Faster than an M5: First Cadillac CTS-V performance test published

[Robert Hall]

blah blah blah blah blah...endless bench racing and pointless blather, nitpicking, etc.

Why not celebrate the CTS-v for what it is...a great American performance car that is competitive in the big leagues.

[Sixty8panther]

Siegen:

Here's what it boils down to:

GM has once AGAIN made a car with incredible bang/$.

I am not inconvenienced by however liters are under

the hood... I'd be okay with a CTS-V displacing 99 liters

and getting only 30-HP-per-liter so long as the fuel

economy stayed in the teens, and weather the car's V8

or V10 has 4 cams or ONE cam is all the same to most

buyers, it certainly does NOT cost them MORE for the

more durrable & reliable pushrod variant, while a

forced-induction motor does wear out quicker the type

of consumer who will be buying either the CTS-V or the

BMW M5 does not care about that much at all beyond

(maybe) MSRP and maintenance...

Any way you slice it, whatever way you want to spin it

GM has consistantly offered awesome value (bang/$)

on desirable sports cars, sport sedans & muscle cars.

Now what I want to know, please do not take offense to

this, but I'm honestly asking:

Why is it that you post here as often as most GM fans?

Seldom if ever do you wax poetic on anything other

than the Acura NSX or some other (IMHO) overpriced

& overrated Honda product...

What GM vehicle inspires (or inspired) you to post

here originally? I do not mind you playing devil's

advocate but sometimes it seems you just hang out

to reign on everyone's parade....?

Again, I'm, not trying to be a d!ck, just asking.

[Sixty8panther]

GM does not usually claim better than they can deliver and all the GM number that I have seen say 3.9 0-60 and 12.0 1/4 mile.

Yes, very true.

Unlike Ford, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia & many others that

have gotten caught with their pants down when an

owner has not been able to verify performance or HP.

Remember the Ford Mustang Cobra debacle in 1999.

Pathetic.

[siegen]

Siegen:

Here's what it boils down to:

GM has once AGAIN made a car with incredible bang/$.

I am not inconvenienced by however liters are under

the hood... I'd be okay with a CTS-V displacing 99 liters

and getting only 30-HP-per-liter so long as the fuel

economy stayed in the teens, and weather the car's V8

or V10 has 4 cams or ONE cam is all the same to most

buyers, it certainly does NOT cost them MORE for the

more durrable & reliable pushrod variant, while a

forced-induction motor does wear out quicker the type

of consumer who will be buying either the CTS-V or the

BMW M5 does not care about that much at all beyond

(maybe) MSRP and maintenance...

Any way you slice it, whatever way you want to spin it

GM has consistantly offered awesome value (bang/$)

on desirable sports cars, sport sedans & muscle cars.

Now what I want to know, please do not take offense to

this, but I'm honestly asking:

Why is it that you post here as often as most GM fans?

Seldom if ever do you wax poetic on anything other

than the Acura NSX or some other (IMHO) overpriced

& overrated Honda product...

What GM vehicle inspires (or inspired) you to post

here originally? I do not mind you playing devil's

advocate but sometimes it seems you just hang out

to reign on everyone's parade....?

Again, I'm, not trying to be a d!ck, just asking.

The CTS-V is a good car, I haven't said anything to the contrary. I prefer the styling of the M5, but I have already congratulated Cadillac in my first post for making a car that competes performance-wise at a lower cost, which is exactly what this car does. If it ends up really beating them performance-wise, then that's even better.

That aside, many of my posts are misinterpreted, they are taken too literally or my meaning is bent. This isn't aimed at you but at everyone, and I am either failing to get my point across or nobody is trying to understand it enough. Also people like to toot their horn and jump at any opportunity to do so. I'm going to try and put this as partially as I can. Here we have two cars that use different methods to achieve the same result. One uses more displacement and forced induction, while the other uses a more complex valvetrain and engine design. Being a technical person it is obvious which one I prefer. While one may be a less expensive route to achieve the result now, it certainly doesn't advance engine technology for the future. That is all. I was never trying to argue HP/liter but perhaps my posts came off sounding that way.

But to answer your question. This is the place I like to go for automotive news in general. I play the devil's advocate often because I like to balance the opinion. I have been very critical of many Honda products, but I save most of that for vtec.net, since there really is no point to post it here as Honda certainly doesn't read posts here.

