I find the comparision very interesting. For a person who buys a 4cyl midsized or compact, the MPG numbers are more important. But for someone buying a top of the line engine in a high end car, i really do not think MPG numbers matter as much to them unless they want them to brag about it to their friends.
From a technical acheivement perspective, i am amazed they were not able to squeeze more out of an all new engine with a very new 8 speed. then get the MPG numbers of the competition who have engines that are a few years older and some larger.
So you want the 3.0TT to go up against the Twin Turbo V8s the Germans offer? You can't because they're more powerful, more expensive, and are TTV8s. Good luck comparing a TTV6 that's already slower than the German TT6s to those monster TTV8 powered cars.
Here's a comparison between the CT6 3.0TT and the TTV8 German flagships:
The CT6 4.2TT will go up against those. The CT6 3.0TT is Cadillac's answer to the 740i, A8 3.0T, and XJ 3.0TT.
Great, but you don't drive a car on paper. CT6 3.0TT has 404 HP, yet is basically as fast, or slower in some cases, than the "weaker" turbocharged 6 cylinder competition.
The A8 4.0T hits 60 MPH from a stop in under four seconds. Under. Four. Seconds. That's ATS-V fast. CT6 3.0TT doesn't come anywhere close to that, and it isn't supposed to. That's why the 4.2TT exists, and that's why the 4.2TT will go up against the TTV8 Germans. That isn't the 3.0TT's role in the lineup.
Wow. So if I give up 16hp from my Vsport I can gain 2mpg city and highway, all in a bigger car with AWD? Hmmmm......might need to take a closer look at the CT6.
But I'd actually place the CT6 in between the midsize and the large categories. It's a very big car, and will easily pass six figures when the TTV8 gets here.
Given how light the CT6 is, I might have hoped for better. Wonder what the 4-cyl turbo gets, especially in the real world.
As far as whether the high end buyer cares about gas consumption, I think many of them do. Not about the cost, but about environmental impact. While this might not make up the majority of such buyers yet, I think it's a growing segment. I know the plug-in version of CT6 is coming, which is great (although it's only being built in China and imported to here), but a non-plug-in hybrid would also be nice, perhaps using a beefier version of the Volt-based hybrid in the new Malibu.
It seems the big-3 Germans are going whole-hog into the electrification thing, and if Cadillac wants to keep up it must do the same.
Teslas success STARTED as an "Environmental Statement" by the well-to-do. Anyone who spends $70K +/- on a car can well afford a few extra gallons of gasoline, even at $3.50.
The new 3.6 LGX is a head scratcher. In some vehicles it puts out more power and better mileage such as this new CT6. In others like the new Camaro it improves the power a little but mileage is barely better if at all. In upcoming vehicles like the all new LaCrosse is puts out the same power and we have yet to hear about mileage. Anyways the 19/28 figure for the CT6 is pretty good considering the fat portly smaller current LaCrosse can only manage 18/26 with the older LFX 3.6. It will be interesting to see w hat the new motor does in the 2017 Lax.
When I bought my Acadia, I knew that it wouldn't get the gas mileage that a Terrain would. I also knew that it wouldn't be as fast to 60 mph as a Vette. Yet, driving with both feet, I occasionally surprise some guys at stoplights.
Since the CT6 isn't available to the general public yet, all of this arguing about trivial stuff is just static. We should wait until the sales figures come out after a year (or 6 months) to decide if the CT6 will be a success or just another CT model that doesn't live up to it's expectations. I don't know anyone in this price bracket, except for a few salted peanuts, where one mpg or one second faster will make a difference. They are buying the car, not the statistics.
Cadillac had 140 CT6s at the St. Regis this morning and a few CTSs as well. The CT6 looked better in size, interior, paint and overal design, while the CTS looked only okay by comparison.
A lot of buyers will pick the CT6 over the CTS!
Yeah, i still think that the Naturally Aspirated 6 is the way to go. Better mileage and no premium fuel. It'll be faster than the 300 by virtue of the 35 more horses and lighter weight.
Measured EPA volumes are, according to the Cadillac Press Room; 121.2 ( P-cell ), and 15.3 for the boot.
Which helps immeasurably in defining the phrase ( likely ) ' successful 'tweener '.
Combined numbers and a listing for the 3.6 8AT AWD are still not up @ fueleconomeeeeey.cooom but it is likely to end up with 19 22 ( 21 - 23 with 22 most likely and after that, on the outside, 23 ) so roughly 19 22 28 on Regular while the web site verbiage says " Regular Unleaded ". And that means great comparisons of fuel costs with the current fuel structure ie you need a bunch more MPG with a Premium fueled product in comparison to achieve the same cost band. Probably improves nicely on Mid and Premium Grade as well.
Also worth remembering... is that the 2.0's MPG of 22 25 31 lists Regular - while the website says ' Premium recommended but not required '. So yeah, in a somewhat different way, you can definitely expect more MPG with a decent Quality Premium Octane fuel.
For completeness, the 3.0TT as we can see above lists Premium, and the Press Room Presser says as somewhat expected " Premium required ".
So far, like the way they handled the MPG / Octane pairings.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
GM Inside News Forum
3.5M posts
83.7K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to GM owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about General Motors news, concepts, releases, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!