I remember reading one of the press releases for the GR engines when they first came out and it stated that in direct injection form, the engine is easily capable of 100HP/L or more. I don't know how many similarities there are between the GR and UR, but if the UR is somewhat of a bigger GR, then I would think it has similar flexibility and versatility. I would think that 500HP from 5.0L should be within grasp, though I'd rather see 500HP and 600lb-ft of torque from 5.5L.

 

It's within grasp, sure, but not easily and not without significant compromise in one or more categories of cost, driveability, reliability, etc.

The GR is already pretty close to 100hp per liter, and with, say the 2.5L V6 putting out 200hp... that's a very small displacement per cylinder motor that likely could be tuned quite a bit more aggressively and made to be relatively high revving due to the low mass of reciprocating weight in the valve train.

I'm sure it's still possible in the larger displacement UR series, but definitely more of a challenge and more compromises involved.

There is a good reason why high hp per liter is more common in smaller displacement engines at the lower end of the cost scale, or at the higher end of the cost scale in engines with relatively low displacement per cylinder.

 

The Current CTS-V with 400hp is only in the acceleration times of the IS350, so hp isn't the end all

 

Eh... I don't know about 0-60 since the CTS-V gets a lot of wheel hop from its independent rear suspension.

But in the 1/4-mile the current CTS-V can dust the IS350 pretty easily. The CTS-V will run 12.8@110mph in stock form on a good day at 13.3 @ 107 on a bad day. The IS350 will run 13.6 @ 104 on a good day at 14.0 @ 100 on a bad day.

7-8 tenths of a second and 6-7 mph is a pretty substantial difference. In fact once you consider the fact that the CTS-V is also 11 inches longer and about 250-300 pounds heavier than the IS350, I'd say the specs all line up pretty well. 100 extra horsepower saddled by an extra 250-300 pounds is pretty conceivably worth around 7-8 tenths in the 1/4-mile for most any car in this performance range.

Also keep in mind the all new CTS-V will probably be out by the time the IS-F is out (for sale), bringing the 500hp LS7 to the table with it, and probably will have its wheel hop problem fixed, too, with the all new chassis. Though rumor has it (and so do the spy pics confirm) that it will also be gaining quite a bit in size - especially in width. So I wouldn't be surprised if acceleration wise a 425hp IS-F and a 500hp CTS-V would be pretty comparable, maybe in the mid to high 12s range depending on the run. But the CTS-V will offer a larger sized car with that level of performance, which may appeal to some people and detract from others.

 

Yea, I hear the guys in the know on the GM sites say something about the new CTS becoming a competitor with the GS/E/5 now because the new model is substantially growing in size, price, and will have a lot of new features. Then they'll bring in something similar to the BTS or whatever that small Caddy is they sell in Europe. I seriously have my doubts, but they tend to know more than I do in that area. If true though, then a 500hp CTS fits right in with the E63 and M5.

Greatly looking forward to this new line of F cars.

 

What will be the difference between the IS-F and IS500?

 

Nothing. The IS-F was referred to as the IS500 in the early stages when we didnt know much about this model. What we knew at the time was that they were going to use the 5.0L engine from the LS600hL. Thus creating IS500. I guess a term created by journalists or maybe even us.

 

You can't have it all. The 2UR-FSE in stock form is already a bit pricey, because it uses some F1-derived parts and a lot of testing and verification goes into each 2UR-FSE. Besides, compared to the old UZ block, the cost of purely building the UR block has been decreased substantially thanks to a new manufacturing method that was first used with the GR V6 blocks. And when you're talking about limited production, high performance sports luxury machines, cost of production for the engine is hardly an important issue.

As a side note, the race-spec 2GR-FSE that resides in the ALMS IS350 GT2 cars (which as of yet have not been officially raced) puts out *over* 470HP naturally aspirated at about 8000 RPM. It also puts out about 330 - 350 lb-ft torque. We're talking about 134HP/L and 94 - 100 lb-ft/L being made reliably. Granted, this is a race engine, but the point here is clear. If we were to compare to the old 3UZ-FE race engine, depending on tuning, it made anywhere from 480 - 500HP, and 350 - 380 lb-ft torque, depending on which racing series the engine was used in. In Japan Grand Touring Championship, the 3UZ was bored out to 4.5L. In the Rolex Sports Car Series, the Daytona Prototypes use a 4.3L 3UZ. That equates to 116 HP/L and about 81 - 84 lb-ft/L. Definitely lower per-L numbers than the race-spec 2GR-FSE. It has a new engine design compared to the UZ and MZ blocks, plus uses a superior Dual Fuel Injection combined with Dual VVT-i. The 2UR-FSE race-spec unit that's been used in the Daytona prototypes for a few months now puts out way over 500HP, but exact specs are as of yet unknown, although it provides over a 10% fuel economy improvement compared to the old 3UZ-FE race unit. My point is, if a race-spec 2GR-FSE is making over 470HP and over 330lb-ft torque reliably, then it's easy to see that the 2UR-FSE, with 1.5L of extra displacement, and some additions over the 2GR-FSE can make 500HP under relatively moderate (non race) tuning.

Again, I didn't specify what tuning would be needed, but I it seems more clarification is needed here. For the 2UR-FSE to make 500HP or close to it, the heads would need to be tuned more aggressively, as would the injectors. The 2UR has VVTiE on the intake side, which allows more precise valve timing compared with the 2GR. This allows for increased performance and fuel economy over the 2GR. Also, the revs of course would need to be increased. If the redline was raised between 7000 - 8000 RPM, then the 2UR would comfortably be making around 500HP with some more aggressive heads.

 

One more thing, the CTS-V should not be compared to the IS-F, especially the next-gen one, because it in fact will compete more with the M5 and GS-F. The CTS even now is considered a midsize sedan, not a compact sedan. Of course, the CTS-V that's coming will be stepping on the toes of the STS-V, unless Cadillac makes that bigger.

And although rumours say the LS7 will power the next CTS-V, there are also credible rumours that instead, the next CTS-V may get the supercharged 4.4L Northstar V8, which has less output than the LS7.

 

From the C&D reviews, the two cars run identical times for 0-60 and 1/4 mile while the CTS-V has a higher trap

 

Correct, but that's also the absolute worst published 1/4-mile ET I've seen for the CTS-V in any magazine to date, and that's among the best I've seen for the IS350.

There are also publications that have the IS running worse and the CTS-V running much better.

However what really matters is real world results and real world I see stock CTS-Vs running high 12s all day long. A stock IS350 has never, to my knowledge, broken the 13.5 second barrier. So it's safe to say the CTS-V is faster unless placed in the wrong hands.

 

Reminds me why the e30 m3 is my favorite bmw of all times. I really hope lexus doesn't mess this up by inheriting fagtastic ideas from toyota.

 

My car that hasn't been sold yet is faster than your car that hasn't been sold yet.....

 

Gotta love magazine racing.

 

CTS-V is faster than new Audi S4, let alone IS350. That car is a monster. But I am not sure about running 12s all day long. Probably only half day because I am sure it will break down in the middle of the day.