Cadillac Owners Forum banner

4.5 V8TT engine

16K views 73 replies 19 participants last post by  Guy.Seminerio 
#1 ·
Today on leftlanenews.com there is an article on a new Cad concept with a 4.5 V8TT engine producing 500/500 hp/torque. Here is a perfect motor for the ATS-V. :cool2:
 
#4 ·
I was disappointed... IN THE PRESS RELEASE. Nothing technical! Cadillac could've explained what chassis was used, how many speeds the transmission is... Or even the paint process!! (That blue... Perfect.)

But you're right. Just based on numbers, that TTV8 would be a great fit in the ATS-V. I'll take those hood vents also.
 
#5 ·
Why go through the effort of creating a unique road engine (4.5L) when you could just, you know, make a boosted version of the LT1 and be done with it?

Just, you know, sayin. If GM was going to boost a V8 from the factory, they'll save money and use the larger volume 6.2L as a starting point... :shhh:
 
#6 ·
roadpie4u said:
Why go through the effort of creating a unique road engine (4.5L) when you could just, you know, make a boosted version of the LT1 and be done with it?

Just, you know, sayin. If GM was going to boost a V8 from the factory, they'll save money and use the larger volume 6.2L as a starting point... :shhh:
Yes, well we don't want to usurp the omniscient GM marketing department, they know best. Ha haa!

Jud
 
#7 ·
So, no news about no. of valves per cylinder, is it DOHC? I'm assuming it's DI, VVT, and has active fuel managment (i.e. DOD). Is the design like the 3.6TT with the integrated turbos?

Man, I hate when they do this!

But, the thought of a 4.5L twin turbo V8? Well, that sounds like heaven. :cloud9:
 
#8 ·
Possibly it's a new engine in development to be used throughout GM. New CAFE rules mean eventually all engines will get smaller. I would like to know engine dimensions, weight, etc. to see if it's a smaller form factor V8, not just another in the 4.8, 5.3, 6.2 (etc) size block.
 
#9 ·
It's marketing nonsense. GM has yet to release the genV on large scale, and the next generation of v8 engines from GM is a *long* way off.

The problem is for a given displacement, having more cylinders means more friction and pumping losses. A 4L v8 will nearly always have more losses than a 4L v6. Higher power, of course, but less efficiency. If reducing displacement was entirely a function of efficiency, the 4.5L makes no sense - especially when the coming TTV6 already is capable of this power output with a liter less displacement... But a small TTV8 sounds good for marketing.

The first word of GM doing a major V8 change was for the prototype Direct Injected Escalade - in middle 2007. Now, 6 years later, the first GenV V8 is ...almost here.

The only other potential displacement is the often rumored 5.5L, but realistically that's just an execution for racing.

Back to that prototype Escalade - the engineer quoted said the engine was capable of "we'll north of 450hp" from the DI 6.2 OHC - and the final product in the C7 Corvette with the TR6070 it's getting a 30mpg window sticker.
 
#17 ·
Well, if they offer the TR 6070 and tune the exhaust of that buzzy insect to sound more like a V8, I might test drive one. I don't understand the need to copy the Germans; the magnetically controlled shocks in the V are not the same used by BMW, so why can't the engine have more cylinders? (I realize that licensing comes into play. Ferrari?) We need to have our own brand identity and lead rather than follow.

I may put 150,000 miles on my V waiting for the V3.

Jud
 
#18 ·
i don't think BMW even offers a magnetic ride control
they definitely don't license MagneRide from BWI (formerly the intellectual property of Delphi)
I assume they don't use MagneRide because of it's GM roots and the perception that would create
they have their own active suspension that is basically like the older CVRSS system used in our pre-MagneRide active suspensions
 
#22 ·
That's a pretty false statement - BMW sells plenty of M3s when the 540i is right nearby. Also, BMW doesn't need to sell nearly as many M3's as they do 540is to make their budgets and sales targets.

Also? I would. I feel like the CTS is too freaking big. My ATS feels like a glove and I like that. The ONLY reason I'm considering the ATS-V over just upgrading my ATS is the potential other toys that might come on it - there's more than just who has more power.
ATS-V is targeting the M3. M3 is going back to turbo 6. So ATS-V must be turbo 6. GM is just hoping the small percentage of BMW buyers who actually understand how an engine works won't notice the cylinder configuration.
No. The decision to go to the TT6 was actually made (internally, within GM) before it was announced the M3 was going down to a TTT6 (I still love that tri turbo line!) as well. There are plenty of good reasons the TTV6 was selected (which have all been beaten to death elsewhere in the web). I know there are plenty of those out there that disagree and will miss the V8 rumble (myself included!!) but this is the best foot forward for a LOT of reasons, and I'm glad they went that direction in the end, despite the consequences - and believe it or not - one of the biggest reasons was this thing called "Camaro".
 
#36 · (Edited)
They may only come in DCT form over in Europe, but to say that the M3/M4 will not be sold anywhere (ie MERICA) without a Manual is 100% false.

some of the earliest spy photos of the F80 and F82 are with manual transmissions. Leftlane is quoting an autoblog post that's just plain wrong.

BMW disenfranchised a lot of loyalists changing the 3 coupe to the 4 series, and it just doesn't roll off the tongue the same. Still, the manual transmission is more a relic than ever - they used to be more fuel efficient and faster than an automatic transmission car - but now that is the opposite and the auto sips better and is usually faster (sometimes by a lot). Beyond that they have the advantage of torque management and generally better control of engine power/delivery - especially in high speed response applications like stability control events.

Though, it should be said Porsche also ditched the clutch pedal for their latest and greatest as well. It's incredible how far the "purists" must go for that "old fashioned" clutch. Personally, I acknowledged that the M6 would suck more gas than the A6. It'd be harder to deal with in snow. It might be harder to sell or trade in. And maybe it'd even be slower. But I didn't rightly care because it's just more fun.

That and I love how many people are shocked it's a Cadillac.... with a manual transmission.
Automatics being as 'good' as a manual isn't strictly a recent development. The 700R4 in my C4 was acutally better than the crappy doug nash 4+3 used in the Platform prior, and 'on par with' the ZF 6 speed in terms of acceleration and fuel economy in the face-life models, and that was 30 years ago.

The decline of the manual transmission has more to do with the proliferation of the way our culture is evolving in my opinion. Our interstate and public road infrastructure is spiraling between rapid decay and over-use, and we're certainly not making fewer babies than we were 30 years ago. A car has a significantly diminished meaning compared to the 'golden' years, whatever those are. Gas and insurance are expensive, new cars themselves are expensive (ask GM why 'millennials' aren't buying their compacts) and kids coming out of college these days have a 30 year mortgage worth of student loans to pay off.

Put all of this together and it's easy to see why the average age of a car on the roadway is 10+ years old.

So then, who buys new cars? middle aged+ people, and those people have had their 'manual trans' fun days. At this point they just want something they can get in and go. The fact that DCT's and autos are advertised as efficient and fast transmissions is even more reason to ditch a suck-ass manual with 30 minutes of stop and go every work day and might even hurt resale.
 
#26 · (Edited)
The markets for a 528-550i(no 540i in the US) and a M3 are WORLDS apart. Not to mention they ride on different chassis.

The ATS-V must bring a LOT of exotic material/component incorporation to create a clear separation from the CTS Vsport. But for me it really starts with the motor.

V>Vsport... Not V≈Vsport
 
#28 ·
The notion of V8 proliferation is warranted. But the idea that it also applies to the LF3 is far-fetched. Face it, the ATS-V will be a low volume automobile. If GM is hard pressed to recoup whatever LF3 R&D funds used it would be best done with placing that powertrain in a vehicle/trim that they will manufacture and subsequently sell more frequently.

And there has been no talk of the LF3 making its way into GM's light duty trucks.
 
#29 · (Edited)
roadpie4u said:
That's a pretty false statement - BMW sells plenty of M3s when the 540i is right nearby. Also, BMW doesn't need to sell nearly as many M3's as they do 540is to make their budgets and sales targets.

Also? I would. I feel like the CTS is too freaking big. My ATS feels like a glove and I like that. The ONLY reason I'm considering the ATS-V over just upgrading my ATS is the potential other toys that might come on it - there's more than just who has more power.

No. The decision to go to the TT6 was actually made (internally, within GM) before it was announced the M3 was going down to a TTT6 (I still love that tri turbo line!) as well. There are plenty of good reasons the TTV6 was selected (which have all been beaten to death elsewhere in the web). I know there are plenty of those out there that disagree and will miss the V8 rumble (myself included!!) but this is the best foot forward for a LOT of reasons, and I'm glad they went that direction in the end, despite the consequences - and believe it or not - one of the biggest reasons was this thing called "Camaro".
On really

Camaro/firebird vs corvette

Impala vs Grand Am

Monte Carlo vs Gran Prix

Deville DTS vs Seville STS

Shall I continue?

This isn't a car with a cult like following its a new car that odds are one will be marketed over another causing in the failure of the other. How about more recently the STS vs CTS?
 
#30 ·
The problem is you're making generalizations about vehicles that share powertrain compared to one another - Camaro vs Firebird, which makes sense, but putting the same engine in two different cars doesn't matter.

But that's not even the point. This debate is about powertrain choices on a low volume trim versus a totally separate model low volume trim.

