I think NVH is a bigger factor than most people consciously realize. From both outside and inside, you expect certain cars to sound an drive a particular way given their classification. If they don't match your expectations, then you're either dismayed (baller on a budget) or pleasantly surprised (wolf in sheep's clothing). There's something way off when a large sedan like the CT6 with a curb weight approaching two tons is sporting a turbo-4 that you just know isn't going to sound right or have the drivetrain characteristics expected of a luxury car.

I drove a 1999 GS300 as a loaner for a week at the beginning of this year and it was a very disappointing experience compared to my GS400. The only justification I can ever make for significantly increased NVH levels is if the car is damned fast, and the 2JZ-GE in the GS300 was anything but that. It was loud, slow, and transformed the second-gen GS from a smooth, napping beast (though not beastly by today's standards) in the 1UZ-FE to basically sounding and driving very much like a common Toyota from that era, albeit with RWD. I couldn't stand owning a second-gen GS300 unless it was 2JZ-GTE swapped.

When I was a kid, my dad had a 1989 Lincoln Town Car. Despite that 5.0L V8 being so dog slow that a piggyback ride on the back of Usain Bolt would be faster up to 30 mph, it sounded and felt appropriate for a car of that size and stature. That's the type of feeling that I don't think any turbo-4 can appropriately match.

 

I never found the 2nd-gen GS300 to be loud actually. I thought it was a very refined motor.

 

Yeah, maybe the GS300 he drove had a broken motor mount or something. I have an SC300, same motor, 5 speed manual. Its so smooth and quiet, sometimes I forget to shift, look down and I'm turning 4000rpm lol. Smoothest engine I ever owned by far.

 

I know what you mean, I had a 1995 Caddy Fleetwood with the LT1 V8. Unlike that Town Car, it actually was fast. The smoothness, refinement, undetectable shifts, and mountains of torque that engine made, it was perfect for that car. Effortless would be the right word, as you could drive it like an old man or put your foot in it and snap everybody's neck back and lay big patches of rubber and it would shift lighting fast. There were no power peaks, dips, weird sounds, vibrations, laggy throttle, or waiting for the turbo to spool.

 

It's possible that may have been the case with that GS300 I drove. It wasn't loud on a scale compared to other cars in general, but it wasn't nearly as well-mannered as my GS4. I think it was a combination of being so used to my car and the exhaust note on the GS3 not really suiting the car as well. Also, the second-gen GS had its share of issues with NVH, so any combination of things could have made it feel much worse than it should have been, and the steep gearing on the GS300 compared to the GS400 didn't help.

Exactly, and I feel like something like that is lost in these smaller turbocharged engines. There's a general sentiment and perception that luxury cars should be effortless to drive at any speed. Using forced induction, you'd have to use a positive displacement supercharger to get a similar feeling as a naturally aspirated V8, but that pretty much eliminates any fuel economy savings over the V8 and still wouldn't address the added blower whine. I may like blower whine, but that doesn't mean it belongs in a Cadillac not ending in -V.

The 2.0T simply shouldn't be offered in the CT6.

 

So should the 2.0t not be offered in the GS200t which weights more the CT6? The CT6 in 2.0 form is going to be pretty light.

 

Personally I don't think they should even offer a 4 cylinder GS. I know the "market" dictates it since Benz and BMW offer one in the E class and 5 series, but I always thought it was a good idea to offer more than the competition for the same price. Plus I've read some reviews of the new 4 cylinder turbo Lexus and they were pretty bad.

 

Like it or not, it's a perception matter, especially in North America and even more so the US where we seem to care about those things more. Since Cadillac is trying so hard to chase BMW and Mercedes for market share and prestige, they can't be perceived as cheaping out and diluting their brand with parts from the plebeian offerings from the rest of GM (Corvette team excluded, but they're also not plebeian). A range-topping Cadillac with a base engine that's also available to a Chevy Malibu does not project a premium luxury image.

Sure, by all reviews and accounts online of the CT6 with the 2.0T, it's a decent enough engine and it performs respectably in terms of acceleration. What about everything else? Are its NVH characteristics up to the level a Cadillac entry against the S-Class and 7 Series needs to be? I seriously doubt it.

Also, no, the GS200t should not exist in the US for the same reasons, just like how the GS250 was never here. It would be about as popular (and pointless) as the BMW 320i and the Infiniti G25.

 

I don't really agree with you. I don't think the Malibu gets this engine.

As for the NVH levels, from some of the reviews I have read, they seem to really like the engine.

 

Times have changed, the 2.0t is a pretty good engine.

 

The 2.0L turbo in-line four setup has become quite popular lately. Some automakers do their version better then others in the NVH department. One of the best examples (and a long-standing favorite of mine) is the VW/Audi gas 2.0T (they also do a diesel TDI version, but of course, that has been affected by the emissions-scandal). I just got done test-driving the latest version of the gas Audi 2.0T in the new 2017 A4.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Ecotec_engine#LTG

 

Looks like it is used, but technically its not the exact same engine as they are tuned a little differently.

I still don't see how this is much of an issue: The LS460 (Middle East) uses the 1UR-FE and so does the base 2WD Toyota Tunda reg cab. Same thing for the 5.7 in the reg cab Tundra and the expensive LX570.

 

A little off-topic maybe, but that looked a little strange to me. I checked the Toyota specs, however, and you are correct...it's the 5.7L I-Force V8 in the Tundra regular cab. I couldn't help but wonder why they didn't use the smaller 4.6L V8 in the lighter, regular cab (that engine is used in some other Tundra 2WD configurations). Then I noticed one reason why......the regular-cab only comes with the longer bed, adding weight and bulk. It is inexplicable why the Tundra doesn't offer a regular-cab with the short bed, like some domestic full-size trucks do.

 

The Tundra used to come in the reg cab short bed with the 5.7 in the past. Its been discontinued.