: please build the CTS TT36!



70eldo
08-09-08, 09:58 AM
Turbo is the future. Not only in diesel, but also in petrol.
Fill the gap between 300 and 550 hp with a 400-ish TT36 :highfive:

...and I will take the CTS Coupe TT36!

asrapid
08-10-08, 06:13 PM
yeah..that would be a smart thing to do. So GM probably won't do it. Rumors are they've cancel works on future V6 TT

thebigjimsho
08-11-08, 04:50 PM
How is that guaranteed "smart"? There's a TON of R&D work to make a production TT engine that will go in enough applications to make it viable. 300 is enough for 90% of the buying public. Having an expensive 400hp AND a 568hp engine at the ready doesn't sound particularly smart...when GM is losing billions.

And my LS6 V with headers and a tune averaged 25mpg doing 2,000 miles to Chicago and back from Boston. I doubt a TT V6 is going to do any better...

asrapid
08-12-08, 10:54 AM
How is that guaranteed "smart"? There's a TON of R&D work to make a production TT engine that will go in enough applications to make it viable. 300 is enough for 90% of the buying public. Having an expensive 400hp AND a 568hp engine at the ready doesn't sound particularly smart...when GM is losing billions.

And my LS6 V with headers and a tune averaged 25mpg doing 2,000 miles to Chicago and back from Boston. I doubt a TT V6 is going to do any better...

What 400 HP? New Cadillac CTS doesn't has 400 HP and competition (here in Europe competition to cadillac cts is bmw 5 and E class offer engine with much more then 300 hp). They beat m5 and E amg (true they are old cars and replacement should come soon) in HP but they still got big hole between 300 and 570 HP. True most people don't need that much HP...but most people don't need Bmw with 400+ or mercedes with same hp and they both make that kind of car. It is image thing. Something what cadillac is losing..and will continue to lose as long as there isn't money to continue R&D TT V6 v8 and competitor to S class. And in class which cadillac is aiming at image play big role.
I also doubt we will see LS3 coming between V and DI V6 also (there was old text on internet where Lutz ..i think it was Lutz...said something like there won't be any future ohv engines in cadillac after MCE of present CTS).That was before ultra v8 was cancelled.
Not to mention that diesel engine should come from the start.

thebigjimsho
08-12-08, 03:02 PM
What 400 HP? New Cadillac CTS doesn't has 400 HP and competition (here in Europe competition to cadillac cts is bmw 5 and E class offer engine with much more then 300 hp). They beat m5 and E amg (true they are old cars and replacement should come soon) in HP but they still got big hole between 300 and 570 HP. True most people don't need that much HP...but most people don't need Bmw with 400+ or mercedes with same hp and they both make that kind of car. It is image thing. Something what cadillac is losing..and will continue to lose as long as there isn't money to continue R&D TT V6 v8 and competitor to S class. And in class which cadillac is aiming at image play big role.
I also doubt we will see LS3 coming between V and DI V6 also (there was old text on internet where Lutz ..i think it was Lutz...said something like there won't be any future ohv engines in cadillac after MCE of present CTS).That was before ultra v8 was cancelled.
Not to mention that diesel engine should come from the start.



This is what I was referring to...



Fill the gap between 300 and 550 hp with a 400-ish TT36 :highfive:

70eldo
08-19-08, 04:58 AM
How is that guaranteed "smart"? There's a TON of R&D work to make a production TT engine that will go in enough applications to make it viable. 300 is enough for 90% of the buying public. Having an expensive 400hp AND a 568hp engine at the ready doesn't sound particularly smart...when GM is losing billions.

And my LS6 V with headers and a tune averaged 25mpg doing 2,000 miles to Chicago and back from Boston. I doubt a TT V6 is going to do any better...


Audi is going V6 turbo, BMW is going 6 cyl and V8 turbo and Mercedes is going V6 and V8 Turbo. Also Alfa Romeo is now slowly chiming in in that market with v6 turbo and all other brands who wants a share in the market is going v6 turbo.
Why? Because you'll have V8 power in a fuel efficient V6. I bet you a TT36 will have a better mileage than a regular 3.6 or 3.6 DI on that same 2000 miles trip!

If Cadillac wants a share, they better play along...

thebigjimsho
08-20-08, 01:03 AM
Audi is going V6 turbo, BMW is going 6 cyl and V8 turbo and Mercedes is going V6 and V8 Turbo. Also Alfa Romeo is now slowly chiming in in that market with v6 turbo and all other brands who wants a share in the market is going v6 turbo.
Why? Because you'll have V8 power in a fuel efficient V6. I bet you a TT36 will have a better mileage than a regular 3.6 or 3.6 DI on that same 2000 miles trip!

If Cadillac wants a share, they better play along...You can try to make the case that a TT V6 will get better gas mileage than a V8(which will NOT happen on-boost), although a high hp V8 can make use of ultra tall gearing ala CTS-V and Corvette(25mpg on my '04 V without even trying). But I find it hard to believe that a TT version of an engine will EVER get better mpg than the NA of same said engine.

70eldo
08-20-08, 05:33 AM
Combined mileage of a Turbo over a non-turbo same size engine will always be better, as the combustion is more efficient. Plus you get the extra power boost.

I agree on your 25mpg with a V or Corvette (the C6 even gets better than that), but a V8 will always lose on combined mileage, as the urban-mileage will be significantly worse than a V6.

Or at least it won't make a difference in mileage, but you do get more power. Example:

BMW 228I and 335i (both 3.0 liter engine) have exact same mileage.

70eldo
08-26-08, 10:11 AM
Turbo is the future:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080708.007/next-generation-bmw-m5-to-get-twin-turbo-v8-from-x6

70eldo
08-29-08, 06:23 AM
Even Ford is going V6 3.5 TT

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f38/going-depth-fords-twin-turbocharged-v6-ecoboost-engine-68554/

GM can put the TT36 in so many cars...

Koooop
12-11-08, 02:48 PM
I don't want a V6.

I do want a CTS that fills the empty space between 300 - 550 HP.

I'd like a CTS with a V8 that is not supercharged. Oh wait, I have one!

69mets
05-06-09, 09:07 PM
Agree 150% with this . Need a 400 HP V8. At one time there were rumors of a V8 for the standard CTS for 2009 , but it never happened.


I don't want a V6.

I do want a CTS that fills the empty space between 300 - 550 HP.

I'd like a CTS with a V8 that is not supercharged. Oh wait, I have one!

70eldo
05-12-09, 11:10 AM
Another point why a turbo V6 is important: Most taxes in Europe are based on either engine size or CO2 emission. A V8 will always be in disadvantage of the TT V6. Since Cadillac wants a piece of Europe, they better play along.

70eldo
06-08-09, 09:42 AM
Here some more inspiration on why going turbo:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/15/opel-and-vauxhall-reveal-325-horsepower-insignia-opc-vxr/

Koooop
06-10-09, 06:24 PM
I've owned turbos, I don't want another. They generate to much heat and cook everything under the hood.

I'll stick with a V8.

I guess if my wife wants a car the V6 might be a good chick ride.

70eldo
06-11-09, 04:28 AM
I've owned turbos, I don't want another. They generate to much heat and cook everything under the hood.


That is not a notorious problem of modern turbos. they are managed well with intercoolers and modern technology.

gothicaleigh
06-11-09, 10:47 AM
The inline six in the previous ///M3 weighed approximately 470 lbs. By comparison, the higher displacement LS6 weighs 450 lbs. has a lower center of gravity and has a smaller footprint in the engine bay (meaning it can be positioned further back in the same car). The new V8 in the ///M3 weighs 445 lbs. but is already top heavy compared to the LS engines. A big twin turbo setup will add further weight to either, and while it will increase the gas mileage a turbo does not have the longevity of a naturally aspirated engine, so there is a significant trade-off.

Koooop
06-11-09, 04:09 PM
That is not a notorious problem of modern turbos. they are managed well with intercoolers and modern technology.

Turbos generate huge amounts of heat even if intercooled. I've never tried those turbos that hook up in the rear of the car though.

Besides, a V8 is just more bang for the buck.

inurok
06-20-09, 12:42 PM
My STS-V creates way more heat than my 1990 Turbo Grand prix V6

Koooop
06-21-09, 02:40 AM
Not only is the heat an issue, but turbos cause other failure as well (I speak from flat cams, blown up air boxes, fried clutches and busted halfshafts to back up my comments). So not only would a TTV6 be very expensive it would be more prone to failure than say, oh I dunno... A V8...

70eldo
06-22-09, 04:44 AM
I can agree upon the heat (not that it cannot be dealt with), but it is exaggerated to say blowing up airboxes, clutches and halfshafts have anything to do with a turbo...

Besides, practically all diesels in europe are turbos and a lot of other petrol cars are too (Audi, Mercedes, Saab, Subaru, Alfa Romeo, etc.). They do not have notorious problems. But I do not blame you for not knowing. The US carmakers haven't been active in turbo technology. Indeed, they just created more engine volume for more power...

Ah well, maybe you may open your eyes eventually.

Koooop
06-22-09, 04:07 PM
For the US market there's not much point in force feeding a V6 when we can buy a big fat sweet sounding torque loaded V8. A V6TT would probaly make sense in other parts of the world, but since the our government doesn't penalize us for displacement or tax gas heavily, we don't have to worry about such things. Even if a V6TT was available in a CTS I'd still buy one with a V8.

Even if I open my eyes a V6TT or a diesel just doesn't make the right sound when I step on the loud pedal.

Koooop
06-22-09, 04:17 PM
The inline six in the previous ///M3 weighed approximately 470 lbs. By comparison, the higher displacement LS6 weighs 450 lbs. has a lower center of gravity and has a smaller footprint in the engine bay (meaning it can be positioned further back in the same car). The new V8 in the ///M3 weighs 445 lbs. but is already top heavy compared to the LS engines. A big twin turbo setup will add further weight to either, and while it will increase the gas mileage a turbo does not have the longevity of a naturally aspirated engine, so there is a significant trade-off.


I'm not sure but I think the small block 383 in my Chevy was about 400lbs.

70eldo
06-22-09, 06:18 PM
... but since the our government doesn't penalize us for displacement or tax gas heavily, we don't have to worry about such things...

Yet... ;)

Koooop
06-23-09, 02:35 PM
Yet... ;)

That's the truth, but I'll keep driving my V8's.

If Obama and Pelosi have their way we'll be over here driving eco friendly Trabants engineered and built by GM. :vomit:

On a brighter note, I'm going to have a look at a 1975 Fleetwood Brougham, low miles, original paint, top and interior that appears to be immaculate. I need 500 Cubic Inches! Drool, drool. I don't know why I sold my '73 Eldo Convertible. :hmm:

70eldo
06-23-09, 04:41 PM
That's the truth, but I'll keep driving my V8's.

If Obama and Pelosi have their way we'll be over here driving eco friendly Trabants engineered and built by GM. :vomit:

On a brighter note, I'm going to have a look at a 1975 Fleetwood Brougham, low miles, original paint, top and interior that appears to be immaculate. I need 500 Cubic Inches! Drool, drool. I don't know why I sold my '73 Eldo Convertible. :hmm:

Trabants are 2-stroke. Not so eco-friendly... ;)
But I stick to my 500cid 70 Eldorado, whatever daily driver I'll get

Koooop
06-29-09, 04:06 PM
Now here's a guy that really didn't like his Turbo.

70eldo
07-03-09, 10:13 AM
Now here's a guy that really didn't like his Turbo.

That certainly screws up his weight & balance! :D :rolleyes:

Koooop
07-04-09, 01:32 AM
That certainly screws up his weight & balance! :D :rolleyes:

It does? How much does a 930 turbo engine weigh? :tard:

70eldo
10-21-09, 05:44 PM
well, Ford got ahead of you. How sad...

97pAE8B9EwM

Koooop
10-22-09, 01:03 AM
Trick little motor, might be good for the wifes minivan or the European market place.

That little spendthrift powerplant will probably do quite well until the economy improves.

I hope Ford puts that much effort into a modern V8, I'll be there for one.

thebigjimsho
01-31-10, 09:21 PM
Even Ford is going V6 3.5 TT

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f38/going-depth-fords-twin-turbocharged-v6-ecoboost-engine-68554/

GM can put the TT36 in so many cars...


well, Ford got ahead of you. How sad...

97pAE8B9EwM
Yawn. Still being an active member in the SHO community, I can assure you no one's new SHO is getting better gas mileage than my '04 CTS-V got. In fact, Ford is also about to release its 5.0 litre(I typed litre just for you) DOHC V8 Coyote motor in the Mustang and should see other applications. My money is down for it getting better gas mileage than the TT V6...

Koooop
01-31-10, 09:33 PM
I couldn't help but notice you dropped in on a V2, not a 6 banger.

I'll have to read up on the coyote motor, I mean there needs to be an alternative to Gubmin Motors.

thebigjimsho
02-01-10, 12:19 AM
Just did a quick lookup on Wikipedia:





5.0 L Coyote

The 5.0 L (4951 cc, 302 cid)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine#cite_note-8) "Coyote" V8 is the latest evolution of the Modular engine. [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine#cite_note-9) It shares the 4.6 L's 100 mm (3.937 in) bore spacing and 227 mm (8.937 in) deck height,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine#cite_note-10) while bore diameter and stroke have increased to 92.2mm (3.63 in) and 92.7mm (3.65 in), respectively. The engine also retains the 4.6 L's 150.7 mm (5.933 in) connecting rod length, which produces a 1.62:1 rod to stroke ratio.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine#cite_note-11) The firing order has been changed from that shared by all previous Modular V8s (1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8) to that of the Ford Flathead V8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Flathead_engine) (1-5-4-8-6-3-7-2).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine#cite_note-12) Compression ratio is 11.0:1, despite having typical port fuel injection (as opposed to direct injection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection)) the engine can still be run on 87 octane gasoline. The Coyote features a revised aluminum engine block with improved strength and crank-case ventilation, and all new 4V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivalve) DOHC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_camshaft#Double_overhead_camshaft) cylinder heads that have shifted the camshafts outboard, which allowed for a compact roller finger follower setup and improved intake port geometry. The result is an intake port that outflows the Ford GT intake port by 4 percent.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine#cite_note-13) The Coyote also features a forged crankshaft, forged powdered metal rods and hypereutectic pistons with oil jets to help piston cooling. Engine redline is 7000 rpm. The engine is Ford's first V8 application of cam torque actuated (CTA) Twin-independent Variable Cam Timing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Cam_Timing) (TiVCT), which allows the power-train control module (PCM) to advance and retard intake and exhaust cam timing independently of each other, providing improved power, fuel economy and reduced emissions. The engine also receives a new composite intake manifold with a single blade 80 mm throttle mounted low and center, necessitating a relocation of the alternator to the side of the engine. The engine is assembled in Ford's Essex Engine Plant in Windsor, Ontario. [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine#cite_note-14)
Vehicles equipped with the 32-valve DOHC TiVCT 5.0 L include the following:


2011 Ford Mustang GT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_GT#Fifth_generation_.282005.E2.80.93p resent.29), 412 hp (307 kW) @ 6500 rpm, 390 lbft (529 Nm) @ 4250 rpm

Vehicles anticipated to receive the engine include:


2011 Ford F150 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series#Twelfth_generation_.282009.E2.80.93present. 29)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine#cite_note-15)
2011 Ford Falcon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FG_Falcon) FPV GT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Performance_Vehicles#GT)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine#cite_note-16)





Awesome power from 5 liters and it should be able to rev well over 7,000rpms. Old SHO owners can really appreciate a high revving powerband. There's also rumors that an Eco-boost Coyote motor would become the next Shelby GT500. Get rid of that dinosaur of an iron block and get this something like that in there and it could be a BEAST.

There's already rumor of a track-pac Mustang w/ the 5.0 doing M3 times at GingerMan...

70eldo
02-01-10, 04:52 PM
and the answer from GM?

Koooop
02-01-10, 06:07 PM
GM will answer with the "Obama". It'll run on broken promises, hot air and lies.

thebigjimsho
02-01-10, 06:38 PM
No need. It has the best sports car on the planet and the best sports sedan on the planet...

Koooop
02-01-10, 07:57 PM
This is true.

70eldo
02-02-10, 10:17 AM
GM will answer with the "Obama". It'll run on broken promises, hot air and lies.

You must be mistaken by the "Bush". That one is history