Spying: Cadillac CTS

I am looking to see where the TT V6 is placed. As a direct competitor of 535 with ~330 hp or so, between 535 and 550 with ~375 hp or so.

Clearly represents a nice leap in evolution to Art & Science.

even though i like to some degree the new Cadillac interiors, they are a little more gaudy than purposeful. And it doesn't seem they've really been big on controlling gaps and fit as much as they just throw a bunch of showy surfaces out there to distract you from noticing how tight it fits.

It's a pre-production interior. Don't judge panel gaps by that picture.

I do like how they tape over the badge on the steering wheel so you can't tell which brand it is.

Interesting, give a good idea of where they are going, but as Olds Says, do NOT judge the fit and finish, this is a mule that will be crushed and destroyed when done. This is not what a customer should expect.

I do like the Turbo Engine cover. I wonder if this is a twin scroll or single turbo? Anyone have any better details of this new turbo engine for Caddy?

I hope Caddy does not make the mistake of replacing the 3.6L with a 3.0L TT-V6. Having the twin turbo as an option is a better idea. Remember when the new SRX started with just a 3.0L? Bad idea. Once the 3.6L replaced that, all was right in SRX world.

I hope Caddy does not make the mistake of replacing the 3.6L with a 3.0L TT-V6. Having the twin turbo as an option is a better idea. Remember when the new SRX started with just a 3.0L? Bad idea. Once the 3.6L replaced that, all was right in SRX world.

I would imagine that the 3.0TT will be an entirely different beast from the 3.0

I hope Caddy does not make the mistake of replacing the 3.6L with a 3.0L TT-V6. Having the twin turbo as an option is a better idea. Remember when the new SRX started with just a 3.0L? Bad idea. Once the 3.6L replaced that, all was right in SRX world.

Why?

This may be the first of the TTV6 cars and more should follow soon after.

even though i like to some degree the new Cadillac interiors, they are a little more gaudy than purposeful. And it doesn't seem they've really been big on controlling gaps and fit as much as they just throw a bunch of showy surfaces out there to distract you from noticing how tight it fits.

you dont know much about preproduction cars do you? they do not care about the gaps at this time because they are testing other parts of the car.

I hope Caddy does not make the mistake of replacing the 3.6L with a 3.0L TT-V6. Having the twin turbo as an option is a better idea. Remember when the new SRX started with just a 3.0L? Bad idea. Once the 3.6L replaced that, all was right in SRX world.

Why?

I know that a twin turbocharged engine will have more HP and torque than a NA engine of the same size, but the 3.6L is a great V6 in its own right. What are the benefits of having a TTV6 that is a 3L over the NA 3.6L? Unless the engine ends up being a TTV6-3.6L.....

It'll prolly be tuned for similar EPA mileage figures, but with at least 50 more horses.

I hope Caddy does not make the mistake of replacing the 3.6L with a 3.0L TT-V6. Having the twin turbo as an option is a better idea. Remember when the new SRX started with just a 3.0L? Bad idea. Once the 3.6L replaced that, all was right in SRX world.

Why?

I know that a twin turbocharged engine will have more HP and torque than a NA engine of the same size, but the 3.6L is a great V6 in its own right. What are the benefits of having a TTV6 that is a 3L over the NA 3.6L? Unless the engine ends up being a TTV6-3.6L.....

The 3.6 still has to work for its lunch in the SRX. They should dial back the HP and up the low end torque on that installation of the engine.

Agreed with Reg, that Caddy interiors are getting a bit gaudy, but it is bit too early to tell still on this one. There are things I like more than the current CTS interior (which I don't care for too much) like the upper dash and center console, I like no pop up screen, and that they moved the center vents. But I don't like the center stack buttons or how those AC vents look sort of Camaro-like. It shows promise though, would like to see how it turns out and how build quality compares to the Germans.

Am curious as to the displacement of the Twin Turbo engine. Assuming the 3.6 carries over with 318ish hp, I would think they have to be going high 300s, plus with better torque delivery. Unless the 3.6 dies and they go 2.0T 270 hp and V6 twin turbo with 350 hp or so. I hope there are 8 gears behind that engine though.

BMW V8 for 2013 is getting a power bump to 445 hp and 480 lb-ft of torque. So I don't think they are going after the 550i with this engine.

BMW V8 for 2013 is getting a power bump to 445 hp and 480 lb-ft of torque. So I don't think they are going after the 550i with this engine.

And it's a V8...you can't compete w/ a V8 w/ a V6...

BMW V8 for 2013 is getting a power bump to 445 hp and 480 lb-ft of torque. So I don't think they are going after the 550i with this engine.

And it's a V8...you can't compete w/ a V8 w/ a V6...

Yes you can, Lincoln says so. When the MKS Ecoboost came out, they said it was better than the V8s from the imports. And the MKS has been very sucessful... oh wait, nevermind.

BMW V8 for 2013 is getting a power bump to 445 hp and 480 lb-ft of torque. So I don't think they are going after the 550i with this engine.

And it's a V8...you can't compete w/ a V8 w/ a V6...

Yes you can, Lincoln says so. When the MKS Ecoboost came out, they said it was better than the V8s from the imports. And the MKS has been very sucessful... oh wait, nevermind.

Yeah, just marketing blather... the MKS competes against the ES and XTS, which are also FWD w/ V6.

BMW V8 for 2013 is getting a power bump to 445 hp and 480 lb-ft of torque. So I don't think they are going after the 550i with this engine.

Who said Cadillac was?

I hope Caddy does not make the mistake of replacing the 3.6L with a 3.0L TT-V6. Having the twin turbo as an option is a better idea. Remember when the new SRX started with just a 3.0L? Bad idea. Once the 3.6L replaced that, all was right in SRX world.

Why?

I know that a twin turbocharged engine will have more HP and torque than a NA engine of the same size, but the 3.6L is a great V6 in its own right. What are the benefits of having a TTV6 that is a 3L over the NA 3.6L? Unless the engine ends up being a TTV6-3.6L.....

The TT DI VVT turbo no matter the size will have a higher torque rating and the torque curve. I would not be suprised to see at least 90% max torque at 1800 RPM and it will hold near 100% from 2000-5500 RPM. The broad flat torque curves are where the performance is and the abilities to get better mpg.

My LNF 2.0 has max Torque of 315 FL LB at 1800 and holds it till 5300 RPM. If demad is there the torque is there. Torque does the work and gets you up to speed. Off Throttle time the DI fuel is cut off the sooner you get to speed and off throttle the better the fuel savings per the GM performance engineer I questioned when I went from 235 to 290 HP and 240-315 FT LB on my GMPD tune. I saw a average gain of 2 MPG highway and 1-2 city even with the boost of performance.

...you can't compete w/ a V8 w/ a V6...

Ford ~

302 V8 :: 360 HP @ 5500, 380 TRQ @ 4250

214 V6 :: 365 HP @ 5000, 420 TRQ @ 2500

Nope, no competing there.

...you can't compete w/ a V8 w/ a V6...

Ford ~

302 V8 :: 360 HP @ 5500, 380 TRQ @ 4250

214 V6 :: 365 HP @ 5000, 420 TRQ @ 2500

Nope, no competing there.

? Which 5.0? The Mustang 5.0 is over 400hp. What's a '214' V6?

Sorry, I forgot.

5.0L V8

3.5L EcoBoost

Ecoboost in the F150 is what he is referring too.

You could compete with a NA V8, especially a weakish one like Audi has, with a twin turbo V6. However, BMW and Mercedes have twin turbo V8s and Jaguar has a supercharged V8. And a V6 isn't competing with those.

Ecoboost in the F150 is what he is referring too.

Ah...trucks. Apples and oranges, can't compare engine choices in trucks w/ those of luxury sedans..different niche.

You could compete with a NA V8, especially a weakish one like Audi has, with a twin turbo V6. However, BMW and Mercedes have twin turbo V8s and Jaguar has a supercharged V8. And a V6 isn't competing with those.

If the CTS is going to be competing against models like the E-class and 5-series it's going to come up short without a regular (non-V series) V8 version..needs a DOHC V8. The Lexus GS is trying to go without a V8 option but it's going to go nowhere against the big boys...

Ah...trucks. Apples and oranges, can't compare engine choices in trucks w/ those of luxury sedans..different niche.

Ding-Ding, we were talking about cylinders/power, not trucks vs. cars.

Vast majority of buyers don't know/care how much power or cylinders it has, as long as it feels 'peppy'.

I would like to see the sales breakdown of the -say- e550 vs the other six V6 models- no doubt the majority of e-class cars sold are the V6s.

You can't get a V8 in an audi unless you spend nearly $80K. (Sub-A8) Audi buyers can't read their brochures?

These things are NOT important to 90% of buyers.

The MKS failure entirely the fault of the interior and bland styling. The ecoboost powertrain is one of the good parts.

MKS has a 355/350 tune EcoBoost, but is there any reason the 365/420 could not be installed? 420 TRQ is on par with the E550 V8's 443 TRQ.

Exhaust and transmission restrictions most likely.

Ecoboost in the F150 is what he is referring too.

You could compete with a NA V8, especially a weakish one like Audi has, with a twin turbo V6. However, BMW and Mercedes have twin turbo V8s and Jaguar has a supercharged V8. And a V6 isn't competing with those.

You mean like how Nissan GTR's 3.8V6 TT does not compete (annhilate) the V8 engines from BMW, MB, and Jaguar you are referring to?

Could be that, plus marketing choices.

444/380 5.0L could be in the F-150, too.

GTR should be an infiniti, at least according to the number jockeys.

Could be that, plus marketing choices.

444/380 5.0L could be in the F-150, too.

GTR should be an infiniti, at least according to the number jockeys.

I agree with the number Jockies, the GTR should have been a exclusive model to Infinitiy. Would have given it much better street cred.

I actually don't disagree with that, I believe they decided to brand it 'nissan' out of habit, not planning.

GT-R and Porsche 911 turbo are different animals. Both have 500 hp sixes, but not really set for luxury car tune. Luxury sedans need the power, but with smoothness and refinement and quietness.

V6 is where most buyers buy, that is why you need a good one (or inline with BMW). But someone like me who finds the 3.6 liter lacking torque and wants more power needs another option. TT V6 in the 350-375 hp range is a good option to get a quick car without crushing fuel (hopefully). A lot of buyers will like that. I'd still rather have a V8 than a V6 though.

Well, we can be pretty sure it is NOT a supercharged six (ala Audi). Even if the cover is intentionally misleading, the duct work shows the intakes going to the flanks of the engine, apparently feeding a traditional twin turbo setup. A supercharged engine or a reverse flow turbo mill would have those going to the valley of the block.

It's impossible to tell if this is a 3.0 or 3.6. Both of these have exactly the same block size and spacing just different bore diameters and strokes. However, if this is the LF3 and not something else altogether, it is a 3.0. Personally, I doubt it is a 3.6 if not anything because the cylinder walls will have to be the thinnest yet we have ever seen on a mass produced, turbocharged engine. GM does NOT have a history of pushing very thin walls in their turbo mills, if anything, they have a habit of doing the opposite. The 2.0T for instance is intentionally 2mm thicker in the walls than the 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5 with the same bore spacing.

You can get a lot out of power out of a 3.0TT or you can get a super linear, ultra responsive engine. However, you you need to give up one for the other. BMW opted for very small turbos with extremely fast spool times, this gets them a paltry 300hp from 3 liters, but up to 335~370 lb-ft hitting as low as 1200rpm. On the other end of the spectrum, you can go for about 420hp, but maximum torque won't hit until about 3500 rpm and lag will be noticeable. A compromise will be a 360-ish hp engine with about the same amount of torque hitting at ~2000 rpm. Based on GM's tuning of their 2.0T mills my guess is that this is the approach they will use.

One thing that we must not forget however is that GM has a great thing going with the Pushrod V8. This lineage is getting VVT, DI and AFM with the 5th Gen. It is not, and should not, be something they shun. Rather it is something they should flaunt. A twin turbo 3.0 or 3.6 V6 is not more powerful, not smaller, not lighter and not more controllable. Most often overlooked is that fact that a six liter class Pushrod V8 is also not appreciably more fuel thirsty than a bi-turbo V6 of equivalent output -- 16/25 mpg really isn't much worse than the best 400~450hp TT V6 can muster and this is expected to go up slightly with the DI Gen V engines.

