Not your Father's Cadillac
- Thread starter Clocker
- Start date
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
I agree about the looks. Also the Chysler Crossfire is due to come out soon. Supposedly, It is the first vehicle born of the Daimler-Chrysler marriage.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Along with power and handling, gimme refinement. Or it's all a waste. I've always been fond of touring cars; sustained high-speed driving.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
About the same straight-line acceleration as the new Subaru WRX (or the model before last) in other words.
I'd guess there might be a slight difference in handling, however ...
I'd guess there might be a slight difference in handling, however ...
Stereodude
Not really a
It looks interesting, but it all hinges on how much it actually costs. Considering firebreathers like this are available in other countries for less money. Look at The Holden HSV or some of the other 5.7L V-8 RWD manual tranny cars.
Stereodude
Stereodude
http://vectra.opel.com/brand_sites/vectra/launch/templates/home/home.jhtml;$sessionid$HNGD2FBFGIXIXTDHT1XRTGI?pageId=home
Looks very similar to the Vectra... its GM so I guess its expected.
I bet its handling will be boat-like </pessimist mode>
Looks very similar to the Vectra... its GM so I guess its expected.
I bet its handling will be boat-like </pessimist mode>
The nose is too darn pointy for my liking. Unless the CTS-V hauls some major ass, it's not going to blow the doors off of an M3. I'll bet the M3 would kill it in handling anyway. I'd take the M3 over the CTS any day.
BMW M3:
3.2/inline 6
Torque 262lb-ft@4900
0-60 in 4.8
Cost: $51,270
CTS-V
5.7-liter V-8 engine
Torque 390 ft-lb@unknown
0-60 mph in less than five seconds
Cost: between $45,000 and $50,000.
BMW M3:
3.2/inline 6
Torque 262lb-ft@4900
0-60 in 4.8
Cost: $51,270
CTS-V
5.7-liter V-8 engine
Torque 390 ft-lb@unknown
0-60 mph in less than five seconds
Cost: between $45,000 and $50,000.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
The 3.2 liters/6-in-line of the M3 almost certainly is significantly less fuel-ungry than the 5.7 liters/V8 of the CTS. For happy oil-burner rednecks, it might not matter much, but for anyone who's sensible to environment, it is another advantage of the BMW.
I thought the same thing Coug, and I was going to mention it, but at this level of a performance car, I don't think the difference matters much. (It does matter to the environment, don't get me wrong)
I have no idea what the 5.7 liter will get for fuel economy, but I can't imagine the BMW being leaps and bounds over it. (Then again, I may be surprised...) The BMW gets 16/24 (city/highway) MPG according to their website.
I have no idea what the 5.7 liter will get for fuel economy, but I can't imagine the BMW being leaps and bounds over it. (Then again, I may be surprised...) The BMW gets 16/24 (city/highway) MPG according to their website.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
5.7 liters is pretty big. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be rated at something like 13/20Mpg...or less.
Two cars that impress me a lot on the HP / fuel rating ratio are the Corvette and the Porsche 911. You get a LOT of power for a relatively moderate fuel consumption.
Two cars that impress me a lot on the HP / fuel rating ratio are the Corvette and the Porsche 911. You get a LOT of power for a relatively moderate fuel consumption.
You guys should check your figures.....the old Corvette with a 5.7L V8 (which is similar to the newer, more efficient all aluminum 5.7 in the CTS-V) gets 19 city/ 28 highway. I would not expect the CTS to get any less that the 'Vette (if not more). This is better than the BMW...I might add :wink: But really....if you are thinking on spending $30K or more on any vehicle I doubt fuel economy is a issue.
Look at the difference in torque! You definitely won't have to beat on the CTS to have fun driving it nice easy. I'm not sure where the peak occurs but I'll guarantee you see more than 262lb-ft at about idle in the CTS-V. Here is a chart for the Corvette V8 from several years ago, the CTS-V torque/HP curves should be better than this but it is just for reference:
Nothing like a nice flat torque curve to make driving fun in any gear.
GM management has a lot of confidence in the new vehicles they have coming out. They want to conquest sales and believe that by letting perspective buys take a vehicle home overnight, they will have a better chance to get to know what a vehicle is really like and then opt to buy/lease. I think it's a pretty good tactic. Either way, don't write off any of the new Cadillacs until you have actually driven one. I think you will be pleasantly suprised.
I also think you guys will like the Saturn Vue with 250HP 3.5L V6 we have coming out or the Turbo Saturn Ion that is also on the horizon (both resulting from our new performance/tuning division). We also have a Saab 92 coming out that I hear is loosly based on the Subaru WRX with all the turbo bells and whistles. That vehicle really excites me but I think it will be in somewhat limited quantities....
C
Look at the difference in torque! You definitely won't have to beat on the CTS to have fun driving it nice easy. I'm not sure where the peak occurs but I'll guarantee you see more than 262lb-ft at about idle in the CTS-V. Here is a chart for the Corvette V8 from several years ago, the CTS-V torque/HP curves should be better than this but it is just for reference:
Nothing like a nice flat torque curve to make driving fun in any gear.
GM management has a lot of confidence in the new vehicles they have coming out. They want to conquest sales and believe that by letting perspective buys take a vehicle home overnight, they will have a better chance to get to know what a vehicle is really like and then opt to buy/lease. I think it's a pretty good tactic. Either way, don't write off any of the new Cadillacs until you have actually driven one. I think you will be pleasantly suprised.
I also think you guys will like the Saturn Vue with 250HP 3.5L V6 we have coming out or the Turbo Saturn Ion that is also on the horizon (both resulting from our new performance/tuning division). We also have a Saab 92 coming out that I hear is loosly based on the Subaru WRX with all the turbo bells and whistles. That vehicle really excites me but I think it will be in somewhat limited quantities....
C
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Maybe it's time for a "car" forum :|
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
You're only able to see the economic side of fuel consumption, aren't you?Clocker said:
I forgot the specifications of the Corvette's motor, did remember it was similar tothe 5.7liters of the CTS. But I don't share your optimism about the possibility of an even lower fuel consumption for the CTS, since the CTS will wait some 600lbs more than the Corvette did IIRC. Maybe my memory if failing me again, but I think I saw a weight of ~3100-3200lbs for the Corvette.
You're right about the increase in mass. I think it will be a wash though as the new all al. version of teh LS1 will undoubtedly be (at least incrementally) more efficient.....better than the Bimmer, anyway.
If you're really concerned about the environment, you should buy a three cylinder pos that get's 60mpg. :lol: :mrgrn:
C
If you're really concerned about the environment, you should buy a three cylinder pos that get's 60mpg. :lol: :mrgrn:
C
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Clocker said:
Absolutely. I drove a friend's M3 and was disappointed. With 333 HP, I expected it to be like nothing I ever imagined. Nope. At "normal" rpm's, it's fast, but nothing would lead you to believe you're driving one of Germany's absolute finest. It truly is a boring car to drive unless you really push it (but I guess that's the point).
GM has been capable of building great cars for years. It is LONG LONG overdue for them to produce a world beater. I am so fed up with their perpetual mediocrity that I wonder if I will ever bring myself to buy GM even if they come through with a winner. I guess time will tell whether this is all Bob Lutz induced hype or real hope.
Although, any company that has been able to do so much with pushrods has got to do be doing something right
Give us the Pontiac Soltstice as is and all will be forgiven!
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
e_dawg said:
I drove my cousin's '87 325 and I was disappointed after driving my car. It felt like it had no accelleration. I'm not sure I know how to read the specs but I'm guessing my car felt so much peppier because of the gearing.
BMW
http://www.geocities.com/empower99/specifications2.html
ACURA
http://www.verdad.org/legend/numbers/onegen/bases2.html
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Stereodude said:
Definitely I think Australia produces the most powerful cars for the least money. Sure a TVR would be nice but then you end up paying insane amounts for petrol and would have to live in Europe
In the US it is difficult to find a car/truck with a 350V8 for less than US$30K+.Howell-
If I remember my limited transmission gearing knowledge correctly, given the same final drive ratio, your Acura should have actually felt slower than the BWM. However, you can't just go by the ratio numbers given for the individual gears. Each of the individual five 'speed' gears interact with the final drive gear in the differential (i.e. ring & pinion) to determine the effective torque multiplication that is seen at the tire patch.
