4.5 V8TT engine - Page 4
Cadillac
 

Cadillac Forums | Help Us Help You | Advertise | Cadillac Parts | Cadillac News | Cadillac Classifieds / (Old System)

Cadillac Technical Archive | Cadillac Dealers | Cadillac Reviews | Cadillac Dealer Reviews | Cadillac Vendors

CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 74
Like Tree13Likes
Cadillac ATS-V Series Forum Discussion, 4.5 V8TT engine in Cadillac V-Series Forums; The M5 V10 I heard sounded like a thrashy I4. But it was obviously a custom exhaust. One that was ...
  1. #46
    JimmyH is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    39
    Posts
    37,475

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    The M5 V10 I heard sounded like a thrashy I4. But it was obviously a custom exhaust. One that was done very poorly.

  2. #47
    Fraggy's Avatar
    Fraggy is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyH
    Has BMW ever made a decent sounding engine? I have yet to hear one. That V10 sounded like a sewing machine.
    You're high

    ----------

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xCtJVbJEHZg

    My old car
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WlKpW29...%3DWlKpW29G-Tw

  3. #48
    YoungBlood_STSV is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 2006 STS-V
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    257
    http://blogs.motortrend.com/first-ca...#axzz2dkmVTlwg

    The engine could also be the elusive Ultra V8 with a couple of low pressure turbos strapped on. The exact same setup all 3 Germans now bring to their luxury sedan.

    With so much invested in that engine last decade it would be a shame for it to never see production.

  4. #49
    Guy.Seminerio is online now Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2009 STS-V; 1979 Coupe Deville, 2012 Chevy Cruze Eco Manual
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Whitestone, NY
    Age
    26
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    I could definitely see this mystery engine being that "ultra v8" coming to fruition. GM could easily take a DOHC 4.5l engine and pull 600hp from it with forced induction. There are plenty of pros for a small block; size, weight, simplicity, reliability. But the DOHC adds refinement. Something you want in a Cadillac and I think GM agrees. I doubt you'd ever find a small block in a car like the Elmiraj. And while modern technology allows us to make the small block feel refined when necessary, it can make the DOHC engine feel that much better. There's also the perception of a small block vs DOHC. I don't like it either but face it, it matters. It would be great to see something like this in the ats-v and then a supercharged or turbocharged version in the new cts-v. Either way, Cadillac has to build this engine. GM can't have it's flagship sedan due in a couple of years, the LTS (the name makes my ears bleed) go up against the s550 and 750 with an LT1. That's the bottom line.

    About the ats-v, I believe v series engines should be EXCLUSIVE to the most performance oriented cars in GM. Top line vette, camaro, v series caddy. I think using the 2nd best engine in the cts as the engine in the ats-v is unacceptable. I can see the base engine in the cts (2.0 turbo) being the one up from base engine in the ats. That's fine. But when it comes to the v series, exclusivity is important. Bad move on GM if they decide to put cts vsport engine in ats-v.

    Also, I've read in recent pubs that the next m3 will in fact have a twin turbo v6, not the rumored tri turbo. Either way, GM does not need to follow in anyone's footsteps. I doubt BMW is saying "lets build our engines to line up with cadillac's engines." The pubs also say that they predict around 450hp with 0-60 in about 4.5 secs. Doubtful. 335 is about that fast. M3 will be much faster. CLEARLY, the 3.6 v6 cannot compete with BMW's 3.0 i6 with "300" HP so what cadillac needs to do is put the ttv6 in the ats but NOT as the ATS-v. As the ats vsport. Yes I know that messes with the cts vsport, but that can be addressed afterwards. The ttv6 in the ats-v would line It up with the 335i. Bottom line. No good. I predict the next m3 will hit 60 in under 4 seconds.

  5. #50
    rand49er's Avatar
    rand49er is online now Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): 2005 CTS-V, 2011 Cruze 1.4T 6MT
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Lyon, MI
    Age
    65
    Posts
    13,329

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy.Seminerio View Post
    I could definitely see this mystery engine being that "ultra v8" coming to fruition. GM could easily take a DOHC 4.5l engine and pull 600hp from it with forced induction. There are plenty of pros for a small block; size, weight, simplicity, reliability. But the DOHC adds refinement. Something you want in a Cadillac and I think GM agrees. I doubt you'd ever find a small block in a car like the Elmiraj. And while modern technology allows us to make the small block feel refined when necessary, it can make the DOHC engine feel that much better. There's also the perception of a small block vs DOHC. I don't like it either but face it, it matters. It would be great to see something like this in the ats-v and then a supercharged or turbocharged version in the new cts-v. Either way, Cadillac has to build this engine. GM can't have it's flagship sedan due in a couple of years, the LTS (the name makes my ears bleed) go up against the s550 and 750 with an LT1. That's the bottom line.

    About the ats-v, I believe v series engines should be EXCLUSIVE to the most performance oriented cars in GM. Top line vette, camaro, v series caddy. I think using the 2nd best engine in the cts as the engine in the ats-v is unacceptable. I can see the base engine in the cts (2.0 turbo) being the one up from base engine in the ats. That's fine. But when it comes to the v series, exclusivity is important. Bad move on GM if they decide to put cts vsport engine in ats-v.

    Also, I've read in recent pubs that the next m3 will in fact have a twin turbo v6, not the rumored tri turbo. Either way, GM does not need to follow in anyone's footsteps. I doubt BMW is saying "lets build our engines to line up with cadillac's engines." The pubs also say that they predict around 450hp with 0-60 in about 4.5 secs. Doubtful. 335 is about that fast. M3 will be much faster. CLEARLY, the 3.6 v6 cannot compete with BMW's 3.0 i6 with "300" HP so what cadillac needs to do is put the ttv6 in the ats but NOT as the ATS-v. As the ats vsport. Yes I know that messes with the cts vsport, but that can be addressed afterwards. The ttv6 in the ats-v would line It up with the 335i. Bottom line. No good. I predict the next m3 will hit 60 in under 4 seconds.
    The term "refinement" is subjective, and I'm not sure what you mean other than a DOHC, four-valve motor typically has lower valvetrain mass allowing it to rev higher and can have a volumetric efficiency advantage. This comes at the cost of complexity, higher repair costs, and requiring more head room. Cam-in-block vs DOHC is a tough choice for GM and may come down to, as you point out, the need to address public perception now and in the future.

    I like your idea about the V6TT not being in the ATS-V not that I'm alone in this opinion. In fact, to apply that concept more generally, let's have GM relegate the V6TT to Vsport-only status (XTS, CTS, & ATS) and to follow your proposal by putting "that ultra V8" with FI in the ATS-V. This would be done even though the heavier CTS Vsport seems to have exemplary performance numbers implying an LF3-equipped ATS (i.e. ATS-V) would be expected to be even faster.

    Assuming the ATS-V will be targeting the new M3 (and not an existing M3 or especially an older M3) and using only one metric of comparison for simplicity, low 4-second 0-60 would seem to be absolutely mandatory, 4.0 if possible. Could the new M3 indeed go under 4 sec? If that's the case, then that also has to be met or preferably exceeded in the ATS-V, IMHO. One can argue whether or not a new M3 will go 3.9 or faster (unless its AWD or BMW's engineers really have gone mental), but the point is the new ATS-V simply has to put the new M3 in second place in this regard even if all or most other metrics are in favor of the ATS-V. Anyway, that's my humble opinion.
    Guy.Seminerio likes this.
    '05 CTS-V, Maggie, Kooks, Hotchkis, Ground Control, Corsa, B&M, DSS/Hendrix, Full 3M Clear Bra, Autovation, V Headrests, CTS Console, STS-V 55w Fogs, Black Vette FRCs, Specter Werkes, Katech LS9 Clutch, SS Brake Lines, Heavymetals U-Turn Fuel Line Eliminator, Momo Combat Evo Shift Knob, Wldwhl Clear Sidemarkers, Linea Corse LC855 Wheels or OEM wheels w/'06-'07 Center Caps, plus a couple more. 472 RWHP/411 RWTQ (Mustang Dyno).

  6. #51
    RippyPartsDept's Avatar
    RippyPartsDept is offline Hi, I'm Chris - Please Read My Signature
    Automobile(s): 1999 DeVille "Bianca" (white/blue, VIN-Y, 160k)
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Age
    34
    Posts
    13,998

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    Quote Originally Posted by rand49er View Post
    but the point is the new ATS-V simply has to put the new M3 in second place in this regard even if all or most other metrics are in favor of the ATS-V.
    Why?

    i'm curious as to your reasoning here
    1) Why pick that single metric? what's so all-important about this metric?
    2) Why must we "simply" put the M3 in second place in this metric?
    Chris Heath (RippyPartsDept) is an ASE Certified GM Parts Consultant at Rippy Automotive
    Rippy is a Cadillac, Hummer, Saturn & Saab dealership & Official Saab Service Center
    ~~ Family owned and operated in Wilmington, NC since 1946 ~~
    We offer all forum members discounts on parts and freight
    phone: 800-RIPPY-22
    <-- insert standard boilerplate about posts not necessarily representing my employer, etc -->

  7. #52
    JimmyH is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    39
    Posts
    37,475

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    In some tests, the V-sports acceleration looks great. In others it looks disappointing. Need more tests to be sure about that turbo 6.

  8. #53
    JFJr's Avatar
    JFJr is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2009 CTS-V (TR-6060, Black Raven/Ebony, Recaros, Ultraview)
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Age
    71
    Posts
    1,431
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyH
    In some tests, the V-sports acceleration looks great. In others it looks disappointing. Need more tests to be sure about that turbo 6.
    I hope that the TTV6 as a Vsport option is a success, acceleration tests notwithstanding. It's not for me but will make the country-club-type set happy and they're a lot more plentiful than real car guys. As others have said before, that gives Cadillac more money for development of the true V's for the car guys, too. And now car guys are an important part of the mix for Cadillac's future success. I hope that they build the Elmiraj and a V version, too (16 cyl. ala "16"), as long as they stay profitable.

    Jud
    Jud

  9. #54
    Guy.Seminerio is online now Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2009 STS-V; 1979 Coupe Deville, 2012 Chevy Cruze Eco Manual
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Whitestone, NY
    Age
    26
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    Chris, I agree that the ats-v should be able to walk away from the m3 in a straight line, especially after the ats 2.0 and 3.6 are embarrassed by the 328 and 335i respectively. But I definitely also agree that it needs to trump m3 in many other areas, namely handling. But with the "lesser" ats cars are embarrassing the 3 series in the handling department, I have no doubt the ats-v will trump the m3 in that respect.

  10. #55
    rand49er's Avatar
    rand49er is online now Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): 2005 CTS-V, 2011 Cruze 1.4T 6MT
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Lyon, MI
    Age
    65
    Posts
    13,329

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    Looks like the 4.5 V8TT is coming.

    http://www.carscoops.com/2013/09/we-...turbo-for.html

    ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by RippyPartsDept View Post
    Why?

    i'm curious as to your reasoning here
    1) Why pick that single metric? what's so all-important about this metric?
    2) Why must we "simply" put the M3 in second place in this metric?
    Because 0-60 times seem to be touted more than anything else. I may be wrong, but that's the way it seems.

    Given that assumption, it has to beat the M3 in this highly-touted, high-visibility measurement because any flaw on the part of the ATS-V vis-a-vis the M3 will be highlighted and stressed ad nauseum by all the rags who feel BMW can do no wrong. Again, I may be wrong, but that's the way it seems.
    '05 CTS-V, Maggie, Kooks, Hotchkis, Ground Control, Corsa, B&M, DSS/Hendrix, Full 3M Clear Bra, Autovation, V Headrests, CTS Console, STS-V 55w Fogs, Black Vette FRCs, Specter Werkes, Katech LS9 Clutch, SS Brake Lines, Heavymetals U-Turn Fuel Line Eliminator, Momo Combat Evo Shift Knob, Wldwhl Clear Sidemarkers, Linea Corse LC855 Wheels or OEM wheels w/'06-'07 Center Caps, plus a couple more. 472 RWHP/411 RWTQ (Mustang Dyno).

  11. #56
    roadpie4u is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): ATS 2.0 M6 FE3
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    296

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    Quote Originally Posted by rand49er View Post
    Looks like the 4.5 V8TT is coming.

    http://www.carscoops.com/2013/09/we-...turbo-for.html[COLOR="Silver"]
    That article also mentions a new 3 liter turbo V6 in the lineup - an engine that by all accounts makes even less sense than a 4.5L TT...

    GM phased out the 3.0L displacement - it is obsolete and served no purpose other than increasing GM Powertrain's design budget and capital overhead costs.

    A few years ago, the rumor was GM was going to put out a 3.0L TT. The belief was they would use the smaller displacement in order to (1) get better emissions, (2) better fuel economy, and (3) the thicker cylinder walls would increase the longevity of the engine - all to slot between the 3.6 and the 6.2. GM wanted to bring Opel's TTV6 straight over here, but it had a hard time hitting our emissions and the engine was too thirsty and had questionable reliability on our fuel and driving habits - but GM brought over Opel engineers to North America - and the thought was they would develop a new TTV6 with Opel's knowledge and experience.

    Before TTV6 development even really began, GM had the 3.6L DI and 3.0L DI (normally aspirated) engines side by side in mules - and the smaller displacement offered no major advantages on paper (fuel ecomomy, emissions, reliability, power, NVH) compared to its bigger counterpart, and the 3.0L was shelved from GM's product offerings... Now many still expected to see the 3.0 live on as a TTV6 thanks to its thicker cylinder walls - but the introduction of the 3.6L TT proves GM was able to make their reliability targets with the larger displacements - nailing the coffin on the 3.0L.

    Moving forward from what we know today (3.6L N/A@320hp and 3.6L TT@420hp)...

    We know GM is developing a new V6 architecture, rumored to also be a 3.6L, to upgrade the LFX with the latest combustion tech. GM isn't going to keep multiple displacements unless it absolutely has to (and if they do, I think they're idiots), and a 3.0L N/A would be sitting at just about 300hp - which puts it at overlap with the LTG making no sense - and a 3.0L TT V6 would put the engine at 350-375hp, and the next gen 3.6L N/A is expected to push 350hp anyway, putting it as a SERIOUSLY expensive alternate engine for only a few hp more.

    The theory used to be that smaller displacements got better emissions and fuel economy, but with the advent of 6 and 8 speed automatics and direct injection, those advantages are largely diminished - if they exist anymore at all.

    Also, using some armchair maths. Take this with a grain of salt. I do, and I just wrote it:

    2.0L TT - 270hp - 135hp/liter
    3.6L TT - 420hp - 116hp/liter
    6.2L SC - 550hp - 89hp/liter (LSA)
    6.2L SC - 640hp - 103hp/liter (LS9)

    6.2L NA - 420hp - 68hp/liter (LS3)
    6.2L NA - 450hp - 73hp/liter (LT1)

    Typically, increasing displacement on a boosted engine (meeting reliability targets) mean a decreasing curve on your horsepower per liter - but if GM was able to match that of their current OHC offerings, a 4.5L OHC TT would put out between 520 and 610hp - which makes a LOT of sense as the LT1 spits out 450hp and it'd slot above it.

    But when a boosted variant of the LT1 could spin anywhere between 550hp to 670hp, the 4.5L TT ONLY makes sense as a "one off" engine on super expensive halo cars... You'd need all unique castings for a pretty darn high strung engine that you likely wouldn't even want to do in high volume - exotic car engines aren't known for lasting hundreds of thousands of miles without a LOT of maintenance.

    And then riddle me this - the Z06 guys love the raw power (and sound) of the LS7. It fits the Corvette, so a "ferrari" sounding engine would get away from the "American muscle" sound that the Vette is known for. I think a 600hp OHV TT in a Vette makes more sense than a 4.5L OHC TT, and it'd likely be a cheaper engine.

    What about a high-end Cadillac flagship? If GM is serious about high end "money nearly no object" then keep an engine unique to Cadillac's flagships and be done with it - keep it out of Corvette. But will GM's bean counters let it happen? Will the still living "old GM" faces within the new company keep such things from happening?

    Hard to say. But if I were Reuss and the 3rd gen CTS launches well alongside a "still strong" ATS and XTS lineup - if Cadillac keeps growing and gaining ground - I'd go for the throat in one shot - put all of Cadillac's progress on one shot - and release a large sedan along side a mid engine hypercar at the same time. That's what I'd use the 4.5L TT V8 for. Good luck trying to get that through the board though.
    Guy.Seminerio likes this.

  12. #57
    rand49er's Avatar
    rand49er is online now Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): 2005 CTS-V, 2011 Cruze 1.4T 6MT
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Lyon, MI
    Age
    65
    Posts
    13,329

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    Quote Originally Posted by roadpie4u View Post
    That article also mentions a new 3 liter turbo V6 in the lineup - an engine that by all accounts makes even less sense than a 4.5L TT...

    GM phased out the 3.0L displacement - it is obsolete and served no purpose other than increasing GM Powertrain's design budget and capital overhead costs.

    A few years ago, the rumor was GM was going to put out a 3.0L TT. The belief was they would use the smaller displacement in order to (1) get better emissions, (2) better fuel economy, and (3) the thicker cylinder walls would increase the longevity of the engine - all to slot between the 3.6 and the 6.2. GM wanted to bring Opel's TTV6 straight over here, but it had a hard time hitting our emissions and the engine was too thirsty and had questionable reliability on our fuel and driving habits - but GM brought over Opel engineers to North America - and the thought was they would develop a new TTV6 with Opel's knowledge and experience.

    Before TTV6 development even really began, GM had the 3.6L DI and 3.0L DI (normally aspirated) engines side by side in mules - and the smaller displacement offered no major advantages on paper (fuel ecomomy, emissions, reliability, power, NVH) compared to its bigger counterpart, and the 3.0L was shelved from GM's product offerings... Now many still expected to see the 3.0 live on as a TTV6 thanks to its thicker cylinder walls - but the introduction of the 3.6L TT proves GM was able to make their reliability targets with the larger displacements - nailing the coffin on the 3.0L.

    Moving forward from what we know today (3.6L N/A@320hp and 3.6L TT@420hp)...

    We know GM is developing a new V6 architecture, rumored to also be a 3.6L, to upgrade the LFX with the latest combustion tech. GM isn't going to keep multiple displacements unless it absolutely has to (and if they do, I think they're idiots), and a 3.0L N/A would be sitting at just about 300hp - which puts it at overlap with the LTG making no sense - and a 3.0L TT V6 would put the engine at 350-375hp, and the next gen 3.6L N/A is expected to push 350hp anyway, putting it as a SERIOUSLY expensive alternate engine for only a few hp more.

    The theory used to be that smaller displacements got better emissions and fuel economy, but with the advent of 6 and 8 speed automatics and direct injection, those advantages are largely diminished - if they exist anymore at all.

