Cadillac Has Impressive Car System, But Won't Offer Google

Status
Not open for further replies.

danwat1234

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
1,392
0
19,310
9
3.6L V6 with 306HP? Please, that's so 1990. 125HP/Liter has been achieved by Subaru, Ford and others. Why not make it a 2.5L Turbo and get the same power? They've figured out how to almost completely eliminate turbo lag too.
 

velocityg4

Illustrious
I just hope this isn't integrated with other systems in the car. I hate how many modern cars have the stereo integrated with buttons and information systems in the car. Then if you ever upgrade your stereo you end up losing a lot of functionality.

These systems are even worse since they will be obsolete and not interface with any of your gadgets after a couple years and lose functionality. At least in older car stereos cassettes and CD's lasted a long time as a major consumer item and AM/FM is still all over the place. Even then you could always just replace the stereo not the case with many other cars. At least my 09 Mustang doesn't have any of that BS.
 

huron

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2007
2,420
0
19,860
43
[citation][nom]velocityg4[/nom]I just hope this isn't integrated with other systems in the car. I hate how many modern cars have the stereo integrated with buttons and information systems in the car. Then if you ever upgrade your stereo you end up losing a lot of functionality.These systems are even worse since they will be obsolete and not interface with any of your gadgets after a couple years and lose functionality. At least in older car stereos cassettes and CD's lasted a long time as a major consumer item and AM/FM is still all over the place. Even then you could always just replace the stereo not the case with many other cars. At least my 09 Mustang doesn't have any of that BS.[/citation]

I'll agree with this. My car has the mpg, oil life, etc all through the stereo. I love having steering wheel controls, but if I upgrade, I'd lose some serious functionality.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"Showing Google's front page would not solve a problem, Hansen said."

^ Right, because GM can think of every possible reason anyone would ever want to use google search. GM is omnipotent. Sweet
 

bnjm

Honorable
Jul 22, 2012
1
0
10,510
0
nice to know GM can cover any and every good reason one would want to use google in there car.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
Seems to be Linux-based:
http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Cadillac-CUE/

Could load up VDrift so you could play while stuck in a traffic jam when you can't drive for real.
 

danwat1234

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
1,392
0
19,310
9
[citation][nom]steelyphil[/nom]lacks in horsepower? really? thats plenty for the average driver.[/citation]
Yea but a turbo 2.5L engine will get better fuel economy than a 3.6L non turbo if they do it right. As well as less weight.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,078
106
20,970
2
[citation][nom]velocityg4[/nom]These systems are even worse since they will be obsolete and not interface with any of your gadgets after a couple years and lose functionality.[/citation]I don't buy that. Just as there are tape adapters for connecting a portable CD player to a tape deck, if there's a market, someone will sell an "adapter" of some variety. Not to mention that bluetooth seems to have pretty good staying power in the market, and most cars use that now to communicate wirelessly with various devices. I suspect Bluetooth keeps backwards compatibility in mind any time they release a new version. [citation][nom]huron[/nom]I'll agree with this. My car has the mpg, oil life, etc all through the stereo. I love having steering wheel controls, but if I upgrade, I'd lose some serious functionality.[/citation]The aftermarket catches up. There are adapters for many vehicles to retain steering wheel controls with aftermarket radios. Also if it integrates vehicle programmability (reset oil life monitor, etc), some people relocate the factory unit (trunk?) and install an aftermarket one up front.

Besides, a lot of factory radios are pretty good. You might need to upgrade some of the other hardware, but the radio itself seems to be OK these days in most vehicles. Audiophiles will either buy upgraded stereo options from the factory, or will find a way to do it themselves - see above.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,078
106
20,970
2
[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]Yea but a turbo 2.5L engine will get better fuel economy than a 3.6L non turbo if they do it right. As well as less weight.[/citation]Well, this 3.6L is actually pretty light, and gets pretty good mileage for the size of the vehicle. If you take your 4 banger, add in the turbo, extra tubing, and intercooler, and a 2.5L turbo wouldn't be *that* much lighter. Even though I like them, smaller turbo engines aren't automatically better in every situation, either. GM has turbo engines in their lineup, including the powerful 2.0L turbo in the GS Turbo - lots of HP and torque (I think 270/295 stock), no turbo lag whatsoever. A slightly higher displacement (like the 2.5L you stated) would have made more power than even this engine. But the GS Turbo is a smaller lighter vehicle.

Yet their engineers chose this direct injected naturally aspirated V6. Maybe these engineers know what they're doing? Maybe there's more to a car than just power specs, or for that matter more to an engine than just power or fuel economy alone? The DI 3.6L has a proven track record, for starters. It's a solid engine, and it's a fairly big car. Maybe in their testing the 3.6L had better characteristics or durability for the kind of workload/RPMs it would be under. Maybe it was quieter, and smoother. I think anyone in the market for a luxury XTS would want a vehicle with a nice, even throttle response and a smooth engine. Noise, vibration, harshness. NVH - very important to your typical luxury car driver.

If you want a mean little turbocharged Caddy, keep an eye out for the upcoming little brother ATS. Built on Alpha platform, with available turbo 2.0L. I should also note that the DI 3.6L in the Camaro now has improved heads and produces 323HP stock. After a couple of years they may deem it a suitable upgrade for the XTS, if it doesn't hurt NVH characteristics.
 

inanition02

Distinguished
Sep 21, 2011
1,024
0
19,460
64
Between bluetooth and an AUX jack (which isn't exactly new technology) you should be able to connect any future source. Cadillac can update the firmware and software (or the user community can) via the SD card slot.

And as far as quality goes, I'm sure the fully-upgraded factory system is plenty good. Replace the speakers if you must, but why should you change the head unit?
 

Pawessum16

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2010
97
0
18,630
0
uses an impressive 800x480 pixel screen
Seriously? Who paid you? 800x480 is not an impressive screen resolution especially for an 8 inch device. That's the same resolution as my 4.5 inch smart phone. Where's the high def? I'd rather go without it, and stick a nexus 7 in my dash (or maybe a tablet with a few more bells and whistles).
At least fix your article please so it doesn't use the word "impressive." It's a dishonor to all the truly impressive things out in the world.
 

danwat1234

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
1,392
0
19,310
9
[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]Well, this 3.6L is actually pretty light, and gets pretty good mileage for the size of the vehicle. If you take your 4 banger, add in the turbo, extra tubing, and intercooler, and a 2.5L turbo wouldn't be *that* much lighter. Even though I like them, smaller turbo engines aren't automatically better in every situation, either. GM has turbo engines in their lineup, including the powerful 2.0L turbo in the GS Turbo - lots of HP and torque (I think 270/295 stock), no turbo lag whatsoever. A slightly higher displacement (like the 2.5L you stated) would have made more power than even this engine. But the GS Turbo is a smaller lighter vehicle.Yet their engineers chose this direct injected naturally aspirated V6. Maybe these engineers know what they're doing? Maybe there's more to a car than just power specs, or for that matter more to an engine than just power or fuel economy alone? The DI 3.6L has a proven track record, for starters. It's a solid engine, and it's a fairly big car. Maybe in their testing the 3.6L had better characteristics or durability for the kind of workload/RPMs it would be under. Maybe it was quieter, and smoother. I think anyone in the market for a luxury XTS would want a vehicle with a nice, even throttle response and a smooth engine. Noise, vibration, harshness. NVH - very important to your typical luxury car driver.If you want a mean little turbocharged Caddy, keep an eye out for the upcoming little brother ATS. Built on Alpha platform, with available turbo 2.0L. I should also note that the DI 3.6L in the Camaro now has improved heads and produces 323HP stock. After a couple of years they may deem it a suitable upgrade for the XTS, if it doesn't hurt NVH characteristics.[/citation]
+1 Excellent points sir. Yea I see a lot of the econoboxes on the market that get ~40MPG HWY EPA and some have 1.8L naturally aspirated engines, others have a 1.4L turbo engine, both get about the same MPG ratings and close to the same HP. Perhaps the turbos get a tad more HP/Tq like the Chevy Sonic. But it's not clear if the increased complexity of a turbo is worth it, or heck, if DI with high pressure fuel lines is worth it.
 

memadmax

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2011
2,492
0
19,960
95
You guys that are spouting off about the 2.5L turbo are missing one important spec: Torque.
A 2.5L turbo makes... meh, a little bit of torque and horsepower when you have it spinning to the moon... Whereas that 3 liter 6 popper will be making serious power at 3.5 grand on the RPM gauge, which is around the 65-75mph sweet spot, also, thats where you want power when you want to smash a honda off the line especially with a automatic....
 

danwat1234

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
1,392
0
19,310
9
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]Oh, and I forgot to mention, this car is heavy.... a 3 liter has the torque to pull that tank around.... save the 2.5L for your go cart hondas..........[/citation]

Good turbo'ed engines can get nearly as much torque as they have horsepower. Take the 2.5L Boxer engine from Subaru, WRX STI: 305HP@6K-RPM, 290tq@4K-RPM.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Of course Turbo engine at 2.5liters can pull off same torque values, but what matters in a luxury car is not only how much torque it does when floored, instead: Evenness, Noise, Engine behaviour on part throttle etc, it would feel very silly to drive a premium car with a Subaru performance oriented engine. Only thing i dont like that even premium cars have switched mostly over to V6 from the inline 6 due to space saving, i-6 which is much smoother running than V6 would make sense in a premium car.
 

memadmax

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2011
2,492
0
19,960
95
[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]Good turbo'ed engines can get nearly as much torque as they have horsepower. Take the 2.5L Boxer engine from Subaru, WRX STI: 305HP@6K-RPM, 290tq@4K-RPM.[/citation]

No no no... the torque curve is all wrong.
6000 RPMS??? 4000 RPMS???

What do you think cadillac makes? CART cars?
No, they make cars for grandma and grandpa... In fact, the cars' engine performance characteristics are the same as what all cars are designed for: Optimal fuel economy at 55 MPH, with the RPMs sitting at around 2800-3100 RPMs at this speed. This is why high revving engines suck for normal every day use, because we spend our time driving around at an average speed of 55MPH(combined, city/highway)

So, in short, a high RPM engine rarely reaches it's peak HP/Torque speed. That is why cadillac went with the bigger V6 because it can make low end torque, and they wanted the endurance. Turbos add more parts to break, something that grandma and grandpa don't want to have to fix while they are on their cross country road trip to Las Vegas......
 

GreaseMonkey_62

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2009
521
0
18,980
0
Not for me really. I don't want any sort of infotainment system in my car. I want a stereo that I can connect my smartphone too. I don't need a bunch of screens and buttons. I just want to drive.
 

teh_chem

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
902
0
11,010
17

This engine gets more horsepower than the Subaru WRX and pretty much the exact same mileage rating (19/25 for the WRX vs. 17/28 for this V6). Why complicate things with more parts? I'd much rather have a bigger block engine putting out the same power and gets the same mileage than having a turbo/intercooler/plumbing to worry about over the lifetime of the car. Plus you (theoretically) get better highway fuel efficiency. And both are all-wheel drive.



Couldn't agree more. GF has one of the 2nd gen toyota prius', and I HATE HATE HATE how the climate controls are integrated into the touch-screen interface, along with the radio, along with the car info, etc. You have to go through so many button-presses just to turn up the climate-control fan (luckily this is something they changed on the newer models). Why they thought that was a good decision is far beyond me.
 

jn77

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
587
0
18,990
2
[citation][nom]Zingam[/nom]Ugly American product!!! And pointless amount of HP??!!! WTF!!! Let's burn this planet at once and be finished already![/citation]

And some Cadillac's can compete with your boring italian sports cars at half the price with all the fancy toys inside, even air conditioning... go figure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY