Quote:
Originally Posted by lbls1
I recall the LS6 and LS2 CTSVs (naturally aspirated) I don't recall a supercharged version (unless you're talking about the Seville-replacement sedan with the supercharged Northstar, who's name escapes me....STSV???); Those sedans were nothing to sneeze at either. The ATS was more powerful and probably quicker than the early CTSVs, but also realize the distinct difference in sound and feel of a v8 vs a v6 or 4 cyl. engine. Although some may not care, but there is quite a difference in the sound and perception (but not necessarily a performance advantage) between the 8 cyl. and smaller engines.
|
Yes, the 1st gen CTS-Vs were LS6 then LS2 powered at 400 hp either way. The STS-V and the XLR-V had the supercharged Northstars.
I didn't know this until I checked wikipedia just now but it turns out that the STS-V was the most powerful of the early -V cars at 469 hp. If I were to have guessed, I'd have figured the 6 figure sports car that was the XLR-V would have been the most powerful Cadillac at the time but it used a 443 hp version of the supercharged Northstar.
And yes, subjectively V8s are more satisfying. But my point was that in terms of outright power a V6 shouldn't be dismissed automatically. If its a pretty mundane turbo6 that they're pretending is 'high output' ... well, thats a different story all together. But a 500ish hp TTV6 in the CT4-V would probably have made most people quite happy. And that would have been doable with an updated version of the LF4 from the ATS-V. Instead, they didn't even put a V6 into the CT4-V. They used the 4 cylinder from the Silverado
