Repair-It

kevm14 wrote:Bonus article on the engine:
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-200 ... thstar-v8/

a supercharged 4.4L DOHC V-8 producing 440 hp and 430 lb-ft of torque

Of course I guess that was pre-production, as the final version had 469 hp and 439 lb-ft.

The STS-V uses the same gauge cluster as the SRX. The small differences are no V logo on the SRX, and the dot matrix screen at the bottom is black/white on the SRX and an ugly orange on the STS-V. That must be why they limited the STS-V to 155, so they could reuse the cluster. I'm half joking. But only half.

Part of the plan is to replace the Rondo with something newer. I did briefly think about the STS-V because it's cheap, but I decided to pass because it's outclassed by the competition and I'm not really sure how reliable it would be considering the age.

If I have to go cheap, I am more willing to give up straight line performance than chassis or age of car, if that makes sense.

That is exactly what I was explaining to Bill this morning - like an ATS w/ FE3.

I am commuting in a car that doesn't trap 80 now, so it's not like driving something that traps high 90s or 100 is going to be a disappointment; however I would really like to get something in the 110+ range if I can make it work.

kevm14 wrote:Bonus article on the engine:
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-200 ... thstar-v8/

Off topic but:

a rear-wheel-drive version in the XLR roadster based on the C6 Corvette chassis

Wait I thought it was on the C5 chassis? The whole thing was, I assumed it was C6, and then some research revealed it was C5. This says C6. I checked wiki and it says C6...wtf is going on? C6 makes sense, but I distinctly remember being surprised and annoyed that it was on C5. Whatever...

Ah, this says C5:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/200 ... -road-test

I'd like to trust Csaba.

This explains the confusion:
http://www.xlr-net.com/forums/cadillac- ... vette.html

It's both, and it's neither. Kind of C5.5 if you will. That makes the most sense when you think about when the XLR came out.

Bob wrote:I am commuting in a car that doesn't trap 80 now, so it's not like driving something that traps high 90s or 100 is going to be a disappointment; however I would really like to get something in the 110+ range if I can make it work.

I understand. I think the chassis tuning on the STS-V would be the bigger disappointment, than the fact that it doesn't trap 110+.

Doesn't the ATS Performance trap over 100? Like 102 maybe? That shit is light, I think 3,4xx. 321 hp goes a long way at that weight.

http://autoweek.com/article/car-reviews ... view-notes

No performance stuff but great comments about the chassis.