Cadillac Releases Details on New V6 Engine Family

The 3.6 peak power is again at 6800 rpm, the current V6 makes peak torque at 4800 rpm, the new one is at 5300.  So you really have to rev the crap out of that engine to get the power from it, which was always something I didn't like about the Gen 2 CTS or the Infiniti G37.  Unless you are above 4,000 RPM those cars have no power.

The twin turbo makes good power, that is a proper engine for Cadillac.  What is curious is they compare it to the A7 and 740i, so is that the target competition for the CT6?  If so, Cadillac does realize those cars offer a V8 right? 

Cadillac benchmarked the Infiniti 3.7 liter V6 for quietness and refinement. Using a new cam drive system, a stiffer aluminum block, a 2 stage oil pump, and stiffened structural oil pan all come together to bring the new 3.6 to be up to 4dB quieter at idle.

 

Why on earth would you benchmark the loudest engine in the entry-moderate level luxury segment for your high end luxury car?  And an engine that came out in 2008 and hasn't changed since.  Shouldn't they benchmark a Lexus LS460 or something for refinement?

The 3.6 peak power is again at 6800 rpm, the current V6 makes peak torque at 4800 rpm, the new one is at 5300.  So you really have to rev the crap out of that engine to get the power from it, which was always something I didn't like about the Gen 2 CTS or the Infiniti G37.  Unless you are above 4,000 RPM those cars have no power.

 

The twin turbo makes good power, that is a proper engine for Cadillac.  What is curious is they compare it to the A7 and 740i, so is that the target competition for the CT6?  If so, Cadillac does realize those cars offer a V8 right?

These aren't the only engines for the CT6, just the newest ones to talk about. 

 

Cadillac benchmarked the Infiniti 3.7 liter V6 for quietness and refinement. Using a new cam drive system, a stiffer aluminum block, a 2 stage oil pump, and stiffened structural oil pan all come together to bring the new 3.6 to be up to 4dB quieter at idle.

 

Why on earth would you benchmark the loudest engine in the entry-moderate level luxury segment for your high end luxury car?  And an engine that came out in 2008 and hasn't changed since.  Shouldn't they benchmark a Lexus LS460 or something for refinement?

 

The LS460 is a V8.  Apples/Oranges. 

There is a difference between engine loudness and engine loudness that you can hear from inside the car. 

From auto-decibel-db.com - rating at idle

2009 Infiniti G37 3.7 - 38.5

2012 Infiniti JX 3.5 - 41.0

2012 Infiniti M37 - 42.9

Lexus 3.5 - 40.9

2013 Cadillac 3.6 - 42.4

Buick 3.6 - 41.4

Audi 3.0 - 42.9

Mercedes E350 - 38.2

Jaguar 3.0 V6 - 44.4

Acura RLX 3.5 - 39.5

BMW 535i - 42.8

If Cadillac did as they claim and shaved 4dB off of the Infiniti number, that would make them extremely class-leading no matter which Infiniti model they started from. At worst, it would put the new 3.6 in the 37 dB - 38 dB range. At best, it would be in the 34 dB range (which I doubt they'd hit)

Why is that 3.6 even in the CT6?  Unless the CT6 is replacing the XTS in a sense and they need and entry level model around $50k for the fleets and old people.  While they are making "all new" engines, where is the V8?  Look across the automotive landscape and no one is selling a sedan with a naturally aspirated V6 for over $50k with the exception of the E-class which is losing the 3.5 liter V6 after this year.   The GS350, Q70 and RLX are all $48k.

 

 

Cadillac benchmarked the Infiniti 3.7 liter V6 for quietness and refinement. Using a new cam drive system, a stiffer aluminum block, a 2 stage oil pump, and stiffened structural oil pan all come together to bring the new 3.6 to be up to 4dB quieter at idle.

 

Why on earth would you benchmark the loudest engine in the entry-moderate level luxury segment for your high end luxury car?  And an engine that came out in 2008 and hasn't changed since.  Shouldn't they benchmark a Lexus LS460 or something for refinement?

 

 

The LS460 is a V8.  Apples/Oranges. 

 

There is a difference between engine loudness and engine loudness that you can hear from inside the car. 

 

From auto-decibel-db.com - rating at idle

2009 Infiniti G37 3.7 - 38.5

2012 Infiniti JX 3.5 - 41.0

2012 Infiniti M37 - 42.9

Lexus 3.5 - 40.9

2013 Cadillac 3.6 - 42.4

Buick 3.6 - 41.4

Audi 3.0 - 42.9

Mercedes E350 - 38.2

Jaguar 3.0 V6 - 44.4

Acura RLX 3.5 - 39.5

BMW 535i - 42.8

 

If Cadillac did as they claim and shaved 4dB off of the Infiniti number, that would make them extremely class-leading no matter which Infiniti model they started from. At worst, it would put the new 3.6 in the 37 dB - 38 dB range. At best, it would be in the 34 dB range (which I doubt they'd hit)

 

But that is how you get ahead, you benchmark your $60,000 car to be better than Lexus's $80,000 car, not Infiniti's $40,000 car.  Funny how the Mercedes 3.5 liter is the quietest on that list when it is the oldest engine in the M-B lineup and being phased out next year.

 

 

 

Cadillac benchmarked the Infiniti 3.7 liter V6 for quietness and refinement. Using a new cam drive system, a stiffer aluminum block, a 2 stage oil pump, and stiffened structural oil pan all come together to bring the new 3.6 to be up to 4dB quieter at idle.

 

Why on earth would you benchmark the loudest engine in the entry-moderate level luxury segment for your high end luxury car?  And an engine that came out in 2008 and hasn't changed since.  Shouldn't they benchmark a Lexus LS460 or something for refinement?

 

 

The LS460 is a V8.  Apples/Oranges. 

 

There is a difference between engine loudness and engine loudness that you can hear from inside the car. 

 

From auto-decibel-db.com - rating at idle

2009 Infiniti G37 3.7 - 38.5

2012 Infiniti JX 3.5 - 41.0

2012 Infiniti M37 - 42.9

Lexus 3.5 - 40.9

2013 Cadillac 3.6 - 42.4

Buick 3.6 - 41.4

Audi 3.0 - 42.9

Mercedes E350 - 38.2

Jaguar 3.0 V6 - 44.4

Acura RLX 3.5 - 39.5

BMW 535i - 42.8

 

If Cadillac did as they claim and shaved 4dB off of the Infiniti number, that would make them extremely class-leading no matter which Infiniti model they started from. At worst, it would put the new 3.6 in the 37 dB - 38 dB range. At best, it would be in the 34 dB range (which I doubt they'd hit)

 

But that is how you get ahead, you benchmark your $60,000 car to be better than Lexus's $80,000 car, not Infiniti's $40,000 car.  Funny how the Mercedes 3.5 liter is the quietest on that list when it is the oldest engine in the M-B lineup and being phased out next year.

 

There is little point benchmarking a V8 against a V6 and vice versa.   But since you insist...

Lexus GX460 - 42.3 (I can't find a non-hybrid LS entry)

Lexus LS600h L - 41.2

In any case, there is so little difference between all of these. For reference, 35db is virtually library silent. 

But that is how you get ahead, you benchmark your $60,000 car to be better than Lexus's $80,000 car, not Infiniti's $40,000 car.  Funny how the Mercedes 3.5 liter is the quietest on that list when it is the oldest engine in the M-B lineup and being phased out next year.

 

You benchmark to be quieter than quietest, not quieter than the sound of the more expensive car. Possibly E350 was not benchmarked because it is being phased out and the new turbo Benz is possibly louder than the E350. And 4db is still greater than 0.3 db difference.

I am not a fan of the 3.6 N/A as I have said in the past, Cadillac should use a turbo engine to replace the 3.6 NA, but don't challenge intelligence just to find faults.

Again, lets keep in mind that 35 dB should be considered "ignition off". So 36 dB is the absolute lowest limit for any gasoline engine at idle unless you bring in technology like active noise cancellation. Anything between 37 and 38 is class leading.   If Cadillac's claim is true, then they will have the quietest engine on the market. 

This is again typical GM lack or failure of PR and Marketing.

You are bringing a car that is going to be the most expensive car in the lineup and you showcase engines for the car that are weaker than the strongest engine of the lesser car.

Not good for people like SMK who are already baying Cadillac's blood for failure. Either bring the biggest phallus for the bacchanal or don't show off at all. Set the foot right Johan and Ewe. But then again, expecting something like that from them is asking for sending man on Saturn.

Did I miss where the all of the CT6 details have been released?

GM has proven the ability to build class leading engines with HP and Torque equal to or greater than HP. Now they show off an engine like this on a new auto. This is the one time I wish Cadillac had kept their mouth shut till the full engine line was ready for the CT6 and then start off with V8, Diesel, V6 and Alternative fuel.

The 1996 LT4 V8 had 330 hp.

The 2016 3.6L V6 has 335 hp.

One can only imagine the type of performance Cadillac can have with a 2nd generation Northstar V8.

Thought about it a bit more.  In this class, it doesn't matter who Cadillac benchmarked.  If they made it into the 37 dB - 38 db range, they will have just about maxed out.   There is a lower limit to idle quietness and that limit is 35 db  (A Lexus LS600h L which is powered on but without the gas motor running is 35.5 dB).  There simply is no way to do better.

Sound at 60 or 70 mph I think matters note than idle. How often do cars idle especially now they they all have start/stop and the engines are shutting down at stop lights.

Sound at 60 or 70 mph I think matters note than idle. How often do cars idle especially now they they all have start/stop and the engines are shutting down at stop lights.

Everything in this class is virtually unhearable at speed. Even my old CRV can do that. Road and wind noise are bigger concerns

That is what I meant, cabin noise levels at highway speeds.  Engine noise isn't a problem in most of these cars because the V8 cars don't really need to rev much past 2500 rpm for every day driving, and even a lot of these turbo sixes make a lot of low end torque.

NA 3.6L V6 spunds a little odd given that Cadillac seems to be willing to align itself with the market trends... Maybe it will be the plug-in hybrid model's ICE?...

Rumor is the new E-class has a quad-turbo inline six that in gas form makes 367to 435 hp and as much as 553 lb-ft, and in diesel form makes 313 to 400 hp and 516 lb-ft to 627 lb-ft of torque.   They are bringing a pretty big gun to the fight, Cadillac may want to rethink that 3.6 V6 and just make the 400 hp engine standard.

Rumor is the new E-class has a quad-turbo inline six that in gas form makes 367to 435 hp and as much as 553 lb-ft, and in diesel form makes 313 to 400 hp and 516 lb-ft to 627 lb-ft of torque.   They are bringing a pretty big gun to the fight, Cadillac may want to rethink that 3.6 V6 and just make the 400 hp engine standard.

I was wondering how long would it take for this information to get parroted on a Cadillac thread.

On thinking a little bit about N/A 3.6L and giving Cadillac a benefit of doubt, may be that engine will be installed for hybrid powertrain. As it seems nonsensical to have a turbo motor doing the work for hybrid cars.

Regardless, I do not think the N/A should be the engine of choice for non-hybrid applications when almost all competitors are force induced at that power level. There should be two tunes of the 3.0T to simplify the costs.

On thinking a little bit about N/A 3.6L and giving Cadillac a benefit of doubt, may be that engine will be installed for hybrid powertrain. As it seems nonsensical to have a turbo motor doing the work for hybrid cars.

 

Regardless, I do not think the N/A should be the engine of choice for non-hybrid applications when almost all competitors are force induced at that power level. There should be two tunes of the 3.0T to simplify the costs.

In the higher classes they are taking more and more high HP Turbo engines and combining them with electric drive or assist. Uber high MPG is not always a must have but if they can take a car improve the MPG but add to the performance these companies are going to do it.

Not all Hybrids are the same or out for the same mission.

The 3.6 I expect will be for Limo's and hearses. At least it makes more sense than the 2.5 NA in the CTS.

Remember, these are Cadillac wide engines, not just CT6 engines.  This 3.6 will go into everything at Cadillac that currently runs a 3.6 N/A.  So you're looking at 3.6 N/A horsepower figures for the next CTS, ATS, SRX, and XTS refreshes (and I do expect XTS to survive a bit longer for fleet use).

We also don't have torque curves yet... and I will be asking my contact at Cadillac for them... but apparently they've tuned this engine for better off the line punch. Yes you still have to rev the engine to get to the peak, but that's true of all DOHC N/A 6es (see what you've done SMK? we could have had torquey pushrods in there... but noooo.)

Regardless, I do not think the N/A should be the engine of choice for non-hybrid applications when almost all competitors are force induced at that power level. There should be two tunes of the 3.0T to simplify the costs.

You channeling a bit of SMK there?   ...   3 of the competitors have Forced Induction... the rest are Naturally Aspirated.

"At these power levels"

Jaguar, BMW, and Audi have forced induction.

Infiniti, Lexus, Acura, M-B, Hyundai Genesis, Kia K900, 300C V6... and if you want to be nice and include Lincoln are all naturally aspirated.

The key is the "at these power levels".  If you want more power, you need to go either to a V8 or a Turbo-6... which Cadillac will be offering as well.  It should be noted that a number of these competitors offer  less powerful base engines...  So if Cadillac is offering this 3.6 as the base engine, it will instantly have a an advantage.

 

Regardless, I do not think the N/A should be the engine of choice for non-hybrid applications when almost all competitors are force induced at that power level. There should be two tunes of the 3.0T to simplify the costs.

 

You channeling a bit of SMK there?   ...   3 of the competitors have Forced Induction... the rest are Naturally Aspirated.

 

"At these power levels"

Jaguar, BMW, and Audi have forced induction.

 

Infiniti, Lexus, Acura, M-B, Hyundai Genesis, Kia K900, 300C V6... and if you want to be nice and include Lincoln are all naturally aspirated.

 

The key is the "at these power levels".  If you want more power, you need to go either to a V8 or a Turbo-6... which Cadillac will be offering as well.  It should be noted that a number of these competitors offer  less powerful base engines...  So if Cadillac is offering this 3.6 as the base engine, it will instantly have a an advantage.

 

May be I should I have said it better, "are or will be force induced". Yes, number of them offer less powerful base engines, but so will Cadillac in the form of 2.0T or 2.5 depending on the application.

So let's get back to your list.

1. M-B does/will too with the 400 and 450 or whatever the heck they are going to name the 3.0L on one bright morning.
2. Infiniti has forced induction lying in the wings as you saw at the Detroit release.
3. Lincoln/Ford has the ecoboost 2.3, 2.7 and 3.5 engines. All the company has to do is plug one in a Lincoln.
4. New - And Volvo is F-I too.
5. So the only manufacturers remaining are Lexus and Acura, which to my understanding Lexus will have one soon.
6. I do not consider Kia and Hyundai in this league because they do not offer multiple sausage lengths of "luxury" vehicles.

Hence, non forced induced vehicles are or soon to be in minority. Back to my premise, GM has no F-I motor in 300 - 375 hp range like its competitors and to me that is a drawback especially since these engines started with clean slate. And no matter how much you look at the torque curve of a N/A motor producing 80% of torque of F-I motor, it will not match the F-I jolt.

So no your perception of me being SMK is incorrect. I seldom make comments without looking at things comprehensively.

Remember, these are Cadillac wide engines, not just CT6 engines.  This 3.6 will go into everything at Cadillac that currently runs a 3.6 N/A.  So you're looking at 3.6 N/A horsepower figures for the next CTS, ATS, SRX, and XTS refreshes (and I do expect XTS to survive a bit longer for fleet use).

 

We also don't have torque curves yet... and I will be asking my contact at Cadillac for them... but apparently they've tuned this engine for better off the line punch. Yes you still have to rev the engine to get to the peak, but that's true of all DOHC N/A 6es (see what you've done SMK? we could have had torquey pushrods in there... but noooo.)

I have a DOHC engine that is N/A and peak torque is 2800-4800 rpm, relatively low and flat curve.  If you don't go to the Honda VTEC school of engineering, you can make a DOHC engine make torque.

Remember, these are Cadillac wide engines, not just CT6 engines.  This 3.6 will go into everything at Cadillac that currently runs a 3.6 N/A.  So you're looking at 3.6 N/A horsepower figures for the next CTS, ATS, SRX, and XTS refreshes (and I do expect XTS to survive a bit longer for fleet use).

 

We also don't have torque curves yet... and I will be asking my contact at Cadillac for them... but apparently they've tuned this engine for better off the line punch. Yes you still have to rev the engine to get to the peak, but that's true of all DOHC N/A 6es (see what you've done SMK? we could have had torquey pushrods in there... but noooo.)

So are you saying the N/A 3.6L couls eventually not even make it to the CT6?

 

 

Regardless, I do not think the N/A should be the engine of choice for non-hybrid applications when almost all competitors are force induced at that power level. There should be two tunes of the 3.0T to simplify the costs.

 

You channeling a bit of SMK there?   ...   3 of the competitors have Forced Induction... the rest are Naturally Aspirated.

 

"At these power levels"

Jaguar, BMW, and Audi have forced induction.

 

Infiniti, Lexus, Acura, M-B, Hyundai Genesis, Kia K900, 300C V6... and if you want to be nice and include Lincoln are all naturally aspirated.

 

The key is the "at these power levels".  If you want more power, you need to go either to a V8 or a Turbo-6... which Cadillac will be offering as well.  It should be noted that a number of these competitors offer  less powerful base engines...  So if Cadillac is offering this 3.6 as the base engine, it will instantly have a an advantage.

 

 

May be I should I have said it better, "are or will be force induced". Yes, number of them offer less powerful base engines, but so will Cadillac in the form of 2.0T or 2.5 depending on the application.

 

So let's get back to your list.

1. M-B does/will too with the 400 and 450 or whatever the heck they are going to name the 3.0L on one bright morning.
2. Infiniti has forced induction lying in the wings as you saw at the Detroit release.
3. Lincoln/Ford has the ecoboost 2.3, 2.7 and 3.5 engines. All the company has to do is plug one in a Lincoln.
4. New - And Volvo is F-I too.
5. So the only manufacturers remaining are Lexus and Acura, which to my understanding Lexus will have one soon.
6. I do not consider Kia and Hyundai in this league because they do not offer multiple sausage lengths of "luxury" vehicles.

Hence, non forced induced vehicles are or soon to be in minority. Back to my premise, GM has no F-I motor in 300 - 375 hp range like its competitors and to me that is a drawback especially since these engines started with clean slate. And no matter how much you look at the torque curve of a N/A motor producing 80% of torque of F-I motor, it will not match the F-I jolt.

 

So no your perception of me being SMK is incorrect. I seldom make comments without looking at things comprehensively.

 

Again, I go back to "at these power levels".  The M-B 3.0TT will likely be more in line with the new Cadillac 3.0TT terms of power.. basically around 400 hp rather than 335 horsepower.   The Infiniti turbo with be a Turbo-4 not a Turbo V6.  Lincoln has Ecoboost, but is still offering the N/A V6.   Lexus's turbo will be a Turbo-4.   All of these will be either optional step up engines with the Turbo V6 or base engines with a Turbo-4.  As nice as turbos are, a 335Hp N/A V6 is still > 240~280hp Turbo-4

 

Remember, these are Cadillac wide engines, not just CT6 engines.  This 3.6 will go into everything at Cadillac that currently runs a 3.6 N/A.  So you're looking at 3.6 N/A horsepower figures for the next CTS, ATS, SRX, and XTS refreshes (and I do expect XTS to survive a bit longer for fleet use).

 

We also don't have torque curves yet... and I will be asking my contact at Cadillac for them... but apparently they've tuned this engine for better off the line punch. Yes you still have to rev the engine to get to the peak, but that's true of all DOHC N/A 6es (see what you've done SMK? we could have had torquey pushrods in there... but noooo.)

So are you saying the N/A 3.6L couls eventually not even make it to the CT6?

 

No. I didn't say that at all. 

Keep in mind that if this 3.6 is the CT6's base engine, that means the CT6 will be bigger than a 5-series yet lighter and with a 95 horsepower advantage over the base 5-er. 

But the CTS competes with the 5-series, isn'tt the CT6 supposed to compete with a 7-series?

What we really need to see is how the CT6 is priced.   Cadillac was selling the 3.6 liter V6 in a $40,000 CTS in 2008, I can't imagine people 7 years later wanting to pay $70,000 for a car with the same engine.  Unless they price this car cheap, but Cadillac wants to price like Germans do, so I doubt the CT6 hits the market at $55k.

It's the same displacement, not the same engine. Had you actually read the article, you would know that.

But the CTS competes with the 5-series, isn'tt the CT6 supposed to compete with a 7-series?

 

What we really need to see is how the CT6 is priced.   Cadillac was selling the 3.6 liter V6 in a $40,000 CTS in 2008, I can't imagine people 7 years later wanting to pay $70,000 for a car with the same engine.  Unless they price this car cheap, but Cadillac wants to price like Germans do, so I doubt the CT6 hits the market at $55k.

You may want to take the time to study this engine as it is not the same as stated and very advanced and compact.

 

But the CTS competes with the 5-series, isn'tt the CT6 supposed to compete with a 7-series?

 

What we really need to see is how the CT6 is priced.   Cadillac was selling the 3.6 liter V6 in a $40,000 CTS in 2008, I can't imagine people 7 years later wanting to pay $70,000 for a car with the same engine.  Unless they price this car cheap, but Cadillac wants to price like Germans do, so I doubt the CT6 hits the market at $55k.

 

You may want to take the time to study this engine as it is not the same as stated and very advanced and compact.

 

So a much more modern engine than the going backwards to cast iron I 6 engines that MB and BMW are doing together.

 

 

But the CTS competes with the 5-series, isn'tt the CT6 supposed to compete with a 7-series?

 

What we really need to see is how the CT6 is priced.   Cadillac was selling the 3.6 liter V6 in a $40,000 CTS in 2008, I can't imagine people 7 years later wanting to pay $70,000 for a car with the same engine.  Unless they price this car cheap, but Cadillac wants to price like Germans do, so I doubt the CT6 hits the market at $55k.

 

You may want to take the time to study this engine as it is not the same as stated and very advanced and compact.

 

So a much more modern engine than the going backwards to cast iron I 6 engines that MB and BMW are doing together.

 

There are benefits to an Inline but there are also issues. length, weight and height.

Also you have to factor in that the Inline engine is somewhat a tradition just as a pushrod engine is to the Corvette.  In some cases traditions have some issues that come along vs. a clean sheet approach but tradition also ties sales to them too. It is just more in some cases of what the customer expects than anything else.

I think you will find in the long run a powerful more compact power plant will gain an advantage in the packaging and balance of the car. Also Cadillac has no such tradition or expectation of a Inline 6 either so no real gain in the eye of the consumer here.

I think this is an advantage they can exploit and make it their own.

Besides how often do we hear that Cadillac needs to do their own thing and not copy the other to the last mark?  I believe a properly funded GM engine program with Cadillac can generate engines as if not more advanced in all areas of size, weight, power and refinement. We have not had that kind of engine program in years but today we are looking at them entering into one to do just this.

Also with the pricing of future Cadillac's there will be no need to cut corners either.

I think we can already see GM is really focused on the platforms and weight. Each new model and platform shed's more pounds. Even the Malibu is losing 300 pounds and increases it size.  Yet they have not gone all in for Aluminum even yet.

Hell even their trucks are right near what the aluminum Fords are. If and when they chose to go Aluminum it will really hurt Ford as they will be back at a great deficient.

With Alcoa getting the government money not to increase capacity GM will be able to avoid the higher incurred cost with better supplies on the vehicles they chose to use it on.

Anyways lets let GM do what they do best and show us what a properly funded high tech engine can do. I think many will be surprised at what they will do. The Ecotec Turbo is only a hint at what is possible and that engine even was underfunded in pre chapter 11 days.

I think people just assume Germans have a lead on technology but the truth be said they been building pretty much the same damn car for nearly 40 years in a 3 series and have just refined it over those years. Really look at what they have as it is good but not really broken new ground.

They may have added start/stop and cylinder shutdown to the V6, but that stuff has been around a while on other car.  Even if Cadillac is making the best naturally aspirated V6 of all time, you can get a 3.5-3.6 liter V6 in an Accord, Camry, minivan, Traverse/Colorado, Impala/Lacrosse, Charger/300/200, Altima/Maxima, Taurus/MKZ/Explorer, etc, etc.  That sort of engine is so common.   At the price point of an ATS it doesn't matter, a 335 hp V6 with 280 lb-ft is enough power for that size car, and Japanese competition has a worse V6 than that.  Get into the CT6 size and prize range and that NA V6 is a knife in a gun fight.  This is why Infiniti and Acura struggle to cross $50k, and the Lexus GS has sold like crap for the past 15 years, even when offering a V8 for the price of the German sixes.  You need something special to sell cars at $70,000+

Yet somehow its OK when the s-class comes with a V6.

They may have added start/stop and cylinder shutdown to the V6, but that stuff has been around a while on other car.  Even if Cadillac is making the best naturally aspirated V6 of all time, you can get a 3.5-3.6 liter V6 in an Accord, Camry, minivan, Traverse/Colorado, Impala/Lacrosse, Charger/300/200, Altima/Maxima, Taurus/MKZ/Explorer, etc, etc.  That sort of engine is so common.   At the price point of an ATS it doesn't matter, a 335 hp V6 with 280 lb-ft is enough power for that size car, and Japanese competition has a worse V6 than that.  Get into the CT6 size and prize range and that NA V6 is a knife in a gun fight.  This is why Infiniti and Acura struggle to cross $50k, and the Lexus GS has sold like crap for the past 15 years, even when offering a V8 for the price of the German sixes.  You need something special to sell cars at $70,000+

If the 3.6 is not your cup of tea... there is going to be a 400 hp 3.0TT offered in the CT6.  It says so right in the article...I know because I wrote it. 

What's the problem with having choices?

The diesel S-class had 455 lb-ft and gt 31 mpg, that was a good engine, but it is gone.    The other V6 is in the plug in hybrid S-class, but that car also has 436 hp/479 lb-ft and should be best in segment fuel economy.  They aren't putting NA V6's with 280 lb-ft of torque in an American market S-class. I think the new inline sixes will end up in an S450 base model for the American market.  In Europe they can do whatever they want, because they dominate the segment so much, and there is almost zero American or Japanese competition there.

 

They may have added start/stop and cylinder shutdown to the V6, but that stuff has been around a while on other car.  Even if Cadillac is making the best naturally aspirated V6 of all time, you can get a 3.5-3.6 liter V6 in an Accord, Camry, minivan, Traverse/Colorado, Impala/Lacrosse, Charger/300/200, Altima/Maxima, Taurus/MKZ/Explorer, etc, etc.  That sort of engine is so common.   At the price point of an ATS it doesn't matter, a 335 hp V6 with 280 lb-ft is enough power for that size car, and Japanese competition has a worse V6 than that.  Get into the CT6 size and prize range and that NA V6 is a knife in a gun fight.  This is why Infiniti and Acura struggle to cross $50k, and the Lexus GS has sold like crap for the past 15 years, even when offering a V8 for the price of the German sixes.  You need something special to sell cars at $70,000+

 

If the 3.6 is not your cup of tea... there is going to be a 400 hp 3.0TT offered in the CT6.  It says so right in the article...I know because I wrote it. 

 

What's the problem with having choices?

 

The ATS should be 2.0T base, 3.6 V6 optional, that 2.5 liter should be gone.  CTS could probably start with the 3.6 V6 base, the 2.0T isn't getting that big of a fuel economy advantage, so might as well dump it.   If the CT6 is supposed to compete with the big boys, it should have the 3.0 TT V6 standard, and a 4.0 TT V8 optional.   I like choices when they are good choices, or when a diesel engine or hybrid is a choice.   Not when you get to pick from the Malibu's 4-banger, a 2.0 turbo or a V6 with no torque below 4,000 rpm.

Why must the CTS start with the 3.6 base when the 5-series and A6 both start with turbo-4s... and much less powerful ones at that...

Why must the CTS start with the 3.6 base when the 5-series and A6 both start with turbo-4s... and much less powerful ones at that...

There is no sense just offering a V6 CTS  if you plan to go to Europe. Now since GM really does not offer the gutted model like the others in Europe. I would only eliminated the NA 4 and keep the Turbo 4. I have driven one and it works well and will only become more important in the future.

In this segment you need to let the markets determine what they want and supply  it.

Only one who is single market minded with no view of the future will not understand this. [not you Drew]

A turbo 4 in Europe alone is as important as the Diesel. We may buy a lot of loaded up Benz and BMW's here, over there they are much less common and the lower powered models dominate. Gas prices and economy there are much different.

At this point the whole Cadillac engine lineup will be tossed around so what we are arguing about today will be much different in about 5 years and on.

Let Cadillac refine and build their own Turbo 4 to V8 Engine line for the US market and then take it to Europe and pounce on MB and BMW.

Why must the CTS start with the 3.6 base when the 5-series and A6 both start with turbo-4s... and much less powerful ones at that...

To be better and give the customer more power.  The 2.0T has only a 1 mpg advantage over the 3.6 V6, if the V6 is getting an improvement in fuel economy, then that advantage is gone.  Most V6s are getting 30 mpg highway, which is all the Cadillac 4-cylinder gets.

The 2.0T is good for the base ATS because the C300, 328i and A4 have a turbo 4.  I see the CTS more in the spot of the Infiniti Q50, you have to give the customer more to get some sales.  The Lexus GS and E-class have standard V6s also, as does the Acura RLX is you want to call that a competitor, it is about CTS size and price.

Let Cadillac refine and build their own Turbo 4 to V8 Engine line for the US market and then take it to Europe and pounce on MB and BMW.

Europe is a tough nut to crack, they could sell CTS-V's for 30,000 Euro and the E-class and 5-series would probably still crush it in sales.  Europeans don't want an American car, so they could have to build something so spectacular to blow people away, then put in a dealer network.  The barriers to entry are huge.

 

Why must the CTS start with the 3.6 base when the 5-series and A6 both start with turbo-4s... and much less powerful ones at that...

To be better and give the customer more power.  The 2.0T has only a 1 mpg advantage over the 3.6 V6, if the V6 is getting an improvement in fuel economy, then that advantage is gone.  Most V6s are getting 30 mpg highway, which is all the Cadillac 4-cylinder gets.

 

The 2.0T is good for the base ATS because the C300, 328i and A4 have a turbo 4.  I see the CTS more in the spot of the Infiniti Q50, you have to give the customer more to get some sales.  The Lexus GS and E-class have standard V6s also, as does the Acura RLX is you want to call that a competitor, it is about CTS size and price.

 

What you are missing is the 3.6 has a narrow torque band. The Turbo 4 is a much more fun engine to drive. Also in my experience the Turbo will return much better MPG than the ratings than the 3.6. My 3.6 hits the posted numbers and the Turbo is at lease 5 MPG or better than the posted EPA numbers. Even if I remote start I never hit the 19 MPG as it will only drop to around 23 MPG. Summer city driving is 25-26 MPG.

If I drive careful I can get a little better than the posted MPG on the 3.6 but you really have to try as vs. the 2.0 you can drive it like you stole it.

The torque on the 2.0 is flat from 1800 RPM to 5300 RPM. The 3.6 really has no life till 3500 and you have to make the most with it to extract the power. The Torque never get near the 2.0 at 315 FT LBS.

Most of the V6 engines out there are only getting 30 Highway and that is if you drive carefully. My 3.6 will do 22 City and 31 Highway but you have to use care as the MPG is not forgiving. This make the 2.0 that much more a joy to drive along with the added Torque.

When I can set off the traction control at over 50 MPG with the 2.0 it should give you an idea of the torque on tap. The first time I had it happen I felt the loss of power and the light on the dash came on. I though I broke something.

So engineer the V6 to make peak torque at 3,500-5,300 rpm, as the Mercedes V6 does.  My car is naturally aspirated and makes peak torque at 2800 rpm.  The problem with Infiniti and Cadilllac is they set their engines to make max power at 7,000 rpm and max torque over 5,000, which is pointless for everyday driving, but they probably want to be able to put 330 hp in an advertisement.

And I am saying make the 3.6 V6 the value engine in the $45-50k CTS, make the new twin-turbo 3.0 the main line engine in the CTS that sell in the 50-60k range that competes with the 535i and A6 and E350/E400.   The ATS-V 460 hp engine could still be used in a V-sport CTS at $65k, which would be like their S6 or 550i competitor, and the V-series obviously above that.

CT6 should have a base turbo-diesel V6, 275 hp, 440 lb-ft, 8-speed and 40 mpg highway, 3.0 TT V6 with 400 hp , plug-in hybrid TT V6 and a twin turbo V8 with plug-in hybrid.  The same engine line would work in a CT8 with a V12 added at the top.

For economies of scale, the twin turbo V12 for the CT8 flagship could also be used in a mid-engine Cadillac super car with 200+ mph top speed and 0-60 under 3.0 seconds.  This would be ultimate GM sports car competing with the Lamborghini Hurcan and Ferrari 488, the Corvette would stay front engine rear drive in the $50-100k range.

So engineer the V6 to make peak torque at 3,500-5,300 rpm, as the Mercedes V6 does.  My car is naturally aspirated and makes peak torque at 2800 rpm.  

SMK you ALWAYS say MB is the best. Yet in using BING and GOOGLE I can only find the following information:

From 1954 to 1955 2 formula F1 wins of their own cars, engines, etc. till they withdrew after the 1955 crash at Lemans.

Returned as an engine supplier in 1994 only.

So according to Wikipedia, they have 100 wins as an engine supplier, two as constructor and four as drivers of Mercedes Benze sponsored Auto's.

So with this if accurate I can see where you would say they have great engines, but the best? I have a hard time saying that.

Where is MB wins for Nascar?

Where is MB wins for NHRA drag racing?

Where is MB wins for Kart racing?

Where is MB wins for Truck Racing?

Where is MB wins for Monster Trucks?

Where is MB wins for Stock car?

Yes both companies have been building auto's for a long time, both have been in and out of auto racing. both have had some quality success and quality disgrace issues.

Yet I see more GM racing than MB racing and GM seems to be building more auto's and sales. thought I realize that based on your logic than VW should be superior to MB since they are the worlds largest auto company followed by Toyota, GM and MB flipping places quarter to quarter.

If MB is better in every way all the time than GM specifically Cadillac, then why is it so hard to find MB in the larger racing circuits that is followed by more people and why do they not seem to be well known for racing?

People consider MB a Luxury auto maker here in the US and their entry in the eco space on up and the commercial space is going to change peoples perception of MB.

Formula 1 is the highest form or Motorsport and Mercedes is the best at it right now although Ferrari got a win over them today.

But the point was made how the torque is more usable on the 2.0T engine, all I am saying is you can tune a naturally aspirated V6 to make peak torque in the 3000-3500 rpm range. BMW non turbo engines used to be pretty good at that. I would think Cadillac could get more usable torque from the V6 than they can get from the 2.0t if they wanted to. Thus no need for the 2.0t CTS.

 

 

Remember, these are Cadillac wide engines, not just CT6 engines.  This 3.6 will go into everything at Cadillac that currently runs a 3.6 N/A.  So you're looking at 3.6 N/A horsepower figures for the next CTS, ATS, SRX, and XTS refreshes (and I do expect XTS to survive a bit longer for fleet use).

 

We also don't have torque curves yet... and I will be asking my contact at Cadillac for them... but apparently they've tuned this engine for better off the line punch. Yes you still have to rev the engine to get to the peak, but that's true of all DOHC N/A 6es (see what you've done SMK? we could have had torquey pushrods in there... but noooo.)

So are you saying the N/A 3.6L couls eventually not even make it to the CT6?

 

 

No. I didn't say that at all. 

 

Keep in mind that if this 3.6 is the CT6's base engine, that means the CT6 will be bigger than a 5-series yet lighter and with a 95 horsepower advantage over the base 5-er. 

 

I honestly hope Cadillac does not make the mistake of aiming any of the CT6 variants at the 5-Series segment. The N/A V6 could be an entry-level engine for North America (2.0L turbo will play that role in China), but it could also be the hybrid's mill...

Formula 1 is the highest form or Motorsport and Mercedes is the best at it right now although Ferrari got a win over them today.

But the point was made how the torque is more usable on the 2.0T engine, all I am saying is you can tune a naturally aspirated V6 to make peak torque in the 3000-3500 rpm range. BMW non turbo engines used to be pretty good at that. I would think Cadillac could get more usable torque from the V6 than they can get from the 2.0t if they wanted to. Thus no need for the 2.0t CTS.

While the basics of your statement are correct the torque range being flat and wide on the 2 is due to the combination of VVT, DI and a Turbocharger. The V6 engine will be closer to this but still not as low in the RPM.

Racing means little here today than in the past as most racing engine while based on a OE concept some of the time are mostly made up of specialized parts or aftermarket parts. The reason people use them is they are paid. 

I have seen where Yugo races at one point but it was because they paid someone to compete.

Generally most factory racing is all propose built and just not what it used to be.

Case in point Cadillac would be no where with out Pratt and Miller just as Benz would have never gotten anywhere without Sauber. Porsche is one of the few in house team but even they relied on Penske, Hobert and other private teams for even more development work.

Ferrari is one of the few in house deals left in F1 but even their road race cars have relied on the private teams.