A Replacement for Displacement - Cadillac to Adopt New Engine Numbering Scheme

I like this, makes better sense to move to Newton Meters and have a global understood standard. I wish the US would get on with modernizing and drop the stupid standard system and move to metric overall. The US would find it so much simpler to do math on everything if we went metric.

I wonder how long before we drop Horsepower and go with kW as a global standard for rating of auto's.

8 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Not going to happen...the American public is too fucking stupid to comprehend newton meters..

While baby boomers and those that hate change will fight this, the global world is changing, EVs will happen and moving to kilowatts rather than Horsepower and Newton Meters rather than lb-ft of torque makes sense.

Sadly some will get left behind in the 21st century workplace.

As you know Robert working in tech like me, the only thing that is constant is inevitable change and obsolescence. 

This is stupid. Not quite as stupid as Audi's new naming scheme but it's pretty terrible.

If they'd just ditch the n/a 3.6 they could stick to the old school displacement number. 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

This is stupid. Not quite as stupid as Audi's new naming scheme but it's pretty terrible.

If they'd just ditch the n/a 3.6 they could stick to the old school displacement number. 

How do you figure on that last bit?

Also, 271 ft-lb = 367 Nm. 

I think rounding up by that much is also ridiculous.. 

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

How do you figure on that last bit?

Everything else has forced induction, right? 

Oh I forgot about the N/A 6.2 in the 'Slade. 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

Also, 271 ft-lb = 367 Nm. 

I think rounding up by that much is also ridiculous.. 

It also makes things confusing because in the CTS for example, the 2.0T and the 3.6 are both 400.  But the 2.0T gets a T at the end.... so is it the better/more expensive engine?  No, the buy up engine is the 3.6.

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Also, 271 ft-lb = 367 Nm. 

I think rounding up by that much is also ridiculous.. 

Everything else has forced induction, right? 

Oh I forgot about the N/A 6.2 in the 'Slade. 

But different 2.0Ts have different torque numbers.  The XT4 is a 350 and the ATS is a 400.

"To further complicate things, V-Series will have V badging but will not bear a torque figure. Why? In part because the number is too large. The CT6-V, for example, with the 4.2-liter twin-turbo Blackwing V-8 engine generates 550 hp and 627 lb-ft of torque or 850 Nm." 

Just now, ccap41 said:

"To further complicate things, V-Series will have V badging but will not bear a torque figure. Why? In part because the number is too large. The CT6-V, for example, with the 4.2-liter twin-turbo Blackwing V-8 engine generates 550 hp and 627 lb-ft of torque or 850 Nm." 

Yeah, that's dumb..... I'd love a CT6 850.... totally pwn the Germans.

The United States has, as a people, been largely rejecting the metric system going all the way back to its birth in 1792 in France.  I highly doubt that even millennials will fully adopt the metric system,  As for this new naming scheme, I am not sure why this is necessary.

Just now, riviera74 said:

The United States has, as a people, been largely rejecting the metric system going all the way back to its birth in 1792 in France.  I highly doubt that even millennials will fully adopt the metric system,  As for this new naming scheme, I am not sure why this is necessary.

I've actually been contemplating an article about how Cadillacs have too much clutter on their trunk panels already. 

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It also makes things confusing because in the CTS for example, the 2.0T and the 3.6 are both 400.  But the 2.0T gets a T at the end.... so is it the better/more expensive engine?  No, the buy up engine is the 3.6.

But different 2.0Ts have different torque numbers.  The XT4 is a 350 and the ATS is a 400.

Yeah, that's a very good point. 

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

I've actually been contemplating an article about how Cadillacs have too much clutter on their trunk panels already. 

While Lincoln has done a lot wrong in the past decade..or three.. Eliminating some of the badging on the back of the MKC is nice. They got rid of the "ecoboost"badge and I believe that was done across their lineup, I just haven't looked. 

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Yeah, that's dumb..... I'd love a CT6 850.... totally pwn the Germans.

That's one badass car. Looks, performance, it's just great. 

Already sold out... GOT DERN IT! 

40 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Yeah, that's dumb..... I'd love a CT6 850.... totally pwn the Germans.

The S65 makes 1,000 newton meters.

This naming system is just plain stupid, and the fact that they spent time thinking it up is even more stupid.  Instead of solving the problem, i.e. product and marketing, Cadillac is on to its 3rd naming scheme in 10 years.

9 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

The S65 makes 1,000 newton meters.

This naming system is just plain stupid, and the fact that they spent time thinking it up is even more stupid.  Instead of solving the problem, i.e. product and marketing, Cadillac is on to its 3rd naming scheme in 10 years.

850 > 65

Why? Just why?

Good grief Cadillac.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

The S65 makes 1,000 newton meters.

This naming system is just plain stupid, and the fact that they spent time thinking it up is even more stupid.  Instead of solving the problem, i.e. product and marketing, Cadillac is on to its 3rd naming scheme in 10 years.

2 hours ago, riviera74 said:

The United States has, as a people, been largely rejecting the metric system going all the way back to its birth in 1792 in France.  I highly doubt that even millennials will fully adopt the metric system,  As for this new naming scheme, I am not sure why this is necessary.

I understand your point but then once the internet came around and the ease of moving data across the globe, standards that everyone can understand makes infinitely more sense. Just like daylight saving time where many places outside of the U.S. have stopped using it, now many states are wanting to do the same thing which I support. Just like Metric, it makes products equal on the same footing for global consumption. 

My only beef here is the Rounding BS. Leave it as it really is. Let the actual numbers speak for themselves.

@Drew Dowdell Love the idea of a write-up about the need to remove excessive badging on an auto. Add the IDIOT dealerships that think they can add their own big sticker or stick on badge to the back of your auto. The dealerships are NOT paying me for free advertising.

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

850 > 65

I think Kia should make a new K-1,000,000 and claim it a million times better than any thing else.   Maybe Ford can bring back the Five Hundred as the 500.

47 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

Maybe 1,000 newton meters isn’t enough anymore?  They had that engine for 15 years, it is dinosaur albeit a powerful one.

All AMG’s will be hybrids post 2020, don’t need 12 cylinders anymore for better or for worse.

Why does Cadillac even need this when most of their products have one engine option?  XT4, XT5, XT6, Escalde are 1 engine only.  I imagine the future sedans will have 2 engine options so why even bother with this?

10 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Why does Cadillac even need this when most of their products have one engine option?  XT4, XT5, XT6, Escalde are 1 engine only.  I imagine the future sedans will have 2 engine options so why even bother with this?

You're thinking of the American market only.  In China, the XT5,6 and XTS all get the 2.0T. 

Also, with electrification coming, there are bound to be some vehicles like the CT6 PEV that will have a 2.0T but have a 600(E?) badge.  The Escalade is also likely to have more than one engine option next go around. Then, as mentioned in the article, there are the EVs coming.  The CT6 has 5 engines options, the CTS has 4 engine options, the ATS has 3 engine options.... and the V-series isn't going away. 

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Why does Cadillac even need this when most of their products have one engine option?  XT4, XT5, XT6, Escalde are 1 engine only.  I imagine the future sedans will have 2 engine options so why even bother with this?

EV motors can be built to have a wide range of power based on the software programming. As such, going to kW and nM makes total sense as the software profile will allow you to offer a 300, 400 and 500 or more nM of torque with complimentary kW or HP.

One electric motor to rule them all based on the profile loaded to it's controller board.  

3 hours ago, dfelt said:

EV motors can be built to have a wide range of power based on the software programming. As such, going to kW and nM makes total sense as the software profile will allow you to offer a 300, 400 and 500 or more nM of torque with complimentary kW or HP.

One electric motor to rule them all based on the profile loaded to it's controller board.  

True..look at all the variety of outputs Tesla has had with the Model S. 

9 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

the American public is too fucking stupid to comprehend newton meters..

Aren't you an American?

10 hours ago, dfelt said:

I like this, makes better sense to move to Newton Meters and have a global[ly] understood standard. I wish the US would get on with modernizing and drop the stupid standard system and move to metric overall.

Same goes for Europe! I was in the UK last week, getting new tyres for my British Leyland P76, and they still have rim sizes in INCHES there! Probably too fucking stupid to comprehend how to go full metric - wonder when they're going to do that.

- - - - -
There IS NO math or computations involving an engine displacement call-out on a motor vehicle. It's not part of a formula, you don't have to involve it in any conversions, dissection of it's meaning is not required for legal operation... you don't do ANYTHING with it. No one is required or even asked to convert CI to soda bottles. The designation literally just sits there like a cartoon outline drawing of a ladybug. Just like when VW was selling the original Beetle in the US 50 for decades with "1600" on the decklid; if you own a Challenger 392, EVEN IF you're continually shipping all around the world and driving it in various counties, it literally doesn't make a goddamn difference what units the size is called out it.

Saying all engine displacements should be done in one size "cause math" is even more fucking stupid than saying everyone in the world should speak one language. THAT at least involves interaction/ communication, commerce, understanding, etc... but try and push that idea.

this whole thing reeks of 'trying too hard' but God bless em if it catches on.

Thanks for shutting down the metric boys in this thread, Balthazar.  Oh and yes, this latest badging scheme is stupid, even more so with the rounding up business.

Here's my take on the Cadillac proposal. I actually can see a case for going to torque (vs. HP)- it's what an engine develops. And I also can see a case for using it so electric and IC can be compared somewhat to each other.

What I am NOT on board with is incorporating it into the model name- that just seems like 'following the herd' and I never understood having the literal same car called a 'abc100' and 'abc200' and 'abc350' - it's schizophrenic at best. It's not a different model vehicle- ti's the SAME vehicle with a different powerplant. 'abc100AWDSunroof' is the same thing.
Use nM for torque if you want- either as a discrete badge somewhere or on the engine cover. No problem with that. Buick used to use torque call-outs on their air cleaner lids.

It's also stupid IMO to do it to be 'global' or because nM incorporates metric. F that.

There is still a place for Imperial measurements in today's world. Even for the rest of the world that uses the Metric system.

Although I find some Americans refusing to learn the Metric system as stupid...I also find Metric users stupid  when they make fun of Americans for using the Imperial system. 

feet and inches is still ideal for someone to describe height because feet is the perfect size.One Meter is too big to visualize. Centimeters too small to bunch them all up. Nobody uses the decimeter...

1.87 meters?  187 centimeters?  18.7 decimeters???

Sure, one could adapt...

6 feet 1 inches is simpler isnt it than all three metric measurements?!

Fahrenheit, although I personally get confused with it, I ould deal with it as I work with  Fahrenheit in my restaurant kitchen. Well, the Quebec health department makes us work with both Celsius and Fahrenheit, but I think its because Fahrenheit is more precise?

So, Americans shouldnt be forced to change, but Americans should learn the Metric system.

Actually, the world over shouldnt have dropped the Imperial system all together because it has its merits too!

As far as Cadillac goes:

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

What I am NOT on board with is incorporating it into the model name- that just seems like 'following the herd' and I never understood having the literal same car called a 'abc100' and 'abc200' and 'abc350' - it's schizophrenic at best. It's not a different model vehicle- ti's the SAME vehicle with a different powerplant. 'abc100AWDSunroof' is the same thing.
Use nM for torque if you want- either as a discrete badge somewhere or on the engine cover. No problem with that. Buick used to use torque call-outs on their air cleaner lids.

It's also stupid IMO to do it to be 'global' or because nM incorporates metric. F that.

 ^^^  THIS!!!

I know when I was in high school, college and grad school, all my science/etc classes were taught in metric..that was 25-30+ years ago.   But the US isn't alone in non-metric systems--the UK is odd in they have a mix of metric and traditional measurements--speed limits in MPH yet fuel in litres, metric for most things, but people weight in stone. 

As far as Cadillac's badging, no problem as long as it's not part of the model name...i.e. something like CT5 400 or CT5 500 and not CT400 and CT500...

I can just imagine....

introducing the Cadillac CT6900  CTSixety-Nine....Thousand) with Quad Drive all wheel steer Platinum BlackWing Brougham D’Elegance Fleetwood Denali High Country Grand Sport SS LS..

the best name by GM ever. 

On 3/14/2019 at 11:18 AM, Drew Dowdell said:

Yeah, that's dumb..... I'd love a CT6 850.... totally pwn the Germans.

Now that would be cool... ? 

On 3/14/2019 at 6:10 PM, balthazar said:

Aren't you an American?

Same goes for Europe! I was in the UK last week, getting new tyres for my British Leyland P76, and they still have rim sizes in INCHES there! Probably too fucking stupid to comprehend how to go full metric - wonder when they're going to do that.

- - - - -
There IS NO math or computations involving an engine displacement call-out on a motor vehicle. It's not part of a formula, you don't have to involve it in any conversions, dissection of it's meaning is not required for legal operation... you don't do ANYTHING with it. No one is required or even asked to convert CI to soda bottles. The designation literally just sits there like a cartoon outline drawing of a ladybug. Just like when VW was selling the original Beetle in the US 50 for decades with "1600" on the decklid; if you own a Challenger 392, EVEN IF you're continually shipping all around the world and driving it in various counties, it literally doesn't make a goddamn difference what units the size is called out it.

Saying all engine displacements should be done in one size "cause math" is even more fucking stupid than saying everyone in the world should speak one language. THAT at least involves interaction/ communication, commerce, understanding, etc... but try and push that idea.

You can resist all you want, but we already speak one language of 1's and 0's. After all this whole forum is how it is done, humanity can expand faster if we all used a consistent standard. Metric is superior to the standard system of the US. Just like Europe has embraced our coding that the US created as the programming is superior. 

Change is inevitable and Metric is a better system just as it is time to move forward with kW (Kilowatts) and nM (Newtmeters) for a fair replacement to Torque and Horsepower. We be the 21st century not the 19th.

In all fairness I will still not feel any hostility towards you as you are the keeper of all things OLD and I seriously respect that. History is what we learn from to make the future better.

Your "01100001 01110111 01100101 01110011 01101111 01101101 01100101"

For everyone else, what is wrong with knowing both metric and standard systems. Our education system fails all Americans by not teaching what is used globally and still thinking America leads the world in everything.

We need better education!

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

humanity can expand faster if we all used a consistent standard.

Actually, American manufacturing and engineering of aircraft and automobiles HAVE adapted to the Metric system. 

No choice as both industries for manufacturing different parts are made world wide for Boeing, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc...

So there is that. 

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

Metric is superior to the standard system of the US

Not necessarily.

Its easier to scale up and down the different sizes in terms of calculations are concerned especially for engineering purposes,  and in a nano technology world that we are living, Metric is the way to go, but not necessarily superior. 

A 9mm bullet is a good sized bullet to cause damage in someone.  But an almost equivalent .357 in magnum form is so much better for stopping power. 

I know that there is a 10mm bullet nowadays but Im assuming that a .44 is a tad larger, but I also know that a .44 magnum makes huuuuge holes in people. 

Maybe in today's world, Dirty Harry's pistol aint sexy as its only got 6 shots and an automatic has 15 or so, maybe more with today's crazy magazine technology, but I also know that all the rage of 9mm Glocks of the 1990s has worn down too, and that is why a 10mm bullet is now offered, but again, nothing beats the stop them dead in their tracks .44 magnum style! 

Im sorry that I went all guns on you in the automotive forum, but no, not everything Metric is superior. 

Feet and inches, still have merit. Horsepower and torque seem to be best suited for ICE.  ICE is not dead yet...

1 horsepower is what work 1 average Clydesdale horse can do. And the Imperial system did a fine job in creating a very good calculating system that works just fine. And its easy to visualize. A  300 horsepower car is calcualted damned close to what 300 Clydesdale horses can do...and we could actually visualize that kind of power even if we dont know how much power that really is...

But  seriously...can a Metric user honestly say that he knows what 223.71 kilowatts looks like? (that would be 300 mechanical horsepower)

Can a metric user honestly say that he could actually visualize how tall is 1.87 meters? 187 centimeters?  1.92 meters?  1.76 meters?  One could get used to it, sure.  But...

Like I said, meters and even decimeters, those units are to big for humans to visualize in space, and centimeters are too small to bunch up together. 

Shyte...metric users dont even use the decimeter when describing the height of individuals. Shyte...on my drivers license, Im listed as 1.7 meters tall, not 17 decimeters, but 1.7 meters...because Canada uses the metric system, duh...and  its been 50 years or more that we use the metric system, yet when a criminal is described on the news, feet and inches are used to identify the perp. Maybe, sometimes meters is used ALONG SIDE feet and inches...

I know Europeans actually do know how tall 1.76 meters is (visually in their heads)...but I still challenge them to tell me how many meters 1 person is standing from another, with great precision as 1.76 or 1.89...

An imperial user actually CAN be precise using feet though...(visually in their heads)

The Imperial system has its merits...it would be stupid to let the Imperial system disappear all together...

CT5 WTF

Looks pretty good- looking forward to more pics.

8 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

Actually, American manufacturing and engineering of aircraft and automobiles HAVE adapted to the Metric system. 

No choice as both industries for manufacturing different parts are made world wide for Boeing, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc...

So there is that. 

Not necessarily.

Its easier to scale up and down the different sizes in terms of calculations are concerned especially for engineering purposes,  and in a nano technology world that we are living, Metric is the way to go, but not necessarily superior. 

A 9mm bullet is a good sized bullet to cause damage in someone.  But an almost equivalent .357 in magnum form is so much better for stopping power. 

I know that there is a 10mm bullet nowadays but Im assuming that a .44 is a tad larger, but I also know that a .44 magnum makes huuuuge holes in people. 

Maybe in today's world, Dirty Harry's pistol aint sexy as its only got 6 shots and an automatic has 15 or so, maybe more with today's crazy magazine technology, but I also know that all the rage of 9mm Glocks of the 1990s has worn down too, and that is why a 10mm bullet is now offered, but again, nothing beats the stop them dead in their tracks .44 magnum style! 

Im sorry that I went all guns on you in the automotive forum, but no, not everything Metric is superior. 

Feet and inches, still have merit. Horsepower and torque seem to be best suited for ICE.  ICE is not dead yet...

1 horsepower is what work 1 average Clydesdale horse can do. And the Imperial system did a fine job in creating a very good calculating system that works just fine. And its easy to visualize. A  300 horsepower car is calcualted damned close to what 300 Clydesdale horses can do...and we could actually visualize that kind of power even if we dont know how much power that really is...

But  seriously...can a Metric user honestly say that he knows what 223.71 kilowatts looks like? (that would be 300 mechanical horsepower)

Can a metric user honestly say that he could actually visualize how tall is 1.87 meters? 187 centimeters?  1.92 meters?  1.76 meters?  One could get used to it, sure.  But...

Like I said, meters and even decimeters, those units are to big for humans to visualize in space, and centimeters are too small to bunch up together. 

Shyte...metric users dont even use the decimeter when describing the height of individuals. Shyte...on my drivers license, Im listed as 1.7 meters tall, not 17 decimeters, but 1.7 meters...because Canada uses the metric system, duh...and  its been 50 years or more that we use the metric system, yet when a criminal is described on the news, feet and inches are used to identify the perp. Maybe, sometimes meters is used ALONG SIDE feet and inches...

I know Europeans actually do know how tall 1.76 meters is (visually in their heads)...but I still challenge them to tell me how many meters 1 person is standing from another, with great precision as 1.76 or 1.89...

An imperial user actually CAN be precise using feet though...(visually in their heads)

The Imperial system has its merits...it would be stupid to let the Imperial system disappear all together...

 

 

9mm versus 9.1 mm or .357 which has twice the gunpowder of a 9mm as to why it causes more damage. It is all about choices yet if you spent any time in a country that teaches all things metric, it is very easy for a person to visualize a 187 centimeter person. I know after 3 1/2yrs in college in Japan, that is all they see as is pretty much any asian country and it really is not hard to visualize a person size based on the math used predominantly by people. If canada was not next to the US but say Europe, you might be able to better visualize meters rather than feet. Pro's and Con's to both systems

Your right most auto's have gone metric, but then you still find weird standard parts on the auto's too, so this is why learning both is important I feel. 

In regards to Kilowatts versus horsepower, In north America we use horses to visualize power, but in many other places they use energy to visualize the same thing. If we showed a large tesla storage yard to represent power of an auto over showing a range with 300 horses on it running, I think people could understand Kilowatts versus Horsepower.

It is all about how and what we use to learn.

3 hours ago, dfelt said:

9mm versus 9.1 mm or .357 which has twice the gunpowder of a 9mm as to why it causes more damage. It is all about choices yet if you spent any time in a country that teaches all things metric, it is very easy for a person to visualize a 187 centimeter person. I know after 3 1/2yrs in college in Japan, that is all they see as is pretty much any asian country and it really is not hard to visualize a person size based on the math used predominantly by people. If canada was not next to the US but say Europe, you might be able to better visualize meters rather than feet. Pro's and Con's to both systems

Your right most auto's have gone metric, but then you still find weird standard parts on the auto's too, so this is why learning both is important I feel. 

In regards to Kilowatts versus horsepower, In north America we use horses to visualize power, but in many other places they use energy to visualize the same thing. If we showed a large tesla storage yard to represent power of an auto over showing a range with 300 horses on it running, I think people could understand Kilowatts versus Horsepower.

It is all about how and what we use to learn.

I guess, it all comes down to that statement.

I agree with your post 100%, BTW!