Cadillac Vehicles & Engine Lineup (Circa 2015)

smk4565 · July 12, 2011

Right, and a Cadillac -- even today -- is not 90% a Chevy. The body styles are completely different, the interiors are remarkably better, you get things like magnetorogical shocks which you don't get in a Chevy, plus you get way more amentities and superior materials. I just don't think that Cadillac necessarily have to have its own line of engines or platform to be competitive. It is more important that those engines and platforms -- whatever they may be shared with -- are very good ones.

BTW, Lexus, had been outselling BMW and Mercedes in the USA for over a decade right up to 2010. If not for the accelerator pedal witch hunt and the Earthquake, it probably will this year as well. And, the "re-badged Camry" (actually its built on the long wheelbase Avalon platform), the ES350 is its best selling car with 16,596 sold -- more than the LS (4,201), IS(13,015), HS(1,357) or GS(2,080) by a significant margin. I think Cadillac or Buick will be very happy to equal Lexus. It is, after all, the #1 luxury brand in the USA.

On some Cadillacs you get more, but I am not talking CTS-V vs a Camaro. I am talking about SRX and XTS compared to a LaCrosse or Equinox. SRX is based on Malibu and Equniox platform and suspension and XTS going to share a platform with the LaCrosse and next Impala. To me this is a slippery slope toward Lincoln/Acura territory. Cadillac isn't as bad as those 2, but I fear that they could head that direction.

The Camry and ES350 are both on a 109.3 inch wheel base. The only difference is the ES is 191 inches long compared to 189 for the Camry. The Avalon is on a 111 inch wheelbase with a 198 inch length. I know the ES is the best selling Lexus sedan, but it doesn't sell as well as it used to. The ES still sells now, but it is selling to 70 year olds, just like the Lucerne and DTS. Sales of those cars have declined recently, and by 2020, those buyers will not be in the market.

Lexus made 2 great moves in the USA in the 1990s. One was having quality/reliability that beat Mercedes (in the early 90s Mercedes was the standard) at a lower price, this got them some import luxury buyers to switch over. Secondly, they built a better Buick/Cadillac/Lincoln than Detroit did. The baby boomers wanting soft, refined luxury, found a better version from Lexus than they could get from Cadillac or Buick, and as an added bonus they weren't driving the car their parents drove. Cadillac and Lincoln were the 2 brands that paid the biggest price from 1990-2000 on Lexus's rise to power. Cadillac and Lincoln were the top selling luxury brands before Lexus got here, now Cadillac is 4th or 5th, Lincoln is probably 7th or 8th. The other element to work in Lexus's favor was the terrible cars that Detroit made in the late 70s and 1980s that pushed so many people to Japanese cars. After 10-15 years driving a Toyota, the trade up to a Lexus was a no brainer.

BUT, I think Lexus time on top has come. The RX is still strong and gets 40-59 year olds, but 10 years ago the RX was one of the only small-mid luxury crossovers, now there are a dozen of them. Lexus sedan buyers are an older bunch, and they have trouble attracting younger buyers. Just as Cadillac and Lincoln got the image of being a geezer car in the 1990s, that will be Lexus of the 2010s.

I believe for Cadillac to be successful, they need to go after the luxury car buyer of the future. Their lineup has to be what will work in 2015-2025. Look at the decline in the smooth, big luxury car, Grand Marquis/Town Car, Park Ave, LeSabre, Aurora, DTS, even STS, dead. S80, RL, MKS hanging on by a thread. The luxury car market of 2011 looks far different than how it did in 1999 and I think come 2020, it will shift again. Cadillac needs to be ahead of the shift, not chasing after it.

smk4565 · July 12, 2011

Well, I am to trying to say that Caddys are dramatically more fuel efficient, but that their uber cars are either in the same bracket or slightly better than competing vehicles in the same power & weight class. Comparing a 4300 lbs CTS-V with its 556 hp engine with a 3900 lbs C63 with 451 hp is stretching the the term "in the same power & weight class".

A CTS-V at 12/18 is not more efficient than an S63 AMG with 563 hp, 664 lb-ft and 15/22 mpg. And the S63 weighs over 4800 lbs. The 2012 E63 AMG is estimated to also be 15/22 mpg, although it only weighs 4,050 lbs, so you'd think with 800 less pounds to pull it should do better than the S-class, but ratings are funny sometimes.

dado · July 12, 2011

Let's chop this up a bit, as Dwight just did before I could post:

Only Cadillac that has truck engines is, well, a truck itself (Escalade). The engine in the CTS-V is only in that car and the upcoming Camaro ZL-1, itself a model commanding a higher price. No recent Cadillac V8 has ever been found, as is, in a Chevy truck.

Viper's V10 originated there and then was put in a limited-edition Ram truck, not the other way around.

For what it's worth, the engine in the M5 was in the X5 and X6 first, themselves trucks (er, I mean SAVs).

The diesel in the diesel E, S, ML, and GL Classes? Also in the Sprinter (another truck, basically).

Some of the statements in your post are unfounded and can very well be turned around to the European cars. And as far as the points you were making about engines being shared between cheap cars and luxury marques, I'd just like to point out that Audi and SEAT share a few engines...

Seems you guys don't understand what i've said. Let me try to explain. 7.0 l v8 LS7 engine is considered to be a truck engine around here like it or not.Is it really..no it isn't. Not even close. I know it isn't and i've said many time befores you don't need to explain that to me, but i am fan of american cars so..but general public here isn't. And that is what GM have to fight against. Public opinion is very important like it or not especially in luxury class.Do you think buyers here (and outside of car enthusiast circles) will know the differences between ls3 and vortec. They will see same displacement, same number of valve and conclude it is the same engine. Same goes for car magazines.Don't believe it? I am mechanical engineer and when Z06 came out (with ls7) engine i've had hard time explaining others engineers on college (in some car disscusions) it is not a truck engine. They wouldn't listen. Not to mention what people here thinks about handling of american cars. Even if you shown them results from nurburgring they still think they don't handle. But it seems people is starting to like Ford mustangs.I've seen couple of them here.but thath is a pony car..not luxury car.

And about sharing..i've said top engine..does seat use any v8 from audi..no.. And about mercedes diesels etc...like i said before..no top engine or engine based on top engine from Mercedes can be found in cheap truck.

dado · July 12, 2011

To say that they are the same engine is like saying that the Toyota Tundra's 5.7 liter DOHC V8 (3UR-FSE) and the Lexus LS's 5.0 V8 (2UR-FSE) or IS-F's 5.0 DOHC V8 (2UR-GSE) is the same engine... they are, after all, the same Toyota UR-series V8 architecture and shares a similar block casting (albiet with different bore and stroke dimensions).

And if they would use same displacement you think most people wouldn't say it is the same engine?? I bet they would. And rumors are there will be only two displacemet available fot LT1(gen V). 6.2 and 5.3 engine. 6.2 l for truck and cars and 5.3 for truck only. If you think that people won't say it is same engine from truck put in a car...well i'm hoping for the best but it seems car journalist and magazines doesn't like american cars here that much.

Lamar · July 12, 2011

Granted, dado.

But it's not really GM's fault if the European car-buying public (and while we're at it, the American car-buying public) is made up of mostly people who can't take the time to educate themselves properly about what's out there. You, sir, are a rare breed on both sides of the ocean.

And as far as Mercedes-Benz engines found in trucks? That's an apples-to-coconuts comparison since MB doesn't make pickup trucks like that.

dado · July 12, 2011

And about Viper engine. I don't know if this is true (from Wiki)

Sjoberg selected 85 engineers to be "Team Viper," with development beginning in March 1989. The team asked the then-Chrysler subsidiary Lamborghini to cast some prototype aluminum blocks based on Dodge's V10 truck engine[citation needed] for sports car use in May. The production body was completed in the fall, with a chassis prototype running in December. Though a V8 was first used in the test mule, the V10, which the production car was meant to use, was ready in February 1990.

Chrysler engineers revamped Dodge's cast-iron block V10 for the Viper[citation needed] by recasting the block and heads in aluminium alloy. Prototype blocks were cast by Lamborghini, at the time a Chrysler division. Some felt that the pushrod two-valve design, while adequate for the truck application for which the engine was originally created, was unsuitable for a performance car. However, Chrysler was uncertain about the Viper's production costs and sales potential[who?] and so declined to provide the budget for the modification[citation needed].

Originally conceived in the 1980s[citation needed] as a truck engine for the larger Rams[citation needed], the Magnum V10 was re-engineered as the engine of the Dodge Viper[citation needed] in 1990 by Chrysler Engineering, and used in the Ram 2500 starting in the 1994 redesign of the Ram line. When the 8 L 488ci V10 Magnum debuted for the Dodge Ram 2500 & 3500 in 1994, it was the most powerful gasoline engine available for consumer pick-ups. It provided far less power than the V10 in the Viper and used a cast-iron cylinder block. Output was 310 hp (230 kW) and 450 lb·ft (610 N·m). It was discontinued after the 2003 model year.

dwightlooi · July 12, 2011

Seems you guys don't understand what i've said. Let me try to explain. 7.0 l v8 LS7 engine is considered to be a truck engine around here like it or not.Is it really..no it isn't. Not even close. I know it isn't and i've said many time befores you don't need to explain that to me, but i am fan of american cars so..but general public here isn't. And that is what GM have to fight against. Public opinion is very important like it or not especially in luxury class.Do you think buyers here (and outside of car enthusiast circles) will know the differences between ls3 and vortec. They will see same displacement, same number of valve and conclude it is the same engine. Same goes for car magazines.Don't believe it? I am mechanical engineer and when Z06 came out (with ls7) engine i've had hard time explaining others engineers on college (in some car disscusions) it is not a truck engine. They wouldn't listen. Not to mention what people here thinks about handling of american cars. Even if you shown them results from nurburgring they still think they don't handle. But it seems people is starting to like Ford mustangs.I've seen couple of them here.but thath is a pony car..not luxury car.

And about sharing..i've said top engine..does seat use any v8 from audi..no.. And about mercedes diesels etc...like i said before..no top engine or engine based on top engine from Mercedes can be found in cheap truck.

GM's reputation in Europe has been that of a purveyor of low quality, low tech cars, that do not perform, do not handle and aren't fuel efficient. Much of it is well deserved given what they churn out in the 80s, 90s and the earlier part of this millennium. Going to a DOHC valvetrain -- with all its disadvantages and advantageous -- will not fix that. In fact, it'll only make matters worse because at least the small block is uniquely American whereas a so-so DOHC V8 is in the mix with everything else and they won't even have a niche to sell into. Going to unique platforms for Cadillac will not fix that either.

Fixing GM's reputation is going to take a couple of generation of good if not great products. That, unfortunately, is going to be at the very minimum a decade long exercise. Chasing a meaningless alphabet soup rather than true technical merit is not a particularly good way of going about it.

Drew Dowdell · July 12, 2011

Actually, if you look at their ratings across the line, they really don't. According to edmunds list, there's exactly 1 model that squeaks over 30 highway. hybrid s-class is the same as the bottom V8: 19/25.

They will have more diesels here eventually I'm sure. It's the diesels that get the good mileage. And they have Smart and the A- and B- class models for mileage (A- and B- coming to the US soon).

Now now... if we're not allowed to count "coming models" in the plus column for Cadillac, then one must treat Mercedes the same way.

Robert Hall · July 12, 2011

Actually, if you look at their ratings across the line, they really don't. According to edmunds list, there's exactly 1 model that squeaks over 30 highway. hybrid s-class is the same as the bottom V8: 19/25.

They will have more diesels here eventually I'm sure. It's the diesels that get the good mileage. And they have Smart and the A- and B- class models for mileage (A- and B- coming to the US soon).

Now now... if we're not allowed to count "coming models" in the plus column for Cadillac, then one must treat Mercedes the same way.

Well, the coming models for Merc already exist in other markets. Little is known of Cadillac's coming models which are not yet in production..

dwightlooi · July 12, 2011

I don't think Diesels are a high priority for GM North America. Unlike Europe, Diesel is more expensive than gasoline, available in a minority of gas stations and view negatively in terms of perceived refinement. Do Americans care about fuel economy? Yes, a little. Is it the #1 concern or the a big enough concern to make the pay extra dollars for a diesel engine and put up with the inconvenience of having to look for specific gas stations to refuel at? Not really. That is why, while VW, BMW, Audi and M-B diesels have found their niches they overwhelming majority -- over 95% of cars sold in the USA are gasoline powered.

hyperv6 · July 12, 2011

The future of the V8 in the words of Bob Lutz is "mortibund" Note his words not mine. With where he is and has been in the industry I find this comment telling. Engines numbers are shrinking across the board. The 4 cylinder is over 3/4 of the maket now and The V6 is on the decline in some models like the Malibu. The V6 may replace more and more V8 engines in the pick ups now that Ford has proven a DOHC Turbo V6 is very popular extra cost option over the V8 in a 1/2 ton.

The V8 while it may not vanish will become more uncommon and even more expensive to buy. I see it shrinking in size and a turbo being used at some point. I also suspect this latest Pushrod may be the last we see in this line. It will remain around for sometime yet but I just don't see much more investment going into this engine as vs the others. The engines in the next Chevy pickup may be a way to see where this will go. If GM offers a Turbo V6 I think we will see where this will be leading to.

The fact is no one out there is going to bring back the pushrod. GM is the only one really showing much interest and Chrysler has really not laid out the future yet for the Hemi.

Today nearly every company markets the DOHC feature. They put it on valve covers and on fenders. They put it in advertising and spec information. Pushrods seldom get mentioned. Even in the latest Z06 ad they give HP ratings and the fact it has Sodium valves but no mention of how many or any advantages. It is almost like they are hiding the fact it only has 16 valves. When was the last time you saw pushrod spelled out on a valve cover or fender?

The fact is people come to expect DOHC valves and with the smaller engines they do help. It is just become the expect norm with most buyers. They have been marketed to death about it and thar is considered the norm.

It is more than just about numbers anymore as it is all about marketing. How many have seen people today that will not buy RWD because they think they will be stranded without FWD. We all know better here but not the unwashed public.

I think GM could have and should have better marketed the pushrod on what they have and what it can do. For many they know nothing of any benefits and precieve it as a inferior outdated engine. While it is not fully true that is what most other MFG have taught them.

The bottom line is we can all argue the cam placement and engines but change is coming and most of us will be left with engines we never would have owned in the past or even considered. I am already to that point today. To my suprise the Turbo 4 has finally gotten to a point where I am very pleased with the engine. It does all I ask and more. Most who have not already discovered these smaller engines will have to as their choices will be limited in the future by price or availability.

So boys enjoy the V8's while we have them as it may not be long before most of them gone no matter where the cams are.

Edited July 12, 2011 by hyperv6

balthazar · July 13, 2011

Current camry doesn't have any mention on it, exterior, interior or underhood, that says 'OHC / DOHC'. Neither does the malibu, accord or the s'notta. In my recollection... I haven't seen a new mainstream car with 'OHC' badges on it in a long long time (maybe some of the japanese trucks). The industry has really been getting away from engine-specific badging in the last decade+ : often you get 'V6' rather than '3.5LDDT/DI' so to say.

Like has been pointed out here, OHC was a selling point in the '80s and into the '90s, it no longer is because it's no longer a choice. It's like advertising your car has FM band. The only car I can think of hopelessly mired in the past on engine badging is BMW's advertising they (still) have FI after 35 years.

What I enjoy about the V8s that I like in the cars that I like is that they will always be there.

Edited July 13, 2011 by balthazar

dwightlooi · July 13, 2011

The entire forecast of shrinking displacements centers upon the notion that smaller displacement engines are more economical on on fuel. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is deeply flawed. The most economical engine is not the one with the lowest displacement or even power. It is the one with has the least amount of parasitic losses especially when cruising gently on the freeway.

Displacement only contributes to a fraction of this loss, namely the pumping losses associated with moving the amount of air it displaces at a given rpm. However, a smaller displacement engine also makes less torque and will require higher rpms to make the requisite amount required to maintain the said cruising speed. For instance, a 2.0 liter engine turning at 2000 rpm pumps roughly the same amount of air as a 1.4 liter at 3000 rpm. So, the ability of larger displacement engines to run taller gearing partly cancels the benefits of reduced displacement. Hence, reducing the final drive ratio (axle ratio) from 3.23 to 2.86 has the same effect reducing a V8's displacement from say 6.2 liter to 5.5 liters.

So, far we have only accounted for effective aspiration rates. However, parasitic losses is not just that. In fact, it is not even mostly that. Parasitic losses is also frictional losses, accessory drag, etc. Parasitic drag from a quad cam 32-valve engine is higher than an equivalent single cam 16 valve engine. accessory drag doesn't change when you reduce displacement or cylinder count. In fact, when cruising on the freeway how well the engine can breathe doesn't even really matter. The engine is being intentionally choked by the throttle body to a specific airflow needed to burn a given amount of fuel that will make the requisite power to keep the car at a given speed. If this isn't done the car will be ssuffering from unintended acceleration.

The end result is that reducing engine size can sometimes lead to increased fuel consumption. The Cruze is an example -- going to 1.4 liters and adding a turbo not only did not help fuel economy, it put it 1~2 mpg behind the 2.0 liter competition. The 3.0 liter V6 is either no more economical or 1 mpg worse than the 3.6 in the SRX and CTS applications.

Drew Dowdell · July 13, 2011

I don't think Diesels are a high priority for GM North America. Unlike Europe, Diesel is more expensive than gasoline, available in a minority of gas stations and view negatively in terms of perceived refinement. Do Americans care about fuel economy? Yes, a little. Is it the #1 concern or the a big enough concern to make the pay extra dollars for a diesel engine and put up with the inconvenience of having to look for specific gas stations to refuel at? Not really. That is why, while VW, BMW, Audi and M-B diesels have found their niches they overwhelming majority -- over 95% of cars sold in the USA are gasoline powered.

A few points against this:

1. 50% of all fueling stations in the US offer diesel.

2. The typical 700 mile range means that I can drive from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia and back, and still have another 100 mile of range to look for a fueling station.

3. It is a simple matter to default the NAV screen to show fueling stations that offer diesel nearby. The database exists already and is community maintained.

4. Diesel is less expensive than gasoline on a cost-per-mile basis. In my area, diesel is currently the same price as premium gas.

5. Finding diesel fuel doesn't appear to be a problem for the Powerstroke, Duramax, and Cummins drivers.

hyperv6 · July 13, 2011

However, a smaller displacement engine also makes less torque and will require higher rpms to make the requisite amount required to maintain the said cruising speed.

This is not an absolute. I drive a 2.0 daily that makes more torque than many V6 and as much as many V8's. Max torque comes on at just over 2000 RPM and does not require high RPM to make it.

Driving around town it is common to see RPM 1800-2400 RPM and on the high way the 3:08 keeps the RPM done and the engine just puttering along at a fairly low RPM.

Might also not the MPG ratings on my engine have never come close or dipped below the factory ratings. I am not sure if GM under rated it with the new system or what. I am seeing the same numbers the other SS owner see so mine is not the odd one out. I never once dipped below the 20 MPG and never come close to the 19 city. The addition of the Turbo upgrade has improved MPG and verified by GM performance engineers. It was an unintended side effect. They attribute it to the increase in lower torque and the fact with up getting up to speed faster we are having more off gas time where the direct injection shuts off all the fuel when the car is coasting in drive.

So I do find your statment here may be true in some cased it is not an absolute as I have proof in my garage now and I prove this statment wrong daily.

I find my 3.6 to be fuel efficent if driven as such. Highway is good but in town you have to not put the RPM to it. I do find what you say true here as it does take the RPM to move the Malibu. But under normal driving it does better than my 3800 SC. MPG is much better highway than the 3800 SC and just a little better city by 1-2 MPG.

I find you place a compelling argument and a lot of interesting claims I some how think you may be misisng something. Why would the entire industry be investing hundreds of millions into newer smaller engines when some guy on the web has it all figured out. I am not going to say what all you post is wrong as on paper it is correct but I feel something must still be missing.

Have you factored in the fact many companies world wide are also looking to their drop carbon output. In Europe by 2013 they have to drop 25% and even more in the future. It has driven companies like Aston Martin to rebodie Toyota's and leave the drivetrain in tact as it came from Toyota. This is a hail mary to try to decrease the carbon footprint of the much larger engines. They lack the funds to do a from scatch city car or smaller engine program and this was their only viable option. With 400 sold so far still wonder if people will fall for it long term. It may be a play toy for the rich now but when the novelty wears off like the Smart they will have to go to a plan B.

dwightlooi · July 13, 2011

However, a smaller displacement engine also makes less torque and will require higher rpms to make the requisite amount required to maintain the said cruising speed.

This is not an absolute. I drive a 2.0 daily that makes more torque than many V6 and as much as many V8's. Max torque comes on at just over 2000 RPM and does not require high RPM to make it.

Driving around town it is common to see RPM 1800-2400 RPM and on the high way the 3:08 keeps the RPM done and the engine just puttering along at a fairly low RPM.

Might also not the MPG ratings on my engine have never come close or dipped below the factory ratings. I am not sure if GM under rated it with the new system or what. I am seeing the same numbers the other SS owner see so mine is not the odd one out. I never once dipped below the 20 MPG and never come close to the 19 city. The addition of the Turbo upgrade has improved MPG and verified by GM performance engineers. It was an unintended side effect. They attribute it to the increase in lower torque and the fact with up getting up to speed faster we are having more off gas time where the direct injection shuts off all the fuel when the car is coasting in drive.

So I do find your statment here may be true in some cased it is not an absolute as I have proof in my garage now and I prove this statment wrong daily.

I find my 3.6 to be fuel efficent if driven as such. Highway is good but in town you have to not put the RPM to it. I do find what you say true here as it does take the RPM to move the Malibu. But under normal driving it does better than my 3800 SC. MPG is much better highway than the 3800 SC and just a little better city by 1-2 MPG.

I find you place a compelling argument and a lot of interesting claims I some how think you may be misisng something. Why would the entire industry be investing hundreds of millions into newer smaller engines when some guy on the web has it all figured out. I am not going to say what all you post is wrong as on paper it is correct but I feel something must still be missing.

Have you factored in the fact many companies world wide are also looking to their drop carbon output. In Europe by 2013 they have to drop 25% and even more in the future. It has driven companies like Aston Martin to rebodie Toyota's and leave the drivetrain in tact as it came from Toyota. This is a hail mary to try to decrease the carbon footprint of the much larger engines. They lack the funds to do a from scatch city car or smaller engine program and this was their only viable option. With 400 sold so far still wonder if people will fall for it long term. It may be a play toy for the rich now but when the novelty wears off like the Smart they will have to go to a plan B.

Three things...

(1) The problem with 2.0 liter engines that make 295 lb-ft at ~2500 rpm is that it doesn't make 295 rpm except when it is on boost -- on full boost. The typical condition at freeway cruise is off boost simply because of the low output require and low accelerative loads. If you rev a turbocharged engine in neutral in the parking lot, it NEVER gets on boost and is always in vaccuum for the same reason. In otherwords, the small turbocharged engine has to be geared such that it still has enough torque off boost to maintain cruising speed. Hence, a 3.6 liter V6 with 275 lb-ft may be geared to make 1800 rpm @ 60 mph, whereas a 2.0T with 275 lb-ft may not.

(2) The answer as to whether an entire industry can be wrong is YES. It can. Especially when it comes to popular quasi-axioms like this.

(3) I do not expect the Carbon Footprint reduction nonsense to persist over the long run. The non-science of "global warming" is quickly unraveling. The statistics and science behind it are completely bankrupt. The fact is that there is no abnormality with the climate we experience today or in the past 100-years. It is statistically in the middle of historical fluctuations. There is also no evidence that carbon dioxide concentration in the air, especially androgynous CO2, has had ANY tangible effect on global temperatures. We know this because global temperatures have been observed to fall in the 50s, 60s and 70s despite a higher than pre-industrial and constantly increasing CO2 levels. We also know that the medieval era was warmer than today and numerous periods in the earth's history is warmer than today. If you look at ice cores samples going back a million years, you'll notice that the planet did not get warmer following CO2 spikes. In fact, CO2 spikes occur 500~1000 years AFTER temperature has already risen. And, to put a nail into the coffin, the planet has been cooling not warming since 2007 and various IPCC "scientists" have been caught falsifying data to hide patterns they don't like. The only reason this whole charade is still continuing is that it is difficult for politicians and people who support the cause -- unknowing of the actual validity of its science or the lack thereof -- to back track and say they were wrong. To say that they have been pursuing economically ruinous, utterly useless and unnecessary policy. It's potentially a career ending thing to say! But, truth has a certain ring to it and you can't keep it from getting out forever.

Drew Dowdell · July 13, 2011

However, a smaller displacement engine also makes less torque and will require higher rpms to make the requisite amount required to maintain the said cruising speed.

This is not an absolute. I drive a 2.0 daily that makes more torque than many V6 and as much as many V8's. Max torque comes on at just over 2000 RPM and does not require high RPM to make it.

Driving around town it is common to see RPM 1800-2400 RPM and on the high way the 3:08 keeps the RPM done and the engine just puttering along at a fairly low RPM.

Might also not the MPG ratings on my engine have never come close or dipped below the factory ratings. I am not sure if GM under rated it with the new system or what. I am seeing the same numbers the other SS owner see so mine is not the odd one out. I never once dipped below the 20 MPG and never come close to the 19 city. The addition of the Turbo upgrade has improved MPG and verified by GM performance engineers. It was an unintended side effect. They attribute it to the increase in lower torque and the fact with up getting up to speed faster we are having more off gas time where the direct injection shuts off all the fuel when the car is coasting in drive.

So I do find your statment here may be true in some cased it is not an absolute as I have proof in my garage now and I prove this statment wrong daily.

I find my 3.6 to be fuel efficent if driven as such. Highway is good but in town you have to not put the RPM to it. I do find what you say true here as it does take the RPM to move the Malibu. But under normal driving it does better than my 3800 SC. MPG is much better highway than the 3800 SC and just a little better city by 1-2 MPG.

I find you place a compelling argument and a lot of interesting claims I some how think you may be misisng something. Why would the entire industry be investing hundreds of millions into newer smaller engines when some guy on the web has it all figured out. I am not going to say what all you post is wrong as on paper it is correct but I feel something must still be missing.

Have you factored in the fact many companies world wide are also looking to their drop carbon output. In Europe by 2013 they have to drop 25% and even more in the future. It has driven companies like Aston Martin to rebodie Toyota's and leave the drivetrain in tact as it came from Toyota. This is a hail mary to try to decrease the carbon footprint of the much larger engines. They lack the funds to do a from scatch city car or smaller engine program and this was their only viable option. With 400 sold so far still wonder if people will fall for it long term. It may be a play toy for the rich now but when the novelty wears off like the Smart they will have to go to a plan B.

Three things...

(1) The problem with 2.0 liter engines that make 295 lb-ft at ~2500 rpm is that it doesn't make 295 rpm except when it is on boost -- on full boost. The typical condition at freeway cruise is off boost simply because of the low output require and low accelerative loads. If you rev a turbocharged engine in neutral in the parking lot, it NEVER gets on boost and is always in vaccuum for the same reason. In otherwords, the small turbocharged engine has to be geared such that it still has enough torque off boost to maintain cruising speed. Hence, a 3.6 liter V6 with 275 lb-ft may be geared to make 1800 rpm @ 60 mph, whereas a 2.0T with 275 lb-ft may not.

(2) The answer as to whether an entire industry can be wrong is YES. It can. Especially when it comes to popular quasi-axioms like this.

(3) I do not expect the Carbon Footprint reduction nonsense to persist over the long run. The non-science of "global warming" is quickly unraveling. The statistics and science behind it are completely bankrupt. The fact is that there is no abnormality with the climate we experience today or in the past 100-years. It is statistically in the middle of historical fluctuations. There is also no evidence that carbon dioxide concentration in the air, especially androgynous CO2, has had ANY tangible effect on global temperatures. We know this because global temperatures have been observed to fall in the 50s, 60s and 70s despite a higher than pre-industrial and constantly increasing CO2 levels. We also know that the medieval era was warmer than today and numerous periods in the earth's history is warmer than today. If you look at ice cores samples going back a million years, you'll notice that the planet did not get warmer following CO2 spikes. In fact, CO2 spikes occur 500~1000 years AFTER temperature has already risen. And, to put a nail into the coffin, the planet has been cooling not warming since 2007 and various IPCC "scientists" have been caught falsifying data to hide patterns they don't like. The only reason this whole charade is still continuing is that it is difficult for politicians and people who support the cause -- unknowing of the actual validity of its science or the lack thereof -- to back track and say they were wrong. To say that they have been pursuing economically ruinous, utterly useless and unnecessary policy. It's potentially a career ending thing to say! But, truth has a certain ring to it and you can't keep it from getting out forever.

1) The 2.0 Ecotec and the Ford Ecoboosts have incredibly flat torque curves that hit peak torque very low in the RPM band, so yes, they can run 60mph @1800 rpm, even if they are bypassing boost at higher RPMs.

2) Not just an entire industry, but an entire continent. Europe's overly controlling tax on displacement is highly short sighted and restricts the very innovation that could potentially meet their stated goal of reducing carbon emissions.

3) There is nothing "unraveling" about global climate change at all. To imply that all universities, scientists, and governments globally are in a vast global conspiracy to ruin the economy by controlling carbon emissions requires a leap of faith that, quite frankly, surprises me about you who have been so scientifically minded in 99% of your other posts. Furthermore, to make the assumptions that humans can't nudge the environment one way or another with our actions also defies doubt. No one has claimed that humans are the sole cause of climate change, nor has anyone claimed that there are not already climate change patterns that the earth follows. The concerns about climate change are about the changes in the extremes, not about what the weather is doing outside right now. 100 year flood patterns are now becoming 50 year flood patterns. The peak tornado season is shifting earlier in the year and breaking records for frequency while doing so. The medieval warming period that you cite is very Euro centric, and while it was a warm period in Europe, there is little evidence that the same thing happened in the Southern Hemisphere at all or the North American region more than minimally, suggesting that it was a regional temperature variation. To sum up the things we do know beyond any shadow of a doubt. A) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that does trap heat - this is not in dispute. B) We are pumping 10s of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere daily. C) We continue to cut down the earth's natural CO2 scrubbers, the forests, at a very high rate.

dwightlooi · July 13, 2011

3) There is nothing "unraveling" about global climate change at all. To imply that all universities, scientists, and governments globally are in a vast global conspiracy to ruin the economy by controlling carbon emissions requires a leap of faith that, quite frankly, surprises me about you who have been so scientifically minded in 99% of your other posts. Furthermore, to make the assumptions that humans can't nudge the environment one way or another with our actions also defies doubt. No one has claimed that humans are the sole cause of climate change, nor has anyone claimed that there are not already climate change patterns that the earth follows. The concerns about climate change are about the changes in the extremes, not about what the weather is doing outside right now. 100 year flood patterns are now becoming 50 year flood patterns. The peak tornado season is shifting earlier in the year and breaking records for frequency while doing so. The medieval warming period that you cite is very Euro centric, and while it was a warm period in Europe, there is little evidence that the same thing happened in the Southern Hemisphere at all or the North American region more than minimally, suggesting that it was a regional temperature variation. To sum up the things we do know beyond any shadow of a doubt. A) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that does trap heat - this is not in dispute. B) We are pumping 10s of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere daily. C) We continue to cut down the earth's natural CO2 scrubbers, the forests, at a very high rate.

I don't think there has been an orchestrated conspiracy, there has just been a huge bias in both media coverage and in terms of people getting on the wrong bandwagon either to further environmental causes, to earn peer support or funding for their research or whatever their motives may be. It is not that all scientists, or an over whelming majority, agree with the global warming hypothesis. It is just that those who do not are being shut up by the media, by politicians and by their peers; denied the forums to present and/or publicize opposing opinion. The whole Global Warming nonsense reached a critical mass and took on a life of its own independent of the science or the facts. For instance, a person with no scientific credentials in climate science, Al Gore, was brought to testify before congress on Global Warming, whereas a professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT like Richard Lindzen was deemed inappropriate or unqualified. In a sense, Global warming, or now that they cannot claim any warming "Climate Change", has become a religion -- a vindictive, witch hunting, dissent suppressing theocracy of sorts. True science should not be a belief system.

What makes you think that a milder, less volatile climate is the norm? What makes you think that whatever changes we are seeing in weather patterns is not normal in the context of the history of weather patterns of this planet? In fact, they are all very normal, the planet has been a more violent and volatile place in various periods prior to industrialization and the rise in CO2 concentrations in the air. We are fortunate to have experienced a mild period. That it has come to an end should not surprise. More importantly, one cannot point at Carbon Emissions and say that's the cause because there is no evidence of that. Yes, CO2 is a heat trapping gas. But CO2 is also a trace gas. And, we cannot show statistically that an increase in CO2 concentration in the levels we have seen or even doubling that has any direct and tangible effect on global climate. We cannot show that statistically because we can find numerous periods where CO2 concentration rose but temperatures plummet and where temperatures are higher but CO2 levels are lower. 95% of the green house effect of our atmosphere is due to water vapor, CO2 makes up a fraction of the remaining 5%. CO2 itself is 0.00032~0.00039 of the atmosphere. To use a bad analogy... its like trying to argue that runoff from a garden hose can raise the levels of a river and potentially cause the levies to break. Yes, every drop of water from the hose goes into the river, yes it increases the volume of water in it, but it is all a matter of magnitude and scale.

Here are a few things any global warming believer should ponder...

The Planet has been warmer at many points in time when CO2 levels are lower
The Planet has been shown to cool when CO2 levels rise -- the 1950s thru 70s is an example, 2007 thru present is another example.
Ice core analysis have shown that historically, the planet warms first, CO2 levels rise afterwards not the other way around.
There have been no hot spots in the upper atmosphere indicating an accelerated green house effect
CO2 is a trace gas, its contribution to the total heat trapping ability of our atmosphere is a fraction of a fraction of 5%
Androgynous (man made) contributions to CO2 output is a minority fraction of total CO2 generation of the planet
We are not currently seeing an increase in global temperatures, we are in fact seeing a decrease year after year since 2007

We may not have all the answers to why the climate is what is or is changing in a manner that it is. But this does not mean that we should make drastic social and economic changes based on a completely bogus hypothesis that is as full of holes as a sift. Instead, we should have an honest discussion about the climate, make plans for what we can do to cope with the effects of observed changes and pursue an energy policy whose goal is a "cheap and plentiful energy" supply, not necessarily one with a reduced carbon foot print, is renewable or is emissions free. The most affordable source today continues to the fossil fuels in their solid, liquid and gaseous forms. We should exploit it to the fullest. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking at other sources -- after all fossil fuel is a finite resource which will become progressively scarcer and more expensive. The next practical source of energy which can provide enough power to satisfy current and future needs is nuclear, not wind or solar, so we should put a much greater emphasis on that and the electrical grid needed for its distribution. We also should advance battery technology so nuclear generated power can be portable -- a requisite for automotive applications. Carbon Emissions and all the "feel good" factors of carbon free energy sources should not be a consideration at all.

Edited July 13, 2011 by dwightlooi

Lamar · July 13, 2011

So yeah, back to the engines in hopes of not letting this thread end up getting political...

Dwight, what would it take for the 6.2 you proposed to have HP and torque closer together? Like, say, 450/450?

hyperv6 · July 13, 2011

However, a smaller displacement engine also makes less torque and will require higher rpms to make the requisite amount required to maintain the said cruising speed.

This is not an absolute. I drive a 2.0 daily that makes more torque than many V6 and as much as many V8's. Max torque comes on at just over 2000 RPM and does not require high RPM to make it.

Driving around town it is common to see RPM 1800-2400 RPM and on the high way the 3:08 keeps the RPM done and the engine just puttering along at a fairly low RPM.