Well, we can be pretty sure it is NOT a supercharged six (ala Audi). Even if the cover is intentionally misleading, the duct work shows the intakes going to the flanks of the engine, apparently feeding a traditional twin turbo setup. A supercharged engine or a reverse flow turbo mill would have those going to the valley of the block.

It's impossible to tell if this is a 3.0 or 3.6. Both of these have exactly the same block size and spacing just different bore diameters and strokes. However, if this is the LF3 and not something else altogether, it is a 3.0. Personally, I doubt it is a 3.6 if not anything because the cylinder walls will have to be the thinnest yet we have ever seen on a mass produced, turbocharged engine. GM does NOT have a history of pushing very thin walls in their turbo mills, if anything, they have a habit of doing the opposite. The 2.0T for instance is intentionally 2mm thicker in the walls than the 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5 with the same bore spacing.

You can get a lot out of power out of a 3.0TT or you can get a super linear, ultra responsive engine. However, you you need to give up one for the other. BMW opted for very small turbos with extremely fast spool times, this gets them a paltry 300hp from 3 liters, but up to 335~370 lb-ft hitting as low as 1200rpm. On the other end of the spectrum, you can go for about 420hp, but maximum torque won't hit until about 3500 rpm and lag will be noticeable. A compromise will be a 360-ish hp engine with about the same amount of torque hitting at ~2000 rpm. Based on GM's tuning of their 2.0T mills my guess is that this is the approach they will use.

One thing that we must not forget however is that GM has a great thing going with the Pushrod V8. This lineage is getting VVT, DI and AFM with the 5th Gen. It is not, and should not, be something they shun. Rather it is something they should flaunt. A twin turbo 3.0 or 3.6 V6 is not more powerful, not smaller, not lighter and not more controllable. Most often overlooked is that fact that a six liter class Pushrod V8 is also not appreciably more fuel thirsty than a bi-turbo V6 of equivalent output -- 16/25 mpg really isn't much worse than the best 400~450hp TT V6 can muster and this is expected to go up slightly with the DI Gen V engines.

I totally agree that the V8's can and will surpass the TT-V6 models when sold. The efficiency of a V8 can truly be optimized with better return on the dollars than a TT-V6

regfootball, on , said:

even though i like to some degree the new Cadillac interiors, they are a little more gaudy than purposeful. And it doesn't seem they've really been big on controlling gaps and fit as much as they just throw a bunch of showy surfaces out there to distract you from noticing how tight it fits.

you dont know much about preproduction cars do you? they do not care about the gaps at this time because they are testing other parts of the car.

it looks like a cobbled hodgepodge parts bin of the same ATS XTS and SRX bits and really i was hoping for something more designed, more driver oriented, and unique and different.. not just another variation of the same $h! they have going on in all the other cars. the CTS will be a flagship for now, I don't see originality here. and it's too gaugy compared to the very precise and austere German cars.

You think BMW, Benz and Audi don't have parts bins?

Hopefully the next CTS will get it's own steering wheel...that prototype wheel looks like a '13 Malibu wheel w/ extra chrome.

That's the ATS/XTS wheel....

regfootball, on , said:

even though i like to some degree the new Cadillac interiors, they are a little more gaudy than purposeful. And it doesn't seem they've really been big on controlling gaps and fit as much as they just throw a bunch of showy surfaces out there to distract you from noticing how tight it fits.

you dont know much about preproduction cars do you? they do not care about the gaps at this time because they are testing other parts of the car.

it looks like a cobbled hodgepodge parts bin of the same ATS XTS and SRX bits and really i was hoping for something more designed, more driver oriented, and unique and different.. not just another variation of the same $h! they have going on in all the other cars. the CTS will be a flagship for now, I don't see originality here. and it's too gaugy compared to the very precise and austere German cars.

If the CTS had the interior of a BMW, you'd call it boring and unimaginative. The 3-series interior better be precise... they've been building the same one for 25 years.

This is what you're asking for.

Which is not too far off visually from this:

there is usually enough difference in the interiors of all those german cars that they don't look like the same t shaped stuff

This is what you're asking for.

Which is not too far off visually from this:

the new 3 series interiors is actually quite stunning in most trims, the more you dig, you see some really neat details. and the 3 series interior is not duplicated in other BMW's. the new 3 interior is crafted insanely well with many tight gaps and insane textures and finishes and even subtle sweep lines and such in the plastics that you don't really get into until you're in the chair.

You think I haven't sat in the chair?

Well, we can be pretty sure it is NOT a supercharged six (ala Audi). Even if the cover is intentionally misleading, the duct work shows the intakes going to the flanks of the engine, apparently feeding a traditional twin turbo setup. A supercharged engine or a reverse flow turbo mill would have those going to the valley of the block.

It's impossible to tell if this is a 3.0 or 3.6. Both of these have exactly the same block size and spacing just different bore diameters and strokes. However, if this is the LF3 and not something else altogether, it is a 3.0. Personally, I doubt it is a 3.6 if not anything because the cylinder walls will have to be the thinnest yet we have ever seen on a mass produced, turbocharged engine. GM does NOT have a history of pushing very thin walls in their turbo mills, if anything, they have a habit of doing the opposite. The 2.0T for instance is intentionally 2mm thicker in the walls than the 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5 with the same bore spacing.

You can get a lot out of power out of a 3.0TT or you can get a super linear, ultra responsive engine. However, you you need to give up one for the other. BMW opted for very small turbos with extremely fast spool times, this gets them a paltry 300hp from 3 liters, but up to 335~370 lb-ft hitting as low as 1200rpm. On the other end of the spectrum, you can go for about 420hp, but maximum torque won't hit until about 3500 rpm and lag will be noticeable. A compromise will be a 360-ish hp engine with about the same amount of torque hitting at ~2000 rpm. Based on GM's tuning of their 2.0T mills my guess is that this is the approach they will use.

One thing that we must not forget however is that GM has a great thing going with the Pushrod V8. This lineage is getting VVT, DI and AFM with the 5th Gen. It is not, and should not, be something they shun. Rather it is something they should flaunt. A twin turbo 3.0 or 3.6 V6 is not more powerful, not smaller, not lighter and not more controllable. Most often overlooked is that fact that a six liter class Pushrod V8 is also not appreciably more fuel thirsty than a bi-turbo V6 of equivalent output -- 16/25 mpg really isn't much worse than the best 400~450hp TT V6 can muster and this is expected to go up slightly with the DI Gen V engines.

I totally agree that the V8's can and will surpass the TT-V6 models when sold. The efficiency of a V8 can truly be optimized with better return on the dollars than a TT-V6

The one thing left out is the fact that the public is no longer I have to own a V8 mentality anymore.

Ford has proven they could take the strongest market for the V8 in the Half Ton pickup market and slap a TT V6 in it even at a higher price and take 50% of the sales. Too many here think the public has a unending love affair for the V8 and they no longer do.

The fact is people today love technology and the flat torque curves of the new turbo engines.

The V8 will have a place but it is no longer the end all be all of all automotive things to the public. What they want and think is all that matters in the end because if there is that great of a take rate on TT V6 engines in a pick up there is even a greater one in a performance luxury auto. They are the ones paying the money and if that is what the public demands then give it to them.

well... slight correction. The Ecoboost isn't taking 50% of sales. The V6 and V6TT combined make up 50% of sales. What that is saying to me is that ~300 hp is enough for many people in a full size truck regardless of the number of cylinders it is derived from.

^ hmmm, that is interesting... and I believe correct. We need a breakout of the split between the 2 now.

Looking good. TT V6 is most likely the 3.0L as I have a gut feeling the TT 3.6L will be a much lower volume application (think ATS-V).

I wonder if the next CTS will have a 4cyl base model (2.0T?).

I wonder if the next CTS will have a 4cyl base model (2.0T?).

One cannot deny that posibility, considering how robust and flexible the 2.0T is.

there is usually enough difference in the interiors of all those german cars that they don't look like the same t shaped stuff

This is what you're asking for.

Which is not too far off visually from this:

the new 3 series interiors is actually quite stunning in most trims, the more you dig, you see some really neat details. and the 3 series interior is not duplicated in other BMW's. the new 3 interior is crafted insanely well with many tight gaps and insane textures and finishes and even subtle sweep lines and such in the plastics that you don't really get into until you're in the chair.

Reg, sitting in a pre-production ATS and production F30 at NAIAS, I can say that if 3er interior and details are stunning, then ATS is 10 miles further.