    Also, using some armchair maths. Take this with a grain of salt. I do, and I just wrote it:

    2.0L TT - 270hp - 135hp/liter
    3.6L TT - 420hp - 116hp/liter
    6.2L SC - 550hp - 89hp/liter (LSA)
    6.2L SC - 640hp - 103hp/liter (LS9)

    6.2L NA - 420hp - 68hp/liter (LS3)
    6.2L NA - 450hp - 73hp/liter (LT1)

    Typically, increasing displacement on a boosted engine (meeting reliability targets) mean a decreasing curve on your horsepower per liter - but if GM was able to match that of their current OHC offerings, a 4.5L OHC TT would put out between 520 and 610hp - which makes a LOT of sense as the LT1 spits out 450hp and it'd slot above it.

    But when a boosted variant of the LT1 could spin anywhere between 550hp to 670hp, the 4.5L TT ONLY makes sense as a "one off" engine on super expensive halo cars... You'd need all unique castings for a pretty darn high strung engine that you likely wouldn't even want to do in high volume - exotic car engines aren't known for lasting hundreds of thousands of miles without a LOT of maintenance.

    And then riddle me this - the Z06 guys love the raw power (and sound) of the LS7. It fits the Corvette, so a "ferrari" sounding engine would get away from the "American muscle" sound that the Vette is known for. I think a 600hp OHV TT in a Vette makes more sense than a 4.5L OHC TT, and it'd likely be a cheaper engine.

    What about a high-end Cadillac flagship? If GM is serious about high end "money nearly no object" then keep an engine unique to Cadillac's flagships and be done with it - keep it out of Corvette. But will GM's bean counters let it happen? Will the still living "old GM" faces within the new company keep such things from happening?

    Hard to say. But if I were Reuss and the 3rd gen CTS launches well alongside a "still strong" ATS and XTS lineup - if Cadillac keeps growing and gaining ground - I'd go for the throat in one shot - put all of Cadillac's progress on one shot - and release a large sedan along side a mid engine hypercar at the same time. That's what I'd use the 4.5L TT V8 for. Good luck trying to get that through the board though.
    I believe the 3.0L motor is a new motor ... at least that's what I read on gminsidenews. You're right about the older 3.0 being disliked by consumers because it just didn't have enough fuel economy advantage and lacked the power people liked (at least in the SRX application anyway).

    Just one or two comments on your armchair math. Remember that those smaller motors are four valves per cyl and DOHC while those 6.2L motors aren't thus the 2.0 and 3.6 have a slight volumetric efficiency advantage and lower valvetrain mass theoretically allowing them to rev higher (though I didn't check to see if their hp ratings came at a higher RPM).

    I think GM knows that they can't be doing any risky moves now or in the foreseeable future. I think they've got a plan -- a darned good plan -- and they're following it quite well while revising it to fit what they've learned while implementing it. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that plan has the ATS-V being equipped with the LF3 motor and not a 4.5 V8TT, and it's not going to be enough to slamdunk the competition. I hope I'm wrong.
    Guy.Seminerio likes this.
    '05 CTS-V, Maggie, Kooks, Hotchkis, Ground Control, Corsa, B&M, DSS/Hendrix, Full 3M Clear Bra, Autovation, V Headrests, CTS Console, STS-V 55w Fogs, Black Vette FRCs, Specter Werkes, Katech LS9 Clutch, SS Brake Lines, Heavymetals U-Turn Fuel Line Eliminator, Momo Combat Evo Shift Knob, Wldwhl Clear Sidemarkers, Linea Corse LC855 Wheels or OEM wheels w/'06-'07 Center Caps, plus a couple more. 472 RWHP/411 RWTQ (Mustang Dyno).

  13. #58
    Guy.Seminerio is online now Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2009 STS-V; 1979 Coupe Deville, 2012 Chevy Cruze Eco Manual
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Whitestone, NY
    Age
    26
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    Agreed. Keep that lf3 out of ats-v. Also, your armchair math, the 2 turbo pushes 295hp in the new cts.

  14. #59
    roadpie4u is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): ATS 2.0 M6 FE3
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    296

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    Quote Originally Posted by rand49er View Post
    Remember that those smaller motors are four valves per cyl and DOHC while those 6.2L motors aren't thus the 2.0 and 3.6 have a slight volumetric efficiency advantage and lower valvetrain mass theoretically allowing them to rev higher
    The only way they can get 600hp out of a 4.5L TT is to get the same volumetric efficiency as they do out of the LTG and I accounted for that in my swags - but the limiting question comes into how much heat you can get out of the engine - one could say you'd be trying to pump nearly twice the heat out of the engine as an LTG - and the LTG shows a lot of sensitivity to ambient temperature when at WOT already - its not like they can stuff a huge cooling package into an ATS engine bay.

    Maybe I'm just getting old in my young age, but I think a 3.6TT in the ATS-V with 440hp is fine as long as they give me a really nice manual transmission. People jump up and down about how much power something needs to have, but a Z06 and a CTS-V are pretty much unusable on the street unless you like going to WOT for like three seconds as you roll onto a highway onramp. Yippee. Can I get something more usable please? More fun? Maybe more than a blip of the throttle and done? Sure a CTS-V is monster fast - but it also does pretty poorly on emissions and fuel economy. There's no reason a 3.6TT ATS-V couldn't be rated at nearly 30mpg highway with an 8spd transmission.
    Quote Originally Posted by rand49er View Post
    You're right about the older 3.0 being disliked by consumers because it just didn't have enough fuel economy advantage and lacked the power people liked (at least in the SRX application anyway).
    You know where I loved the 3.0 though? In the CTS. IMHO it was vastly superior to the LLT. Sure, it was down on power, no advantage to mpg or emissions, but with the shorter stroke (just like two tenths of an inch, I know, but trust me) it just wanted to be revved more and felt way more "alive" than the "lazy" 3.6L.

    Its like driving a Z06 versus a BRZ. You can legally get to redline in really only one gear on the Z06. Two if you're pushing speed limits. You can't legally drive a Z06 anywhere even close to thinking about maybe bothering to think about its potential. But a BRZ? You can redline the snot out of it, you can beat it to death. You can take the car to nearly its limits. Sure, you're slower - but you're having a LOT of fun doing it.

    Which is again, why I think a the TT3.6 is plenty in the ATS-V. Sure, the rags will nag about it, but at the end of the day they're going to nag and complain about ANYTHING challenging the M3 because they have to hold up the stigma that the M3 is and will always be king. So let them complain about 0-60 and quarter mile times. You know why? I've never taken my ATS to a strip - but on street tires compared to a spanking new 328i (a buddy of mine has one) it doesn't embarrass my ATS in any way. On the street it's all reaction time and driver skill to hook on street tires - and whenever we go against each other its pretty much 50/50 who is going to win.

  15. #60
    rand49er's Avatar
    rand49er is online now Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): 2005 CTS-V, 2011 Cruze 1.4T 6MT
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Lyon, MI
    Age
    65
    Posts
    13,329

    Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

    Quote Originally Posted by roadpie4u View Post
    ... Maybe I'm just getting old in my young age ...
    Yes, you are, because you indeed DO need all that extra power.

    You need it for bragging purposes!
    '05 CTS-V, Maggie, Kooks, Hotchkis, Ground Control, Corsa, B&M, DSS/Hendrix, Full 3M Clear Bra, Autovation, V Headrests, CTS Console, STS-V 55w Fogs, Black Vette FRCs, Specter Werkes, Katech LS9 Clutch, SS Brake Lines, Heavymetals U-Turn Fuel Line Eliminator, Momo Combat Evo Shift Knob, Wldwhl Clear Sidemarkers, Linea Corse LC855 Wheels or OEM wheels w/'06-'07 Center Caps, plus a couple more. 472 RWHP/411 RWTQ (Mustang Dyno).

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting