Interesting Cadillac change - turbo axed

[addyguy]

I know it's just one model, but when everyone seems to be going to turbo engines to improve mileage, here is one case where it didn't work:

Cadillac SRX kills turbo six
After only one year on the market, the turbocharged 2.8-litre V-6 engine upgrade in the Cadillac SRX crossover has reportedly been axed. This throws into question plans for the engine to be made available in the all-new 2011 Saab 9-4X that will come out of the same Mexican plant; Saab said as recently as November that it would be the top engine in the 300-hp 9-4X Aero model.

A Cadillac spokesperson reportedly confirmed to gminsidenews.com that the torque-y V-6 has been discontinued due to its slow take-up rate, saying that more than 90 per cent of (presumably American) buyers opted for the base 265-hp V-6. While largely praised for its power, the turbocharged V6 has been criticized widely for its low fuel economy numbers, rated here at 13.6 litres/100 in the city and 9.1 on the highway in 2010 in the top (all-wheel -rive) SRX.

Saab has long been known for its turbocharged powerplants, and the 2.8T provided Cadillac’s SRX with noticeably more oomph than the somewhat-relaxed 3.0-litre V-6 that comes standard in both of these five-seat utility vehicles. Saab North America didn’t respond to a request for comment earlier this week, but Saab executives have said previously that the 9-4X is basically a GM program that it took over as is, which suggests that even if the 2.8-litre engine does make it to some top 9-4X Saab models in 2011, it will likely not last more than a year in it either.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Maybe if everone would stop the silly horsepower race (on passenger cars) engines will improve. I can for sure tell you NO ONE is using more than 1/3 the HP their cars provide (witnessed during my daily commute). Also the tight somg regs dont help fuel mileage on 3 way catalysis given that a near stoic air/fuel ratio must be maintained to give low combined NOx and CO.

 

[The_Jeff]

I didn't know about this motor until they announced they axed it. Cadillac marketing has been TERRIBLE, I don't know which letter combination sedan is the preacher special and which one is the mobster ultimate.

The styling is great because even the cheap caddy looks fantastic. But the scale makes it hard to judge size.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Maybe if everone would stop the silly horsepower race (on passenger cars) engines will improve. I can for sure tell you NO ONE is using more than 1/3 the HP their cars provide (witnessed during my daily commute).

But they do use torque, and they pay attention to acceleration figures in magazines. The only way the horsepower race would have any hope of ending is if vehicles got lighter and lower, which won't happen for various reasons -- not to mention that it's kind of futile to propose in a thread about the SRX.

 

[dwendt44]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Maybe if everone would stop the silly horsepower race (on passenger cars) engines will improve. I can for sure tell you NO ONE is using more than 1/3 the HP their cars provide (witnessed during my daily commute).


+1. That 'race' puts the horsepower way up in the RPM range that few people ever see.
My GM 3800 has yet to see 4000 rpm much less 6000.
The old US engines had their torque down low for take off 'oomph' and cruising alone. No more.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: dwendt44
+1. That 'race' puts the horsepower way up in the RPM range that few people ever see.
My GM 3800 has yet to see 4000 rpm much less 6000.
The old US engines had their torque down low for take off 'oomph' and cruising alone. No more.

Not sure about that. The 2010 Mustang V6 I drove on vacation recently seemed to have plenty of low-end torque, especially at WOT.

 

[Ram01]

GM Drop the ball putting that motor in the SRX. They should of kept the 3.6 fuel injection and 3.6DI. There really not much of and increase in MPG in the underpowered 3.0DI and 2.8 turbo

 

[pidster]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: dwendt44
+1. That 'race' puts the horsepower way up in the RPM range that few people ever see.
My GM 3800 has yet to see 4000 rpm much less 6000.
The old US engines had their torque down low for take off 'oomph' and cruising alone. No more.

Not sure about that. The 2010 Mustang V6 I drove on vacation recently seemed to have plenty of low-end torque, especially at WOT.


Well that motor for one is pretty "old school", and grew up in Explorers and Rangers primarily. More of a truck engine. Feels torquey in the Ranger I'd imagine it would blast a Mustang off the line in a hurry.

But you're right though, the new v6 Mustang engine for 2011 has it beat in HP by a longshot and if I remember right it has lots of low end torque too. And from smaller displacement.

That's progress.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: dwendt44
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Maybe if everone would stop the silly horsepower race (on passenger cars) engines will improve. I can for sure tell you NO ONE is using more than 1/3 the HP their cars provide (witnessed during my daily commute).


+1. That 'race' puts the horsepower way up in the RPM range that few people ever see.
My GM 3800 has yet to see 4000 rpm much less 6000.
The old US engines had their torque down low for take off 'oomph' and cruising alone. No more.


You are doing it wrong.