Might also not the MPG ratings on my engine have never come close or dipped below the factory ratings. I am not sure if GM under rated it with the new system or what. I am seeing the same numbers the other SS owner see so mine is not the odd one out. I never once dipped below the 20 MPG and never come close to the 19 city. The addition of the Turbo upgrade has improved MPG and verified by GM performance engineers. It was an unintended side effect. They attribute it to the increase in lower torque and the fact with up getting up to speed faster we are having more off gas time where the direct injection shuts off all the fuel when the car is coasting in drive.

So I do find your statment here may be true in some cased it is not an absolute as I have proof in my garage now and I prove this statment wrong daily.

I find my 3.6 to be fuel efficent if driven as such. Highway is good but in town you have to not put the RPM to it. I do find what you say true here as it does take the RPM to move the Malibu. But under normal driving it does better than my 3800 SC. MPG is much better highway than the 3800 SC and just a little better city by 1-2 MPG.

I find you place a compelling argument and a lot of interesting claims I some how think you may be misisng something. Why would the entire industry be investing hundreds of millions into newer smaller engines when some guy on the web has it all figured out. I am not going to say what all you post is wrong as on paper it is correct but I feel something must still be missing.

Have you factored in the fact many companies world wide are also looking to their drop carbon output. In Europe by 2013 they have to drop 25% and even more in the future. It has driven companies like Aston Martin to rebodie Toyota's and leave the drivetrain in tact as it came from Toyota. This is a hail mary to try to decrease the carbon footprint of the much larger engines. They lack the funds to do a from scatch city car or smaller engine program and this was their only viable option. With 400 sold so far still wonder if people will fall for it long term. It may be a play toy for the rich now but when the novelty wears off like the Smart they will have to go to a plan B.

Three things...

(1) The problem with 2.0 liter engines that make 295 lb-ft at ~2500 rpm is that it doesn't make 295 rpm except when it is on boost -- on full boost. The typical condition at freeway cruise is off boost simply because of the low output require and low accelerative loads. If you rev a turbocharged engine in neutral in the parking lot, it NEVER gets on boost and is always in vaccuum for the same reason. In otherwords, the small turbocharged engine has to be geared such that it still has enough torque off boost to maintain cruising speed. Hence, a 3.6 liter V6 with 275 lb-ft may be geared to make 1800 rpm @ 60 mph, whereas a 2.0T with 275 lb-ft may not.

(2) The answer as to whether an entire industry can be wrong is YES. It can. Especially when it comes to popular quasi-axioms like this.

(3) I do not expect the Carbon Footprint reduction nonsense to persist over the long run. The non-science of "global warming" is quickly unraveling. The statistics and science behind it are completely bankrupt. The fact is that there is no abnormality with the climate we experience today or in the past 100-years. It is statistically in the middle of historical fluctuations. There is also no evidence that carbon dioxide concentration in the air, especially androgynous CO2, has had ANY tangible effect on global temperatures. We know this because global temperatures have been observed to fall in the 50s, 60s and 70s despite a higher than pre-industrial and constantly increasing CO2 levels. We also know that the medieval era was warmer than today and numerous periods in the earth's history is warmer than today. If you look at ice cores samples going back a million years, you'll notice that the planet did not get warmer following CO2 spikes. In fact, CO2 spikes occur 500~1000 years AFTER temperature has already risen. And, to put a nail into the coffin, the planet has been cooling not warming since 2007 and various IPCC "scientists" have been caught falsifying data to hide patterns they don't like. The only reason this whole charade is still continuing is that it is difficult for politicians and people who support the cause -- unknowing of the actual validity of its science or the lack thereof -- to back track and say they were wrong. To say that they have been pursuing economically ruinous, utterly useless and unnecessary policy. It's potentially a career ending thing to say! But, truth has a certain ring to it and you can't keep it from getting out forever.

#1 You can say what you like but it works and it is very efficent and powerful. I can cruise down the road with either Negitive to zero boost and if it even does come up it is only 2-3 pounds in this condition. Say what you like it works and works very well. I will have to check but I know at 50 MPH I have been seeing 1800 RPM and I think 60 is still at or under 2000 RPM. Sorry but your preceptions and numbers on this engine and combo on this engine and combo are off and do not match what I see first hand.

#2 I am sorry but I will still side with the entire industry before I side with modest guy like you with numbers that just does not match what I see. I mean this respectfully as I will not say your entirely wrong on all points. Common sense still prevails as companies are not spending large amounts of money they can not waste on new smaller engines if they have good reason to do. If there was a cheaper easier way they would have done it.

#3 While I agree with you on Climate Change or what ever convenent name they are using today I still feel they will press for more and more. This is not just about Climate Change as it is power and money. Those who are pushing this are trying to change how the world and buisness operates and they will not give up that easy. I fear this will still effect the way cars will be built and what we are give to buy.

balthazar · July 13, 2011

A few points against this:
1. 50% of all fueling stations in the US offer diesel.

4. Diesel is less expensive than gasoline on a cost-per-mile basis. In my area, diesel is currently the same price as premium gas.

5. Finding diesel fuel doesn't appear to be a problem for the Powerstroke, Duramax, and Cummins drivers.

Here in central Jersey, the logjam of human congestion and the halfway point between NYC and Philly, diesel is indeed a problem to find. Entire chains of gas companies do not sell it (Exxon, the largest, doesn't here), and many of the little stations don't either. When I get below a quarter tank away from home, I'm looking for a diesel station. Luckily for me, there are 2 within a mile of my house.

One time I set out to get on a major highway, 20 minutes from my house. Just before I got on, I realized I was near the 'low fuel' level and there really aren't any fueling stations on 287. I went thru the local city and ended up coming all the way back within 1 mile of my house to find diesel, passing up about 6 stations in between.

Down at my folks, I again ended up passing 4 stations in order to find diesel- a good 15 minutes out of my way in the wrong direction. The last station I had to ask the jockey- his brother had a diesel so he knew where one was.

In my local observations, diesel is available at about 20% of stations... this may not be accurate across the nation tho. I drive all over the center of the state and it needs to get a LOT better here before diesel cars become commonplace.

Premium is not a valid comparison IMO- most vehicles don't require premium.

Diesel has been higher than 87 since before I got my DuraMax in June '06. May have been the other way 'round about a year-2 yrs before that.

Drew Dowdell · July 13, 2011

A few points against this:
1. 50% of all fueling stations in the US offer diesel.

4. Diesel is less expensive than gasoline on a cost-per-mile basis. In my area, diesel is currently the same price as premium gas.

5. Finding diesel fuel doesn't appear to be a problem for the Powerstroke, Duramax, and Cummins drivers.

Here in central Jersey, the logjam of human congestion and the halfway point between NYC and Philly, diesel is indeed a problem to find. Entire chains of gas companies do not sell it (Exxon, the largest, doesn't here), and many of the little stations don't either. When I get below a quarter tank away from home, I'm looking for a diesel station. Luckily for me, there are 2 within a mile of my house.

One time I set out to get on a major highway, 20 minutes from my house. Just before I got on, I realized I was near the 'low fuel' level and there really aren't any fueling stations on 287. I went thru the local city and ended up coming all the way back within 1 mile of my house to find diesel, passing up about 6 stations in between.

Down at my folks, I again ended up passing 4 stations in order to find diesel- a good 15 minutes out of my way in the wrong direction. The last station I had to ask the jockey- his brother had a diesel so he knew where one was.

In my local observations, diesel is available at about 20% of stations... this may not be accurate across the nation tho. I drive all over the center of the state and it needs to get a LOT better here before diesel cars become commonplace.

Premium is not a valid comparison IMO- most vehicles don't require premium.

Diesel has been higher than 87 since before I got my DuraMax in June '06. May have been the other way 'round about a year-2 yrs before that.

I wasn't saying that Diesel to premium is direct comparison (let's not forget that the ubiquitous Camry V6 "recommends" 92 octane for peak performance) but merely to point out that it is not such a huge price premium over 87 that it negates any savings on the cost per mile basis.

As to locating diesel - you point out the exact reason that I suggest that the NAV systems be programed by default to show nearby stations that sell diesel. Even if you don't have a full on NAV, Onstar turn-by-turn has the data as well. Just because you didn't find it on the routes you took doesn't mean there wasn't another station a couple streets over that had it.

balthazar · July 13, 2011

^ I've lived in this area for a long time, I wasn't wandering, but beelining from station to station. There could've been a diesel pump nearby, I won't say there couldn't have been, but none I was aware of or that showed themselves since.

I have neither NAV or OnStar, so that route is out for me personally. For others it makes sense tho. Still, would be nice to see diesel expanded.

Why doesn't exxon sell it (not that I like their pricing...) ??

Drew Dowdell · July 13, 2011

^ I've lived in this area for a long time, I wasn't wandering, but beelining from station to station. There could've been a diesel pump nearby, I won't say there couldn't have been, but none I was aware of or that showed themselves since.

I have neither NAV or OnStar, so that route is out for me personally. For others it makes sense tho. Still, would be nice to see diesel expanded.

Why doesn't exxon sell it (not that I like their pricing...) ??

I doubt GM would be putting an '83 Cavalier diesel on the market for 2013, we're talking about brand new vehicles here. I'm sure GM doesnt' give a crap if you can find diesel when you're driving a 10 year old Duramax.... but if they are looking for a way to market a diesel passenger car in the US (Cruze Deco? Buick Verano DS? Cadillac CTS-D?) having that "We can always find you a local diesel pump" technology built in would remove any fuel type anxiety.

Why doesn't Exxon sell it? Exxon has actually gotten out of the business of owning fueling stations directly. The result is that large franchises bought whole chains of Exxons all over the country. My local Exxon stations do sell diesel. Why don't your Exxon stations? You'd have to ask the franchisee.

Robert Hall · July 13, 2011

When I drove a diesel regularly, I usually went to truck stops or small town gas stations (I was in Eastern Ohio and S. Florida then). But that was over 20 years ago.

Around here in the big city the gas stations that I normally go to (Shell, Chevron) seem to all have the green pumps...

smk4565 · July 14, 2011

I think diesel is a good idea. I go past gas stations all the time that offer it. I probably drive past 5 gas stations a day, even if only 2-3 have diesel that it isn't like I have to search hard or go out of my way. And if you tell me I can get 35 mpg and 450 lb-ft of torque, sign me up for that.

Plus no one is saying Cadillac should offer only diesel, there will still be lots of gas engines for those that are afraid of it. I think offering consumers choice is always a good idea.

Robert Hall · July 14, 2011

With diesel you get gas mileage and torque...good for larger, heavier cars...and Cadillac needs larger, heavier (over 4000lb) cars..

smk4565 · July 14, 2011

With diesel you get gas mileage and torque...good for larger, heavier cars...and Cadillac needs larger, heavier (over 4000lb) cars..

I'll take it in a smaller car also. I think Mercedes is crazy for not putting the diesel V6 in the C-class. If it gets 34 mpg in the E-class, I bet they could get 36 in the C-class. And that engine has 400 lb-ft of torque now, but for 2012 there is an upgraded version with 455 lb-ft (240 hp) for the M-class and S-class. Imagine a C350 bluetec with AMG level torque and 36 mpg. Likewise an ATS with more torque than a Corvette or Escalade that gets compact car fuel economy. I'd put a diesel on the ATS, CTS, and full size rwd sedan if Cadillac ever gets one. BMW needs a 535d to go with the 335d also.

SAmadei · July 14, 2011

I get all my diesel from the neighbor's home heating tank. Sssh... don't tell him.

Just kidding, I don't have a diesel. I steal his fuel oil to make my world famous salad dressing.

balthazar · July 14, 2011

One thing I wonder on- if diesel cars become commonplace in the U.S., refiners would have to up the amount of diesel production to a degree... but I don't suppose the supply will ever eclipse the demand and decrease the price spread....

Drew Dowdell · July 14, 2011

diesel is easier(less costly) to refine than gasoline, but due to economies of scale, gasoline ends up cheaper.

dwightlooi · July 14, 2011

So yeah, back to the engines in hopes of not letting this thread end up getting political...

Dwight, what would it take for the 6.2 you proposed to have HP and torque closer together? Like, say, 450/450?

OK, back to engines...

The current 10.7:1 LS3 is already 436/428. With direct injection you are looking at 11.7:1 ~ 12.3:1 compression. That in an of itself is worth about 6% of torque increase across the board. That equates to about 462/454. The only reason I peg it at 470/438 I wanted to limit torque to 438 -- the torque limit of the 6L80 transmission is 439 lb-ft. And, a meaningful way of doing that is to basically give both cams a little advancement. This drops torque slightly, but also shifts the curve to the right making a little more power.

I think I am being quite conservative here. The figures assume that there is no improvement in the engine other than adding direct injection and no change in the cam grind only an advancement of the base timing. The only gains come from an increased compression ratio.

dwightlooi · July 14, 2011

diesel is easier(less costly) to refine than gasoline, but due to economies of scale, gasoline ends up cheaper.

It's not a matter of easier or harder. It's a matter of existing refinery infrastructure. When crude oil is fractionally distilled, it produces some natural gas, some gasoline, some kerosene, some diesel and a lot of heavier products like fuel oil, lubricant oil, tar, etc. There is way more of the "heavy" and "thick" stuff than the market has demand for. I mean you may pump gasoline into your car twice week, but you probably change the oil once every 6 months. So, refineries don't stop at fractional distillation. They use a process called "cracking" to break down these heavier products into lighter grades of fuel. In the US, because gasoline is the dominant automotive fuel, refineries are overwhelmingly set up to use catalytic cracking which produces a lot of gasoline, some kerosene and a little diesel. In Europe, hydrocracking is the method of choice because it produces a lot of diesel and kerosene, but significantly less gasoline.

The entire refinery infrastructure has evolved to meet the different demands of the regions. This however is not an easy infrastructure to redo in a decade and impossible to change over night.

Edited July 14, 2011 by dwightlooi

hyperv6 · July 14, 2011

The real issue for the Diesel is getting people to buy them in any great numbers. They are like standard shift as most American buyers just don't want them. Diesels in Europe are not just a new craze they have always had them in good numbers and they are part of what is expected in their market. Here it is a hard sell as they really have never been in great number here other than the odd Volvo, VW and Benz.

One of the greatest challanges is to overcome the image of the Olds diesel. GM did more damage with this engine than good on opening the diesel maket. It would make it harder for them than anyone to being back a large number diesel car sales.

The Powerstroke failures also did a lot of damage to some buyers but most just went to Dodge and GM. Truck buyers are a different breed vs auto diesel buyers.

It could be changed here but it would take a real good marketing plan and an one of the best engines with near zero flaws for GM to make much gain.

I would at least like to see them offer it as a option in the Cruze or Buick to get some on the road and show they do work. It will take time to regain the rep and trust on this engine in a GM car. But to do nothing will make it even tougher.

Lamar · July 14, 2011

OK, back to engines...

The current 10.7:1 LS3 is already 436/428. With direct injection you are looking at 11.7:1 ~ 12.3:1 compression. That in an of itself is worth about 6% of torque increase across the board. That equates to about 462/454. The only reason I peg it at 470/438 I wanted to limit torque to 438 -- the torque limit of the 6L80 transmission is 439 lb-ft. And, a meaningful way of doing that is to basically give both cams a little advancement. This drops torque slightly, but also shifts the curve to the right making a little more power.

I think I am being quite conservative here. The figures assume that there is no improvement in the engine other than adding direct injection and no change in the cam grind only an advancement of the base timing. The only gains come from an increased compression ratio.

Makes sense.

I do think that at least for an ATS-V model, they could increase the output and use the 6L90 from the CTS-V.

67impss · July 14, 2011

"One of the greatest challanges is to overcome the image of the Olds diesel. GM did more damage with this engine than good on opening the diesel maket. It would make it harder for them than anyone to being back a large number diesel car sales."

Why is it that we harp on the bad press that this engine got and forget that the V6 was a good engine? When we talk about a name for a car model some here defend the use because 1/3 of the public weren't born yet. This is the same case these engines were built 78-85, as I read in another post. Who here was born after 1985? The only ones who will harp on GM will be the press and they've been wrong banging the drums for quite a few duds. Olds isn't built anymore(sadly) and the public will hardly remember the failure that the V8's were, most were our parents or Grands that bought them and few were running later when this buying public got their licenses. GM has learned alot about diesels and have made one of the best with the DuraMaX they continue to make great engines in Europe and hopefully will add the MiniMaX and car EcoMaX lines soon>. We know that GM reads this site do we really want to be the ones stifling this technology? :2cents:

hyperv6 · July 14, 2011

"One of the greatest challanges is to overcome the image of the Olds diesel. GM did more damage with this engine than good on opening the diesel maket. It would make it harder for them than anyone to being back a large number diesel car sales."

Why is it that we harp on the bad press that this engine got and forget that the V6 was a good engine? When we talk about a name for a car model some here defend the use because 1/3 of the public weren't born yet. This is the same case these engines were built 78-85, as I read in another post. Who here was born after 1985? The only ones who will harp on GM will be the press and they've been wrong banging the drums for quite a few duds. Olds isn't built anymore(sadly) and the public will hardly remember the failure that the V8's were, most were our parents or Grands that bought them and few were running later when this buying public got their licenses. GM has learned alot about diesels and have made one of the best with the DuraMaX they continue to make great engines in Europe and hopefully will add the MiniMaX and car EcoMaX lines soon>. We know that GM reads this site do we really want to be the ones stifling this technology?

The fact is the Olds V8 failure was lengendary. It has been passed on and is still talked about buy mamy car buyers when the term diesel comes up. But that is only one part of it. Diesels for the most part are looked at as dirty bus engines too. Everyone who lived near city grew up with the soot spewing buseds that while it looked worse than it was is branded a dirty vehicle. We all also grew up with the many Benz 300 Turbos and Volvos with the black tail ends from exhaust and owners who more than not seldom washed there cars.

The fact is Diesel has had a tough time in this country outside of the pickup market. People here have preconcieved notions of Diesels and few companies here have done anything to change this.

Todays diesel is not anything like the past and is really a good engine. Companies here for the most just see added cost to market and build the diesels here when they can take the easy way out and just sell small gas engines. It is easier to go with the flow vs forcing on the public what they have little interest in.

Add to this some of the new goverment reg on the engines and fuel that have made it even more difficult and expensive to build and sell the engine.

The fact is America has just never been a automotive diesel country or market. It has had many things that have hurt it here that few ever put an effort to disprove.

I had hopes when the Duramax came it would help change things but the Truck market has little influence on the auto market. when you speak to the average car buyer few would consider or even care about diesel. Untill a company here steps up and promotes the engine like Ford has the Ecoboot I see this still not working. The question will be who will spend the money and take the risk of investment?

To be honest the Olds Diesel was really not as bad as some think. The truth is if you ran them hard they really ran well. The harder they were run the less issues they had. The real problem was the buyers who were older or just putted around town and never ran them hard has issues with oil leaks, head gaskets and fuel injector pumps. Driving around at 35 MPH did these engines no good. Now the guys who hit the highway 60-70 MPH for long distance I saw many of these engines with well over 100,000 miles and no issues. To bad too few ever heard the good side of these engines.

I know it is not fair but when you have to commit millions to a program that few are asking for many are not willing to take the risk without demand. Lutz wanted too but just could not get the support.

dwightlooi · July 14, 2011

The problem with diesel in the USA is threefold...

(1) Historically, and still largely true today, buyers perceive diesels as being less refined than gasoline engines. There is actually some validity to this even though the diesels of today are a lot better than those of yesteryear's. Being a compression ignition engine means that you basically cannot control when the ignition of the mixture occurs. Ignition occurs after a given amount of time at a given pressure instead of being a timed event initiated by the spark plug. Hence, if ignition occurs right at top dead center at 3000 rpm, it'll happen before top dead center before 3000 rpm and after top dead center after 3000 rpm. The occurrence of ignition before the piston reaches the top of the stroke is why diesels clatter like they are in a perpetual state of knocking at idle and at lower rpms. The occurrence after the piston has past TDC and is already on the way down is also why diesel engines lose power quickly at higher rpms. DI can mitigate this somewhat with timed and multiple injections of fuel, but emissions and the basic mechanics of an ignitable mixture places limits of what can be done simply by regulating fuel supply.

(2) Diesels are also slightly inconvenient because the USA gas station infrastructure is such that between 1/2 to 4/5 of gas stations do not sell diesel fuel. This means that you cannot count on being able to refuel anywhere and everywhere, but must take the effort to remember or search for diesel selling stations.

(3) Finally, diesels cost more. About $2000 more than the gasoline counterparts. Traditionally, US car buyers are willing to pay more money for a vehicle to go fast, or to get a greater degree of refinement. They weren't eager to pay more to save on fuel. This is because fuel was historically cheap in the USA -- cheaper than drinking water. Even today, at $3.50~$4.00 a gallon it isn't all that expensive. It takes about 5 years to break even on the price premium of a diesel vehicle and about 11 years to break even on a Hybrid. There are, and have always been, a sub-set of "green" buyers, but they are a small minority. Also, the "green" set buy Priuses not diesels -- partly because it is gives them more "green" creds amongst their "green" buddies. Notice that I said Prius and not Hybrids in general. This is because part of the equation is to be seen as "green" and only the Prius gives that instantly recognizable green creds; they don't buy a Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry Hybrid because these are not instantly recognized as a Hybrid. This is why Prius sales exceed all these other ones combined.

In short, the notion of paying more -- about $2000 more -- for a slower, noisier vehicle you cannot fill up at EVERY gas station so you can save about $400 on the average $1600 annual year fuel tab, never really caught on.

hyperv6 · July 14, 2011

The problem with diesel in the USA is threefold...

(1) Historically, and still largely true today, buyers perceive diesels as being less refined than gasoline engines. There is actually some validity to this even though the diesels of today are a lot better than those of yesteryear's. Being a compression ignition engine means that you basically cannot control when the ignition of the mixture occurs. Ignition occurs after a given amount of time at a given pressure instead of being a timed event initiated by the spark plug. Hence, if ignition occurs right at top dead center at 3000 rpm, it'll happen before top dead center before 3000 rpm and after top dead center after 3000 rpm. The occurrence of ignition before the piston reaches the top of the stroke is why diesels clatter like they are in a perpetual state of knocking at idle and at lower rpms. The occurrence after the piston has past TDC and is already on the way down is also why diesel engines lose power quickly at higher rpms. DI can mitigate this somewhat with timed and multiple injections of fuel, but emissions and the basic mechanics of an ignitable mixture places limits of what can be done simply by regulating fuel supply.

(2) Diesels are also slightly inconvenient because the USA gas station infrastructure is such that between 1/2 to 4/5 of gas stations do not sell diesel fuel. This means that you cannot count on being able to refuel anywhere and everywhere, but must take the effort to remember or search for diesel selling stations.

(3) Finally, diesels cost more. About $2000 more than the gasoline counterparts. Traditionally, US car buyers are willing to pay more money for a vehicle to go fast, or to get a greater degree of refinement. They weren't eager to pay more to save on fuel. This is because fuel was historically cheap in the USA -- cheaper than drinking water. Even today, at $3.50~$4.00 a gallon it isn't all that expensive. It takes about 5 years to break even on the price premium of a diesel vehicle and about 11 years to break even on a Hybrid. There are, and have always been, a sub-set of "green" buyers, but they are a small minority. Also, the "green" set buy Priuses not diesels -- partly because it is gives them more "green" creds amongst their "green" buddies. Notice that I said Prius and not Hybrids in general. This is because part of the equation is to be seen as "green" and only the Prius gives that instantly recognizable green creds; they don't buy a Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry Hybrid because these are not instantly recognized as a Hybrid. This is why Prius sales exceed all these other ones combined.

In short, the notion of paying more -- about $2000 more -- for a slower, noisier vehicle you cannot fill up at EVERY gas station so you can save about $400 on the average $1600 annual year fuel tab, never really caught on.

This is true.

Just the part of slower and noiser is not always true anymore. Audi has prove this to no longer be true if one were to want a performance diesel. I have seen the team Audi's race and they have proven to be fuel efficent, fast and as quiet as any race car I have ever heard. When you can hear the sound of the air on the wings and the rumble stips under the tires you know it is quiet.

It is hard to fight infrastructure, culture and percieved image.

Robert Hall · July 14, 2011

I suppose it's true, though, that the uniformed masses are more likely to buy the hybrid hype rather than the real advantages of diesels.

smk4565 · July 14, 2011

E350 Bluetec is $1,500 more than the gas version. The gas car is 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, the diesel is 6.7 seconds. The diesel gets 10 miles per gallon better on the high way though. 10 mpg difference is significant. Sure most customers won't want a diesel, but some will and I think it smart to appeal to as many people as possible.

Cadillac has to do something, they can't just offer V6s when Lincoln, Lexus and Infiniti have hybrids and the Germans have diesels. Cadillac has to have a high mileage option. I would say that come 2015 both the ATS and CTS should have a powertrain option that gets 35 mpg.

Lamar · July 14, 2011

E350 Bluetec is $1,500 more than the gas version. The gas car is 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, the diesel is 6.7 seconds. The diesel gets 10 miles per gallon better on the high way though. 10 mpg difference is significant. Sure most customers won't want a diesel, but some will and I think it smart to appeal to as many people as possible.

Cadillac has to do something, they can't just offer V6s when Lincoln, Lexus and Infiniti have hybrids and the Germans have diesels. Cadillac has to have a high mileage option. I would say that come 2015 both the ATS and CTS should have a powertrain option that gets 35 mpg.

No one's mentioned it, but I wouldn't be surprised if GM came out with a longitudinal (possibly rebranded) version of eAssist for Cadillac. Mated with the entry-level engines of each model (the cars, at least), I think it could be a viable option.

I bet that gap between the Benz engines closes once they use the updated 3.5 in the E350, though. Don't know why they haven't yet.

dwightlooi · July 14, 2011

This is true.

Just the part of slower and noiser is not always true anymore. Audi has prove this to no longer be true if one were to want a performance diesel. I have seen the team Audi's race and they have proven to be fuel efficent, fast and as quiet as any race car I have ever heard. When you can hear the sound of the air on the wings and the rumble stips under the tires you know it is quiet.

It is hard to fight infrastructure, culture and percieved image.

The economy of a diesel engine is the result of four things:-

(1) Diesel fuel has a higher energy density. A gallon of diesel is worth 136.3 MJ of energy vs 122.3 MJ for gasoline. Hence, assuming the same exact conversion efficiency from chemical to mechanical energy, you'll need to burn 11.3% fewer gallons diesel fuel to get the same work done. A similar thing can be said of gasoline vs ethanol. Everything else being constant, you need to burn 30% less gasoline than ethanol to get the same work done.

(2) Gasoline engines are throttled by the throttle body. At cruise, the engine is intentionally choked to a fraction of its volumetric efficiency by the throttle body. Less air is ingested into the engine, while the fuel injectors open for a shorter duration so less fuel is burned. The end result is stoichiometric or near stiochiometric combustion every time, all the time. It also means that the engine is constantly working to suck air through an intake obstruction -- an activity that results in a parasitic loss. Diesel engines don't do that. Diesel engines do not have a throttle body. Instead they suck in the maximum amount of air all the time. Power is regulated simply by introducing more or less fuel. The engine runs lean at low rpm cruise, it runs rich if you floor the pedal. This means that there is less pumping losses at cruise and superior efficiency. However, it also makes emissions trickier to manage -- running lean produces a lot of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), running rich produces unburned hydrocarbons. Diesel engines have to resort to nitrogen storing catalysts and/or Urea (yes, like in urine) injection to stay within modern emission standards. Bluetec is really a nicer name for "Mercedes Piss Injection".

(3) Diesel engines also do not use a spark plug. Instead they compress fuel to between 16:1 (turbocharged applications) to 22:1 compression. At a critical pressure, the fuel air mixture spontaneously ignite. This is more efficient in two ways... higher compression itself leads to superior combustion efficiency. Spontaneous ignition releases the energy more quickly and throughly than a spark inititated flame front taking its time to propagate through the combustion chamber as the piston is going down.

(4) Finally, diesel engines -- especially turbodiesel engines -- make a disproportionately high amount of torque for their given size or power output. A 170 hp gasoline engine will typically have about 140~150 lb-ft, a turbocharged one with 170 hp might manage 200 lb-ft. A 170hp turbodiesel will typically make close to 300 lb-ft. Diesels also hit their torque peak very low in the rev range (1200~2000 rpm). The high torque to power ratio of the diesel engines along with their low torque peaks are conducive to very tall gearing. This means a lower cruising rpm and superior efficiency.

So what's bad about diesels? Well, they are noisier. They have a very low rev range meaning they like and need a lot of gears (compared to their gasoline counterparts). They are either dirtier or require more elaborate and expensive exhaust emission hardware. They need very strong bottom ends to deal with the constant "knocking" at lower rpms, this makes the engines heavier. They need a turbocharger to match the power output of a comparably sized gasoline engine -- again, more complexity, more cost and more articles to maintain. On top of that, they have to deal with a gasoline centric infrastructure and a frequently unfavorable consumer opinion in the USA.

smk4565 · July 15, 2011

I don't buy that diesels are noisy or slow. A BMW 335d at 70 mph cruise is quieter than a CTS or LaCrosse, it is even more quiet than a 335i. The 335d does 0-60 in 5.9 seconds, that matches or beats any CTS 3.6 times I've seen. Yes it is a bit heavier and slower than a 335i, but it also get 36 mpg.

I am not necessarily saying that diesel is better than gasoline, I am saying that Cadillac should offer both of them.

dwightlooi · July 15, 2011

I don't buy that diesels are noisy or slow. A BMW 335d at 70 mph cruise is quieter than a CTS or LaCrosse, it is even more quiet than a 335i. The 335d does 0-60 in 5.9 seconds, that matches or beats any CTS 3.6 times I've seen. Yes it is a bit heavier and slower than a 335i, but it also get 36 mpg.

I am not necessarily saying that diesel is better than gasoline, I am saying that Cadillac should offer both of them.

Well, I think that it'll be nice for Cadillac to offer diesels, but I don't think should be a priority -- at least not for the USA. From a revenue standpoint, from a brand development standpoint or from an image standpoint. It just isn't that important. What's more important is getting the ATS out, and getting it as polished as they can from the get go. That, followed by a CTS follow-on and a large RWD flagship. Offering diesels is one of those things that can happen if and when they get around to it.

hyperv6 · July 15, 2011

They need a diesel in Europe if they are going to try again. If they offer it there they can make a option here just as the wagon. If it were not intended for Europe the wagon would have never been approved. Funny how once it was done then the Europe program got put on hold with the distibutor issues.

aldw · July 15, 2011

Why not develop a constant speed diesel mated to an electric transmission system? This would get rid of a lot of combustion issues (since the engine will always be operated at its peak emissions and fuel efficiency level), while eliminate gearing issues with the electric drive system.

Edited July 15, 2011 by aldw

dwightlooi · July 15, 2011

Why not develop a constant speed diesel mated to an electric transmission system? This would get rid of a lot of combustion issues (since the engine will always be operated at its peak emissions and fuel efficiency level), while eliminate gearing issues with the electric drive system.

Yes, turbo-electric drive...

The Volt is pretty close in series mode... the only thing being that it doesn't have a diesel engine. It is not very sleek to the wind. It is really heavy. And, it is carrying around too much battery because it wants to be a plug in.

If you really want a Hypermiller's special, here's the recipe:-

1st Generation -- Turbo-Diesel Electric Drive

2500 lbs, 2-door, 2-seat coupe
Aluminum Spaced Frame, Fiber Glass Reinforced Plastic body panels
0.25 or better drag co-efficient + Low rolling resistance tires
1.0 liter 3-cylinder Turbo-diesel Generator (60 bhp)
110 kW Permanent Magnet Electric Motor / Recuperation generator (149 bhp)
4 kWh Li-Ion battery (Up to 8~12 miles on electric power)
0-60 in 7.5 secs, 60 mpg (City) / 75 mpg (Hwy)

2nd Generation -- Combined Gas & Steam Electric Drive + Advanced Materials

2000 lbs, 2-door, 2-seat coupe
Aluminum-Lithium Spaced Frame, Molded Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic body panels
0.23 or better drag co-efficient + Low rolling resistance tires
40 kW Gas Turbine Generator + 12 kW Steam turbine Generator*
110 kW Permanent Magnet Electric Motor / Recuperation generator (149 bhp)
4 kWh Li-Ion battery (Up to 8~12 miles on electric power)
0-60 in 7.0 secs, 80 mpg (City) / 100 mpg (Hwy)

* COGAS-E uses a gas turbine as the primary generation source while capturing most of the exhaust heat with a heat exchanger that boils distilled water. The generated steam is used to drive a close cycle steam turbine coupled to a secondary generator so very little energy is wasted. Because the two generators do not run at the same speed or is responsive to instantaneous power demands, the only way to have a drivable vehicle is to utilize a fully electric drive. COGAS-E is currently the most efficient way of making power both in power stations and on large marine installations like cruise ships.

Edited July 15, 2011 by dwightlooi

smk4565 · July 17, 2011

I believe that Cadillac's strategy of 2015-2020 should be to go all in. They can't hold back, or do things when they get around to it, or do what the think is "good enough." Every car they design has to be able to sell internationally as well as domestically. So they need DOHC, diesels, some form of hybrid assist, etc. Americans may not expect a diesel, but in Europe (and China) they do. Cadillac needs the ATS, CTS and whatever the s-class fighter is with the ability to sell all over the world. The American market is saturated, if Cadillac sits here and doesn't go global they become Lincoln and Lincoln is headed to the grave.

I also think Cadillac needs to get some outside help. Cadillac doesn't fully understand the luxury car market, so they roll out cars like the XLR-V or STS-V that have big price tags and big horsepower and lousy trim and fit and finish. Or you'll see the leatherette wrapped dash with stitching that looks nice, and then the door panel is cheap plastic. Do they think a customer will only look at 50% of the interior? Their cars, their lineup, their brand image is all inconsistent. They have to solve all this at once to make an impact.

hyperv6 · July 17, 2011

The future for most companies and models with all MFG will be on a global scale. It will be more and more difficult yo make it in just one market anylonger.

The fact is GM and Cadillac need to have a world presents. The fact that gets lost on many is Cadillac does not have to dominate Europe, BMW or Benz in their home market. All they have to do is sell cars at a profit. This is not a game where he who sells the most wins it is a game where those who profit survive.

The key is to make the cars to the point they can sell them in all markets and appeal in each. The Chevy Cruze is doing such now. They may have to offer different engine tunes or suspension set ups but the basic car should be done to the point the final tuning will adapt it to that market.

Cadillac in the past went to lenghts to build FWS small cars in Europe and streached cars in China? All they need to do is get a group of cars that would appeal to each of these groups and tune them to this market. They could so a special one or two models for each maket but just don't get carried away with it.

I think the ATS is the first of these cars to appeal to a world market. I expect the models after that to also follw this path accept the XTS. I get the feeling the XTS will not be around long and will just fill in a gap in product till it can be replaced.

The Interiors will improve as will their focus. In the past the Cadillac tried to please too many people at a lower price. Today they can focuse on more expensive cars built to a higher level. In the past they could only work with what they had. Also they has a lot of people compromising to save money in ways that really hurt Cadillas. IN Lutz's book he points out the many dumb things they did at Cadillac to save money at the expense of styling and sales.

GM has compromised on saving a buck for so long it has hurt them in many ways. I see this changing and them doing things right into the future. Just a look at Chevy and how they are not cutting corners with even their small cars and Buick with their cars is giving me hope that they will follow through with the new models of Cadillac we have yet to see.

It is now a global car market and the players that plan on surviving will have to please the world and not just California, Ohio and Florida.

Sign In

Cadillac Vehicles & Engine Lineup (Circa 2015)

9 members have voted

1. This lineup is a...

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hyperv6

smk4565

balthazar

Join the conversation

Who's Online 0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 510 Guests (See full list)

Latest News

Reader Rides

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search