By on March 20, 2015

2016-Cadillac-CT6-Powertrain-LGW-V6-006

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.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

107 Comments on “Cadillac CT6 To Receive Turbocharged, Naturally Aspirated V6 Engines...”


  • avatar
    Brian E

    And here I was all excited for a moment about the return of the W12…

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    The wait for a two door RWD V8 Cadillac that’s more laid back than the CTS-V continues.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I can’t dismissively wank any harder.

    I think this thing is going to be one of the most exquisite failures in GM history.

  • avatar
    Ihatejalops

    Brutal. Would rather see a V8 with EV capabilities than this trash (a la mclaren p1).

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Let’s consider the following, shall we?:

    1) The CT6 will have a 2.0T liter base engine, despite an approx 70k MSRP, and despite Cadillac framing it as at least a Mercedes E Class competitor (they’re actually puffing it up beyond that, but fine, whatever).

    2) It looks like a stretched CTS.

    3) It’s going to have 2 middling engines already used in other middling GM products, being the aforementioned 2.0T, and the 3.6 liter V6.

    4) It’s going to have a twin turbo V6 with a water cooled jacket in the highest motor trim, that will develop 400 hp and 400 lbs feet of torque (so, similar specs to a V-Sport CTS).

    5) If history is any guide, it’s going to be stuck with hapless CUE, middling interior fit/finish, and have p!ss poor reliability.

    So, instead of the El Miraj, in either sedan and/or coupe versions teased by Cadillac, which was a beautiful car from an aesthetic standpoint, we have another expensive, Art & Science date themed design, that will –

    #FailGreatly

    Cadillac is lost and confused in a thick forest of incompetence with some form of bizarre mental condition and full blown identity crisis.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Did you miss the entire article about how this 3.6 is all-new and doesn’t even share bore spacing with the existing one?

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        So is this 3.6 going to be bespoke to the CT6 or is it going to proliferate across the entire GM lineup like the other one did?

      • 0 avatar
        turbosaab

        All new? From what I can tell, it’s going to be an updated variation of the GM High Feature V6 that I have in my 2006 Saab. Not a bad engine, though.

        • 0 avatar
          SC5door

          http://media.cadillac.com/media/us/en/cadillac/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/mar/0320-cadillac/0320-cadillac-36l.html

          People seriously need to read.

      • 0 avatar
        oldworntruck

        The fact that it is an all new engine with polymer coated heads and fancy can chain cushions is what scares me the most. Does anyone remember the bespoke Cadillac north star engine with all of its critical and catistrofic failures? Gm does know how to build great volume engines but whenever a Cadillac came into my service bay it was always big$ to repair. They really should just stick with the volume engines imo

    • 0 avatar

      wow. I have my tropes too, mostly about observing the automotive fashion foibles of the top 10% in my leafy green overpriced suburban world, who want to mimic the top 1%, but…

      Did a Caddy run over your dog when you were a child ?…and back over it ? And then, run over the quivering mass one last time ?

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      And where are you getting this 2.0T as the base engine?

      People were saying that the 3.6 TT was going to be an engine, yet this press release shows they were dead wrong.

      How about waiting until Cadillac releases the car before you put out anymore tiresome, wrong, and ignorant rants. Get a job or something man.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Why do GM fanboys get so vagina hurt about constructive criticism?

        Let’s be perfectly honest: 90% of prospective buyers of any “flagship” Cadillac would prefer a LS V8 in this “flagship” than any of the motors Johan SoHo Zohan will try to shove down their throats.

        BE HONEST.

        *And it would be a more reliable, less expensive to maintain, proven quantity of an engine, too, with the additional bonus that THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS ARE ALREADY FULLY COVERED!!!

        BRILLIANT!!

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          “90% of prospective buyers of any “flagship” Cadillac would prefer a LS V8”

          The limo and fleet market doesn’t care what’s under the hood. They’ll go for the one with the lowest operating costs. That’s got to be more than 10% of the market. Add-in the realtor crowd, and those that don’t even ask what’s under the hood, and you’re closer to 10% wanting a v8 than 90%.

          Maybe your idea of “prospective buyers” should be re-labelled “former Cadillac buyers (currently deceased).”

          • 0 avatar

            in a nutshell heavy handle: exactly. The v8 is dead. No amount of tuning or adjustment will save it.

          • 0 avatar
            el scotto

            10% wanting a V-8 in a Caddy, Mark XII, or an Imperial sounds about right. The same 10% would also like 3 roll 2 sack suits and well shined weejuns. Since ya can’t get a V-8 in Caddy, a Mark XII (or whatever the motor company deems the next Lincoln)and how FCA needs some more luxurious than a 300 (and it is a fine automobile on its merits) but cheaper than a Maserati; we’re driving leather equipped V-8 SUVs and trucks. And no, Escalades are rarely used to haul horse trailers or boats.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          So basically your first criticism is that (you erroneously think) they are going to use the same-old, same-old 3.6 engine, and then your next criticism is that they SHOULD use the even more same-old, same-old LS…

          Check.

          And the other criticisms run the same way…why aren’t they developing new engines rather than using the same ones, and also why are they developing new ones, because they’ll just have a lot of teething issues.

          Tough (sounding) crowd.

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          The bulk of buyers for flagship sedans in the future will be FI 6 cylinder engines.

          And it’s not like the CT6 (and CT8) won’t be getting a V8 (Cadillac is working on a brand new FI V8 as well).

          I doubt we’ll see the 2.0T for the NA market, but both BMW and Audi sell 4-banger equipped 7 Series and A8s in other markets, so criticizing Cadillac for doing the same is lame.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          Lets be honest, as Jack pointed out a couple of years back, you can drop $80,000 on a BMW 5-series and have a turbo 4 under the hood.

          The market has spoken.

      • 0 avatar
        Varezhka

        2.0T comment comes from Johan de Nysschen himself.

        https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/02/de-nysschen-cadillac-ct6-likely-gain-twin-turbo-v8/

        I guess he never said it will be a base engine “for the North American market”, so we can still hope for the best.

    • 0 avatar
      gzuckier

      Look at Buick. Smaller engines are going to be the future. Because: customers in China buy them. And they’re the new frontier of car sales.

    • 0 avatar
      mfrank

      The target market for the CT6 is China and the 2.0T will probably be the most popular engine.

  • avatar
    JEFFSHADOW

    I’ll just keep my 1985 Eldorado Business Coupe and my recently-acquired 2000 Eldorado ETC!
    They just don’t make ’em like they used to. . .

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    This is the Caddy that comes with a free “The Greatest Hits of the Kinks” in MP3 and an Andy Warhol picture on the front of the service manual.

    What are they thinking at Caddy?

    Wow, I think General Motors has to reign in the people at Caddy so they can produce a competitive luxury vehicle.

    It’s poor when their best selling vehicle is a Silverado station wagon.

    I wonder if Caddy will be around in 5-10 years?

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      They release specs on 2 new engines, yet your comment is “what are they thinking”.

      Yea, what are they thinking for getting 400 horsepower out of 3.0L……

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      When it comes to gasoline engine design, any one of the engineers on this new engine, knows approximately 273 times as much as you do, BAFO. Remember your idiotic comments on the Ford 2.7 V6 based on fuzzy images in Popular Mechanics? Or your thoughts on the aluminum body Ford F150

      You are undoubtedly a genius of the first order.

      My question is, what the hell are you doing futzing about in the Northern Territory of Australia, when the world needs you to lead it?

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      Isn’t this “new” turbo V6 just an update of the Holden-manufactured turbo V6?

  • avatar
    MrGreenMan

    Hopefully they make a DeVille before too long, even if they must call it a CT7:

    Make the vehicle wide – as wide as a Panther – definitely not anywhere near as narrow as the XTS. Why? Luxury is space.

    Make it use a V8 from the Corvette or Camaro. Why? It will be reliable. It will be powerful. It will roar like a Cadillac from memory, or an Escalade.

    Do not put any controls for the windows or doors on the center stack or next to the shifter. Why? Do not remind us that the American market does not matter to you anymore.

    Luxury is not gadgets. The bespoke engine is the stupidest thing Cadillac could do, because they can never do it right and make it check all the boxes. Just own that the General goes to war with its Chevy V8s and stop pretending.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    Dear GM,

    You make the best gosh darn V8 engines in the world. How freaking hard is it to drop an LS or LT in? No stupid costly bespoke V6 necessarry just do what you do best a pull a freaking V8 in from the corporate parts bin.

    Sincerly,

    America

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Sigh. Really, “bespoke” again?

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      I agree. If you talk to people that don’t particularly care for GM, and mention the LS/LT motors, they will still admit that they are impressive. I have no idea what GM is thinking. How is a V6 going to compete with a turbo V8 from Mercedes?

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        GM has already said that they are working on turbocharged V-8 engines, along with the new lineup of V-6 engines. They also mentioned a plug in hybrid for the CT6.

        • 0 avatar
          Mandalorian

          Why reinvent the wheel? GM makes world-beating V8s as it is. With cylinder deactivation and proper tuning, an LS/LT would probably be equally if not more efficient than a V6.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            Then youd all be belly aching about that, too. If it was a (any!) version of their V-8, youd all be screaming about “why put a middling Silverado engine in a Cadillac?! Why not something new, like a 400 horse twin turbo V-6 or an upgraded 3.6L? THAT would be the ticket!”

            It wouldnt matter if Lincoln or Cadillac offered a car made of pure gold that weighed less than a Cruze, had 500 hp with 45 mpg and cost $30k fully loaded. Youd all be saying “is that all? Theyre not even trying! Im going to lease another Audi!”

            Its obvious that neither brand is about to win any points from the (import) badge snobs that make up the majority of TTAC commenters no matter what they do. My advice to them is to ignore the armchair quarter backs, as none of you would buy from either brand even if their cars were deemed absolutely perfect in every possible way.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Why would I complain about the 6.2L being in the new car, the only thing I could possibly complain about engine-wise at that point would be the fact they put such a small V8, but I would also rationalize they don’t have a larger engine ready to be thrown in there and realize the 6.2 would really give them a quality engine.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “Its obvious that neither brand is about to win any points from the (import) badge snobs that make up the majority of TTAC commenters no matter what they do.”

            Ummm, the people around here that have been the most critical of Cadillac’s recent moves are likely the biggest FANS of General Motors on TTAC.

            I hate GM so much I’ve owned 18 vehicles they’ve built. I like GM and Cadillac. People wouldn’t be filled with so much vitriol if they didn’t care about the brand in the first place.

            The thing is, GM has rejected us. They don’t want their traditional fanbase to buy Cadillacs anymore. I’m sure it kills them that they have to keep the Escalade alive to keep the lights on.

            I hope for their sake that there are enough “badge snobs” and non-NA residents willing to give Cadillac a look because that’s all they have left with these new products.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      I guess absolutely nobody remembers this very same V6 turbo engine in the SRX?
      We also saw it in a few Saabs, dating back almost 10 years.

      The only thing new about it is that they shipped the tooling back to the US (from Australia), and they’ve updated the electronics.

      Off topic: “bespoke” means custom made to order for each client. Maybe Koenigsegg offers this service (adjusting each engine to the customer’s requirements), Cadillac doesn’t offer any bespoke engines. Any two engines are as identical as modern manufacturing can make them.

      • 0 avatar
        Mr. Orange

        We know for a fact that the bottom of the engine and the top are not the same. So how can you call it the same engine.

        And wasn’t the turbo engine in the SRX a 2.8 liter.

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          OK, same engine family then. Of course it’s not the exact same engine from 2006.
          The good news is that this particular engine family hasn’t been too troublesome. It should do just fine in the CT6.

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      Again, Cadillac is working on a brand new V8 – the LS/LT aren’t exactly suitable for luxury duty.

      The new V8 is going to be much better in the NVH dept., and have better lower-end torque and fuel economy.

  • avatar
    VenomV12

    Nothing says flagship like a V6, nothing.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      Audi A8 3.0L?

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        Wouldn’t that be a base model A8?

        I thought most A8s came with V8s.

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          The base model A8 (as well as the 7 Series) in other markets comes with a 4-banger and the majority of sales for the US is made up of the 3.0T.

          The CT6 will get an 8 cylinder and let’s remember that the CT6 is just the SWB flagship; the LWB flagship will be the CT8.

      • 0 avatar
        VenomV12

        Nope, no one respects you with a V6 Jaguar XJ/A8 etc. It’s like buying Armani Exchange and thinking people will treat you like you bought Armani.

        • 0 avatar

          +1 VenomV12

          Dang, I gotta remember that one.

        • 0 avatar

          I recently had a Jaguar XJL Portfolio AWD with the 3.0 liter six. I didn’t notice any sign of disrespect and the only comments that I got were things like “Nice car” and “How much does it cost?”.

          About 90% of luxury nameplates sold in North America have six cylinder engines.

          I’ll have to check production figures on pre-Ford Jaguars, but it’s possible that a majority of Jaguar XJs made since the model was introduced in the 1960s have had six cylinder engines, specifically the 4.2 liter inline DOHC six.

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          Well, if that;s the case, then all those A7 owners don’t get “respect” – which I don’t think is the case.

          And among auto enthusiasts, a supercharged V6 XJ should get more respect than a V8 equipped LS460.

          Plus, this is all moot anyways, as the CT6 will also get an FI V8.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    So instead of spending a couple million just doing a bore+stroke to the tried and true 6.2, they’re going to spend hundreds of millions on two engines that sound like they belong in a Camry.

    The 1990s may have been considered a bad time for cadillac but at least they produced recognizable products.

    Because, of course, what is luxury if you can’t get 30MPG driving your throwaway, soon-outdated, Euro wanna-be.

  • avatar
    MK

    Fuggin GM.

    this type of sh!t is why I hate GM.

    Every time I’m close to changing my mind on a GM product they pull something like this and just reaffirm my decision to never purchase another GM product.

    Sad. :

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    All of you complaining about the V6 engines should be complaining to the EPA. GM is building what the government wants, not what you want. All the lux makers with V8s will be building turbo V6s soon enough, if they want to sell in the US. GM is just ahead of the curve, not unlike when they radically downsized Cadillacs in the ’80s in anticipation of $4 gas.

    They blew it then, misreading the economy, and they might be blowing it now, misreading future government policy, but it’s their best guess in an environment where the customer’s preferences and the marketplace are trumped by regulatory mandates and a large dose of politics.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      The EPA only cares about MPG, not cylinder count. But *No V8* means they can count me out. And I’m not looking to set the damn Burgerkingring on fire either. V8s mean much more than just output figures. A V8 tuned for economy would be perfect.

      The CTS-V is nonesense. No one asked for it.

      Except V8 fuel economy is close enough to turbo V6s, currently, while tuned/geared for performance and or towing/hualing. Then add “cylinder deactivation” that I’m not sure V6s can do.

      And we’re not talking cars that sell on a grand scale either. Cadillac cars are more niche than anything.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        The C7 Vette gets 30 on the highway and even not bad figures in the city that any of the motors they’re going to offer in the CT6 will either barely best, or won’t best at all (the 2.0T isn’t some efficiency champ nor is the 3.6 a beacon of fuel economy – it’s a pig in the ATS/CTS/SRX, actually).

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          A 6.2 V8 Corvette tuned/geared for great fuel and much slower acceleration would get around 40 mpg? Add cylinder deactivation, hard tires, stop/start, etc, plus a complete hybrid set up?

          An 80+ mpg CORVOLT???

        • 0 avatar
          bunkie

          The C7 has both a low drag coefficient combined with low frontal area which is the reason that its highway mileage is so good. As we have seen with turbo motors, it’s not the size of the engine that determines fuel economy, but the amount of work it is being asked to do.

          Last year in a rented new-gem 3.6 Impala, I got a healthy 30mpg at a steady 75mph on my way from Florida to DC. Since this is the same platform as the XTS, I wonder how well it does on the highway.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        A V8 can be made to get very good fuel economy as you point out. The same or better than GTDI V6s in fact. One of the bigger hurtles though is cold start emissions. This is where about 90% of the measured emissions come from, before the catalytic converter is activated. V8s obviously have more cold start emissions than smaller displacement V6s.

        Starting the V8 in cylinder deactivation mode has been discussed but so far hasn’t materialized. Making that work would be a good way to continue development of those engines as pushrod V8s are great from a packaging standpoint, cheap to build, make good power and can deliver good fuel economy.

        • 0 avatar
          shaker

          “Starting the V8 in cylinder deactivation mode has been discussed but so far hasn’t materialized.”

          Seems like the thermal stresses on the block and heads would be a *big* problem.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          One wonders why they can’t put a small cat in just downstream (or even in) the exhaust manifold itself, like Honda does. (At least I think they do! LOL! :-) ) I know that if I wish to drive off right after I cold-start my Accord V6, I need a firm brake foot, or the car WILL jump ahead due to the high idle-speed; I believe the purpose of that is to light-off the front cat ASAP. I’ve learned to wait thirty seconds or so, until the idle settles down a bit!

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      All your arguments in favor of V8 economy make sense NOW, but the the EPA and NHTSA are planning to raise fuel economy mandates AND safety standards to the point that cars will be expensive, tiny, fuel-sipping tanks made of exotic materials, sold at prices only the very rich can afford. They’re working hand in hand with urban planners who keep coming up with clustered cubbyhole apartments withing walking distance to a trolley/bus station. GM is just planning for maximum sales right up to the time we’re all taking the bus, or the revolution, whichever comes first.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    At least the V8 Camaro sounds good. I guess that’ll be the Alpha car to get. Not bad, for half the price of this thing.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      If Chevy has lightened and trimmed the 6th Gen Camaro to the point that it weighs less than 3,200 lbs and one can see out of it, taken a lot of the superfluous plastic-y styling cues off of it, while improving the interior materials quality dramatically, it will have a chance at being a good car in its segment with the LS V8 and a crisp manual gearbox, because the Alpha chassis is a good one.

      Well, there’s probably a slim chance they will hit all these marks, unfortunately.

    • 0 avatar
      Firestorm 500

      @TMA1: Half the room, too.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Having read the Cadillac press releases, you have to be pretty impressed with these two engines from a technical perspective. As always results are what count, so actual operating smoothness relative to the Mercedes, Audi, Honda and Lexus V6s is all that will matter to the customer.

    With these new Caddy engines, this is one of the few times mention is made of breather galleys between crank throws to minimize crankcase compression effects, and also a two-part comprehensive PCV and oil-separator system. With any luck the engine should not exhibit much valve coking as do many DI engines.

    BMW also go on at length about breather galleys and air/oil separators, and although Honda makes no mention of it, the DI K24 also seems to have this feature seen as a casting slanting slightly across the lower engine block. Nobody wants to waste money putting in dual port/DI injection, except VW in Europe on the EA288 four because they’re gun shy and Toyota’s D4S which they leave off the 2.5 V6 Lexus and which does carbon up badly.

    All these engine designers meet at SAE technical forums anyway, and not much is secret except details. The new thermal management systems with strange and unusual coolant flows is a feature of most new engines for more even individual cylinder management. Ditto variable displacement oil pumps.

    Thank goodness they didn’t go with turbos in the Vee like BMW and Audi. Way to cook the hood! Or adopt otherwise unnecessary complication to cool the area like the Germans have to do. Plus, GM has bucked the trend of going to long stroke chuffing engines, and frankly over the years they have consistently produced extremely technically competent engines, WHEN the budget allowed. So to see that this thing can really rev is a delight.

    • 0 avatar
      Fordson

      Well, no…because in order to appreciate these engines from a technological perspective, you have to HAVE a technological perspective.

      I’m not seeing too much of that from the coulda-had-a-V8 would-be marketing hotshots.

  • avatar
    dtremit

    de Nysschen announced last month that it *would* get a V8 — “eventually.” In other words, these are the launch engines. Why is everyone assuming otherwise?

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Because the launch engine sets the tone, read the Armani comparison above.

      What’s more respectable Old Navy as it has been established introducing a high end line, or Armani established and respected for quality as it is today introducing a low end line.

      • 0 avatar
        dtremit

        The V8 is likely to end up in a V variant (or its equivalent, I’m sure they’ll rename it). Every one of those has been introduced at least a model year after the initial model, going back ten years. Doesn’t seem to have hurt the image of any of their other models.

        And this isn’t a car for the Armani set; it’s Brooks Brothers at best, no matter what’s under the hood. It may be the current range topper, but it is only keeping that slot warm for the CT8/CT9 that arrives a few years later.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I understand the motivation of the V engines for their compactness, but I’ve always been a fan of the Straight (in-line) 8 and Straight (in-line) 6 because of their inherent smoothness.

          And I also think there is something very appealing in a fashionable car with along nose, like the classic luxury cars of the past.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Only putting the V8 in a “V” series car implies that it’s a burgerkingring car that doesn’t have a floaty luxury car feel or the smooth acceleration of a luxury product.
          The V6 should be reserved for the Camry fighter and the Burgerkingring designation should be left to BMW where it belongs.

          They should do a sand-flats test for American cars, how fast does it get to 100, do you feel stiff after driving 100 for an extended period of time, and does it float like the cars that made Cadillac a name known around the world.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I see this as an opportunity for de Nysschen to make a statement with the Cadillac brand, to make it something really unique once again.

            You may remember when GM decided to jump on the V8 bandwagon and chop off two cylinders from their 350 V8 block to make the 264cubic inch 4.3L V6.

            Why not make a special engine for Cadillac, like a V10 or Inline 8, using the same internal parts already on the shelf, installed in a unique engine block and heads?

            Cadillac, in the past, was always about being different, being better, being unique. What we have to day is a Cadillac that uses components from other GM brands that are easily outclassed by foreign offerings.

          • 0 avatar

            Oh you guys kill me. Floaty is luxury now? Most used word to describe Mercedes is tank, BMW sporty, Rolls or Bentley is grace. None invoke floatiness and the lack of control that implies. A Cadillac could and should be comfortable but not floaty.

            As to them being known around the world Cadillac is more known for appearances in movies and songs than anything else. They can do whatever they want with Cadillac around most of the world and no one would know the difference. This claim of world fame mostly comes fron ads. Kind of like the same way the north american baseball finals are called the “world series”.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            The “world” statement refers to the world recognizing cadillac as large Graceful sedans and coupes vs the Catera and other crap.

            Floaty doesn’t have to mean disconnected steering.

            But let’s be honest I drive through the Appalachian mountains 2-3 times a year, I have rarely been able to push my trucks to the limit unless I’m going down the side of a mountain doing 180 after 180 after 180 etc.
            The amount of times I can do something in a Mazda 3 that I can’t do in a BoF SUV on the east coast, is rare. A floaty ride is much more useful than something with a harsh ride that carves corners.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            HDC wrote:

            “I see this as an opportunity for de Nysschen to make a statement with the Cadillac brand, to make it something really unique once again.

            You may remember when GM decided to jump on the V8 bandwagon and chop off two cylinders from their 350 V8 block to make the 264cubic inch 4.3L V6.

            Why not make a special engine for Cadillac, like a V10 or Inline 8, using the same internal parts already on the shelf, installed in a unique engine block and heads?

            Cadillac, in the past, was always about being different, being better, being unique. What we have to day is a Cadillac that uses components from other GM brands that are easily outclassed by foreign offerings.”

            Here’s the math & marketing problem: Redesigning and manufacturing the wheel – as in designing and manufacturing 3 separate, new motors – maybe 4 or even 5 separate, new motors – can only make financial sense if there’s enough volume unit sales to effectively amortize the costs and at least recoup that investment (making an actual profit would be ideal).

            Johan has already blown billions between the marketing (Publicus Dare Greatly crap), move to SoHo, a quantifiable 570 million in retooling motor machine equipment at the Romulus plant (that’s just for a new motor and two modified ones), and other “things.’

            How many Cadillacs that will use these motors will actually be sold?

            Can Johan reverse the clear failure (volume sales, market share and $$$ losses that are the ATS & CTS)? Will the CT6 actually sell more than 30,000 units per year? (I doubt it will; I project they’ll price it way wrong and it will lucky to crack 25,000 sales annually WITH heavy incentives)

            Will the now Cadillac-exclusive motors be parlayed into other GM products (clearly yes), re-emphasizing the catch-22 that Cadillac can’t get the distance from GM & Detroit Johan claims he needs.

            These issues ignore the very big problems that GM HAS A FAILED HISTORY of introducing new, high tech, reliable engines, that SEDAN SALES PRICED AND POSITIONED IN CADILLAC’S DESIRED DEMOGRAPHIC ARE FALLING IN BOTH ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND RELATIVE TO CUVs and other platform, and there is a HUGE UNKNOWN WHETHER CADILLAC CAN EVER BE POSITIONED AS A SERIOUS ALTERNATIVE TO MERCEDES, BMW, LEXUS OR AUDI.

          • 0 avatar

            Hummer, we can agree to a karge measure here. I live in a terrain similar to what you describe and I don’t need or want a harsh riding car. Why do you think I usually don’t like VWs or Hondas? Exactly because of the suspension. Fun when fast uncomfortable anywhere else. However, BOF trucks and SUVs are just scary in the same conditions. Give me a dirt road and they’re the best. Anywhere else I pass. That is why I usually like my French cars, Fords and Fiats. They give a degree of control while not uncomfortable.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            DW, I completely understand your point and I am not a Caddy fan.

            But…., I see GM, Cadillac and de Nysschen as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, with the exception that this Titanic cannot possibly sink but will be buoyed-up by the US taxpayers, ad infinitum.

            With that in mind, I see an opportunity for de Nysschen to attempt something unique with this zombie luxury brand, because Cadillac will never be mainstream-luxury (which it is trying to be now.)

            And as far as bad Cadillac engines, the Northstar was not as bad as is generally held, and somewhat innovative in its day. What was really weird in its day was the Toronado/Eldorado 455 V8 FWD setup.

            I think that GM ‘bailed’ out on the Northstar before it was fully developed and refined, because, obviously, the Lexus 4->4.6 liter block is patterned after the Northstar and the Ford 4.6L, and the heads are a mix of Northstar and Olds Fourcam technology.

            I agree that billions have been wasted on a brand that should have died a long time ago.

            But, we, the people, are stuck with GM and Cadillac forever, thanks to cousin O, and were forced to resuscitate a dead automaker to keep the UAW employed and living high on the hog.

            Sooooooooooooooo, GM and Cadillacx cannot lose!

            Let me re-emphasize that: GM and Cadillac cannot lose!!!

            They may lose billions upon billions and the US taxpayers will fund them again if need be, no matter who is in the White House and who controls Capitol Hill.

            So far, GM is in to the US taxpayers for $10B — an insignificant amount in a $18Trillion+ public debt.

            So why not make special engines for Cadillac? Remember when they (Cadillac) were toying with a V12 and a V16?

            I bet that would sell a few. More than today!

            Likewise, I say a Straight 8 would also be attractive to those who can afford luxury. There’s something automotively sexy about any long-nosed car and I bet a lot of ladies would choose to buy or lease one.

            It’s even better than a cucumber.

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          I’d say the CT6 is more akin to Armani Collezioni and the CT8 will be akin to Giorgi Armani.

          And if Cadillac ever decides to go higher (to compete with the S Class Maybach), it would be Armani Prive and an Omega-based 4-door coupe would be Emporio Armani (for the trendier, younger set).

      • 0 avatar
        bd2

        So then – why doesn’t BMW and MB come out with their M and AMG versions 1st?

  • avatar
    bts

    Judging from Cadillac’s highest selling product the Escalade, I don’t think engine NVH plays much of a part in the buyers decision.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Massive sound-deadening materials are used extensively throughout the Escalade to set it apart from the Suburban or Tahoe of Joe Sixpack and Sally Homemaker.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    I’m with the straight 8, nothing says a bigger FU to the rest of the industry than bucking the tired turbo4/6 and putting an engine that is unlike anything else in the industry.
    Hard to not get excited about an inline 8.

  • avatar
    jdogma

    I read that there is a patented air to liquid intercooler design on the turbo 3.0 6. Anybody have any info on that?

  • avatar
    LectroByte

    Sounds like a nice engine, maybe if GM can put it in a truck or a crossover it will help them retain their market share.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Why do automakers insist on NOT LAUNCHING products with the cream of the crop in things like engines.

    As others have said: It sets the tone. You want to introduce a V6 version in a model year, go ahead.

    Its like the automakers who introduce a “Granada” before a “Versailles”. The public perception is much better if you introduce the “Versailles” first.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      With GM, new model development time still takes far too long, and they’re forever playing catch up with more nimble makers. So, they put out what they’ve got, still developing on the fly, when they need a timely reveal to keep up. They’ve always cut corners in production to keep prices low, and cutting corners to speed up new model reveals to match competitors is just another variation of the same old tune.

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      Again, it’s the same reason why MB and BMW don’t start with their AMG and M versions.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    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.

  • avatar
    Nick

    ‘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.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dal20402: It is definitely a good way to convert fuel into noise, which will be its primary application.
  • schmitt trigger: Have to give credit where credit is due: USA automakers are second to none in the design and build...
  • FreedMike: “…yes fear of guns and fear of repercussions stops crime.” Well, then, since we have...
  • ToolGuy: Does anyone still look at power-to-weight ratios? (Guess not, nevermind.)
  • pmirp1: Lou_BC: “LOL. I’m not going to shoot someone because they are stealing something out of my yard.”...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber