cadillac ats forums cadillac ats forums
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

  1. #1
    transam00 is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): ATS 2.0 T
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    347

    cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    Automotive addicts tested cts 2.0 t . 0-60 6.0 and 3.6 was 6.2 . The 2.0 in the cts has 272 hp and 295 lb. Ft.


  2. Remove Advertisements
    CadillacForums.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    RxNotec's Avatar
    RxNotec is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): 2013 ATS4 3.6
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    81

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    AWD acceleration vs RWD acceleration is my guess. Motor Trend found the same result.
    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ts_first_test/

    Not the same story though in the ATS v6 vs I4T.

  4. #3
    ChevyRules is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): 2014 Cadillac ATS Premium 3.6 AWD
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    83

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    The higher torque at the lower RPM also probably helps as well.

  5. #4
    carpenter is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): '14 ATS 4 Black Raven 3.6 Premium
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    WI
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    They didn't test the 3.6 so they are just going off numbers that Motor Trend had for their 3.6 car. Pretty hard to actually compare that way. Really need to see a comparison between the same cars with just different engines unlike the AWD/RWD comparison Motor Trend did on the 2.0T AWD and 3.6 RWD. I drove the 2.0T CTS for a few weeks and am now driving one again and it's a damn nice engine though. At first I thought it was a bit underpowered in the CTS but that I think that was because I was coming from the 3.6 in the ATS and trying to compare. It definitely moves the car really well.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    490

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    Quote Originally Posted by RxNotec View Post
    Not the same story though in the ATS v6 vs I4T.
    Because cadillac limited our torque with 13 and 14's.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    232

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    One more variable to throw out there is temperature and altitude. A 235i (320hp) would out accelarte an IS-F(400hp) a mile above sea level because of the turbo.

  8. #7
    exbagboy's Avatar
    exbagboy is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): ATS
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    449

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    ^Which is why I got the turbo in Colorado. Plus potential tune gains.

  9. #8
    donavo's Avatar
    donavo is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): ATS-V Coupe MT
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, Unite
    Age
    27
    Posts
    1,532

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    Quote Originally Posted by exbagboy View Post
    ^Which is why I got the turbo in Colorado. Plus potential tune gains.
    isnt colorado at a very high altitude?

  10. #9
    ben.gators is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Automobile(s): '14 ATS Premium with 3 pedals | Past: '13 ATS Performance & '99 Seville STS
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    somewhere good!
    Posts
    5,232

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    Quote Originally Posted by donavo View Post
    isnt colorado at a very high altitude?
    One mile above the sea. How I know: I watch "the fast lane car"
    http://www.tflcar.com/

    They are located in Denver and they always talk about the altitude of Denver and its effect on 0-60 time.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    232

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    Quote Originally Posted by ben.gators View Post
    One mile above the sea. How I know: I watch "the fast lane car"
    http://www.tflcar.com/

    They are located in Denver and they always talk about the altitude of Denver and its effect on 0-60 time.

    lol Yea that where I saw the 235i vs IS-F

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiT4aaEXN5o

  12. #11
    donavo's Avatar
    donavo is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): ATS-V Coupe MT
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, Unite
    Age
    27
    Posts
    1,532

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    well in that case the 2.0T would really suffer because of turbo. and the 3.6 would do better. am i wrong? turbo relies more on air density than NA. does it not?

  13. #12
    Guy.Seminerio is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): '79 coupe deville, '04 Deville DTS White Lightning
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Whitestone, NY
    Age
    28
    Posts
    3,211

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    Quote Originally Posted by donavo View Post
    well in that case the 2.0T would really suffer because of turbo. and the 3.6 would do better. am i wrong? turbo relies more on air density than NA. does it not?
    That was my impression.

    Also, I'm willing to bet that on say a 70-150 run, the 3.6 would walk away from the 2.0 stock.

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    232

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    Quote Originally Posted by donavo View Post
    well in that case the 2.0T would really suffer because of turbo. and the 3.6 would do better. am i wrong? turbo relies more on air density than NA. does it not?
    Other way around. At altitude the air is less dense and a turbo pressurizes air and makes it more dense again. although both suffer the turbo takes less of a hit. specially new turbos like ours that are torque managed which means the car will do anything including raising boost pressure to get the power and in the case of high altitude the turbo will work harder achieve power. While the NA has no way of compensating.

  15. #14
    donavo's Avatar
    donavo is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): ATS-V Coupe MT
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, Unite
    Age
    27
    Posts
    1,532

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnm05 View Post
    Other way around. At altitude the air is less dense and a turbo pressurizes air and makes it more dense again. although both suffer the turbo takes less of a hit. specially new turbos like ours that are torque managed which means the car will do anything including raising boost pressure to get the power and in the case of high altitude it will pump more air to achieve power. While the NA has no way of compensating.
    if that was true, y do i always hear about cold weather being boost weather or good for the turbo weather or "more horsepower" weather? colder air is dencer so that leads me to believe that dencer air has a bigger plus on a turbo engine....

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    232

    Re: cts 2.0 T faster than 3.6 0-60 .

    Quote Originally Posted by donavo View Post
    if that was true, y do i always hear about cold weather being boost weather or good for the turbo weather or "more horsepower" weather? colder air is dencer so that leads me to believe that dencer air has a bigger plus on a turbo engine....
    Denser air is good for both Turbos and N/A however when the air is thinner a turbo car can compensate by working the turbos harder and the N/A has no way to compensate. Also say the Ambient psi is 2 less than at sea level (made up number) the turbo can also compensate the 2psi while the N/A can't.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum