3.6 l V6 Twin turbo

[asrapid]

Most of us have read rumors about v6 with twin turbo being developed for CTS to sit between 300 HP CTS and V series. Later it was canceled. Now there is a concept from GM at SEMA with v6 TT and around 425 HP in Camaro.
Link
Is there any chance that this engine is the engine which was supposed to go in CTS?? Or maybe it is still in plans?

[Canuck]

IMO this motor needs to be offered in the CTS. It also should be offered in the upcoming XTS and SRX. For the SRX just detune the motor. Also this motor would be perfect for an ATS V.

[mgescuro]

That engine was canceled. But that is an ideal "upper-range" engine.
However, the HP is a bit on the low side. 450HP would be more appropriate.

[Tone]

Note the engine seems to be in a mild state of tune:

"A pair of Turbonetics T-3 turbochargers blows through a custom air-to-air intercooler, force-feeding the engine about seven pounds of boost and lifting its horsepower level to about 425. That's about 40 percent greater than stock and in normal driving (when the turbochargers aren't making boost), there's virtually no penalty in fuel economy over the non-turbocharged 3.6L engine."

And ... is it just me, or does anyone else here feel like this would be far more in keeping with the original Z/28 ethos? Please build this one as the Z/28 (maybe with a bit more boost and 450 hp) and call the monster-motor supercharged V8 a COPO or Yenko or something more fitting to what it is.

[big swede]

You can guarantee that this engine will soon be going into a Cadillac, at the very least. GM already turbos this basic powerplant in Europe and have talked about how flexible this engine is as far as cubic inches and turbo capabilities since it's arrival.

Now with the entire industry headed for smaller cubic inch motors with power adders it's the obvious direction for GM. It also takes care of the DOHC V8 dilemma that GM had with Cadillac and to a lesser extent Buick.

[Slideways]

Even with only seven pounds of boost, this should be making more than 425hp. In theory, if you're adding 50% more air and fuel you should be getting 50% more power.

[big swede]

Originally Posted by Slideways

Even with only seven pounds of boost, this should be making more than 425hp. In theory, if you're adding 50% more air and fuel you should be getting 50% more power.

But like all modern turbo motors the manufacturers limit boost as rpms rise through the PCM. If the NA makes 300hp it's probably making that 300hp right at redline. The turbo motor will make it's peak boost (7lbs in this case) at a much lower rpm and then the manufacturer will begin pulling boost as rpms rise.

If the manufacturers allowed full boost to continue all the way to redline like the mechanical boost limiters used to do then all of these turbo motors would make way more hp. This is how cars like the BMW can make 50 more hp with a tune that adds zero peak boost but allows that peak boost to continue all the way until redline.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[Slideways]

Originally Posted by big swede

But like all modern turbo motors the manufacturers limit boost as rpms rise through the PCM. If the NA makes 300hp it's probably making that 300hp right at redline. The turbo motor will make it's peak boost (7lbs in this case) at a much lower rpm and then the manufacturer will begin pulling boost as rpms rise.

If the manufacturers allowed full boost to continue all the way to redline like the mechanical boost limiters used to do then all of these turbo motors would make way more hp. This is how cars like the BMW can make 50 more hp with a tune that adds zero peak boost but allows that peak boost to continue all the way until redline.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Well your explanation makes perfect sense, but the fact that manufacturers leave so much potential on the table seems a bit of a waste.

[Deco28]

Originally Posted by big swede

But like all modern turbo motors the manufacturers limit boost as rpms rise through the PCM. If the NA makes 300hp it's probably making that 300hp right at redline. The turbo motor will make it's peak boost (7lbs in this case) at a much lower rpm and then the manufacturer will begin pulling boost as rpms rise.

If the manufacturers allowed full boost to continue all the way to redline like the mechanical boost limiters used to do then all of these turbo motors would make way more hp. This is how cars like the BMW can make 50 more hp with a tune that adds zero peak boost but allows that peak boost to continue all the way until redline.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Oh is that all they do lol? Well that's **** .

[mkaresh]

Originally Posted by asrapid

Most of us have read rumors about v6 with twin turbo being developed for CTS to sit between 300 HP CTS and V series. Later it was canceled. Now there is a concept from GM at SEMA with v6 TT and around 425 HP in Camaro.
Link
Is there any chance that this engine is the engine which was supposed to go in CTS?? Or maybe it is still in plans?

This engine was first rumored back in 2001 or so. I remember reading that it was going to go into the CTS-V before Lutz decided that the V8 would be a better option.

It's overdue at this point. Ford already offers a comparable engine, and Chrysler soon will.

In transverse applications power would probably have to be limited to around 365, as in the Taurus SHO.

[Millefune]

Turbocharged > Supercharged

As much as I love the LS9 and LSA, it puzzles me that GM didn't make them turbo instead.

[Slideways]

Originally Posted by Millefune

Turbocharged > Supercharged

As much as I love the LS9 and LSA, it puzzles me that GM didn't make them turbo instead.

Well the results speak for themselves, both engines are garnering praise from all over the media. Plus, the new Magnuson superchargers are efficient and compact, so maybe the packaging just worked better. I can imagine it would be difficult to fit two turbos into the engine bay of a Corvette, Lingenfelter made it work though.

[mbukukanyau]

Originally Posted by Millefune

Turbocharged > Supercharged

As much as I love the LS9 and LSA, it puzzles me that GM didn't make them turbo instead.

The eatons superchargers are supposed to be highly advanced if I recall.

I am thinking the low boost is due to the 3.6 they are using, which means the walls probably cannot take more boost, unlike say, the 3.0 or 2.8 in the SRX

[avro206]

bring on the Turbos GM. 3.6, 3.0, 2.0 Ecotec ect

[Extreme4x4]

Originally Posted by Canuck

IMO this motor needs to be offered in the CTS. It also should be offered in the upcoming XTS and SRX. For the SRX just detune the motor. Also this motor would be perfect for an ATS V.

Yeah, but if they dial it back, to what their FWD/AWD drivetrain can handle, it will make 300hp.

They have an engine that does that, already.