Drove a CTS 2.8VVT with 6-speed today

[Drew Dowdell]

Disclaimers: 1. This is only a review of the drivetrain. You all already have your opinions on the interior, etc. 2. I stepped out of my '04 CTS 3.6 auto into the CTS 2.8 manual. This was a direct comparison. 3. I drive my husband's manual transmission Passat regularly, so I'm not a manual newbie. The 2.8 seemed very rough. Noisy in fact. I felt I was in a substantially lesser car then my current CTS. At 80mph it was turning a very loud 3,000 rpm in 6th. Not impressive compaired to my car, and certainly not better then a S/C Riviera that can silently woosh along at 80mph doing about 2200 rpm. The gear shift throws are perfect. I was easily able to hit the gear I wanted. Reverse is in the wrong spot, but I think thats were it ends up on a 6-speed. It's German style, hard left and up. The clutch was waaaaay to sudden. I found it really hard to take off smoothly. Your foot is all the way in, let it out slowly... slowly... then BAM... you're stalled at the light with a semi blaring it's horn at you. I stalled the CTS 4 times on my test drive. The clutch MUST be pushed all the way to the floor.... ALLL the way... before the car will let you engage the starter. 1,2,3 and 4th gears the engine is fine. It's peppy and feels a lot more powerful then it is. 5th and 6th gear and the car magically transforms into Cavalier that hasn't had it's airfilter changed since 1982. Getting up to speed on the highway had my foot completely to the floor... in 4th. In short, I think the CTS is too much car for the 2.8 to haul around... even with a manual.

[91z4me]

Disclaimers:
1. This is only a review of the drivetrain. You all already have your opinions on the interior, etc.
2. I stepped out of my '04 CTS 3.6 auto into the CTS 2.8 manual. This was a direct comparison.
3. I drive my husband's manual transmission Passat regularly, so I'm not a manual newbie.

The 2.8 seemed very rough. Noisy in fact. I felt I was in a substantially lesser car then my current CTS. At 80mph it was turning a very loud 3,000 rpm in 6th. Not impressive compaired to my car, and certainly not better then a S/C Riviera that can silently woosh along at 80mph doing about 2200 rpm.

The gear shift throws are perfect. I was easily able to hit the gear I wanted. Reverse is in the wrong spot, but I think thats were it ends up on a 6-speed. It's German style, hard left and up.

The clutch was waaaaay to sudden.  I found it really hard to take off smoothly. Your foot is all the way in, let it out slowly... slowly... then BAM... you're stalled at the light with a semi blaring it's horn at you.  I stalled the CTS 4 times on my test drive. The clutch MUST be pushed all the way to the floor.... ALLL the way... before the car will let you engage the starter.

1,2,3 and 4th gears the engine is fine. It's peppy and feels a lot more powerful then it is. 5th and 6th gear and the car magically transforms into Cavalier that hasn't had it's airfilter changed since 1982. Getting up to speed on the highway had my foot completely to the floor... in 4th.

In short, I think the CTS is too much car for the 2.8 to haul around... even with a manual.

[post="52117"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think the 2.8 CTS only serves 2 purposes

1. It allows Caddy to lower the asking price fully knowing most dealers won't stock it and most buyers will opt for the 3.6.

2. It would actually be a decently powered engine in Europe and some countries tax on displacement.

[razoredge]

seems funny you would have to be floored to get to speed on split laners maybe you didnt use your gears and powerband proper ? I would never expect either of the overdirves to be much use other than for cruising. You have to remember that is nearly 25% less engine. It should be smaller and lighter but I guess they are not. I dont understand why it would sound burdoned or loud ? whats CTS weight ? I do so appreaciate you comment about the Riv. damn that old L67 anyhow ;-)

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

sounds like my kind of car :)

[Croc]

IIRC the CTS is a bit of a porker in the weight dept.