It's easier to visualize on a RWD vehicle. The 5-speed gears are in the transmission up front (except for cars with the tranny in the back) and the ring & pinion gear in the rear axle is the final drive. A set-up like this is really nice for hot-rodders. Back in the day, my buddy and I removed the 2.73 ring & pinion from his '91 Mustang and replaced it with a 3.73 ring & pinion...talk about a night & day difference in performance! It was like a completly different vehicle & much more fun to drive. Of course, you are now pulling higher RPM at any vehicle speed than you would with the old 'taller' rear axle R&P and will also have reduced gas mileage. We eventually put in a 3.55 R&P as a nice compromise.
C
If I remember my limited transmission gearing knowledge correctly, given the same final drive ratio, your Acura should have actually felt slower than the BWM. However, you can't just go by the ratio numbers given for the individual gears. Each of the individual five 'speed' gears interact with the final drive gear in the differential (i.e. ring & pinion) to determine the effective torque multiplication that is seen at the tire patch.
It's easier to visualize on a RWD vehicle. The 5-speed gears are in the transmission up front (except for cars with the tranny in the back) and the ring & pinion gear in the rear axle is the final drive. A set-up like this is really nice for hot-rodders. Back in the day, my buddy and I removed the 2.73 ring & pinion from his '91 Mustang and replaced it with a 3.73 ring & pinion...talk about a night & day difference in performance! It was like a completly different vehicle & much more fun to drive. Of course, you are now pulling higher RPM at any vehicle speed than you would with the old 'taller' rear axle R&P and will also have reduced gas mileage. We eventually put in a 3.55 R&P as a nice compromise.
C
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
The Subaru WRX is nice, but I hate to think of the insurance costs of a turbo car in the USA. When you think that a Ford Taurus (about the equivalent of a Falcon) costs over US$1000 a year to insure (in NY).
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Yep. You got the gearing theory right, Clocker.
Pradeep said:Definitely I think Australia produces the most powerful cars for the least money. Sure a TVR would be nice but then you end up paying insane amounts for petrol and would have to live in Europe
Yeah...I think most V8s available today are 300 CID or less. The Ford Mustang is a nice vehicle with a 4.6L V8 for under $30K. Of course, it doesn't get as good of gas mileage as the Corvette with 5.7L V8... :wink: That's interesting considering it has a 'more efficient' OHC V8.
C
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Clocker said:
Yeah, but don't forget the skip a gear tranny in the Corvette and the non-representative driving behaviour during the EPA loop.
Some times a -very- short geared car doesn't feel that fast. A friend has a 518, the old 1991 model. Of course, something with just over 100hp in something that size won't be fast, around 13s to 60 is the spec IIRC, but it definately felt slower - 1st topped out at something like 10mph.
It migth also be the fact that a 1987 car will by now be pretty tired, and might have lost some of its initial edge - of course cars get faster as the engine and drivetrain loosen up but after a point it goes downhill. Also, the old 325 was, IIRC, an 16valve unit as opposed to 24 - more torque low down, nothing much high up. If you're used to a 24v unit or a 16v in a 4-pot then it might not feel that fast if you wait to change up higher in the rev range.
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Oooh 612 HP. Trust Merc to electronically limit the torque to "only" 1000nm tho I wonder how it will handle in snow?
I wonder how it will handle in snow?
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
I still can't figure out how insurance companies in the US can get away with basing their premiums on credit scores. What does how you pay your bills have anything to do with your driving abilities?
In Australia honold your car could prob be insured for under US$600.
In Australia honold your car could prob be insured for under US$600.
one would have to assume there are stats that link bad credit with bad driving, otherwise they couldn't legally do it. i didn't even know they did that.
i'm satisfied with the rate, it's above-average coverage.
250k/500k bodily injury, 100k property damage, 25k/50k uninsured motorist, $250 comprehensive deductible, $500 collision deductible, $50 per day loss of use (give me money for rental cars etc), roadside assistance, blah blah blah.
i'm satisfied with the rate, it's above-average coverage.
250k/500k bodily injury, 100k property damage, 25k/50k uninsured motorist, $250 comprehensive deductible, $500 collision deductible, $50 per day loss of use (give me money for rental cars etc), roadside assistance, blah blah blah.
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Clocker said:
If I have done my research right,
88 Acura
Final drive ratio: 4.20 : 1
87 BMW
Final drive ratio: 3.73 : 1
My impression is especially related to 1st gear. The vehicles are the same age with mine having more miles on it. So, the FDR was the big difference?
Stereodude
Not really a
Apparently someone works for GM.Clocker said:
My Dad, and two uncles did. Now some of them are retired.
Either way GM and Turbo aren't something I want to hear mentioned in the same sentence. A Turbo Saturn Ion? With a screaming 170HP? What are they thinking? Apparently the same thing as Mazda (ala Turbo Protege with only 170HP on 9PSI of boost)? The Ecotech engine is crap by all accounts, just like the Ion. I can't imagine a Turbo helping things any. Interesting how Nissan and Honda can get more HP out of a NA 4 cylinder. Why does GM need a turbo to get less power than they could get out of the quad-4?
Stereodude
Stereodude
Not really a
Ahhh... the sounds of ignorance.CougTek said:
I hate to break it to you, but the fuel economy is generally not related to the displacement of the engine, but more to the amount of power it produces. Assuming an engine is reasonably well tuned (not running rich or lean). A 2.0L I4 making 400HP will use about the same amount of fuel as a 5.7L V-8 making 400HP. The amount of power you use is all about burning more fuel. More fuel requires more oxygen or you'll run rich. That's what Turbo's are all about. You can push more air in an engine, burn more fuel, and you get more power.
Stereodude
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Pradeep said:Oooh 612 HP. Trust Merc to electronically limit the torque to "only" 1000nm tho
I assure you I had nothing to do with it.
Stereo-
I haven't heard any numbers on the turbo Ion. Where are you getting yours? I agree, I would not want an Ion just because it doesn't fit my needs but I'm not sure what you're basing your Ecotec opinion on, either. I won't dispute your opinions...they are yours. I'd just like to see some info to support them.
Turbos are all about pushing much more fuel & air into the chamber when it's needed so a small turbo I4 will burn less fuel than a big V8 of the same peak horsepower overall (especially when sitting in traffic or cruising) if for no other reason than the reduced friction and pumping losses that are associated with a smaller engine. A small I4 will burn less fuel sitting in traffic than a big V8, obviously. Also, because the turbo scavenges the 'almost free' energy of the exhaust gas to pressurize the intake manifold, this adds to the overall efficiency of the system (no I'm not saying it increases fuel economy).
I do agree with your assertion that HP highly correlates with fuel economy (more than displacement does) but only when the two engine compared are actually making the same amount of HP (i.e. @ full throttle). You still have to account for the pumping and friction losses of a bigger engine though.
That being said, I think it is pretty impressive that the 5.7L 'Vette gets better mileage than the little 6-cylinder BMW. As mentioned above, GM has done some good tricks to taken advantage of the nice torque of the LS1 to acheive good mileage.
C
I haven't heard any numbers on the turbo Ion. Where are you getting yours? I agree, I would not want an Ion just because it doesn't fit my needs but I'm not sure what you're basing your Ecotec opinion on, either. I won't dispute your opinions...they are yours. I'd just like to see some info to support them.
Turbos are all about pushing much more fuel & air into the chamber when it's needed so a small turbo I4 will burn less fuel than a big V8 of the same peak horsepower overall (especially when sitting in traffic or cruising) if for no other reason than the reduced friction and pumping losses that are associated with a smaller engine. A small I4 will burn less fuel sitting in traffic than a big V8, obviously. Also, because the turbo scavenges the 'almost free' energy of the exhaust gas to pressurize the intake manifold, this adds to the overall efficiency of the system (no I'm not saying it increases fuel economy).
I do agree with your assertion that HP highly correlates with fuel economy (more than displacement does) but only when the two engine compared are actually making the same amount of HP (i.e. @ full throttle). You still have to account for the pumping and friction losses of a bigger engine though.
That being said, I think it is pretty impressive that the 5.7L 'Vette gets better mileage than the little 6-cylinder BMW. As mentioned above, GM has done some good tricks to taken advantage of the nice torque of the LS1 to acheive good mileage.
C
Stereodude
Not really a
The automotive press has just lambasted the Ion for being a cheap POS. I had read somewhere that the turbo version would only have about 170HP. I did a little web searching and it seems it's listed as having about 200HP. Either way I've not heard positive things about the Ecotech engine from people who've driven them.Clocker said:
Stereodude