Rumorpile: Cadillac's Upcoming 4.2L Twin-Turbo V8 To Appear in Escalade, CTS-V?

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I imagine most Audi’s sold in China are 2 or 3 liter.  Their V8 does come in under 4 liters to avoid that top tax rate.  But I bet the great majority of A8’s are V6 in China

So your choice is an A8 with a 6-banger for STILL way more yuan, or a twin-turbo V8 CT6.
I know where I'd put my money!

8 hours ago, balthazar said:

So your choice is an A8 with a 6-banger for STILL way more yuan, or a twin-turbo V8 CT6.
I know where I'd put my money!

The A8 with V6 mild hybrid is about 900k to 1.2 million Yuan in China.  It looks like China only has the turbo 4 and the 3 liter V6 CT6 for China, which do run much cheaper than the A8 in the 400-800k range.  But the A8 is a better car also.

I feel like the CT6 will exit the American market, unless they import Chinese made ones, but maybe they cancel it over there too.  I suspect GM made a decent amount of investment on CT6 because it was a new platform, that 3.0 V6 is only used there also, this 4.2 V8 is only there for now.  This isn't a good economies of scale car, they could be losing money on it, and even if it turns a small profit, I can see GM just scraping it.

3 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

The A8 with V6 mild hybrid is about 900k to 1.2 million Yuan in China.  It looks like China only has the turbo 4 and the 3 liter V6 CT6 for China, which do run much cheaper than the A8 in the 400-800k range.  But the A8 is a better car also.

I feel like the CT6 will exit the American market, unless they import Chinese made ones, but maybe they cancel it over there too.  I suspect GM made a decent amount of investment on CT6 because it was a new platform, that 3.0 V6 is only used there also, this 4.2 V8 is only there for now.  This isn't a good economies of scale car, they could be losing money on it, and even if it turns a small profit, I can see GM just scraping it.

Based on your statement then MB should be scrapping many of their low selling cars.

12 hours ago, dfelt said:

Based on your statement then MB should be scrapping many of their low selling cars.

MB should scrap the SLC.  The only other low sellers globally are the SL and AMG GT and those aren’t going anywhere.  They have to do something with the SL to improve sales which is hard when 2 seat convertibles have very low demand.

13 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The A8 with V6 mild hybrid is about 900k to 1.2 million Yuan in China.  It looks like China only has the turbo 4 and the 3 liter V6 CT6 for China, which do run much cheaper than the A8 in the 400-800k range.  But the A8 is a better car also.

I feel like the CT6 will exit the American market, unless they import Chinese made ones, but maybe they cancel it over there too.  I suspect GM made a decent amount of investment on CT6 because it was a new platform, that 3.0 V6 is only used there also, this 4.2 V8 is only there for now.  This isn't a good economies of scale car, they could be losing money on it, and even if it turns a small profit, I can see GM just scraping it.

The CT4 and CT5 are coming. I would expect the 3.0TT to show up in those. Or maybe still the 3.6TT for V-series and V-Sports. 

5 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The CT4 and CT5 are coming. I would expect the 3.0TT to show up in those. Or maybe still the 3.6TT for V-series and V-Sports. 

They should put the V8 in the CT4-V.  No holding back, if you have it, then use it.

GM should also make an inline six and kill all these V6's because any over 300 hp vehicle should be sending power to the rear wheels, and any sedan or crossover at Buick or Chevy can use a 4-cylinder/turbo/electric combo powertrain like Volvo does on their line, so no need for a transverse V6.   Also XT5 and XT6 should switch to Omega and get the V8.  This is the V8's last hurrah before electric takes over, I say V8 all things.

On 12/4/2018 at 4:03 PM, smk4565 said:

They should put the V8 in the CT4-V.  No holding back, if you have it, then use it.

GM should also make an inline six and kill all these V6's because any over 300 hp vehicle should be sending power to the rear wheels, and any sedan or crossover at Buick or Chevy can use a 4-cylinder/turbo/electric combo powertrain like Volvo does on their line, so no need for a transverse V6.   Also XT5 and XT6 should switch to Omega and get the V8.  This is the V8's last hurrah before electric takes over, I say V8 all things.

I am NOT impressed with the "Blackwing" V8. I am not impressed because:-

• It is not particularly high specific output (about the same as a 260hp 2.0L engine).
• Engines which making more notably torque than HP -- by definition -- spends it time running out of breathe as revs build
• The Hot Vee is a stupid idea because it limits turbocharger sizing for minimal to no benefits to responsiveness
• The only reason I'll advocate for a Hot Vee is to use a larger turbo vs two smallers ones for better efficiency and/or costs and that is not being done on the Blackwing.
• It did not include GM's new Tri-power cam switching valve train despite being based on the Ecotec 4-cylinder family

That said, the Inline-6 is an even worse idea. The Inline-6 is VERY LONG and harder to fit in a car than a V8. Basically, if you can fit an I-6 you can fit a V-12 and it takes a heck of a lot of hood length to fit either. Also, just because it is an I6 and I6es are naturally 1st and 2nd order balanced does not mean an I6 is necessarily more refined. GM's last I6, the 4.2L DOHC-24v 291hp Atlas (LL8) was... well... blah.

I'll very much prefer a V8TT to the tune of 500 lb-ft @ 2,600~6,600 rpm and 640 bhp @ 6,800 rpm with a 7,000 rpm redline. The key here isn't the power output per say, but the fact that you WANT an engine that gives you more and more as you progress up the tachometer. You don't want an engine that pushes you back like a freight train then spend half the tach sweep running out of breathe. It is very un-enticing to drive. People buying sports sedans are not exactly looking for the Peterbilt experience.

19 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

 . Also, just because it is an I6 and I6es are naturally 1st and 2nd order balanced does not mean an I6 is necessarily more refined. GM's last I6, the 4.2L DOHC-24v 291hp Atlas (LL8) was... well... blah. 

That was a truck engine, not a car engine...wasn't intended to be refined. 

14 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

That was a truck engine, not a car engine...wasn't intended to be refined. 

But it could have been.

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

That was a truck engine, not a car engine...wasn't intended to be refined. 

The point is that just because it is an Inline-6 doesn't mean it is more refined. You can have a truck engine that is very refined -- go drive the 2.7T 4-potter (L3B) in the Silverado and you'll see. You can have a car engine that really isn't like the LLT 3.6 DOHC V6 -- despite GM's exhaustive attempts to claim to the contrary, it is louder, more granular and more clattery than the 3.5L and 3.9L Pushrod V6es it replaced (thanks largely to the curse of Direct Injection).

The point is that while certain engine layouts have naturally superior balance (line the I6, I8, V12 and any of the horizontally opposed designs), adopting any such layouts is not sufficient to guarantee refinement. If GM REALLY wanted ultimate refinement they will incorporate Dual Injection (so direct injection can be disabled at idle and low engine loads where it is not needed and has no tangible benefit). If GM is REALLY interest in ultimate refinement, they will actually get rid of the Start-Stop nonsense or allow it to remember that it's turned off when the driver disables it. But, obviously, there are or have been other priorities.

On 12/3/2018 at 9:35 AM, Cmicasa the Great said:

Here's a thought.. How much is labor in China vs US. A bunch in sure, but with the supposed new trade agreement there will be no tariff in exports to China from US.. Hey GM.. Build the CT6 here for US and China and keep the 900+ buyers per month happy. My V is at the dealership now for a recall on the steering module. They have me in CT6 3.6l with Super-Cruise. I will post a review tonight or tomorrow. Let's just say that we are really missing out of they really kill this car. I've driven the 3.0TT in the past but this my first time in the 3.6.. It too is seriously swift to be in such a large AWD vehicle 

That will not happen. China is NOT STUPID. They understand Merchantilism. They understand that the wealth of Nations rise on Trade Surpluses and diminishes on Trade Deficits. They understand that ONLY trade that generates surpluses is of any benefit to a country and Trade that generates deficits impoverishes a country. That is why they have the HIGHEST IMPORT TARIFFS overall in the world and they REQUIRE foreign manufacturers building cars in China to avoid tariffs and to do it in factories at least 51% Chinese owned.

You see, Free Trade doesn't work. It doesn't work because unlike in stupid economics classes, absolute and comparative advantages measured in man-hours is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because Chinese and other 3rd world workers make $1.90 an hour and US workers make 10 times that. Are you willing to lower wages in the US to $2 an hour and eliminate social entitlements to compete? No? Then you will LOSE with Free Trade. You will never be 10 times more productive or skilled to make up the difference. Free Trade ensures the outflow of wealth, industry and influence from Rich Countries to Poor Countries. That is great for China, great for the 3rd World and great for the Globalist opportunists profiting in the process. IT might even be the best Social Justice and Redistribution program in history. But, it is terrible for any affluent country.

What we can expect and hope for is for barriers to be erected to impede Free Trade with countries with whom we have a deficit and to cause a global manufacturing diversification away from China -- our chief strategic rival. We'll be a little less harsh on the Chinese if they play ball, but that's about it. Unlike the swamp creatures in Congress (from both parties) Orange Man is very smart and Orange man is laser focused on the things that matter.

1 hour ago, dwightlooi said:

That will not happen. China is NOT STUPID. They understand Merchantilism. They understand that the wealth of Nations rise on Trade Surpluses and diminishes on Trade Deficits. They understand that ONLY trade that generates surpluses is of any benefit to a country and Trade that generates deficits impoverishes a country. That is why they have the HIGHEST IMPORT TARIFFS overall in the world and they REQUIRE foreign manufacturers building cars in China to avoid tariffs and to do it in factories at least 51% Chinese owned.

You see, Free Trade doesn't work. It doesn't work because unlike in stupid economics classes, absolute and comparative advantages measured in man-hours is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because Chinese and other 3rd world workers make $1.90 an hour and US workers make 10 times that. Are you willing to lower wages in the US to $2 an hour and eliminate social entitlements to compete? No? Then you will LOSE with Free Trade. You will never be 10 times more productive or skilled to make up the difference. Free Trade ensures the outflow of wealth, industry and influence from Rich Countries to Poor Countries. That is great for China, great for the 3rd World and great for the Globalist opportunists profiting in the process. IT might even be the best Social Justice and Redistribution program in history. But, it is terrible for any affluent country.

What we can expect and hope for is for barriers to be erected to impede Free Trade with countries with whom we have a deficit and to cause a global manufacturing diversification away from China -- our chief strategic rival. We'll be a little less harsh on the Chinese if they play ball, but that's about it. Unlike the swamp creatures in Congress (from both parties) Orange Man is very smart and Orange man is laser focused on the things that matter.

So why didn't he propose 100% tariffs on all Chinese made goods a year ago? 

5 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

I am NOT impressed with the "Blackwing" V8. I am not impressed because:-

• It is not particularly high specific output (about the same as a 260hp 2.0L engine).
• Engines which making more notably torque than HP -- by definition -- spends it time running out of breathe as revs build
• The Hot Vee is a stupid idea because it limits turbocharger sizing for minimal to no benefits to responsiveness
• The only reason I'll advocate for a Hot Vee is to use a larger turbo vs two smallers ones for better efficiency and/or costs and that is not being done on the Blackwing.
• It did not include GM's new Tri-power cam switching valve train despite being based on the Ecotec 4-cylinder family

That said, the Inline-6 is an even worse idea. The Inline-6 is VERY LONG and harder to fit in a car than a V8. Basically, if you can fit an I-6 you can fit a V-12 and it takes a heck of a lot of hood length to fit either. Also, just because it is an I6 and I6es are naturally 1st and 2nd order balanced does not mean an I6 is necessarily more refined. GM's last I6, the 4.2L DOHC-24v 291hp Atlas (LL8) was... well... blah.

I'll very much prefer a V8TT to the tune of 500 lb-ft @ 2,600~6,600 rpm and 640 bhp @ 6,800 rpm with a 7,000 rpm redline. The key here isn't the power output per say, but the fact that you WANT an engine that gives you more and more as you progress up the tachometer. You don't want an engine that pushes you back like a freight train then spend half the tach sweep running out of breathe. It is very un-enticing to drive. People buying sports sedans are not exactly looking for the Peterbilt experience.

Even if the 4.2 liter V8 has flaws, it is the best engine Cadillac has, so it should be in every product they can fit it in.  Leaving it on the shelf in favor of a turbo V6 or a 2015 era Corvette engine would be a bad idea.

Inline sixes aren't hard to fit in rear drive cars.  If GM had more rear drive cars it would make more sense.

37 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Even if the 4.2 liter V8 has flaws, it is the best engine Cadillac has, so it should be in every product they can fit it in.  Leaving it on the shelf in favor of a turbo V6 or a 2015 era Corvette engine would be a bad idea.

Inline sixes aren't hard to fit in rear drive cars.  If GM had more rear drive cars it would make more sense.

It depends on your definition of "best". The 2015 era Corvette Engine makes 100~150 more hp and 23~97 lb-ft more torque than the 4.2 "Blackwing" while weighing about the same.

While the EPA fuel economy numbers have not been disclosed by GM, I suspect that the 2015 era Corvette Engine will not fare substantially worse than the 4.2TT. The LT4 V8 SC turns in 14 / 21 mpg. That is 1 mpg worse than the hot vee 4.0TT E63S AMG's 15/22 MPG, which the 4.2TT benchmarks. One has to note that the 4.0TT AMG engine produces 47 hp and 23 lb-ft less than the Corvette Pushrod engine while exhibiting notable lag to its 22 psi peak boost whereas the Supercharged pushrod engine is instantaneous. The fact is that the good old Pushrod design has consistently beaten DOHC designs of the same output in power-to-weight, power-to-size and power-to-cost ratios while matching or beating their fuel economy numbers.

That said, the 4.2TT "Blackwing" with its torque characteristics will make a very decent Escalade or truck engine if you don't care about the cost or the complexity.

49 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

It depends on your definition of "best". The 2015 era Corvette Engine makes 100~150 more hp and 23~97 lb-ft more torque than the 4.2 "Blackwing" while weighing about the same.

While the EPA fuel economy numbers have not been disclosed by GM, I suspect that the 2015 era Corvette Engine will not fare substantially worse than the 4.2TT. The LT4 V8 SC turns in 14 / 21 mpg. That is 1 mpg worse than the hot vee 4.0TT E63S AMG's 15/22 MPG, which the 4.2TT benchmarks. One has to note that the 4.0TT AMG engine produces 47 hp and 23 lb-ft less than the Corvette Pushrod engine while exhibiting notable lag to its 22 psi peak boost whereas the Supercharged pushrod engine is instantaneous. The fact is that the good old Pushrod design has consistently beaten DOHC designs of the same output in power-to-weight, power-to-size and power-to-cost ratios while matching or beating their fuel economy numbers.

That said, the 4.2TT "Blackwing" with its torque characteristics will make a very decent Escalade or truck engine if you don't care about the cost or the complexity.

 

Well that V8 is GM's newest engine and developed for Cadillac so it should go in Cadillacs.

The S63 sedan gets 17/26 mpg and 17/27 mpg in the S63 coupe, that compares well to the 14/21 mpg of the CTS-V and the Mercs have all wheel drive which isn't helping fuel economy.  

Also the AMG 4 liter V8 weighs the same as the non-supercharged GM 6.2 liter V8 and beats China's upper tier displacement tax.  It must work because AMG has the fastest SUV, fastest wagon, fastest 4-door car around the Nurburgring and the GT R was the fastest front engine/rear drive car around the Nurburgring, not sure if it still is.  That engine performs at a high level across the board though, and it isn't even electrified yet which will be the next phase.

And AMG could get more power out of that V8 if they wanted to, but they have to factor in refinement and NVH too.  The new 2.0 liter A45 engine is said to produce 416 hp and that is just half their V8, they could get 800 hp out of that 4 liter if they really wanted to, they get 800 hp from a 1.6 liter V6 so out of a 4 liter V8 should be easy.

Here we're 'worried' about a "Corvette engine from 2015" but we're advocating inline 6s from the 60, 70, and 80s.

5 hours ago, balthazar said:

Here we're 'worried' about a "Corvette engine from 2015" but we're advocating inline 6s from the 60, 70, and 80s.

Except for me...getting early vintage Ford disease again. 1940 Ford ragtop with a flathead please. None of this silly overhead valve stuff Dwight keeps talking about.

flathead VEE eight tho, yes?

Or were you pining for a Ford I6 flathead? (85 HP IS a neck-snapping amount to handle)

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

flathead VEE eight tho, yes?

Or were you pining for a Ford I6 flathead? (85 HP IS a neck-snapping amount to handle)

Flat head V8...yes...and a 40 Ragtop to run it in. 

Although a fellow poster said anything with less than 1000 torque is not worth driving....hmmm...I damn sure would drive that vintage Ford!

Although i would want other vintage cars to keep the Flathead ragtop company. A car getting lonely is a horrible thing.

19 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

That was a truck engine, not a car engine...wasn't intended to be refined. 

For its day, the Atlas I6 was very nicely refined compared to the V6 counterparts. 

Wait a minute.  Do we need a good V8 or a GREAT V8?  Do we need a good I6 or a GREAT V6?  EVs will not be mainstream for at least another 15 years, so GM needs to still make GREAT V8 and V6 engines with Great torque curves period.

1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

Wait a minute.  Do we need a good V8 or a GREAT V8?  Do we need a good I6 or a GREAT V6?  EVs will not be mainstream for at least another 15 years, so GM needs to still make GREAT V8 and V6 engines with Great torque curves period.

GM already has that covered I think.

16 hours ago, smk4565 said:

...

The S63 sedan gets 17/26 mpg and 17/27 mpg in the S63 coupe, that compares well to the 14/21 mpg of the CTS-V and the Mercs have all wheel drive which isn't helping fuel economy.  

...

And AMG could get more power out of that V8 if they wanted to, but they have to factor in refinement and NVH too.  The new 2.0 liter A45 engine is said to produce 416 hp and that is just half their V8, they could get 800 hp out of that 4 liter if they really wanted to, they get 800 hp from a 1.6 liter V6 so out of a 4 liter V8 should be easy.

You can gear and AFM a pushrod V8 for better fuel economy too. We were comparing the economy numbers output focused E63S and the CTS-V.

You CAN get over 400 hp from 2.0 liters. I know... I have been there and done that. You could do that 25 years ago with a 4G63 in the Talon or Eclipse running a TD06H-20G turbo and 7.8:1 compression. The engine actually never broke... the tranny and the transfer case keeps breaking though. You will lose fuel economy from reduced compression and you will gain massive amounts of lag not just from a large turbocharger, but the need to go from vacuum to about 30 psi of boost when you stab on the throttle.

For a production car carrying a warranty and appealing to customers with their heads intact, one has to ask why do you want to do that? Displacement does not cost money; complexity and exotic materials do. Displacement also does not necessarily cost fuel economy; friction and aspiration loses do. If you want 400 hp in an economical powerplant, you are far better off with a 2.5~3.0L class four with half as much boost, cylinder deactivation and a miller cycle cam on your VVL system to switch to. You don't even really need 4-valves per cylinder; it doesn't really give you much under 6,000 rpm except a lot of friction and complexity*.

*Note: This is NOT a subjective statement. Look at the torque peak and power peak of a LT1 V8. 460 hp @ 6000 rpm and 465 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm empirically tells you that peak volumetric efficiency (cylinder filling) occurs at around 4600 rpm and volumetric efficiency does not fall faster than rpm rise until 6000 rpm. There is no airflow problems with two valves sitting side-by-side and with pushrods in the way of the intake ports at least until 6000 rpm. A SOHC 2-valve engine with a hemispherical combustion chamber and opposed valves should do a bit better. I can confidently say that for motors tuned to deliver torque peaks under 5000 rpm and power peaks around 6000 rpm -- which includes all the Accord and Camry engines -- DOHC 4-valves costs you a little fuel economy and extra money for NO PERFORMANCE BENEFIT.