2008 Detroit Auto Show: Cadillac CTS-V

Love it, but after seeing the coupe this looks bland in comparison.
 
Build the coupe, GM.

impressive indeed.

The M5 is now toast. The high tech V10 needs to go back to the drawing board. Besides, even if the CTS-V isn't faster, the is no replacement for the feeling of huge torque

The M5 is toast? What about the STS-V? It's like moldy bread with a vegemite smear.

"the is no replacement for the feeling of huge torque"
 
Sure there is: winning.

The 2008 CTS is, in my opinion, the best looking car on the market today.
 
This edition of the CTS-V is very disappointing from the pictures. It looks like GM tacked the 2007 CTS-V front end onto the current body style which throws the styling lines off completely.
 
GM has a real winner on it's hands with the 2008 CTS....the V should be much more visually appealing than what they're showing in Detroit.

jriz: I doubt GM will invest lots of $ into the STS-V since it will be phased out soon. However, the potential for improvement is there. Let us remember that its power was curtailed because of the 6L80-E's torque limit (439lbs-ft). Now that the new high capacity 6L90-E has been produced, additional boost can be fed into the 4.4L Northstar. It can also receive the new MR shocks as the first generation system could not handle a vehicle of the STS-V's weight and performance potential without overheating. I think they can easily reach 500 hp and 470 lbs-ft with the new 4 lobe supercharger which would compare nicely with the E63, S6 and M5.
 
boxermike: unless your daily driving includes a drag strip, i'll take 550lbs-ft over 383 @ 6200 rpm anyday.

"The M5 is toast? What about the STS-V? It's like moldy bread with a vegemite smear."
 
The STS-V is still a cadillac so if people buy the CTS-V instead Cadillac will be happy. I would assume the STS-V will die or get more power for 2009. What does that have to do with the M5 being outgunned by a cheaper car? Nothing as far as I can tell. Seems like you are making excuses.

The torque advantage is massive in favor of the CTS-V. I cant see that not adding up to better acceleration to 60 and through the 1/4 mile. The best thing about it is it will do all this for $20k less than the M5 and has a better interior. That counts for a lot.

Wow, the new caddy is going to blow the doors of the competition on the 1/4 mile, but can it turn without plowing or chewing up the tires? The CTS already is a heavy car. I think a new 2009 CTS-V will croosover $ 60,000.00 +

"unless your daily driving includes a drag strip, i'll take 550lbs-ft over 383 @ 6200 rpm anyday." -Chavis10
 
I'd prefer a nice 8,000+ redline, but I certainly wouldn't kick the CTS-V out of my garage!

I'm interesting in hearing pricing. If they price it around $60-65K, it would blow the RS4 and the Mercedes AMGs out of the water.

I wouldnt say the M5 is toast. Its currently still the most involved tactile super sports sedan you can buy. That V10 is simply marvelous even compared to the SUPERCHARGED SIX POINT TWO LITER V8 that the CTS-V will use. Im not doubting the CTS-V proposed capabilities but you shouldnt doubt the M5s either as being faster doesnt equate to being better.
 
Huge torque over high revs? Ill take the revs. Enjoy!
 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MG16Sx1ilOw

Honda- I would. Revs and torque do not have to be mutually exclusive (ie LS7). Revs and NO torque is unacceptable (ie Ferrari/Honda/Acura engines). The press falls in love with those types of motors since they remind them of race car motors however they sound pretty stupid in stop & go traffic. I just saw an SMG M5 crawling along in gridlock sounding as if it were in pain with the drivers head jerking along in rhythm. Meanwhile, a Z06s engine sounds as good off idle as it does at redline. Unless you're gonna continuously rev those peaky engines in low gears, the aural pleasure will rarely be realized.
 
iskch- I guarantee it won't be any sloppier than the much lighter E63 AMG.

My definition of high revs: 8000+!
  
Its amazing how some think Ferrari, Honda, Acura engines have "no torque" while comparing them to engines with much more displacement. Torque naturally comes with displacement.
  
Example: Ferrari 6.0L V12: 472lbft @4700
         Chevy LS7 7.0L V8: 470lbft @4800
  
The NATURALLY aspirated BMW 5.0 liter V10 certainly has torque and WILL put ANY GM V8 with SIMILAR DISPLACEMENT to shame in regards to torque output.
  
I have great respect for the GM pushrod LS series V8 as GM has certainly proved to be a pioneer in the area while being able to refine the concept with each new generation. On the contrary if pushrod engines are so great then why doesnt GM use them across the board (V6/I4)?

"On the contrary if pushrod engines are so great then why doesnt GM use them across the board (V6/I4)?"
 
They did for a very long time. The 2.2, 3.1, 3.4, 3.8 were all pushrod engines.
 
In small engines revs matter more then in large.

Firstwagon, I know GM used to use V6/I4 pushrod engines but if the design is THAT GOOD why not continue? Whats the reason behind them switiching to DOHC designs for the V6/I4?

Honda- it's quite simple but lets be clear: valvetrain is NOT the issue. It's a matter of 2 valve/cylinder versus 4. Valve actuation has absolutely NOTHING to do with the power generation characteristics of these two types of engines. Yes, I know there are fundamental flaws in pushrod actuation at extreme RPMs but that would not apply to large scale production engines who don't operate at such extremes.
 
2 valve per cylinder heads need more displacement to provide an equivalent amount of horsepower as a 4 valve/cylinder engine. So 4 valve heads make more sense in smaller lighter cars (ie I4s and V6s) while a 2 valve has the advantage in heavier vehicles with V8s. On average, 2 intake valves can allow ~ 1.6% more air into the cylinder at any given RPM compared to 1 intake valve. While the press has convinced us the more displacement is bad and inefficient, that is because they lack understanding of physics. The side effect of a larger 2 valve/cylinder engine is much higher torque for the same amount of horsepower. In truth, a larger displacement high torque engine can move a large mass more effectively than a lower displacement engine with equal horsepower. HP is the rate at which torque is applied so with HP of these two hypothetical engines being the same, the 4 valve/cyl engine is applying LESS torque at the same rate as the larger displacement 2 valver. On paper, if we see a 2 valve 3.8L V6 producing 200hp compared to a 4 valve 3.0L V6 making 200 hp we assume the 3.8L is waste of materials. However, the larger engine is applying a lot more torque at the same rate as the 3.0L which would help propel a larger vehicle much more effectively and if geared properly, more efficiently. Ask yourself how a 6.2L V8 w/o cylinder deactivation gets excellent mileage in a 3200 lbs vehicle? Because of the ample torque production, gearing can be extremely tall forcing the engine to turn at very low RPMs that would stall a smaller higher revving enigne.
 
Obviously, advances in OHC engines have begun to negate this advantage by using cam phasing and variable intake manifolds so I'm talking basic fundamentals here. Specific output is a worthless spec in my opinion but I know many other disagree. Nonetheless, a 7.0L OHV V8 is physically smaller than any naturally aspirated OHC V8 making similar power. I would like to see HP per pound of engine weight stats to further illustrate this point. I think you and others would be really suprised at the results.
 
"Its amazing how some think Ferrari, Honda, Acura engines have "no torque" while comparing them to engines with much more displacement. Torque naturally comes with displacement.
   
Example: Ferrari 6.0L V12: 472lbft @4700
         Chevy LS7 7.0L V8: 470lbft @4800
end quote:
 
This comparison does not hold water simply because the V12 will include 4 more power pulses per revolution when compared to the V8. It is interesting to note that it takes 4 extra cylinders to produce the same amount of torque as the V8.
 
"My definition of high revs: 8000+! "
  
and exactly how many none exotic cars rev that high? The LS3 and LS7 both rev higher than Toyota's high performance engine- the 5.0L V8 in the IS-F.
 
Contrary to the press and other influences who have deemed OHC 4 valve head engine superior in every application, there is solid engineering behind the decision to continue to develop the OHV 2 valve per cylinder V8. You may think it's all marketing and Bob Lutz hype, but there good reason behind it.

I apologize for the length and I hope that answers your question.
 
As far as the CTS-V is concerned, I'd like know what other engine solution you guys would suggest? The simple fact is for a vehicle this heavy, no other engine configuration could output equal horsepower AND torque without adding significant additional cost.

"That V10 is simply marvelous even compared to the SUPERCHARGED SIX POINT TWO LITER V8 that the CTS-V will use. Im not doubting the CTS-V proposed capabilities but you shouldnt doubt the M5s either as being faster doesnt equate to being better. "
 
Um, a four valve engine is going to need less displacement to generate equal power to a two valve engine. Nothing new here. The real question is what does the CTS-V lose by having a "low revving" V8 as opposed to a V10 with an 8000rpm redline. The answer is nothing at all. In regular driving you are not going to redline your vehicle, not even an M5. That being said, why would anyone get so excited over a sky high redline that will rarely be acheived. The CTS-V has the more flexible and powerful engine here, period. As for handling, I think everyone knows the CTS-V will be the complete package. I laugh when people like Hondacura act like the CTS is some sloppy 60s muscle car that cant stop and turn. Lets stop with the excuses and give credit where it's due.

I think its a bad day somewhere in Germany today.
I have also learnt that Cadillac is already working on a BLS that will finally be better than the 3 in all measures of perfomance equipment and price, following the same Formula they have used with the CTS

Cadillac has a small crossover coming out next year that will look like the Provoq concept and they have a small RWD sedan coming in 2010 or 2011 on the Alpha platform. Cadillac isnt going anywhere and the Germans better take them seriously.

Great explanation chavis10. However you did not mention the torque curve. I am not familiar with Ferrari 6.0 and LS7 but most OHC torque curves I have seen, rise progressively until they reach maximum at some 5-6k. The torque output of L-67 3.8L SC pushrod motor on the other hand, rises fast until it levels off at about 2000 RPM. The result is that about 90% of maximum torque is available at 1000 RPM, just a little over idle. The off-the-line punch that I get is unbelievable. The press knows that, so they continuously belittle pushrod motors as coarse, unrefined, out of date. I have been in electronics and physics long enough to know that there are trade-offs, in this case RPM for low end torque. It's a mistake to dismiss one approach over the other on the basis of what the biased press feeds the unsuspecting public, go to a GM dealer and drive one for yourself, you may like it or you may not, that is matter of preference, but at least you gain respect for the other side.

"I laugh when people like Hondacura act like the CTS is some sloppy 60s muscle car that cant stop and turn. Lets stop with the excuses and give credit where it's due."
 
1487 has once again put words in my mouth, twisted and manipulated my post.
Nowhere in my post did I say anything negative about the CTS-V nor did I say it couldnt turn or stop as the car isnt even out yet!
 
Believe it or not Ive been a big fan of the new CTS since it debuted and the CTS-V makes me like it even more. If you would look at any blog involving the CTS Ive always given the car praise. I would like to add that Im probably one of the more open minded import (Honda/BMW/Ferrari) fans that post here and I think most would agree. End of discussion and have a nice f*****g day!
 
"You may think it's all marketing and Bob Lutz hype, but there good reason behind it."
 
No, not at all. As I said before I have respect for the GM LS series but I was curious as to why GM didnt further develop the smaller V6/I4 pushrod engines the same way they have with the LS V8? It would seem as if GM could infuse the smaller pushrod engines with the same advantages the large displacement V8's have over their smaller displacement OHC/multivalve competition. Is it for marketing/public perception reasons?

OHC 4 valve engines are more flexible and make more sense in V6 form where they will most likely be in a transverse FWD configuration. Also, it takes more effort and displacement to get the same HP out of one of those pushrods and if you add on a s/c, you'll end up with huge amounts of torque which is the enemy of most FWD vehicles. The high feature V6 is obviously a more versatile solution for it's wide range of applications from Caddy's all the way down to Saturn Vues. Investing that kind of money in a brand new 2 valve/cylinder V6 would've been stupid and limiting. Most importantly, remember that two valve heads are most effective with plenty of displacement which, as you said, would more than likely be frowned upon by the press.

Thanks Chavis!

"Nowhere in my post did I say anything negative about the CTS-V nor did I say it couldnt turn or stop as the car isnt even out yet! "
 
The point was you indicated the CTS-V needs to be able to do more than go fast in a straight line and I think anyone who follows the auto industry knows that the V series Cadillacs are amongst the best handling RWD cars on the market.
 
As for the OHV engines, GM's modern V6 OHV engines actually have VVT while the LS3, LS7 and LS9 do not. Your assertion that GM is not putting technology into their lower end OHV engines is wrong. Think about, the old school 3800 makes 197hp from 3.8L while the Impala's 3.9L makes 233hp. Before they added AFM the 3.9L engine made 240hp which is pretty good for a pushrod engine of that size. Chrysler only gets 235hp from 3.5L in the Avenger. There was a time when I would have said Gm was going to phase out all OHV V6 engines and replace them with the 3.6L DOHC motor but now I'm not so sure because the 3.6L isnt all that fuel efficient. If paired with the 6 speed auto the 3.9L with AFm would likely produce 2mpg better mileage than a car equipped with the 3.6L.

"Firstwagon, I know GM used to use V6/I4 pushrod engines but if the design is THAT GOOD why not continue? Whats the reason behind them switiching to DOHC designs for the V6/I4?"
 
GM has never stopped making pushrod V6s. The 3800 will be phased out but the 3.5L and 3.9L (same engine basically) are still around the the 2008 Vue has the 3.5L with 222hp and VVT so I dont think its going anywhere.

"The point was you indicated the CTS-V needs to be able to do more than go fast in a straight line."
 
Actually MR215, I didnt indicate that at all. My point was just because a car has more power doesnt make it better. That could apply to ANY vehicle not just the CTS-V OR the M5.
 
Again, I didnt say I doubted the CTS-Vs capabilities but the sheer power advantage ALONE doesnt make it a better car as people have already put this car ahead of the M5 without any proof. Im pretty sure the people who assumed that based it from ........the power advantage the CTS-V has over the M5!
 
"I'd prefer a nice 8,000+ redline, but I certainly wouldn't kick the CTS-V out of my garage!"
 
My point exactly BoxerMike!