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

[Autos_Editor]

Cadillac's all-new 400-hp, 3.0L Twin Turbo V6 with cylinder deactivation is a technological marvel and a replacement for displacement.
Read More...

[EV-Light]

Technological marvel = lots of headaches


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Whofan]

Very nice engine and I agree at looking at the engine bay.

now an engine swap would be crazy, but this on a Dodge Challenger (basic model) would be a killer sleaper car

My 2¢'s anyway

[ArticSteve]

It’s the first V6 to combine turbocharging with stop/start and cylinder deactivation tech

Certainly sounds technical, don't quite see the marvelous part.

[Neromanceres]

Well GM has been making cars with DI, turbocharged, start-stop, and cylinder deactivation for a while now.  This is the first motor to incorporate all those features into a V6 architecture.   So these while a first being incorporated all at once are not really new technologies.  But people love their marketing terms.

The real technologies in this engine are the charge air - throttle - intake manifold system.  This makes the car rev better and allows it to be more responsive.   Also the two stage PCV system.  Plus a number of improvements and very specific use of various grades of materials for good optimization and NVH properties.  I've never seen an engine that uses parts of so many varying materials.

It's like they let the engineers at GM run wild with this engine and locked the accountants in a room and just told them to shut up and pay the bills.

[Noto]

I fully agree that this engine sounds great, but when I read this:

With 400 hp on tap, the 3.0L Twin Turbo is good for 133 hp per litre. That’s 27 percent more than the BMW 740Li twin-turbo V6 and a whopping 29 percent more than Audi A7’s 3.0L supercharged V6.

I immediately thought of the new BMW M3/M4's engine:
3.0L Twin-Turbo I6 (mmm, Inline 6)
425hp at 5,500rpm
406lb-ft at 1,850rpm

...so how is this engine so much more marvellous than the one produced by BMW?

...and while I'm at it, the BMW 740i doesn't have a V6.

[JohnnyMac]

I fully agree that this engine sounds great, but when I read this:

With 400 hp on tap, the 3.0L Twin Turbo is good for 133 hp per litre. That’s 27 percent more than the BMW 740Li twin-turbo V6 and a whopping 29 percent more than Audi A7’s 3.0L supercharged V6.

I immediately thought of the new BMW M3/M4's engine:
3.0L Twin-Turbo I6 (mmm, Inline 6)
425hp at 5,500rpm
406lb-ft at 1,850rpm

...so how is this engine so much more marvellous than the one produced by BMW?

...and while I'm at it, the BMW 740i doesn't have a V6.

The other thing that gets me is that the German's typically understate their HP ratings (or quote them at the wheel) while American vehicles tend to overstate them by comparison.  I agreed with you on first thing I thought of was the BMW M3 engine.  I'll do you one better, how about that engine in the Nissan GTR?  I know it's a bit bigger displacement but still a 6 cylinder.  Seeing as Mercedes is able to get 350+ out of 2.0L 4 cylinder, is it wrong for me to expect 525 hp out of a 3L 6 cylinder (That's 175 hp's pre liter of displacement).

[aquadorhj]

I fully agree that this engine sounds great, but when I read this:

With 400 hp on tap, the 3.0L Twin Turbo is good for 133 hp per litre. That’s 27 percent more than the BMW 740Li twin-turbo V6 and a whopping 29 percent more than Audi A7’s 3.0L supercharged V6.

I immediately thought of the new BMW M3/M4's engine:
3.0L Twin-Turbo I6 (mmm, Inline 6)
425hp at 5,500rpm
406lb-ft at 1,850rpm

...so how is this engine so much more marvellous than the one produced by BMW?

...and while I'm at it, the BMW 740i doesn't have a V6.

The other thing that gets me is that the German's typically understate their HP ratings (or quote them at the wheel) while American vehicles tend to overstate them by comparison.  I agreed with you on first thing I thought of was the BMW M3 engine.  I'll do you one better, how about that engine in the Nissan GTR?  I know it's a bit bigger displacement but still a 6 cylinder.  Seeing as Mercedes is able to get 350+ out of 2.0L 4 cylinder, is it wrong for me to expect 525 hp out of a 3L 6 cylinder (That's 175 hp's pre liter of displacement).

Yes.   the 2L AMG 45 engines are laggy as heck.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

This isn't the balls-to-the-wall output version of this engine. It's in the CT6 land yacht. The GT-R and M3/4 engines are in high performance coupés, and neither has cylinder deactivation and at least here, neither has start-stop.

The 3.6 TT in the ATS-V has been rumored to be 450hp and 445lb-ft, but at least one source was saying it's going to end up higher than that.

American companies use a common SAE test standard to come up with their engine outputs. The Germans go their own way.

[Noto]

This isn't the balls-to-the-wall output version of this engine. It's in the CT6 land yacht. The GT-R and M3/4 engines are in high performance coupés, and neither has cylinder deactivation and at least here, neither has start-stop.

yeah, but that isn't the point that we are making...the writer is citing 'amazing' power ratings and I simply don't see why those engines were listed as benchmarks...

[Sir Osis of Liver]

This isn't the balls-to-the-wall output version of this engine. It's in the CT6 land yacht. The GT-R and M3/4 engines are in high performance coupés, and neither has cylinder deactivation and at least here, neither has start-stop.

yeah, but that isn't the point that we are making...the writer is citing 'amazing' power ratings and I simply don't see why those engines were listed as benchmarks...

The main point he was making is that it's packed with technology:

The new 3.0L twin-turbo will make its debut in Cadillac’s new “prestige luxury sedan” – the CT6. Before any of you complain about Cadillac equipping the CT6 with a V6 instead of a naturally aspirated V8, just read a bit about it first. Cadillac set out to build one of the most technologically advanced six-cylinder gas engines available on the market, and by Jove, I think they’ve done it.

Cadillac made use of all the modern advanced tech to achieve the perfect blend of power output, performance, efficiency, and refinement for the 3.0L Twin Turbo. It’s the first V6 to combine turbocharging with stop/start and cylinder deactivation tech – giving you the option of temporarily driving a turbo V4 while giving you an estimated six percent better return in fuel economy.

He benchmarked it against its peers, the 7 series and the A7, which seems reasonable to me.

[Arthur Dent]

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

[hemusbull]

Twin turbo, only 3 L V6 and 8 speed tranny both with a lot of electronics? Recepy for ...compromised reliability...

[Snowman]

GM is 10 years late to this party. I'm sure it will be reliable 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Technological marvel = lots of headaches

Says the guy driving a twin-turbo Direct Injected V6!!

[Great_Big_Abyss]

This isn't the balls-to-the-wall output version of this engine. It's in the CT6 land yacht. The GT-R and M3/4 engines are in high performance coupés, and neither has cylinder deactivation and at least here, neither has start-stop.

yeah, but that isn't the point that we are making...the writer is citing 'amazing' power ratings and I simply don't see why those engines were listed as benchmarks...

He's comparing Apples to Apples.  You don't see the M3/M4's engine in a big 7-series Sedan, and you don't see the GTR's engine in a big Infiniti sedan.  This new 3.0L Cadillac engine is for a full-size luxury sedan, not a sports car.  Therefore he compared it against the V6 engines of the equivalently sized competition.  Namely the A7 and the 7-Series.

If Cadillac decides they want to put this engine in the CTS-V, then you'll be able to compare it against the M3's engine.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

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

I think it may have more to do with keeping the engine coolant/oil circulating.  I.e. active cooling.  I suppose Cadillac may stop the engine and keep the oil pump or water pump running.  Or whatever system cools their turbos.

[Noto]

He benchmarked it against its peers,

AHHH, I thought it was just a reference to the engine; not the car it's in.  Got it. 

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

^^ THAT is a good point.

I think it may have more to do with keeping the engine coolant/oil circulating.  I.e. active cooling.  I suppose Cadillac may stop the engine and keep the oil pump or water pump running.  Or whatever system cools their turbos.

Something tells me that the accessory battery won't have enough power to keep that going very long...

[Great_Big_Abyss]

He benchmarked it against its peers,

AHHH, I thought it was just a reference to the engine; not the car it's in.  Got it. 

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

^^ THAT is a good point.

I think it may have more to do with keeping the engine coolant/oil circulating.  I.e. active cooling.  I suppose Cadillac may stop the engine and keep the oil pump or water pump running.  Or whatever system cools their turbos.

Something tells me that the accessory battery won't have enough power to keep that going very long...

Why not?  The modern battery has plenty of juice in it, and the cooling system would only have to be run until the turbos are adequately cooled, then could shut off again.  Plus, if you're stuck in stop/go traffic, you're not using your turbos much anyway, so the cooling would have to be minimal anyway.  What's more, assuming that your battery IS indeed low on juice, then the ECU could recognize this and keep the engine running until enough power has accumulated to allow the engine to safely stop.

[Noto]

In any event...