How much faster is the 3.6 then the 2.8? Looking at either of them and... Well sell me on the 3.6 lol

If you're concerned about speed, buy the 3.6. The fuel savings in the 2.8 is not significant.

having more power is also helpful when you're merging. Gas mileage isn't that bad.

The 3.6 is a ton more fun than the 2.8!:alchi:

A car this heavy needs a large engine. I can pass cars easily doing 70+ on the highway, i dont think that the 2.8 will allow you to do that effectively. what are your reasons for thinking of the 2.8?

I've driven them back to back, when my 3.6 was at the dealer and I got a 2.8 loaner. The 2.8 just seems like it has to work harder, revving higher to get the same job done. In comparison the 3.6 seems more effortless. Winter conditions didn't allow me to test all-out performance, though it was pretty obvious that the 3.6 was much quicker.

Another thing to consider is that the higher cost of the 3.6 will be mostly offset by higher resale values.

The EPA fuel ratings are the same. Unless it's a cost issue or your just looking for a nice looking piece of transportation on the cheap, go with the 3.6. They do have an aggressive $299 for 36 month lease in play right now on the 2.8.

The EPA fuel ratings are the same. Unless it's a cost issue or your just looking for a nice looking piece of transportation on the cheap, go with the 3.6. They do have an aggressive $299 for 36 month lease in play right now on the 2.8.That's the lease im looking at right now. I was quoted at 249/mo tho for the 2.8. I should go back to the dealer and drive the 3.6 and see what kinda offer i can negotiate.

3.6 bro. Every other manufacturer are making there cars with alteast a 3.6 in there sedans...you dont want to get blown away by a civic now lol jk

more displacement, more hp gain through mods

I got a 2.8 today as a loaner for my 3.6 6pd. Wow, night and day. The 2.8 seems to wind up much more and even under some WOT I did not feel like I was accellerating.

and... I am still looking for that clutch.. just too weird in an Auto-CTS.

I got interested in the CTS after the Cadillac dealer loaned me one with a 2.8 engine while my Escalade was being serviced. It was an attractive black one which was about to be put up for sale. While talking to the salesman, he suggested I should try the 3.6 liter engine since I would probably find it more comparable to the BMW 330 I wanted to trade.

I drove the 3.6 and a few things struck me immediately. The performance was significantly better. It had great acceleration, much like my 330, but it accelerated and idled more smoothly than the smaller engine. The two engines are rated at the same mpg which is quite surprising considering the acceleration difference.

If you can afford the difference in cost, which really isn't that great, I think the 3.6 is worth the investment. I didn't find the smaller engine to be particularly lacking in acceleration or idling particularly rough, but the 3.6 was just a leap forward in performance.

I've been using an '06 2.8 automatic while they replace another differential in our '03 auto CTS. General impressions - a nice little engine, but seems overmatched by the weight of the CTS. It seems to work much harder than the 3.2 & seat-of-pants says it's not nearly as torquey or quick.

Last time they gave me a 3.6 which seemed a bit quicker than the 3.2, but the difference didn't seem nearly as apparent as between the 2.8 & 3.2.

Just my impressions - with the trouble we've had with the '03 we're not about to buy another - but if you're determined to buy one , my advice would be to go 3.6...

I was previously a defender of the 2.8 (and was even considering buying one up until a few weeks ago), but with even the Saturn Aura getting the 3.6, I think that Cadillac needs to make the 3.6 the BASE engine on the CTS now and scrap the 2.8. Perhaps that will happen in '08.

I want a Northstar V8 in my next CTS.. It they can put it in the Buick Lucerne, then so should the CTS have it.

Not enough room in the engine bay for the N* V8. Maybe the next gen will have it to slot below the CTS-V at around 325 hp.

Yeah, about that... the 2.8 is for people who want a roomy entry level luxury sedan that beats BMW, Infinity, and Lexus on value. Anyone who wants a sports sedan to smoke aforementioned BMW's, Infinity's, and Lexus's goes for the 3.6. You are not saving gas with the 2.8 versus the 3.6, but you get a lot more get up and go out of the 3.6!

I drove a 2.8 as a loaner last month, even with the manumatic transmission it did not deliver the performance I was used to from my 3.6. I would have expected slightly better launches and acceleration if I had driver override, but no.

Don't cheat yourself, go for the 3.6, it is worth any extra cost, really!

Def. the 3.6L!!! :thumbsup:

If you want drivable torque 'there's no replacement, for displacement'. Get the 3.6L.

If you're simply on a budget, that's what the 2.8L car was designed for. It's just a smaller version of the same engine (and presumably only available on a Base model).

Not enough room in the engine bay for the N* V8. Maybe the next gen will have it to slot below the CTS-V at around 325 hp.


Not a bad idea, that one of the smaller V-8's like the 4.8 Liter or the 5 liter used in GM's pick-ups I believe it makes over 290HP so much of the drivetrain hardware used for the V series could be used. This would make a nice middle ground in a 3 car CTS line-up.

Not a bad idea, that one of the smaller V-8's like the 4.8 Liter or the 5 liter used in GM's pick-ups I believe it makes over 290HP so much of the drivetrain hardware used for the V series could be used. This would make a nice middle ground in a 3 car CTS line-up.
why not just create a direct fuel injection version of the current 3.6 and boost its output to 300 or more

Do you think that's all it would take (direct injection). Would you leave the port injection in place? The IS 350 uses both but the compression ration is well over 11.8 to 1.

Increasing compression means abandoning 87 octane gas.

Having a five passenger sedan that can get up and go on pump gas beats the heck out of the German and Japanese competition that require babying and care with special gasolines and services and only fit four real adults.

Ultimately, it is all about priorities.

Well seeing how our engine is beginning to show up in other gm cars with higher output, i wouldn't be surprise to see them with higher output 3.6
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-forum/71459-3-6l-v6.html

so basically no one care too much for the 2.8?

I have the 2.8 and it does everything I need it to do. I do not regret buying it. The 3.6 would be nice but the numbers just did not work at the time. When I have the need for speed I just jump on the my motorcycle.

If I did not have a motorcycle I would have probably went for the 3.6

so basically no one care too much for the 2.8?

It's not a bad engine, it means well.:)

But many of the formum members bought the CTS because it is a sports sedan and want a sporty car with the capacity to put some adults in the back seat. The 2.8 is just not as sporty as the 3.6 so those that can afford it go for the more power because there is no real advantage in fuel efficiency. Remember the BMW 318? It was a cheap option for people who wanted to be seen in a BMW but not shell out an extra $5k for the 2.5L engine. If you want to be seen in a CTS, the 2.8 will do you fine, if you want to drive a CTS, you get the 3.6. The 3.6 with sports package is really a driver's car.

What dissapoints me is the new 07 Camry.

The V6 model supposedly has more HP than our 3.6 CTS, 268 HP.

2.8...i like the high rev

2.8...i like the high rev
3.6 likes to rev too