Cadillac News: Cadillac Unveils New A Twin-Turbo 3.6L V6 For The 2014 CTS

[William Maley]

---

By William Maley

Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

March 18, 2013

The new Cadillac CTS will be introduced next week at the New York Auto Show, but the brand decided to announce the engine lineup for it this week.

The big news for the CTS is the introduction of the twin-turbo 3.6-liter V6 good for 420 horsepower and 430 pound-feet. That is mated to an eight-speed automatic transmission. This combination runs to 60 MPH in 4.6 seconds, a top speed of 170 MPH, and returns an estimated MPG of 17 City/25 Highway.

“The new Cadillac Twin-Turbo brings a new dimension of technologically advanced performance to the all-new 2014 Cadillac CTS sedan,” said David Leone, executive chief engineer. “Delivering power and sophistication, it marks another large step forward in the product-driven expansion of Cadillac.”

This engine will also be available in the 2014 XTS.

Other engines for the 2014 CTS will include the 2.0L turbo-four making 272 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque, and the 3.6L V6 with 321 horsepower and 275 pound-feet of torque.

Source: Cadillac

William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected]or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

Press Release is on Page 2

---

Cadillac Twin-Turbo Debuts in All-New 2014 CTS Sedan

2013-03-18

• 420 horsepower (313 kW) / 430 lb-ft of torque (583 Nm) – SAE certified
  
• Most power-dense six-cylinder in segment at 118 hp/liter
  
• Cadillac’s first twin-turbo engine and eight-speed automatic transmission
  

DETROIT – Cadillac today announced details of a new Twin-Turbo V-6 engine and eight-speed transmission – firsts for the brand and signature features of the all-new 2014 Cadillac CTS midsize luxury sedan debuting next week at the New York Auto Show.

The Cadillac Twin-Turbo V-6 is the most power-dense six-cylinder engine in the midsize luxury segment – a 3.6L with 118 horsepower per liter (88 kW/liter) – and the eight-speed automatic enhances fuel economy and acceleration over a six-speed automatic.

“The new Cadillac Twin-Turbo brings a new dimension of technologically advanced performance to the all-new 2014 Cadillac CTS sedan,” said David Leone, executive chief engineer. “Delivering power and sophistication, it marks another large step forward in the product-driven expansion of Cadillac.”

Rated at an SAE-certified 420 horsepower (313 kW) and 430 lb.-ft. of torque (583 Nm), it is the most powerful V-6 ever from General Motors. It also has 15 percent greater power density than BMW 535i’s turbocharged 3.0L six, which is rated at 300 horsepower (223 kW), for a ratio of 100 horsepower per liter (74 kW/liter) – and even the BMW 550i’s TwinPower 4.4L V-8, rated at 400 horsepower (298 kW), or 91 horsepower per liter (68 kW/liter). Power density is a measure of efficiency for an engine’s size.

A pair of smaller turbochargers and an efficient charge air cooler help provide more immediate power delivery. Additionally, approximately 90 percent of the 3.6L Twin-Turbo’s peak torque is available from 2,500 rpm to 5,500 rpm, giving the engine a broad torque curve that customers will feel as strong, willing power in almost all driving conditions, such as accelerating or overtaking traffic on the highway.

Those features help the new CTS sedan reach 60 mph from a standstill in an estimated 4.6 seconds and achieve an estimated top speed of 170 mph (274 kph).

The new Cadillac Twin-Turbo will expand the performance envelope of the upcoming 2014 CTS midsize luxury sedan, launching this fall in the United States. The engine will also will be offered in the 2014 XTS large luxury sedan this fall.

The new engine is a comprehensive upgrade on the 60-degree, 3.6L DOHC V-6 offered in today’s SRX, XTS and ATS. However, almost every component is unique. New features include:

• All-new cylinder block casting
  
• All-new cylinder head castings
  
• Strengthened connecting rods
  
• Machined, domed aluminum pistons with top steel ring carrier for greater strength
  
• 10.2:1 compression ratio
  
• Patented, integrated charge air cooler system with low-volume air ducts
  
• Two turbochargers produce more than 12 pounds of boost (80 kPa)
  
• Vacuum-actuated wastegates with electronic control valves
  
• All-new direct injection fuel system
  
• Tuned air inlet and outlet resonators, aluminum cam covers and other features that contribute to exceptional quietness and smoothness.
  

The 2014 CTS sedan will also feature the naturally aspirated 3.6L V-6 rated at 321 horsepower, as well as a 2.0L turbocharged engine rated at an estimated 272 horsepower.

