03 CTS 3.2L vs. 06 CTS 3.6L....

[NTIMD8]

Don't feel too bad... the v's make us feel the same way. LOL
Although I didn't buy the CTS for speed but still wanted enough passing power for a daily driver.

[MemberX]

Originally Posted by okiwont

Not only having lower rear end gears but the 3.2 Manuals are approx. 200-300lbs lighter. I wouldn't be so quick to think the 3.2 with manuals are slower.

I doubt that, don't forget the 3.2 has an iron block whereas the 3.6 has an aluminum block.

[RobertCTS]

Originally Posted by AznPrydeRegalRyde

Bob, you forget that the 3.2L manual came with a 3.73 rear end. Whereas the rest of us non-V's got the 3.43 rear end. A 3.2L manual will surprise many 3.6L owners.

About the engines...

The 2.6L was a version of the 3.0L opel engine, just like the 3.2L. N.America never recieved this.
The 2.8L is just a lower version of the 3.6L.

Gears are nice but not enough to CYA for 35 HP Regal.

[FZ1 Rider]

Originally Posted by RobertCTS

Your safe 3x0. Buckeyes aren't allowed in Michigan.

If that's true, then how come all the UM football players are from Ohio, and all the OU football players are from Michigan?

I'm happy with the power of the 3.2 in my CTS..if I want a power rush I just climb on the FZ1..anybody got a CTS (V's included) that want to race?

Curt

[CadiKing2006]

hey guys how about 3.2L with volant and borla vs stock 3.6L engine?

i think that would be equal rite?

[RobertCTS]

Originally Posted by CadiKing2006

hey guys how about 3.2L with volant and borla vs stock 3.6L engine?

i think that would be equal rite?

35HP difference. Borla& Volant good for 25HP tops. Sorry, no cigar

[AznPrydeRegalRyde]

Originally Posted by FZ1 Rider

I'm happy with the power of the 3.2 in my CTS..if I want a power rush I just climb on the FZ1..anybody got a CTS (V's included) that want to race?
Curt

FZ1? My GF has an FZ1. Men ride R1's

[AznPrydeRegalRyde]

Originally Posted by CadiKing2006

hey guys how about 3.2L with volant and borla vs stock 3.6L engine?

i think that would be equal rite?

Yes, that would be a pretty close match. Don't listen to Bob, he only believes what Ody or Pete say Which is understandable, he's old...old people believe that old people are smarter

On an auto? Probably not. But considering the best 1/4 mile pulled by the 3.6L is a 14.9. And the best 1/4 pulled by the 3.2L manual is 15.2 (stock), I'd say with borla and volant, it would be a good race (3.2L MANUAL with borla/volant of course). Both cars, STOCK, are under 7 secs. And if the 3.6L is a manny tranny (like mine) its a drivers race. Half a second isn't a big gap at these speeds, let alone .3 sec.

[RobertCTS]

Originally Posted by AznPrydeRegalRyde

Yes, that would be a pretty close match. Don't listen to Bob, he only believes what Ody or Pete say Which is understandable, he's old...old people believe that old people are smarter

On an auto? Probably not. But considering the best 1/4 mile pulled by the 3.6L is a 14.9. And the best 1/4 pulled by the 3.2L manual is 15.2 (stock), I'd say with borla and volant, it would be a good race (3.2L MANUAL with borla/volant of course). Both cars, STOCK, are under 7 secs. And if the 3.6L is a manny tranny (like mine) its a drivers race. Half a second isn't a big gap at these speeds, let alone .3 sec.

With age comes wisdom GRASSHOPPER It's why I know more than you

[DDS rollin a CTS]

Originally Posted by CadiKing2006

hey guys how about 3.2L with volant and borla vs stock 3.6L engine?

i think that would be equal rite?

Perhaps...but I think a 3.2 auto with a volant and v-exhaust would trump all!

...at least thats what I'm going to believe since thats what I got.

[RobertCTS]

Originally Posted by DDS rollin a CTS

Perhaps...but I think a 3.2 auto with a volant and v-exhaust would trump all!

...at least thats what I'm going to believe since thats what I got.

Hey Doc,
At the next Ohio Meet at German Village we can line our cars up on Kossuth Street and settle this in front of member witnesses. Loser buys beer at Schmids.

[odysseus]

The 3.2L with volant and Borla put out 200 RWHP on my car with the 5 speed. The stock 3.6L with an automatic puts out around 205 RWHP. The 160 lbs weight difference coupled with 3.73 gearing would make it quite a match. The 3.6L has more torque down low than the 3.2L car which will help it off the line.

Personally, if I had to do it all over, I'd get the 3.6 with the 6 speed, even though it's got 3.42 rear end gearing. Of course, it would have CTS-V shocks and sways, Eibach springs, 245/45R18's, CMS headers, cold air intake, and a Corsa exhaust. The final drive ratio's (trans gears multiplied by rear end gears) are almost the same as the 3.2L with the 5 speed (as well as the CTS-V), in the first five gears. A higher (lower numerically) overdrive would be nice.

The 3.6L motor is a completly new all aluminum design with variable valve timing. The 2.8 is a smaller version, although I've read the block is capable of 3.8 or 4.0 liters. The 3.2 is a punched out version of the Opel 3.0 used in the Catera. It has an iron block, aluminum heads, and a funky 54 degree bank angle (over a traditional 60 degree for V6's).

[okiwont]

Robert, are you willing to put a happy meal where your mouth is? 3.6vs.3.2?

[yomommas]

Originally Posted by RobertCTS

Would never happen. The HP loss of the 5spd auto is 20% versus the 17% of the manual. 3% would never make up the HP difference.

Originally Posted by cadiman1983

For the 3.2L, the manual is about 17.5% loss, while the auto is 25% loss

[RobertCTS]

Originally Posted by okiwont

Robert, are you willing to put a happy meal where your mouth is? 3.6vs.3.2?

Good Lord Okiwont (That's not basphemy is it? I'm in enough hot water)
That's a safe bet for you since I'm in Ohio and you're in N. CA. I'd be safe in giving you 10 car lengths head start and still beat you. A happy meal wouldn't do it . we could do it for PINKS? Let the bantering and chest pounding begin!