http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?p..._code=02493772

It also says Cadillac has a version on the streets with a V16.

 

Yeah , I'd say that should keep "interest" 'til the New 2007 versions arrive...
I wonder how long the front end on a V16 car will be, should be easy to spot..

 

Hmmm..... uses about the same space as the V8? A 600hp V12 f-body? Sounds sweet to me!

 

Um, I can just about guarantee that the V12 is much larger than the LQ9 - it's just that the GMT800 engine compartment has no problem accomodating something much larger than what's currently being used. That particular line in the article was poorly-written, IMO.

I'd rather have seen this effort put into dropping the Duramax into the many GMT800 SUVs, though - it would have had a wider, more positive impact.

 

guionM, I don't think there is a V16 version on the streets. I read an article about the development of the Sixteen a while back. It said that after construction of the motor was complete, a vehicle was needed to holf the motor for testing. The Escalade was chosen since it was the only vehicle that could hold the V16. Even at that the article said that extensive modifications were needed to make the Escalade hold that engine. I forget what the article said was needed to put the V16 inside of the Escalade, but I remember that it WAS NOT easy. It wasn't as simple as dropping an LS1 into an RX-7 or an S10. Not surprisingly, the article then said that BOB LUTZ took the first test drive of that Escalade! It siad he could hardly keep it going in a straight line without melting the tires.

So I'm guessing that the V16 Escalade mentioned is the one off model that was used for the Sixteen concept production.

 

Not too many people want to/would spend $7600 extra on a diesel and tranny in an SUV. No matter how much a positive impact the tree hugger's feel it would have.

Size wise for the V12, likely it's larger, but these new 10's and 12's are getting very compact. 16 on the other hand, not a chance without major changes.

 

I got that they were testing the V16 in the Escalade. Though I doubt it will end up in production Escalades, what Cadillac will use that engine in I can only imagine.

 

You know damn well that it doesn't cost GM $7600 extra to put that drivetrain into a truck, so let's not confuse the real cost with the asking price.

And it would seem that if somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% of GM's heavy-duty pickup buyers opt for the Duramax (Ford and Dodge have diesel sales rates of over 70%), even though it costs $7600, then maybe folks who buy 3/4-ton SUVs, vans, and 'lanches might like the same thing.

And I apologize if a doubling in fuel economy (possibly even a bigger difference when towing) constitutes "tree hugging"

WRT to the V-12's size, a Northstar ain't exactly tiny compared to a GenIII pushrod motor, so I can't imagine that adding 50% more cylinders makes it seem "compact".

 

You're correct, it doesn't cost GM $7600 to produce the diesel Allison combo, but it does to the consumer. Secondly, most opt for the diesel Allison duo for heavy duty trailering (think fifth-wheel) and not for mileage.
Do you even know how much gas you'd have to use to make up the difference between a gas and a diesel truck? A whole hell of a lot.
If you you want to argue, go on ahead. I deal with the consumer, I don't sideline judge for other people's needs.

 

Uh, a diesel doesn't really help much with trailering, except for the improved mileage. A 8100 Vortec will yank a trailer around just as well as the Duramax, but it might suck 2-3x the fuel doing it.

All depends on what markup GM decides to attach to the diesel. And, yes, even at current gas prices, it'd take a while to make up the difference.

Maybe you could do an informal poll of repeat GM customers and see how many of them got so disgusted with previous attempts at light-truck diesels that they'd never consider asking for one again

 

I think in something like the H2 the cost of the Diesel wouldn't be a big deal, Just think even if it gets 16mpg that is a 33% improvement from the 12mpg it gets now.


Back the the V12, I think it would be great for Cadillac, V12 has more prestige than a V8

 

Man, I'd love to test drive that V16 Escalade

As for deisels, they should definately offer them in more SUVs etc, but I don't think Caddy buyers are going to spring for a deisel, it probably wouldn't mesh well with the rest of the new image Caddy's trying to build.

 

What's up with all the V10, V12, V16 stuff in the last 3 months?!?!

Quote:
"January 22, 2004
BY MARK PHELAN
FREE PRESS AUTO CRITIC
When the first $94,600 12-cylinder version of the Volkswagen Phaeton luxury sedan rolls out of a U.S. dealership this month, the brand will have traveled about as far from its origins as a car for everyman as it could go. "



Good Gosh, forget the eco-cars and hybrids...
let's go staright to Nuke-powered land yachts!

Link to story FYI... link.

 

And it is better than a V10 too.

I didn't know GM was going to build a V10 but aparently so. I wonder if that will be just for future Caddy's and trucks or maybe some passenger cars....................? Maybe the V10 in the next CTS-V will be the match for the as yet to be released M5 V10? I can't really think of any car outside Caddilac that could get a V10 and that GM would actually produce.

 

I agree on all counts.

As an owner of an F250 SD with the 7.3 Powerstroke turbo diesel, and an older F150 Trailer Special (like an SD) with 460/C6 I can attest. Both pull about equally well until you get to 75mph up mountainsides, then the diesel's torque shows up. In town, no difference to tell, in fact the gas engine might go 0-30 a tick faster with equal loads.

BUT, fuel economy?!?! The 460 gets 8mpg empty, 7mpg loaded to the ground. It don't care.
The diesel gets as good as 21 on the highway, averages 18+ overall, loaded or empty.
There's NO COMPARISON.

Modern diesels are not as noisy, and do not smoke like the old N/A units did. Between glo-plugs and ether kits, they start as good as a gas engine. Mine has glo-plugs, and has started first try EVERY TIME since '99 with no servicing whatsoever, even in the single digits - you just have to remember to put anti-gel in the fuel down here by yourself - the stations don't add it for you!

I have been in several Excursions powered by the V10 and the Powerstroke, and I am most impressed with the diesel version. For pulling a 35' Donzi off-shore boat with 3 outboards, it was awesome. The V10 gets about 14 avg mpg, and 11 when pulling the boat. The diesel version matched my F250 numbers pretty close.

The only down side to the diesel (especially the older 7.3) is the maintenance. You MUST do maintenance, or performance suffers terribly, and repairs will ensue quickly. Water separator in the fuel line, fuel filter changes, expensive oil filters, and (in my case) 14-quarts of oil every 3500 miles - now that sucks! But when the oil gets dirty, everything starts acting up... the engine oil is used to lube the turbo, actuate valves, and also to operate the fuel injection system. The first sign of dirty or broken-down oil is the engine starves a little under hard acceleration because valves don't lift fully and the fuel load is shy a bit. Trust me on this.
The solution... you WILL buy premium oils formulated for diesels (like Rotella-T), and you WILL have maintenance done every 3500-4000 miles (both of which you should do anyways IMO).

Aside from that, and even knowing those facts, I'd still buy the diesel version of the SUV before I would a gas engine. I think Gm would do well to offer the Duramax in the larger SUVs in it's fold, and I'd like to see Ford put a variant of the 6.0L Diesel in the Expeditions too. I might would buy into one of those myself...