dwightlooi

The important questions are:- Will having a unique engine architecture for Cadillac lead to substantially better performance and/or refinement Whether a majority of Cadillac buyers will want to pay an additional $5000~8000 for a unique engine architecture built in small volumes The answer to the first question is especially critical since it heavily influences the answer to the second. The extra cost becomes an especially hard sell when it is not backed by substantial superiority. The current breed of I4 and V6 engines shared between Cadillac and Chevy matches the performance levels of competing luxury marques so I do not see room for substantial improvements to be hard by going to an independent engine architecture. A 270hp 2.0 liter turbo or a 315~323hp 3.6 liter V6 is up there with the very best from Audi, BMW, M-B, Acura, Infiniti and Lexus. Although I find the DI system on GM engines to be insufficiently "silenced" -- this however is more of a sound deadening issue and not really an engine architecture issue. On the V8 front, the LS3/L99 pushrod engines currently offer lower weight, smaller size and better fuel economy than competing DOHC V8s of similar output. This is an advantage to be capitalized on not something to frown at. The upcoming Generation V smallblock engines will bring VVT, cylinder deactivation and direct injection to bear, so I fully expect them to be competitive. Given the current landscape, I personally do not support the idea of doing a unique engine architecture for Cadillac and/or Buick. However, I do find that there is room of more substantial tuning differences between engines destined for Chevies and those slated for Caddies. One area, for example, is in fuel requirements. While the typical Chevy buyer will probably pay a notable amount of attention as to whether the car he buys will drink regular unleaded, somebody sinking 40, 50, 60 or 70K on a luxury car is much less likely to care. The difference between 87 octane and and 91 octane is a good 0.5~1.0 points in compression ratio. Higher compression equals more power as well as slightly better fuel economy. Hence, I'll like to see Cadillac V6s and V8s feature a compression bump along with the expected 5~7% power increase at the expense of requiring a 91 octane recommendation. I'll also like to see additional silencing on the Cadillac and Buck engines -- especially for the medium frequency DI groans.

If you have owned, or merely driven, a Mk IV or MkV Jetta. The 6th Generation will be a hard pill to swallow. It is literally like going from a Lexus to a Scion. The previous two generations are possibly the poshest compacts in the world, with interiors and tactile qualities easily beating the competition by a wide margin. In certain aspects, beating even a Mercedes C-class, BMW 3-series or Lexus IS. Essentially, they were Audi class in every respect. The new Jetta is well below that standard -- no better than a Corolla really and in some sense worse than Hyundais. Having said that, it is important to look at it anther way. Volkswagen Group was selling VWs that are essentially built like Audis. Even though they sell for 3~4K more than the competiting small cars margins are slim for VW. This doesn't make sense for VW to position VW as a luxury-entry when they don't have a brand situated below it. So this adjustment makes sense even if it will be poorly received by VW faithfuls. VW needs to be the Toyota fighter. If you want a Posher Golf or Jetta, you can always buy an Audi A3.

I fail to see the point of doing a Volt rehash with a swoopy body and a more luxurious interior. That theme caters to a niche -- a rather small one at that -- which is already being filled by the Volt. What Cadillac needs, and what GM doesn't have, is a performance hybrid. A car that speaks not just to tree huggers and global warming believers, but also to folks looking for performance with a technological slant first and fuel economy second. All the drive train pieces are there, although they'll need to be configured differently... I envision a 3000 lbs car built on the Alpha platform rather than the Delta II. Unlike the ATS, this will feature as extensive a level of light weight materials use as the platform allows. This means that the hood, trunk, fenders and greenhouse superstructure will all be aluminum or molded CFRP. The power train is simple and built using off-the shelf components. 1.4T Family 0 4-cylinder w/ direct injection (170 hp @ 5200 rpm / 175 lb-ft @ 2000~5000 rpm) 2 x Chevy Volt Generator Motors (2 x 74 hp) 4 kWh Li-Ion Battery The idea is to use the electric propulsion motors as an uber active differential in addition to being an assist device. The car has a simple open differential, which one 74 hp motor straddling the half-shafts of each rear wheel. What this means is that the entire setup can direct up to 318hp forward, but also selectively apply each of the 74 hp motors to each wheel or sway their combined torque to the opposite wheel by applying power in opposite directions to improve handling. This is a huge leap forward from today's "active" differentials which are biasing devices, but which have no capability to add torque. As a bonus, there can even be a "Superdexterous Parking Mode" which is activated only when the car is stationary, in neutral and the steering wheel is being turned all the way against either lock. Under such a circumstance, the rear tires can be made to turn in opposite directions using the electric motors, thereby allowing the car to essentially turn on a dim without any net forward or rear movement. The rate rotation being proportional to the pressure asserted against the power steering sensors at lock. This is sort of how you'll turn a tank, except the rotational axis is biased towards the rear axle given that the front wheels are skewed and free turning. The battery is parred down to a quarter the Volt's capacity save weight, which in turns improve handling and fuel economy when not running on pure electric power since this car is not intended primarily as an electric vehicle.

I can understand having an informed opinion about the car, sure. As I've said, though, the one photo we've got is enough to form an opinion on this car from a design standpoint and regarding how the changes made from the concept car affect the design overall. Once again, I've only condemned the car from a design standpoint. Well, no ... not really. While you can't form a rounded opinion about my behavior and personality from one photograph, you can certainly form an opinion about my appearance (e.g. "He's got a nice smile" or "He looks like he might be a bit of a slob"). No one here, myself included, is making any firm assumptions about the car aside from how it has been designed. Again, notice no one has said in this thread that the car "is going to drive like shit" or "will be weak and underpowered." We don't have any hard data to go on here, hence why no one has said anything regarding those two aspects of the car, myself included. Really? Again, I'm going to have to disagree with you here unless you can explain why so much had to be changed from the production-ready concept car. I've given my explanation here and -- I'm sorry -- that's the only thing that makes logical sense. It's certainly not because that the original concept car would be expensive to produce on the outside. I don't know if the general public will get behind this one if it's going to max out beyond $50k price wise. Then again, it's really too early to assume anything about this car sales wise. That doesn't mean I won't speculate, though. However, I will guarantee this: if this car does not deliver on all expectations regarding fuel economy, an involving driving experience, interior fit and finish, the level of standard content, and overall quality then the press will crucify this car, Cadillac, and GM as a result. They had better hope that they've built a good enough stop-gap until they decide to produce the Ciel for general consumption (but I'm not holding my breath regarding the Ciel), otherwise this car will haunt them until they pull the plug on it. Regarding China, I really think this car will consistently lose out to the Park Avenue. Just saying and speculating. I don't look at it quite so sternly. The XTS, regardless of what anyone said or did not say, is not and will not be Cadillac's flagship. That will be the Ciel or whatever it ends up being called. The XTS is Cadillac's competitor to the Lexus ES350. It is not the Caddy with which to take on the S-class, the 7-series or the LS460. In this regard, I believe it will price in the 40s and it must exceed the expectations of Lexus ES and Acura RL buyers, as well as appeal to DTS/Deville customers looking for a follow-on caddy to buy. That standard is high, but it is not astronomical. And, from the superficial look I am getting so far, I don't see any obvious failings. The car must be extremely comfortable and whisper quiet. It must look and feel well made and classy. It should also have decent fuel economy and performance, but these aren't top priorities to this class. It doesn't have to be the ambassador as to everything that Caddy can accomplish -- it does not have to be a halo car.

There is one thing I'll like to see Cadillac do... under tuck that headliner!!! Every time I get in a GM vehicle, I'll run my fingers between the windscreen and the edge of the headliner. Till today I can always feel the cut edges of the fabric and the exposed foam. Audi, BMW, M-B and even Acura undertucks the headliner fabric at the edges. This is one way I gauge if the manufacturer is cutting unseen corners. Over the long run this practice also has the practical purpose of forestalling the dreaded sagging head liners so prevalent in older GM vehicles.

OK... my preliminary take is this. (1) I actually like the exterior. For a large FWD, it has good proportions and a clean, uncluttered flank. The headlights are sleek. The grille has too much chrome but not offensively so. The green house is neat enough and the wheel arches don't look disproportionate. The brake vents look obviously fake, but they don't look out of place -- unlike the silly hood vents on the LaCrosse for instance. (2) I like the tasteful overall look of the cabin and dash. The color selection of the trim pieces are good. The stitched upper dash gives it an posh feel. I like the brushed chrome treatment instead of the more common bright chrome. The fit actually looks pretty good with the appropriate camfered edges between pieces to camouflage any minor unevenness. The new Caddy corporate steering wheel looks better than the current one -- nice crest, neater, better proportioned, well placed controls and more up market looking. The textures look appropriate throughout. Nothing looks glaringly objectionable. (3) Here's what I DON'T LIKE. The dash is more cluttered than it needs to be with various styling inconsistency. The same can be said of today's Audi dash actually. For example, the central HVAC vents have a different styling than the side vents -- there is no good justification for this. They are also at a different height which throws the lines of the overall design somewhat off -- I would have moved the side vents up to the same level as the center vents or placed the center vents between the NAV screen and the main switch panel to bring them to the same vertical plane. I am also luke warm about the LCD instrument cluster. This is especially so when it appears to be used to simulate very conventional gauges and needles. Traditional rounds and surrounds done well will be classier -- in the same manner that an analog watch always look classier than a digital watch. If not anything because an analog instrument cluster will not have the square edges demarcating the extents of the screen and will actually be three dimensional in look and textures.

Cruze SS anyone? But honestly, sport compact or not, US cars probably need the choice of an Automatic to reach full volume potential. This is very doable -- the 6T75 6-speed automatic will handle 300 lb-ft and is a ready fit for this motor -- so it's just a matter of doing it. BTW, for anyone who is not familiar with it, a Hiperstrut is a MacPherson strut with a steering hub and wheel carrier added such that the wheel is steered along an independent axis going through the center point of the wheel, instead of the axis of the shock absorbing strut itself. This is important because the steering axis being offset from the center of the wheel is a major contributing factor to torque steer -- when power is applied to the front wheels and one wheel has less traction than the other, the fact that the force axis is offset from the steering axis will cause the wheel to want to steer itself inwards. With Hiperstruts this does not happen with the wheels pointed straight ahead. You'll get some torque steer when the wheel is not pointed straight ahead due to caster causing the contact patch to shift from the axial line, but that cannot be helped.

The CTS-V is heavier mostly because of various chassis reinforcements, drive line upgrades and a higher level of standard equipment. The engine itself did not add much weight -- about 88 lbs (40kg) . Here are the numbers... CTS LLT 3.6 DI DOHC-24v V6 (300hp) = 172 kg CTS-V LSA 6.2 Supercharged Pushrod-16v V8 (556hp) = 212 kg For reference, the numbers for some other engines are:- BMW S65 4.0 DOHC-32v V8 (414hp) = 202 kg Corvette LS3 6.2 Pushrod-16v V8 (436hp) = 183 kg Nissan VR38DETT 3.8 Twin-Turbo DOHC-24v V8 (480~530hp) = 240 kg Honda S2000 F20C 2.0 DOHC-16v I4 (240hp) = 149 kg I don't think you can make a case for the big displacement pushrod V8 being the reason the GM cars are heavy. And, if they are heavy for other reasons, putting in an engine which weighs more or make less power or both doesn't help.

The problem with that argument is that the 6.2 liter or 7.0 liter V8 used in the Corvette is LIGHTER and SMALLER than the engine in the BMW M3, the GT-R or the 911 Turbo...

Actually, I think you are mistaken... (1) Performance means the highest power in the smallest, lightest engine. That happens to be a pushrod V8 motor as opposed to a DOHC V6 with two turbochargers, a myraid of plumbing and a big intercooler. (2) Progress means incorporating advanced technologies to make an engine more powerful, cleaner, more fuel efficient or all of the above. Progress is not a choice of valve train layout or a specific displacement. Technology is not lacking in a big displacement V8 that has direct injection, variable timing, cylinder deactivation, roller cam followers, 32-bit digital engine management and extremely lightweight construction, just because it is big displacement or because the designers chose to put the camshaft in the block or use less valves. Based on that kind of reasoning, one can argue that an engine is lower tech because it has fewer screws on the valve cover or because the cam sprocket is on one side or another. So, yes, I am in complete agreement that GM should push the technological boundaries with engines, that they should make their cars lighter and more agile, and that they should be competitive if not class leading in fuel economy. However, I also believe that a Pushrod V8 is just as high tech, lighter, smaller and more fuel efficient than other alternatives that make the same amount of power. Even without direct injection, without variable timing and without cylinder deactivation, the Pushrod V8 is delivering 430 horsepower, 424 lb-ft and 16/26 MPG in a Corvette. I don't think anything on the road that makes 430 horsepower is beating those numbers.

Well, the VR38DETT is 480hp at 240 kg, the LS7 is 505hp @ 204kg. The 7.0 liter V8 not only weighs less but also require less room under the hood and turn in 15 / 24 MPG (3 mpg better than the GT-R on he freeway). If the GT-R is powered by the LS7 V8, while retaining its AWD system and chassis, it'll actually be a faster and better handling car.

Well, at this point, my prediction is that the Caddy V cars will follow an engine strategy quite similar to that of M-B's last generation AMG cars. By that I mean that the ATS-V will receive a naturally aspirated version of the Gen V Small Block V8, whereas the CTS-V receives the supercharged version. I also expected the MPG numbers to be 1~2 mpg better than the current generation thanks to direct injection, variable timing and advancements on the transmission front. The reason I believe this to be more likely than a bi-turbo V6 is that the Gen V engine is already happening with or without the ATS-V, whereas a 450~500 hp class bi-turbo V6 is not happening unless they deliberately kick off such a project just for the ATS. Besides, this is also consistent with the current Caddy V-car image and philosophies. What this means is an ATS-V with ~ 470hp and ~ 17 / 26 MPG. The next CTS-V should then get a ~600 hp Supercharged version of this engine with ~ 14 / 22 mpg. That is something the competition will have a hard time beating.

Two things... (1) Nobody is saying don't offer a 4-cylinder or not to make cars more fuel efficient. The "Green" crowd, the Europeans and whoever else values small displacement for all the right or wrong reasons can buy a 4-pot ATS or a 6-pot one. They can buy it with all the amenities and luxurious trim offered. However, I'll tell you that the C63 buyer and the M3 buyer in general is NOT particularly interested in greeness or fuel economy. If they were, they won't buy these type of car to begin with! Therefore, BMW and M-B's retreat from the V8 powered luxury-sport-compact market is a good thing. It allows Cadillac the opportunity to have it to themselves. Having a V8 ATS-V has no detrimental effect on sales to the green or displacement conscious ATS shopper who won't even look at the ATS-V. (2) Small displacement does not equal better fuel economy. A reduced total parasitic loss equals better fuel economy. Reduced torque output from reduced displacement often forces higher average revolutions and increasing specific output by piling on the number of valvetrain elements also increase frictional losses. Adding a turbocharger reduces the thermal efficiency of the engine from reducing the static compression ratio. If you are not careful, you can easily end up with inferior fuel economy by going to a smaller displacement engine while at the same time adding cost, complexity and failure points. There are multiple examples I can give you on this... BMW M3 (4.0 DOHC V8) -- 414 hp / 295 lb-ft / 3708 lbs = 14 / 20 MPG Ford Taurus SHO (3.5 DOHC V6 Turbo) -- 365 hp / 350 b-ft / 4368 lbs = 17 / 25 MPG Camaro SS (6.2 Pushrod V8) -- 426 hp / 420 lb-ft / 3849 lbs = 16 / 24 MPG Ford Focus Automatic (2.0 DOHC I4) -- 160 hp / 145 lb-ft / 2907 lbs = 28 / 38 MPG Chevrolet Cruze Automatic (1.4 DOHC I4 Turbo) -- 138 hp / 148 lb-ft / 3102 lbs = 26 / 38 MPG The point is that we can expect a large displacement, pushrod V8 to be competitive if not superior in fuel economy compared to a smaller displacement bi-turbo V6 of a similar output. That the competition cannot or will not bring themselves to recognize and adopt the superiority of the pushrod engine is a choice they make to their own detriment.

The problem is that it is not something which existing processes and tolerances of ALL major automakers can do well. And, deliberately design a car to exhibit these shortcomings is not exactly a wise move. I guess they were trying for an engineering triumph to conquer, but really consumers don't know it is hard and won't recognize their victory.

(1) If BMW and M-B wants to go to a six, all the better! The ATS will have the V8 Sport Sedan market to itself! It means that at least some of the E90 M3 and W204 C63 customers will give Cadillac a look when they normally won't. (2) Actually, a Bi-turbo DOHC V6 six is usually not substantially, if at all, more economical than a naturally aspirated Pushrod V8. Part of it is because of the reduced compression of the turbocharged engine, part of it is because of the less friction efficient DOHC valve train (3) Fuel Economy may be hot with the family mid-size buyers... at least more people pay attention to it now than before, but it is probably the last thing on the minds of that customer who walked past that 4-cylinder ATS and the V6 ATS to pluck down twice as much money for the ATS-V! The same thing can be said of M3 and C63 buyers -- none of them, bought these cars to save on gas! (4) Actually, I think 45K is about right for an ATS-V if they plan to have the entry ATS start in the high-20s and have the ATS-V sit along side the 60K CTS-V. The ATS-V can have the naturally aspirated version of the Gen V V8 while the CTS-V gets the force fed rendition with about a third more power.

Actually, I think GM made a few bad calls with regards to "surfaces" and in doing so took on a long shot they cannot reliably hit. For instance, if you look at the last generation Malibu's hood you'll notice the design calls for a flush relationship between the fenders, the bumper and the hood itself. This is VERY DIFFICULT to pull off because typical tolerances will cause the hood to close either too low, too high, slightly higher to one side or offset in one axis or another. Even slight tolerance variations cause the car to look crooked.This is why hoods typically closes over the grill not try to level with it. The only other car with this style of closure was the last generation of Acura Integra before they went with the RSX moniker. Honda did that once and never did it again. Did GM pull it off? No, not really, half the Bus have crooked looking hoods. On the otherhand they did pull off the sharp crease on the front fender stamping of the CTS where the chrome ornament is. That is also very hard to get right, but they did get it right. I'll saying GM's record on these stunts are spotty.

Well, If its me, I'll shoot for a middle ground between low-boost/high-compression and high-boost/low-compression. A 2.0 liter DI Turbo rated at approximately 270 bhp @ 5800~6300 rpm, 250 lb-ft @ 1600~5600 rpm, redline at 6500 rpm will push a 3,400~3,500 lbs car, if the transmission is competent, to 60 in 6 seconds flat. The engine will have a compression ratio of about 9.8:1 and slightly better fuel economy and throttle response than the current LHU while losing not much torque. This serves as a 3.0 V6 replacement and the base engine. The 3.6 V6 tuned to about 320~330hp / 270~280 lb-ft will serve as the upgrade engine. It is not necessarily that much faster and it will drink more gas. But it should be a refinement improvement -- unless they really screw it up. For the ATS-V, I will urge sticking to the Pushrod, big displacement V8. It is gives you more performance at less cost, less weight and less complexity than a Bi-Turbo V6. It gives Caddillac Vs a unique identity and it is probably no worse in fuel economy than a heavily boosted six in the same power class. An estimated 470bhp / 440 lb-ft should be available from the Gen V Small block. That is... for the lack of a better phase... enough for a compact luxury sports sedan. Roughly C63 class in performance and quite attractive if priced at $45K or so.

That some individuals WILL NOT buy a 4-cylinder vehicle in a certain segment is not necessary to make a business case for 6-cylinder, less economical, CAFE busting models. That some individuals WILL PREFER a 6-cylinder is enough justification. Why? Because in this well populated field, even if GM goes all 4-cylinders on a Malibu, Regal or ATS it doesn't mean that every car maker will. This means that if you do not have a six you are losing business to competitors that do. For a model like the Malibu, this may represent a 10~25% loss of volume, for the ATS it may be half. But, when Gm has to fight hard for that 3.4% growth achieved, even 10~25% is not something they can afford to casually walk away from.

