By on March 18, 2013

Good news for performance fans from The General; a new twin-turbo V6 will debut on the next generation CTS and XTS, good for 420 horsepower and 430 lb-ft of torque.

The 3.6L mill will apparently rocket the new CTS to 60 mph in 4.6 seconds, or about the same as an SRT8 Charger, while delivering 17/25 mpg. Apparently this engine won’t be featured in the ATS-V, but it will surely appear in some other GM products. The only question is what would be a good fit? The Camaro is an obvious choice, and the fact that it can fit transverse platforms as well is interesting. Might this engine show up in a future Buick?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

110 Comments on “Cadillac Debuts Twin-Turbo V6...”


  • avatar
    stroker49

    Great that GM learned something from SAAB!
    Naturally aspirated engines sucks!

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Do you live on Everest or something?

      Otherwise, what’s so great about tickover redlines, lag, detonation on anything less than 100 Octane fuel, and Saab like reliability? Blech!

      Man, give me an NA any day. Just make it smooth enough to be non-offensive at a decent rpm, and either revvy or big enough to generate some meaningful power. On bikes, where bad engine engine behaviors are much less hidden than in 4000lbs cars, almost noone bothers with turbos. For good reason, too.

      • 0 avatar
        stroker49

        Yes, give me a nice big engine! And give me 4 usd/gl gas! When you are paying 8,60 usd/gl you start thinking different. Have you been driving a low boost base Saab 2,0t? Only 150bhp but much more grunt than a NA enginge of the same size. And good milage.
        My 2005 Cadillac STS 3,6 has basically the same engine as the last Saab 9-5 but they had a 2,8 with turbo. I wish I had that engine in my Caddie as my engine is weak at the bottom.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          With 390 lb-ft of torque from 2500-5500 rpms this TT will be matching the LT1 in torque from 5500 rpms on up.

          Everyone is comparing peak numbers but turbos excel in the area under the output curve.

          • 0 avatar

            True… But those fat torque curves are measured in 4th gear, or on a load dyno, where the turbo has plenty of time and engine load to help spool. The dyno will show boost threshold but not boost lag.

            The story can change in 1st gear, when the N/A engine is making 100% advertised torque and the turbo engine might not have time to reach full boost.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          As long as you have a half decent transmission, the time it takes to drop a cog or two, is less than it takes for a Saab turbo to spin up. The whole “area under the curve spiel makes sense if you drive transmission less cars, but with a nice shifter, why not use it?

    • 0 avatar
      jetcal1

      Stoker,
      If naturally aspirated engines suck, do turbo engines blow?

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        +1

        • 0 avatar

          The lack of an engine in between the LLT and the LSA is a big part of the reason GM and Cadillac have so much trouble moving certain cars. This is great news. Hopefully this will be in the XTs Platinum.

          But, part of me can’t help feeling they really need a supercharged V6 (like Jaguar and Audi) as an option. That would make a nice XTS-V even if it was just 450HP.

          Meanwhile, Chrysler is dropping 470HP in two $50,000 cars.

          Note: I dynoed a 2012 SRT8 and it made 449 rwhp and 437 rwtq. didn’t see the whole 470hp, but the sunuvabitch sure is fast compared to my 2006 SRT8 when it was stock.

          I like the on-demand low end power of a naturally aspirated engine. If you really want pure takeoff power, you’ll need a supercharger and AWD. I’m not crazy about Twin Turbos. The Lincoln MKS Ecoboost didn’t wow me.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            449 RWHP is actually very impressive as the advertised 470hp is flywheel HP. If you account for a conservative 20% drivetrain loss, that dyno run is acutally well over 500hp.

        • 0 avatar
          chas404

          Oh boy more turbo luxo cars!!!!! yuuuckkkk.

      • 0 avatar
        stroker49

        ++

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      I think everyone is learning a little from BMW 335i. The current and last generation BMW 335 and 535 were the first luxury cars with turbo 6-cylinder engines that actually were successful. Saab is more of a study in how to go out of business. Of course, Saab sold exclusively turbo cars in its GM era, but it never quite figured out how to be profitable..

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        I don’t think turbos had anything to do with Saab’s being profitable or not. Fact is, Saab turbo’ed engines are case studies in how to do turbocharging right, even without other tricks like direct injection and variable valve timing. The implementation of the turbo on the 2.2 liter 4 in my Saab 9-5 (automatic) was perfect. No turbo lag (would easily spin front wheels on takeoff), great midrange power and . . . 30+ mpg on the highway in a car that carries 4 adults comfortably. Apparently not everyone has figured out the secret sauce, including, for example Honda’s turbo 4 in the first generation RDX, which generated 10 hp less, was very laggy (I know, I drove it) and was a huge gas-sucker, to boot. It’s not clear that Ford has found the secret sauce, either, given that its turbo fours apparently do not come close to their EPA ratings and neither the 1.6 nor the 2.0 give the expected performance. Add to the “missing the sauce” list is the turbo 4 in the baby Cadillac, which greatly under performs BMW’s turbo 4, while getting worse real-world gas mileage.

        The performance of the turbocharged 4 cylinder engines was one of the good features about Saab (reliability is, of course, another matter).

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I’ll be happy to drive past your broken-down turbo heap in my NA car any day of the week, Stroker49.

  • avatar
    corntrollio

    I would prefer Cadillac only. However, if it has to be shared for economic reasons, then Camaro + if they keep the RWD Chevy non-Caprice non-Impala SS, then maybe that.

    So basically Cadillacs + high performance cars only — that way it’s exclusive.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    A Buick Alpha! Grand National! Do ittt!!11!!

  • avatar
    mkirk

    Wait a minute. According to the GM Fanboys those twin turbo motors will never be reliable.

    • 0 avatar
      otaku

      Well, if you believe those guys, then you should already know that any twin turbo V-6 with a Ford badge on it puts out less power and gets worse fuel economy than a pushrod V-8, but I’m sure this GM version will be just fine…

      Also, I think GM might decide to install this engine only on rear-drive platforms, since they still have torque steer issues with the lowered powered, naturally aspirated version of their corporate six cylinder in some of their front-wheel-drive applications.

      • 0 avatar
        86SN2001

        V8s get better fuel economy in both cars and trucks that the Egoboost V6 in the same applications…just the inconvenient truth.

        Egoboost is a farce. There is nothing ECO about a V6 that gets V8 gas mileage (and Ford has yet to fix the all the issues with it)

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          My 2011 Ecoboosted MkS only got 21-23 mpg when I was driving normally (like it wasn’t company gas) for the 1.5 years I had it.

          I want your referenced V8 right now. Immediately. Tell me which car to buy because that is so awesome.

          I want V8 power and your ‘end of the rainbow’ V8 fuel economy without the thrashing, dishwasher sound that mill got.

          • 0 avatar
            86SN2001

            Hyunday Genesis (more luxury than a mediocre Taurus rebadge), and an Audi A8. Both V8s, and both more power/better economy than the high strung V6.

          • 0 avatar
            corntrollio

            The A8? Not quite:

            4.2 (4172 cc) V8 340 PS (250 kW; 335 bhp); 430 N·m (320 lb·ft) @3500 6.4 sec
            4.2 (4172 cc) V8 FSI 350 PS (257 kW; 345 bhp); 440 N·m (320 lb·ft) @3500 6.1 sec

            A8 (L) 3.0 TFSI quattro (333PS) 2012– 2,995 cc (182.8 cu in) V6 supercharged 333 PS (245 kW; 328 bhp)@5500-6500 440 N·m (325 lb·ft)@2900-5300 5.5/5.5

            The supercharged V6 had almost the same power, and more torque, and the torque curve is quite broad. It’s also faster to 100 kph/62 mph.

            The 4.2 V8 was EPA rated at 16/23. The supercharged 3.0 V6 was EPA rated at 18/28, although part of that highway number is probably the 8-speed automatic. Audi also offers a twin-turbo V8 in the A8 — the 4.0T.

            Of course, still no proof that the V6 is high strung and the V8 is not.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            I keep forgetting the Genesis exists, as does the rest of the world.

          • 0 avatar
            86SN2001

            Corn,

            The proof is in the numbers. The more power you squeeze from a smaller package, the more high-strung it is. Like a humming bird.

            I suppose you would say that Formula 1 cars and Indy cars are not high-strung either.

            AND, the 2012 Audi A8 gets 18/28 combined 21
            The Lincoln Taurus, with it’s ECO V6 gets 17/25 combined 20

          • 0 avatar
            bd2

            @tresmonos

            Apparently the rest of the world is “more aware” of the Genesis existing than either the Lexus GS or Infiniti M.

        • 0 avatar
          rnc

          No the inconvenient truth is that if you push the damn motors hard to get off on the boost, then yes you’re going to pay a MPG penalty (You know when I floor my saturn from start to finish and after every stop and go, the MPG’s drop significantly as well), however if driven like a normal car (used as intended), you get the option of having a V6 milage and power when needed and the power and (more usable) torque when required. Or you can have a smaller car (wish to god ford would bring over and build next gen taurus and explorer off the current falcon platform(s), its all ready to go, then they could export kits back and be able to make money manufacturing RWD cars in australia). Would also quickly get the PI business back, that car with an EB, sure it would get horrible MPG, but you would be able to use the 450/450 they say is possible from a 3.5 V6 (and with europe based on displacement and everyone moving to world cars, this is the future, just have to learn to drive it properly and will perform as advertised)

        • 0 avatar
          ellomdian

          The fastest way to ruin your argument is to use stupid self-derived nomenclature. The “Eco” part is derived from the usage of more efficient (not fuel-wise) solutions such as DI, VVT/VCT, and Turbocharging. And if you look across the range from the 1.0 I3 up, you will easily see real-world fuel savings and increased performance.

          The easiest way is to not actually give references. And then you pull Audi into this… a company that has been more behind turbo-ing 6′s in typical V8 applications than most in it’s segment. Lets use a direct example in the Taurus SHO. I can tell you that I love a powertrain package that reliably allows my mom to get 25MPG in a full size, and also allows me to run high 13′s stock… at altitude (Denver.)

          And the most obvious is to give rhetoric comparisons – as for hummingbirds – believe it or not, a properly designed small displacement engine running under compression can actually perform more reliably (while the design and maintenance tolerances tend to be more exacting, the resultant operation is often kept within a tighter envelope than NA applications.)

          *Disclaimer – I hated Fords before I drove the SHO on Mom’s test drive. Their engineers have made downright astonishing improvements in the last decade.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            My 5.7L NA V8 Charger also runs high 13s in the 1/4 and gets 25+ mpg highway.

            I spent a week with the Taurus SHO and found that I averaged 19-20 mpg in my normal drive cycle. The Charger nets exactly the same.

            So to say there is a clear advantage of the turbo V6 versus an NA V8 of about the same power output is a little muddy.

          • 0 avatar
            86SN2001

            Ell:

            I’ll just quote Joe Pesci from My Cousin Vinny:

            “Everything that guy just said is bullshit”.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      The aftermarket already has a 500-600 HP V6 LLT Camaro twin turbo kit.

      http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141976

      The Corvette guys were pissed when the 2004 CTS-V received the LS6. This new twin turbo will be available in upscale offerings but that is it.

      I’ll run E85 in the GM 2.0T to make 400+ HP and even more torque. No answer from Toyota and Honda in the future.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    This so needs to go in a 2WD Colorado.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It’s taking the long route to accomplish what the new all aluminum GM 6.2 will do. Similar MPG, weigh, bulk, emissions. Except a twin turbo V6 is prime for the European and therefor, world market. China?

  • avatar
    86SN2001

    V8 > V6.

    This should not have a puny, high-strung POS V6. Way to ruin whatever car this goes into GM…

    • 0 avatar
      corntrollio

      What evidence is there that this twin-turbo is “high-strung”? Please be specific and use your extensive knowledge of engineering and motor development.

      Mitsubishi has an Evo, the FQ-400, that produces 403 hp and 387 ft-lbs torque from a 2.0 4-cylinder turbo. You’re telling me this V6 is high-strung? Get real.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Corntrollio, don’t try to reason with these knuckle-draggers, obviously the V8 is KING. Of course the only way to get decent mpg out of a V8 in the real world is to draft trailer trucks downhill, but whatever.

        • 0 avatar
          corntrollio

          Yeah, that seems to be the answer. More generally, it shows how enthusiasts diverge from actual new car buyers.

          Hell, I’ve owned more than one car with a V8 and I currently own one with a V8. Some of those V8s sucked far worse than one of my cars with a turbo-4 and had less power. Some of them have been good. One thing is clear — they all sucked down a lot of products created from a’bubblin’ crude, oil that is.

          • 0 avatar
            copanacional

            @ corntrollio

            Going from an A4 2.0T to the V8 S5. There is not one day that I wish I still had the gas mileage of the former. BUT, nothing beats that naturally aspirated V8 growl

            However, the torque/power band on the A4 2.0T was quite impressive for such a little engine. Credit to the turbo, never had any issues with it all the way to 120k before I sold it for the S5.

        • 0 avatar
          86SN2001

          The 5.0 V8 from Ford gets better mileage than the Egoboost V6…both non-towing and especially towing.

          • 0 avatar
            badcoffee

            I wonder how many people saying this have experience with both trucks?

            The Ecoboost WILL get EPA estimate or better gas mileage. However, it is VERY sensative to driving habits. If you try to drive like Ricky Bobby you will keep the turbo spooled up and you’ll see 14 MPG.

            The Coyote is more consistent on gas mileage.

            but the Ecoboost will outpull the Coyote. When I was selling Ford trucks (within the last couple months) we would steer a gas-mileage buyer to the 3.7 (which is what Dodge should really compare the Pentastar to, but thats a rant for another time.) We would sell the Ecoboost to guys looking for the pulling power- It will outpull any comparable truck.

          • 0 avatar
            86SN2001

            The ONLY Egoboost truck that will get anywhere close to the EPA mileage is the one with 3.15 gears (but then your capability drops severely).

            Motor Trend had two identical F-150s (Almost the same exact weight…but the EB was LIGHTER), same 3.73 gears, one with the 5.0 and one with the Egoboost.

            The 5.0 got better mileage.

      • 0 avatar
        oldfatandrich

        My dear Corntrollio, I am still waiting for you to tell me if you’re enjoying the new normal. Maybe not ? Please don’t keep me waiting until my S350 lease rolls in December. Ciao !

        • 0 avatar
          corntrollio

          You can still explain what you mean by the “new normal” and why you’re still harping on this, as I told you before. I’m doing quite fine, and if you’re actually old, fat, and rich, you should be too, as I pointed out earlier.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @86SN2001
      V8s will become passe over the next decade. Even luxury and prestige vehicles are going the way of forced inducted V6′s, just look at the new Ranger Rover.

      Further down the track high performance diesels and turbo 4s will be the rage.

      V8s are like horses, they’ve had their day and now horses are used for recreation or racing. A hobby.

      I bet if you were alive when Edison invented the light bulb you would have protested that lanterns are the only way.

      Overstressed? You obviously have no idea.

      I’m not against V8s, but reality is reality and some of these guys need to look at what is going on in the world.

      • 0 avatar
        86SN2001

        Yeah, because of liberal policies, we have cars and trucks that don’t meed fuel economy numbers while an unfair target is being painted on V8s.

        There may be something to these high-strung engines if they actually produced results, but they don’t…in the real world. All forced induction does is force more air into the engine. More air = more fuel.

        That is why we have 4 bangers that drink fuel like a V6 and V6s that drink fuel like a V8.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          “That is why we have 4 bangers that drink fuel like a V6 and V6s that drink fuel like a V8.”

          Exactly.

        • 0 avatar
          el scotto

          86, why am I getting a mental picture of you at the nursing home in few decades renting two spaces for your ride and telling everyone “It’s the last dag-gum V-8 ever made by Dee-troit; turbos? Why no thank you sir! Ain’t nothin’ spinning at 200,000 rpm gonna explode under my hood by God!; EEEEltrics and hybrids? Them’s for Nancy boys and those other types. Big ole V-8′s are what made Amurrrica great and any other engine is for candy-asses.

      • 0 avatar
        azmtbkr81

        That’s exactly what experts said in the ’90s but V8s came back in a big way once the downsides of a complex, fragile turbo engines came to light.

        Physics is tough to cheat; horsepower requires roughly the same amount of energy regardless of how it is created so why not create it as simply and reliably as possible? People seem to think that V8 technology lives in a vacuum and hasn’t evolved since the ’70s but anyone who doubts that V8s are no longer modern, efficient engines need only look at Chevy’s new LT1 to be convinced otherwise. I’m willing to bet most LT1s will still be on the road long after the last flattened Range Rover is on a barge to Shanghai.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        If V8s do indeed disappear, it won’t be for a lack of demand or technology, but because of regulations, like in Europe where displacement is taxed.

        Most V8 engines can be constructed far cheaper than their turbocharged 6 cylinder or even 4 cylinder counterparts with similar power outputs. With cylinder shutoff and variable valve timing the norm even in pushrod engines, they are able to reduce fuel consumption to the level of the smaller turbo engines or even less.

        V8s will remain the best value propostion for those seeking reliable power, like in pickups. Luxury car buyers still largely prefer smooth V8s, so don’t expect those to go away either. Even performance products like the Mustang will continue with a V8.

        The prediction that V8s would disappear has been heard again and again over the last 40 years, yet we keep returning to them again and again.

        • 0 avatar
          rnc

          a low displacement V8 (say 3.0), with the proper compression, DI, VVT, etc. would be an amazing engine, problem is it would have to overbuilt (cost thing), like the ford TT design that used dual injection (Port injection of ethanol to cool cyl. b/t firings and direct for the gas) that produced Diesel MPG’s and Torque, With Gasoline HP and emissions (with regular gas). Hell in the US it would be simple as having a seperator in the fuel line to pull the ethanol out of the E10 crap we have to use anyways (god forbid someone would have to add a gallon of ethonal every now and then). But with world cars becoming the norm (oil isn’t going to eve be cheap again) and deisel emmision requirements getting more and more strict, that design may yet come back (hoping)

  • avatar
    ajla

    “Might this engine show up in a future Buick?”

    Too many camshafts and too narrow a cylinder-bank angle.

  • avatar

    Maybe it will show up in a bigger Cadillac?

    That would be cool.

  • avatar
    Speed3

    I’m interested to see how this compares to the 6.2L LT1. What is the reason for the twin turbo V6 over the V8?

  • avatar

    General Motors builds great engines.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      When they want to, or should I say when the engineers are allowed to…

    • 0 avatar
      Athos Nobile

      Yes, still. And this power plant is the right one for a brand like Cadillac.

      A coworker showed me a video of it and I noticed that it has a water to air IC. And the packaging is very compact.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0oqQuemSpM

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      I’ve seen some great GM engines come and go and some great GM cars come and go. Never will the two ever meet.

      • 0 avatar

        Drive a CTS-V, then come back and talk to us.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          Better yet compare the 4400 automatic transmission equipped CTS-V torque of 550 lb-ft to that of the lesser weight 3500 ATS with 430 lb-ft and you find that comparing peak numbers.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          I wouldn’t call the CTS a great car without the “V”. Great engine, no doubt, but let’s see it in something sub $80K. Like a shorty SS Silverado. Or an AWD GMC Sierra ‘Typhoon’ redo. Or in a Commodore Interceptor or Ute with rubber floors and radio delete. Price it under $40K and sell it’ll sell millions in it’s life cycle.

    • 0 avatar
      rnc

      That became one of GM’s curses, they were the most innovative once and then would push the design out with small issues unresolved to save a few dollars and time (god forbid delay a launch for a few months to work out kinks, sleeveless aluminum blocks, 8-6-4, northstar, putting glow plugs in a gas engine, increasing compression and calling it a day) or the bean counters would remove a few $5-$15 parts (like a single rod in the fiero engine because they didn’t want to shut down the foundry to correct production flaw so they just kept making flammable cars (finally saw one on fire a few months ago, have to admit that plastic burning did make some beautiful colors), or just decide that americans didn’t care, the SB is all that would ever be needed (Hell RR was still using GM’s Aluminum DOHC V-8 design from the 60′s when BMW bought them), bean counters vetoed it. It was bad enough, that GM became afraid to advertise engine tech because it always led to disasters (like the solace and its saturn twin had turbo’s, never once advertised)

      • 0 avatar
        AFX

        “That became one of GM’s curses, they were the most innovative once and then would push the design out with small issues unresolved to save a few dollars and time (god forbid delay a launch for a few months to work out kinks….. 8-6-4″

        The 8-6-4 ?.

        Wasn’t that the engine in the Cadillac El-DOH !-rado ?.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      @Buickman

      They certainly can and have produced legends, but there are plenty of instances were the finished product isn’t up to snuff. I don’t blame the engineers, but from the customer standpoint it doesn’t matter to me what the problem was, my issue is the product I purchased at a premium is completely shot on the side of the road because of production or design defects.

      Quad-4, Northstar (and Shortstar), HT4100, Cadillac 368 (8-6-4), Olds Diesel, GM 2300 (Vega alum engine)

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    One way to differentiate the Buick LaCrosse from the new Chevy Impala would be to include this engine in the former. LaCrosse Super, anyone?

    Also, if Buick does another Riviera, it could use the ubiquitous 3.6L HF V6 as a base engine, and then this new twin-turbo unit as an upgrade. Then they could use the “T-Type” moniker on that car again…

    Lastly, there’s the Cadillac XTS, which people have said is a bit underwhelming. But the prices are already so high for that model that this engine would push XTS examples into the high $60K range.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I did read a year ago or so the Caddy was going to develop the 2.8 diesel fitted to our Colorado’s for the CTS.

    That would be a great alternative if GM can get the diesel to put out 250hp, over 400ftlb of torque and get over 30mpg.

    That would be a better seller overseas, but Caddy is only big in the US. It doesn’t have the same ring in global markets as Merc, BMW even Honda.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    No internal combustion engine has ever improved on the classic or modern V8. It’s as good as ICE ever got, all things considered. Their demise will have everything to do with global planning and they’ve yet to come up with anything better.

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    GM does know how to build some great engines, too bad they don’t put them make anything worth putting them in besides a Silverado and that computer generated box that the 1968 Camero came in. I don’t care how good this motor is, they’re putting it in an old man’s car. I’ll take the SRT8 over a CTS any day.

  • avatar

    I’ll like to see this thing in a Fisker Karma.

  • avatar
    d002

    It’d make a Spark go pretty quick.

  • avatar
    akitadog

    At the Washington Auto Show, I got two different Cadillac representatives to say, separately, that the ATS-V was indeed coming and that it would feature a turbocharged V6. If this isn’t that engine, then what is?!

    I told them that I would prefer the new LT1, so were they simply trying to throw me off? Could it indeed be the new 8, or is TTAC working off bad info?

  • avatar
    PCP

    Wow Guys, 55 comments and no one has yet driven one…

    Go test drive a BMW twin turbo and you’ll know what turbos are capable of – and this is just the beginning. I also have fond memories of my Supra Mk IV.

    If your mileage sucks with any of the modern cars with downsized engines, you might also want to reconsider the way you drive…

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      Should we assume “this time it’s different?”. GM and Cadillac have a certain history and like Ford, its efforts haven’t approached BMW levels. Ecoboosts’ real world experience is not good. CR tested them for thousands of miles and found they deliver poorer mileage and performance than rival products using the same testing procedures, so claiming drivers goose the Ecoboosts because they are so sporty is a diversion from reality.

      Cadillac Diesels, Northstars and 4-6-8 engines are its legacy as much as anything. Let’s hope they don’t make a hash out of it this time too.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    So it’s clear there’s zero advantage to a turbo’d 3.6 GM V6 vs a 6.2 V8. Or a turbo’d 3.5 Ford V6 vs a 5.0 DOHC V8. Just potential tax advantages in Europe.

    The problem is turbos are always on and always sucking fuel. I’ll admit I’m a fan of compressor surge and it’s hard to back off the gas once you hit full boost and get pushed back deeper into your seat. A loud compressor swooosh sounds like a Learjet banking hard up to the sky.

    V8 power is just linear with no surge, no drama and it’s easy to forget tons of horse power is just a foot stomp away.

    The solution would be a bypass, waste gate or blow-off valve that stays open until 3/4 to WOT thus still giving you fully available or on demand boost, but not having it forced right off of idle.

    • 0 avatar
      Shipwright

      If you want tons of horse power try a supercharged V-8. Which reminds me, I’d like to see more supercharged cars.

      • 0 avatar
        rnc

        Superchargers decrease milage more than turbos as they compress using the driveshaft (unless they use injection to work like a turbine, which I’m not sure is allowed in cars), (now a hybrid turbo, spooled electronically whenever possible, regenative brakes, Li Car Battery or just another smaller battery and all that good stuff would be the most ideal). Seems it would be the simpliest hybrid of all, make a 1.0 liter engine and use the batteries/regen to produce extreme boost add a 9 speed and AWD (for torque issues) (wondered if that is what honda meant by making a revolutionary hybrid that cost less, but honda lost the plot to long ago.

  • avatar
    Pig_Iron

    Huzzah! Sis-Boom-Bah! 23-Skid-Doo!

    I just thought I’d express enthusiasm in an age appropriate form for the average Cadillac customer.

    • 0 avatar
      The 24-Bit Eggplant will be analyzed

      As a tattoed, stretched eared, 28 year old, STS V8 RWD owner. I do resent having to deal with this stereotype.. You never hear about all the old Mercedes Benz owners or even Maserati, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Rolls Royce, Bentley, or Jaguar owners. All those brands have buyers who old as f***. But only on forums such as this Cadillac and Buicks are singled out as having old as f*** drivers.

      I should’ve bought that Jaag.

  • avatar
    The 24-Bit Eggplant will be analyzed

    A V8 equipped S-Type. They have a charm that I find hard to ignore.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Not gonna lie, I nearly broke my no Jag powered Jag rule when a deal on a hail damaged S-Type R came up. I couldn’t make the numbers work with enough margin for me to jump in, but I must admit after driving it, the siren call of that AJ S/C left me wanting it.

      • 0 avatar
        The 24-Bit Eggplant will be analyzed

        Jaags create an itch that’s so hard to scratch.. I still find myself wanting to go get a (X100) XKR. I know I can’t rationalize buying one but I still find my self just wanting one. It’s gotten so bad I always see em when I cross them on a street. I’ve gained this ability to always notice the Jaag on the street. I always catch them out of the corner of my eye.

  • avatar
    Mikein08

    Why does no one do superchargers anymore?

    • 0 avatar
      cognoscenti

      I want to do one: on an NSX. Supercharging handily addresses the lack of grunt below the cam profile changes – “VTEC kicked, in y0!”. However, everyone else seems to just want turbos now. Query “Lovefab” on YouTube if you want to see what happens when you don’t care about boost lag (or traction, for that matter!).

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      Aren’t the Shelby Mustangs supercharged?

  • avatar
    AFX

    I heard a rumor that this new Cadillac twin turbo V-6 will debut in a rebadged version of the Cruze to be called the “Cimarron Part Deux”.

    Another rumor I heard is that Mazda is working on it’s own twin turbo V-6 Skyactive engine for pickup trucks. It’ll be a twin turbo MX-3 V-6 in an updated B2000 platform.

    Just remember, you heard it here first. ;-)

  • avatar
    AFX

    Turbos are so over-hyped nowadays, what they need is a CTS-V with a Turbonique Drag Axle and a push-to-pass button on the steering wheel.

  • avatar

    I know everyone has the image of luxury cars with V8 engines but at the Chicago Auto Show last month, the speaker at the opening breakfast for the media preview was the head of Jaguar of North America. He said that Jaguar was making its V6 available in the XF and eve the larger XJ because a large percentage, if I recall correctly, a majority of luxury car sales in North America have six cylinder engines.

    I’m sure that the new larger CTS will be able to accommodate the LT1 V8 that eventually will go in the V models, but it appears that the luxury market indeed has embraced high tech V6 engines.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      As much as I would love an LT1 in the next CTS, the prospect of the TTV6 is a damned good second choice. The frustrating thing about the current CTS is the huge performance gap between even the ‘Sport’ model and the V model. I love the size, practicality, styling and reliability of my CTS Sport wagon, but as a performance car it is, at best, underwhelming. One thing I *really* wish for is the option of faster shifts from the slushbox. Even when shifted manually in sport mode, shifts are maddeningly slow. Hopefully the TTV6 will have a transmission better suited to a performance car. Oh, and I hope that they make the magnetic ride shocks available as well.

  • avatar
    corntrollio

    Whenever we have threads like, it makes me wonder what the actual sales figures are for cars that offer, say, an I4 vs. a V6, or a V6 vs. a V8. For example, how do 4-cylinder Camrys and Accords sell vs. the V6? What is the engine distribution for various GM vehicles that offer 4s and 6s? How many F-150s buyers are going with the 3.5 Ecoboost?

    There are a lot of TTAC-commenters who insist that people won’t buy one car or another because it doesn’t offer a certain type of engine, and Mr. Baruth had a column about the ATS needing a V8, but it makes me wonder what the market says.

    My instinct is that push comes to shove and people vote with their wallet on the cheaper engine more often than not, especially in these times where credit isn’t flowing as freely as pre-2008. Most people who buy new cars likely aren’t auto enthusiasts and likely aren’t as dogmatic that their car must have 6 cylinders or 8.

    Hell, if I had access to the sales figures, I’d considering a write-up myself.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      You’re right, IIRC the 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl ratio of the Camcords is something like 4 or 5 to 1 due to the appliance like nature of these cars.

      The take rate of the Ecoboost in the F150 is roughly half eventhough it’s added cost. Ford did a good job marketing this powertrain as Chrysler did when the Hemi came out.

      When the LX cars were introduced, I seem to remember the Hemi take rate was over 40 percent. I can’t back that up, but it was definitely far more popular when the hype was still fresh.

  • avatar
    CelticPete

    Of course folks vote with their wallet. It depends on the automakers cost structure. My g/f bought herself an A5. Would she prefer an RS5. Yes. But it cost alot more..

    What is great about the domestics is that sometimes its possible to get a V8 with very little additional cost. The OHV V8 right now are VERY inexpensive to make and are REALLY excellent engines.

    The engine in the A5 is a gem for a four cylinder. it has nice torque. It never feels out of power. You go faster at any speed..

    But in comparison to a Dodge Hemi (like the one in the R/T) it just stinks. It doesn’t sound awesome – and it doesn’t provide that kind of linear never ending power and off the line pull a big V8 does.

    The domestic do alot of things wrong – but one thing they do right is they make some really really nice engines. My god you can’t beat a nice big OHV domestic V-8. And the Ford DOHC is respectable as well (but not as nice as the GM/Chrysler ones IMHO).

    The great thing is in the real world they get pretty respectable gas mileage too right now. Next car I get will be a domestic with a V8. They are going to be incredibly rare in the future – so you might as well have some fun now.

    Pretty soon you will only have electric self driving cars available.. Everyone should get a V-8 with a stick while they can…


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States