Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Cadillac CTS/CTS-V

1157158160162163215

Comments

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,688
    I thought the 3.6L puts out 255 hp - the 3.9L OHV only puts out 245 hp. Sounds like the OHC engine puts out more power with less displacement to me.
  • "I thought the 3.6L puts out 255 hp - the 3.9L OHV only puts out 245 hp. Sounds like the OHC engine puts out more power with less displacement to me."

    So?

    Displacement is a relatively unimportant measure of engine size. The 3900 is - reportedly - around the same size as GM's 4 cylinder Ecotec 2.2L. And it costs $1K-$2K less to make than the 3.6L DOHC. That's power density and value that's hard to beat.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,688
    The point was this statement:

    "Based on these two engines from GM DOHC/SOHC designs are not more powerful than OHV."

    was incorrect. It didn't say anything about value or efficiency. It said OHC designs are not more powerful than OHV designs. The data that was given does not support that conclusion since the smaller OHC engine actually puts out more power than the larger OHV engine.
  • Its not smaller, that's cornell's point. Displacement is not the true measure of engine size. What matters is how much you can squeeze under the hood of the car, so total engine volume is a better measure.

    Why do you think they used the 5.7L vette engine in the CTS-v? Because its smaller than the 4-4.5L northstars that won't fit in the CTS engine bay. The true measure of efficiency is Power/Fuel consumption. Power/Displacement is pointless.
  • jemillerjemiller Posts: 183
    Bingo! DOHC heads are very bulky. What matters is overall bulk, weight, BSFC, and flexibility.

    Typically OHV wins the first two, the problem has been making it competitive on the latter two points. It's reasonably possible to do so (see LS1/LS6) but takes very sharp pencils.

    DOHC gives you the ability to do variable valve timing, which isn't as yet practical with a single bumpstick in the valley. Which typically means you're going to get a fatter, smoother torque curve from the DOHC engine.

    There is no one right approach.

    As for $1000-2000 per unit cost advantage for the OHV vs DOHC engines, that might be a little high; the 3.6 was designed to be a cheap engine to build, and it's being used as the base engine in the Aussie Holdens which, at the lower end of their line, are US$20K cars.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,688
    Physical engine size is only an issue to car builders and even then only in a few models where a large engine is desired in a smaller vehicle. Even then, having a smaller form factor simply allows the OHV engine to have a much higher displacement (5.7L vs. 4.6L e.g.) thus making more power.

    But power and fuel economy are directly related to displacement. An engine is an air pump - pure and simple. It needs fuel to mix with the air to ignite it. More displacement = more air which requires more fuel = more power. Or you can get the same effect with a turbo or supercharger. More air requires more fuel = more power. Why do you think GM is trying to reintroduce capacity on demand where it shuts off half the cylinders? To save fuel!

    So I think it's more accurate to say that OHV designs allow bigger displacement within the same physical dimensions which may in turn yield more power than a OHC engine of the same dimensions.

    But as jemiller points out - it's all a compromise. You could have the same argument about V6 and I6 engines.
  • "But power and fuel economy are directly related to displacement. An engine is an air pump - pure and simple. It needs fuel to mix with the air to ignite it. More displacement = more air which requires more fuel = more power. Or you can get the same effect with a turbo or supercharger. More air requires more fuel = more power. Why do you think GM is trying to reintroduce capacity on demand where it shuts off half the cylinders? To save fuel!"

    Uhhh... Stop making stuff up, man.

    Fuel consumption is not as simple minded as "Gee, big combustion chamber burns more gas". It also depends upon how much fuel is being pumped in there each cycle, and how many cycles per second there are... Not to mention what temperature the engine is running at (Carnot Cycle, anyone?).

    Why did Honda introduce hybrid technology on little Civics that already get high fuel economy? Because they were gas guzzlers? There goes your logic. GM is introducing DOD on its OHV engines because it's a cheap and easy technology to implement, that will drastically improve GM's CAFE ratings. Yup, no more selling Cavaliers at $3,000 loss to move Hummer H2 (or at least not as many as before).

    The fuel economy numbers for GM's new OHV engines are very good. Chevrolet Malibu's 3500 is among the best in class. Cadillac CTS-V will beat the hell out of the M5 when it comes to fuel economy, and trump the puny M3 as well.
  • wwhite2wwhite2 Posts: 535
    Calling host , Calling host someone has an attitude problem
  • wwhite2wwhite2 Posts: 535
    You will really enjoy your CTS . I look forward to driving it each and every time .
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    "And it costs $1K-$2K less to make than the 3.6L DOHC. That's power density and value that's hard to beat."

    if the oHC costs that much more than why do hyundais all have it?

    a 9000 hyundai accent has it but a 40,000 buick don't.

    that DoD sure is taking FOREVER to hit market. I've only heard about it for like 3 years now.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    Probably cost a couple hundred dollars more, if that.
    A good estimate is the 4 times rule.
    If it costs GM $50. Then it's the MSRP will be $200.
    Optional items that cost $50 will have an even higher MSRP.

    The 3.5L DOHC motor was a $500 option on the '99 Oldsmobile Intrigue.
    Gm was probably subsidizing that.

    On my '84 Z28, the H.O. engine package which consisted of a Corvette cam, cat con, dual snorkle air cleaner and electric cooling fans was $505.

    it is thought that the dollar to yen advantage that japan has is allowing them to offer OHC engines at a significant cost advantage.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    by the end, Intrigues were selling cheaper than Grand Prixs and Regals even if their stickers were insanely high.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,688
    So, exactly what part of that paragraph did I make up? You obviously don't understand how internal combustion works. There has to be a certain ratio of fuel to air or you get problems - too rich or too lean. You can add air by forced induction or you can increase the volume of the cylinder - in both cases you must increase the amount of fuel accordingly or the engine will run lean and that's not a good thing.

    "Why did Honda introduce hybrid technology on little Civics that already get high fuel economy?"

    TO GET EVEN BETTER GAS MILEAGE. Especially at idle when the engine can be shut off entirely. 10-20 extra mpg is a lot no matter where you start from.

    "GM is introducing DOD on its OHV engines because it's a cheap and easy technology to implement, that will drastically improve GM's CAFE ratings."

    Gee - isn't that exactly what I said? They're doing it to improve fuel mileage and reduce fuel consumption. You do know that CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy - don't you?
  • bingomanbingoman Posts: 373
    Has anyone had any experience with tire cables for winter driving?

    GM says do not use tire chains on the CTS. They say to use 'another traction device but only if the manufacturer recommends it for use on your vehicle', which I take to mean cable type devices. But which manufacturers recommend their device for the CTS. I think this is a CYA line for GM. If the device fits and has clearance it should be usable.

    If anyone has used chains or other traction device I would appreciate hearing from you.
  • jhl4jhl4 Posts: 18
    How can I remove these stickers that advertise where I bought my car? One looks like a clear sticker which I should be able to peel once I get a corner up. The letters look like individual stickers. Looks a little harder.
    Anyone with some suggestions?
  • jhl4:
        The first thing to do is to wait and be very careful! DO NOT attempt to remove it with a screw driver or some other tool that you might choose to see if you can loosen the sticker just enough to peal it off.
         I've seen owners, salesmen, and dealer body repair guys do permanent damage trying to remove dealer logos and stickers.
         There are several techniques/tricks to remove them without permanent paint damage. Some techniques involve heat (hair dryers), liquids, and other "magic" processes.
          I refuse to buy a car with a dealer logo or sticker attached to the paint of the vehicle. It chaps my behind that some dealer toad will stick an ugly 95-cent sticker on a $20K - $40K car (and 50% of the time put in on crooked). I've discovered that when I get to the point where removal of the sticker becomes a "deal stopper", most dealers find someone who can remove it without leaving a telltale spot on the vehicle.
         I suggest you take the car back to the dealer and ask them to remove the sticker for you. They probably have experience removing stickers from trade-ins. If you don't have confidence that your dealer can do it without damaging the paint, I have two other suggestions.
         1) Take it to the body/paint shop in your area that has the best reputation for excellent work. Pay them to do it correctly.
         2) Standby on this site until someone else provides good advice that you feel you can trust.
          Until you feel very comfortable with recommended solutions, revert to my original advice to wait and be very careful.
          Good luck. If you are patient, I'm sure someone will have a good solution for you.
  • wwhite2wwhite2 Posts: 535
    Heat will soften them . Be careful if you use a heat gun.
  • automoleautomole Posts: 154
    YIPEEEEE!!!
    After driving the 2004 3.6 my impression was that it was still underpowered and not a significant enough change from my 2003 to warrant a trade-in.
    With the announcement of the CTS Sport I think I know what my next car will be...

    The added features (particularly the supercharger) sound great...I just wish they didn't add a stupid rear spoiler!

    Is it just me though, or doesn't it seem like a supercharger and custom exhaust should boost the HP more than 50?
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    Probably underrated on purpose so as not to make the guys at Turbohydramatic suspicious.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,688
    If they're plastic or metal you can use dental floss - lay it flat against the edge then use a sawing motion while moving it underneath the decal. Use bug and tar remover or WD-40 to remove any residue.
  • A couple of reasons for only a 50HP increase could
    be:

    1. They would need to beef up the 3.6L to handle
    more boost.

    2. Don't want to surpass the 4.6L Northstar.

    I think the spoiler's got to go too. That's why
    it's called a spoiler. It spoils the look of
    the car.

    The CTS sport needs a 6 speed manual option
    and Stabiltrak (as an option at least). From
    reading the release, it does not imply it will
    necessarily be produced. It might be worth
    an e-mail to Cadillac and give feedback.
  • bxd20bxd20 Posts: 68
    The base car desperately needs a lil kick in the pants aesthetically, as an option anyway. If I could have only one thing, I'd want the V series 18" wheels. Please don't give me a different style Cadillac. See MB & AMG and how they a la carte body kits, wheels, etc.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 3,256
    EPA? I knew you could.

    Much of why we need to deal with the vehicles we do today has to do with CAFE and other requirements of the U.S. EPA. Canada goes along for the ride, but it's a real trip to see what vehicles are available in Europe, absent these requirements. I'm sure Australia has a similar bevy of attractive vehicles. One of the options is to move to Australia or Europe.

    You'll not be surprised to learn that I consider that a completely viable concept, for a variety of reasons. I'm confident that most of you don't, but what we're fed here for vehicles absolutely don't represent the best of what's available.

    Please take a long trip and tell me I'm wrong.
  • jemillerjemiller Posts: 183
    Yes, the Holdens make 99.9% of what GM builds in the US look like crap. No question.

    They are traditionally 'American' cars - very roomy, not great material quality but better than the present-day US standard, big lazy engines. IMO their material quality is at least as good as the CTS, you get exactly the same headliner material on a US$18K Falcon rentacar.

    They also have real, MODERN, rear-drive chassis - okay, the Fords feel a little better, but the Holdens are very good. Once again, traditionally American but unlike most of what Detroit builds now - the only well-balanced, modern rear-drive sedans built in the US are the Lincoln LS and CTS, both of which are a couple price notches above the Aussie product.

    So why don't we get something like these in the US?

    CAFE is unquestionably one reason, probably the biggest reason US cars aren't more like Aussie cars (and a significant part of why US auto buyers have abandoned cars for trucks.) They're comparatively large cars with large engines.

    Also, once upon a time Detroit was almost universally rear-drive, but in the meantime a lot of 'em have drunk so much of the FWD Kool-Aid that they've convinced themselves that RWD is weird and somehow un-American. Well, maybe in certain corners of the snow belt FWD has some advantages, but people there drive Audis, Scoobys, and trucks anyway.

    Funny, though, that FWD is supposed to provide 'packaging' advantages - more room for a given size vehicle - the Falcons and Commodores are smaller than Tauruses and Impalas yet a good bit roomier despite being RWD. They're a couple inches longer than the CTS, and that room goes straight into the back seat. The stretched Holden, the Caprice/Statesman/Senator, is up at least in Town Car territory room-wise, yet still smaller than a Dodge Intrepid.

    EPA and DOT regulations have little to do with it, the cars could easily meet US standards with little tweaking. A bigger issue is RHD - the Aussies drive on the 'wrong' side. The GM products are built in LHD form for Middle East markets, but so far as I know Ford can't build a LHD version of the present Falcon.

    And, finally, Lutz liked to pin the blame for the 20K-unit limit on GTO imports on UAW grousing.

    If GM would sell the Commodore SS here, I'd buy two. If Ford would sell the Falcon GT here, complete with its 2000 Cobra R-spec 5.4 engine, in the US$50-60K range I'd trade a BMW for it. Aesthetically, I like any of 'em better than the CTS, though the CTS-V mechanical package is as good as the Falcon GT.

    Fascinating how different markets react differently to similar product: Toyota can't get Lexus to make any kind of dent in BMW/Mercedes in Europe, and Toyota Australia is considering dropping the V6 Camry entirely because it can't sell against the GM/Ford products (and to some extent Mitsubishi.)
  • wwhite2wwhite2 Posts: 535
    YOu will be one of the first with a V > Did you get the recall on the tires ? You would get 37K miles of wear for free .
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    I know you guys will flip over this pic.

    http://bilder.autobild.de/bilder/1/41471.jpg
  • wow! i like it very much! obviously it is impossible to tell from this pic if the material quality is up to par with Audi/Lexus/etc.... but i like the layout very much. Its like a blend of Xlr and CTS styling cues. im very intrigued.

    craig
  • wwhite2wwhite2 Posts: 535
    I see a lot of my CTS interior in that photo . I can hear the bashing already . As my grandmother would say here come the "Johnny one notes "
Sign In or Register to comment.