GM Confirms 420 HP 3.6L LF3 Twin Turbocharged V6 for 2014 CTS

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

I would be pretty surprised to see both the LF3 and the LT1 in the 6th gen, as I don't see how the LF3 would be any cheaper to produce than the LT1 and the power would be fairly close as well.

I guess GM could offer a smaller turbo V6 like a 3.0 or something like that and rate the power at say 350hp/350TQ, but again I doubt it would be cheaper to produce, and thus couldn't really sell it at a cheaper price than the LT1.

If I was a betting man I'd bet on a lineup similar to the new Mustang. Turbo 4, V6, and V8. What I can't decide on just yet is if the turbo 4 would be considered the base and the V6 the optional or the other way around. For me, it really depends on how much power and efficiency these next generation V6s GM is developing are capable of.

Otherwise, I guess you could make a case for turbo 4, small displacement turbo V6, and the LT1 V8.

Not disagreeing, but they offer the L99 and LS3 with similar power today. Maybe they will offer the LF3 and LT1 above the NA V6? Something to think about anyway. Look how many engines of very similar power they offered in 1967.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

Not disagreeing, but they offer the L99 and LS3 with similar power today. Maybe they will offer the LF3 and LT1 above the NA V6? Something to think about anyway. Look how many engines of very similar power they offered in 1967.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk

An interesting idea. Would you have them offer both as SS models ala the L99 A6 and LS3 M6 cars?

Or would you like to see something else... a NA V6 LS and a LT1 V8 in the SS seems easy. As for a TT-V6 you've got a couple other trim "labels" you could choose from... LT? Z28(no "/")? Just curious.

[90503]

I know Mustang is coming up with a mixed bag of engines, but I just don't see that happening with the Camaro....Don't know how many different engines the Camaro line could bear...

....I think I heard even the new CEO wants to pear-down all the variations of engines and keep things "simpler"....May not matter to the Camaro, but you never know....

[DGthe3]

The weird thing with the LF3 vs LT1 is that the V8 seems to have been tuned more towards fuel economy rather than power, while its the opposite with the TTV6. So much so that it looks like the LT1 is the more efficient engine overall. It would be one thing if the V6 were more efficicient, while the V8 made more power. But if the V8 has the edge in both ... the LF3 becomes a pretty hard sellto the average buyer.

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

Not disagreeing, but they offer the L99 and LS3 with similar power today. Maybe they will offer the LF3 and LT1 above the NA V6? Something to think about anyway. Look how many engines of very similar power they offered in 1967.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk

The only reason why the L99 exists is because an LS3 automatic would probably have gotten slapped with a gas guzzler tax. It wasn't really done to offer buyers a choice between 26 hp or 1 mpg.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The weird thing with the LF3 vs LT1 is that the V8 seems to have been tuned more towards fuel economy rather than power, while its the opposite with the TTV6. So much so that it looks like the LT1 is the more efficient engine overall. It would be one thing if the V6 were more efficicient, while the V8 made more power. But if the V8 has the edge in both ... the LF3 becomes a pretty hard sellto the average buyer.

I'm not sure where you are getting this information about fuel economy. So far the LT1 has only been EPA certified in the C7 vette and the LF3 in the CTS Vsport and XTS Vsport. So we don't have a common platform to make comparisons of fuel economy.

The only reason why the L99 exists is because an LS3 automatic would probably have gotten slapped with a gas guzzler tax. It wasn't really done to offer buyers a choice between 26 hp or 1 mpg.

I think you are basically saying the same thing as me. They could have given the SS just the L99 with either a M6 or A6. For what ever reason, they offered both so I don't see why not with the 6th Gen as well.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

I'm not sure where you are getting this information about fuel economy. So far the LT1 has only been EPA certified in the C7 vette and the LF3 in the CTS Vsport and XTS Vsport. So we don't have a common platform to make comparisons of fuel economy.


I think you are basically saying the same thing as me. They could have given the SS just the L99 with either a M6 or A6. For what ever reason, they offered both so I don't see why not with the 6th Gen as well.

Someone from GM's engineering said over the summer that the LF3 is tuned for power over efficiency. On the LT1, they made a fairly small improvement in power yet have yielded impressive fuel economy gains. Some of those gains might be from the rest of the C7, but I would be willing to bet a lot of it comes from the engine itself -given how slick the C6 was vs all the vents & such on the new car. Thats where I am coming from on the tuning of the two engines.

As for fuel economy, I looked mainly to the CTS. The new CTS, when equiped with the same LFX V6 as the Camaro (and is of similar size, weight, and drive config) gets essentially the same FE as a V6 Camaro (if not a touch better). When comparing the V-Sport to the SS, its the exact same story. So I feel pretty confident in saying that the LF3 gets nearly identical fuel economy to the LS3/L99. And if its the same as the old generation of engines ... and the gen V's are more efficient than the IV's, then it is reasonable to conclude that the LF3 is not as efficient the new V8s. Is it a true, pure, direct comparison? No. But if A is less than or equal to B, and B is less than C then you can conclude that C must also be greater than A.


The L99 wasn't offered with manual SS's because they hadn't sorted out how to make the 4 cylinder mode play well with a clutch. I guess they have since solved that issue with the C7/Gen V. Plus, it wasn't needed to get the SS manual beyond the gas guzzler tax.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The weird thing with the LF3 vs LT1 is that the V8 seems to have been tuned more towards fuel economy rather than power, while its the opposite with the TTV6. So much so that it looks like the LT1 is the more efficient engine overall. It would be one thing if the V6 were more efficicient, while the V8 made more power. But if the V8 has the edge in both ... the LF3 becomes a pretty hard sellto the average buyer.


The only reason why the L99 exists is because an LS3 automatic would probably have gotten slapped with a gas guzzler tax. It wasn't really done to offer buyers a choice between 26 hp or 1 mpg.

turbo engines by nature are less fuel efficient than n\a ones.

[ssrs2lt]

I believe I saw a review of this engine. the review stated the engine must be really cool temp wise, and longer it ran worst it performed.. am I wrong??

[DGthe3]

I read a dyno review (Edmunds I believe) where they said something about temperature sensitivity of that engine in the CTS vs XTS but I don't know if they said anything like what you mentioned

[TheCaptain]

Like many FI engines, it suffers from heat soak, yes. Welcome to the land of Forced Induction. (unless the factory spends a considerable amount of $ avoiding heat soak)

[KMPrenger]

Actually, if its anything like the N/A V6 version, it just REALLY loves cool air. We have found that the V6 likes to be nice and warmed up (usually producing slightly higher HP and TQ numbers on the 2nd and 3rd runs) but only if the air temps are cool as well. Otherwise, if it is hot out, or if the intake heat soaks the ECU will pull timing fast and power is killed.

With this engine, I'd imagine that it pulls timing and maybe even a little boost to help keep things cool and safe, and that will really hurt it power wise.

[VE WAGON]

Does anybody know if u can purchase th Borg Warner turbos from the LF3 if so could some one over in e states get me a price

These would bolt directly only the LFX engine ports for easy turbo charging system less mods less fab work

[Jason@JacFab]

I don't think they are borg warner turbos? Anyway...

12659010 Driver's side turbo $1047.08
12659011 Pass side turbo $1047.08