'll saw this or not... but a "competition adjustment" for the CTS was announced yesterday. Good move. :thumbup:

LINK (http://www.world-challenge.com/news/04press61.html)

[oddlycalm]

Thanks for posting the link Crapus. It remains to be seen how that effects the CTS-V as the season progresses. Reducing the intake volume and revs will have an effect on the horsepower tracks, but it doesn't address the chassis issues at all.

On comment toward the end of the article was interesting. They are allowing the BMW M3's to stroke their engines to 3.4L. That help seems a bit backhanded. The S54 engine is undersquare as it is, and adding to the stroke will likely require reducing the revs substantially unless one is willing to run a new engine every race. The stock S54 @ 8000Rpm has it's hand full with regard to piston speed and rod bearing loading.


Actually, I wasn't talking about fender gap (although that does apply too), but I was talking about the sheet metal from the wheel well to the top of the hood. Theres just so much of it!

Agreed Sean. It's the 4x4 fender gap []and[/i] the metal above the wheel well, and the combination is exquisitely dreadful. ;)

We have to remember that the CTS spewed forth from Cadillac Division's crack design team, also guilty of such attrocities as the Escalade, XLR and SRX. Cadillic is clearly out of their depth with both sporty cars and sport utes. They achieved a passable result on the staid Deville by basically copying the best lines of the recent Ford Crown Victoria, and only managed to goober up the front end. Bear in mind that where these people reside, fine dining consists of Steak Diane at Boodle's and adult businessmen wear $500 leather jackets embossed with hockey team logos on them when going out for the evening. :rolleyes:

I'm not looking for the Fast & Furryness crowd in LA to start showing up with slammed CTS-V's anytime soon, although I suppose there is always someone in every crowd... :laugh: Caddie should see about hiring Chris Bangle away from BMW. He's f***ing up the BMW styling horribly, but he would be a huge improvement at Cadillac. Since he's a cheesehead originally, he could also be near family...

oc