[z28luvr01]

IIRC the CTS is a bit of a porker in the weight dept.

[post="52221"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

3509 for the manual, 3568 for the auto. Not terrible, but probably too much for a small displacement DOHC V6

[91z4me]

3509  for the manual, 3568 for the auto. Not terrible, but probably too much for a small displacement DOHC V6

[post="52230"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It weighs a hair more than the G35 sedan (3472) but has a much smaller motor.

[PurdueGuy]

what's the HP rating of the 2.8?

[pow]

what's the HP rating of the 2.8?

[post="52257"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

210 horsepower @ 6500 and 195 lb-ft of torque @ 3200

I'm purely speculating here, but since the CTS is the only GM car with the HF2.8, it sounds like they couldn't have bothered. Our 528i's inline-six makes similar numbers (193 hp@5500/206 lb-ft@3500), but it never feels out of breath.

[PurdueGuy]

Sounds like part of the potential problem is that many people aren't used to getting into those kind of RPMs. That's a fairly high peak, and with it being a smaller engine, I imagine the peak is more pronounced than in a larger engine. I would think that engine could be boring-ly adequate, but not enough for a caddy image. That's about the same HP as the Ion Redline/Cobalt SS S/C, but with 600-700 more lbs. Hope that engine doesn't mind being run at 4-5K rpm a lot. I probably wouldn't buy one with that engine. Of course, I'd love a CTS-V...

[The O.C.]

210 horsepower @ 6500 and 195 lb-ft of torque @ 3200

I'm purely speculating here, but since the CTS is the only GM car with the HF2.8, it sounds like they couldn't have bothered. Our 528i's inline-six makes similar numbers (193 hp@5500/206 lb-ft@3500), but it never feels out of breath.

[post="52263"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

BMW really shows how to get the most out of less through lower weight, better gearing, optimal weight-distribution, and smooth-revving engines that are easy to keep in the meat of the powerband.

e.g.....C&D, 11-05......'06 BMW 325i, 3,348lbs, 0-60 6.1secs, 1/4mile 14.7sec @ 94mph, and "only" $33,190 as-tested.

That's with "only" 215hp and an even lower 185 lb/ft of torque.

Pretty impressive numbers any way you put it...!

[Drew Dowdell]

210 horsepower @ 6500 and 195 lb-ft of torque @ 3200

I'm purely speculating here, but since the CTS is the only GM car with the HF2.8, it sounds like they couldn't have bothered. Our 528i's inline-six makes similar numbers (193 hp@5500/206 lb-ft@3500), but it never feels out of breath.

[post="52263"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's probably the gearing. Like I said, 1-4th feel great in the CTS, it's 5th and 6th that are the issue.

BTW, the Saab 9-3 now has the 2.8 as well.... or is that the turbo version?

[91z4me]

It's probably the gearing. Like I said, 1-4th feel great in the CTS, it's 5th and 6th that are the issue.

BTW, the Saab 9-3 now has the 2.8 as well.... or is that the turbo version?

[post="52287"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It is the turbo 2.8. I think it is worth pointing out that ALL HF V6s have forged cranks. I don't know about the pistons or connecting rods but I imagine that the 2.8T and 2.8 bottom end are pretty similar so a small cost savings is present by sharing the engine.

[Drew Dowdell]

It was my understanding that both the 3.6 and 2.8 were designed from the get go to accept a turbo. Thusly the naturally aspirated ones are a little over built, but GM can just throw a turbo on without any hassle.

[Member55]

I dont understand why it would sound burdoned or loud ? whats CTS weight ?

[post="52203"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Although the 3.6 engine in my 06 CTS is light years ahead of the 3.2 engine that was in my 03 CTS it's still nowhere near to some of the competition when it comes to NVH. With the 2.8 being from the same family I can see somebody thinking it's too loud.

[razoredge]

Sounds like the 2.8 needs to be run from 3000 - 4500 to use its powerband smoothly in typical driving for a 3500lb car. Does final drive ratio change for the smaller engine ? It should. for the BMW 325i and its performance, Im willing to bet theres a low final drive ratio. Not that Im knocking BMW's level of understanding. Still I have no problems entering highspeed traffic even with the old 3 litre Buick @ 125 hp :o

[Guest carpetbagger]

Sounds like the 2.8 needs to be run from 3000 - 4500 to use its powerband smoothly in typical driving for a 3500lb car. Does final drive ratio change for the smaller engine ? It should.

for the BMW 325i and its performance, Im willing to bet theres a low final drive ratio. Not that Im knocking BMW's level of understanding.

Still I have no problems entering highspeed traffic even with the old 3 litre Buick @ 125 hp  :o

[post="52564"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

you really dont like anything new from GM do you? Edited December 4, 2005 by carpetbagger

[razoredge]

you really dont like anything new from GM do you?

[post="52751"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

do you have some kind of medication problem ?

[mkaresh]

I've driven this car as well, and will review it at Epinions in the near future. The shifter has moderate throws but is very precise with a very good feel going into gear. I also stalled the car a couple of times, but had no problem once I learned how much gas it wanted when engaging the clutch. Could use more feel here, as the review above notes. The engine feels neither weak nor strong to me, purely acceptable. It must be worked to move the car. I don't find it particularly loud, but then I usually drive a Mazda Protege5, which is very loud. If anything I'd like a sportier sound from it and more of a surge when it hits the powerband. A flat torque curve makes an engine feel less powerful tha it is. I drove a car with the base suspension--base everything, in fact. It handled better than I expected it to. Since the sport suspension isn't very sporting I expected the base suspension to be far too loose, but it's not. I'd like to see a more aggressive sport suspension. And as in nearly every GM car the steering needs to be quicker on-center and to provide more feel. The large steering wheel makes the car feel larger and less agile than it is. Most people will think the vinyl is leather. Since vinyl is more durable and requires much less maintenance, I'd certainly consider it. Edited February 17, 2006 by mkaresh

[mkaresh]

The 325i engine is clearly under-rated to encourage people to spend the extra bucks for the 330i. No way a BMW-engineered 3.0-liter produces only 185 foot-pounds of torque.

[The O.C.]

The 325i engine is clearly under-rated to encourage people to spend the extra bucks for the 330i. No way a BMW-engineered 3.0-liter produces only 185 foot-pounds of torque.

[post="93869"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Whatever it produces......in whatever state of tune it is (325i 3.0L versus 330i 3.0L) that inline-6 is a magnificant engine.

I was even impressed by my friend's new 325i with an automatic! Not a rocketship but FAR beyond what you would think given the hp and torque numbers.

[RichW5]

Took our '03 CTS in for an oil change and checkup today. I asked the service consultant to give it a thorough checkup as the warranty expires on Feb 26th. The consultant gave me a new '06 CTS loaner (2.8L) to use while my CTS was being worked on. The odometer read 728 miles. I was pleasantly surprised. The 2.8L engine was not bad and should meet the needs of most CTS buyers. The ride was very good and handling better than I thought it would be. The interior was ebony and looked good. It's the color they should have had from the beginning. I didn't have a chance to push it hard, since it was a busy day, but it was enjoyable to drive. My 3.2L engine is much noisier (buzzy) and the sport lux suspension much harsher. Part of me thinks that the buzz of the 3.2L adds to the excitement when I drive more aggressively. I'd have to say that I'm pretty much in agreement with the comments by mkaresh. Still, I'd love the have driven the '07 Slade that was in the showroom. It was all black with a beautifully done interior. They do look much better in person than in pictures. A white one was in the delivery area, with a sold sign hanging on the mirror. Looks great in either color.

[jry]

caddy had to buy my '03 back because, after 3 transmissions, the thing still grinded into every gear above 2nd and reverse.