Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • G. David Felt
    G. David Felt

    1,200-hp Hennessey Cadillac CTS-V Coupe offered

    G. David Felt

    Staff Writer Alternative Energy - CheersandGears.com

    We all love GM and how Cadillac has been on a roll lately. Yet even then we know that GM will never give you everything you have wanted or fullfill the niche area of ultimate performance. Now with Hennessey stepping up, it looks like Cadillac will truly have a monster that will put everyone in it's place, even Bugatti.

    Review the story and sound off on what you think of this Hennessey Built Monster!

    John Hennessey's tuning shop in Texas operates on a simple principle that denies the existence of "too much horsepower." Here's his latest offering to the angry gods of speed -- a dozen Hennessey V1200 Cadillac CTS-V coupes, all of which offer more than double the power of their everyday lookalikes with a Bugatti-challenging 1,226 hp and a top speed of 242 mph.

    http://autos.yahoo.c...-190832135.html

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    I usually use a simple "rule of thumb" formula for determining if a car has too much power -- at least for 0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile runs. This formula is:-

    0.7 x Tire Width (mm) x Number of Driven Front Wheels x Vehicle Weight (lbs) / 3500 + Tire Width (mm) x Number of Driven Rear Wheels x Vehicle Weight (lbs) / 3500*

    Eg. A Corvette would benefit from extra HP up to about 0 + 275 x 2 x 3200 / 3500 = 503 hp

    Eg. A FWD Cobalt would benefit fro up to about 0.7 x 235 x 2 x 2900 / 3500 + 0 = 273 hp

    Eg. A Nissan GT-R would benefit from up to about 0.7 x 255 x 2 x 3830 / 3500 + 285 x 2 x 3830 / 3500 = 390 + 627 = 1017 hp

    Based on this rule of thumb, the Hennesy CTS-V Coupe mounting 345/30 R20 rear tires has a power handling limit of 0 + 345 * 2 * 4200 / 3500 = 0 + 828 = 828 hp. Anything more really just produces additional wheel spin, and really does not have a tangible yield in acceleration times and can in fact make the car harder to launch and control.

    Also, you'll noitce that FWD cars have about 30% less power handling than RWD due to weight transfer away from the front wheels during acceleration and AWD cars have essentially unlimited traction for "sane", mass produced, engines. Also, heavier cars actually handle more power simply because they have more mass pressing down on the same tires.

    * The formula is really an over simplification as it is really torque to the wheels not power at the crank, contact patch, coefficient of friction and weight applied rather than just the width of the tire. But using a 3500 lbs correction constant, assuming the typical grip of summer compound tires and correcting for FWD lift, this rule of thumb is within +- ~10% of actual values and is easier to apply.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Very interesting info on assessing power/torque.

    But what do you think of this Hennessey production car? The look, your impression/feeling?

    We know you think it is over powered based on your formula, but what about their interruption of this Cadillac and their top performance version?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have always liked the CTS coupe. And the overall look of the Hennessy car is not rodiculously over the top which helps preserve the car's clean looks. Personally, I'll skip the hood louvers because I don't like the clutter from the slats. If I have to do a hood vent I'll prefer a cleaner implement like that on the C6-R race cars or the Shelby Series-1.

    One thing I'll really like to see on mechanically supercharged engines is a hydraulic supercharger coupling. Basically, it is a fluidic drive as opposed to a belt-n-pulley. The fluidic drive allows a variable bleed valve which can reduce the supercharger drive ratio in response to rpm, throttle position and/or altitude. This is actually a very neat arrangement as it is actually more compact than the fat belt drive.

    This is actually a 75 year old concept. As far back as 1941, the Messerschimitt BF109's Daimler-Benz DB601 (later DB605) inverted V12 SOHC-48v engine has a fluidic supercharger drive for automatic alttitude compensation by continuously varying the super charger ratio. That engine, believe it or not, also has a Bosch Direct Petrol Injection system instead of carburettion typically on allied engines like the Merlin. Unfortunately, due to the low quality of German Gasoline in WWII they had to resort to larger displacements, lower compression and lower boost to generate the same amount of power.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Sheesh! That coupe sounds like a jet...! I would be completely happy with a stock V6 coupe, I've never been one to run a car hard or race around all the time. IMHO this Caddy Coupe is the best looking car to come out in a long time. Really miss all the coupes from days gone by. It is great to see the Camaro & Caddy Coupes on the road, very, very good-looking cars.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It's an over-the-top car, I think the over-the-top hood is fitting. I wouldn't be surprised if it's mostly functional, providing more space for extra bits on the top of the engine, and providing venting for the heat produced by 1,200hp. I hate hoods, scoops, and vents like that when they're not functional, but when a car is just flat out that extreme to need it, I like it.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • OUCH, a very solid assessment of Tesla imho. 'He's Alienated The Wrong People' — Scott Galloway Blames Musk's Politics For Tesla's Fall From 8th To 95th In U.S. Brand Rankings
    • This isn't new.  I can't make a decision on buying a car, since I haven't made the even bigger decision to precede when and WHERE to buy a car. I've got a lot of points from my GM Card.  Never would I have thought the market would change so drastically after I last used its accumulation and would start accumulating again. So, if I were to buy a tide over used car to keep for a few years, then what?  All low mileage ... the last Buick Verano 2.4 L the last Chevy Impala 2.5 L the 2015 Malibu with Camaro rear lights 2.5 L the last Mercury Milan 4 cyl. the last Charger base 3.5 V6 Something else Low mileage "older" cars cost a bundle, IF it's a dealer that's selling them.
    • Been 1 year since I installed my home Level 2 charger and have to say, I have had zero problems with it. No issues from ChargePoint and still going strong. Total cost of home charging for the year to cover roughly 19,000 miles has been $ 757.00 based on the tracking that the ChargePoint app on my cell phone does.
    • Much appreciated, thank you. That is crazy and sad that GM, Toyota, Nissan in this day and age have allowed sloppy manufacturing to happen. Demming and Drucker were right about needing to keep a close eye always on quality for long term success. I do not blame your friend and hope GM does right by him and all the others. I think a 10yr / 100,000 mile powertrain warranty is proper here.
    • One of my best friends bought a 2024 Silverado Trail Boss with the 6.2 and he's not too stoked about it. He hasn't' had any issues thus far, but he's very skeptical about long-term ownership. He said there's a rumor that they'll extend the warranty to 10yr/100,000 and he'd be satisfied with that, but if they don't he certainly wouldn't want to own it past his OEM warranty. I don't blame him, either. It sucks because he said he planned to keep the truck for 10 years as it's kind of a do-all for his family and him. He doesn't want to have to trade it in after 5 years because he has a good chance of needing to replace the engine. GM needs to do right by all these owners.  https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a64611938/chevy-silverado-tahoe-cadillac-escalade-defective-v8-recall/ "General Motors is recalling 721K full-size trucks and SUVs with the 6.2-liter V-8, as the engine might be defective; a stop-sale has also been ordered. The recall list includes popular models such as the Cadillac Escalade, Chevy Silverado 1500, and GMC Yukon—all of which are 2021–2024 models. The problem stems from internal manufacturing defects, and vehicles must pass inspection or possibly require an engine replacement. "
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search