If the CTS's V6 $31K pricetag is a little hard to justify next to a Hemi powered $32K 300C, you may wait till this fall.

It will have a 2.8 liter V6 (the same size that used to be in Chevy Citations, and smaller than Cavalier's old V6) and will likely go for about $28,000.

Who's buying?

http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=06225353

 

Seems like a decent deal, since it will only make a little less power than the 3.2L V6.

 

For 2-3k $$, I'll take the extra 50 horses.

 

At first I was like "why are they putting a weaker base engine in the CTS", but if the base price drops to $28K than I guess that is understandable. (even though a 3.6 doesn't cost much more than a 2.8L to build).

 

Well, he didn't say it was the same engine, he said it was the same size. Was he planting the seed or hoping people would mentally make the connection/association with the old 60 degree 2.8L ohv? Dunno, but still, it did have something of a bashing-tone (or 300C ***-kissing tone). As in, "lol keep in mind that this engine is the same size as the old Cavalier", never mind that the 3 Series had a 2.5L line 6 with 189 hp and a 2.8L with a little more before finally moving up to a monstrous 3.0L. That car would be pretty nice with a smooth, high revving low displacement 2.8 with 210 hp and a manual, though the 3.6 with a six speed will be much more fun...

EDIT: Looks like Big Als Z deleted his post; must have seen what I was pointing out. Don't think guionM was saying the 2.8L is the same, but it did have a little bit of a condescending tone.

Z28x: As for the 2.8 and 3.6 costing about the same, if that ends up being the case: nothing new there. How much more do you think a 6.0 or 5.3 costs over a 4.8? 2.5 vs. 3.0 BMW? 4.6 vs. 5.4 modular? But they can charge a bunch more for the upgrade.

 

The 2.8 is made to replace the opel 3.2 as GM moves to the global engine idea. The 2.8 in the CTS was done for European export as well. The 2.8 will probably be used more in Europe, and Holden has a plant making the engines as well.

 

Thats why I removed that post after I reread his post, but he did alude to the 2.8 connection and showing that the 300C is still the best sedan ever.

 

Just a side note on the Citation's 2.8 V6.

I used to own a red Citation Club Coupe, with a 2.8L V6 and 4 speed manual.
The car was complete crap...by far, the worst car I've ever owned! The motor however...was a GEM.

 

The same 300C that uses the 5.7L V8 (the same size engine that used to be in cars built as far back as 1967)

 

The $28K+ "stripper" CTS we're talking about might just have Stabilitrak as standard equipment. Still, I doubt that vinyl seats and 210hp are enough to make this Caddy a winner.

The G35 sedan raised the bar in this segment and it's pretty hard to argue with the extra 50hp. To be a true near-luxury player, the "base" CTS needs the 3.6 liter HFV6, standard Stabilitrak, standard 17" rims, and a 5-speed automatic as a no-cost option - not to mention the new $28k base price.

 

I do wonder, however, why this smaller engine is needed. While the aforementioned BMWs and others in the class have had smaller engines, the CTS is on the large side for the price class - though the G35 may be too. The CTS has sort of blurred the lines between the 3 and 5 Series, for example. Much like the STS does with the 5 and 7 Series based on its size and price points.

 

Personally if it comes down to those two cars, the way I see it is this: i have a choice between two luxury sedans. And I like smaller cars. I am not that small myself (6 feet), but I do have a preference for something smaller. As nice as 300C is (and I think it's got a kick *** engine), it loses on its size appeal. I was jogging Sunday and ran past this black CTS at around sundown. That car looked sooooo awesome, and that's when it struck me that the most appealing part of it is the not-so-enormous size and fitting design. Kind of like 3-series. Only better :-).

And I also don't mind driving the less powerful car. Prices for more powerful derivatives of the same car are not justified most of the time in the luxury brands. I can live with a little less power, but if paired to a manual transmission, almost any (reasonable) engine will do. I'm sure 210HP CTS will be no slouch, most likely high 15's 1/4 mi - that's plenty for daily commutes.

edit: I didn't read the article about choice of interior materials. Just introduce nice cloth interior, and we're set. BMW and Audis always had that option on a base model. And Audi is using 1.8 liter 170 HP engine for how long now? Paired to a 3400+ lbs chassis.

 

The 2.8 was made for Euro sales, as well as a low buck option to take away more sales from the base 3 series.
I would think that the CTS would handle a lot better then the 300C, and that alone makes it better then the 300.

 

Was relating to the size of the engine, not that the engine was the same 2.8 from the late 70s through the 80s.

Although the engine makes a respectable 210 horsepower, the torque is just 220 & the car weighs just over 3500 pounds. That's roughly the same specs as a base Impala (Impala is 50 lbs lighter, has 10 less horses, but has identical torque that I believe is engineered to come on strong lower in the rpm band, therefore likely quicker).

The 2.8 CTS may actually be a great deal (priced in GTP Grand Prix & loaded Impala SS territory). It's just the idea of an engine that's barely 50 cubic inches bigger than an Ecotec 4 cylinder in a car of that weight that raises the red flag with me.

 

I agree, power to weight is the first thing that concerned me when I heard this a few months ago. To me luxury=power.

How is the Chrysler 300 doing with the 190hp 2.7L V6? I read 50% sold are Hemis