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:
You're highJimmyH said:Has BMW ever made a decent sounding engine? I have yet to hear one. That V10 sounded like a sewing machine.
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).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GM phased out the 3.0L displacement - it is obsolete and served no purpose other than increasing GM Powertrain's design budget and capital overhead costs.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.
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.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
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.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).
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.JimmyH said:In some tests, the V-sports acceleration looks great. In others it looks disappointing. Need more tests to be sure about that turbo 6.