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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

eddieroolz

Splendid
Moderator
[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]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.[/citation]

Yeah, a 2.5L turbo in a $61k car. I'm sure the people buying this would be looking forward to hearing the wastegates at every turn. /s

 

rosen380

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2011
422
0
18,780
0
What about Merc? Their E350 has a 3.5L with 302 HP, E550 4.6L 402 HP. Right around where Cadillac is at 86 and 87 HP/L respectively.

Sure, BMW and Audi stuff a turbo or supercharger into most of their cars, but they're getting up to around 100-110 HP/L, not 125, so I imagine they are doing it wrong too.

Bentley stuffs a 552 HP, 6L engine in their Flying Spur, that's only 92 HP/L and that is with twin turbo. the Mulsanne has an even bigger engine with less HP and still with a twin turbo [75 HP/L].

When Porsche made the Panamera Sedan-- it got only 83.33 HP/L

Maybe Rolls Royce knows something about engines and building luxury sedans... Nope. Phantom 67 HP/L; Ghost 85.

I guess Subaru is going to have to show all of these guys how to build engines.




 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,078
106
20,970
2
[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]Actually the one thing that these new generation direct injected high output V6s lack is torque. GM's very own 2.0L turbo has a variant that generates more torque bone stock than this V6. 295 ft-lbs, to be exact. Look at the Regal GS. So a larger version based on the new 2.5L Ecotec, for example, could generate more torque and about as much horsepower. Oh, and don't start with me on torque curves. GM's 2.0L turbos have absolutely WICKED torque curves that make V6s and small V8s envious. Like the older 2.0L LNX motor "only" makes 260 ft-lbs (about as much as this 3.6L V6), but it reaches this torque at a mere 2000 RPM and holds on to it almost to redline.

My point was that the reason they went with the V6 was 1) Reliability 2) Noise, Vibration, Harshness. The V6 is a better FIT for the luxury car, not better in terms of performance vs a smaller turbo engine. In the end I think Cadillac made the right decision. If they wanted to later they could incorporate the higher-performance heads that the CTS and Camaro use now for an additional 15-20HP without really changing anything else. If they prove to be solid enough for such a large luxury-type.[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]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......[/citation]While I agree with everything you said in principle... They have modern turbos available now that solve the performance issues. This 3.6L actually is less torquey than some of GM's 4-cylinder turbos, and the torque curve is actually not as good as their modern turbos. The reasons they went with this motor was NVH, reliability (to some degree), and the 3.6L probably got just about as good mileage in this particular application. So again, while I agree with their decision, the reasons they went with the V6 have more to do with what Colredpi and I have been talking about.[citation][nom]rosen380[/nom]I guess Subaru is going to have to show all of these guys how to build engines.[/citation]I hope you're being sarcastic. As much as I like turbocharged engines, HP/L is almost completely irrelevant. If you have two engines that perform the same, and get the same mileage, what does it matter what the HP/L is? Or what the displacement is? Some important factors are output (HP, torque, and the power curves for both), efficiency, durability, weight, and packaging. A good engine wins on those merits, regardless of displacement or power:displacement ratios. In other words, HP/L is only interesting from an academic "look what I can do" perspective.
 

danwat1234

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
1,392
0
19,310
9


Exactly. These new 4 cylinder turbo'ed engine have great torque. The Subaru 2.5 Turbo has more torque at a lower RPM than the V6 in this luxury car! Yea, 1 less HP, big whoop. So I guess you can tow more with a 2.5L Turbo than the V6. Sounds weird but that's how it is.

The 2013 Veloster has a 1.6 Liter engine with ~200HP and around the same ft-lb of tq at low, low RPMs. It's the opposite of a rice burner, you don't need to down shift to pass.
 

danwat1234

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
1,392
0
19,310
9

LOL good point. Maybe they could make the wastegate real quiet..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS