Topic: Cadillac's all-new 400-hp, 3.0L Twin Turbo V6 is a gorgeous, technological marvel

[redman]

"3.0L Twin Turbo is good for 133 hp per litre"

The question here is "at what boost and what reliability" F1 cars produce insane HP per liter and very high RPM but last one race before a rebuild.

High Boost = high engine component stress and lower reliability while achieving higher hp per liter. It's a compromise.

A typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25%-30% efficiency (friction and heat loss).
In the past 3–4 years, GDI (Gasoline Direct Injection) increased the efficiency of the engines equipped with this fueling system up to 35%.
Modern turbo-diesel engines are using electronically controlled, common-rail fuel injection, that increases the efficiency up to 50%.

Interesting article on how Toyota is increasing thermal effeciencies with their upcoming new engines due later this year.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20140410/COPY01/304109963/toyota-unveils-new-generation-of-fuel-efficient-gasoline-engines

[Great_Big_Abyss]

"3.0L Twin Turbo is good for 133 hp per litre"

The question here is "at what boost and what reliability" F1 cars produce insane HP per liter and very high RPM but last one race before a rebuild.

High Boost = high engine component stress and lower reliability while achieving higher hp per liter. It's a compromise.

YES, but F1 engines are also designed to be as lightweight as possible.  Consumer engines aren't really encumbered by that requirement, at least not to the extent that F1 engines.  A connecting rod or crankshaft main bearing can be strengthened by adding material where it counts in order to reliably counteract the increased boost and power output over a long period of time, whereas F1 would rather rebuild engines after each race than add a few grams to the weight of the car.

That's the beauty of engineering.  It's all a balancing act.  YES, an engine can have a high specific output and still be reliable, as long as the individual components are engineered properly, and the right compromises are chosen.

[Northernridge]

Cadillac is competing with Mazda for last place in marketing (and maybe first place in stupidity). Why the fack would they fuss over an engine? No one choses to not by a Cadillac because of their engines. It is misguided to isolate and promote their engine technology especially against the Germans who all have boat loads of great engines and reputation for the same. It's irrelevant how good this engine is from a marketing perspective – however good it is, the Germans have better, more interesting engines...and so does Cadillac.

Cadillac needs to get the whole package right and promote that. The best thing Cadillac could do to help the Germans is to promote their cars one component at a time – Cadillac's problem isn't the individual components, it's that 1 plus 1 never equals 3 for them.

[redman]

  ^^
^^^
GM is the parent company to Opel in Rüsselsheim Germany.

In particular, all the future-oriented, modern, full-efficient GM architectures for compact vehicles are developed by Opel.
The company was responsible for primary engineering of the Epsilon (I) platform, Epsilon II platform, Delta (I) platform, Delta (II) platform, Gamma platform and played an important role in the development of especially the higher-end, more-refined version of the Gamma II platform. General Motors new global platform D2xx is being mainly engineered by Opel as well.

In particular, all the future-oriented, modern, full-efficient GM architectures for compact vehicles are developed by Opel.

I would not be surprised if some portion if not all engineering in this Cadillac engine happened in Germany.

[Northernridge]

Where are you going with that?

[chignectohead]

Well, I read the Cadillac press kit on this engine, and it really seems pretty damn fine to me.

It's not a long-stroke chuffer like BMWs are turning into (it's 86x85.8 mm), nor is there any mysticism about magic 500cc cylinders being punted about as being the ultimate truth and ultimate BS. Also, with the proper two-stage PCV/Oil-separator, and block galley holes between crank throws, there will be less crankcase compression effects anyway. It's thoroughly up to date with a really advanced block cooling system, and of course the short intake path is pretty unique.

This isn't as highly tuned as the 295 hp version of GM's 2.0t with similar bore and stroke, and someone sweated the details. Naturally, it may be a dog in the car, but I'd be really surprised if it was. GM knows as much about engine design as anyone out there, but is usually highly cost-constrained and compromised. Not this time.

And has GM had as much coking problems with DI as VW or BMW or the Lexus IS250 engine? I think not. They do their basic research properly. I wish them the best of luck with this engine.

[EV-Light]

Well, I read the Cadillac press kit on this engine, and it really seems pretty damn fine to me.

It's not a long-stroke chuffer like BMWs are turning into (it's 86x85.8 mm), nor is there any mysticism about magic 500cc cylinders being punted about as being the ultimate truth and ultimate BS. Also, with the proper two-stage PCV/Oil-separator, and block galley holes between crank throws, there will be less crankcase compression effects anyway. It's thoroughly up to date with a really advanced block cooling system, and of course the short intake path is pretty unique.

This isn't as highly tuned as the 295 hp version of GM's 2.0t with similar bore and stroke, and someone sweated the details. Naturally, it may be a dog in the car, but I'd be really surprised if it was. GM knows as much about engine design as anyone out there, but is usually highly cost-constrained and compromised. Not this time.

And has GM had as much coking problems with DI as VW or BMW or the Lexus IS250 engine? I think not. They do their basic research properly. I wish them the best of luck with this engine.

CT6 is supposed to be very light. In which case 400 horsepower could be A LOT. We will see.

CT6 is the CTS's replacement, correct?

[mixmanmash]

Turbocharging with stop/start tech seems like a bad idea to me. Don't people add turbo timers to avoid the heat/cool cycle?

With modern water cooled turbos, not really.  You don't need to cool them down like old oil only cooled turbos.  On top of it, some cars use electrically driven water pumps so coolant could still be circulated while the engine is stopped.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Well, I read the Cadillac press kit on this engine, and it really seems pretty damn fine to me.

It's not a long-stroke chuffer like BMWs are turning into (it's 86x85.8 mm), nor is there any mysticism about magic 500cc cylinders being punted about as being the ultimate truth and ultimate BS. Also, with the proper two-stage PCV/Oil-separator, and block galley holes between crank throws, there will be less crankcase compression effects anyway. It's thoroughly up to date with a really advanced block cooling system, and of course the short intake path is pretty unique.

This isn't as highly tuned as the 295 hp version of GM's 2.0t with similar bore and stroke, and someone sweated the details. Naturally, it may be a dog in the car, but I'd be really surprised if it was. GM knows as much about engine design as anyone out there, but is usually highly cost-constrained and compromised. Not this time.

And has GM had as much coking problems with DI as VW or BMW or the Lexus IS250 engine? I think not. They do their basic research properly. I wish them the best of luck with this engine.

CT6 is supposed to be very light. In which case 400 horsepower could be A LOT. We will see.

CT6 is the CTS's replacement, correct?

The CT6 is the new rwd flagship and slots in at the top of the lineup.

[bd2]

Well, I read the Cadillac press kit on this engine, and it really seems pretty damn fine to me.

It's not a long-stroke chuffer like BMWs are turning into (it's 86x85.8 mm), nor is there any mysticism about magic 500cc cylinders being punted about as being the ultimate truth and ultimate BS. Also, with the proper two-stage PCV/Oil-separator, and block galley holes between crank throws, there will be less crankcase compression effects anyway. It's thoroughly up to date with a really advanced block cooling system, and of course the short intake path is pretty unique.

This isn't as highly tuned as the 295 hp version of GM's 2.0t with similar bore and stroke, and someone sweated the details. Naturally, it may be a dog in the car, but I'd be really surprised if it was. GM knows as much about engine design as anyone out there, but is usually highly cost-constrained and compromised. Not this time.

And has GM had as much coking problems with DI as VW or BMW or the Lexus IS250 engine? I think not. They do their basic research properly. I wish them the best of luck with this engine.

CT6 is supposed to be very light. In which case 400 horsepower could be A LOT. We will see.

CT6 is the CTS's replacement, correct?

The CT6 is the new rwd flagship and slots in at the top of the lineup.

Technically, it's Cadillac's SWB RWD flagship; a separate LWB flagship (CT8) is in the works.

And the CT6 will also be getting a TT V8 for a V-Sport trim.