By Richard Truett
Automotive News / January 26, 2004

DETROIT - The Cadillac Escalade luxury SUV will muscle into the fast lane with a V-10 or V-12 engine, possibly as early as the 2006 model year.

The move is in keeping with General Motors' plans to create a series of exclusive high-performance cars and SUVs for Cadillac called the V Series. The first of those models, the CTS-V sports sedan, is in showrooms. The CTS-V is powered by a V-8 derived from the engine used in the Chevrolet Corvette.

GM is building a plant in Wixom, Mich., to produce engines for low-volume, high-performance vehicles.

The automaker expects the plant to be building engines by the summer of 2005. That means an engine could become available for the 2006 model year. "Obviously we wouldn't be putting in place a low-volume build center if we didn't choose to have a little fun here," says Tom Stephens, GM vice president in charge of global powertrains. "It's part of our product strategy. We'll need a place to build some of those high-image products."

Those high-image products will carry a higher price tag. The CTS-V sells for $49,300 - about $18,000 more than a base CTS. The Escalade, which is sold with a choice of two V-8s, starts at $52,830, including destination charges.

Engineers are testing on Detroit roads at least four high-performance engines in a fleet of Escalades.

"You will find Cadillacs running around with higher-output V-8s, running around with V-10s (and) V-12s," Stephens says, "and you will find even one variant with even more cylinders."

That other variant is the 16-cylinder engine from the Cadillac Sixteen concept car. GM Powertrain engineers have installed a 16-cylinder engine in a test Escalade. But that engine, rated at 1,000 hp, may be too expensive to produce.

The most likely big displacement engine for the high-performance Escalade is the Northstar-based XV-12, which fits in the same space as the vehicle's current optional 6.0-liter V-8.

That means the Escalade could get a V-12 without extensive reworking of the sheet metal.

The Escalade is scheduled for a redesign in 2007 or 2008. A high-performance engine for 2006 would help keep interest in the current model strong while Cadillac prepares the next version.

 

I saw a 400HP CTS in the "Dupont Regisrty" a couple of weeks ago, it looks like Cadillac is setting its sights on high end Euro cars, and these engines will be a step in that diection..

 

The only reason to ever put a V16 into any car is for bragging rights. OK, well, that's reason enough!

I can see the owner at the country club now....
"Yes, your euro V12 is very nice....but try a Caddillac with 16 cylinders! There's nothing like having so many cylinders under the control of your right foot. Once you've had 16 you can never go back!"

 

I like where Caddy is headed.

 

Im not going to be able to pay off my student loans because Im going to be buying a $80,000 Escalade EXTv

 

isn't this all just more fuel on the fire for all the enviros? "look we are too lax on detroit they are back to building monstrosities with 16 cylinders under the hood!"

 

My response would be look at the percentage of ultra-luxury 16 cylinder vehicles being sold compared to the overall industry. What would that fraction be, .001%? I'm sure it'd still be a sore point for the mindless I suppose.

 

Does everyone here realize that this exact same approach was taken as far back as the '30's?

By the same company too no less.

There was a marketing concept after the depression, that saw streamlining in EVERYTHING from cars to toasters, and the overall mentality of the economy was "bigger is better". There were V12's and even 16's put into cars from the 30's into the '40's. It was a trend that died as soon as WWII took front and center.

A '31 four door...
A '31 Phaeton V12 convertible...
A '37 V16 Roadster (sweet ride too IMO)...
A nice pic of a detailed 1934 Caddy V16...

Just didn't want all you "youngun's" out there to think that some kind of new technology was being developed here. In fact, those of you who cry "RETRO" all the time might want to think about it... Caddy going back to the days of V12 and V16's in their flagship roadsters and such... definitely not a first.

All in all, I'm kinda for it. I think it's cool to develop a monstrosity like that for image as well as some fun, maybe that's why I was so worked up over Ford coming out with a V10 for the top toys. It certainly can't hurt the development of new technologies.

I do fear that the eco-lovers are going to cry foul at the top of their lungs when this gets to them. They will automatically assume 5mpg, 3qts oil/day, and uncatted exhausts...

Another USELESS TIDBIT for today...
our war-buffs out there will recall that PT-boats that served in WWII were powered by V12's and V16's in marine trim. These were some of the fastest most maneuverable boats on the salty pond, able to run recon, move commanders and big brass from ship to ship, chunk up to 4 torpedoes and/or 8 depth charges (depending on deck/launch configuration), and perform basic patrol duty. They could outrun any torpedo used in WWII. And, get this, the boat itself was made of PLYWOOD!!!

 

I like the innovation Caddy's always had. First V8 (commercial), first self starter (Dayton Ohio represent! DELCO), the V16 which was a commerical flop sadly, a 2 speed rear-end in 1914 which was neat but they were not the first to have it. They're holding the tradition. My dad is a huge Caddy buff, so I pick up some stuff here and there

 

This is the stuff that made Caddy THE world standard. Sure would be nice to see that era again. Just leave annoying, even baffling technology like BMW's I-Drive out of the equation though.

 

that isn't the point. if it's ever made it will be the most visible vehicle GM makes which puts the car and GM under a huge microscope. 16 cylinders just falls into the category of rediculous and that's what will get everyone's attention. the simple fact that this car is even being made would alert the green ***** that "they aren't doing their job" or that they've been too lax on Detroit. I mean think about it. CARB has been on GM's case about building more electric cars, then GM says its not viable/possible to make profit off those and then turns around and builds a monster that's about as far away from an electric car as you can get, ideologically, ecologically... GM is just going to get slammed for it by the vast majority of the media.

 

I think you're the one that missed the point.


I'm betting that it will get pretty good mileage

They didn't mention how much it will displace. They will be able to use smaller bores which has been the current trend in improving gas mileage. It helps flame travel or something

Also, I'm betting it will feature Displacement on Demand. They'll be able to kill cylinders without the driver realizing it. That's the sweetness of a V12 or V16. It has more explosions for revolution than a V8 (duh) so there's not as much of a delay between each one.

 

THe concept had DoD that went from 16 to 8 to 4.

 

I ordered my black raven CTSV on monday


A V-12..I'd hate to have to pay for that motor rebuild. If they can get 500hp out of the current smallblock and pass emissions, they can beef that motor up a little more and boost it for more HP.

 

DoD has huge merits to a point, but it begins to fade after a certain point too.
It subscribes to the laws of diminishing returns.
Read on if interested, page down if you're not into "engineering things"...

Let's suppose that a V10 makes 500hp (easy numbers to work with). That means each cylinder contributes 50hp to the total on average.

Now, lets evaluate the losses in our driveline... friction of the crank (6 journals minimum) have a given friction loss. At least 20 valves to be moved up and down against spring pressure is a fixed ammount of energy consumption. The oil pump consumes X-amount of energy to turn. Then there's the losses in the gearbox... the U-joints, etc. It all adds up... so let's say we lose 20% of our produced power just to keep the engine running and to move the car's drivetrain components - that's 100hp (20% of 500hp). These are FIXED LOSSES - they are basically not negotiable. (They do fluxuate with temps, engine speed, and the like, but let's just say we're holding all other variables constant for now.)

Now as DoD starts to cut out cylinders, we reduce the hp being created by 50 hp per cylinder. So we cut out 4 cylinders, losing 200 potential hp. Now the remaining 6 cylinders have to drive the car... meaning they have to overcome the losses, then provide motivational forces to keep the car in motion as well. We are now splitting the 100hp loss over 6 cylinders instead of 10 meaning cylinder efficiency went from (100%-(100/10))=90% with all 10 going, to (100%-(100/6))=83% with only 6 going.
Each cylinder is @7% less efficient when 6 are running instead of 10.
POINT - dropping cylinders and fuel efficiency are NOT linearly related.
In fact. it gets progressively worse as you drop more cylinders.
You will theoretically reach the point where it takes a certain number of cylinders just to overcome the friction losses inside the engine, with NO power going to the road.

The benefit in DoD comes from the other variables that affect a car's efficiency greatly, like aerodynamics, Cd, and gearing. It is possible (indeed DESIREABLE) to have a cruising speed which is matched with gearing to offer the optimum engine speed - a speed where you have sufficient torque and power to do the work required, but not much more. Let me reword, if the engine is at 2500 rpm and is making 500hp, but the car is only doing 55 mph on a flat 4-lane highway, you are wasting huge amounts of power and torque, because it only needs minimal hp to maintain that cruising speed after wind drag, friction, and all other losses are included. The additional power is simply discharged as heat in the exhaust, engine, and air - aka WASTED.
That is where DoD can be a big hit... when cruising at a constant speed, at an optimized condition, it becomes better to lose some marginal (7%) efficiency in a few cylinders to conserve the fuel and heat, than to waste the huge amounts of power in the form of heated air and parts.

All the DoD benefits go out the window - and fast - when you talk about daily driving with stop and go, stoplights, uphill/downhill, pulling anything behind you, etc. When a car is accelerating, most of the torque and hp are being consumed in generating the accelerating force, so a 40% loss of power (by dropping 4 cylinders in a V10) and the reduced efficiency of the remaining 6 cylinders (at 83 vs 90%) would be very noticeable.

DISCLAIMER - I do realize that many more variables come into play, like driving speeds, conditions, specific heat capacity of the fuel, gearing, etc. There is also better and more accurate ways to measure efficiency of an engine than HP produced vs HP consumed, there is thremal efficiency (which is actually pretty accurate too) where the deltaT of input to output air reveals power used, and other methods. The example was intended to be simplistic and make you think about the underlying issues, and not take DoD at face value as a "fuel saver" in all instances.

Back to the subject at hand...
After all the rambling above, I think it is a no-no to believe that DoD will be the life-saver of the V12 and V16 engines. It will help fuel economy over a V12 or V16 without it to be sure, but DoD alone simply will not give an engine like that the ability to provide 25 mpg in town.

Likewise, flame front propagation helps improve fuel efficiency too. When it is designed into an engine properly, it allows for consistent burning of the a/f mix, from ignition point (the plug) towards the piston. This helps even the pressure applied to the piston (avoiding side-loading), and also helps ensure the a/f mix burns while in the combustion chamber instead of burning while it goes down the exhaust tubes. But again, we're talking single-digit efficiency benefits, not huge ones. The best benefits to a good induction and ignition system are intangibles, like the even loading of the piston to prevent side loading and skirt wear, less buildup on the exhaust valves, less carbon in the exhaust system, and less heat in the exhaust/under the hood. Don't bank on smaller cylinders and good flame propagation alone to save gas mileage either, not when trying to make 500hp or more.

The secret to mpg is less moving components that generate friction, good compression control, and a low-friction drivetrain.

I recall from my Powerplants course in college, that the optimum engine on paper is a single cylinder 4- stroke with loose fits, a short stroke, and a HUGE bore. In the real world, 8 cylinders at about 300-350 cubic inches of total displacement is where the diminishing returns reaches parity with improved power. It is based on friction losses, efficiency, and produceable power. This is EXACTLY why we have seen V8's settle into industry as the best power-makers in 281, 289, 302, 305, 327, 350 ci packages... It was a revelation in class when my professor explained it all so clear.

I'll have to dig out my old notebook and get some more of the details about this topic fresh in my mind again. With this Caddy V12 stuff and Ford's V10 stuff, maybe they have found some way to "bend" the curves on the diminishing returns plot now... Technology is a wonderful thing, no?

Thanks for reading. Hope some of it made sense anyways...

And FWIW, the greenies are going to gripe and cry foul no matter what mileage comes out. Just the mention of "big", V12, V16, or "power" is all it takes to set them off these days. It will be interesting to see what CAFE and legislation have to say about these V10 and larger engines in the next 2 years though.