Drew Dowdell

Good point(could not make out the vents) but that 7.3 second time is not from a 3.6L V6 CTS though. There is nothing in that video that indicates that it is a 3.6L. It also cements my point that the base model gauge, whether in a CTS or an ATS, is just cheap looking and does not belong in either car, much less a $53K CTS. Yes, you only get the premium TFT screen on the Premium trim CTS 3.6. The Luxury and Performance trim CTS 3.6 come with this base cluster. It's the same car in both runs in that video. I can't explain the reason for the difference in the runs except for user error or perhaps a different terrain (was the first run on flat while the second run on a slight incline? we don't know)

It's more than just that. With these naturally aspirated DOHC V6es, I feel that customers are getting cheated a bit. They are being sold horsepower ratings that they will never see in the real world. Drew, you really need to qualify a remark like this. I know you are mostly referring to cam-cord V6 automobiles for the general masses, and that's fine, but there are many performance oriented vehicles that benefit with DOHC. But that is my whole point as well, in that the benefits of DOHC path for families of engines that automakers CHOSE to follow....are far more than just a marketing gimmick. Engineering is a balance act of trade-offs, and clearly, the scale tipped to the benefits of DOHC to invest in entire families of engines for your products. A few examples here and there of OHV offering benefits, should not and does not dictate where you invest your engineering $$$$. So yeah, marketing is part of that equation, but a small part. Here is a CTS w/ 3.6L accelerating. I don't know what you see, but what I don't see, is a driver waiting for the hp's to kick in that supposedly never do. What I do see, is a DOHC revving freely right out of the whole, and building momentum, well past where an OHV engine would fall flat. Am I really that unclear in my posts? Is it just me or is it the reading comprehension around this place lately....? Do you drive like that all the time? Do you floor it at every light and let the engine wind up to red-line through every gear every time the light turns green? Does the typical Camry or Impala driver drive that way even some of the time? If you're like me, your engine rarely touches the red-line. Even then, probably less than 1% of the time will it ever even exceed 5,000 rpm. So, for "every day" driving, the way that 99.9999% of driving is done... having the horsepower peak at a much lower RPM would be an advantage during that 99.9999% of the time. It would allow engines to turn lower RPM at cruising and better fuel economy. And here's the kicker. If I'm wrong, then Ecoboost has no reason to exist. Ecoboost allows for smaller displacement engines to produce power at a lower RPM. Turbo-DI small displacement engines are the replacement for the bigger, slower spinning, OHV torque engines, not the OHC engines that only produce HP at or near red-line.

It's a CTS. The base levels of CTS come with the same gauge cluster as the ATS. The way you can tell the difference in this case is the location of the air vent. ATS air vent is vertical, CTS air vent is horizontal. It's a CTS.

It's more than just that. With these naturally aspirated DOHC V6es, I feel that customers are getting cheated a bit. They are being sold horsepower ratings that they will never see in the real world.

I posted GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Benz. That easily covers the majority of the market, but since that doesn't satisfy you...Very well, I'll get you the rest. Nissan 3.5 VQ (Maxima) - 300hp @ 6400 RPM - RL 6600 RPM Ford 3.7 (Mustang) - 305hp @ 6500 RPM - RL 6850 RPM (fuel cut off) BMW N52 - 272hp @ 6650 - RL 7000 RPM (Last non-Turbo 6 I could find) the balance advantage of an I-6 over a V6 are pretty clear here though. !!!! Volkswagen 3.6 - 280HP @ 6200 RPM - RL 6000 RPM !!!! So VW is advertising a horsepower rating achieved 200 RPM beyond red-line? Hyundai Lambda 3.8 V6 - 348HP @ 6400 RPM - RL 6750 Why is that even possible/a thing? Post a rating ABOVE what the engine can even rev to?!?!? I spoke to someone yesterday about the VW.... apparently the transmission will hold the gear right up till the 6200 RPM horsepower peak, 200 rpm into the red-line. So you do actually get the 280 hp for all of a 100th of a second before the transmission shifts it away.

I really just want something a bit more up to date for my Toronado (if I had the money). No need for 500+ horsepower. Swift and silent... a mild Turbo-6 would be fine.

Great points. Welcome back Ven, glad to see you.

Only hellcat is dead. The regular hemi lives on.

Yeah, I don't think they could do that. A light turbo and DI should be enough

I'm a tanqueray 10 man with the occasional Woodford Reserve or Tennessee Honey

Sorry guys... I've just been extra aggravated by work this week. So much so that I took tomorrow off in protest and the following weekend is a 4 day weekend... again in protest. I was just handed a huge project for September when I thought I was going to get to stay in Pittsburgh and not travel. Now, I'm basically gone all of September, with basically zero notice. That's on top of the planned project for October that is going to have me living in NJ for most of the month. Still... downvoting is back as long as we can all behave ourselves.

But why? They still reasonably well and generally at the higher end (higher profit) trim lines. Mercury had nothing special over the Ford cars, but Buick does differentiate itself from the platform mates it shares with.

MARKETING It lets them claim best in class V6 Horsepower even though the customer would be better served by the greater torque of the 4.3. They've spent so many year brainwashing people like you who are hooked on the horsepower number that taking it away would be like ripping the needle out of an addict's arm. MARKETING MARKETING MARKETING I'm sure that Colorado buyers are cross shopping with a Veyron.... and they were so into the truck, except it didn't have a suede glove box liner.... BTW, your post has inspired me to give the down voting feature a trial run.

You're only part right. The old ones lost out to the Turbo Inline-4 engines. A new one would be a different story. A 3900 with direct injection in place of the 2.4 in the 'Nox would likely be a welcome improvement in power and off the line torque. It would likely end up somewhere around 95% of the power of the 3.6 with 95% of the fuel economy of the 2.4. A very nice compromise engine for those who like neither existing option. The 4.3 would make a good option in the Terrain as well and a huge improvement in the Lambdas. And no... pushrods do not sound horrible above 5,000 RPM. Z06 Hellcat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d14y4G4lNNw Something a bit tamer? How about even tamer? Silverado 4.3

LOL glad to help.... I think?

I posted GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Benz. That easily covers the majority of the market, but since that doesn't satisfy you...Very well, I'll get you the rest. Nissan 3.5 VQ (Maxima) - 300hp @ 6400 RPM - RL 6600 RPM Ford 3.7 (Mustang) - 305hp @ 6500 RPM - RL 6850 RPM (fuel cut off) BMW N52 - 272hp @ 6650 - RL 7000 RPM (Last non-Turbo 6 I could find) the balance advantage of an I-6 over a V6 are pretty clear here though. !!!! Volkswagen 3.6 - 280HP @ 6200 RPM - RL 6000 RPM !!!! So VW is advertising a horsepower rating achieved 200 RPM beyond red-line? Hyundai Lambda 3.8 V6 - 348HP @ 6400 RPM - RL 6750 Why is that even possible/a thing? Post a rating ABOVE what the engine can even rev to?!?!? I"m sure the engine won't grenade exactly at 6001 rpm, but that's what the engine is rated to. Keep in mind that this is a VR engine with a 15 degree cylinder bank rather than a V engine with a 54, 60, or 90 degree cylinder bank. So even though it is a 24 valve engine, it is technically SOHC rather than DOHC if you think of it as a V engine, but it is a DOHC rather than SOHC if you think of it as an inline engine. It is kinda both and neither..... but that may be the cause of the relatively low red-line rating. It's a very interesting design from a packaging standpoint.

And it's not like vast swaths of the auto industry hasn't been wrong before. The domestics were wrong about the imports. The domestics were wrong about the oil crisis. The japanese and germans were wrong about the Koreans (I'd say the domestics recognized the threat, but were unable to react rather than unwilling). The whole industry was wrong on the paint process. The japanese were wrong on rust proofing. The entire industry has been wrong about turbos multiple times and has only recently figured it out. BTW... about those turbos. The reason for their popularity today is precisely because of the lack of low end grunt from most engines. In 4-cylinder, it is usually expected, but when you buy a V6, you want some go power when you take off. Turbos + DI have given back what the switch to DOHC taketh away.

Not sure I follow. The Cadillac XTS--which will be 4 years old when the Continental is released--uses HALDEX torque vectoring AWD, a more advanced system than anything Ford currently produces, and has an available 410 hp turbo V6. It also has standard magnetic ride control and a hi-per strut front suspension. Mechanically, the Continental does not impress. It will sell on interior and exterior design and whether it can be better than the sum of its parts. Indeed it does have those options available, but not standard at that $47k price. (except hi per strut and mrc) To get the power level and awd that the continental is supposedly going to have, you'll be into the $60k range. I'll believe the hype when the production Continental is revealed along with pricing and powertrains. 400 HP from a 3.0 V6 doesn't sound like too much of a stretch. Cadillac is doing that in the CT6.

The entire auto industry is a MARKETING industry that builds cars on the side. They've spent the last 7 decades selling horsepower and dogginniut they're going to keep doing just that... Even it if takes fleecing the customer to do it.

Not sure I follow. The Cadillac XTS--which will be 4 years old when the Continental is released--uses HALDEX torque vectoring AWD, a more advanced system than anything Ford currently produces, and has an available 410 hp turbo V6. It also has standard magnetic ride control and a hi-per strut front suspension. Mechanically, the Continental does not impress. It will sell on interior and exterior design and whether it can be better than the sum of its parts. Indeed it does have those options available, but not standard at that $47k price. (except hi per strut and mrc) To get the power level and awd that the continental is supposedly going to have, you'll be into the $60k range.

Even a light turbo would help.

My German designed, Korean built Buick has been basically flawless for the 2 years I've owned it.

Next you post peak power ratings on a handful of engines out of hundreds. I posted GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Benz. That easily covers the majority of the market, but since that doesn't satisfy you...Very well, I'll get you the rest. Nissan 3.5 VQ (Maxima) - 300hp @ 6400 RPM - RL 6600 RPM Ford 3.7 (Mustang) - 305hp @ 6500 RPM - RL 6850 RPM (fuel cut off) BMW N52 - 272hp @ 6650 - RL 7000 RPM (Last non-Turbo 6 I could find) the balance advantage of an I-6 over a V6 are pretty clear here though. !!!! Volkswagen 3.6 - 280HP @ 6200 RPM - RL 6000 RPM !!!! So VW is advertising a horsepower rating achieved 200 RPM beyond red-line? Hyundai Lambda 3.8 V6 - 348HP @ 6400 RPM - RL 6750 I've now covered V6es from all of the domestics, the big 3 Japanese, the best Hyundai has to offer (I can't find red-line stats on the Hyundai 3.3, but I doubt it's higher than the 3., and the Germans. Do I need to look up Peugeots and obscure Suzukis too or is this sufficient?

Very good questions. Unfortunately, I only have the data from the power curves that GM provides, and as you say, those are at full throttle. 2500 RPM isn't at all a strain for an OHV engine, it just isn't needed. OHC can get taller top end gears as you say. When you have great low end torque, you can have a taller top gear. The old LT-1 in the Buick Roadmaster would loaf along effortlessly at 65 mph turning only 1,600 rpm. The Passat TDi in 6th gear at 65 will turn only 1,800 rpm. My Honda CR-V runs over 3,000 rpm.

