cdelena

What debate are you arguing? The initial post was that the STS-V got a good review and there were comments that were favorable. You are welcome to an opinion but repeating it will have little affect on others.

Sr2oD3

........*patiely awaits the 6.3 liter AMG V8*

510hp, 7200rpm redline, 11.3:1 compression ratio

Johnny Sack

as badass as the M5 is, its about 60k to expensive.

QUIKAG

I rescind portions of what I've said previously in this thread. In two different comparos (C&D and MT), the car is only trapping 105-106mph and running low 13's. For a 4,300 lb car with a six-speed auto and 469hp, it should be trapping significantly higher than that. The MT article had a CLS55 with the SAME rated horsepower, only a 5-speed automatic, and very similar weight trapping 114mph!! That is a HUGE different.

Now, the CSL55 had a lot more torque, but for simplicity sake, horsepower is what determines trap speed, so something is going on?!!? The 469hp for the STS-V is using new SAE rating system, so maybe the powerband is weak? Of course, it's rated at 430lb/ft of torque at under 4,000rpm, so I have a hard time believing that too???

Any idea as to what it's trapping so low???

Johnny Sack

maybe is has some nice and sticky oem tires. without know 60's i have no idea. but low 100-to mid 100's is too drmatic a difference for just hole shot. ? i am puzzled too!