wondering y are engine's arent given us numbers like other twin 6's

[4DRHTRD]

You can easily add 100HP on our cars but it requires tune, 3 bar map, downpipes and meth injection currently. HUGE difference from stock with those things added.
Long term if you want BIG power you can add upgraded turbos and upgraded fuel system and get to 500HP or more depending on if you want aux injectors or not.
How fast do you want to go and the key is how much can the transmission on the X-sport take? My Flex tranny didn't like 600WHP much (torque really).
The path I made is repeatable and so will the headaches at the top end of the power range. I suggest you shoot for around 500WHP, plenty of power for your X to run mid 12's consistently.

One thing to consider is that you have a ton more room at the backside of the motor, have someone make custom manifolds/piping and go big single where the stock airbox is, upgrade the intercooler and do the aux injector scenario. I would suggest you forge the bottom end as well.
Probably get to 1K HP pretty easily but again, transmission won't take the abuse.

 

[TSS]

I have driven, at length, the new XTS-V Sport, as I was considering one.  The V-Sport is no V!  I am not a hater and feel the XTS is superior in just about every way to my MKS EXCEPT engine/tranny.  Either I drove a dog or GM overstated the 420 HP in the beginning.  It just wasn't that fast and felt very similar (a little slower) than my MKS ECO WITHOUT the tune.  With my tune the V-Sport is not in the same league.  Can't speak to a V-Sport with a tune.  The V- Sport was very disappointing by comparison even though "out of the box" it is reported to have a 55 HP advantage.  SO if there was a 100 HP gain with a tune on the XTS - I would be really interested in what the real beginning HP numbers and ending were.  Again, The one I drove could have been atypical, but I was not impressed.

 

[yowen]

Here are some numbers I found on a cadillac message board:


HP Gains:

~80 Midrange AWHP (3100 – 5000 RPMS)
~51 Peak AWHP

TQ Gains:

~100 Midrange AWTQ

~120 Peak TQ

 

[3POINT5]

Glad you guys finished this off for me. Im still not sure what the O.P. was getting at but I do know the SHO with verry minor bolt ons holds its own with some very fast cars. He is basing his opinion off the X SPORT and thats fine but he really needs to drive a tuned SHO to get the point.

 

[Joleat]

One important thing to add is that it just isn't about raw HP/TQ numbers. I'm not comparing the 3.5EB against the Caddy (mainly because I haven't looked at dyno sheets for the Caddy) when I say this, but the curve at which the power is made is just as important as maximum output. Two cars that have similar peak HP/TQ can feel drastically different depending on where the power is made.

 

[BiGMaC]

One important thing to add is that it just isn't about raw HP/TQ numbers. I'm not comparing the 3.5EB against the Caddy (mainly because I haven't looked at dyno sheets for the Caddy) when I say this, but the curve at which the power is made is just as important as maximum output. Two cars that have similar peak HP/TQ can feel drastically different depending on where the power is made.

Very True!
Also, it is hard to compare crank HP from car to car when they are reasonably close because CHP does not translate equally to WHP in different cars.... hence the test drive!

 

[4DRHTRD]

I have driven, at length, the new XTS-V Sport, as I was considering one.  The V-Sport is no V!  I am not a hater and feel the XTS is superior in just about every way to my MKS EXCEPT engine/tranny.  Either I drove a dog or GM overstated the 420 HP in the beginning.  It just wasn't that fast and felt very similar (a little slower) than my MKS ECO WITHOUT the tune.  With my tune the V-Sport is not in the same league.  Can't speak to a V-Sport with a tune.  The V- Sport was very disappointing by comparison even though "out of the box" it is reported to have a 55 HP advantage.  SO if there was a 100 HP gain with a tune on the XTS - I would be really interested in what the real beginning HP numbers and ending were.  Again, The one I drove could have been atypical, but I was not impressed.

I drove the CTS V-sport at Barrett Jackson on a closed course, with all nannies on it severely limited the output of the V6 BUT multiple magazines have tested it at 12.5@115 stock which is much faster than the SHO magazine time. With a tune to tune comparison I would guess the V-sport will break into the 11's easily, time will tell.

 

[yowen]

Does someone happen to know how the XTS's AWD system compares to an SHO?

 

[crash712us]

Here is car and drivers specs in xts-v

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 12.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 23.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.6 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.6 sec @ 105 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 137 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 172 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 g




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[3POINT5]

Here is car and drivers specs in xts-v

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 12.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 23.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.6 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.6 sec @ 105 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 137 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 172 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 g




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats VERY close to a stock SHO... Seems like it may pull a little harder up top with that trap speed.

 

[yowen]

Very interesting, would love to see some tuned SHO's and XTS's go head to head at the track.

 

[4DRHTRD]

I'd rather have the V-sport but it's $60K list
2014 Cadillac CTS Vsport vs 2013 Lexus GS350 F Sport! - Head 2 Head Ep. 45

 

[SHOdded]

I bet you could get quite a wee bit of modding done to the SHO or an MKS with the extra 30K you cough up for the XTS-VSport.
PRICE AS TESTED: $71,015 (base price: $63,020)

Livernois-souped up XTS-Vsp http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/hotnews/1402_livernois_2014_cadillac_xts_vsport_on_the_dyno_video/

Dyno here:
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/hotnews/1402_livernois_2014_cadillac_xts_vsport_on_the_dyno_video/photo_01.html#

 

[yowen]

Crikey!  I could pick up 3 2010 model SHO's for that... Or an X sport and a SHO. The list goes on of the possible vehicles one could get.

 

[TSS]

Just so we are clear, I am talking about the XTS V-Sport (I need AWD), not the CTS V-Sport - I have not driven one of those - I would imagine the CTS V-Sport Mike drove (like the black one pictured above) WOULD impress me.  The XTS-V just didn't - and trust me, I wanted it to.    I love my Cadillac dealer.

Now, if the CTS V-Sport is offered with AWD, that might interest me.  The 2014 + CTS is eye candy.

 

[BiGMaC]

Crikey!  I could pick up 3 2010 model SHO's for that... Or an X sport and a SHO. The list goes on of the possible vehicles one could get.

I'd rather have the V-sport but it's $60K list
2014 Cadillac CTS Vsport vs 2013 Lexus GS350 F Sport! - Head 2 Head Ep. 45

I bet you could get quite a wee bit of modding done to the SHO or an MKS with the extra 30K you cough up for the XTS-VSport.
PRICE AS TESTED: $71,015 (base price: $63,020)

Livernois-souped up XTS-Vsp http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/hotnews/1402_livernois_2014_cadillac_xts_vsport_on_the_dyno_video/

Dyno here:
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/hotnews/1402_livernois_2014_cadillac_xts_vsport_on_the_dyno_video/photo_01.html#

The extra cost of the new caddies was the deciding factor for me personally between the SHO and them when I was shopping new…. I could almost have 2 new 2013 SHOs for the money.

 

[DRII]

the SHO/MKS is about the same or a tick quicker to 60 than the XTS-V, but traps slower in the 1/4 mile.

The XTS Vsport's 5.3-second 0-60 mph time compares favorably to the front-drive 2014 RLX (5.9 seconds) and pre-refresh 2012 Equus (5.5 seconds), but is slightly behind the MKS EcoBoost (5.2 seconds)

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1312_2014_cadillac_xts_vsport_first_test/#ixzz2vaRWagy0


the MKS-EB handles better and is a tad quicker thru the cones than a XTS-V, with a much better ride!  the XTS-V with 20 in wheels has quite a stiff ride.

The XTS Vsport's figure-eight performance of 26.3 seconds at 0.65 g (avg) compares favorably to the all-wheel-drive 2013 XTS V-6's 27.6 seconds at 0.63 (avg). The MKS EcoBoost just barely has the XTS Vsport beat around the figure-eight course, however, with a 26.1-second time at 0.69 g (avg).

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1312_2014_cadillac_xts_vsport_first_test/#ixzz2vaRn6X8S


so i'm not quite understanding what the OP is getting at...

 

[SRT82ECOBOOST]

Just so we are clear, I am talking about the XTS V-Sport (I need AWD), not the CTS V-Sport - I have not driven one of those - I would imagine the CTS V-Sport Mike drove (like the black one pictured above) WOULD impress me.  The XTS-V just didn't - and trust me, I wanted it to.    I love my Cadillac dealer.

Now, if the CTS V-Sport is offered with AWD, that might interest me.  The 2014 + CTS is eye candy.

The CTS V-sport is only offered in RWD.

 

[mval]

My friend who does my work just got a '11 CTS-V like Mike's except 4dr. I love my SHO & everybody's on the sight but when he hits the supercharger I hold on for dear life. Smoke the tires multiple gears,  it's crazy fast. Cost him about what a new SHO would cost. GM has one advantage Ford doesn't, if it's got the room just drop a Corvette engine & you got a runner. a friend up the street has a new XTS non turboed from the back you'd swear it's a Lincoln.
mikev

 

[TSS]

Just so we are clear, I am talking about the XTS V-Sport (I need AWD), not the CTS V-Sport - I have not driven one of those - I would imagine the CTS V-Sport Mike drove (like the black one pictured above) WOULD impress me.  The XTS-V just didn't - and trust me, I wanted it to.    I love my Cadillac dealer.

Now, if the CTS V-Sport is offered with AWD, that might interest me.  The 2014 + CTS is eye candy.

The CTS V-sport is only offered in AWD.

No.  The XTS V Sport is only AWD. CTS V Sport is RWD only and hits 60 in 4.4 out of the box.