Cadillac Owners Forum banner

3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine [DELAYED]

5K views 36 replies 16 participants last post by  Playdrv4me 
#1 ·
Unfortunately, the introduction of this engine has been delayed due to various issues. It was originally supposed to be available for the release of the XTS. Since we now won't be seeing this engine until late 2013, it'll also miss the introduction of the ATS.
 
#2 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

Are. We. Surprised?

:umno:
 
#4 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

If this is becuase there are quality issues, or performance issues, Im fine with them postponing its introduction to ensure a good product. That being said, the longer they wait to release it, the better and more advanced the competition will be, meaning itll have to be better to compete well.
 
#8 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

I'd rather them delay it for quality control purposes than rush it to market only to be a huge headache.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thebigjimsho
#11 ·
#12 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

I'd be willing to bet that the LS3 in the Corvette is almost as green (in terms of overall MPG) as the 3.0 Turbo I-6 in the BMW's...
 
#13 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

it's a power delivery issue I'm sure. It's the same old reason GM hasen't been keen on the LSX or SBC in Cadillac's for the last 2 decades; power delivery just isn't smooth.

I'd be willing to bet that the LS3 in the Corvette is almost as green (in terms of overall MPG) as the 3.0 Turbo I-6 in the BMW's...
I'm sure the N54/N55 would fair better if it were also in a 3200lb coupe.
 
#15 · (Edited)
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

That's crazy. The flat, smooth, torque curve of a pushrod V8 is a smooth as you can get. Loads of low-end torque. An ideal engine for Cadillac.
So the Northstar was a fantastic waste of resources then? SBC's that I know of-- make peak torque around 3500-4000rpms. A Twin Turbo V6 or Turbo I4 typically makes peak between 1500 and 2000 rpms, *and* we're talking about 280-380ft/lbs of it.
 
#21 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

The Northstar engine was GM's attempt to compete with the most sophisticated 4OHC aluminum block and head engines. And taken in this context it was a great accomplishment. The Northstar powered Cadillacs delivered performance and reliability at a fraction of the cost of the V-8 powered European competitors. Technically and functionally a really great engine. Those who complain about the problems of head gasket failure with these cars have not owned a European V-8 for a long period of time and paid the high cost of frequent maintenance required of these cars, nor experience the the head gasket and other problems to which the European V-8 cars are prone.

Was all this advanced engine design and technology wasted on the average Cadillac buyer of the nineties? Probably, but for those of us who have really enjoyed the all round performance that the Northstar system delivers, I would say that Cadillac delivered a truly exceptional American driving experience at a bargain price!
 
#23 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

Yeah, I'm just as guilty as the worst about condemning the Northstar for it's (very valid) faults. That being said, I've said time and time again that the Northstar is one fantastic powerplant that served it's purpose tremendously well. A little more engineering and proper manufacturing, and it would have outshined most of its competitors.
 
#24 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

Yeah, I'm just as guilty as the worst about condemning the Northstar for it's (very valid) faults. That being said, I've said time and time again that the Northstar is one fantastic powerplant that served it's purpose tremendously well. A little more engineering and proper manufacturing, and it would have outshined most of its competitors.
I agree with the bolded.
 
#25 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

Yeah, definitely. A little more quality control would have made it a gem of an engine that you could own WITHOUT worry!
 
#26 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

Very good points made in the last few posts. gdwriter and orconn, I very much agree with your last posts. Now a days, on paper and in theory the Northstar is very obsolete but when I drive everyday I feel like it's a pleasure to have that engine. Plenty of power for me, at low and especially high RPM. If I'm at a steady cruise between 40 and 50MPH and gas it a little over 2,000RPM I'm up another 10MPH in no time effortlessly. Entering a steep hill at 45MPH is nothing. I don't even give it any more gas, maybe just a firm foot. The car will shift automatically if it needs more power, and if it does it will be accellerating not just maintaining speed. I can't think of many other nearly 20 year old motors that would/are still holding their own as far as power and performance (NOT ON PAPER) in everyday driving conditions. Northstar had it's faults and problems but I agree 100% with everything gdwriter and orconn said.
 
#28 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

I don't know if my tastes have changed. In other words - I don't know if I'd feel the same today. But I have a feeling I would. I've mentioned before that the 2005 Lexus LS430 I owned was the most perfect automobile I've ever driven. It did everything it was supposed to do absolutely perfectly. If I can remember correctly, my next favorite was my 1995 Cadillac Eldorado ETC. It just drove perfectly - and did everything perfectly. I loved that car. An evolution of that would really be great. And a larger version that could do the same, with today's standards, would make me very happy right now.
 
#29 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

Back to the topic, if anyone cares or knows; had a specific area of concerned been determined (for the delay), has this delay been verified and did the delay seem to be a major or minor problem. Also, what/who was the source; rumor or a valid informant (whether they needed to remain anonymous or not)?
 
#30 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

Back to the topic, if anyone cares or knows; had a specific area of concerned been determined (for the delay), has this delay been verified and did the delay seem to be a major or minor problem. Also, what/who was the source; rumor or a valid informant (whether they needed to remain anonymous or not)?
The source is a valid informant (anonymous). The problem, specifically, has yet to be revealed. That is probably a very closely guarded secret.
 
#32 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

Thank you my 'Lord'; good to get the inside scoop but it sure gets the curiosity up............................standing by for the grizzly details. GM really has to stop stepping on their own feet (Volt, delayed new V-8; now the 3 TT). I've been a GM fan for all my life (hate to see the stumbles, especially when they seem on a roll lately).
 
#33 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

Thank you my 'Lord'; good to get the inside scoop but it sure gets the curiosity up............................standing by for the grizzly details. GM really has to stop stepping on their own feet (Volt, delayed new V-8; now the 3 TT). I've been a GM fan for all my life (hate to see the stumbles, especially when they seem on a roll lately).
What's wrong with the volt?

Product delays are a fact of life in the car business. GM screwed more products--and their reputation up mass producting faulty cars now and fixing them later rather than fixing them before selling them.

I'd rather wait another 6 months than have it now and go through a waterpump failure recall or an overheating situations like the German's had to go through with their new F/I I6 and V6.
 
#35 ·
Re: 3.0 Liter Twin Turbo LF3 V6 Engine DELAYED

I hear something about engine fires. There's a recall. They're giving out loaners for those concerned and are buying back Volts if the owners want...
Oh.. that. It's battery fires. A wrecked one caught fire 3-4 weeks after it was crashed, and the other a week later. GM is handling the situation perfectly. They're offering loaners, they've been public about their views on the topic and they've offered to buy back cars. There's not much else to do here. This is a brand new concept, it has growning pains, it's that simple.
 
#36 ·
Oh, I totally agree that the Volt fiasco has been blown out of proportion. The first battery fire was three weeks after the crash test (and NHTSA is not saying whether they followed 'power down' procedures that are prescribed for an after a major accident involving the battery). The NHTSA has also conducted battery crash tests out of the car (which is kind of strange as the vehicle is part of the crash cage). To GM's credit they are working with NHTSA completely to find causes and/or solutions.
 
#37 · (Edited)
Someone on another blog made a great comment about the Volt battery situation... When NHTSA tests traditional ICE vehicles, the tests are done with the fuel tank completely drained of fuel. Thus eliminating any potential energy/ignition source. Well, the stored energy in a massive pack of batteries is no different than the stored energy inside of a tank of fuel. If it is IMPACT specific data we are looking for, the best course of action would be to REMOVE the batteries and replace them with an object of similar or equal size and weight.

*That said*, the aircraft industry has learned the hard way to ALWAYS account for every possible contingency, and then some. I'm reminded specifically of American flight 587 which went down due to the FO supposedly putting "too much effort" into the use of his rudder pedals, thus causing "unexpected" forces on the rudder and eventually shearing off the entire tail section. There was much debate afterward as to whether Airbus's design or American's training procedures were at fault. With as much painstaking development as supposedly went into the Volt, its safety, and those batteries, fires should not happen for anything short of taking the damn thing apart and shorting it on purpose. Even then GM says they tested for shorts and didn't get fires.

There are ALWAYS unexpected possibilities, such as a customer buying a car back from insurance after it is totaled, or a car sitting in a body shop for several weeks after an accident. Simply having a power down procedure is not sufficient to say the vehicle is completely safe from a fire hazard. The fire should not be possible in all but the most extreme circumstances, period. Not powering down and sitting for a couple of weeks isn't even that remote of a circumstance, and still leaves two key questions which I believe are the key reason GM is being so gracious... 1. How soon after you've just been smacked by another car are you or your first responders EXPECTED to perform this "power down" and 2. How long after NOT doing so can the fire occur. It may have happened weeks afterward in NHTSA tests, but there's no guarantee it won't happen any sooner. In that sense, GM is handling the situation properly offering to buy back the cars if the customers are worried enough about it. It's what they SHOULD be doing until they get this sorted out and can eliminate these vagaries as much as possible.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top