Howdy, Stranger!

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





Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

1208209211213214302

Comments

  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Toyota's 5.7L has less power and torque and a lower redline while having no advantage in efficiency. Ranger rover's supercharged 4.2L only makes 390hp.

    Really? Let's see...

    Caddy Escalade:
    6.2L V8 with 403hp/417lb-ft = 65hp/67lb-ft per liter

    Toyota Sequoia:
    5.7L V8 with 381hp/401lb-ft = 67hp/70lb-ft per litter

    The only reason why the Escalade 6.2L V8 is more powerful is due to the larger displacement.

    Ranger rover's supercharged 4.2L only makes 390hp.

    That's 93hp per liter mind you, SC though.
  • thanks for thelink
  • mr215mr215 Posts: 89
    I havent been in an escalade at idle but in other cars I can say idle is quiet and smooth. In any test where db ratings are provided you can compare noise levels between DOHC and OHV motors and the difference is minimal, if it exists at all.
  • mr215mr215 Posts: 89
    LOL, it was only a matter of time before the old hp/L argument surfaced. Its a meaningless stat, especially when comparing OHV engines to DOHC engines. An OHV engine needs more displacement to make comparable power because its 2 valves/cylinder. There is no way around that at all. Thats like saying a turbo engine makes more hp/L than a NA engine and is automatically superior. NA engines need more displacement because they cant get as much air into the cylinder as a FI engine. The bottom line is this: the Escalade doesnt suffer in any way by having an OHV engine. Its just as fast as the competition and gets comparable mileage. In the end that's all that matters. The driver of the Escalade probably cant tell you what type of engine is under the hood. Specific output is only important to people who are fans of Honda engines and want to brag about how much power can be squeezed out of a small motor. BTW, .5L isnt that small when tallking about V8 engines. OHV engines have come a long way. The 3800 V6 makes about 200hp while 3.5L V6s from Toyota and Honda make 268. thats a much larger difference than exists between the Toyota V8 and the GM 6.2L V8.
  • mr215mr215 Posts: 89
    "I can go on and on and on you know. "

    I'm talking comparable cars. Dont think the Boxter is comparable to the CTS-V or IS-F. Simple point was that for $60k the CTS-V will offer more bang for your buck. I'm sure you will disagree since it seems you arent a fan of Cadillac at all.

    I dont find it surprising that you dont like Fi engines since Cadillac is using one. MB and BMW also use FI engines but I'm sure that doesnt make a difference.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    I'm sure you will disagree since it seems you arent a fan of Cadillac at all.

    If I have to be a fan to agree with what you've said then you better look back to see if there is any flaw in your statement. A fair statement will get all kind of people to agree with it.

    I think if the new CTS-V to have MSRP of around $60k it'll be the best value in the ubber sports sedan class. Whether it's the best or not is yet to be seen since so far we have only the engine specs to compare. HP isn't everything, if that's the case, BMW should just pack up and go home with the new M3.

    You can search through my posts and you'll see I prefer NA over FI from day one that I posted here.
  • mr215mr215 Posts: 89
    "HP isn't everything, if that's the case, BMW should just pack up and go home with the new M3. "

    Agreed about the packing up and going home. The CTS_V is a proven entity so the notion that "its fast but we dont know about the handling" is a little hard to swallow for me. This isnt a big block 60s muscle car, its a sports sedan designed to go head to head with the best of Europe. The last car had the handling, power and steering to compete but lacked interior finesse and had problems getting the power to the pavement in hard launches. The new car obviously aimed to address those shortcomings and then some. Unless Cadillac has swapped the CTS' chassis with something from Toyota or Hyundai I don't see how this car cant be considered best in class. The pedigree of the V series cars has been vetted by the press for the last 3+ years so we know what to expect from these cars when the road gets curvy. On another site it was noted that Top Gear got better lap times from the CTS-V than the S4.

    I say you arent a Cadillac fan since you seem unimpressed with anything they offer and post more about the superiority of foreign brands than about Cadillac's resurgence. My statement had little to do with agreeing with my statements.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    To quote your original statement:

    'Simple point was that for $60k the CTS-V will offer more bang for your buck. I'm sure you will disagree since it seems you arent a fan of Cadillac at all. '

    So pretty much you were saying that if one is a Cadillac fan then he/she will agree for $60k the CTS-V will offer more bang for the buck. If not then he/she will disagree. However, if the CTS-V is truly and hands down the best bang for the buck at $60k then I think all people will agree regardless of being Caddy fans or not.

    Okay, let's compare the chassis between the CTS and 5-series, I think the general consensus from all the reviews is that although the CTS handles great, it is not yet a 5-series beater, not to mention the 3-series. So since the CTS-V, M5 and M3 are all built on the base models' chassis what will make me to believe that it'll out handle the Bimmers?

    Again, HP isn't everything.

    Also, just to remind you that I don't think the M3 and M5 are packing anything up to go anywhere soon.
  • The '08 CTS is on the "same platform" but not without a lot of changes in the last five years. You can also glean some of the limitations and changes of this car versus the last that have already popped up in some of the online arcticles, but I've also managed to have several discussions with former GM engine engineer in their performance division who used to drop by my dealership from time to time. You learn a lot from these guys.
  • The '08 CTS is on the "same platform" but not without a lot of changes in the last five years. You can also glean some of the limitations and changes of this car versus the last that have already popped up in some of the online arcticles, but I've also managed to have several discussions with former GM engine engineer in their performance division who used to drop by my dealership from time to time. You learn a lot from these guys.
  • mr215mr215 Posts: 89
    "Okay, let's compare the chassis between the CTS and 5-series, I think the general consensus from all the reviews is that although the CTS handles great, it is not yet a 5-series beater, not to mention the 3-series. "

    never seen that "consensus" view you speak of but perhaps I am alone. I will say that based on the numbers posted in instrumented testing the CTS is on par with the 5. The CTS is rarely compared to the 5 series because of its price even though they are about the exact same size. I cant be as nimble as a 3 series do its wheelbase length and weight although it did post a better lane change speed than the 328 in a recent comparo. I have seen nothing regarding the 2008 CTS indicating it cant handle as well as a 5 series. If you have a particular review in mind that states that feel free to let me know. I can tell you that C&D informally compared the CTS-V to M3 and last gen M5 (it had just been discontinued) in 2004 and said the Caddy was very comparable to the M5 and considering its price advantage was a great alternative.

    To be perfectly honest any driver with a bias can say the BMW handles better so the real measure needs to be objective, like a lap time at a track. Once the CTS-V comes out I'm sure someone will mention its lap time at the Ring and compare that to the C63, M3, etc. and then I think we will have an answer.

    "Also, just to remind you that I don't think the M3 and M5 are packing anything up to go anywhere soon. "

    M3 comes out a few months before the CTS-V. Its not being redesigned anytime soon. They are peers in price and unless the CTS-V has a secret flaw it should be able to do anything the M3 can do, only a little faster. when you get to this level of performance its hard to say which car is "better" per se since they all perform within a hair of each other. The question isnt whether or not the CTS-V can beat the M cars across the board, the question is if the car is a no excuses American alternative. The answer is yes.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    I agree, so let's wait for the performance test results before crowing the CTS-V the best ubber sports sedans.

    Also, you are so right on one shouldn't judge a car based on objective feelings and should focus on the cold hard facts like the slalom, skidpad, acceleration and braking test data. Once the full test has been done then we can see how well the CTS-V stack up against the competitors.
  • mr215mr215 Posts: 89
    now THAT makes sense.

    If I could afford a car in that range I would get one regardless. There is no way a few tenths of acceleration through the 1/4 mile or a foot longer stopping distance would dissuade me from buying this car over an $82k M5 especially since I dont even like the interior of the M5. For those who need to see the stats before being impressed I think its logical to wait until the mags get a hold of this car.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Personally, I am already impressed by this CTS-V. If Caddy is going to price it around $60k then you are right, who cares if it's tenth of a second slower in acceleration and 0.1g less in the skidpad. This will be the best value in the ubber sports sedan class no matter what.

    The only reason I might choose the M5 over this (if I win the lottery) is due to that it has been my long time dream car.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    The baby boomers do not want old people cars.

    When I made the comment that I thought Cadillac/GM was out of sync, I didn't suggest they should produce "old people cars". My comment was in response to some other posts indicating Cadillac was trying (or should try) to refocus their demographic target at a younger buyer.

    There is no doubt that the baby boomers today want a sexier car than the older generation did in the 70's. Just give them a sexier car, and embrace that market segment, as it is a big one.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 39,936
    "The 2008 Cadillac CTS (pictured) won Top Safety Pick honors from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."

    Kudos: Cadillac CTS Named Top Safety Pick by Insurance Group (Inside Line)

    image

    I think you get to enjoy that Top Safety Pick rating whether you wear a helmet or not btw. ;)

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    Well the cool thing about the V, is you don't have to re-program the engine to get maximum results. Yeah the M5, is still a cool automobile though.

    -Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    Sweeeet !!!! :shades:

    -Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    Here's some former "Standard of the Worlds" :P

    http://info.detnews.com/redesign/joyrides/index.cfm?id=706

    If any of you drive down I-40 west of Amarillo, Tx ya gotta go check this out !!!!

    -Rocky
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    Really? Let's see...

    Caddy Escalade:
    6.2L V8 with 403hp/417lb-ft = 65hp/67lb-ft per liter

    Toyota Sequoia:
    5.7L V8 with 381hp/401lb-ft = 67hp/70lb-ft per litter

    The only reason why the Escalade 6.2L V8 is more powerful is due to the larger displacement.

    Ranger rover's supercharged 4.2L only makes 390hp.

    That's 93hp per liter mind you, SC though


    Why does larger displacement mean one engine is better then the other? The 6.2 is physically smaller (and lighter) then the Toyota 5.7. Displacement is just total cylindar volume. That's why you won't see the 5.7 in a Lexus IS. It won't fit.
Sign In or Register to comment.