Cadillac Owners Forum banner
17K views 38 replies 7 participants last post by  70eldo 
#1 ·
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!
 
#3 ·
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...
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#8 ·
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.
 
#9 ·
#10 ·
#32 ·
well, Ford got ahead of you. How sad...

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...
 
#11 ·
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!
 
#13 ·
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.
 
#14 ·
#15 ·
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.
 
#16 ·
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.
 
#17 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
I'm not sure but I think the small block 383 in my Chevy was about 400lbs.
 
#20 ·
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...
 
#21 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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.
 
#24 ·
... 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... ;)
 
#27 · (Edited)
Now here's a guy that really didn't like his Turbo.
 
#28 ·
That certainly screws up his weight & balance! :D :rolleyes:
 
#30 ·
well, Ford got ahead of you. How sad...

 
#31 ·
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.
 
#33 ·
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.
 
#34 ·
Just did a quick lookup on Wikipedia:





5.0 L Coyote

The 5.0 L (4951 cc, 302 cid)[9] "Coyote" V8 is the latest evolution of the Modular engine. [10] It shares the 4.6 L's 100 mm (3.937 in) bore spacing and 227 mm (8.937 in) deck height,[11] 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] 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 (1-5-4-8-6-3-7-2).[13] Compression ratio is 11.0:1, despite having typical port fuel injection (as opposed to 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 DOHC 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] 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 (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]
Vehicles equipped with the 32-valve DOHC TiVCT 5.0 L include the following:

  • 2011 Ford Mustang GT, 412 hp (307 kW) @ 6500 rpm, 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) @ 4250 rpm
Vehicles anticipated to receive the engine include:





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...
 
#35 ·
and the answer from GM?
 
#36 ·
GM will answer with the "Obama". It'll run on broken promises, hot air and lies.
 
#39 ·
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
 
#38 ·
This is true.
 
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