New Cadillac STS and XLR engine

[Aronis]

Hey, what is with the new 4.6 Northstar engine with Supercharger???? only 380 hp...give me a break, that is pathetic, you can get 380 hp out of a normaly aspirated 4.6 liter engine!

[5000S old skool]

ahh poor americans..... american aren't what they used to be.... back in the 70s they were the best once the 80s came around everything just started going downhill from there... They still use 2 valves and pushrods, and they were still using carburetors into the early 90s....


:confused:
4.6 superrcharged - 380hp
6.0 V8 - 400hp ('05 GTO, but its only gonna be $33k)
5.7 V8 Hemi - 340hp
:confused:

i mean cmon we're (german cars) getting those kinds of numbers if not bigger with smaller engines...

2.7 T - 380 (RS4)
5.0 - 500 (M5)
4.2 N/A - 425 (B7 RS4)
4.2 T - 450
3.6 - 335 (M3)

[sturs6]

Originally posted by Aronis
Hey, what is with the new 4.6 Northstar engine with Supercharger???? only 380 hp...give me a break, that is pathetic, you can get 380 hp out of a normaly aspirated 4.6 liter engine!
Could you please share with me were the information about the supercharger came from.
The new sts does not contain a supercharger anywhere that I have seen but please enlighten me because that would be easily achivable from a n/a motor.

[A418TQTip]

Originally posted by 5000S old skool
3.6 - 335 (M3)

The E46 M3 has a 3.2L (I6) engine - 333HP. So does the E36 M3 after '95 (240HP US-spec).

[Aronis]

I think it was Road and Track, but can swear, just got three for the month, Road and Track, Car and Driver and Motortrend.

It was in a side bar talking about the CTS-V..

supercharged Northstar onlhy 380 hp.....that's week for a 4.6 liter engine IMO.

I had a 1997 M3, yes 246 hp from 3.2 liter normally aspirated engine and a torque curve to match it. Of course BMW claimed this as their highest "specific output engine" ie. Hp per Liter, but the 328i had a very similar hp per liter numbers !! just a smaller engine.

The Newer M3 3.6 with 333 hp is again a step further in specific output.

But a Northstar engine 4.6 liters with 380 hp only by the benefit of a Supercharger is lame....

Infact the normally aspirated 4.6 liter Northstar only is rated for 300 hp.

GM does not get it quite yet, but they are learning....people WANT sedans with some balls, real balls.

The Tree Huggers can by a Camry or Accord, some people Want to burn Gas....

Mike

[JAXRS6]

Originally posted by Aronis
The Tree Huggers can by a Camry or Accord, some people Want to burn Gas...

Actually the new Accord offers a hybrid model that has 15 more horses than the standard 6 -- 255 for the hybrid vs 240 for the regular 6, if I recall correctly. Plus 30 mpg city, 38 highway. The extra $ paid at purchase will require years of high gas prices to make up the difference, but there is a 6 month wait for the car in any case.

So, maybe down the line, going fast won't be synoymous with burning (a lot of) gas. Now someone just needs to figure out what to do with all those hybrid batteries when they die!

[Aronis]

The Hemi in the Dogde car's has the ability to shut down 4 cylinders.....thus saving gas, that's a nice idea.

It did not work well in the Caddy 4-6-8, because at that time the electronics limitted it to simply shutting down the same two cylinders, and then the four cylinders, which lead to heat problems.

I think the newer concept allows it to vary which cylinders are not getting gas and spark such that the heat difference is not a problem. Great idea.

The Hybrid Honda does not get that great of a gas miliage difference in my opinion to warrant the extra cost and perhaps extra maintenence issues.

My M3 got about 32 to 34 mpg on the highway with cruise at 65 mph, and that was a 3.2 liter I6. I am not that impressed by the Honda's 38 mpg given that info form a car that was a 1997 model (1996 engine).

Now if the Honda Hybrid got 50 mpg and still had the power, that would be a big deal.

I am suprised that Honda does not market an Accord hybrid with less go, but better miliage, since the crowd you are going after with with High Milege cars does not necessarily care about 0 to 60 times, or even passing.....not many 'car enthusiasts' that I know of even ask, more less care, about the fuel efficiency of their car.

Why do I say this? Easy, what is the most popular 'car' on the road today? Ford F150 pickup, bad miliage, next is all SUV's in general , bad miliage, followed by such things as Camrays and Ford Tauruses, which do get good mileage.

Go figure>

Great news though, Honda is toying with the idea of an NSX with a hybridengine too, now that is strange, super sports car which is Green Too..

LOL

Mike
I'm board, we have no electricity here....

killiling time posting until my laptop battery fails...

[sturs6]

ARONIS sorry to hear about the power... I hope it is returned soon.
Yeah the rumor is that GM... Cadillac is going to supercharge the 4.6 for the upcoming STS-V... other rumors I have heard is that this will not happen it is likely it will be twin turbo charged. I still have to ask why GM do you not just build these motors without any added aspiration. I had the exhaust system changed and some other mild mods done on my 5.7 liter and now have 500 hp so it is easily possible to get more from that 4.6 then if they still want to add a blower or turbo they can.

[Aronis]

powers back on, now instead of killing time I am simply wasting it LOL..

Have to go read....recertification exams in a year...

Mike

[JAXRS6]

Originally posted by Aronis
I am suprised that Honda does not market an Accord hybrid with less go, but better miliage, since the crowd you are going after with with High Milege cars does not necessarily care about 0 to 60 times, or even passing.....not many 'car enthusiasts' that I know of even ask, more less care, about the fuel efficiency of their car.


Maybe Honda took this approach because Toyota already offers a car with "less go but better mileage," i.e. the Prius.

Guess I'm in a minority because altho I certainly enjoy power, I'd like to get better mileage too.

RE Chrysler's approach of letting four cylinders rest: Apparently it helps get highway mpg up to 26 per EPA figure for the 340 hp hemi engines, but the new Vette gets an EPA rating of 28 mpg with 400 hp. Due to lighter weight I suppose, and maybe less drag.

[A418TQTip]

Originally posted by JAXRS6
The extra $ paid at purchase will require years of high gas prices to make up the difference, but there is a 6 month wait for the car in any case.

Don't you get a tax break when you own a hybrid? :vhmmm:

[JAXRS6]

Originally posted by A418TQTip
Don't you get a tax break when you own a hybrid? :vhmmm:

Yes, I believe there is. I forgot -- thanks for the reminder!:thumb:

[Benman]

Originally posted by JAXRS6


Guess I'm in a minority because altho I certainly enjoy power, I'd like to get better mileage too.


Minority but not alone:D It's more than just about bragging rights, it's about convienance. When you have to stop more often to get gas, taking time out of your day, that's an inconvienance. That the Insight can do a theoretical 700 freeway miles betwwen fillups is great. On a long road trip that adds up to less stops.

True, people that buy Vipers care little about fuel economy but did you know that Gordon Murray did? Good fuel economy was someting that he insisted on the F1 having. To this day it is probably the only supercar capable of achieving 20+ mpg. On his book that came out (a great read BTW) on the F1 he dedicates a whole page just to fuel economy and why it was important to his team!

As for the Caddys using the Northstar, I agree that it would be better to use the Z06 engine (or better, the upcoming Z06 engine) but for some reasons they feel to get the recognition for Caddy they need to use a Caddy engine. The Cts-V sure got a lot of recognition and that wasn't a Caddy motor.:vhmmm:

Ben:addict:

[Another One]

the poor American push rod motor doesn't make as much HP per litre as a multivalve OHC, but so what?

What does matter, especially in a performance car, is how much HP the motor makes per pound of engine weight.

Corvette LS1, 400 hp, from 380 pounds, or slightly more than 1 HP/pound

But this is just the first year for this new Corvette. GM surely will market a higher performance version producing 500 hp. Tuners have been selling such modded engines, normally aspirated, since 1997. 500 hp from 380 pounds is 1.25HP/pound.

I have a normally aspirated 7 litre version of this engine that makes about 600 hp from at about 5800 rpms and weighs 390 pounds. that's more than 1.5hp/pound.

Now let's look at the noble Germans.

BMW M5, 10 cyliders, 40 valves, variable intake and exhaust valves and variable intake manifold geometry, 550 hp from 540 pounds, or slightly more than 1 hp per litre. Hmm, this is virtually identical to the current Corvette motor's performance per pound, but from an engine that probably costs 3 times as much.

Here's a real marvel. BMW 12 cylinder, 48 valve 6 litre, making 450 hp. This engine must weigh 600 pounds. That's only .75 hp/pound.

Now, here's another question. Why do the high-end car makers only market complex, OHC engines? Simple, the snobs that are their clientele wouldn't cough-up for a lowly push rod motor. But think, or just dream (at least if you're more interested in performance the impressing the neighbors), what an M5 would be like with a 600 hp and 600 ft/pd engine that weighed 150 pounds less. Not a dream likely ever to become reality.

[5000S old skool]

I see what you mean "Another One", thats the problem with German cars. They are way too expensive. Americans offer nice power for a good price (GTO 400hp for less then $40K), bu the reason that they are cheaper is because overall the engine is not as good as a german built engine (pushrods, displacement, etc...) Some say Japanese offer alot of performance for money, but i dont trust turbo chargers that account for 80% of the power of the engine. However I do think pushrods are too clumsy as well as cylinders i could probably fit my head inside.

for me it goes:

Euro
American
Japanese

[A418TQTip]

Originally posted by Another One
the poor American push rod motor doesn't make as much HP per litre as a multivalve OHC, but so what?

What does matter, especially in a performance car, is how much HP the motor makes per pound of engine weight.

Corvette LS1, 400 hp, from 380 pounds, or slightly more than 1 HP/pound

But this is just the first year for this new Corvette. GM surely will market a higher performance version producing 500 hp. Tuners have been selling such modded engines, normally aspirated, since 1997. 500 hp from 380 pounds is 1.25HP/pound.

I have a normally aspirated 7 litre version of this engine that makes about 600 hp from at about 5800 rpms and weighs 390 pounds. that's more than 1.5hp/pound.

Now let's look at the noble Germans.

BMW M5, 10 cyliders, 40 valves, variable intake and exhaust valves and variable intake manifold geometry, 550 hp from 540 pounds, or slightly more than 1 hp per litre. Hmm, this is virtually identical to the current Corvette motor's performance per pound, but from an engine that probably costs 3 times as much.

Here's a real marvel. BMW 12 cylinder, 48 valve 6 litre, making 450 hp. This engine must weigh 600 pounds. That's only .75 hp/pound.

Now, here's another question. Why do the high-end car makers only market complex, OHC engines? Simple, the snobs that are their clientele wouldn't cough-up for a lowly push rod motor. But think, or just dream (at least if you're more interested in performance the impressing the neighbors), what an M5 would be like with a 600 hp and 600 ft/pd engine that weighed 150 pounds less. Not a dream likely ever to become reality.

Sorry, but I think you missed the whole point here... I believe engine efficiency is what's being discussed...

507HP - 5.0L V10 = 101.4HP/L
450HP - 4.2L V8 = 107.1HP/L
.
.
.
400HP - 5.7L V8 = 70.1HP/L

[A418TQTip]

Originally posted by 5000S old skool
I see what you mean "Another One", thats the problem with German cars. They are way too expensive. Americans offer nice power for a good price (GTO 400hp for less then $40K), bu the reason that they are cheaper is because overall the engine is not as good as a german built engine (pushrods, displacement, etc...) Some say Japanese offer alot of performance for money, but i dont trust turbo chargers that account for 80% of the power of the engine. However I do think pushrods are too clumsy as well as cylinders i could probably fit my head inside.

for me it goes:

Euro
American
Japanese

The GTO is not American. ;) It's imported from Australia - Holden Monaro. It's "cheap" (not that cheap for what it is if you ask me) because at the end of the day it's still a Chevy (i.e. "cheap" package).

Also, power is not everything. I've seen comparos where "lesser" cars performed better than the GTO.

Go visit your nearest Subaru dealer and ask them how often they have STi's with blown turbos in for repair... :thumb:

[JAXRS6]

Originally posted by A418TQTip
Sorry, but I think you missed the whole point here... I believe engine efficiency is what's being discussed...

And so it is, by both of you. One uses hp per pound, the other prefers hp per liter. Both are measures of engine efficiency. The per-liter measure may be more common, but that doesn't mean the per-pound measure is not a measure of efficiency. In fact I kind of like it, since the number of liters won't slow me down -- but pounds will! And if owners of an RS6 have learned anything, it's how weight -- especially up front in the engine bay -- can affect handling. Just ask anyone who has tracked one of these cars.

Re Subaru in for repair -- sorry, I don't get your point.

[A418TQTip]

Yes. RS6s and M5s are heavy. But they're also luxury sedans that can be used as daily drivers with virtually no (if any) compromise. IMHO, the whole package is far more relevant than engine weight.

If I understood correctly, our buddy 5000S questioned reliability of Japanese cars with "turbo chargers that account for 80% of the power of the engine". Although I'm sure he used "80%" losely, I meant to show that there's nothing to really worry about as the STi is a very reliable car. :thumb:

[JAXRS6]

Good clarifications; thanks. Still, I would argue that altho we're talking luxo sedans, these are those with performance as a priority. They may be heavy by their nature, but extra weight is still a drag (pun intended).

I am reminded of this whenever I get a loaner. I've had a Benz SUV & an Allroad, among others, and every one of them feels lighter overall (and more agile in many conditions) than the RS6. Weight and its poor distribution is the RS6's biggest enemy IMO and is one reason I plan to never order a car again without driving one first.

Don't get me wrong: I still love my beast! :rs6kiss: But the weight required to get 450 hp takes a toll on handling, as anyone who has toasted their brakes or tires at a track can attest.

Reading a book I received today as a Christmas gift, I discovered that Ferdinand Porsche felt similarly. After working on numerous then-legandary vehicles at Daimler, "Porsche's open criticism of the sheer mass of these vbehicles led to bad blood between him and the company...and led to his eventual resigation."

Too bad. That was pre-1930; can you imagine how fabulous the current stable of AMG cars might be if Porsche had remained there?

Then again, if he hadn't left, there would be no P cars:cry:

[5000S old skool]

Originally posted by A418TQTip
Yes. RS6s and M5s are heavy. But they're also luxury sedans that can be used as daily drivers with virtually no (if any) compromise. IMHO, the whole package is far more relevant than engine weight.

If I understood correctly, our buddy 5000S questioned reliability of Japanese cars with "turbo chargers that account for 80% of the power of the engine". Although I'm sure he used "80%" losely, I meant to show that there's nothing to really worry about as the STi is a very reliable car. :thumb:

:p yes haha i did use it loosely... my freind has an STI and that thing flies. However you always have to be in the right gear at the right rpm or else the dreaded turbo lag comes in. I'm assuming its even worse for the EVO because its only a 2 liter where as the STi is 2.5.

[Benman]

Originally posted by JAXRS6
And so it is, by both of you. One uses hp per pound, the other prefers hp per liter. Both are measures of engine efficiency. The per-liter measure may be more common, but that doesn't mean the per-pound measure is not a measure of efficiency. In fact I kind of like it, since the number of liters won't slow me down -- but pounds will! And if owners of an RS6 have learned anything, it's how weight -- especially up front in the engine bay -- can affect handling. Just ask anyone who has tracked one of these cars.


Well said. HP per pound of engine? That's an interesting one. One that honestly I think is muy relavant!

[Benman]

Originally posted by JAXRS6
Good clarifications; thanks. Still, I would argue that altho we're talking luxo sedans, these are those with performance as a priority. They may be heavy by their nature, but extra weight is still a drag (pun intended).

I am reminded of this whenever I get a loaner. I've had a Benz SUV & an Allroad, among others, and every one of them feels lighter overall (and more agile in many conditions) than the RS6. Weight and its poor distribution is the RS6's biggest enemy IMO and is one reason I plan to never order a car again without driving one first.



You lost me there Jax. A Benz M class, more agile than the RS 6:confused: I'd have to disagree STRONGLY with that one. Not only is it heavier and has a way worse center of gravity, it handles worse than a 4 cly, front wheel drive civic! As for the Allroad, possibly. But we are talking about a car that weights WITHIN 100 LBS of an RS 6 and with WORSE weight distribution! How that adds up to a "more agile in many conditions" feel is leaving me:vhmmm: . And yes, I've driven both for plenty of miles. The Allroad is pretty nice, but again, as for the M Class, one of MB'spuke:

Ben:addict:

[JAXRS6]

"More agile than the RS6 in many conditions" might better have been said as "some conditions." I'm talking low speed, as in parking -- especially trying to exit parallel parking in a hurry. Another example is driving around my condo complex at 10-15 mph. In those two conditions, the steering on my RS6 requires more effort than either the Benz M loaner or the Allroad. High steering effort at low speed = poor agility at that speed.

My comments also may have been a little off by blaming weight, when in fact high steering effort at low speeds could be the culprit. Not that they're unrelated, but steering effort is adjustable whereas weight is not (unless one goes back to the drawing board). Sorry for the confusion.

[A418TQTip]

Originally posted by JAXRS6 I'm talking low speed, as in parking -- especially trying to exit parallel parking in a hurry. Another example is driving around my condo complex at 10-15 mph. In those two conditions, the steering on my RS6 requires more effort than either the Benz M loaner or the Allroad. High steering effort at low speed = poor agility at that speed.[/b]

Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. I for one, would be very disappointed if the RS6 came with increased steering boost. That would ruin the whole experience. Specially on slow tracks... ;)


...Not that they're unrelated, but steering effort is adjustable whereas weight is not (unless one goes back to the drawing board).

But they are unrelated... Go drive a Town Car and you'll see what I mean. :thumb:

[JAXRS6]

A418TQTip, I'm not sure what your disagreement is.

If you disagree on the desirability of increased boost for low speed handling, fine; we simply disagree in our opinion on that.

But if you're saying my RS6 is easier or as easy to steer at low speeds compared to the Benz M or Allroad, I'm willing to put that to a test. I will buy a spring-loaded hand-held scale and try to measure the effort required to steer 1) while standing still, and 2) at low speeds (10-15 mph), comparing the RS6 to an Allroad -- and a Benz M series if I can find a willing Benz dealer. However, this will require some time and effort, so I have to get something out of it if I'm proven correct. I'm open to suggestions but otherwise I'll just drop it because after spending a week with the M and 3-4 days with the Allroad (not to mention 32K mi on my RS6), I'm satisfied that I'm right & would do this "test" only to prove same to you.

I should probably mention that when I met up with another RS6 owner (noushy) and we drove each other's cars, we both agreed that steering effort was greater on mine than his. He had new 19" custom wheels, tho, so the cars were not totally equal. Since then someone suggested I go to 40 psi in my tires, which I did. It helped a little, but steering effort still seems too high at low speeds. And I got conflicting stories from Audi re whether some US cars had Servotronic while others did not; dealer tech said there was a change, while AOA denies ANY changes during production.

[A418TQTip]

Yes, that's what I meant (sorry, I should've quoted the "High steering effort" part only). I really don't think a car like the RS6 should have increased steering boost @ any speed. After all, it's an RS... ;) That's what the "mainstream" A6 models are for. Better yet, that's what MBs are for... :D

So, I'm not disputing the fact that the RS6 is not as easy to steer as other cars. IMHO that's the way it should be.

Now, if your car requires more steering effort than other RS6s, I'd think there really is something wrong/different. :thumb:

[Aronis]

the source of my comment was:Road and Track, January 2005, page 35....

Northstar V8 to provide upward of 380 bhp....supercharged version of 4.6 liter Northstar V8.

Boy this has grown.....and was moved...

:incar:

[Benman]

Originally posted by JAXRS6
"More agile than the RS6 in many conditions" might better have been said as "some conditions." I'm talking low speed, as in parking -- especially trying to exit parallel parking in a hurry. Another example is driving around my condo complex at 10-15 mph. In those two conditions, the steering on my RS6 requires more effort than either the Benz M loaner or the Allroad. High steering effort at low speed = poor agility at that speed.

My comments also may have been a little off by blaming weight, when in fact high steering effort at low speeds could be the culprit. Not that they're unrelated, but steering effort is adjustable whereas weight is not (unless one goes back to the drawing board). Sorry for the confusion.
Ahh... now that, I agree with. Although I like the steering effort. I can live with the "heavy" feel at low speeds. A small price to pay.

Ben:addict:

[Benman]

Originally posted by Aronis
Hey, what is with the new 4.6 Northstar engine with Supercharger???? only 380 hp...give me a break, that is pathetic, you can get 380 hp out of a normaly aspirated 4.6 liter engine!
Just got the new Car & Driver mag. They quote 440 HP @ 6400rpm, 430 Torque @ 3600rpm for the STS-V! I say not too shabby!

Ben:addict:

[Benman]

The SRT-8 in the same mag is quoted at 425HP @ 6200 rpm, 420 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm naturally aspirated (6.0L)! They expecting the base price to undercut the Caddy by $30K!!!!:bigeyes: :bigeyes:
That, would be a great bang for the buck!

Ben:addict:

[sturs6]

Not bad looking either in my opinion!
http://roadandtrack.com/assets/image/12202004181243.jpg

[Aronis]

Looks like the orginal data was a typo...

Now they list the STS-V as 440 hp Supercharged Northstar..

Go figure...

Mike

[Benman]

Originally posted by Aronis
Looks like the orginal data was a typo...

Now they list the STS-V as 440 hp Supercharged Northstar..

Go figure...

Mike
Never, never, trust the Mags. They only know what they're talking about ONCE the manufacturer CONFIRMS the info!

Ben:addict:

[Aronis]

yes, I agree, but they are supposed to be the experts on all car information and should have questioned the poor specific output they listed in their own text.

That is why I brought it up, it sounded very lame to have that small of a HP increase with a supercharger on such a large V8.

Mike

[Benman]

Originally posted by Aronis
yes, I agree, but they are supposed to be the experts on all car information and should have questioned the poor specific output they listed in their own text.
Mike
They ARE the experts, just ask them:D . Sometimes I think most of us on these boards know more about the cars than they do. It's just that they're "better" writers and have the appropriate connections, and that's why they have those jobs;) .

Ben:addict:

[Erik]

Nürburgring in 8:31. The RS6 8:22 :D

http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101519

[Benman]

Originally posted by Erik
Nürburgring in 8:31. The RS6 8:22 :D

http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101519
ANY Caddy in that range is SMOKING! Caddy has come a long way. From "the standard of the world" to the "joke of the world", and now back on their way, TRYING, to being the "Standard" once again. If they put forth REAL effort, they might be able to accomplish this feat in another decade or two. Anything is possible.

Ben:addict:

[Erik]

Looks like GM will start the production of some new mini-Caddies in Sweden, instead of SAABs. :rolleyes: