It's the 9-Speed Automatics

THANK YOU Dwight!!!

This is very interesting information, so Ford then choose to write off the investment and go another route versus GM wanting to get money out of their investment and offer a rather pathetic power train.

These are the type of decisions that GM will end up hurting by. Yes it would be great if every dollar invested in R&D returned a profit, but sometimes, the best intentions means you throw it into the garbage bin and start over.

Very sad for sure, Hopefully GM will realize they need to offer something better. 

Put this in the Chevrolet's and bring in a proper Torque heavy Tranny! 

13 minutes ago, dfelt said:

This is very interesting information, so Ford then choose to write off the investment and go another route versus GM wanting to get money out of their investment and offer a rather pathetic power train.

These are the type of decisions that GM will end up hurting by. Yes it would be great if every dollar invested in R&D returned a profit, but sometimes, the best intentions means you throw it into the garbage bin and start over.

The term for this type of behavior is the Sunk Cost Fallacy; go Google it.

But, I am not sure this is exactly true of GM's decision in this case. The 9-speeds do offer a few things -- better shift quality from one way clutches from gears 2-9 and smaller ratio steppings. The 6TXX trannies were very average boxes in this department. The new 9-speeds also have a pressure accumulator to prime the trannies for engine restarts with Start-Stop systems -- instead of having to spin the converter from stand still and pressurize the transmission fluid so the hydraulics will start working. The Accumulator stores pressurized fluids while the transmission is running and re-injects them during a restart. The only bad thing about the new 9As is that they are stuck at 280 lb-ft. which is OK for the LSY 2.0T and LGX 3.6 V6es. For high performance stuff, I guess GM is deferring to Longitudinal cars with the GM-Ford 10L80 and 10L90 transmissions good for 590 lb-ft and 650 lb-ft respectively.

1 minute ago, dwightlooi said:

The term for this type of behavior is the Sunk Cost Fallacy; go Google it.

But, I am not sure this is exactly true of GM's decision in this case. The 9-speeds do offer a few things -- better shift quality from one way clutches from gears 2-9 and smaller ratio steppings. The 6TXX trannies were very average boxes in this department. The new 9-speeds also have a pressure accumulator to prime the trannies for engine restarts with Start-Stop systems -- instead of having to spin the converter from stand still and pressurize the transmission fluid so the hydraulics will start working. The Accumulator stores pressurized fluids while the transmission is running and re-injects them during a restart. The only bad thing about the new 9As is that they are stuck at 280 lb-ft. which is OK for the LSY 2.0T and LGX 3.6 V6es. For high performance stuff, I guess GM is deferring to Longitudinal cars with the GM-Ford 10L80 and 10L90 transmissions good for 590 lb-ft and 650 lb-ft respectively.

That is great info to know and I wonder if that is what they are doing with this years XT5 that I had as a service loaner for a few days. The start / stop was barely noticable compared to earlier year versions.

Thank you Dwight, I love this type of learning. You made my day as I am still working so a break like this is very welcomed by me.

You Rock!

Interesting.

But I just wanna put out another point of view. A hypothetical if you will. 

This engine is a successor to the one that is in the ATS, right?

I know for a fact that one (of many) issue many journalists had with the ATS, and undoubtedly folks coming from Audi or BMW was that the 2.0T in the ATS was not as refined as the one offered in a Bimmer or Audi. Wasnt smooth. (A common complaint for GM 4 cylinders since, like...forever.)  

Well, this transmissions, as per the OP, and Ford apparently, is that it makes the LSY a refined powerplant.

Ford may not have had use for it because the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases for their Ford branded vehicles, but seeing GM kept it for their Cadillac small CUV, maybe GM and Cadillac engineers decided that refinement was an upmost  priority and since an XT4 doesnt really need tire melting torque to convince people to buy it, but silky smooth driving dynamics to lure folk from the German brands, then perhaps it was a wise decision?

Because that is how I choose to view this decision.  Because quite honestly, 237 horsepower and 258 ft.lbs of torque for a cute ute CUV in a segment that really doesnt care for power, nor would they understand it or feel or even want it, is good enough.

And here I was, trying to find out what the XT4's competition is with a Car and Driver article that tested it that usually also mentions the competition, and the first thing in the title is:  The 2019 Cadillac XT4 Is More Smooth Than Sporty

They follow that up with: 

Cadillac continues to bifurcate its lineup into sporty sedans and milquetoast crossovers.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a23143999/2019-cadillac-xt4-crossover-drive/

But...crossovers, especially little shytbox crossovers like these, ARE NOT ABOUT SPORTY...despite what some of us want to believe...

And after looking at the competition's numbers, Porsche, Volvo, Alfa Romeo...all 3 have more HP and torque...but... like I said...crossovers, especially little shytbox crossovers like these, ARE NOT ABOUT SPORTY...despite what some of us want to believe...

This is what Car and Driver said:

Quote

 

Sure, it's too bad that the honey of an engine, which revs so smoothly you'd swear its cylinder liners were spun silk, must work through a transmission that positively neuters its output with lackadaisical responses. But the competent yet uncommunicative suspension and steering? That's par for this class. The rest of the baby Caddy's package has plenty of good stuff to look forward to.

Fresh Powertrain

The XT4's new engine, for starters, makes a good first impression. Producing 237 horsepower at 5000 rpm and 258 lb-ft of torque from 1500 to 4000 rpm, this turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four is so smooth and quiet we found ourselves regularly checking the tachometer to see if it was running. And even at full throttle, it is almost disconcertingly quiet and vibration free. Cadillac's estimates of a 7.0-second zero-to-60-mph time with front-wheel drive (and 7.2 for AWD models) are only midpack for this segment, but turbo lag is virtually unnoticeable. The engine—code-named LSY—weighs 15 pounds less than the 2.0-liter four used elsewhere in Cadillac's lineup, 

 

 

 

 

Steering and suspension response is uncommunicative...par for the class. Porsche and M-B and BMW and Alfa Romeo is well represented...

Midpack for performance times vis-a-vis the competition, in a segment that doesnt give a phoque about performance...despite Porsche and Alfa Romeo and BMW...in this segment...and  an anemic XT4 is STILL midpack in performance times...BUT...ITS SMOOTH AND QUIET!!!

Something that 4 cylinder GM cars NEVER were...and THIS is a Cadillac, where smoothness and quietness IS A MUST!!!  For the FIRST time in like...forever!

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

 The 2019 Cadillac XT4 Is More Smooth Than Sporty

The LSY (2.0T) and L3B (2.7T) are from the same (new) family of GM Tri-Power Inline-4 engines. They are a clean sheet designs which boasts a 3-stage cam switching valve train with dual continuous cam phasing. The cam switching system works by having 3 cam lobes for each intake valve on a sliding sleeve. There are four -- one for each cylinder -- on the intake cam. A pair of solenoid actuated pins acting on grooves in the sleeve commands the sleeve to slide back and forth on the camshaft. The switching can only occur when the valves' roller followers are on the base circle (zero lift). On the current implementation the three profiles are -- zero lift (cylinder deactivated), low lift and high lift. On the exhaust cam there are only two sleeves; for the two cylinders that can be deactivated. There are only two positions on the exhaust cam sleeves -- zero lift (deactivated) and regular lift. In addition to switch between cam profiles, the engine also has variable cam phasing (valve timing) which can advance and retard both the intake and exhaust camshafts. There are a total of 6 cam lobe switcher solenoid assemblies atop the valve covers. Unlike previous VVT phasers, the new ones park in the middle rather than one end of the variation range. The engine blocks are webbed for higher rigidity and feature a water cooled integral exhaust collector which terminate in a single divided outlet designed exclusively to support the use of a twin scroll turbo bolted directly to the cylinder heads. There is no exhaust headers. The engines are balanced by two counter rotating Lancester balance shafts in the oil sump. The aluminum block is of the deep skirt design with an integral girdle structure rather than a bolt on main bearing reinforcement. The engines only support direct injection and feature a revised oil separator and collector under the valve cover for the PCV system to minimize intake port fouling. If you know what a PCV oil catch can looks like, look for it on the top of the engine in the 2nd video @ ~ 6:52 on the top right of the frame. The engine also features advanced coolant and oil thermal management for fast warm up and the water pump is electric which decouples water pump speed from engine speed and allows continued full coolant movement even when the engine is shut down protecting the turbo and the engine from oil coking.

AWESOME, Thank you again @dwightlooi, This has been a great evening of working my job and learning some new stuff on new auto's. 

Very cool informative videos!

Question for you, with the complexity of these engines and the various cam phases, what do you think the engine life will be if the basic maintenance is done?

• 250,000 miles
• 350,000 miles
• ??????

Appreciate your take on the engine life of these new designs.

The new 2.0T in the XT4 is disappointing when the dealership across the street selling Denali Terrains has a much more powerful and faster 2.0T.

11 hours ago, dfelt said:

AWESOME, Thank you again @dwightlooi, This has been a great evening of working my job and learning some new stuff on new auto's. 

Very cool informative videos!

Question for you, with the complexity of these engines and the various cam phases, what do you think the engine life will be if the basic maintenance is done?

• 250,000 miles
• 350,000 miles
• ??????

Appreciate your take on the engine life of these new designs.

I have no idea. Ask me in 15 years... LOL!

But, certain design decisions potentially increases the failure probabilities. For example, a electric water pump may fail to operate because its motor failed independently of the engine, whereas a traditional water pump will turn if the engine is still turning. Sure, the impeller can break and the engine itself can fail, but that applies to both electric and crank driven pumps. Motor failure is a new failure mode exclusive to an electric water pump. The cam switching system is also NOT a safe-in-fail. If the pin solenoids fail it is possible for the switcher to be stuck between lobes which will be a damaging event. Again, engines have adopted design decisions that are not safe-on-fail before... the most common being interference valve actuation. Should the timing belt of chain break, the piston will smash into the valves and grenade the engine. But that is almost universal today and I haven't heard of chains breaking. Active oil and coolant flow management also presents the possibility of solenoid failure cutting off the engine from the coolant and oil radiators which will be leave you on the side of the road, whereas traditional thermostat failure will simply be a emissions event from the engine not ever reaching the optimum operating temperatures.

42 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The new 2.0T in the XT4 is disappointing when the dealership across the street selling Denali Terrains has a much more powerful and faster 2.0T.

Not for long... the LTG is not long for this world. BTW, the LTG in the Terrain was also detuned to 252 hp (from 275 hp) and 260 lb-ft (from 295 lb-ft). Again, because the 2018+ Terrain picked up the 9T50 9-speed Automatic.

Anyway... I suspect that GM will have a high output Tripower Four at some point, just not for the Transverse FWD  cars.

I'll like to see a 2.7T High Output 4-cylinder probably around 450 bhp @ 5,700 rpm, 420 lb-ft @ 2,600~5,600 rpm, rev limited to 6,200 rpm. This will pair quite well with the 10L80 10-speed automatic transmission and it will be a true V8 replacement 4-potter. It'll be more than good enough for a CT4-V. Maybe even an XT4-V if GM will buy Ford's 8-speed Auto.

28 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Anyway... I suspect that GM will have a high output Tripower Four at some point, just not for the Transverse FWD  cars.

I'll like to see a 2.7T High Output 4-cylinder probably around 450 bhp @ 5,700 rpm, 420 lb-ft @ 2,600~5,600 rpm, rev limited to 6,200 rpm. This will pair quite well with the 10L80 10-speed automatic transmission and it will be a true V8 replacement 4-potter. It'll be more than good enough for a CT4-V. Maybe even an XT4-V if GM will buy Ford's 8-speed Auto.

Yeah. They haven't released the specs for the CT5 yet.  That is coming with the 10-speed RWD paired with the 2.0T, so hopefully it will be a much higher output version of the same engine. 

So the really smooth 9AT coupled with a smooth and quiet 2.0T engine in a FWD luxury crossover lacks the performance punch a lot of people here expected.  Good to know.  When my '08 Lucerne was being serviced, I asked a salesman about the new Terrain.  We looked at a loaded SLT and he mentioned how quiet the engine was and the lack of turbo lag and the smooth ride.  What the salesman told me corroborates with what dwightlooi mentioned here.  For the FWD crossovers, the demand is for smooth-running quiet fuel-efficient four-cylinder engines.  This setup matches what is required. This is what most people want in their powertrain.

Now as for the CT5 and any RWD sedans that get the 2.0T or the 2.7T, I do not see the current 9AT installed in such a performance car since there would be too little torque available for those engines.

However the Buick envision now had 295lb torque from the 2.0 and its 9 speed.  So which 9 speed is it using or is it not a GM transmission. 

• 9T50   -- 258 lb-ft
• 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft

By the way I have a Terrain Denali and the 2.0 is plenty of powerful for it.  Everyone that has drove it thinks it has a v6.  These don't need super powerful engines

47 minutes ago, Guest said:

However the Buick envision now had 295lb torque from the 2.0 and its 9 speed.  So which 9 speed is it using or is it not a GM transmission. 

• 9T50   -- 258 lb-ft
• 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft

By the way I have a Terrain Denali and the 2.0 is plenty of powerful for it.  Everyone that has drove it thinks it has a v6.  These don't need super powerful engines

If it's the 9A it's probably the 9T65. It can work if they limit boost in 1st gear to moderate the input torque when the greatest amplification happens. 280 is not that far from 295. The Focus ST did that in 1st (back then) too. You can't responsibly drop in the 348 lb-ft 2.7T or th 368 lb-ft 3.6TT engines on the 9T65 like you could the 6T80 though.

57 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

So the really smooth 9AT coupled with a smooth and quiet 2.0T engine in a FWD luxury crossover lacks the performance punch a lot of people here expected.  Good to know.  When my '08 Lucerne was being serviced, I asked a salesman about the new Terrain.  We looked at a loaded SLT and he mentioned how quiet the engine was and the lack of turbo lag and the smooth ride.  What the salesman told me corroborates with what dwightlooi mentioned here.  For the FWD crossovers, the demand is for smooth-running quiet fuel-efficient four-cylinder engines.  This setup matches what is required. This is what most people want in their powertrain.

Now as for the CT5 and any RWD sedans that get the 2.0T or the 2.7T, I do not see the current 9AT installed in such a performance car since there would be too little torque available for those engines.

GM doesn't have a longitudinal 9A. They have the 8L45, 8L90, 10L80 and 10L90 with 8 or 10 speeds.

Great info and research on that.  The science explains their thinking.

10 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The new 2.0T in the XT4 is disappointing when the dealership across the street selling Denali Terrains has a much more powerful and faster 2.0T.

Seems like a typical GM move, and why Cadillac is where they are. 

I don't see why they don't make a better FWD transmission that can handle over 300 lb/ft with 8-9 gears or whatever they deem they need.

31 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Seems like a typical GM move, and why Cadillac is where they are. 

I don't see why they don't make a better FWD transmission that can handle over 300 lb/ft with 8-9 gears or whatever they deem they need.

No need for speed in this segment.  Its just a cute ute CUV. 

Define better transmission?

Because as I understand it, this 9 speed is smooth and makes this 4 cylinder rev even smoother. 

I know Drew mentioned that the Denali Terrain has got more power, but as much clout as a Denali has got,  its still not a Cadillac. And Im willing to bet that the Denali aint as smooth as the XT4 is said to be...

If you are gonna blast Cadillac for something, blast Cadillac for even being in this segment to begin with...

While I did say a couple of weeks ago if they are to do a vehicle this small, then they should go all in, but I also said that I wouldnt want any Cadillac to be in a 40 000 dollar price range. I would want Cadillac to START in the 55 000 dollar range. And therefore a XT4 better be a V trimmed CUV...

But as is...we all could moan about the XT4 not being a tire melting Hellcat beating motor vehicle, to my understanding, the XT4 is one smooth and quiet ride. And THAT would and should  be the main focus here. And I think it was wise for Cadillac to choose smooth and quiet over unnecessary torque figures and risking having a ride that some Euro loving badge snob complain about how harsh the engine or ride is! 

Its a Cadillac after all. No...not a V Series Cadillac. Just a luxury ride Caddy! 

Cadillac issues aside, GM probably doesn’t have any transverse mounted engine with over 300lb-ft other than the soon to be dead XTS V-sport.  So if they made one 9-speed transverse mount transmission it could be used in everything from a Sonic to a Traverse .  Better economies of scale that way.

Then in rear drive maybe you have a couple torque ratings for a regular duty and the high torque outputs.

The older GM 2.0 is a good motor, and so is the new one.  But the new one is new, which means unproven, and it is slower.

It's fast enough in the XT4 for volume models.  They will want to look at getting a higher tune of that motor as an option.  It is smooth once up to speed, and sporty but it is not blazing quick.  It's like a 7-7.5 second to 60 car.  I am certain it will cruise well on the highway.

The CT6 base 2.0 through 2018 had the old 2.0.  When they swapped in the new one for 2019, it lost a second of 0-60 time...i.e. slower.

I thought the CT5 just announced was getting the older 2.0?  I don't think the new one is slated for the CT5, yet.

The 2020 Acadia gets the new 2.0 as an option.

I really am jazzing on a Regal, and probably a TourX.  The AWD tourX is slower by a bit with the 8 speed instead of the FWD 9 speed sportbacks but maybe that's a good thing.  Sounds like the 8 speed tranny might handle power and torque better.  Having the older proven 2.0 may be a good thing.

6 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Cadillac issues aside, GM probably doesn’t have any transverse mounted engine with over 300lb-ft other than the soon to be dead XTS V-sport.  So if they made one 9-speed transverse mount transmission it could be used in everything from a Sonic to a Traverse .  Better economies of scale that way.

Then in rear drive maybe you have a couple torque ratings for a regular duty and the high torque outputs.

Not exactly... Unlike the difference between transverse and longitudinal transmissions -- which are totally different animals -- there is no substantial difference between a lengthwise or sideways engine installation. We are talking about a different exhaust pipe, new air box and new dress cover. The last being largely cosmetic (so the lettering don't don't face the wrong way). 99% of the engine is identical. The differences are minute enough that GM doesn't even have separate RPO codes for transverse and longitudinal versions of the same engine. The FWD and RWD 3.6TT are both the LF3. The FWD and RWD 3.6 NA are both the LGX or LFX. The FWD and RWD "old" 2.0Ts are both LTG.

I always liked your analysis of things changing and technical options @dwightlooi.

16 hours ago, regfootball said:

The CT6 base 2.0 through 2018 had the old 2.0.  When they swapped in the new one for 2019, it lost a second of 0-60 time...i.e. slower.

The EPA ratings went from 22/25/30 to 24/28/34 MPG (US) with the new 2.0 and 10-speed automatic, which is more useful in the real world (along with improved NVH characteristics) than ~6 vs ~7 seconds 0-60 MPH.
 

The mpg improvements particularly for a big car are impressive however losing that much acceleration for a luxury brand is concerning.  

2 minutes ago, regfootball said:

The mpg improvements particularly for a big car are impressive however losing that much acceleration for a luxury brand is concerning.  

 

Not when there are 4 additional engine choices above that. 3.6, 3.0TT, 4.2TT, 4.2TT-V

7 seconds to 60 is fine for most people anyway. Someone buying a base base base CT6 isn't going to be concerned with 0-60, they're going to be concerned with heated seats. 

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/ct6/2019/2019-cadillac-ct6-20-first-test-review/

“At the track, the 2019 CT6 sprinted to 60 mph in 7.5 seconds and finished the quarter mile in 15.7 seconds at 89.2 mph. That's 1.1 seconds slower than a 2017 model we tested to 60 mph and a second slower in the quarter mile. The culprit is GM's new 2.0-liter turbo I-4, which is down 28 hp and 37 lb-ft of torque versus the outgoing unit. Power delivery is smooth, and turbo lag is minimal; however, the new engine is barely adequate for a 3,930-pound car like the CT6. The 10-speed automatic is also poorly calibrated; in typical GM fashion, it shifts quickly but immediately goes to the highest gear, preventing you from taking advantage of the engine's midrange torque. Road test editor Chris Walton noted that the engine likes to short shift well below the engine's 7,000-rpm redline and sounds labored when pushed hard. There is a fuel economy payoff, though; our friends at EQUA Real MPG achieved 23.5/38.5 mpg city/highway during their tests. That's a smidge lower in the city but significantly higher on the highway versus the EPA's official 24/34 mpg rating.”

translation: this is not an improvement for anything besides fuel economy reasons. 

Since the 10 speed is used here then they should retune the engine for lots more power. The premise of this thread was the tranny was limiting the output of the new motor. But that is not the case here. 

The 2.7 would be a good candidate for the CT6 actually.