I have qualified all of my statements and you continue to ignore them. I've said multiple times, I'm not talking motorsports, which generally have a displacement limit rather than an engine bay size limit. I've said multiple times, I'm not talking motorsports, where engines generally run in the 8,000 - 12,000 RPM range, completely unsuitable for every day driving. I've said.... in every day cars like an Impala or Camry, both of which will rarely see an RPM over 4,000 and almost never get to red-line unless they've been stolen, that OHV engines offer superior driving in those applications when comparing engines of similar output. Thus, a 240hp OHV V6 will feel to be a more powerful engine than a 240hp DOHC V6. Why? Because the 240hp in the OHV engine is at a more accessible RPM level than the 240hp in the DOHC, 4900 rpm rather than 6900 rpm. If you are going unilaterally to agree to disagree with me, I do wish you'd do me the courtesy of at least reading my posts and the links I include. Of course the area under the curve matters, but so does the generally usable area under the curve. If a particular vehicle never reaches an RPM in general driving, then the area under that part of the curve is irrelevant. Take the GM 4.3 v. the GM 3.6 (GMC Canyon, tuned for better torque) v. the GM 3.6 (Cadillac ATS sedan, tuned for horsepower) At the 4.3's peak power output of 285hp, the engine is turning 5300 rpm. At 5300 rpm in the Canyon's 3.6, the engine is producing 265 lb-ft of torque or 267.42 hp. At 5300 rpm in the ATS's 3.6, the engine is producing no more than 277hp. We know this because the peak torque for the 3.6 is 275 lb-ft. The actual HP number is slightly less, but not significantly so. Score @5300 rpm: 4.3 - 285hp 3.6 Canyon - 267hp 3.6 ATS - 277hp So at 5300 RPM, the 4.3 has more power than the 3.6. But who really drives around at 5300 rpm all the time? How about a more civilized 3,000 rpm? At 3000 RPM the 4.3 produces 280 lb-ft of torque - thus it is producing 160 hp. At 3000 RPM the Canyon's 3.6 produces 252 lb-ft of torque - thus it is producing 143 hp At 3000 RPM the ATS's 3.6 produces 270 lb-ft of torque - thus it is producing 154 hp. So at 3,000 RPM, the 4.3 has more power than the 3.6. How about rather common 2,000 rpm? At 2000 RPM the 4.3 produces 260 lb-ft of torque - thus it is producing 99 hp. At 2000 RPM the Canyon's 3.6 produces 252 lb-ft of torque 93 hp At 2000 RPM the ATS's 3.6 produces 265 lb-ft of torque - thus it is producing 101 hp. At 2000 RPM, the 4.3 and both 3.6's have virtually identical HP. Since you pointed out the area under the curve being more important. In the area under the curve from 2,000rpm to 5,000rpm, where most people spend their time, the 4.3 offers more power. Why would you think the engineers get to make that decision? Marketing made the decision because they want to be able to advertise the "highest horsepower in it's class". As I've already shown, the 4.3 would be a more suitable engine for the Colorado. As you pointed out, in trucks torque is almost always more important than horsepower... and the 4.3 has more torque available under the curve at every point on the RPM band than the 3.6 in the Colorado and in the ATS. In an application like the XTS, which is knocked for being soft on low end torque, a 4.3 would be a better choice. Even if we accept a 9 lb-ft reduction in torque due to transverse mounting (ATS LFX v. XTS LFX), the 4.3 would still be producing 296 lb-ft at peak v. the 264 the 3.6 produces. The material used in the 3900 v. the Honda J engine is irrelevant. There is no reason GM couldn't have used aluminum... thus it was simply an OHV advantage n that GM left on the table rather than a disadvantage of OHV engines in general. Sure I can. The automotive media has notoriously steered or attempted to steer products to their own liking for decades. It is all in subtle phraseology.... "the Pontiac G6 takes a whole 3.9 liters to produce 240 hp from its old tech pushrod V6 while the Honda Accord's new SOHC V6 produces 240 hp from just 3.0 liters" while ignoring that the G6 has more torque and both engines were recent designed and use modern (for the time) tech like VVT - Stuff like that... all hand waving, man-behind the curtain twisting of facts to suit their particular bias. You're relatively new to C&G, but we've documented this kind of stuff in the automotive media for years.... probably for as long as our 14 year existence.