dwightlooi

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The CT6 is a full-size sedan by government standards, period. For the purpose of government regulations, the EPA defines sedan sizes solely based on interior volume of the passenger cell and trunk. However, there is no law requiring manufacturers to advertise a mid-size as a mid-size or requiring 3rd party publications for using whatever alternative definition they please:- Compact = 100~109.9 cu-ft Mid-Size = 100~119.9 cu-ft Full-Size = 120+ cu-ft The CT6 has an interior volume of 110 cu-ft + 15.3 cu-ft = 125.3 cu-ft. The CTS has an interior volume of 97 cu-ft + 13.7 cu-ft = 110.7 cu-ft

I bought a 2005 C55 AMG in 2009 for $26K with 26K miles on the odo, clean title, no dents. The car stickered for $60K new. Drove it for 4.5 years and put 115K on it before selling it for a 2011 Jaguar XF 5.0 Supercharged. The 2014 CTS VSport Premium I bought in 2017 for $33K with 24K miles stickered for $73K new. I don't ever buy new cars and I LOVE DEPRECIATION!

The finer details here doesn't matter. These are ALL low volume cars. The Cruze is at 160,000 units and it is deemed untenable because it is not selling at 350,000 units. The point is that GM needs to figure out how to build a few thousand a year models well and profitably. That is how a luxury brand will operate.

The mistake Cadillac made was the RETARDED strategy of trying to revive a LUXURY BRAND from the bottom up. What's worse, they repeated this failed, illogical, strategy three times and never learned. Let's go back to early-2000s... Cadillac was the purveyor of retiree barges like the Seville and Deville powered by the notoriously unreliable and somewhat underpowered Northstar V8, with a Catera and a re-badged Tahoe thrown in for extra embarrassment. The clientele with Apollo era nostalgia of American luxury were quickly trading in their barges for hospice care and there was no next generation of buyers. GM decided to reboot Caddy as a more "european" and "sporty" brand with the Sigma based CTS powered by an Opel taxi engine and then a Malibu engine. The car was too big to be a 3-series fighter and too small to be a 5-series competitor. The interior with a plastic dash with egg crate HVAC vents was not particularly luxurious and with the exception of the Corvette engined V has no performance to speak of. Its proposition was that it is a cheaper and bigger alternative than a BMW. Whatever octogenarian who still walked into the dealership bought the Devilles and everyone who bought BMWs still bought BMWs. So, that didn't work. It didn't work because a luxury or premium brand is built on PRESTIGE and the CTS gave Caddy no prestige. Round, two, the CTS got a 2nd generation that is larger, heavier, and slower. The FWD barges were put out to pasture as the Hospice set finally dried up. There was again, nothing outstanding, nothing prestigious and nothing to look at except perhaps the supercharged V. The only difference now is that the car now needs a 5-series parking space but does not have 5 series space on the inside. Again, no prestige, nothing superlative and it didn't work. Round, three, Caddy takes a jab at the 3-series with the ATS. The car handled better than a 3-series -- well, better than the bloated F30 anyway. The 2.0T is somewhat coarse, but it is spirited enough. The 3.6 is still a Malibu engine and the V makes rattlingly noises resembling a lose heatshield when revved from the vacuum waste gate system but gave Vette performance. With no flagship the brand still had ZERO prestige and the ATS sold only when discounted. As the charge lead by the entry level ATS faltered, the 3rd Gen CTS -- possibly the best car GM has built ever -- found itself languishing on dealer lots priced out of the reach of the bargain hunters and with no prestige to command asking prices as high as $73K. So that didn't work again. What's common with all three attempts at rebooting the Cadillac brand was that GM started from the bottom with the presumed volume seller -- the cheapest model. Yes, they tried to do it by undercutting the competition. They played around with the size of the car. They played around with the pricing. But, they ALWAYS DID IT WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL CAR. They never understood that Luxury marques are built on prestige. That people didn't buy luxury cars for the magazine reviews, performance numbers or even a specific amenity. They buy luxury cars for the STATUS, RESPECTABILITY AND PRESTIGE driving it brings more than anything else. Think about it will anyone buy a Bentley, Rolls or Range Rover for that matter if they haven't heard much about these brands and the corporate parent tries to reboot them by starting with a blinged up CR-V or Altima? Do you think Tesla would still be in business if they had started not with the Model S, but with some Chevy Bolt like "meh" mobile and tired to work their way up to a luxury electric? I don't think so. Until Caddy can reboot their PRESTIGE, it cannot reboot the brand. GM either doesn't get it, was not willing to part with existing revenue or was simply too broke to do otherwise. All the finances, pain and logistics aside, this is what could have worked for Caddy:- (1) GM end production of ALL Cadiilac vehicles. (2) GM introduces a no excuses $500,000 Caddy -- call it an Auburn or whatever -- with ultimate materials, all machined interior bits, volin grade walnut, Nappa Leather on anything that is not wood or metal, a 1000 hp V12 engine as refined as any lexus, in a car as fast as a Z06. The 13-step, 7 layer paint process is hand polished between applications. The windows are double glazed with both electrochromic dimming and privacy frosting on the inner surfaces, an acoustic liner and is the largest ever pieces of glass to get the Carl Zeiss T* anti-reflective coating. The seat belts are not nylon but real silk interwoven with kevlar. The audio system is unique in that ALL the door panels, head liners and dash surfaces that are not occupied by handles or switch gear have broad swats of Martin-Logan electro-static transducers behind the mesh. Despite the size, power and luxury, the car is quite light with its Aluminum-Lithium and titanium intensive uni-body. Well... you get the picture. A car of superlatives intended to put Rolls and Bentley to shame. (3) Let the world drool on that for a few years. (4) Come back with the Escalade and the Escala for $120K to make the brand available to the average 1 percenter. (5) Once the prestige and image is firmly established, expand down market to the 5 series and X5 competitors, followed by the compacts and crossovers. In short, work your way down!

BTW, here's the BMW Scent cartridge GIMMICK for the 7-series. There are 8 scents to choose from and the car takes two cartridges so you can have different smells programmed for different times of the day or some combo smell from varying the intensity on the two. Each cartridge is $55. They last about 6 months when used moderately. Think of it as a very expensive version of the Glade plug-ins. I am surprised they brand it as BMW Green or Gold No2 or whatever. They should brand it as Chanel No.2 or Christian Dior No.1. Then they can sell it for $300.

Uh... yeah... you can get the CT6 Premium Luxury with the 2.0T. Nobody bought it though. The problem with packages is that you end up with 30 versions of the car instead of 3 or 4. Some unpopular configurations end up on lots for 2 years and have to be sold at a loss or not at all. One thing you have to understand is that it is not just that the V model is a low volume car. Cadillacs are ALL low volume cars!

The idea that Gimmick = Luxury will pass because it is a farce. Instead of stupid stuff like perfume dispensing HVAC, mood lighting with 5 million hues or projectors to put your logo on the ground under the door sill. $500 will buy you Rolls-Royce beating MACHINED aluminum or titanium signal stalks, switch gears and knobs, or CnC carved walnut shift knobs or relieved wooden panels. If you can get that in a $30 Rotring 600 pen you can get 30 pieces all over the cabin. That kind of thing will stand the test of time and it'll still yell exclusivity 30 years later when the only thing coming from the HVAC scent system is the smell of your old socks.

I have said that the XT5/6 deserves to have the 2.7T four as the base engine (or the Eco engine if you want to put a spin on it) an the 3.0TT as the upgrade. As far as the scent dispensers, it is not opulence. It's called a GIMMICK.

Actually, the Cadillac BASE trim interiors are much better than BMW or MB's base trim interiors. It is the Platinum trim levels that does not have the superfluous stuff the competition offers like 2 scent dispensers for your cabin integrated into the climate control or external 3D views. From an trim stand point, the Platinum and Premium gets the semi-aniline leather upholstery and open pore wood (or carbon fiber) panels. The BASE gets regular leather and lacquered wood panels. BMW gives you VINYL on the base trims and M-B even makes the arm rest an extra cost option.

There are plenty of product people in Apple too. But they are subjugated to a logistics guy who should be running FedEx or something. WTF has come out of Apple that's new and disruptive since Jobs' demise eight years ago? More slippery rounded edge phones with slightly better screens and cameras? Everytime Jobs the magician gave a keynote the world stood still in anticipation; every Tim the boring gives a keynote the world falls asleep. The point is that a car company, like a smart device company, is a product driven business. It must be product driven. The "managers" and "administrators", while necessary to keep the organization in ship shape, should be the supporting cast to the product visionary, not the other way around.

Actually... it is BMW's interior which is plastic intensive. Everything on the dash that's in beige is plastic. As is everything in charcoal below the arm rest. And this is on the top level trim. On the entry level trim it's vinyl everywhere and the entire upper dash is not even wrapped in anything. The interior is also cluttered and untidy from a design standpoint and the semi-tablet on dash infotainment display -- while not as silly as M-B's -- still looks like an afterthought. Exterior wise, I find the Caddy XT6's styling to be more distinct and "cleaner" than the X5's. The styling opinions are subjective; the qualitative ones are not. As I said, I have no problems with the interior. I do preferred the previous gen Caddy styling with the vertical headlights. The one thing I have a problem with is the 3.6 LGX engine -- which is refined enough but weak for the segment and Caddy's positioning. And, as I said, the XT5/6 should offer the excellent 2.7T four cylinder as the base engine with the 3.0TT V6 as the option. The LGX 3.6 can go in the RX350 fighting Buick and the Pilot fighting GMC/Chevys.

This vs that.

Look at the base trim on the X5... not impressive at all.

Actually, Cadillac interiors are just fine. Better than BMW's in many areas actually -- especially BMW's base trim examples. YOu have to be drunk off cool-aid to think that all German interiors are superlative. Again, this is particularly true of the plastic adorned BMW examples. MB does better, but MB also has dubious design elements like the silly iPad on dash infotainment displays.

The vertical head lights were the best design elements of Cadillac. Why abandon it for the Mazda look? Powertrain wise, the XT5 and XT6 as Cadillac SUVs deserve to have the 310hp/348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T Inline-4 as the base engine and the 404hp/400lb-ft (LGW) 3.0TT V6 as the upgrade. GM should leave the LGX V6 for the likes of the Traverse and Acadia. Product wise Mary Barra is a moron. This is another example of why administrators cannot lead, and must not lead, product driven businesses. Tim Cook is another example. You can have a pussy or be a homo, that's just fine. But you cannot have no product vision and forte. There aren't many ills in a car company that a good product line won't fix. And, there aren't many ills which can be fixed through good governance and logistics when the product sucks!

The LF3 -- the last of the LF-series motors -- is going out to be phased out of production with the sunset of the CTS. GM is not going to put it in anything new. The Regal GS could have used the 3.0L TT 404bhp / 400 lb-ft (LGW) engine instead of the 3.6L NA (LGX) though. Or, if they wanted to keep it "cheap" it could have had the 2.7L 4-cylinder Turbo from the Silverado which makes 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft.

Background Many cars now come equipped with Start/Stop. Many consumers hate having their engines turn off automatically at a stop light and coming back on when they release the brake pedal. They hate it because it reduces the life of the starter, degrades the battery, may increase wear on the engine and REDUCES REFINEMENT of their vehicles -- having the motor shudder to a stop and shuddering to life repeatedly is decidedly less refined than a smooth imperceptible idle. They hate it because it saves an imperceptible amount of fuel in most driving conditions. Most manufacturers equip cars with a Start/Stop disable button (except in atrocious cases like the 2017 Terrain which doesn't even have one). But, in order to have very slightly better EPA MPG numbers, they usually make the buttons "non-latching". That is, you can manually turn Start/Stop OFF but every time you start the car it reverts to ON. They do this so that the vehicle's MPG and CAFE numbers are calculated with Start/Stop ON. Had the button been "latching", it'll be calculated as the average between when it is OFF and when it is ON. Myopically, manufacturers almost universally choose very marginally better EPA fuel economy ratings (~0.1 mpg), and kissing up to environmental extremists in government, over customer satisfaction. Solution There are several commercial aftermarket solutions to defeat Start/Stop. But, for people who want to do it yourself, here's a solution which turns start stop off every time you start the car. This solution works with ANY car with a start/stop button, and it fully retains the functionality of the start stop button. (1) First, you need to go buy yourself a timer relay. It'll cost you about $17 and you can get one here (not affiliated to me but it's a product that works):- https://www.amazon.com/Timer-Delay-Relay-Hours-Cycling/dp/B00PD65UGA (2) Secondly, you need to find the wires that go to the START/STOP button. It'll be the wires that shows a closed circuit when you push the switch (and only when you push the switch). (3) Find your fuse box. There should be a terminal which is ON (only) when the car is running and OFF when the car is not running. Find it, and use that to power your Timer Relay so that it gets power (only) when the car has been started; it doesn't get power when the car is off. (4) Read the instruction manual and program your Timer Relay. Mode#7 -- Delayed Interval (Single Cycle) -- if you are using the relay I linked to DELAY (t1) 3 sec INTERVAL (t2) 1 sec (5) Wire your Timer Relay to where your Start/Stop Switch harness plugs into the vehicle's electrical system or splice into the switch's wires -- it makes no difference functionally. Once you have done the above the following will happen every time you start the car:- Timer Relay receives power Timer Relay waits 3 secs (t1) Timer Relay presses the Start/Stop Button for you and holds it for 1 sec(t2) Timer Relay releases the Start/Stop button Timer Relay does nothing for the remainder of the duration the car is running. Basically, the Start/Stop Button is getting pressed and released automatically 3 secs after you start the car, turning start/stop off. If you want to use start/stop, you can hit the button to turn it back on. The button continues to work to turn start/stop off or on as much as you like; the relay simply presses it once every time you start the car so you don't have to. Viola!

NVH should be no better or worse I guess... Maximum engine speed will be worse though. It'll be worse because the pistons are heavier (longer skirt needed to cover the exhaust ports), and also because you no longer have a dedicated exhaust stroke (at high speeds there will be less time for the intake air to push the exhaust out). This is why through flow side port engines -- including the Opposed Piston designs like the Fairbanks-Morse 38D8 1/2, Junkers Jumo 205 and more recently the Archates stuff -- tend to be diesels which do not rev that high anyway. It should be manageable up to 5000~6000 rpm or so using a rising rate supercharger (like a centrifugal blower). This is never going to be an Honda F20C, that's for sure.

The original illustration was removed for some reason. Here it is again.

LOL... It sits in a terrible location that is unreachable, unserviceable and very far from the exhaust ports! Basically, it's behind the engine, below intercooler and above the transmission. VERY long pipes connect the turbo to the exhaust ports below the engine. If you straighten out the pipes the turbo is about as far from the engine as the front seats in a car. For emissions purposes, Subaru even stuck a small catalytic converter between the exhaust ports ahead of turbo for the further pair of cylinders. Another main catalyst is, of course, located after the turbo. It all amounts to a mess that is both inefficient and a nightmare to work on. Also, with the intercooler above the turbo and fed by a hood scoop, when the car is stationary, all the heat rises up to heat soak the Intercooler. Congratulations! BTW, if that pre-cat breaks all that debris goes turbine...LOL! (See photos) That is why all the STi WRXes always have inferior turbo response compared to the Inline-4 Lancer Evolution. It takes 4,000 rpm for the STi to make full boost and it is rather placid 14.7 psi.