Proven foundation, new features

Because the Cadillac Twin-Turbo is based on the same architecture as the existing naturally aspirated 3.6L V-6, it benefits from many proven technologies including dual-overhead camshafts, variable valve timing and direct injection. Key features also include:

• A durable forged steel crankshaft that contributes to greater high-rpm smoothness
  
• A friction-reducing polymer coating on the piston skirts, as well as fully floating wrist pins that help reduce friction
  
• Pressure-actuated oil squirters drench the underside of each piston and the surrounding cylinder wall with an extra layer of cooling, friction-reducing oil
  
• A cast aluminum oil pan is stiffer to improve powertrain rigidity and reduce vehicle vibration. It bolts to the transmission bell housing as well as the engine block, eliminating points of vibration.
  

The cylinder block casting is unique to the turbocharged engine with cast-in provisions for turbocharger coolant and oil connections, as well as positive crankcase ventilation passages. It uses nodular iron main bearing caps for greater strength to manage the higher cylinder pressures that come with turbocharging.

The cylinder heads are also unique to the Cadillac Twin-Turbo. They feature a high-tumble intake port design that enhances the motion of the air charge for a more-efficient burn when it is mixed with the direct-injected fuel and ignited in the combustion chamber. The topology of the pistons, which feature centrally located dishes to direct the fuel spray from the injectors, is an integral design element of the chamber design, as the piston heads become part of the combustion chamber with direct injection.

“The high-tumble heads were developed with advanced modeling programs that helped us determine the optimal design in less time and with less trial and error,” said Richard Bartlett, assistant chief engineer for the 3.6L engine. “Literally hundreds of simulations were performed to optimize the port flow, injector spray angle and pattern, and piston topology to produce a highly efficient yet powerful combustion chamber.”

Large, 38.3-mm intake valves and 30.6-mm sodium-filled exhaust valves enable the engine to process tremendous airflow. In some conditions, the continuously variable valve timing system enables overlap conditions – when the intake and exhaust valves in a combustion chamber are briefly open at the same time – to promote airflow scavenging that helps spool the turbochargers quicker for faster boost production.

Hardened AR20 valve seat material on the exhaust side is used for its temperature robustness, while the heads are sealed to the block with multilayer-steel gaskets designed for the pressure of the turbocharging system.

As with the naturally aspirated 3.6L, the heads feature integral exhaust manifolds, although upper and lower water jackets were added to the heads to provide uniform temperature distribution and optimal heat rejection. On top of the heads, new aluminum cam covers enhance quietness and are designed with greater positive crankcase ventilation volume to support the turbo system.

Integrated charge air cooling

Another unique feature of the Cadillac Twin-Turbo is its efficient manner of processing the pressurized air charge through the cylinder heads and into the combustion chambers. A single, centrally located throttle body atop the engine controls the air charge from both turbochargers after the temperature is reduced in the intercooler. This efficient design fosters more immediate torque response, for a greater feeling of power on demand, and reduces complexity by eliminating the need for a pair of throttle bodies.

Using a pair of smaller turbochargers rather than a single, larger turbo also helps ensure immediate performance, because smaller turbochargers spool up – achieve boost-producing turbine speed – quicker to generate horsepower-building air pressure that is fed into the engine. The Cadillac Twin-Turbo’s integrated charge air cooling system also contributes to its immediate response, because the compressors blow through very short pipes up to the intercooler.

With no circuitous heat-exchanger tubing, there is essentially no lag with the response of the turbochargers. In fact, airflow routing volume is reduced by 60 percent when compared with a conventional design that features a remotely mounted heat exchanger.

“It is a very short path from the turbos to the throttle body,” said Bartlett. “The compressors draw their air directly from the inlet box and send their pressurized air through the intercooler basically immediately, giving the new CTS a tremendous feeling of power on demand.”

The charge-cooling heat exchangers lower the air charge temperature by more than 130 degrees F (74 C), packing the combustion chambers with cooler, denser air for greater power. The twin-brick configuration of the heat exchangers is similar in design and function to the 6.2L supercharged “LSA” engine used on the current CTS-V Series.

“The LSA engine showed us the efficiencies of mounting the intercooler on top of the engine, especially when it came to packaging and maintaining a short, unobstructed path for the air charge,” said Bartlett. “It’s efficient and effective – and we wanted to build on that experience.”

The air cooler system achieves more than 80 percent cooling efficiency with only about 1 psi (7 kPa) flow restriction at peak power, for fast torque production.

Vacuum-activated wastegates

Unique vacuum-actuated wastegates – one per turbocharger – and electronic vacuum-actuated recirculation valves are used with the 3.6L Twin-Turbo for better management of the engine’s boost pressure and subsequent torque response for smoother, more consistent performance across the rpm band.

A wastegate is used to regulate the boost pressure of the engine. It provides a method to bypass the exhaust flow from the turbo’s turbine wheel, which can be reintroduced into the exhaust stream – via a bypass tube – to maintain optimal turbine speed across the rpm band. Conventional wastegates are pressure-activated, allowing control of the actuator.

The Cadillac Twin-Turbo’s vacuum-activated wastegate valves provide more consistent boost control, particularly at lower rpm, to enhance low-rpm torque, for a greater feeling of power at low speeds. They are independently controlled on each engine bank to balance the compressors’ output to achieve more precise boost pressure response.

The wastegates also work in concert with the recirculation valves to eliminate co-surge from the turbos – a condition that can result in dynamic flow reversal, such as the moment immediately after the throttle closes. This overall system integration contributes to the engine’s smoother, more consistent feeling of performance.

In addition to the vacuum-actuated wastegates and recirculation valves, the engine employs dual mass air flow sensors and an integral inlet air temperature/humidity sensor, a dual-compressor inlet pressure sensor and dual manifold pressure sensors.

Eight speeds, no waiting

The Cadillac Twin-Turbo is paired with a high-performance, paddle-shift eight-speed automatic transmission that offers efficiency and performance advantages over a six-speed transmission – including 1.5-percent greater fuel economy.

The new paddle-shift eight-speed delivers smooth, quick shift performance – as quick as 0.3-second on wide-open-throttle upshifts – with the quietness, smoothness and refinement Cadillac customers expect. Smaller gear steps – closer ratios – support world-class performance, with quicker, more imperceptible shifting.

The wide, 6.71 gear spread of the transmission enables the CTS to deliver strong performance at all rpm levels, while achieving good fuel economy on the highway. A “tall,” 0.69-ratio eighth-gear also helps maintain a low engine speed of approximately 1,800 rpm at 70 mph – about 200 rpm lower than a six-speed – which not only enhances efficiency but contributes to a quieter driving experience.

Complete electronic control of the transmission enables it to select the best gear for the driving conditions, allowing the transmission to “skip” one or more gears, if appropriate, when up-shifting or down-shifting. In manual mode, torque converter lockup is used in gears two through eight to balance performance and efficiency, while preserving the maximum torque multiplication in first gear for optimal launch performance

The CTS development team tailored the transmission for the high torque output of Cadillac 3.6L Twin-Turbo, which included stronger gear sets and a greater number of clutch plates. The team also wove in driver-selectable performance features enable the transmission to hold lower gears during certain performance-driving situations, for a more connected and responsive driving experience with the new turbocharged engine.

Paddle-shift control enables the driver manual control of the gear changes, for the ultimate feeling of control of the turbocharged CTS.

View full article

[Robert Hall]

Sounds sweet...

[Drew Dowdell]

Mmmm this in the XTS? I can't wait to get my hands on that one

[Robert Hall]

Is this the engine the ATS-V will get?

Edited March 18, 2013 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[G. David Felt]

No Cubical, this engine is a Caddy Engine.

Camaro can have a twin scroll single turbo v6 of it's own marketing brand.

We need to build the speciality of each brand and stop watering it down. The last thing we want to hear is people saying "There is the new XTS or CTS with that Chevy Engine.

[Camino LS6]

OK.

This engine essentially produces the same HP/TQ/MPG as an NA V8 of medium tune. But it adds a great deal of complexity and expense.

Is there a gain here?

I'm not trying to rain on this engine's parade, it is a potent package, but I just don't see much advantage to it after all of the effort put into it.

[Robert Hall]

OK.

This engine essentially produces the same HP/TQ/MPG as an NA V8 of medium tune. But it adds a great deal of complexity and expense.

Is there a gain here?

I'm not trying to rain on this engine's parade, it is a potent package, but I just don't see much advantage to it after all of the effort put into it.

It's for a Cadillac, so complexity and expense is a necessity.... it fits better w/ the market niche than an NA pushrod v8 would....BMW was a twin turbo DOHC 6, the M-B E-class is getting one, Audi has a turbo V6 in the A6.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[pow]

Nice. The 420-hp twin-turbocharged V8 in the Audi S6 actually gets better MPG than these figures from Cadillac, but this V6 is likely to be much less expensive than competitive forced induction V8s of similar performance.

[Camino LS6]

OK.

This engine essentially produces the same HP/TQ/MPG as an NA V8 of medium tune. But it adds a great deal of complexity and expense.

Is there a gain here?

I'm not trying to rain on this engine's parade, it is a potent package, but I just don't see much advantage to it after all of the effort put into it.

It's for a Cadillac, so complexity and expense is a necessity.... it fits better w/ the market niche than an NA pushrod v8 would....BMW was a twin turbo DOHC 6, the M-B E-class is getting one, Audi has a turbo V6 in the A6.

So, it's all about perception?

[Robert Hall]

OK.

This engine essentially produces the same HP/TQ/MPG as an NA V8 of medium tune. But it adds a great deal of complexity and expense.

Is there a gain here?

I'm not trying to rain on this engine's parade, it is a potent package, but I just don't see much advantage to it after all of the effort put into it.

It's for a Cadillac, so complexity and expense is a necessity.... it fits better w/ the market niche than an NA pushrod v8 would....BMW was a twin turbo DOHC 6, the M-B E-class is getting one, Audi has a turbo V6 in the A6.

So, it's all about perception?

Partially....for marketing in the premium niche, you have to have premium hardware..that's how the game works.

[Camino LS6]

OK.

This engine essentially produces the same HP/TQ/MPG as an NA V8 of medium tune. But it adds a great deal of complexity and expense.

Is there a gain here?

I'm not trying to rain on this engine's parade, it is a potent package, but I just don't see much advantage to it after all of the effort put into it.

It's for a Cadillac, so complexity and expense is a necessity.... it fits better w/ the market niche than an NA pushrod v8 would....BMW was a twin turbo DOHC 6, the M-B E-class is getting one, Audi has a turbo V6 in the A6.

So, it's all about perception?

Partially....for marketing in the premium niche, you have to have premium hardware..that's how the game works.

What's so premium about it?

Other than price.

[Robert Hall]

OK.

This engine essentially produces the same HP/TQ/MPG as an NA V8 of medium tune. But it adds a great deal of complexity and expense.

Is there a gain here?

I'm not trying to rain on this engine's parade, it is a potent package, but I just don't see much advantage to it after all of the effort put into it.

It's for a Cadillac, so complexity and expense is a necessity.... it fits better w/ the market niche than an NA pushrod v8 would....BMW was a twin turbo DOHC 6, the M-B E-class is getting one, Audi has a turbo V6 in the A6.

So, it's all about perception?

Partially....for marketing in the premium niche, you have to have premium hardware..that's how the game works.

What's so premium about it?

Other than price.

Read the details.

[Camino LS6]

I read them.

No significant differences as compared to an LS3 in a Camaro - except complexity and price.

The numbers are a wash otherwise.

[hyperv6]

OK.

This engine essentially produces the same HP/TQ/MPG as an NA V8 of medium tune. But it adds a great deal of complexity and expense.

Is there a gain here?

I'm not trying to rain on this engine's parade, it is a potent package, but I just don't see much advantage to it after all of the effort put into it.

It's for a Cadillac, so complexity and expense is a necessity.... it fits better w/ the market niche than an NA pushrod v8 would....BMW was a twin turbo DOHC 6, the M-B E-class is getting one, Audi has a turbo V6 in the A6.

So, it's all about perception?

Yes and also what the people in this segment want and buy.

You can force on people what they need or you can give them what they want.

Like I said in the other tread people in this segment perceived value. Often more technical and the more turbo's and cams the better they like it.

Camino you have to remember this is not a muscle car segment and the people here are not hung up on cylinder counts but they are hung up on technology and advanced systems. It is kind of like NASCAR vs. F1. Both are fast and NASCAR is as fast and is cheaper but many love the technology and the strategy of F1 when they can keep the tires on the car.

If Cadillac wants to make inroads into Europe they need to offer what they want over there and people here will still by it because it will be a sweet engine. I am willing to bet the torque curve is flatter and wider than the LT1.

Either way the CTS standard car is nearly as good as the present V in performance. Make one ponder what they have cooked up for the V. All I know is it will have to be AWD if they want it to hook up.

The E63 is now turning 3.5 sec 0-60 times and I expect Cadillac may be able to match that with the V.

As good as pushrods are any car sold outside the states will need to give the global markets what they want. I would not be surprised to see some Euro companies look at the push rod again to gain lower hoods. Some showed envy at the Vette. If they enter the market again it will play into GM's hands as they are already there. GM should also do a better job of marketing the V8 to. Too many have no clue how advanced the new LT is.

By the way this engine sounds great on the dyno.

Edited March 18, 2013 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

Well, I guess my takeaway from this is that this engine is for those with more money than brains.

I would have been far more impressed if the engine delivered dramatic fuel economy while maintaining the same performance levels (or even a bit less).

As is, I see no real advantage at all.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Camino LS6

[hyperv6]

Camino they look down on your taste too so I guess it is a fair fight.

The fact is there are a lot of different taste and GM is address more than just yours. There is no right or wrong as long as it sells more cars in more markets.

I would not diss this engine too much till you drive it. I suspect based on the Turbo 4 it should be a pretty amazing engine and the torque will be in lower and higher than the old 428 HO Pontiac I used to drive.

You will still get your V8 in the V so just hang on there will be a flavor for everyone.

[Robert Hall]

Camino they look down on your taste too so I guess it is a fair fight.

The fact is there are a lot of different taste and GM is address more than just yours. There is no right or wrong as long as it sells more cars in more markets.

Well, I guess my takeaway from this is that this engine is for those with more money than brains.

I would have been far more impressed if the engine delivered dramatic fuel economy while maintaining the same performance levels (or even a bit less).

As is, I see no real advantage at all.

You aren't the target customer...so stick w/ Chevy trucks.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Camino LS6]

C'mon guys, this engine simply doesn't deliver what it should: near V8 performance, with V6 fuel economy.

I'm not talking about taste, or cylinder count, or flavor, or even what I like or don't like. I'm looking at the numbers, and without gains in fuel economy, they just don't offer much.

I'm sure I'd enjoy driving a car with this engine, it is quite potent, but what a roundabout way to get to that result!

It ought to be beyond simple parity with an LS3 - it ought to blow it out of the water.

[Robert Hall]

C'mon guys, this engine simply doesn't deliver what it should: near V8 performance, with V6 fuel economy.

I'm not talking about taste, or cylinder count, or flavor, or even what I like or don't like. I'm looking at the numbers, and without gains in fuel economy, they just don't offer much.

I'm sure I'd enjoy driving a car with this engine, it is quite potent, but what a roundabout way to get to that result!

It ought to be beyond simple parity with an LS3 - it ought to blow it out of the water.

Did you read the article? This is clearly V8 performance...

good for 420 horsepower and 430 pound-feet. That is mated to an

eight-speed automatic transmission. This combination runs to 60 MPH in

4.6 seconds, a top speed of 170 MPH

The fuel econ numbers will likely be class competitive w/ similar models from the German trio... this isn't an engine for a Malibu...premium market buyers aren't as hung up on fuel economy numbers as economy car buyers are.

[regfootball]

the advantage is that Cadillac will be putting an engine in the car people want in cadillac, not one perceived to be a redneck engine or a truck engine.

I know myself, I would prefer the twin turbo v6. I would not want a v8 in my CTS.

this engine will go in a bunch of GM stuff also. I'd like to see it in the Corvette and Camaro.

The marketers need the product to have attributes they can market, not to have to sell concepts that are not much in favor in the buying group's minds.

60 degree design, two less expensive pistons, shorter and less expensive crankshaft.........

engine cover is sort of bland.

[Camino LS6]

C'mon guys, this engine simply doesn't deliver what it should: near V8 performance, with V6 fuel economy.

I'm not talking about taste, or cylinder count, or flavor, or even what I like or don't like. I'm looking at the numbers, and without gains in fuel economy, they just don't offer much.

I'm sure I'd enjoy driving a car with this engine, it is quite potent, but what a roundabout way to get to that result!

It ought to be beyond simple parity with an LS3 - it ought to blow it out of the water.

Did you read the article? This is clearly V8 performance...

good for 420 horsepower and 430 pound-feet. That is mated to an

eight-speed automatic transmission. This combination runs to 60 MPH in

4.6 seconds, a top speed of 170 MPH

The fuel econ numbers will likely be class competitive w/ similar models from the German trio... this isn't an engine for a Malibu...premium market buyers aren't as hung up on fuel economy numbers as economy car buyers are.

Please stop asking if I read it.

I gave it its due on power - the engine has it in spades.

What it doesn't have is a justification for its lousy MPG numbers in a new , lighter architecture and with all of its tech.

[Robert Hall]

C'mon guys, this engine simply doesn't deliver what it should: near V8 performance, with V6 fuel economy.

I'm not talking about taste, or cylinder count, or flavor, or even what I like or don't like. I'm looking at the numbers, and without gains in fuel economy, they just don't offer much.

I'm sure I'd enjoy driving a car with this engine, it is quite potent, but what a roundabout way to get to that result!

It ought to be beyond simple parity with an LS3 - it ought to blow it out of the water.

Did you read the article? This is clearly V8 performance...

good for 420 horsepower and 430 pound-feet. That is mated to an

eight-speed automatic transmission. This combination runs to 60 MPH in

4.6 seconds, a top speed of 170 MPH

The fuel econ numbers will likely be class competitive w/ similar models from the German trio... this isn't an engine for a Malibu...premium market buyers aren't as hung up on fuel economy numbers as economy car buyers are.

Please stop asking if I read it.

I gave it its due on power - the engine has it in spades.

What it doesn't have is a justification for its lousy MPG numbers in a new , lighter architecture and with all of its tech.

The gas mileage numbers seem more than adequate. it's not a diesel.

[Lamar]

To Camino's point, you know what would be great to see?

Some numbers with the LT1 mated with the 8AT. Then we could see which configuration was superior, performance- and economy-wise. Unfortunately, we won't see that until the next Camaro comes out, so we have to wait.

[Intrepidation]

Ehh, you young-in's and yur newfangled turbochargers and fuel injection. Back in my day we had carburetors and injections implied a trip to the doctor. We had to crank the engine by hand, none of this motorized starter tomfoolery.

[Camino LS6]

the advantage is that Cadillac will be putting an engine in the car people want in cadillac, not one perceived to be a redneck engine or a truck engine.

I know myself, I would prefer the twin turbo v6. I would not want a v8 in my CTS.

this engine will go in a bunch of GM stuff also. I'd like to see it in the Corvette and Camaro.

The marketers need the product to have attributes they can market, not to have to sell concepts that are not much in favor in the buying group's minds.

60 degree design, two less expensive pistons, shorter and less expensive crankshaft.........

engine cover is sort of bland.

Let's clarify something: I am not calling for this car to have a V8 - it should not. I am also not calling for more power - it has more than enough.

In all honesty, I am simply calling for better results overall. My thinking here is that this engine has leaned too far to the performance side and ignored fuel economy.

This is V-level performance that should have been toned down in favor of MPG gains.

The V will have to be a lesson in overkill to slot above this engine, and I see that as a mistake.

Ehh, you young-in's and yur newfangled turbochargers and fuel injection. Back in my day we had carburetors and injections implied a trip to the doctor. We had to crank the engine by hand, none of this motorized starter tomfoolery.

Don't be foolish, the numbers aren't there.

[Intrepidation]

I do not see more power for the CTS-V as a mistake.

[Camino LS6]

To Camino's point, you know what would be great to see?

Some numbers with the LT1 mated with the 8AT. Then we could see which configuration was superior, performance- and economy-wise. Unfortunately, we won't see that until the next Camaro comes out, so we have to wait.

Agreed.

[Robert Hall]

This is clearly targeting the BMW 535i. The V-series will target the M5. Same w/ the equivalent E-class/AMG models, and Audi A6/S6.

[Camino LS6]

I love power - you guys know that.

However, what we have here is not what I expected from a non-V Alpha CTS with an 8spd. trans.

Shouldn't this car be the light, efficient, but still powerful car that Alpha was meant to deliver?

Shouldn't it trounce the old, heavy, Zeta Camaro in fuel economy?

See what I'm saying?

Edited March 18, 2013 by Camino LS6

[Drew Dowdell]

Well, I guess my takeaway from this is that this engine is for those with more money than brains.

I would have been far more impressed if the engine delivered dramatic fuel economy while maintaining the same performance levels (or even a bit less).

As is, I see no real advantage at all.

The advantage is this: At least 387 ft-lb on tap between 2500rpm - 5500rpm. A n/a 5.3 V8 would not provide that.

[Camino LS6]

Well, I guess my takeaway from this is that this engine is for those with more money than brains.

I would have been far more impressed if the engine delivered dramatic fuel economy while maintaining the same performance levels (or even a bit less).

As is, I see no real advantage at all.

The advantage is this: At least 387 ft-lb on tap between 2500rpm - 5500rpm. A n/a V8 would not provide that.

That's one.

Is it enough?

[Robert Hall]

What is ultimately going to count is how will the new CTS w/ this engine compare in real-world tests with the equivalent models from the German trio--all of which will be TT 6 cylinders? No V8 in that comparison.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

We don't know the power from the 5.3 liter V8 yet, but the 6.2 going into the Stingray is rated for 450 lb-ft torque at peak. That means this 3.6TT is within spitting distance of the Stingray's peak number. That also means that the 5.3's peak torque is unlikely to exceed the "90% of" number that the 3.6TT is providing.

[Camino LS6]

What is ultimately going to count is how will the new CTS w/ this engine compare in real-world tests with the equivalent models from the German trio--all of which will be TT 6 cylinders? No V8 in that comparison.

That's true, of course.

If a bit beside the point I'm making here.

[Robert Hall]

What is ultimately going to count is how will the new CTS w/ this engine compare in real-world tests with the equivalent models from the German trio--all of which will be TT 6 cylinders? No V8 in that comparison.

That's true, of course.

If a bit beside the point I'm making here.

The point you are making has no point. The only point is how this engine competes w/ equivalent engines from the market competitors.

[Camino LS6]

We don't know the power from the 5.3 liter V8 yet, but the 6.2 going into the Stingray is rated for 450 lb-ft torque at peak. That means this 3.6TT is within spitting distance of the Stingray's peak number. That also means that the 5.3's peak torque is unlikely to exceed the "90% of" number that the 3.6TT is providing.

Same point as before (the flat TQ curve).

It's an issue of balance, and the scale is too far tipped toward performance IMO.

What is ultimately going to count is how will the new CTS w/ this engine compare in real-world tests with the equivalent models from the German trio--all of which will be TT 6 cylinders? No V8 in that comparison.

That's true, of course.

If a bit beside the point I'm making here.

The point you are making has no point. The only point is how this engine competes w/ equivalent engines from the market competitors.

That's simply absurd.

[Drew Dowdell]

We don't know the power from the 5.3 liter V8 yet, but the 6.2 going into the Stingray is rated for 450 lb-ft torque at peak. That means this 3.6TT is within spitting distance of the Stingray's peak number. That also means that the 5.3's peak torque is unlikely to exceed the "90% of" number that the 3.6TT is providing.

Same point as before (the flat TQ curve).

It's an issue of balance, and the scale is too far tipped toward performance IMO.

>

What is ultimately going to count is how will the new CTS w/ this engine compare in real-world tests with the equivalent models from the German trio--all of which will be TT 6 cylinders? No V8 in that comparison.

That's true, of course.

If a bit beside the point I'm making here.

The point you are making has no point. The only point is how this engine competes w/ equivalent engines from the market competitors.

That's simply absurd.

Wait... too much performance?

[Camino LS6]

Inasmuch as it caused the loss of fuel economy I expected from this configuration - yes.

[Camino LS6]

Let me put this another way.

With all of the advantages of a leaner architecture and an 8spd auto, and a very high-tech V6, wouldn't you expect better MPG numbers?

Wasn't that the point and the promise of this configuration?

A new, more efficient, delivery of power?

Wasn't this supposed to lead the way there?

With the results obtained by both V8 and 4Cyl. engines, why do V6s lag behind in these gains?

I just expected a better balance.

[Drew Dowdell]

Let me put this another way.

With all of the advantages of a leaner architecture and an 8spd auto, and a very high-tech V6, wouldn't you expect better MPG numbers?

Wasn't that the point and the promise of this configuration?

A new, more efficient, delivery of power?

Wasn't this supposed to lead the way there?

With the results obtained by both V8 and 4Cyl. engines, why do V6s lag behind in these gains?

I just expected a better balance.

It's a Cadillac. I expect them to beat the power output of BMW and Audi while also providing better fuel economy numbers than BMW/Audi/MB. If these announced numbers hold up, then they've done that. I don't think a 5.3 V8 would have been able to out power the crew from Deutschland and then the meme of "Cadillac's V8 can't even out power the V6 turbos from the Germans" would have popped up.

Cadillac did what it needed to do. If Cadillac wants an Eco model... then they should do a diesel.... which they should do even if they DONT want an Eco model.

Edit: This is GM's most power dense engine to date according to the press release. I don't see this engine lagging behind V8s or turbo-4s at all.... yet at the same time we also know that it can probably be dialed up higher for those who want even more performance. The 2.0 Ecotech was capable of 150 hp/liter with a GM chip... even approaching that would put the 3.6 over 540hp... which is CTS-V territory.

[Camino LS6]

I agree on the diesel.

But haven't you side-stepped my questions?

Didn't you expect better?

In all honesty, beating the Germans on fuel economy sets the bar pretty low - they've never been good on that front (with gas engines).

[Drew Dowdell]

I agree on the diesel.

But haven't you side-stepped my questions?

Didn't you expect better?

In all honesty, beating the Germans on fuel economy sets the bar pretty low - they've never been good on that front (with gas engines).

I'm betting the gearing of the 8-speed has more to do with it than anything. I didn't side step your question. I'm not sure what kind of fuel economy you're expecting a 3800lb car with 430 ft-lb of torque to get....

[G. David Felt]

Camino,

CTS will have Turbo 4 and DI 3.6 V6. Yet while the numbers are posted, they have not stated what the new MPG will be.

Most who have driven a 3.6 V6 find it more than pleasant on power/performance.

So why would they not have a boost here for MPG needs then a step up to the Twin Turbo for better performance and then for the limited crowd the V8 V.

This seems to make perfect sense and I think people are hung up on the Twin Turbo V6. I just hope it is reliable.

2L I4 Turbo

3.6L DI V6

3.6L TT V6

6.2L Supercharged V8

Or what ever the new V V8 engine will be.

[Robert Hall]

They will have to have a diesel option if they plan to sell the CTS in Europe, I would think...

[Camino LS6]

I agree on the diesel.

But haven't you side-stepped my questions?

Didn't you expect better?

In all honesty, beating the Germans on fuel economy sets the bar pretty low - they've never been good on that front (with gas engines).

I'm betting the gearing of the 8-speed has more to do with it than anything. I didn't side step your question. I'm not sure what kind of fuel economy you're expecting a 3800lb car with 430 ft-lb of torque to get....

I agree on the diesel.

But haven't you side-stepped my questions?

Didn't you expect better?

In all honesty, beating the Germans on fuel economy sets the bar pretty low - they've never been good on that front (with gas engines).

I'm betting the gearing of the 8-speed has more to do with it than anything. I didn't side step your question. I'm not sure what kind of fuel economy you're expecting a 3800lb car with 430 ft-lb of torque to get....

I expect it to be notably better than a Zeta Camaro.

[Camino LS6]

They will have to have a diesel option if they plan to sell the CTS in Europe, I would think...

As well as elsewhere.

[Drew Dowdell]

I agree on the diesel.

But haven't you side-stepped my questions?

Didn't you expect better?

In all honesty, beating the Germans on fuel economy sets the bar pretty low - they've never been good on that front (with gas engines).

I'm betting the gearing of the 8-speed has more to do with it than anything. I didn't side step your question. I'm not sure what kind of fuel economy you're expecting a 3800lb car with 430 ft-lb of torque to get....

>>

I agree on the diesel.

But haven't you side-stepped my questions?

Didn't you expect better?

In all honesty, beating the Germans on fuel economy sets the bar pretty low - they've never been good on that front (with gas engines).

I'm betting the gearing of the 8-speed has more to do with it than anything. I didn't side step your question. I'm not sure what kind of fuel economy you're expecting a 3800lb car with 430 ft-lb of torque to get....

I expect it to be notably better than a Zeta Camaro.

It will have noticeably better power delivery due to having lots of torque at lower rpm and more torque available while providing slightly better fuel economy. More power + lower RPM + slightly better fuel economy + beating the Germans on power and mpg = a big advancement.

It's a 3.6 liter that is putting out more twist than a 6.2 liter and getting better fuel economy to boot.

[Robert Hall]

They will have to have a diesel option if they plan to sell the CTS in Europe, I would think...

As well as elsewhere.

Yes..MB already has a diesel E class here, I would assume a diesel A6 and 5-series will be here eventually...

[Lamar]

This is clearly targeting the BMW 535i. The V-series will target the M5. Same w/ the equivalent E-class/AMG models, and Audi A6/S6.

Actually, with >400 HP and >400 lb-ft, this new engine is aimed squarely at the 550i (400, 450, 15/22-23 mpg), the E550 (402, 443, 16/26 mpg), and the S6 (420, 406, 17/27). Biggest difference is that the Germans have forced-induction V8s, and the CTS will have a V6TT that pretty much matches everyone in power and FE.

The LLT is still the 535i/E350/A6 3.0T competitor.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Lamar

[hyperv6]

Ehh, you young-in's and yur newfangled turbochargers and fuel injection. Back in my day we had carburetors and injections implied a trip to the doctor. We had to crank the engine by hand, none of this motorized starter tomfoolery.

But you had to push the Model T up the steep hills Pops going to School going both ways in 4 feet of snow.