By your logic, BMW steals sales from itself by offering a 335i and 535i. Heck, by your logic, the Malibu steals sales from an ATS because it also gets an LTG. By your logic the base CTS with the 2.0T steals sales from the ATS (or vice versa...).

In perspective, of the 4th gen Camaros, the SS w/T56 accounted for less than 1% of the sales volume of the Fbody - barely any to notice - so sales stealing to and from the Corvette isn't really a consideration when you're talking fractions of percents of volumes that determine the uptake on a trim package. Now if you wanted to say the Camaro SS vs Trans Am, then you'd be right - that's the problem with making the same car with just a badge difference. In the case of this thread, we're talking about different cars entirely, just sharing the same platform.

Your point is also invalid here because the Pontiac Aztek and Chevrolet SSR were sales success stores. How, you say? Because both cars had a sales target in order to justify their engineering budgets. If they sold less than that, they'd lose GM money. If they sell more, profit. Both sold above expectations and justified their development budgets.

Camaro and Firebird were both failures in the end, which is why the program was cancelled.

But if we want to split hairs, the point is that a buyer looking at an M3 isn't really considering looking at a 550i or vice versa. Those that want an M3 want an M3. It is a low-volume option that isn't intended to sell in large numbers - it just has to pay for its existence. Those looking at a 550i AREN'T going to look at an M3.

You will have VERY few exceptions to this rule. You'll have some crossing where someone looks at an ATS 2.0T and a CTS 2.0T, but you WONT see a lot of cross shopping between an ATS-V and a CTS VSport and the options/equipment on the car will even help differentiate. The number of "stolen sales" is very very small, to the point where you're talking about the same style of customer that cross shops a pickup truck and a sedan - which happens - but is the exception and not the rule.

There was a study done in 2010 where 80% of BMW 1 series owners & drivers thought their car was front wheel drive. Do you think people even realize that two cars share the same engine? Do you know how many people even know that Lexus is owned by Toyota? Seriously, I could also go on.

It's all irrelevant anyway - because the CTS VSport won't be a high volume trim and neither will the ATS-V. Both will exist and both will have very low sales targets.
 
#31 ·
All new cars that had piss poor marketing. Did Chevy advertise the Camaro SS? How about the SSR? I recall 1 preproduction commercial with it fish tailing onto a car loader. And you bet your ass the z28 and trans am (I think you meant to compare the SS and firehawk low volume sales) stole sales from the Vette. GM advertised it as a different hp rating but an Ls1 is an ls1. The hp hike on the firehawk and ss due to ram air was just complete bs they all dyno the same. They underrated it to avoid pirating Vette sales which were a mere $20-25k more than the fbody.
 
#32 ·
All new cars that had piss poor marketing. Did Chevy advertise the Camaro SS? How about the SSR?
GM's advertising has been a giant fit for a decade. Everyone remember the "little brother" commercials between the Corvette and the Cobalt SS? I remember on the Camaro forums we were all hoping those would last another year or two till the 5th gen Camaro came out - you'd have the "respectable older brother", "the kid brother", and the "burnout donut delinquint brother". Where did that series go? Some consumer groups felt it was telling kids to bump and rear end other cars, and demanded Chevy pull them.

Or what about the little girl and boy in their seats that suddenly were driving vettes through city streets and then both flying over a hill in opposite directions high fived each other? Also pulled for apprently "teaching kids to drive too fast".

Rubbish. When I was a 10 year old boy I imagined doing stuff WAY more dangerous and awesome than that. Those commercials were tame by comparison - but they stirred that sense of youthful fun and imagination, and for that they were great.

Now it should also be said those same consumer groups also don't scream and yell about the lexus commercials when they fly through parking garages and such backwards. Not to say a lot of the people making those complaints are biased consumer reports reading thickheads with an axe to grind ... but they sorta are.
And you bet your ass the z28 and trans am (I think you meant to compare the SS and firehawk low volume sales) stole sales from the Vette
With the Camaro on its deathbed from 2000-2002, I'm sorta glad it got every last sale it could before it died. Truth be told, to this day Camaro still steals some potential Vette sales - but that's planned overlap. There's a branch within GM that has (for decades) tried to remedy this by pushing the Corvette farther and farther up the price point into more exotic territory - where variants like the Z06 and ZR1 have spawned from - in order to eliminate this gap - and while I would love to see where they'd take Corvette in doing so, I still sorta like where it is.
 
#33 ·
We might disagree about some things on this forum, but Cadillac, please make the ATS-V a car that car guys can love; an insect-sounding engine is not the answer, no matter that the German 6's sound like bumble bees. Car guys should have a choice and shouldn't be relegated to European-designed crap. Don't screw up this opportunity.

Jud
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top