Cadillac CT6 To Receive Turbocharged, Naturally Aspirated V6 Engines

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon

When the Cadillac CT6 hits showrooms later this year, power for the flagship will come in the form of two V6 engines.

The mills are a 3.6-liter naturally aspirated unit, and a 3-liter twin-turbo. Both engines are equipped with active fuel management and start-stop, helping to improve fuel economy when compared to the engines they will replace in other Cadillac products.

Power figures for the 3.6-liter come to 335 horsepower and 284 lb-ft of torque, while the twin-turbo engine pumps out 400 horses and 400 lb-ft of torque. Both V6s will be paired with versions of General Motors’ Hydra-Matic eight-speed auto: the 8L90 for the turbocharged unit, the 8L45 for the naturally aspirated engine.

Both engines use aluminum blocks with more structuring in the bulkhead for increased rigidity; forged-steel crankshafts; polymer-coated, high-copper-content cylinder heads; cushioned chain sprockets for greater noise reduction; and a new two-pump oiling system for greater fuel efficiency and quieter operation.

Both V6s will be produced at GM’s Romulus Powertrain Operations in Romulus, Mich. — thanks to a $540-million investment to build the new engines — and will be placed under the bonnet of CT6 prior to delivery, which is set to begin between October and December of 2015.


Cameron Aubernon
Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 107 comments
  • Tjh8402 Tjh8402 on Mar 22, 2015

    I think the 3.0tt engine will be fine (and with that smaller displacement, hopefully smoother and more refined than the 3.6), but I am not sure the 3.6 will have the guts to move the car. Unless it comes in under 4000 lb curb weight, while the 330ish hp is competitive, 285 lb-ft of torque may not be enough to move this much car as much as effortlessly as buyers expect. The FI competition from Jag, BMW, Audi, and Maserati all have over 330 lb ft from their sixes, and probably over a much broader curve than the NA Caddy six. While it won't be slow, I'm not sure owners of these cars will appreciate having to rev the engine more on the Caddy to get it's power. I would've thought a low pressure variant of the 3.0tt, or even a FI version of the 2.5 I4 with 300+lb-ft would've worked better. If GM were Ford or Toyota, I would've also said this would be an excellent opportunity to use a hybrid system to assist the V6, but that hasn't been GM's strong suit up to this point.

  • Nick Nick on Mar 22, 2015

    'while the twin-turbo engine pumps out 400 horses and 400 lb-ft of torque' Always makes me feel a little sorry for the gearheads I knew who spent hours putting together engines with ported and polished heads, hi po intakes, huge cams, and big carbs trying to coax that kind of power out of their engines.

  • Proud2BUnion I typically recommend that no matter what make or model you purchase used, just assure that is HAS a prior salvage/rebuilt title. Best "Bang for your buck"!
  • Redapple2 jeffbut they dont want to ... their pick up is 4th behind ford/ram, Toyota. GM has the Best engineers in the world. More truck profit than the other 3. Silverado + Sierra+ Tahoe + Yukon sales = 2x ford total @ $15,000 profit per. Tons o $ to invest in the BEST truck. No. They make crap. Garbage. Evil gm Vampire
  • Rishabh Ive actually seen the one unit you mentioned, driving around in gurugram once. And thats why i got curious to know more about how many they sold. Seems like i saw the only one!
  • Amy I owned this exact car from 16 until 19 (1990 to 1993) I miss this car immensely and am on the search to own it again, although it looks like my search may be in vane. It was affectionatly dubbed, " The Dragon Wagon," and hauled many a teenager around the city of Charlotte, NC. For me, it was dependable and trustworthy. I was able to do much of the maintenance myself until I was struck by lightning and a month later the battery exploded. My parents did have the entire electrical system redone and he was back to new. I hope to find one in the near future and make it my every day driver. I'm a dreamer.
  • Jeff Overall I prefer the 59 GM cars to the 58s because of less chrome but I have a new appreciation of the 58 Cadillac Eldorados after reading this series. I use to not like the 58 Eldorados but I now don't mind them. Overall I prefer the 55-57s GMs over most of the 58-60s GMs. For the most part I like the 61 GMs. Chryslers I like the 57 and 58s. Fords I liked the 55 thru 57s but the 58s and 59s not as much with the exception of Mercury which I for the most part like all those. As the 60s progressed the tail fins started to go away and the amount of chrome was reduced. More understated.
Next