Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

aldw

Cadillac=Substance with style, that's what it is...

sls002

In the early 1900's European cars were hand built with custom parts. The parts were not interchangeable. So, if you had a worn out part, you had to take your car to the factory or someone who could then build a custom part to replace the worn part.

There were no European cars that could have been taken apart, with two other cars like it, and then, after mixing up the parts, put together three new cars from the parts of the three old cars. However, Ford model A's or T's (not sure which might have been in production) could have done just as well as Cadillac's.

rockylee

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=101188

Article Comments - 2008 Cadillac CTS First Drive

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f149765/0

-Rocky

fintail

Finally, GM is realizing that the interior DOES matter, even though many loyalists were very slow to admit that the insides were indeed a problem.

Looks like a nice ride, I can't see why anyone would buy a current one now.

rockylee

I can't see why anyone would buy a current one now.

-Agree Fintail......I guess the attractive lease deals and incentives have helped some take the plunge.

-Rocky

sls002

I think that the CTS was a good car for the money. The interior was not quite what I expected when I looked at a 2003. I did look at a Lincoln LS at a later time, and the interior was better, but not a lot better. I think that the SRX interior was too much like the CTS for the price tags that they put on the 2004-2005 models. I finally gave up on the idea of getting a 2006 program SRX in part because the 2007 interior was really quite nice. So, yes the interior does matter, and sales of the CTS should improve from current levels. The DI V6 won't hurt sales either.

torque/hp curve:
http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/domestic/graytabcontroller.jsp?graytabtype=1&rp- oid=36105&vehicleid=4824&regionID=1&section=oi_def

plekto

No, but I still have a first generation model with manual and the 3.6 engine in that nice metallic green on my top five list this winter.

It's a very VERY good used car. 15-16K for a few year old example and well, it's SO much better than, what, a Fit or a new Corolla?

EDIT: The new DI - look at that - diesel flat torque. Now compare that to a typical Toyota or Honda engine. (evil grin). That means you get full power at any speed or gear, as long as the pedal is down more than 1/4 the way.(probably 1/8th for most around town driving)

Most people are going to be shocked. That's the flattest torque curve GM has ever made.

rockylee

WOW, that new engine is indeed quite impressive.

-Rocky

fintail

To be fair, that can be said about a lot of used highline cars, but yeah, it has to be a nicer driven than a Corolla or some other appliance, even with the iffy interior.

I am going to Vegas in a couple weeks, I see you can rent CTS there. I'd almost think about it.

bumpy

EDIT: The new DI - look at that - diesel flat torque.

That's an artifact of the inflated torque scale on the chart. 700 foot-pounds? Come on, it's not a diesel. It's running 220 ft-lb at 1200 rpm (80% of peak), which isn't anything to get excited about these days. And what's with the VTEC-looking dip in the low 3000s?

This is what a flat torque curve looks like.

11.3 is pretty low compression for direct injection. 12 is about as low as any self-respecting engine builder should go.

bumpy

I am going to Vegas in a couple weeks, I see you can rent CTS there.

Rent a CTS-V and see how it compares to the E55.

fintail

I haven't seen those offered by any major firm, just plain CTS. I forget what the rate was, but under $100. I will probably get a S80/M35/A6 from Hertz, as I can get a discount.

I can get a S550 for $325/day from Dollar...but that's not gonna happen.

sls002

There are two peaks in the torque curve, which may mean a variable length intake manifold.

plekto

Compared to the imports, that IS a flat torque graph.

What's really important, though, is the under 3000rpm range where 90% of daily driving happens. An engine that's only putting out ~100-120HP at 3000rpm(and mile-tall gearing of course) is essentially no different than a little 4 cylinder turbo of old.

As for the compression ratio, yes, it's low. That's to be able to use standard gasoline. Or would you rather premium only?

rayainsw

“Compared to the imports, that IS a flat torque graph.”

There are exceptions to that sweeping generalization.
The current BMW 335i(xi) and 535i(xi) are prime examples.
At the flywheel, the torque curve of the 3.0L Twin Turbo motor is dead flat from approx. 1,500 to 5,000 RPM.

One ‘real world’ chassis dyno test:

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0609_c_bmw_335i_dyno.jpg

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0609_2007_bmw_335i_dyno_revised/

bumpy

Compared to the imports, that IS a flat torque graph.

Not really. There's a dyno chart floating around for the G37, showing its torque curve to be almost literally flat from 2200 rpm to 7200 rpm.

What's really important, though, is the under 3000rpm range where 90% of daily driving happens.

Anyone who buys a "sport" sedan with the optional high-output engine, then loafs it along at 2000 rpm all day long has wasted their money. They should have bought a Buick or an Avalon.

As for the compression ratio, yes, it's low. That's to be able to use standard gasoline. Or would you rather premium only?

Yes. A premium car with a premium engine should be designed to run on something better than dishwater. Computer controls can retard the timing and fuel maps to allow cars to run on crap gas, so there's no good reason to hobble the engine with low compression. Anyone making the payments on a $40,000 car should be able to afford an extra 20-30 cents a gallon.

rayainsw

" There's a dyno chart floating around for the G37, showing its torque curve to be almost literally flat from 2200 rpm to 7200 rpm. "

This one???

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0705_c+2008_infiniti_g37+dyno_chart.j- pg

bumpy

That looks like it.

plekto

There's a huge difference, though, between 2200-2400rpm and 1200-1600rpm in actual use.

Remember, despite it having all the power in the world, unless you can get a 6 speed manual gearbox with tight gearing in that "sports sedan" and then keep it in second gear around town(to get it into the 2500-4000rpm range - expect 16-18mpg!), you're stuck with loafing around town.
(of course *I* ignore gas mileage and do this - get about 250 miles per tank. 90% of people don't)

Mash the pedal - 3-4 seconds - 35-40 mph... torque converter locks up and you... "loaf". It shifts up a gear... you loaf. You want to unlock that torque converter and pass someone? Well, it's "loafing" at a whopping 900-1200rpm and you suffer a 2-3 second lag before it gets into its power band. The GM? Nope - none of that WOT-lag beahvior with this.

The BMW is an exception obviously because they use I-6 engines, which develop better torque and power for their displacement.(technically, the I-6 is the closest thing to a perfect engine that's possible from a power, weight, and efficiency standpoint - which is why BMW refuses to change)

P.S.
Though, you'll note that only TWO of the GM 3.6 applications are geared for low-end torque. The rest are no different from the standard stuff out there.

Go drive a CTS with the 3.6. Now, go across the street to the Buick dealer and drive the LaCrosse CXS. Same engine, same suspension, but which one drives better? Surprizing, isn't it? The CTS feels average. The CXS feels like a small block V8 from the 60s. Blip the throttle even a tiny but over idle and presto - maximum torque.

The new DI CTS seems to be simmilar - just without sacrificing HP to do it.

bumpy

There's a huge difference, though, between 2200-2400rpm and 1200-1600rpm in actual use.

Who would want to drive at 1200-1600 rpm?

As for the rest of it, it sounds like a torque converter is a death sentence for a good engine and a good reason to avoid the slushbox. Now, where's that manual Lacrosse?

plekto

Oh dear lord I wish GM made a LaCrosse with a manual...

rayainsw

“Who would want to drive at 1200-1600 rpm?”

Me, for 1.

My Corvette, in sixth gear shows 1600 RPM at approx. 73 MPH. A cruising speed I often find comfortable. Returning 30+ MPG. 80 MPH is approx. 1750 RPM.

But who’s counting . . .

- Ray
Happy at low RPM, cruising & happy at high RPM accelerating ( um ) briskly . . .

bumpy

Oh, a pushrod sure. They should have a little graphic of Mister Scott pop up on the HUD saying "She'll fly apart, cap'n!" every time the tach goes above 3500 rpm.

But who would want to run a DOHC V6 that slowly? That's like asking a thoroughbred to do a mule's job.

british_rover

That might be true of most pushrod engines but the new vette motors are not one of them.

sls002

My SRX V8 with six speed slush box cruises 70 MPH with the engine running at about 1800 RPMs. It does kick down on up hills to 5th with the engine bumping up to 2200 or so. I averaged about 21 MPG on a long trip (it is still new though).

sls002

Consider the following: take a pushrod engine - lets say this one:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/HPT%20Library/HVV6/20- - - 08_39L_LZG_Impala.pdf
Would re-engineering the valve train to have a DOHC instead of the single cam in block change anything? What I mean is to keep the two valve per cylinder design, with the same intake manifold and the same valve timing. I think below 6000 RPM's there would be no change in performance, torque or horsepower. Above 6000 RPM's the DOHC might possibly have bit more power, but with the peak horsepower at 5600 RPMs, it is more a question of falling off more slowly, not resulting in more horsepower.

The point of course is that with a DOHC design, one would have 4 valve per cylinder and separate VVT on the intake and exhaust valves. Then one gets something like this:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/HPT%20Library/HFV6/20- - 08_36L_LY7_CTS.pdf

The big difference between these two engines is the extra valves with the intake and exhaust timing variation independant of each other. The pushrods are irrelavant, except that they probably make putting more than two valves per cylinder difficult or of little real value.

lemko

I just noticed one of the license plate lamps was out on my 2002 Seville STS last night as I was putting it away. To replace this tiny 194 bulb one has to remove the fabric lining from the decklid, unfasten at least eight wing nuts and remove the entire taillamp cluster spanning the width of the decklid. Whatever happened to the days of simply removing a lens with a phillips screwdriver to access the bulbs? An unexperienced person would've given up and taken the car to the dealer at unnecessary expense to replace a bulb or ended up breaking the cluster which must be very expensive to replace.

bumpy

Cadillac owners aren't supposed to change their own bulbs. They're supposed to drive to the dealer, walk up to the service desk, pull out their money clip and throw a handful of Benjamins on the counter, and declare, "That should cover it, and Armor All the tires."

sls002

My experience is that light bulbs don't burn out that often. The cost for a half hours work at my dealership is about $35, which may seem a bit much, but for a bulb that lasted 5 years...

Of course if all the bulbs are starting to go one by one...

I doubt that Chevy light bulbs are easily changed either...

62vetteefp

exposed screw heads on the outside of the car pretty much have been gone longer than exposed screws on the inside of the car. Kinda poor to have exposed screws today. Be glad they were large wingnuts and did not require deepwell sockets.