When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Exactly. Just because a small 4 cylinder turbocharged engine makes on paper similar power numbers compared to a large V6 or V8 doesn't mean it drives/feels the same.
Now I'm not saying "oh all these new 4 cylinder turbos suck" because they don't, some are way better than others. I just think automakers are foolhardy by sticking these small displacement turbo engines in the wrong vehicles, like that huge/heavy XC90.
Just like I also think its a slap in the face for Cadillac to even offer a 4 cylinder power plant on their flagship car, then to not offer a V8 on top of that, its kind of sad. The LT1 V8 out of the Corvette would've been a great engine to stuff in the CT6 and CTS.
You can at least partially blame the Government and its CAFE/emission requirements for that....there's probably not a whole lot the auto companies can actually do about it as long as regulators keep getting carried away. I'm a believer that we have reached a point where the auto industry is being over-regulated, and some unreasonable demands are being put on it.
The Cadillac CTS-V, BTW, does have the Corvette-sourced V8 you like.
Just like I also think its a slap in the face for Cadillac to even offer a 4 cylinder power plant on their flagship car, then to not offer a V8 on top of that, its kind of sad. The LT1 V8 out of the Corvette would've been a great engine to stuff in the CT6 and CTS.
Well, the 404hp engine is the replacement for the smaller sized V8 engine. Cadillac has said that a V8 is coming, so just wait.
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Aron9000
Exactly. Just because a small 4 cylinder turbocharged engine makes on paper similar power numbers compared to a large V6 or V8 doesn't mean it drives/feels the same.
I don't think anyone has ever said that it drives the same.
Originally Posted by Aron9000
Just like I also think its a slap in the face for Cadillac to even offer a 4 cylinder power plant on their flagship car, then to not offer a V8 on top of that, its kind of sad. .
Well, the same slap in the face could be said for the Lexus flagship still offering the same V8 from 2007.
Does that start/stop feature have an deactivate control? Unless you are really going to be sitting in gridlock traffic for some time, that is not a feature I'm very impressed with. I understand the fuel-economy savings from not idling, but it's annoying to lose the heater, A/C (if belt-driven), or other engine-driven systems at every stoplight or in traffic. Plus, it places a lot of extra wear on the starter-motor and battery.
I know the CT6 is going to use that on some engines.....I hope they also have a deactivate control.
Do you really think automakers didn't take that into account? Not only will most cars not kill the engine if its going to negatively effect cabin settings, but they're also equipped with heavy duty starter motors and batteries. Stop/start has been around for a long time now, they got that figured out.
Originally Posted by mmarshall
Well, the heater core and hot anti-freeze (if the engine is fully-warm), won't cool down that quickly, but, with the engine off at a stoplight, the fan motor probably won't run....unless they have it wired directly to the battery, and then you're draining the battery until the engine starts back up. Living in Toronto, I'm sure you have an appreciation for how cold winter can get there. Even here in D.C., quite a ways south of where you are, it can sometimes get close to zero or below.
If there's excessive drain on the battery or if the heater settings can't maintain the selected temp, the auto stop/start won't engage. I know on BMW's it doesn't engage at all below freezing.
Do you really think automakers didn't take that into account?
Not only will most cars not kill the engine if its going to negatively effect cabin settings, but they're also equipped with heavy duty starter motors and batteries. Stop/start has been around for a long time now, they got that figured out.
If there's excessive drain on the battery or if the heater settings can't maintain the selected temp, the auto stop/start won't engage.
Most of the vehicles I've personally sampled with the start/stop feature have been gas/electric hybrids, which probably use different systems than pure-gas start-stop systems (electric heat-pump heat, electric-motor A/C compressors, etc.....) I wasn't sure about the details of some of the gas-only ones....I have very limited experience with them, and have never owned one. If I don't have experience with something in the automotive world, or have not read up extensively on it, I don't try and act like I know all of the answers.
Exactly. Just because a small 4 cylinder turbocharged engine makes on paper similar power numbers compared to a large V6 or V8 doesn't mean it drives/feels the same.
Now I'm not saying "oh all these new 4 cylinder turbos suck" because they don't, some are way better than others. I just think automakers are foolhardy by sticking these small displacement turbo engines in the wrong vehicles, like that huge/heavy XC90.
Just like I also think its a slap in the face for Cadillac to even offer a 4 cylinder power plant on their flagship car, then to not offer a V8 on top of that, its kind of sad. The LT1 V8 out of the Corvette would've been a great engine to stuff in the CT6 and CTS.
Agree, can't stand this trend of putting little 4 cylinder turbo's standard in relatively large, heavy, sedans and SUV's. They don't belong in those types of vehicles. They are also downsizing performance engines from V10's and V8's to tt V6's in many cars and likely tt 4 cylinders in the future. I am sure buyers of these higher dollar performance cars would pay extra if it means a bigger more satisfying engine. I doubt that new super charged turbo charged Volvo engine is going to last very long or be as satisfying as a V6, I have read some reviewers don't like it. Bad things normally happen over time when you stick highly stressed small 4 cyl turbo's in larger heavier vehicles.
This new Cadillac does not impress me, way too expensive, interior not good looking or nice enough to reflect its cost, and 4cyl's in a flagship luxury car is just embarrassing. This has fail written all over it.
Agree, can't stand this trend of putting little 4 cylinder turbo's standard in relatively large, heavy, sedans and SUV's. They don't belong in those types of vehicles. They are also downsizing performance engines from V10's and V8's to tt V6's in many cars and likely tt 4 cylinders in the future. I am sure buyers of these higher dollar performance cars would pay extra if it means a bigger more satisfying engine. I doubt that new super charged turbo charged Volvo engine is going to last very long or be as satisfying as a V6, I have read some reviewers don't like it. Bad things normally happen over time when you stick highly stressed small 4 cyl turbo's in larger heavier vehicles.
This new Cadillac does not impress me, way too expensive, interior not good looking or nice enough to reflect its cost, and 4cyl's in a flagship luxury car is just embarrassing. This has fail written all over it.
Agreed that a four-pot in a flagship doesn't sound very credible on paper, but also keep in mind that these 2.0L turbos today have a surprising amount of spunk....comparable to N/A V6s, and even some N/A V8s of not long ago. Today, a lack of cylinders does not always mean a lack of power.....though it usually DOES indicate at least some lack of refinement.
After reading the reviews this past week I'm even less impressed. The photos, especially those of non-black interiors, show plenty of plastics throughout the cabin. All the buttons, for example, are a cheap looking plastic. These days, even $37,000 C-class Mercedes have aluminum buttons and switches. And who came up with this gawdy idea of having two different wood trims across the dash? That just looks tacky and try-hard. This CT6 costs the same as the new E-class and has no redeeming qualities over the 'Benz aside from more rear leg room. I don't see the CT6 doing well. Like the ATS and CTS, it'll probably post a few months or a year of good sales before dropping off.
Steering wheel is a sea of ugly plastic buttons, and check out the huge panel gap under the center armrest.
It looks somewhat less busy in the darker monotone dark gray/black. I say "somewhat" less busy because I got to see the dark interior at the D.C. Auto Show, but not really that close up. Still, it seemed to have a less-busy look inside....there is less contrast between the wood and the other trim.
It really is not the end of the world for any of these cars I just posted. I will add that controls on the seat are more ergonomic and easier to use, but the door mounted controls add a touch of class.
It looks somewhat less busy in the darker monotone dark gray/black. I say "somewhat" less busy because I got to see the dark interior at the D.C. Auto Show, but not really that close up. Still, it seemed to have a less-busy look inside....there is less contrast between the wood and the other trim.
Originally Posted by BrownPride
After reading the reviews this past week I'm even less impressed. The photos, especially those of non-black interiors, show plenty of plastics throughout the cabin. All the buttons, for example, are a cheap looking plastic. These days, even $37,000 C-class Mercedes have aluminum buttons and switches. And who came up with this gawdy idea of having two different wood trims across the dash? That just looks tacky and try-hard. This CT6 costs the same as the new E-class and has no redeeming qualities over the 'Benz aside from more rear leg room. I don't see the CT6 doing well. Like the ATS and CTS, it'll probably post a few months or a year of good sales before dropping off.
Steering wheel is a sea of ugly plastic buttons, and check out the huge panel gap under the center armrest.
Smooth, dull black plastic can look incredibly cheap. Using it liberally around the power seat control, on the steering wheel centre, and surrounding the central infotainment screen, especially where it is in contrast to different, more "expensive" material gives the impression that the automaker ran out of ideas, ran out of money for the more expensive material, or -- worse yet -- just did not care.
But all of that would be hidden in a dark or black interior, where the lack of contrast between the dull black plastic and other -- even more expensive materials -- hides the details. An all-black interior would also hide that terribly-large panel gap.
03-19-16, 07:11 AM
