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

[yomommas]

Originally Posted by AznPrydeRegalRyde

Your time are significantly off. If you search hard enough on google, you will find a pink slips of 3.2L manual pulling a 15.2, STOCK. But most pulled around 15.5. The KEY is the MPH, and stock for stock, the 3.6L pulls about 3-5 mph faster in the 1/4 mile. A 3.2L manual will also hit under 7 secs 0-60 with a good driver. Seen it done myself. You combine the 3.2L manual with an exhaust/intake versus a stock 3.6L auto, and you will have a good race, no doubt!

I keep finding it funny that people think this

you okay?

[RobertCTS]

Good Lord Regal!!! We got your point on the 1st post. That must be the record on the forum for redundacies.

[yomommas]

Originally Posted by skepticman

Then there's this article that describes the negligible gains from intake and exhaust on the 3.2L engine.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p..._cadillac_cts/

"The upgrades team to deliver a claimed 20-hp gain and yield a decidedly more aggressive sound. It's still no powerhouse, but the engine mods improve 0-60 acceleration by 0.12 sec and lop 0.14 sec from the quarter mile."

My money is on the stock 3.6L.

i think their decision to put it on 20" rims negated some of their power.

[Caddy Man]

sometimes these articles piss me off...they mention the dumbest stuff.

HOT
# More power helps
# Nice wheel/tire combo
# Intake/exhaust sounds fantastic

NOT
# 18- or 19-in. wheels would likely perform better than gargantuan 20s
# Where's the supercharger?
# Big Brother traction- control system



DO THEY NOT REALIZE YOU CAN TURN STABILITY AND TRACTION OFF????? Why would that be a 'not' factor?

[skepticman]

Here's the complete autosite.com performance number listing I saved a long time ago and can't find on their site anymore. I posted the range of the two most recent reviews of the 3.6L automatic and 3.2L manual before since they were typical. The 3.2L rarely gets close to 7 seconds 0-60 or low 15 second 1/4 mile. 5A = automatic and 5M = manual.

If you Google for CTS 0-60 times, you can find numbers even as low as 6.1-6.3 for the 3.6L.

2004 Sedan Sdn MT May-04 3.6 V-6/5A
0-60, s. 6.60, 1/4 Mile, s. 14.99

2004 Sedan Sdn MT Aug-03 3.6 V-6/5A
0-60, s. 6.40, 1/4 Mile, s. 14.92

2003 Sedan Sdn CR Jul-03 3.2 V-6/5A
0-60, s. 7.30, 1/4 Mile, s. 15.70

2003 Sedan Sdn AW Oct-02 3.2 V-6/5M
0-60, s. 7.53, 1/4 Mile, s. 15.88

2003 Sedan Sdn MT Aug-02 3.2 V-6/5A
0-60, s. 6.86, 1/4 Mile, s. 15.20

2003 Sedan Sdn R&T Jul-02 3.2 V-6/5M
0-60, s. 7.30, 1/4 Mile, s. 15.70

2003 Sedan Sdn PS Jul-02 3.2 V-6/5M
0-60, s. 6.90

2003 Sedan Sdn PS Jul-02 3.2 V-6/5A
0-60, s. 7.30

2003 Sedan Sdn C&D Feb-02 3.2 V-6/5M
0-60, s. 7.20, 1/4 Mile, s. 15.40

2003 Sedan Sdn R&T Feb-02 3.2 V-6/5M
0-60, s. 7.00, 1/4 Mile, s. 15.50

Sources:
AUTO = Automobile Magazine
CR = Consumer Reports
C&D = Car and Driver Magazine
MFR = Manufacturer Data
MT = Motor Trend Magazine
R&T = Road & Track Magazine
AW = Auto Week
PM = Popular Mechanics
PS = Popular Science

[2 Da Max]

dam so the 06 3.6 only runs 14.9? i thought it was faster than that!! Dam so a g35 or 350z will beat me?

[AznPrydeRegalRyde]

Originally Posted by 2 Da Max

dam so the 06 3.6 only runs 14.9? i thought it was faster than that!! Dam so a g35 or 350z will beat me?

Well, it depends which 350z and g35 you are talking about. All the new ones? Yes. The G35x, you will take pretty easy, except off the line. Old 350z's and g35 coupes are a little easier, where they have only 260 hp. But, all this assumes they are a good driver.

I posted a race early when I first got the car, how I beat a vette in my CTS. WAs this because my car was as fast? Not a chance.

[Caddict]

Theres a thread from a while back on this forum discribing a race between a modded 5manual 3.2l w/intake/exhaust against a auto 3.6l. They went twice from a stop light and the 3.6l pulled a couple of lenghts @40mph both times but the 3.2l had him off the line both times.

I had a 3.2l, it was sweet, since then I got a V

[Devil_concours]

come on guys, us regular cts folks gotta stick together and beat the v guys

[Caddict]

I love Cadillacs

[mike_papps]

Ok so the numbers are fairly equal with the 3.6L making the better power track times. How about the reliability of the 2 motors? One being a Opel motor from the Catera days and the 3.6 the new generation. How is reliability and maintenence? I knwo the 3.6 is a timing chain compared to the timing belt of the 3.2. I'v eheard nothing but bad reviews over the Catera and i'm scared the 3.2L will be worse off then spending the extra $$$ for the 3.6 in the '04 and above. As well i used to own a '04 3.6L am i going to notice the difference between the 2 engine's?

[70eldo]

Originally Posted by mike_papps

Ok so the numbers are fairly equal with the 3.6L making the better power track times. How about the reliability of the 2 motors? One being a Opel motor from the Catera days and the 3.6 the new generation. How is reliability and maintenence? I knwo the 3.6 is a timing chain compared to the timing belt of the 3.2. I'v eheard nothing but bad reviews over the Catera and i'm scared the 3.2L will be worse off then spending the extra $$$ for the 3.6 in the '04 and above. As well i used to own a '04 3.6L am i going to notice the difference between the 2 engine's?

I had both a 3.2 and a 3.6. I must say I like the 3.6 more. It has a little more torque and doesn't require premium gas. Plus it has more performance options. If you compare it to an early 3.2, you have better interior with the 3.6 as well (DVD nav compared to CD-ROM based) and a better looking speedometer.

I had no engine problems.

[JerrySS]

My 03's opel 3.2 engine is doing fine at 135,000 - -the transmission went at 110,000 though.

Fyi

Jerry SS