Leaderboard

What I keep seeing

Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer... It's the 9-speed Automatics. Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:- 9T50 -- 258 lb-ft 9T65 -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases. View full article

True. The Tahoe has the advantage of also having the bigger brother Suburban if such hauling duties are required.

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.

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.

I think this is one of the best looking of the fastback SUVs, but I still refuse to call it a coupe.

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.

Amazing what we did for marketing during the early console days. What other ads can you find?

With the introduction of the Toyota Supra, rumors have been swirling that the 86/BRZ twins might not be replaced when their production lives were up. Autocar UK has a quote from Toyota's European Marketing Chief saying "[the GT86] has been a successful halo product for us" and added that "...the Supra is not to replace that car." The 86/FR-S/BRZ was released in 2011 as a co-development between Toyota and Subaru. It uses Subaru's boxer engine and transmission. It is highly likely that the next generation model would continue to use the signature engine. The new car would continue sit below the Supra in the Toyota lineup. Akio Toyoda has stated interest in building a full lineup of sports cars. Whatever comes from the next generation 86, we're just glad that SUVs haven't killed yet another sports car. View full article

SUVs are Porsche's moneymakers..without them, the brand would have been dead 15 years ago. I figure making lots of performance SUVs enables them to build sports cars, which is a good thing...

Panamera... I must go back to grade school and learn how to read properly. So yeah! Panamera as a 2 dr would be GREAT being called a 928. Minus the mistake about the Panamera part. The rest of the rant stills stays as THAT is how I feel about Porsche and CUVs and Porsche sports cars...

They should do a 2dr coupe version of the Panamera and call it 928..

Dont all those 4 cylinder "street rods" all go 'brawwwpp'? There was a young adult go through my drive-through with a current gen VW Golf that also went brawwwpp. I dont think it was a GTI...didnt look it, but sure as hell tried to sound like it had more bark then it actually had... I cant hate them anymore for that! Actually, quite the opposite as that means they are enthusiasts of the motor vehicle....gotta respect 'em as these are the kids that will grow up and DEMAND that we have enthusiast type self-driving pods... And Im happy that Toyota and Subaru are investing in another generation...as maybe there is a slight sliver of hope that not all sheeple are so much into their smart phones and CUVs that these types of cars COULD still exist!

I'm watching my driveway waiting for Spring...tired of 35F and sleet/snow flurries. 6671312257804332096_stamp.mp4

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

I think you mean Aviator.... but no, both of those are a bit smaller than an X7. But we're now in a stage where there is a crossover for every 1" in length.

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.

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.

Im guessin' the same stupid shyte that Vincent Vega is glarin' at... At least he's glaring at it with style... Here, you wanna see? No need for the gun tho! But you cant have it...catch my drift?

It's unlikely that the SUV building in SC is going to slow down at all. It's going to be the sedans, coupes, and "fun" cars that are the ultimate driving machines that will suffer while bulbous SUVs continue to pollute the roadways. South Carolina has nothing to worry about with this announcement.

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.

Interesting first drive of the new X7 and wow some big draw backs for what is supposed to be a full size SUV but clearly is NOT. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/reviews/2019-bmw-x7-preview/ Surprised that for two carry on suitcases and backpacks, the reviewers had to fold down the 3rd row seats as there is no cargo room. Interesting the tight cramped quarters that are mentioned no matter where you sit especially for big tall guys. ?

@oldshurst442 Seems EV tax breaks are in fashion. Your country just announced today a new $5,000 tax break that can be used immediately for your first tax year of ownership for everyone who wants to buy an EV that costs $45,000 or less. https://chargedevs.com/newswire/canada-announces-new-5000-ev-incentive-but-no-teslas-need-apply/ Tesla need not apply

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: 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!

Would make a great demo derby car. - - - - -

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.

I think I posted a pic before, but this is Bro's 'bird: