Cadillac Vehicles & Engine Lineup (Circa 2015)

[dwightlooi]

The following is a plausible Cadillac vehicle-powertrain lineup for the 2015 model year.

• Each model (with the exception of the ETS) gets two mainstream engine choices + a "V" edition
  
• ATS joins the lineup targeting the BMW 3-series / Mercedes-Benz C-class with the new Alpha Platform
  
• ETS joins the lineup targeting Lexus ES buyers with the Epsilon 2 Platform
  
• STS / SLS (long wheelbase) returns as the flagship on a the Zeta 2.5 Platform
  
• XLR returns on the Corvette C7 platform supplying supercar credentials
  
• The 2.0T provides the ATS with an efficient and linear entry level engine
  
• The 3.0 Bi-turbo DOHC DI V6 joins the mainstream engine lineup
  
• The 6.2 Pushrod Small Block V8s return fortified with Direct Injection and Cam-in-cam Independent VVT
  
• Hybrids Options (Not shown on chart) are available as options mated with 2.0T, 3.6 and 6.2 NA engines
  
• Diesels Options (Not shown on chart) are available in Europe using Opel 2.0 (190hp) and 3.0 (270hp) CDTi engines
  

Comments Welcomed!

Edited June 23, 2011 by dwightlooi

[loki]

just curious, is the 3.6L really advantageous over the 2.0L turbo in the srx, taking out the tranny variable...

[dwightlooi]

just curious, is the 3.6L really advantageous over the 2.0L turbo in the srx, taking out the tranny variable...

Greater refinement + 48 more horsepower.

[dado]

To big gap between CTS V series and non V series.

Would like to see different displacement engine (at least that ) in Cadillac's cars rather than the same engine from cheaper trucks or cars(from chevrolet,holden etc.). Also no diesel (or is this only for USA market lineup because if not there should be also lower than 270 HP engine in ATS and CTS)

[dwightlooi]

To big gap between CTS V series and non V series.

Would like to see different displacement engine (at least that ) in Cadillac's cars rather than the same engine from cheaper trucks or cars(from chevrolet,holden etc.). Also no diesel (or is this only for USA market lineup because if not there should be also lower than 270 HP engine in ATS and CTS)

Well, its a V. It's supposed to be dramatically more powerful than the the regular 3.0T. The question is whether the 360hp 3.0T compares well with the 535, 550, E350 and E550. I think it does, slotting in between the 300hp 535 and the 400hp 550 (4.4 Bi-turbo V8). 360hp is ample motivating force for the majority of mainstream drivers who want a little kick but not necessarily a supercar. If a performance oriented driver comes along there is always the CTS-V with 600 horses and at a lower or similar price point to a 550i.

On diesels, the intent is to have a 2.0T @ 190 hp and a 3.0T at 270hp -- for the Europeans only. These are Opel derivative engines. (See the last bullet point in the foreword text)

[riviera74]

I would make a couple of changes. DItch the ETS since that is by definition a Buick LaCrosse. I also question the need for a T3L V6 engine. Why can't that engine be a T3.6L V6? One last thing: a 7.2L V12? Why not do what BMW and Mercedes already do and have a 6L V12 instead?

I otherwise like the lineup a lot, except for the fact that you are ditching the Escalade name. That one should probably be retained.

[dwightlooi]

I would make a couple of changes. DItch the ETS since that is by definition a Buick LaCrosse. I also question the need for a T3L V6 engine. Why can't that engine be a T3.6L V6? One last thing: a 7.2L V12? Why not do what BMW and Mercedes already do and have a 6L V12 instead?

I otherwise like the lineup a lot, except for the fact that you are ditching the Escalade name. That one should probably be retained.

Well, I didn't think the ETS (XTS) should be a caddy either. But I think this car is already 100% confirmed.

The 3.0 Bi-turbo (LF3) is also something that has been worked on for a while. I do not know why they chose the 3.0 liter displacement. Maybe its because the BMW I6 turbo is a 3.0, maybe its because the 3.0 block has thicker cylinder walls.

The 7.2 V12 is simply two 3.6 V6 blocks mated together in a new casting. It'll be about 600hp whereas a 6.0 will be about 540hp. The 3.0 poses two issues. The first being that it is less powerful than the Supercharged small block V8 which makes it a hard sell as the flagship motor. The second being that even to get to 540 hp (90hp/l) the 6.0 would have to rev to 7000 rpm. Currently, GM's 550 lb-ft transmission -- the 6L90 is capped at a 6200rpm maximum shift speed. The volume of these mega torque engines will be small and it makes it hard to justify a new transmission -- especially if it has to be done by 2014. Also, a 7.2 is unique, being bigger and more powerful than its teutonic competitors. As far as the displacement tax in some countries and the perceived "greeness", both a 6.0 and a 7.2 V12 would have blown that out of the water.

[Carguy]

I LOVE the idea of a V12!! And even though I adore the SB V8 I still wish for a DOHC 4VPC V8 to better fit in the premium Cadillac engine lineup. This seems to be more truthful of their path with the death of the Alpha V8 program. Interesting!

[dwightlooi]

I LOVE the idea of a V12!! And even though I adore the SB V8 I still wish for a DOHC 4VPC V8 to better fit in the premium Cadillac engine lineup. This seems to be more truthful of their path with the death of the Alpha V8 program. Interesting!

I think you'll find the 5th Gen small blocks to be more than decent. Delivering 450~470 hp and ~25 hwy mpg in a 4000 lbs car -- all while being physically smaller and lighter less than a BMW 4.4 -- with the aid of direct injection, variable timing and cylinder de-activation, this is not going to be your grandfather's small block. In many ways, a 6.2 badge is not a negative. And, for people and countries who shun that, a 3.0T would have been their cup of tea.

I wasn't too fond of the "Ultra" DOHC V8 -- Northstar's still-born replacement. I felt that it was the wrong formula. It didn't offer what the competition didn't. If GM wanted a DOHC V8 I think they should do it as a 60 degree engine based on the High Feature V6 family. This would have at least been a very narrow and compact V8, that is also economical to develope and produce. Also, the HF V6 is capable of reaching 90hp/l on 87 octane and the 4.8 liter displacement would have been roughly were they would have wanted it to be anyway. A 60 deg engine based on the LFX would have been about 420~430hp / 365~370lb-ft. A single contra-rotating balancer would have made it on-par with the Volvo 4.4 V8s which is amply decent.

Edited June 24, 2011 by dwightlooi

[Carguy]

I LOVE the idea of a V12!! And even though I adore the SB V8 I still wish for a DOHC 4VPC V8 to better fit in the premium Cadillac engine lineup. This seems to be more truthful of their path with the death of the Alpha V8 program. Interesting!

I think you'll find the 5th Gen small blocks to be more than decent. Delivering 450~470 hp and ~25 hwy mpg in a 4000 lbs car -- all while being physically smaller and lighter less than a BMW 4.4 -- with the aid of direct injection, variable timing and cylinder de-activation, this is not going to be your grandfather's small block. In many ways, a 6.2 badge is not a negative. And, for people and countries who shun that, a 3.0T would have been their cup of tea.

I wasn't too fond of the "Ultra" DOHC V8 -- Northstar's still-born replacement. I felt that it was the wrong formula. It didn't offer what the competition didn't. If GM wanted a DOHC V8 I think they should do it as a 60 degree engine based on the High Feature V6 family. This would have at least been a very narrow and compact V8, that is also economical to develope and produce. Also, the HF V6 is capable of reaching 90hp/l on 87 octane and the 4.8 liter displacement would have been roughly were they would have wanted it to be anyway. A 60 deg engine based on the LFX would have been about 420~430hp / 365~370lb-ft. A single contra-rotating balancer would have made it on-par with the Volvo 4.4 V8s which is amply decent.

As with many times before on here I like the way you think! A 60 degree V8 would be fine with me for Cadillac purposes. If not why not do DI DOHC 4VPC heads for the next gen SB V8 as a premium feature V8? They could use the OHV versions for Camaro,Corvette and Chevrolet Trucks while using the DOHC version for premium Buicks Denali GMC's and Cadillacs. This would help with differing the brands and making them more unique from one another. Your 60 degree premium/High Feature V8 could fill nearly the same much needed place within the engine lineup except for trucks. GM needs to do one of these I think so as to compete properly.

[SAmadei]

As with many times before on here I like the way you think! A 60 degree V8 would be fine with me for Cadillac purposes. If not why not do DI DOHC 4VPC heads for the next gen SB V8 as a premium feature V8? They could use the OHV versions for Camaro,Corvette and Chevrolet Trucks while using the DOHC version for premium Buicks Denali GMC's and Cadillacs. This would help with differing the brands and making them more unique from one another. Your 60 degree premium/High Feature V8 could fill nearly the same much needed place within the engine lineup except for trucks. GM needs to do one of these I think so as to compete properly.

I'd rather see GM build a W-8 before a 60 degree V-8. I've felt a shorter 8 cylinder would help GM in the packaging department more than a narrow one.

[Lamar]

I'd rather see GM build a W-8 before a 60 degree V-8. I've felt a shorter 8 cylinder would help GM in the packaging department more than a narrow one.

A while back, I mentioned the idea of GM developing a W12, for the same reason of shortness. But someone told me that VW AG had the patents on their W12 design (two VR6 engines on one crankshaft, basically). I remember they had a W8 in the Passat two generations ago, but not since.

[smk4565]

Mostly agree, but Cadillac can't have front wheel drive, pushrods or a 6-speed come 2015. The Mercedes C-class had a 7-speed in 2008. The bare bones Cadillac in 2015 should have 8 gears. The 7.2 liter V12 is too big, they can do it with 5.5-6.0 liters. I also think the 3.6 naturally aspirated engine is good to keep, not everyone wants a turbo. Diesels and hybrids will become important post 2015 due to CAFE and competitor offerings. Cadillac already really lags behind here since Infiniti, Lexus, Lincoln, BMW, Audi, and Mercedes all have 32-42 mpg hybrids and diesels.

[dwightlooi]

Mostly agree, but Cadillac can't have front wheel drive, pushrods or a 6-speed come 2015. The Mercedes C-class had a 7-speed in 2008. The bare bones Cadillac in 2015 should have 8 gears. The 7.2 liter V12 is too big, they can do it with 5.5-6.0 liters. I also think the 3.6 naturally aspirated engine is good to keep, not everyone wants a turbo. Diesels and hybrids will become important post 2015 due to CAFE and competitor offerings. Cadillac already really lags behind here since Infiniti, Lexus, Lincoln, BMW, Audi, and Mercedes all have 32-42 mpg hybrids and diesels.

(1) I think a V12 is supposed to be over the top... no environmental or fuel economy concerns when it comes to a V12. Customers who care about such things won't buy one anyway. One of secondary reasons you may want a smaller engines -- lower vibrations -- is also irrelevant in a V12 since it is completely naturally balanced.

(2) GM will phase in 8-speed transmissions. The first engines to get paired with an 8-speed will be those who need it most and the first cars will be those which aren't overly price sensitive. I see the 8-speeds going into the V6s first. The mega-torque (supercharged) small blocks and up will probably soldier on with the stout 6L90 for a while, if not anything because they can afford to simply go to a taller final drive for fuel economy. The entry level cars like the 4-pot ATS will also probably continue too use the 6-speed 6L45/6L50 simply because it is cheaper to shave about $1K off the entry price to the class.

(3) I believe Caddys will eventually get Opel Diesels. If not for the US market, for the EU.

(4) As for CAFE, I have always believed that GM should build cars that customers want to buy. CAFE should be allowed to fall where is may. The reason being that there is no law saying you have to comply with CAFE or cease operations. If you don't comply -- either because you can't or you flat out won't co-operate with the visions of Washington DC -- the fine is actually tiny on a per mpg and/or per vehicle basis. It is better for instance to pay a $5.50 x 50 = $275 fine for missing CAFE by 5 full MPGs than to force $3000 worth of fuel saving hardware or underpowered engines onto consumers do not necessarily want to pay for them or live with them.

Edited June 26, 2011 by dwightlooi

[riviera74]

Ideally, CAFE would be abolished entirely. But it is true that CAFE can be dealt with in creative ways. BMW pays CAFE fines all the time for years because they drank fuel. Cadillac should not be concerned with fuel economy; GM should push that to Chevrolet instead. Thanks to volume, Chevy should take the CAFE hit and spare Cadillac (and spare the Corvette naturally).

[smk4565]

Regardless of CAFE, there are 6 other luxury car makers with cars of 32 mpg or more, 3 brands with 40+ mpg right now. And those 6 aren't going to stand still, by 2015 they will probably all have cars near 40 mpg. Cadillac needs hybrids and diesels in the USA and overseas. Not just for buyers but for image. Lexus gets a good image because they have all those hybrids.

I disagree about phasing in the 8-speed, or saving cost, it is a freaking Cadillac, we don't need to save a few bucks on the transmission or engine. The Mercedes S-class is getting a 9-speed transmission, even Hyundai is using an 8-speed transmission this year. A 2015 Cadillac should not trail a 2012 Hyundai.

Mercedes promised over 70 mpg and 0-60 in 5.5 seconds from the next-gen S-class hybrid. Cadillac can not hold back like they did all through the 2000s, and pull from the GM parts bin as they are now. I believe the GM bean counters will doom Cadillac as they will never allow R&D spending to match Mercedes-Benz. And as the rest of the market advances, Cadillac will move too slow and be left behind.

[dwightlooi]

Regardless of CAFE, there are 6 other luxury car makers with cars of 32 mpg or more, 3 brands with 40+ mpg right now. And those 6 aren't going to stand still, by 2015 they will probably all have cars near 40 mpg. Cadillac needs hybrids and diesels in the USA and overseas. Not just for buyers but for image. Lexus gets a good image because they have all those hybrids.

I disagree about phasing in the 8-speed, or saving cost, it is a freaking Cadillac, we don't need to save a few bucks on the transmission or engine. The Mercedes S-class is getting a 9-speed transmission, even Hyundai is using an 8-speed transmission this year. A 2015 Cadillac should not trail a 2012 Hyundai.

Mercedes promised over 70 mpg and 0-60 in 5.5 seconds from the next-gen S-class hybrid. Cadillac can not hold back like they did all through the 2000s, and pull from the GM parts bin as they are now. I believe the GM bean counters will doom Cadillac as they will never allow R&D spending to match Mercedes-Benz. And as the rest of the market advances, Cadillac will move too slow and be left behind.

Well, the reality is that GM IS working on an 8-speed and it'll be ready in about 2 years time. Multiple versions will be needed to cover 170 to 600 lb-ft, and they are not all going to happen at once. The logical thing to do will be to fill the mid-range models with 8-speeds first, while the entry level models and big V8s wait. BMW did that too... the 3-series stuck with 6-speeds while the 5 and 7 got 8-gears. This keeps the 3-series price low (for now). M-B kept its V12s and AMG V8s on 5-speeds while the E & S class moved to 7-speeds because the initial 7G-tronics did not handle the torque of the megamotors. Also, the Megamotors actually did 0-60 faster when they went to taller final drives because it saved one shift before the 60 mph mark.

[smk4565]

Well, the reality is that GM IS working on an 8-speed and it'll be ready in about 2 years time.

That is the problem with GM, it is always 2 years away from offering what others have now.

[Robert Hall]

Well, the reality is that GM IS working on an 8-speed and it'll be ready in about 2 years time.

That is the problem with GM, it is always 2 years away from offering what others have now.

Well, that is the penality for being a follower instead of a leader...

[Lamar]

That is the problem with GM, it is always 2 years away from offering what others have now.

Well, that is the penality for being a follower instead of a leader...

I have to ask. What company currently has an 8-speed auto built entirely in-house?

[Robert Hall]

That is the problem with GM, it is always 2 years away from offering what others have now.

Well, that is the penality for being a follower instead of a leader...

I have to ask. What company currently has an 8-speed auto built entirely in-house?

I'm not sure why an automaker would build a transmission in-house..aren't those usually subbed out to companies like ZF, Borg-Warner or Aisin?

[smk4565]

I have to ask. What company currently has an 8-speed auto built entirely in-house?

HYUNDAI like Sunday

Edited June 28, 2011 by smk4565

[Lamar]

(Not trying to add to all the reply nesting )

Most automakers do build them in-house. Off the top of my head, GM, Ford, MB, Nissan, and Honda make most of their own transmissions.

GM would be only the second third automaker to build its own 8AT... and it would be the first second if you hold that Toyota's 30% stake in Aisin doesn't count.

EDIT: smk gave a satisfactory answer.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Lamar

[Z-06]

(Not trying to add to all the reply nesting )

Most automakers do build them in-house. Off the top of my head, GM, Ford, MB, Nissan, and Honda make most of their own transmissions.

GM would be only the second automaker to build its own 8AT... and it would be the first if you hold that Toyota's 30% stake in Aisin doesn't count.

Remember, GM's 8 got delayed by the bankruptcy. It would have been in business in 2009-10.

[hyperv6]

Well nice idea but little chance of ever happening.

The V12 is out unless GM can buy it from someone else. What V12's that are out there will more than not go away too with the threats of higher cafe.

Cadillac has a lot of more important things than to do another 2 seater now in a down economy.

The ATS is pretty much as given here the only question will be the TT V6 or a V8 in the V series.

The XtS is a done deal and reality and is not going to go away.

The SRX is not going to change much right away.

I think once the updated Zeta is here we will see some limited edition here. I really don't think the STS name will return.

It will be interesting to see where the CTS goes once the ATS arrives.

The key is to get the ATS and CTS as cars people want and ask for even wait for it to be built kind of cars. Class leading in each of their segments are needed and no more just trying to match or come close to BMW. Once GM reaches this level they can move on to larger and more expensive things. Many people are not willing to take a $100,000 chance on a car that is not class leading only to see it's resale at $25,000 in 3 years. GM needs to win hearts and wallets with the cheaper cars and gain the trust of the public before they can move up. The ATS and next CTS much to that. They need to deliver in looks, performance and appointments beyond what the public expects.

As for engine numbers we will just have to wait to see what is offered. We can toss numbers all night and they mean little. Either way there will be enough power no matter the engine type or size to make it interesting.

Edited June 28, 2011 by hyperv6

[Lamar]

The V12 is out unless GM can buy it from someone else. What V12's that are out there will more than not go away too with the threats of higher cafe.

The Aston Martin, Audi, Bentley, BMW, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maybach, Mercedes-Benz, and Rolls-Royce vehicles that V12s (or W12s) are found in are too exclusive to matter much when it comes to CAFE. Plus, the people who shop in those markets will continue to want those engines (whether or not they know what it means to have 12 cylinders), and automakers seem to be wanting to even make those cars more efficient.

On the other hand, if these V12s go away because of CAFE as per your prediction, then so will the LS9/LSA.

[dwightlooi]

CAFE is a non-issue. GM sells about 2.3 million vehicles in the USA. They'll be lucky to sell 3000 V12s. That is in the order of 1/1000th. CAFE is calculated to 0.1 mpg, in other words the V12s could be 1 MPG and it still wouldn't register at 3000 vehicles.

[hyperv6]

CAFE is a non-issue. GM sells about 2.3 million vehicles in the USA. They'll be lucky to sell 3000 V12s. That is in the order of 1/1000th. CAFE is calculated to 0.1 mpg, in other words the V12s could be 1 MPG and it still wouldn't register at 3000 vehicles.

Ok I will play this game. Then if they are only going to make 3000 units how much would it cost to make this engine? If it is not used in anything else how much would it cost to design, test and build to put this in the car. Even if the people that buy this don't care about fuel economy they are also the ones who stop buying SUV when the gas spikes.

With high fuel cost and a bad economy a V12 is not realistic in any way in a small volume. Just the bad PR from the press would be difficult for GM to over come as they are trying to lose their false poor fuel economy image.

In short if it were to happen they would have to buy them from an outside company and I find that not an likely thing to happen.

As for the V8 The LS 9 will be gone by the time this will come out and they may have a whole new package to offer that is shared with a dew other cars. I would expect Cadillac to get their own tune of this engine.

No matter who is right or wrong here the odds of a V12 are slim at best. If GM can't get people waiting in line for the ATS or CTS because they are the best GM is not going find many waiting for a $100,000+ flag ship and willing to part money for it. This would just be another Allante part II.

You just can't build cars like this you until have to earn the right and rep to build them by building the best cars with your normal lines. VW learned this with the Phaeton. Nice car but no earned rep and utter failure.

Edited June 29, 2011 by hyperv6

[Z-06]

Hyper, if the engine is based on any existing block as dwight is proposing, development cost should not be as expensive.

Technically a new engine family build from scratch can cost at least $1B. Even an engine like the AMG 6.2 cost approximately $300 M to develop.

Any guesses why MB charges $40k for the AMG engine compared to $17k for the LS7? Not because MB can but because of the high development costs and low quantities. With the new turbocharged V8's AMG looks to save the development cost for the engine by sharing the block with MB's vanilla V8s.

My guess would be by the time all the testing, emission work and development is done, the engine may end up being about $100M, which is still not cheap. So Caddy does need a hyper car to fit the engine into.

I disagree with the perception of people not buying a $100,000 Caddy. If built right, people will buy it. It has been seen in other GM models like Cruze where critics said it is not worth the money, yet is being sold in droves because it is almost what people want. The key is getting the car right. Allante was a disaster to start with from Roger Smith's heritage.

If you look at the history, people would have said no one will buy CTS after Cimmarron, yet the car is doing very good. There is market for GM if it builds the right cars. ZR-1 and Z-06 carbon editions are other living examples.

[hyperv6]

Hyper, if the engine is based on any existing block as dwight is proposing, development cost should not be as expensive.

Technically a new engine family build from scratch can cost at least $1B. Even an engine like the AMG 6.2 cost approximately $300 M to develop.

Any guesses why MB charges $40k for the AMG engine compared to $17k for the LS7? Not because MB can but because of the high development costs and low quantities. With the new turbocharged V8's AMG looks to save the development cost for the engine by sharing the block with MB's vanilla V8s.

My guess would be by the time all the testing, emission work and development is done, the engine may end up being about $100M, which is still not cheap. So Caddy does need a hyper car to fit the engine into.

I disagree with the perception of people not buying a $100,000 Caddy. If built right, people will buy it. It has been seen in other GM models like Cruze where critics said it is not worth the money, yet is being sold in droves because it is almost what people want. The key is getting the car right. Allante was a disaster to start with from Roger Smith's heritage.

If you look at the history, people would have said no one will buy CTS after Cimmarron, yet the car is doing very good. There is market for GM if it builds the right cars. ZR-1 and Z-06 carbon editions are other living examples.

I understand the cost of a AMG and the price is due to the well established heritage of AMG over how many years. They have earned the right to build cars will no compromise and that tickle Jeremy Clarkson to no end. They have few faults and plenty of power. I am sure they are makeing good money on them as even with the jacked up price it can't be that much to do much of the work they are doing.

I am sorry but until GM can make a CTS and ATS that can donminate the US market and fight for the lead in Europe they have better things to spend their money on and win the trust of the buying public.

I have a buddy with a XLR V and he can tell you about resale value on a $100,000 Cadillac. It is a really cool car but in the eyes of the public it falls short again. GM has burn some good will up with it the STS and Allante. They all claimed to be as good as Benz and the public did not feel the same way.

Cadillac needs to show the ATS and next CTS is not as good but better. They also need to show they can sell in Europe as if you can sell there selling them on Rodeo Drive, La Jolla or Newport Beach will not be a problem.

If I can drive down Highway 1 on a Saturday night and see As many ATS and CTS at the clubs and resturants in Newport Beach then they can sell to the next level.

For the Flagship to work it has to appeal to people that are not Cadillac or GM fans. It has to appeal to the traditional Euro buyer and the traditiona Euro snob buyer. If you can convince them to come over with the cheaper cars you are ready for the big show.

VW over sold on the Phaeton and Benz on the Maybach. It can happen to any of them. Just sticking a V12 in a Zeta based car and pricing it at six figures is not going to do it. You need to earn your place to get into the game. Invest the money in the new affordible cars first and make them the class choice and then move the buyers up.

Even Lexus was smart enough to know they could do this yet.

If they work and earn the rep I would love to see Cadillac move up to the big leauge but they are not to the point I feel they can pull it off. If you can win you class at $50k what makes you think at $100 you will do any better?

The reason people took a chance on the CTS is that it was cheaper than the others in class. If it had been $100K I don't see that many taking the risk. As for the Carbon editions. The Vette is in a class of it's own like Harley Davidson. The image and name never lost the magic even after a rought 70's for each. Also the Vette has had to earn a good rep since 1984 with good upgrades performance and marketing with racing. The Vette did not become considered world class overnight and without some real work.

[Lamar]

Caddy will never truly challenge MB and BMW on their own turf in Europe, at least for sales. We can lay that to rest now.

[Z-06]

Again disagree. Cadillac does not need European market to support the ultra car. No matter how poor we have become USA still governs 40% of ultra car market, add another 10-15% for Middle East, who love American vehicles, and 10-15% of Far East and 5% for Eurasia markets and you have 70-80% of total pool to play with. F$ck Europe market at this time. Destroy Germans in US and in Middle East, battle for a solid ground in Far East and Cadillac will gain grounds. AGAIN KEY IS THE CAR SHOULD BE 100% DEDICATED EFFORT.

Again XLR-V is not a good example as it was botched since start. I find it funny how sometimes with DOHC and High-tech engines and 100 speed transmissions people want Cadillac to be high tech and yet when it comes to a flagship car - no Cadillac CANNOT do. If people want Caddy to be aggressive then start from where making a statement is important. Attack at top as well as bottom - that is how Cadillac can be a force. Bottom feeders like ATS and CTS while good will NOT build a good image for the rich to buy. Cadillac had the panache in its hey-days to sell expensive vehicles, it needs to recreate it.

Lowly 525i shares platform with 760i. Then a capable platform like Zeta, which is going to be modified to be better can definitely find its basis in a ultra car. And who in the hell asks about what platform underpins a car. That is a seriously lame argument.

[hyperv6]

With Europe Cadillac does not have to out sell as it will not happen but they need to gain acceptance there. At least sell to the point they do not have to relaunch every 5 years. If you want to be the standard of the world you need to be accepted by the world not just North America. This is now a global market and if you want to make it into the future you will need to compete everywhere.

The key to the higher tech V8 is it could be adapted to other uses and models. DOHC is an expected thing in the high end cars. Do people need DOHC and 8 speeds....No. But do the want them.... yes. When selling cars you give the people what they want and they will buy it. If you fail to give them what they want they will go to other brands as they have already.

I would like a higher end RWD sedan but not yet to the point it is in Six Figures. For the most part Cadillac has yet to prove they are worth that and with the economy as it is the customer will take a proven product.

I have seen Cadillac fail time and time again, if they can't get the CTS yet to be best of class how are they going to get a six figure car to be best in class?

At least if they use a V8 it can be salvaged for use in other vehicles in different variations. It would at least recover the lost money spent on such a car. Spend it on a V12 and it fails then you are stuck with an engine and no where to off set the cost.

The BMW we all know today was really built on the 2002 and the 3 series not the 5 or 7. The 2002 is what really brought it to Americas attention out side the cult following. The 3 Series was then made the Ultimate Driving Machine by Lutz and BMW marketing. The BMW rep really started there and grew from these two cars once BMW proved themselves and built a rep. Before these few people would have ponied up the money for a more expensive 5 or 7 BMW in North America.

I would love a $150,000 V12 Cadillac that could take on some of the best cars. It would really be cool. I just don't think they can do it and do it right at least not yet. They have made improvments with the brand and I think there will be a time it could be done but just not now. I just feel the money they could or would lose here could do more good growing the brand and leaning to walk before they can run.

We will just have to agree to disagee.

You may get a flag ship at some point which is fine but I would count out the V12 unless they buy it from someone else. GM will not spend that kind of money on a engine with such limited use. Heck the LS9 is based on an engine used in how many cars. GM is not that flush with money they can afford to risk that much on a very limited engine. This car is not a sure thing and there is still risk involved.

[dwightlooi]

You may get a flag ship at some point which is fine but I would count out the V12 unless they buy it from someone else. GM will not spend that kind of money on a engine with such limited use. Heck the LS9 is based on an engine used in how many cars. GM is not that flush with money they can afford to risk that much on a very limited engine. This car is not a sure thing and there is still risk involved.

Which is where the 7.2 V12 becomes interesting. It is not a new engine done from the ground up. Its combustion chamber is exactly the same as that used in the 3.6. Its valves, valve springs, lifters, injectors, pistons, rods, pins, sprockets, ECU, you name it, are identical and interchangeable with those used in the utilitarian 3.6 V6. Even the cam grinds and the VVT programming comes largely from an everyday Chevy Impala's V6. What it really is is a new block/head casting and a new crankshaft, even these can be mostly the 3.6's model with the ends redone so they are joined into a longer engine. This saves a lot of engineering time. You don't have to spend months and months doing CFD to figure out the combustion and flow behaviors, you don't have to shape the intake and exhaust ports for proper flow. You don't have to figure out strength and durability needed for individual parts. And, when you are done, you share the overwhelming majority of parts with a high volume engine already in production. An engine like that can be done for less money than it takes to develop say the 7.0 LS7 engine in the corvette Z06 which afterall has unique internals which doesn't have much sales volume and is not used in any other car.

In fact, I think the reverse is probably more likely to buying a V12 from someone. GM can probably sell this V12 to any number of fledgling boutique supercar makers looking for a V1 but can't afford to develop one or simply don't know how to do an engine right. It's effortlessly 600hp / 550 lb-ft right out of the box with a reduced 6200 rpm redline and a diet of 87 octane. That's no slouch. And, you can probably buy parts for it at your local discount autoparts store.

[smk4565]

Again disagree. Cadillac does not need European market to support the ultra car. No matter how poor we have become USA still governs 40% of ultra car market, add another 10-15% for Middle East, who love American vehicles, and 10-15% of Far East and 5% for Eurasia markets and you have 70-80% of total pool to play with. F$ck Europe market at this time. Destroy Germans in US and in Middle East, battle for a solid ground in Far East and Cadillac will gain grounds. AGAIN KEY IS THE CAR SHOULD BE 100% DEDICATED EFFORT.

Europe is Mercedes #1 market, USA is #2, and China is #3, but rapidly gaining. Cadillac is nothing in Europe, and a small player in China. Cadillac has to get beyond the United States to have a chance. They have no economies of scale operating how they are now, and Cadillac is 4th place in America.

I think Cadillac needs an ultra car, they don't really need a V12. A V12 is nice, but a supercharged V8 with a hybrid could be an appealing package also. Depends on how they want to market it, they can go the "green" uber sedan route and then they don't need a V12.

[dwightlooi]

I think Cadillac needs an ultra car, they don't really need a V12. A V12 is nice, but a supercharged V8 with a hybrid could be an appealing package also. Depends on how they want to market it, they can go the "green" uber sedan route and then they don't need a V12.

A low volume hybrid uber sedan is even more cost prohibitive!

[dwightlooi]

I have to ask. What company currently has an 8-speed auto built entirely in-house?

None. Toyota is probably the closest... they have a controlling stake in Aisin, but it is not a wholly owned subsidiary. BMW/Audi uses ZF and independent maker's boxes.

[Lamar]

I have to ask. What company currently has an 8-speed auto built entirely in-house?

None. Toyota is probably the closest... they have a controlling stake in Aisin, but it is not a wholly owned subsidiary. BMW/Audi uses ZF and independent maker's boxes.

That was the point I was after.

We established that Hyundai's unit will be out first (GM BK and all), but even still, it's nice not to have to contract out all the time.

[smk4565]

I have to ask. What company currently has an 8-speed auto built entirely in-house?

None. Toyota is probably the closest... they have a controlling stake in Aisin, but it is not a wholly owned subsidiary. BMW/Audi uses ZF and independent maker's boxes.

Hyundai makes their own 8-speed and now offers it in a $34,000 car. Mercedes is working on a 9-speed in house for the S-class.

[dwightlooi]

Well, before we get carried away in a "Speed War", it is important to recognize what transmissions are supposed to do and whether increasing the number of speed steps beyond a certain point is actually useful.

If you distill it to the very basics, having more than two speeds in a transmission only serves two purposes.

The first is to provide a Ratio Spread. That is the Ratio between top gear and the bottom gear ratios. Ideally, the bottom gear multiply the engine's output torque as much as the vehicle has traction to handle, hence maximizing acceleration from a standstill. The Top Gear should be as tall as possible to reduce engine RPMs at cruise to a minimum that will still to maintain cruising speeds. The difference between the two is called the Ratio Spread. A Transmission with a high ratio spread will be able to have strong 1st gear Acceleration and top gear fuel economy.

This brings us to the second purpose of a multi-speed transmission. Given a wide ratio spread, additional speeds are needed such that the engine can be kept in the meat of its power band getting from the lowest to the tallest gear. If you only have 2-speeds, that 7000 rpm shift from 1st to 2nd may take you down to 1200 rpm which is unaccceptable. Multiple speeds let keep the engine humming in its sweet spot. For most engine, you get maximum performance if you keep the rpms between its torque and power peaks.

So... why isn't more speeds better? Because there is a limit beyond which a wider ratio spread is no longer useful or desirable. There is also a limit beyond which additional speeds do nothing but introduce unnecessarily frequent shifting and actually slow down the car's acceleration times! And, we are closer to those limits than some people may think. This is especially true of vehicles with powerful engines.

Let me give you an example. The Camaro SS has a 6-speed transmission with a 6.05:1 ratio spread. It already melts rubber in 1st gear to the extent that the fastest launch is not one where the pedal is put to the floor but one where the driver skillfully manages the wheel spin. At the other end of the Ratio Spread, the engine turns over a barely 1400 rpm at 60mph in 6th gear. A 1st to 2nd shift at the 6600 rpm Redline takes the engine from 6600 rpm down to 4516 rpm (within 100 rpm of the engine's 4600 torque peak). Will this car benefit from a 8-speed transmission? Well, lets see... we can use an 8-speeder to create a smokier burnout -- which probably won't be fasster. We can close up the RPM drop between shifts, but that probably won't be faster. We can reduce the top gear RPM at 60mph below 1400 rpm... but not by much before the engine bogs. So what does an 8-speed with closer ratios or 7.5:1 spread or both get you? Probably not very much.

On the other hand a lower torque engine or a peakier engine might see some benefit, either to improve acceleration or reduce cruise consumption a little bit. But even then, at some point it becomes counter productive... turning the wheels for 15 mph at 7000 rpm will just melt tires and make a lot of noise. The car won't be able to maintain speed much less accelerate if the top gear is such that the engine turns at 600 rpm at 60 mph. Having to shift 4 times between 0-60 will just slow down the car given that during a shift, power is either not being delivered or not fully being delivered to the wheels for a fraction of a second -- power is instead used to heat up the transmission oil.

2-spds to 3-spds made the car drivable on the street and on the freeway. 3-spds to 4-speeds was a great triumph. 4 to 5 saw signigicant improvements in drivability and mileage. 5 to 6 a smaller difference. 6 to 7... a really marginal gain. 7 to 8 is probably academic. 8 to 9 is mainly a waste of time. 9 to 12, is probably a liability -- both to performance drivability and fuel economy.

[Lamar]

2-spds to 3-spds made the car drivable on the street and on the freeway. 3-spds to 4-speeds was a great triumph. 4 to 5 saw signigicant improvements in drivability and mileage. 5 to 6 a smaller difference. 6 to 7... a really marginal gain. 7 to 8 is probably academic. 8 to 9 is mainly a waste of time. 9 to 12, is probably a liability -- both to performance drivability and fuel economy.

So basically, the law of diminishing returns. Thanks, Dwight, for yet another insightful explanation.

Many car companies have skipped numbers of gears when they were bringing out new transmissions. I know that the Big 3 went straight from 4AT to 6AT in their transverse transmissions, MB went from 5 to 7, and BMW and Audi went from 6 to 8. Chrysler is going from 5 to 8 in the LX cars, so that should show some pretty significant improvement.

Would you say, then, that adding two gears is more beneficial than just adding one? Even though at this point, according to you (and other reviewers and sources), it's no more than an example of playing "whose is bigger?"

[SAmadei]

Would you say, then, that adding two gears is more beneficial than just adding one? Even though at this point, according to you (and other reviewers and sources), it's no more than an example of playing "whose is bigger?"

And hence my prediction that the great multispeed tranny race will end up at a Spinal Tap-like 11... a detrimental number that shows that the car companies like to push a good thing to a bad degree.

[smk4565]

While over 8 gears on a 400 hp engine may not make sense, what about on a 150 hp engine? On an engine with a narrow power band I would think 8 or 9 gears would be of large benefit so that the engine is always in the sweet spot. And what about with diesel engines that do not rev above 4500 rpm? Especially on a 4-cylinder diesel like the C-class is getting this year. I could see a Cadillac ATS 4-cylinder diesel with 0-60 in 7 seconds and over 40 mpg being pretty appealing. 0-60 in 7 seconds is adequate for most driving needs and people like high mpg.

[hyperv6]

I think with the new wide power bands we not see a whole lot more gears. While it does keep things in the power band with the extra grears it also takes more power and adds weight to the car.

Tadge Juecter Lead Corvette Engineer pointed out in an interview that he was not in favor of adding gears to the Vette. He said it took more power to drive the extra sets in the tranny and it also added more wight and size in many cases.

This is why some companies worked hard on on the Constant Velocity Transmissions. It gives the needed ratio all the time. It also was small and light. The real issue is they for the most not durable. They only have worked with mixed results on the smallest of engines in the lightest of cars.

Many companies like the extra gears too because of the smoothness. While we GM drivers have been used to high quality transmission most of the time many other companies has struggled with poor units. Hydromatic has always been one of the best transmissions around for strenght and durability. As long as you don't count the early and mid 80's.

Tadge said the next big thing in the Vette will be the duel disc clutch. There is a lot to gain with these units. I have been in training with Ram and a couple other companies that are now making them as retro fit kits for older cars.

I have driven a few on the street and driven a race car with one. The street cars were sweet the race car was dump it and go. It was unforgiving but it also was ment for hard use.

Edited July 1, 2011 by hyperv6

[dwightlooi]

So basically, the law of diminishing returns. Thanks, Dwight, for yet another insightful explanation.

Many car companies have skipped numbers of gears when they were bringing out new transmissions. I know that the Big 3 went straight from 4AT to 6AT in their transverse transmissions, MB went from 5 to 7, and BMW and Audi went from 6 to 8. Chrysler is going from 5 to 8 in the LX cars, so that should show some pretty significant improvement.

Would you say, then, that adding two gears is more beneficial than just adding one? Even though at this point, according to you (and other reviewers and sources), it's no more than an example of playing "whose is bigger?"

I think that 6-speeds is enough actually. Whats more important is the Ratio Spread. Currently the 6-speeds with two planetaries -- eg. GM's Hydramatic 6L50 or 6T70 is about 6:1, whereas 8-speeds are typically 7:1 ~ 7.5:1. If you can make a 6-speed transmission with slightly wider spaced gears, it'll have the same effect on fuel economy as a typical 8-speed. On the performance front it is more debatable. If you are trying to game the system and get the best 0~60 or 0~62 mph numbers you'll want to hit 62mph either at the end of 2nd or at the end of 3rd. With a 6-speed you'll probably go for 2nd, with a 8-speed you'll go for 3rd. With three speeds to 62, you'll have more torque in 1st and -- assuming you have enough traction -- better acceleration off the line. But, that additional shift will also cost you on the order of ~0.2 secs. In the end it'll depend on the engine.

What's more interesting and worthy of thought is this...

Many 8-speed transmissions either SKIP GEARS or START IN 2ND GEAR in some operating modes (usually named Economy or Comfort of something along those lines). Heck, forget 8-speeds, even the Mercedes 5 speeds start in 2nd gear in COMFORT mode when paired with the 5.0 or 5.5 V8s (I know, my C55 does that). Why do they do that? Is it because they already have too many speeds for some driving conditions?

[smk4565]

Thing is though, a CTS gets 27 mpg highway. A Genesis 8-speed gets 29 mpg highway, a 528i w/ 8-speed gets 32 mpg highway. This fall BMW is putting a turbo 4 in the 528i, that does 0-60 in 6.2 seconds and should get 35-36 mpg. But if 30-32 mpg becomes the norm for mid-size luxury sedans, how does the CTS find that extra 5 mpg without a new transmission?

Then the other thing to consider is the influx of hybrids and diesels that is about to take place with luxury cars. Cadillac circa 2015 needs to have both.

[dwightlooi]

Thing is though, a CTS gets 27 mpg highway. A Genesis 8-speed gets 29 mpg highway, a 528i w/ 8-speed gets 32 mpg highway. This fall BMW is putting a turbo 4 in the 528i, that does 0-60 in 6.2 seconds and should get 35-36 mpg. But if 30-32 mpg becomes the norm for mid-size luxury sedans, how does the CTS find that extra 5 mpg without a new transmission?

Then the other thing to consider is the influx of hybrids and diesels that is about to take place with luxury cars. Cadillac circa 2015 needs to have both.

The methods, practical or not, are reducing weight, using a taller final drive ratio, improving aerodynamics, going to SOHC or fewer cylinders, etc.

For Highway Economy, using a final drive equivalent to the 8-speeds top ratio will have the same effect. Improving aerodynamics - such as using a full underbody tray -- will also help. Having less speeds nay cost you acceleration performance. Getting better city numbers entails (mostly) reducing weight, followed by reducing parasitic losses (friction, pumping, etc.)

Case an point: The 2011 Camaro (V6 LS model) gets 30 mpg Highway... same 3.6 DI V6 engine, same 6L50 transmission. The difference is the 2.92 axle ratio.

Edited July 3, 2011 by dwightlooi

[riviera74]

I have a question: how can GM improve the ATS and the CTS to be best in class to a point where otherwise non-Cadillac owners switch to Cadillac?

[dwightlooi]

I have a question: how can GM improve the ATS and the CTS to be best in class to a point where otherwise non-Cadillac owners switch to Cadillac?

• Styling -- I think they are on track
  
• Interior Quality -- A little demerit here and there, but they are 90% of the way there
  
• Differentiated Features -- Electrochromic windows, magnetorological shocks, something special.
  
• Performance -- between a 2.0T & 3.6 DOHC V6, plus a small block powered V they are set as along as they keep weight in check
  
• Value -- Don't price yourself out of the market; even Lexus started out selling the LS400 at a $20K discount over the Germans
  

[smk4565]

I have a question: how can GM improve the ATS and the CTS to be best in class to a point where otherwise non-Cadillac owners switch to Cadillac?

This is their biggest challenge and something Cadillac (nor Lincoln) has been able to do for the past 15-20 years. That is why their sales volume kept dropping. The CTS brought in a new buyer compared to the old Seville and Deville/DTS, but I wonder how much of that was import luxury conquest compared to mainstream buyers moving up to a luxury car.

I think Cadillac's areas for improvement need to be build quality, fuel economy, and driving dynamics. Especially for overseas markets. The CTS is their only car that is decent at driving dynamics and even it didn't wow me in anyway when I drove it. A BMW is a much better driving car. Cadillac loses the performance buyer to the Germans and the old folks that want worry free and good mileage buy Lexus. So they have to find a way to appeal to those buyers.