Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

dwightlooi

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,013

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by dwightlooi

  1. dwightlooi
    GM should make it VERY SIMPLE. For each model there should be three trim levels and ZERO options. Basic Loaded Loaded with performance engine That's it. If you don't like the equipment or configuration, the sales guy shows you to a booth where you can CUSTOMIZE a car to be built to order and delivered in 2 weeks for a $1000 customization fee. Because odd ball configurations are rare and not stocked at dealerships. It is not too hard to have a build queue you can fulfill in 2 weeks.
  2. dwightlooi
    I will not buy a Cadillac new. Depreciation is ridiculous. I would, however, but one used -- like the 2014 CTS VSport Premium which I got in 2017 for $33K (a full $40K off the new retail price) with 26K miles on the odo. Now, though, with the neutered 3.0TT engine and the weak sauce CT5-V, I won't even buy a used CT5. I might consider a 2016 CT6 or 2017 CT6 Platinum w/ super cruise though. The un-neutered 3.0TT is OK at 404hp/400 lb-ft and those things sell for $40K.
  3. dwightlooi
    What I am surprised by is the retention of the 3.6 (LGX) engine. I would have guessed that Caddy will phase out the 3.6 (LGX) engine in favor of their newly minted and neutered 3.0TT across the board. They BOTH make exactly 335 hp although the neutered 3.0TT makes 400 lb-ft (quite a bit more than the 285 lb-ft managed by the 3.6 Naturally aspirated engine. I can kinda understand with the XT5 and XT6 given GM's lack of a 400 lb-ft transverse automatic transmission. Unless they want to buy Ford's 8-speed 8F57 they are kinda stuck with these sub-300 lb-ft engines. But, this is not an issue with the longitudinal CT6 and will be consistent with the CT5 and CT4 lines -- with the CT6 base engine being the CT5 premium engine.
  4. dwightlooi
    This should have been the positioning from day one. But something tells me that it is too little, too late, in the life cycle of the CT6.
  5. dwightlooi
    Well, plenty of people believe in NONSENSE and that is not limited to automotive matters. As a general rule, a V8 will fit where an I4 will fit in a longitudinal engine bay. This is particularly so given the very compact -- very short and narrow -- nature of a push-rod V8.
  6. dwightlooi
    A higher state of tune generally will not affect the NVH unless you put in a stupid muffler to make extra noise. What it will do is give up on a bit of the bottom end turbo spool. Instead of hitting 348 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm. It'll probably hit 348 lb-ft @ ~1,800 rpm on the way to 420 lb-ft @ 2,200 rpm. The plus side being that instead of holding that 348 lb-ft torque peak only till 4,000 rpm. You hold a higher torque plateau of 420 lb-ft through 5,200 rpm. This gets you over 100 more horsepower.
  7. dwightlooi
    Vibration wise it is a balance shafted four so it's not going to shake. But, 420 hp from 2/3 as many firing pulses is going to sound a little coarser than from a V6. Still, because twin turbo V6es inherently sucks from a tiurbo response standpoint compared to an single turbo Inline-4 (due to the interrupted exhaust pulses of three cylinders feeding a turbo) an Inline-4 will be more responsive and come on boost sooner.
  8. dwightlooi
    The 2.7T fits where the 2.5 fitted. It'll fit just fine.
  9. dwightlooi
    I think GM should have two "Grades" of motors -- Standard and Premium. Chevy and GMC uses the Standard Grade optimized for value and economy. Caddies and Buicks should only use the Premium Grade, optimized for performance and refinement. The engines can be built on the same production line and share most parts. But the Premium Grade will have things you can never justify to the bean counters for a Malibu or a Silverado. Things like:- Individual Throttle butterflies for a snappier response Dual Injection with port injection for a quieter idle and cleaner intake valves Titanium intake and Sodium filled exhaust valves Titanium Aluminide turbine wheels and ball bearing cartridges for marginally better the turbo response and durability Air-to-water intercoolers for greater efficiency and lower pressurized volume (better response) Forged Steel or Titanium-Aluminide rods and crankshaft. Additional acoustic jacket and coverings for a quieter power train Magnetorologic Engine and Transmission mounts for better isolation without compromising torque capacity.
  10. dwightlooi
    Just a thought... Put in a 2.7T tuned to 410~420 hp and 380~420 lb-ft and they can call it the Regal GNX.
  11. dwightlooi
    I'll favor an approach using GREATER DISPLACEMENT and LOWER BOOST. As I have said before in previous threads, the GM 2.7T four potter is an ideal candidate. Keeping the same boost 1.4 bar (20.6 psi) in a properly sized turbo (Eg. G25-550) and a generous air-to-water intercooler -- instead of the undersized and almost falling off the map conch shell they have on it -- will produce about 420 lb-ft (up from 348 lb-ft). This engine won't be a revver with it's 102mm stroke. But, it doesn't have to be; 6,100~6,200 rpm is plenty when you have 420 lb-ft from 2,200~5,200 rpm and 420 hp @ ~5,300 rpm. Hitting the torque peak at 2,200 rpm, however, makes the car a lot easier and enjoyable to drive.
  12. dwightlooi
    The PROBLEM with battery packs today is that they are made up of individually wrapped cylindrical cells wired together in a series of 100 or more cells. These are then (in automotive applications) given a water jacket for cooling and put in a pack of 1 to 4 chains so they don't blow up under high current draw. A typical EV batteries has dozen or so of these packs. Irrespective of materials, this is not going to be cheap. What you need is a single pack with as few large cells as possible to get to the desired voltage. Ideally, you won't cool it externally with a water jacket; you'll cool the electrolyte itself. None of these ideas are "new", but nobody has figured out how to do it right (yet). Without a fundamental change in the concept of batteries and cooling, all the engineering solutions tried are one can of worms or another. Boeing went with a small number of very big cells in a single pack in the 787... that didn't turn out well. The Volt went with large packs of small cells, but their power density is total rubbish with the 16~18.4 kWh packs taking up about 80% the volume and 60% the weight of Tesla's 160 kWh pack. Tesla's approach of a unitary pack of very small cells with serpentine coolant jacket is very high density (relatively speaking) but they can't get their costs down and can't get profitable.
  13. dwightlooi
    They didn't move the power band higher up to make the engine more "free revving". That's bullsh!t. They moved the power band higher up because you can only make so much boost with a turbo before either lag becomes intolerable or detonation sets in. 1.9 to 2.1 bar (28~31 psi) is all they are going to get and one can argue that it is already intolerable -- drive a CLA/GLA45 and you'll see for yourself! It goes like this... full throttle... nothing... coming... buidling... there! Worse yet... Part Throttle... moaning drone... nothing... nothing... coming... starting to build... redline (shift)! Torque is directly proportional to air density (mostly boost) going into the engine. Hence, 350~370 lb-ft is all they are ever going to make. Power on the other hand is a function of torque x rpm. If you want more power, you make that torque higher up. Keep 323 lb-ft around at 6750 rpm and you get 416 hp.
  14. dwightlooi
    Where did you get those numbers??? As announced, the CT5 numbers are:- 2020 CT5 2.0T: 237hp / 258 lb-ft 2020 CT5 3.0TT: 335hp / 400 lb-ft 2020 CT5-V 3.0TT: 355hp / 400 lb-ft 2020 CT5-V "High Performance" Edition: Vaporware
  15. dwightlooi
    Yeah... except they don;t sell the Escala. They sell the CT5 with a Mazda nose and a Honda Accord C-Pillar which copies, of all things, the stupid ipad on the dash design of unimaginative car interiors. They stuff it with a pair of WEAK SAUCE engines which took a great leap backwards in performance compared to the previous generation despite heaps of complexity and technology like the Tri-Power cam switching valve train.
  16. dwightlooi
    Not really... The GM-Ford 10-speed uses a total of four planetary gear sets and 6 clutches, although no more than 4 clutches and 3 sequential ratios are ever engaged at any one time (not counting the axle ratio). It is impractical to try to use every single element as input and output to one another.
  17. dwightlooi
    Because is very hard to do a wide ratio with a small number of speeds. Or, rather, it'll take a very large diameter planetary gear set. Most automatics get to >7 to 1 by using three planetaries in series. With 1 planetary set you can only get 3~4 speeds. By the time you put in all the additional planetary gear sets you may as well get more speeds from them. More gear sets in the same length however means smaller gear widths. Smaller gear widths means lower torque capacity.
  18. dwightlooi
    Actually, no, they don't. Borg-Warner has a Transverse 7-speed Dual Clutch with 440 lb-ft handling though. When used by VW-Audi Group it carries the designation DQ500. You'll find that in the RS3, the Golf R and the like. Getrag has a 7-speed Dual Clutch with at least 350 lb-ft capacity which is used by Mercedes in the CLA/GLA45 AMG cars where it is code named DCT 724.016. What has happened in Europe was the Automatic guys (like ZF) don't actually do high torque transverse boxes. The manual guys went into Dual Clutch boxes and fills that niche. High torque transverse converter autos is a uniquely American thing. These are dual clutch boxes though, not torque converter automatics.
  19. dwightlooi
    That'll take time, money and it'll be a tough engineering project. The 9T65 barely fits all the 9-gears in its envelope which is about the same as the 6T75. It actually uses a chain drive to connect the axle to the output ring gear. If you want more torque handling, the transmission needs get bigger or it needs to lose gears or it needs exotic materials. IMHO, speeds are not as useful as many people think. Ford did not find the 9-speeds to be any more efficient than its 8-speeds and hence did not adopt them despite paying for part of their R&D. What's more important is the ratio spread. I'll venture to say that a 6-speed or even 5-speed will be practically as efficient as a 9 or 10-speed if it has the same ratio spread of 7.6:1. This is particularly so when you have an engine with a torque plateau of 348 lb-ft @ 1500-4000 rpm.
  20. dwightlooi
    Yes and no. (1) The engine isn't the problem. You need a new oil pan and exhaust down pipe of course but that's not a big deal. The 2.7T four banger is 10~12mm taller but that's shorter than the empty space under the 2.0T's dress cover. (2) GM's new 9-speed transmissions, however, DO NOT have the torque rating to handle 348 lb-ft much less any higher output version of the 2.7T. This is part of the reason Ford did not adopt the GM-Ford 9T65 transmission, but instead made an 8-speed version of the decade old GM-Ford 6T75 (used in the XTS VSport, etc.) which they called the 8F57 to handle the Ford Ecoboost 2.7T V6's 380 lb-ft in the Edge ST. Basically, the quickie solution will be for GM for buy a few Ford 8F57 trannies for these applications.
  21. dwightlooi
    GM does not have a 500hp SUV and all the major models (Yukon, Tahoe/Suburban) already outsell the Corvette 3:1 so what's your point? A 500hp RWD SUV is neither fast nor particularly high on the utility quotient (lacking AWD).
  22. dwightlooi
    CORRECT! Which is why I advocate:- (1) Putting the 310hp / 348 lb-ft 2.7T Four Banger from the Silverado and CT4-V in the XT4 as an upgrade engine. (2) Putting a 420 hp / 420 lb-ft version of the 2.7T Four Banger in the XT4-V. The Lanchester balanced engine is plenty smooth actually. And, it has the Tri-power valvetrain with 2-cylinder, low lift and high lift modes in addition to variable cam phasing and start-stop support. And, from a cost standpoint, it has exactly the same component count and architecture as the 237hp 2.0T four banger and is basically the same cost. Whatever GM charges for this upgrade engine, it's pure additional profit.
  23. dwightlooi
    Let me make it VERY SIMPLE for you guys... Imagine that VWs have better engines and better performance than Audi. How is that going to work?
  24. dwightlooi
    There is nothing wrong with a 355hp CT5 or a 320 hp CT4. But why give them the full CT5-V and CT4-V badging? As I said they could have used the old V/ badge from the VSport without calling them VSports.
  25. dwightlooi
    "Highly unique" while being "average in many areas and outstanding in none" is an oxymoron.
×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings