Is there any point to the CTS 2.8?

[Shantanu]

Or to the 2.8L V6 in general?

It gets the same fuel economy with less horsepower/torque.

Supposedly it's the same size on the outside and costs about the same to make anyway.

Which makes me wonder why they use the turbocharged 2.8 in the Saabs and why not just the 3.6. Is it just to say, "look, it's turbocharged!"

[Carguy]

Or to the 2.8L V6 in general?

It gets the same fuel economy with less horsepower/torque.

Supposedly it's the same size on the outside and costs about the same to make anyway. 

Which makes me wonder why they use the turbocharged 2.8 in the Saabs and why not just the 3.6.  Is it just to say, "look, it's turbocharged!"

I agree! The use of the 2.8L V6 in the CTS is silly. There is NO NEED for this base Engine in that car with the G35 and others out there with NO SMALLER BASE ENGINE! Sure use it in the SAAB models with MORE TURBO POWER like 300 or so. And while there at it make the Northstar opt in the next gen CTS and standard in the STS!

[Chazman]

Yes there is a point to the 2.8. It's so they can charge more fore the 3.6.

[ZL-1]

Yes there is a point to the 2.8. It's so they can charge more fore the 3.6.

Also, if Cadillac wants to crack the Euro market, they'll need a gas engine that is smaller than the 3.6L. Just as an example, BMW sells two 2.5L gas versions of the 5-series over here (we even get a 2.0L turbodiesel I-4 on the 5-series).

[Shantanu]

Yes there is a point to the 2.8. It's so they can charge more fore the 3.6.

But on the other hand GM has to charge less for the 2.8. So it's up in the air whether they are making more money off the 3.6 or losing profits on sales of the cheaper 2.8.

Why not just do what Nissan does, and just offer the 3.6? If it's costing Gm the same to make both engines, they should give consumers the better one. That way, they make more money, they keep their orders simple, and they make consumers happy.

[Shantanu]

I agree! The use of the 2.8L V6 in the CTS is silly. There is NO NEED for this base Engine in that car with the G35 and others out there with NO SMALLER BASE ENGINE! Sure use it in the SAAB models with MORE TURBO POWER like 300 or so. And while there at it make the Northstar opt in the next gen CTS and standard in the STS!

The turbocharged 2.8 used in the Saab is retarded. It makes 250 HP which is less than what the 3.6 makes. And it takes up the same amount of space in the engine bay, and probably costs even more to manufacture.

[loki]

what if they upgrade the 2.8 w/ DI turbo'd and then it'll make 300hp...oh wait... the 3.6 will do that..

the turbo just gives it a very nice torque curve, of course, but if it was given DI "plain" it might beable to replace a car or 2's 3.5L, maybe. maybe the next lacrosse or aura's base engine.... eh?

[MyerShift]

The Saab turbocharged 2.8L is because Saab is known for turbo engines, and before the 9-7X and also the bastard 9-2X, weren't all Saabs turbocharged?

Aside from the important cylinder count in its class, I feel Saab's 9-3/9-5 should employ the 2.4L ECOTEC Direct Injection turbocharged and modified to their use and make around 290-300 hp.

2.8L could be useful for penetrating Euro markets, of course, but in the U.S., it doesn't seem to make much sense.

[The O.C.]

It's the same product decision as BMW offering a 325i (low-power 3.0L) and a 330i (high-power 3.0L)

....or M-Benz offering a C230 (now a 6-cylinder), C280 (a bit more power) and C350 (max performance.)

Or Lexus with an IS250 and an IS350.

Audi with a 2.0T (4-cylinder) and a V6 version.

I just think that Cadillac should put a bit more differentiation in the 3.6L versus the 2.8L......

[mjdart]

the same product decision as BMW offering a 325i (low-power 3.0L) and a 330i (high-power 3.0L)

I agree with this concept. I bought a 3.6L CTS Sport, I would have liked my "Sport" to have a little more HP. I bought a 2000 Trans Am Ram Air because it had 15 more HP than a regular T/A, same concept.

[Drew Dowdell]

The turbocharged 2.8 used in the Saab is retarded.  It makes 250 HP which is less than what the 3.6 makes.  And it takes up the same amount of space in the engine bay, and probably costs even more to manufacture.

159165[/snapback]

but it has completely different driving dynamics compaired to the 3.6. and being in the lighter epsilon platform, it's still pretty fast.

and the Saabers like their turbos.

[Northstar]

but it has completely different driving dynamics compaired to the 3.6. and being in the lighter epsilon platform, it's still pretty fast.

and the Saabers like their turbos.

197131[/snapback]

Yep, that's pretty much it. Turbos provide better low-end power. I bet if you compare the dyno graphs of the 2.8T and the 3.6, the 2.8T actually has a flatter curve, and therefore would be faster when put in the same car.

[thegriffon]

The turbocharged 2.8 used in the Saab is retarded.  It makes 250 HP which is less than what the 3.6 makes.  And it takes up the same amount of space in the engine bay, and probably costs even more to manufacture.

159165[/snapback]

The 2.8 Turbo has already been upgraded to 280 PS is some applications, and will probably see more.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

No, there is no point for the CTS with the 2.8-liter V-6 engine, unless its for Europe, Australia, or other countries where it is exported here. I mean, the Infiniti G35, CTS' closest and truest rival, has what, 280hp now? And CTS has like 250 or something right? And outside of North America, unless the 2.8 is shooed in as a lower G6 engine or made available in the Delta cars, I don't see a point for that either.