I
have driven
the turbo 4...In every way I found
It to be completely satisfying...I like
the Idea of less weight over
the
front wheels......more power is always fun, of course, but in this case I wouldn't pay the extra $2,500

 

When I drove the 2.0T (four-cylinder) the engine noise was somewhat louder and although it is often said that a four idles more roughly, I found it very smooth in that regard. I also heard that Premium fuel is recommended for the 2.0T engine. Since the car has the premium "White Diamond" paint (offered in 2014), and not "Crystal White" (offered in 2015 and 2016), does that mean you are considering a leftover 2014 model?

 

Yes, both gray and white diamond are 2014s. They're used with around 8k miles.

 

I had a 3.6 in my 08 CTS and I have the 2.0T in my 2014. Haven't driven the 2014 3.6. I was skeptical about the 2.0T four until I drove it. Comparing the two I've owned, the 2.0T gets better mpg (offsets premium cost - a push), smoother, quieter, and has more torque. The 3.6 sounded better, but that hasn't bothered me. If I wasn't told that the 2.0T was a turbo, I would never have guessed it (compared to a peaky 2.0T my wife had in a Passat).

 

Yes, both gray and white diamond are 2014s. They're used with around 8k miles.

What kind of price are you looking at?

 

$36k for gray 2.0t Premium and $39.5K for white diamond V6 Premium

 

I've never driven the Caddy V6 so I can't comment there aside from mentioning that there seem to be a fair amount of complaints about rough idle issues that seem to have little to no successful fixes.

The 2.0T is very smooth at idle and acceleration. I came from a 2012 Audi A4 2.0T and while the Cadillac's under hard acceleration isn't quite as smooth as the Audi's the idle is smoother and its quieter overall.

 

I drove both and ended up purchasing the 3.6. I just like the feel of it better. The rough idle issue does not bother me too much (although a fix would be nice Caddy), but I would sit in it a good long while and see if you can get a sense of what everyone is worked up over. Overall, I have had my 2014 for 5 months and love it.

 

I test drove both, and frankly if the choice was only those, I would have been visiting some other dealerships. The TTV6 really wakes up the car and makes it "worth the money" to me.

Since then, I have had a 2.0T ATS and 3.6 SRX loaners. The 2.0T is the far more engaging engine. You can really feel the additional torque - and the better mileage isn't exactly a bad thing.

 

I don't know what's going on in other necks of the woods, but the OKC dealer from whom I bought my VSport is currently advertising a 2014 "service loaner" CTS with 5200 miles at $53416, only about $5k off the $58780 MSRP (it's a CTS luxury with mag ride package & nav, etc). When I bought the VSport last month, that exact same car was advertised at $43516!!! I have to wonder what happened to 10k worth of discount? Jeez.

 

Here on Long Island, NY, premium costs 40 cents a gallon more than regular. That is reason enough to go with the 3.6!

 

Thank you so much for the feed backs. After some number crunching and looking at the pros and cons of each trim, we (well...actually she really wants) the 3.6...

2015 SRX in Platinum Ice

: )

 

I'm 3 days late and you already bought but the comment about it being non negotiable because it was GM Company owned vehicle isnt true, courtesy transportation vehicles are not gm program cars, they counts as a retail delivery and the dealership is the buyer. The dealerships gets XXXX amount of money when it goes in based on the model and XXXX money when it goes out of loaner service based on mileage and time.

Congrats on the SRX though!

 

You talk about $2,000 a year in PPT? I can't believe that is true. What would you pay for a boat that costs $200,000? I could not live in that state.

 

Well, I don't think Maine is the highest or the lowest in PPT but my E350 coupe was listed at $62K and I paid $1600.00 property tax at registration (plus the $1800.00 sales tax). So I can believe the $2K.

 

I have to 2.0L and before the Cadillac...I had a SRT crossfire with 330 HP (Supercharged). The cadillac is quiet, has tons of torque with good hp, I drove the 3.6L. It sounds better but not for 2500-300 extra.

 

If I may open back up this message board. It is July 2017.. I am ready to get rid of my VERY VERY LOVELY 2006 Black on Black STS 3.6L ... I have had that car for so long and it treated me so well. NO PROBLEMS!!!! Absolutely amazing. I am searching message boards because obviously they stopped production on the STS. I am curious to see how all your 2013-2014 CTS's are working out.. I am curious about both the 2013-2014 2.0T and the 3.6L...

Any problems/regrets? Let me know!

Thanks,
DON

 

I have had my 2014 CTS luxury 3.6 for 1.5 years. Bought it CPO with 28K miles. It has been a wonderful car with zero issues. Traded a 2008 STS which I also loved. The 2013 and 2014 CTS are very very different cars. Stay away from the 2013 and the 2.0T JMHO

 

the 2013 is a different car in that it's the prevoius Generation and there is nothing wrong with the 2.0T

in fact a 2017 2.0T is significantly faster than a 2006 STS 3.6 to 60 MPH 5.8 seconds vs 6.5 and does this while saving you gas with a city/highway rating of 21/31 mpg vs 18/27....

the 3.6 is not worth the $2,000.00 asking price for the motor, because there is negligible performance gained since torque is what moves a car and the 2.0T has more torque

then there are those who claim that Premium vs Regular gasoline makes the 3.6 worth it...but that is smoke and mirrors too because the 2.0T can use both types of fuel, you just get maximum performance with the recomended Premium and here in California the difference between the two is about a quarter which assuming use of a tank a week is is $221 a year and worst case someone here said they pay $0.40 difference which is $353.60 a year...which means it will take 5 to 9 years to pay for the 3.6 engine with the savings from buying regular gas....

it just doesn't pencil out well for the 3.6 no matter how you try to justify it

 

I said JMHO Wookie, your entitled to yours. BTW the delta where I am in VA is 60 cents/gal.

 

Never said anyone wasn't entitled to an opinion...

By the way at $0.60 per gallon (which is crazy) the difference is $530 per year, a significant amount sure but it will still take just under 4 years (3.8) of those savings to pay for the V6....so on a typical lease you never break even

Speaking of leasing a $2000 swing in the vehicle price is $60 a month added to your payment for the 3.6 and for the 2.0T premium fuel costs $44 a month....so in Virginia the 2.0T still makes more financial sense...at that point one must ask, is .1 seconds improvement to 60 worth $16 a month.....for me in SoCal premium fuel cost me $18 a month extra..... $42 a month savings over getting the V6

 

Granted, mine is a 2016 model with the 2.0T. I've had three other caddies, starting in 2003 (2 CTS's and a XTS) and all of them had the regular 3.6 for each model year. I liked that engine and probably would have gotten it again except that the new/current CTS was everything else we wanted, minus the 3.6. So, having said that, and admitting my car still has under 1,000 miles on it, I like the 2.0. A touch quieter and noticeably more punch. Gas mileage difference is supposedly negligible. Providing that the 2.0 doesn't start giving me problems, I'm happy with the decision.

 

I am curious about the V-6. I bought the 2016 2.0 turbo. It's great if you want to wind it up from 35 to 40 in the city. On the highway in traffic lane change and passing situations do not happen. Car is too slow.

I test drove a 2014 2.0 turbo and it was an entirely different car. The 2014 was much more responsive and accelerated as I needed on the highway. I think the 2014 has a six speed transmission. My 2016 has GM's home brew trans and it disappoints.

Actually I signed a deal on that 2014 CTS 2.0 turbo. The dealer pulled the deal when they finally believed that I was not financing. I've often thought of that car. I like a car that moves when needed. My 2016 does not. Bummer.

I've always had cars that required premium fuel. Not an issue. Never bought a Cad for fuel efficiency.

Am I doing something wrong that the car does not accelerate when needed? I'd appreciate any tips or suggestions.

Thanks!

 

Put it in sport mode.....what you are describing is what the car is designed to do, which is hold gears for as long as it can to keep the revs low....sport mode helps with this....,my wife in her 2.0t refuses to drive in any other setting, she also likes the firmer steering, she's told me the car wanders more in tour mode

I find her car moves smartly when asked to do so....it's not a beast like my V-Sport, but it doesn't disappoint either

 

I am curious, though, KRDCAD, why you say stay away from the 2.0T? I'm not looking to argue or contradict you on it since in many cases this kind of stuff is all about personal opinions, as you say. Again, just curious!

 

I prefer NA engines. I've had four GM 3.6L DI engines over the last 9 years and never had an issue with any of them. Too me a small turbo's reliability is suspect.

 

The sport mode idea might work RedCadi...I haven't tried it myself so be sure to report back. As for the "put your foot in it" comment, that, too, could be it. Admittedly, I tend, these days, to drive like a grandpa (well, okay, I am one so what can I say... :yup and I have noticed that feather touching the gas peddle doesn't produce a whole lot. Stomp on it, though, and off you go rather smartly.

 

I'll post back once I try sport mode. I am puzzled as to why the 2014 2.0 turbo I drove responded so well compared to the 2016 2.0 turbo. I think it's the transmission. My 0.2.

Maybe I can ask the tech at my shop to take me for a quick spin and demonstrate. The owner is a racer so he can probably give info too. He helped me a lot with the basics on this car. My first time with CUE. The dealer's delivery specialist was only BT pairing, radio presets and survey begging.

 

If you are Leasing, any additional cost item, like AWD, 3.6, higher trim level, etc, will only cost you 46% of that extra cost, on a
Residual of 56%, plus some interest and tax.

 

the typical swing in cost on a lease is $30 for every $1000 change in price

 

I have a relatively new to me 2014 CTS 2.0l and I haven't regretted it at all. Just came back from a 4000 mile road trip with it and it performed great! Plenty of power on the highway/passing and on the twisty's in Vermont and Maine. I think it actually is better on the highway than the 3.6l IMO. Great handling. I test drove several 3.6l when Other than the engine sound going from a dead stop, you can definitely tell it's a 4 cyl then, but it has plenty of power.

 

I've owned the 2.0 and the 3.6 and I am a big fan of turbos, but would take the 3.6 any day of the week. Cheap gas and it has more torque and power.

 

The 3.6 does have more horsepower. The 2.0 actually has more torque. Based on previous responses, let's not turn anyone's questions into a bashing zone. It is nice to have options when it comes to engine choice. You can choose what suits you and your driving style. Everyone wins. :yup:

 

More HP, yes but less torque.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

torque is what moves and accelerates a car and the 2.0T has more of it 295 ft-lbs vs 285 ft-lbs....but the more telling story is that peak power (Torque) occurs at 3000 rpm on the 2.0T vs 5300 rpm for the 3.6....so not only does LTG (2.0T) hit harder than LGX (3.6) is does so much sooner, which is why the LGX equipped car basically can't drive away from an LTG car, it takes it longer to access the power because you have to rev the hell out of it to get it

and just for fun my car makes 430 ft-lbs of torque at 3500....it basically makes the gas pedal the giggle button

Let me clarify. What I meant was low end toque. The 3.6 just gets up and moves. My 2.0 was tuned and I still would have taken the 3.6. It was a better driving experience (this is coming from someone that has owned close to 10 turbocharged vehicles). I now own a vsport which is the best of both worlds. People can buy what they want, but if I was deciding between the 2.0 and 3.6 I would take the 3.6 all day long. Or spring for a vsport and get an amazing vehicle.

 

Let me clarify. What I meant was low end toque. The 3.6 just gets up and moves. My 2.0 was tuned and I still would have taken the 3.6. It was a better driving experience (this is coming from someone that has owned close to 10 turbocharged vehicles). I now own a vsport which is the best of both worlds. People can buy what they want, but if I was deciding between the 2.0 and 3.6 I would take the 3.6 all day long. Or spring for a vsport and get an amazing vehicle.

Exactly, the 2.0 is a fine engine. I tested it thoroughly and it's amazing for a 4 cylinder. It would be especially perfect in city driving. Out on the highway, when passing or merging at speed, the 3.6 shines and no over revving is needed. The professional reviews that I checked before purchase pointed this out too. By the way, that is when the horsepower shows itself. Horsepower is just another measurement of torque at a higher rpm. All that being said, each person has an almost impossible to overcome bias towards the engine they ended up with, so no-one is ever going to be swayed by any facts to the contrary. (me included) Oh, and if I ever see the right one for sale at the right price, I will get a V-Sport too. It really is the best!

 

Even thoughI have the 3.6 I have driven both and have come to the conclusion that they are both great but different in character. I think that the engines are so close that Cadillac missed an opportunity to offer some difference of choice. However, we are hung up on numbers rather than feel, noise, extension. etc.

 

I agree....the 3.6 needs more to justify the $2000 difference.....in 2014 the balance was better because the 2.0T CTS was a slower car than the 3.6, mainly because it only had 260 ft-lbs of torque and was bolted to the 6 speed transmission vs the excellent 8 speed Aisin unit the 3.6 got.....then Cadillac started eroding the 3.6 benefits by bumping the torque in 2015 to 295 and in 2016 giving the 2.0T an 8 speed too

If it were my choice, the rebalancing I'd do is drop the 3.6TT LF3 (the V-Sport motor) and replace it with the 3.6TT LF4 from the ATS-V and simplify the lineup.....then improve the output of the 3.6 so torque is north of 300 ft-lbs and HP is in the 350 to 360 range....then I'd increase the pain to step up to the 3.6 by increasing the gap to $3500, by lowering the 2.0T price in conjunction with a modest 3.6 price increase....the reason for this is buyers will only flock to the 3.6 at the current pricing, a balancing is in order with a goal of 1:1 sales for both engines......this way you'd have nice even steps in the CTS ladder with the 2.0T, 3.6, 3.6TT, and 6.2 supercharged, in both pricing and performance

 

To a large extent techtype, I thing you said it best..."each person has an almost impossible to overcome bias towards the engine they ended up with". In one form or another, I have always said "If you're happy, that's all that matters!"

I'm not a mechanic or engine expert by any stretch of the imagination. Just a regular "old" car driver. I have the 3.5 ecoboost in my F-150, and love it. Orginally wanted the V-8 until I drove the ecoboost. Have the 2.5 4cyl in our Mazda6 and love it too. And the 2.0T in the CTS and, so far, also love it. Granted, had there been two identical cars sitting there, one 3.6 and one 2.0, I'd have probably gone with the 3.6. No good reason other than (1) just because, and (2) all of my other Caddies had that engine and I never had an issue with any of them. Anyway, I'm "happy" with my choice, and, again, that's all that matters. To each his own!