[Sixty8panther]

Okay... I can understand your point.

One thing I'd like to throw in there is that GM has advanced

engine technoloogy more than anyone else, in the past few

decades they've had their ups and downs, but overall, they

have in the past made fantastic contributions to the field.

Honda has too, esp. given their relatively short existance &

some of their cutting edge stuff, but in the real world Honda

cars do nothing for me, they turn me off 99 times out of a

hundred, save for the S2000, NSX & to a smaller degree the

2nd gen. CRX and a few Preludes/Integras... they seem to

be going downhill if anything, as far as production cars,

which is where it counts!

There's a small chance I'll own a Honda generator, ATV or

maybe even a motorcycle, the pancake-6 powered Valkrie

used to catch my eye as a teenager, but their cars by &

large do not exite me at all, esp. the new stuff:

[Lamar]

I'd be okay with a CTS-V displacing 99 liters

and getting only 30-HP-per-liter so long as the fuel

economy stayed in the teens

2,970 HP? That's train power.

[Drew Dowdell]

2,970 HP? That's train power.

CTS-V

Powered by Electro-Motive

[Lamar]

CTS-V

Powered by Electro-Motive

I like.

But where to store all that juice?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Well Bob Lutz said the CTS-V would "suck the doors off an M5" the CTS-V posted marginally better times than an M5 that has been out a while M5 without a limiter can do 204 mph, that is impressive. I'd prefer Bob Lutz stop making claims, because often he just over states or the bean counters step in, and what he claimed doesn't get delivered.

Bottom line is American car fans of big growly engines will like this car. Those that had a 300C, Corvette, older V-series, Charger SRT-8, etc will probably want one. People that spend $90,000 on Euro-exotics won't be interested, they buy BMW or Mercedes for prestige, and often don't consider American cars.

That's fine...

Us 'american car fanboys' will have fun making them look like fools at the track AND on the street.

[smk4565]

the type

of consumer who will be buying either the CTS-V or the

BMW M5 does not care about that much at all beyond

(maybe) MSRP and maintenance...

Any way you slice it, whatever way you want to spin it

GM has consistantly offered awesome value (bang/$)

on desirable sports cars, sport sedans & muscle cars.

M5 buyers only care about MSRP and operating cost? That sounds like a Hyundai or Camry buyer. People that buy an M5 or similar car are going to care about the engine, the small details and the badge. They dropped the pushrod from the Malibu because it wasn't refined enough to compete with the Camry and Accord, yet they kept for Cadillac to go against Mercedes and BMW, hmm.

I agree, they built a lot of performance per dollar, in the way Chrysler has a lot of performance per dollar in the 300 SRT-8. 425 hp and same cost as a 304 hp CTS, The SRT-8 can crush a CTS DI in performance, but the Chrysler isn't a better car, somewhere they cheaped out on materials, the badge is less prestigious, reliability isn't as good, etc.

If the CTS-V were truely better than the M5 or E63 or RS6, Cadillac would charge $90,000 for it.

[Drew Dowdell]

They dropped the pushrod from the Malibu because it wasn't refined enough to compete with the Camry and Accord, yet they kept for Cadillac to go against Mercedes and BMW, hmm.

wasn't the same pushrod dummy

[smk4565]

wasn't the same pushrod dummy

But DOHC came is inherently superior to OHV. Lexus, Mercedes, Ferrari, Porsche, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Maserati, Infiniti, Bugatti and Rolls-Royce aren't using DOHC by accident. Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Chrysler, Dodge use pushrods, which group makes more desirable cars

[Drew Dowdell]

But DOHC came is inherently superior to OHV. Lexus, Mercedes, Ferrari, Porsche, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Maserati, Infiniti, Bugatti and Rolls-Royce aren't using DOHC by accident. Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Chrysler, Dodge use pushrods, which group makes more desirable cars

Not going to turn this into a CIB v. OHC debate, but no, one is not "inherently superior" to the other...... as this CTS-V demonstrates.

Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Chrysler, Dodge use both pushrod and OHC.

[Lamar]

M5 buyers only care about MSRP and operating cost? That sounds like a Hyundai or Camry buyer. People that buy an M5 or similar car are going to care about the engine, the small details and the badge. They dropped the pushrod from the Malibu because it wasn't refined enough to compete with the Camry and Accord, yet they kept for Cadillac to go against Mercedes and BMW, hmm.

I agree, they built a lot of performance per dollar, in the way Chrysler has a lot of performance per dollar in the 300 SRT-8. 425 hp and same cost as a 304 hp CTS, The SRT-8 can crush a CTS DI in performance, but the Chrysler isn't a better car, somewhere they cheaped out on materials, the badge is less prestigious, reliability isn't as good, etc.

If the CTS-V were truely better than the M5 or E63 or RS6, Cadillac would charge $90,000 for it.

Let's play "find the failures in this reply!"

[Drew Dowdell]

Let's play "find the failures in this reply!"

SRT-8 crushes the CTS in performance? Is SMK only counting straight line numbers now? Interesting how he manipulates his position to suit his end goal of slamming Cadillac.

[79VetteZ06]

I think SMK works for GMAT test preparators, who work for formulating easiest Critical Reasoning questions meant to find Flaws in Reasoning and Weakening the Argument.

[Drew Dowdell]

Oh yes the CTS-V

:rolleyes:

[Lamar]

Oh yes the CTS-V

:rolleyes:

"Anything less would be uncivilized."

[siegen]

Oh yes the CTS-V

:rolleyes:

*Yawn*

Not enough engine noise.

[A Horse With No Name]

Oh yes the CTS-V

:rolleyes:

Thanks for posting that...that just made my week!

Chris

[Drew Dowdell]

*Yawn*

Not enough engine noise.

ricer roots show through?

[siegen]

ricer roots show through?

"Engine" noise. :AH-HA_wink:

[97regalGS]

M5 buyers only care about MSRP and operating cost? That sounds like a Hyundai or Camry buyer. People that buy an M5 or similar car are going to care about the engine, the small details and the badge. They dropped the pushrod from the Malibu because it wasn't refined enough to compete with the Camry and Accord, yet they kept for Cadillac to go against Mercedes and BMW, hmm.

I agree, they built a lot of performance per dollar, in the way Chrysler has a lot of performance per dollar in the 300 SRT-8. 425 hp and same cost as a 304 hp CTS, The SRT-8 can crush a CTS DI in performance, but the Chrysler isn't a better car, somewhere they cheaped out on materials, the badge is less prestigious, reliability isn't as good, etc.

If the CTS-V were truely better than the M5 or E63 or RS6, Cadillac would charge $90,000 for it.

there is one sad truth in the above post. Cadillac can not charge $90,000 for the CTS-V, or the STS-V or XLR-V for that matter. The brand just does not resonate with the buyers at this point in time and does not support the same price premium as the other brands in this segment. It will take continued focus from GM to stay the course, and invest heavily in order to change the perception of buyers. it is not an overnight process.

of course, the abscence of a true 3 Series competitor to draw in the younger clientele, and a larger true 7/S/A series competitor to aspire to doesn't help matters.

(I'd take the 2009 CTS-V over the M5 and E63 any day of the week.)

Edited August 28, 2008 by 97regalGS

[Lamar]

"Engine" noise. :AH-HA_wink:

It's still a Cadillac, man. Not gonna sound like an S2000 or anything.

[Lamar]

there is one sad truth in the above post. Cadillac can not charge $90,000 for the CTS-V, or the STS-V or XLR-V for that matter. The brand just does not resonate with the buyers at this point in time and does not support the same price premium as the other brands in this segment. It will take continued focus from GM to stay the course, and invest heavily in order to change the perception of buyers. it is not an overnight process.

of course, the abscence of a true 3 Series competitor to draw in the younger clientele, and a larger true 7/S/A series competitor to aspire to doesn't help matters.

(I'd take the 2009 CTS-V over the M5 and E63 any day of the week.)

I don't disagree with you, but much of BMW and M-B pricing is just the plane ticket from Bavaria and Stuttgart... not necessarily that the cars may actually be worth the plane ticket.

Oh yeah, they charge 100 grand for the XLR-V, remember?

[2QuickZ's]

Oddly, there has still been no explanation from anybody as to why DOHC is inherently better than CIB. I guess the answer is, "Because it just is." Or maybe it's "Because the Europeans and Japanese are doing it so it must be." I'm still waiting for something other than the meaningless HP/liter argument.

[smk4565]

XLR's are really poor sellers, and an 06 V-series can be had for $60,000, and 06 STS-V runs can be had low to mid $40s. The XLR-V isn't worth $100k, it has less performance than a Corvette Z51 package and the interior is only marginally better, yet it costs twice as much.

Cadillac knows they can't $85,000 for a CTS-V, so clearly they had to cut costs somewhere, where the BMW and Mercedes didn't. I think what is interesting about the super performance sedans, is RS6 is turbo, CTS-V and the AMG cars are supercharged, Bentley Flying Spur is turbo (different class) but the M5 runs with any of them with a naturally aspirated engine. So what happens if they put 2 turbos on the M5?

[smk4565]

Oddly, there has still been no explanation from anybody as to why DOHC is inherently better than CIB. I guess the answer is, "Because it just is." Or maybe it's "Because the Europeans and Japanese are doing it so it must be." I'm still waiting for something other than the meaningless HP/liter argument.

Rev higher, smoother, less vibration, sounds better, more hp for displacement, smaller displacement usually means better fuel economy, etc.

There is a reason the base CTS doesn't have a 3800 series III supercharged, and has a DOHC engine. The CTS is a good product, but it doesn't match up with the 5-series and E-class which cost $20,000 more (and no other $34-50k car does either). And one product doesn't make Cadillac, I get the impression that Cadillac thinks the CTS is so great they don't need to do anything else. They need a legit 3-series (335i gets a 7 speed tranny in 09) fighter and a legit S-class fighter, no more fleets, no more DTS on a 13 year old platform for the seniors and mary kay cosmetic all stars.

[Lamar]

XLR's are really poor sellers,

Not supposed to be volume... they only make a couple thousand a year...

and an 06 V-series can be had for $60,000, and 06 STS-V runs can be had low to mid $40s.

Resale means nothing if you buy cars to keep.

The XLR-V isn't worth $100k, it has less performance than a Corvette Z51 package and the interior is only marginally better, yet it costs twice as much.

They make them by hand, for one... two, the interior is MUCH better (seriously, can you be any more biased?)...

Though I myself do wonder why they dialed back the power on the V, since the same engine makes 469 hp in the STS-V...

Cadillac knows they can't $85,000 for a CTS-V, so clearly they had to cut costs somewhere, where the BMW and Mercedes didn't. I think what is interesting about the super performance sedans, is RS6 is turbo, CTS-V and the AMG cars are supercharged, Bentley Flying Spur is turbo (different class) but the M5 runs with any of them with a naturally aspirated engine. So what happens if they put 2 turbos on the M5?

There's only one supercharged AMG and it's the SL55, which is a convertible. So, since your facts aren't straight, there's no sense in answering this one.

[Robert Hall]

There's only one supercharged AMG and it's the SL55, which is a convertible. So, since your facts aren't straight, there's no sense in answering this one.

And the SL55 is gone for '09, replaced by the SL63 AMG. No supercharged AMGs for '09 AFAIK.

The M156 engine is an impressive piece...M-B claims it's the world's most powerful naturally-aspirated V8 engine.

AMG V8

Edited August 29, 2008 by moltar

[cletus8269]

ya know all these extras that you for some reason decree requirements are just going to add weight to a car you already deem obese.... right?

[SuperSport623]

Rev higher, smoother, less vibration, sounds better, more hp for displacement, smaller displacement usually means better fuel economy, etc.

why does revving higher matter... i dont know about you, but id rather have a CIB car that makes power down low.... should i be like some little integra, revving till the moon till i get any power?

CIB cars make POWER and more importantly, TORQUE, and they make gobs of that torque down low.... to me, especially in a performance car, is awesome

[Robert Hall]

why does revving higher matter... i dont know about you, but id rather have a CIB car that makes power down low.... should i be like some little integra, revving till the moon till i get any power?

CIB cars make POWER and more importantly, TORQUE, and they make gobs of that torque down low.... to me, especially in a performance car, is awesome

What is this 'CIB' (cam in block?) acronym? 'pushrod' is the usual description for old school engine architectures...

[2QuickZ's]

Rev higher, smoother, less vibration, sounds better, more hp for displacement, smaller displacement usually means better fuel economy, etc.

There is a reason the base CTS doesn't have a 3800 series III supercharged, and has a DOHC engine.

More hp for displacement is only important in OHC cars because they are displacement limited due to the sheer size of the engine assembly. Push rod engines are not very displacement limited due to their more compact size. Push rod engines can easily be made to rev as high as OHC with nothing more than a lighter valvetrain. Sounds better is subjective and exhaust note can easily be changed anyway. Smoother/less vibration is usually a function of using a timing belt and/or balance shafts. As for fuel economy, check the numbers. GM manages to get as good (or almost as good) of fuel economy with a larger displacement engine in a heavier car with its push rod engines. The main reason most V type engines are OHC is because consumers in the U.S. has been conditioned to believe they are better, based mostly on the hp/liter argument as well as the "technology" argument. That alone is why luxury cars HAVE to have a DOHC engine.

Refer back to post #44. I will again ask, from an engineering perspective, what makes an DOHC engine superior to a push rod engine in a V arrangement?

Just out of curiosity, have you even driven an recent GM cars with an LS series engine in it?

Edited August 29, 2008 by 2QuickZ's

[smk4565]

Not supposed to be volume... they only make a couple thousand a year...

Resale means nothing if you buy cars to keep.

They make them by hand, for one... two, the interior is MUCH better (seriously, can you be any more biased?)...

Though I myself do wonder why they dialed back the power on the V, since the same engine makes 469 hp in the STS-V...

There's only one supercharged AMG and it's the SL55, which is a convertible. So, since your facts aren't straight, there's no sense in answering this one.

The XLR interior isn't twice as good as the CTS's and the XLR is twice the money. The CTS is just as nice as the XLR is, perhaps better. The STS-V has more power than the XLR-V because of air intake setup, the engine makes as much power as they could get out of it n the XLR-V. My mistake on AMG, only the SLR McLaren is supercharged now, I was thinking they still used the Supercharged V8 with 493 hp and forgot they switched to a 6.3 liter. The 6.3 liter is going to be replaced with a 5.5 liter twin turbo in 2011 though.

[smk4565]

More hp for displacement is only important in OHC cars because they are displacement limited due to the sheer size of the engine assembly. Push rod engines are not very displacement limited due to their more compact size. Push rod engines can easily be made to rev as high as OHC with nothing more than a lighter valvetrain. Sounds better is subjective and exhaust note can easily be changed anyway. Smoother/less vibration is usually a function of using a timing belt and/or balance shafts. As for fuel economy, check the numbers. GM manages to get as good (or almost as good) of fuel economy with a larger displacement engine in a heavier car with its push rod engines. The main reason most V type engines are OHC is because consumers in the U.S. has been conditioned to believe they are better, based mostly on the hp/liter argument as well as the "technology" argument. That alone is why luxury cars HAVE to have a DOHC engine.

Refer back to post #44. I will again ask, from an engineering perspective, what makes an DOHC engine superior to a push rod engine in a V arrangement?

Just out of curiosity, have you even driven an recent GM cars with an LS series engine in it?

I have driven an LS1 Firebird, a friend has an LS1 Corvette, which I haven't driven, but the engine sounds loud and harsh compared to a Northstar or Euro DOHC V8. I own a DOHC V8, I would never buy a pushrod from any manufacturer.

Mercedes has a 6.5 liter SOHC V12 with 738 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 RM, so OHC didn't limit it's displacement any, and it surely doesn't limit torque any. The CTS-V has a pushrod for one reason and it is cost. It was cheaper for Cadillac to put a supercharger on an Escalade/Vette motor than to develop an engine from scratch.

[gm4life]

That is one sweet a$$ car!

[balthazar]

smk4565- DOHC: >>"Rev higher"<<

CL65 AMG ~ 612 HP @ 4800

CTS-V ~ 556 HP @ 6100

Nope.

>>"smaller displacement usually means better fuel economy"<<

CL65 AMG 365 CI DOHC V-12 ~ EPA: 11/18

CTS-V 379 CI IBC V-8 ~ EPA: 16/25

Nope.

Good thing you didn't say performance:

CL65 AMG ~ 0-60: 4.3

top speed: 155 MPH

CTS-V ~ 0-60: 3.9

top speed: 191 MPH

'cause that'd be another...

Nope.

Edited August 29, 2008 by balthazar

[siegen]

Oddly, there has still been no explanation from anybody as to why DOHC is inherently better than CIB. I guess the answer is, "Because it just is." Or maybe it's "Because the Europeans and Japanese are doing it so it must be." I'm still waiting for something other than the meaningless HP/liter argument.

OHC allows for more flexibility in head and valve design. There is less mass in the valvetrain in an OHC engine, and OHC engines can be designed to rev much higher than OHV engines.

OHV engines can be more compact, lighter, and simpler in design, which also are advantages.

why does revving higher matter.

Take two engines that generate the same amount of torque with completely flat torque curves, one at 2000 rpms and one at 4000 rpms. The higher revving one will do more work.

If an engine can breathe sufficiently, it will continue to create more power the higher it revs.

[smk4565]

In general DOHC revs higher, obviously there are some OHV engines that could out rev some DOHC engines. The CL65 (or S65) redline is 5950 rpm, it just makes peak power at lower rpm. One argument I always hear for pushrods is it makes power at a low revs, well that engine makes peak torque and peak hp at low rpm.

There is no way the CTS-V will get 16/25 mpg, it will be closer to 13/20.

The AMG cars have limiters, they could be faster, there are a lot of DOHC cars that can do more than 191 mph. A company in California adds two turbos to the M5 to get 810 hp and a 240 mph top speed. BMW I am sure won't do that, but they could easily make it a 600+ hp car with a 210+ mph top speed.

Edited August 29, 2008 by smk4565

[Drew Dowdell]

"Engine" noise. :AH-HA_wink:

Oh you mean a REAL ricer engine mod.... ok.

[Drew Dowdell]

Rev higher and this is good why? what if all your torque is down low? , smoother not always, less vibration not always, sounds better not always, the Nissan VQ sound horrible, more hp for displacement strawman, who cares except honda fanboys?, smaller displacement usually means better fuel economynot in this league it doesn't and there are plenty of examples to the contrary in lesser classes, etc.

CIB has better packaging so you can get more displacement for a given engine bay.... in performance cars, displacement matters.

CIB has better weight to displacement ratio.... in performance cars, weight matters.

CIB has an easier time with aftermarket support.

CIB is more reliable, how many 200,000 mile BMW V10s do you think there are out there? How many pushrod V8s? What do you do when your "valvetronic" goes at 100,000 miles? Total the car?

There is a reason the base CTS doesn't have a 3800 series III supercharged, and has a DOHC engine. Notice how they put DOHC in the regular version and CIB in the V-series? The S/C3800 could no longer meet emissions, that's why it's phased out.

When are you going to start whining about Nissan's VQ being based on a nearly 20 year old design?

[Drew Dowdell]

OHC allows for more flexibility in head and valve design. There is less mass in the valvetrain in an OHC engine, and OHC engines can be designed to rev much higher than OHV engines. (you mean adding 3 camshafts, 3 timing wheels, 1 timing chain, and and 16 valves while removing 16 pushrods reduces mass? really?)

OHV engines can be more compact, lighter, and simpler in design, which also are advantages.

Take two engines that generate the same amount of torque with completely flat torque curves, one at 2000 rpms and one at 4000 rpms. The higher revving one will do more work.

If an engine can breathe sufficiently, it will continue to create more power the higher it revs.

I've never understood why a pushrod couldn't be a 4 valve per cylinder engine? Can't each pushrod actuate two valves?

[Lamar]

I have driven an LS1 Firebird, a friend has an LS1 Corvette, which I haven't driven, but the engine sounds loud and harsh compared to a Northstar or Euro DOHC V8. I own a DOHC V8, I would never buy a pushrod from any manufacturer.

He said "recent." As in "most likely still in production." IIRC, GM doesn't even use the LS1 anymore.

Mercedes has a 6.5 liter SOHC V12 with 738 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 RM, so OHC didn't limit it's displacement any, and it surely doesn't limit torque any. The CTS-V has a pushrod for one reason and it is cost. It was cheaper for Cadillac to put a supercharger on an Escalade/Vette motor than to develop an engine from scratch.

Keep in mind that V12 is twin-turboed, which is where the low-end torque comes from. OHC had nothing to do with that.

[97regalGS]

i see this thread went down the CIB vs OHC rat hole and is being argued by two guys who aren't exactly engineers.

I'd leave it like this. each architecture has their own pros and cons. R&T had the CTS-V beating the M5 around Monticello by .5s. seems they were dead even the entire way. clearly, on that day on that track there is not much between the two.

what got passed over quite quickly and should be more alarming and concerning is the fact that Cadillac does not command the price premium of MB and BMW. end of story.

as for the the fact the XLR-V sells for over a $100k, well given the number that roll off the lots and the pathetic re-sale value should give an indication of that the market thinks of a $100k cadillac.

there is still much work to be done for the cadillac brand.

[Drew Dowdell]

He said "recent." As in "most likely still in production." IIRC, GM doesn't even use the LS1 anymore.

Out of production for North American vehicles since 2004.

[michaelv13]

I've never understood why a pushrod couldn't be a 4 valve per cylinder engine? Can't each pushrod actuate two valves?

Theoritically can be done, but it is the packaging issue, and it may cause increase in the mass, which pushrods are not famous for.

Unless a weight saving measure is applied, pushrods are lighter than OHCs with about same engine displacements. I will go extra length saying that even some larger displacement pushrods are lighter than OHC counterparts producing identical horsepower.

Not a good example but AMG 6.3L is almost equal to the LS7. Ofcourse AMG has all the titanium, ceramics shebang weight reduction, and LS7 has some amount of weight savings on its own too. But if GM wanted to spend $35,000 (cost of one AMG engine) vs 14,000 (for regular LS7) to build a pushrod it can definitely use space saving and weight saving measures to produce more horsepower and have the level of refinement the German boasts of while producing higher horsepower.

[Lamar]

I'd leave it like this. each architecture has their own pros and cons.

Basic truth, one that several of us can live with. Notice here that no one said that OHV was completely superior to OHC, but the floodgates always bust open when someone says that OHC is completely superior to OHV.

This is a GM site, after all...

[Sixty8panther]

But DOHC came is inherently superior to OHV. Lexus, Mercedes, Ferrari, Porsche, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Maserati, Infiniti, Bugatti and Rolls-Royce aren't using DOHC by accident. Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Chrysler, Dodge use pushrods, which group makes more desirable cars

Okay, I'll play, although your insesant rants are starting to

be quite broken-record like: AGAIN, why did Chevrolet (GM)

win the 24 hrs of LeMans in a PUSHROD powered Corvette

MULTILPE times against a factory backed team of cars

like DOHC V12 Ferraris?

Now how's about a nice cup of STFU?! :AH-HA_wink:

[siegen]

All this talk about OHV's naturally having more low end power, or being able to use higher displacements, doesn't make any sense. The difference is in head design and how the valves are actuated. That is it really. There is no displacement limit inherent to an OHC engine that an OHV engine doesn't have. If someone made an OHC engine that had the same valve and port designs as an equivalent OHV engine, it would likely generate essentially the same torque curve.

If you see two equal-displacement OHV and OHC engines, the OHC may generate less torque down low, but this would only be a result of the engine being tuned for a higher RPM powerband, which is common among OHC engines as manufacturers race for higher HP and better acceleration.

In the marketplace, you will see more higher displacement OHV engines compared to OHC engines, mainly because OHV engines are used more often in full-size trucks and SUV's, while OHC engines are used more often in cars and crossovers. This is likely because truck and SUV engines only need torque down low, and customers don't expect them to rev very high or generate lots of high end power. OHV engines are cheaper so they are the natural choice in these applications.

I've never understood why a pushrod couldn't be a 4 valve per cylinder engine? Can't each pushrod actuate two valves?

Well it could I suppose, there may even be OHV engines with 4 valves per cylinder. It is still limited in the head design though.

Oh you mean a REAL ricer engine mod.... ok.

Now you're talking. Stickers add performance, why else would race cars have so many on them? It makes sense!

CIB is more reliable, how many 200,000 mile BMW V10s do you think there are out there? How many pushrod V8s? What do you do when your "valvetronic" goes at 100,000 miles? Total the car?

Well I don't think M5 owners really drive their cars too much. With that kind of money they probably have multiple cars. There may not even be any M5's that have hit 100k miles for all we know.

In the late 80's, early 90's, many people blasted Honda's new vtec system saying it added too much complexity and would be prone to constant maintenance. It turned out that Honda's vtec engines were their most reliable, and are among the most reliable engines available still (fun fact: by 2002, every Honda/Acura sold in the USDM uses some form of vtec - which range from simple profile changes to shutting off cylinders and even variable displacement). If BMW did a good job on their Valvetronic, I don't see any reason why it won't last for the life of the engine. I know BMW's aren't known for their reliability, but I highly doubt we'll ever see BMW owners having their variable lift mechanisms breaking on them, lol.