Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they were replacing the 2.0L with a V6 that had similar power ratings that would be another story. Who's to say in the future that 335/284 V6 isn't replaced with a more powerful 4 cylinder. (Like Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost with 325HP / 400 torque. That would be a better engine in the CT6 - 400 torque vs 284.)
The Ford 2.7 Ecoboost is a twin turbo V6 not a 4 cylinder.... it’s Chevy that’s got the 2.7l turbo 4 in the new Silverado as the base engine.
A noisy bumble bee sounding four cylinder has no place in a luxury car, it really cheapens it IMO. The whole point in buying a Cadillac is for a silky smooth and quiet powertrain.
I can completely understand why someone would feel this way but there have been refined four cylinders around for years. The late 80's SAAB 4 cyl turbo engines offered a very satisfactory driving experience for a moderately high end car. Nothing felt stereotypically 4 cyl about it.
I think Cadillac is going to have an uphill battle tho generating consumer interest...so many in their buyer demographic share your mindset and I can't say I completely disagree with it either. This needs a to be a really superb powertrain to be worthy of consideration...we shall see.
I think the 4 in the Silverado was a big risk too but at least there are still other options available in that one.
Location: The Circle City. Sometimes NE of Bagdad.
24,468 posts, read 26,003,936 times
Reputation: 59848
I was pleasantly surprised �� with the power and quietness of the 2.0 turbo in GMs Equinox and Terrain crossovers compared with the previous 2.4 engine.
I have both a 2.0t (GTI) and a 3.5 V6 (MB E350 sedan). I commute a lot and the two allow me to spread the mileage around so I can stay out of the car buying racket for a bit longer (bought the MB used).
Switching between the two on a daily basis, there is definitely a difference in the way you drive each, and that difference speaks to the comment about where the torque curve is located. I don’t have to wind up the 2.0t at all to really get moving quickly. I do have to wind up the V6 a bit more, because the torque curve is more aligned to the rpm. I enjoy both quite a lot. I sprint around in one, and gently cruise about in the other, just depends on what of mood I’m in that morning.
That being said, I’ve had the new E as a loaner before (E300) which is a 2.0t motor. I would not pay that much money for a new one with that engine. It is nice, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not what you’d expect from a mid-level German luxury sedan. I believe that philosophy likely applies to all of the others in its segment.
The Volvo XC90 is a 2.0t and in some models also a supercharger in addition to the turbo. A vehicle that heavy...I’d like to see how it looks at 100,000 miles.
The Ford 2.7 Ecoboost is a twin turbo V6 not a 4 cylinder.... it’s Chevy that’s got the 2.7l turbo 4 in the new Silverado as the base engine.
Oops...my bad. I got confused as I was thinking that 2.7L was a different one. (There is a 2.7L 4cyl motor in the works, but that's not out yet ). There will be a 4cyl engine in the F-150 at some poin, just like the Silverado.
Either way, it's something people need to get used to. The smaller turbo engines Pack-a-Punch at much lighter weight, and they are needed to hit the government fuel mileage targets
I think they have their application in smaller cars, like today's Hot Hatch offerings. Smaller, lighter vehicles. I don't like them for trucks, SUV's and larger cars. Heck they even offer one in the Jeep Wrangler now which I think is ridiculous.
The 2.7 twin turbo V6 in our 2016 F-150 outperforms the 5.0 in our 2014 F-150 as far as acceleration and MPG. The 5.0 can tow or haul a bit more, but that's not a factor for us. We also have a Fusion with the 2.0 turbo that replaced our Fusion with a 3.0 V6, that also outperforms it in every way. I was skeptical about small displacement turbo motors at first (especially in the truck), so far I've no issues with either.
The 2.7 twin turbo V6 in our 2016 F-150 outperforms the 5.0 in our 2014 F-150 as far as acceleration and MPG. The 5.0 can tow or haul a bit more, but that's not a factor for us. We also have a Fusion with the 2.0 turbo that replaced our Fusion with a 3.0 V6, that also outperforms it in every way. I was skeptical about small displacement turbo motors at first (especially in the truck), so far I've no issues with either.
Yeah my 3.5 ecoboost outperforms the Coyote massively with around 500 rwhp (post aftermarket tune) BUT it doesn’t HOWL like a Coyote... and I love that V8 howl
Oops...my bad. I got confused as I was thinking that 2.7L was a different one. (There is a 2.7L 4cyl motor in the works, but that's not out yet ). There will be a 4cyl engine in the F-150 at some poin, just like the Silverado.
Either way, it's something people need to get used to. The smaller turbo engines Pack-a-Punch at much lighter weight, and they are needed to hit the government fuel mileage targets
I doubt very many dealers will be ordering the 2.7 Silverado, because they know they will have a hard time selling them. All GM has to do is offer them, they don’t have to sell them.
The number of cylinders really doesn't mean a whole lot anymore. Engine technology has come a long way.
If all our semi-trucks pulling 80,000lbs down the road can do that with inline 6's, then you can probably make a 4 cylinder work in just about any car/light truck application if someone set out to do so.
That being said, in this case they are replacing the base 2.0L (237HP/258 Torque) with a V6 that produces 335 HP and 284 torque, so they are essentially chopping off the entry level powertrain option for that car. For a big luxury sedan I can understand that. I have driven CTS models with that engine and the CTS was very "blah" to drive with it, let alone a larger/heavier CT6.
If they were replacing the 2.0L with a V6 that had similar power ratings that would be another story. Who's to say in the future that 335/284 V6 isn't replaced with a more powerful 4 cylinder. (Like Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost with 325HP / 400 torque. That would be a better engine in the CT6 - 400 torque vs 284.)
Correct, but who wants a quiet 300 + hp vehicle? The Europeans are good at creating V6 engines that sound the part. The Porsche flat 6 sounds great above 3k.
I miss American V8 power and sound.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