Actually, A turbo-4 will match or exceed a 3.0 or 3.6 V6 in performance for people who care about that. In fact, if you go the low boost, high compression route, the engine will pretty much drive like a 3.0 V6 in both power, torque and overall responsiveness. If you go the high boost route, there will be more lag and a little slower response but the engine will actually make as much power and more torque than a 3.6V6 -- especially in the lower mid-range. A better way to look at the viability of a V6 is that there are and will continue to be people who prefer the refinement of a V6 even if an I4 Turbo is equivalent in performance and superior in fuel economy. If there is a market for it, then a car manufacturer should fill it. That is more important than appearing green or chasing the latest environmental target set by the ticks in Washington DC. This is why I always say that GM should build cars its customers want to buy and let CAFE fall where it may. In that vein, I'll say that GM was correct in building and selling SUVs in the 90s and early 2000s. That was what the market wanted! The mistake they made was having very weak product lines outside of that such that when consumer behaviors and priorities change, they got caught with nothing competitive to sell outside of SUVs and Pickup trucks.

One thing worth watching out for is whether GM will change their turbocharging recipe... Currently, the LNF and LHU are relatively boost and torque heavy. With these engines you see an equal or greater amount of torque than horsepower. The Regal GS for instance makes 270 hp / 295 lb-ft and even the regular turbo regal makes 220 hp / 258 lb-ft. Regardless of how you feel about a torque heavy in a FWD application, the fact is that this is NOT the most fuel economical recipe. It does not maximize MPGs because you run up 16~21 psi of boost and that requires a compression ratio of about 9.0~9.2:1 -- low compression is bad for engine efficiency when you are cruising down the freeway with the engine making very little boost or hanging out in vacuum territory. The desire to make such numbers and yet be low on turbolag means that the turbo is typically undersized to reduce inertial and improve response. However, such turbos also run out of steam sooner and the engines tend to struggle for breathe past about 5000 rpm or thereabouts. With the current obsession with MPGs and with the upcoming redesign of the Ecotec Family (Gen III) it'll be interesting to see if GM will change their recipe to one using lower boost, higher compression and higher rpms. With boost dropped to 10~12 psi, compression will go up to 10.5~11:1 (almost as high as naturally aspirated DI engines). Such an engine will make considerably less torque, but will be more responsive and more importantly more misery on gas. To make the same amount of horsepower, the engine will have to rev higher. Such an engine for instance may make 270 hp @ 6200 rpm, but with only around 229 lb-ft @ 2200~6200 rpm.

Actually you will be right in the sense that if you transport a fat man to the Moon or Mars, his obesity will have significantly less impact on his ability to run fast, jump high or wear and tear on his joints.

The biggest thing I don't like with from all these new info is the digital LCD instrument cluster. I am not sure a digital LCD display is better. I mean, I'll keep it simple, sharp needles and clear text, while I focus on the important stuff. Gimmicks are not important stuff.

Weight = Mass x Gravity Unless we plan on driving the ATS on Mars, I fail to see the distinction.

I am not a chemist. But in general, I don't think there is a particular molecular definition of gasoline. Gasoline is a blend of various long chain hydrocarbon liquids. Generally, a liquid that fits into volatility, combustibility, density and calorific value ranges compatible with contemporary spark ignition gasoline engines are called gasoline. Gasoline is attractive because it is portable (liquid at winter through summer temperatures) and yield a high energy density. LPG and CNG have low energy densities per unit volume -- meaning that to go the same distance as a tank of gasoline that fits under the rear seats, you need to give up most of your trunk space for their tanks. Batteries are worse -- taking up just as much room if not more plus weighing a hell lot more and taking hours to recharge. Ethanol is only slightly worse, but is corrosive and its production in general are either negative yielding or barely breaking even (meaning more or just as much energy is put into its production as is yielded in ethnanol derived calories. Hydrogen is perhaps the worst -- the lowest density gas in the universe or a -423 deg liquid. Gasoline is attractive -- along with diesel -- because despite complaints about oil prices and despite the myth of global warming, they are the cheapest, most readily available and most portable choice for fueling passenger vehicles. The time for alternative fuels will come in 50~100 years when the progressive depletion of easily accessible fossil fuel reserves drive prices to a level where alternatives become sufficiently attractive from a comparative standpoint. It will not come because misguided politicians drinking global warming coolaid wants to push "green" energy or because certain minorities within the public wants to feel good about themselves. Countries which chooses to shoot themselves by not using the most affordable and available fuel, but instead seek alternatives before their time or control non-issues like carbon emissions will be doing just that -- shooting themselves in the foot economically and nothing more. Because of the portability of combustible hydrocarbon liquids, the natural progression is for us to move from easily accessible oil fields to less accessible oil fields (deep water, mountainous regions, polar areas) to reforming tar sands and coal into liquid fuel, then finally making hydrocarbons from expansive cultivation of biomass. At some point, probably around when we get to reforming tar and coal, things like ethanol will start to make sense for air transportation and batteries will start to become an economical compromise for passenger cars. However, wind, solar, hydroelectric, geo-thermal and all the "feel good" stuff combined will not meet more than 15~20% of the energy needs of today's human civilization much less tomorrow's. Unless you are willing to bet on returning to medieval lifestyles and the age of sail, there is only one viable energy future... NUCLEAR POWER distributed via the electrical grid and carried around in batteries. That is except for air and space crafts which will probably continue to use synthetically made combustible hydrocarbons. The world's energy resources focal point at that point will switch from the middle-east to Australia where most of the Uranium are... not entirely a bad thing IMHO.

You will never use two dual scroll turbos on a 4-cylinder engine. It doesn't make sense from a dual-parallel turbine setup, and it doesn't make sense for the downstream turbine in a dual-sequential setup. A dual scroll turbine housing introduces a divider and hence flow impedance lowing efficiency of the turbine itself. The ONLY purpose of a dualscroll turbo is to alleviate the feed-back-pulse effect which 4-cylinder engines exhibit. In a 4-cylinder engine, you invariably have two pistons at bottom dead center when another two are at top dead center. This means that when one cylinder (@ BDC) is opening the exhaust valve(s), another (@ TDC) is finishing its exhaust stroke. The cylinder finishing its exhaust stroke is also starting its intake stroke, therefore it tends to have both its exhaust and intake valves open at the same time. This is called the "overlap" period. For proper and complete aspiration, engines will have at least some overlap -- in the case of high strung naturally aspirated engines actually quite a lot of it! With a turbine plugging the exhaust, what happens is that the "path of lowest resistance" for the high pressure gases exiting the cylinder at the beginning of its exhaust stroke becomes the exhaust ports of the cylinder in overlap instead of the turbine! Hence, without a twin scroll turbo, exhaust is forced to back flow from the exhaust ports into the cylinder in overlap and often back up the intake port into the intake! This robs efficiency, makes the engine stumble at lower rpms and causes emissions issues. The traditional remedy is to run the minimum amount of overlap on turbocharged 4-potters. This minimizes the back flow problem, but it also makes the engine breath poorly -- especially when cruising off boost. This hurts fuel efficiency, may increase emissions and usually reduces the amount of exhaust energy initially available when the driver opens the throttle and thereby hurting responsiveness of the engine. The twinscroll turbine housing's purpose is solely to take care of this back flow problem by keeping the exhaust flow of cylinders 1 & 4 separate from that of 2 & 3. Keeping the exhaust separate prevents backflow. The twin scroll turbine housing itself reduces the flow capacity, increases flow impedance and actually hurt the efficiency of the turbocharger itself. The back flow problem also a problem unique to 4-cylinder engines, but not inline-3 or V6es. A three cylinder engine DOES NOT have pistons at BDC and TDC at the same instance. This is why 3-potters are easier and more efficient to turbocharge than 4-potters -- because a twinscroll turbine is neither necessary nor beneficial in a 3-cylinder. In a 3-cylinder the back flow problem does not exist in the first place and the engine can use a cheaper and more efficient single scroll turbo!