Spy Shots: Cadillac CTS-V engine bay
by Dan Roth on Jul 3rd 2007 at 7:51AM 
UPDATE: WorldCarFans let us know they've determined the car in the pics is a regular CTS and not the CTS-V. Speculation of a supercharger can be put back on the table. The latest engine bay shots of the 2009 CTS-V offer us a little more insight than we were able to glean previously. There's a clear shot back to the firewall, and the beefy strut brace is showing signs of revision. Moreover, from what's visible of the engine it appears that previous speculation of forced induction is so much chatter.
If we were to play GM-Overlord for a minute, it'd make the most sense to plop the Corvette Z07's LS7 into the CTS. You'd spend less on developing a super- or turbo-charging system, and reliability has been on a years-long field trial with the Z07. Spending less underhood means there'd be money left over for suspension development and interior fitment, both crucial areas where Cadillac needs to bring it. Throwback musclecars are fun for five minutes or so, and then they're just a handful when the road gets twisty. If the CTS-V is going to whip some foreign-accented hindquarters, it'd best be an excellent all around performer that needs no excuses when it comes to accomodations.
[Source: WorldCarFans]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
afg350ci 8:00AM (7/03/2007)
World Car Fans has posted an update stating that the engine bay is of a Regular CTS and NOT the CTS-V. Forced induction is still a possibility for the V.
Reply
mr.ed 8:44AM (7/03/2007)
Please, no more pushrod Chevy engines. Even GM can do better. Isn't the tooling paid for after over fifty years?
Reply
pushrod 9:38AM (7/03/2007)
Considering DOHC setups date back to 1918, they have long since payed for themselves as well.
The Other Bob 10:43AM (7/03/2007)
Why not pushrod? They often are better. There is no way you could even fit an OHC engine into that engine bay with equal horsepower.
Devin 10:06AM (7/03/2007)
@ Mr. Ed. Stop being a freakin' JJ..this motor has some ties to the original, but it's way more sophisicated in design and material useage.
Mattlach 12:02PM (7/05/2007)
I used to believe as you do, that pushrod engines were inefficient, and outmoded. I certainly had reason to at the time.
The big honking 5 liter V8's of the 80s, often found in foxbody mustangs and the likes producing just a hair over 250hp, as well as those in the likes of the Crown Victoria really gave pushrod V8s a bad name.
For higher powered engines, they are actually a really nice solution. What they lack in technical refinement, they make up for in weight and reduced friction. They may have huge displacements, but the actual size and weight of the engines is lighter than their DOHC V8 counterparts.
There were some pictures online of a Northstar V8 (DOHC) and a LS2 9i believe) side by side a while back that really illustrated this point. At a similar displacement, the Northstar was huge and heavy in comparison.
While I would chose DOHC over OHV in a smaller displacement engine, the large pushrod V8's actually are - if done right - more efficient and powerful than their DOHC equivalents.
That being said, I can't stand the gurgling boat-motor sound they make. If I were to get a V8 I'd want it to be a flat plane V8, with a lovely even roar.
James Sonne 8:30AM (7/03/2007)
Yeah, that picture obviously shows a V6 engine.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 1:42PM (7/03/2007)
The LS7 (pushrod) makes the same HP (okay, 4% less) as BMW's DOHC V10 in the M5 in 20%+ less space, 40% less weight, 20% fewer cylinders, 60% fewer valves and half the cost.
Stop acting like pushrods are inferior.
Zippy Maboonogian 9:21AM (7/03/2007)
"If we were to play GM-Overlord for a minute, it'd make the most sense to plop the Corvette Z07's LS7 into the CTS."
What's a "Z07"?
Reply
Devin 10:06AM (7/03/2007)
LOL..exactly. Come on Autoblog...Z06 man..Z06.
LyonKing 10:06AM (7/03/2007)
The Z07 is the "blue devil" with a more appropriate name. AKA the 700 hp corvette thats coming out
EnviroBob 9:22AM (7/03/2007)
There's nothing wrong with pushrod engines, unless of course one doesn't like engines that are compact, lightweight and durable (not to mention much cheaper to repair) that produce large amounts of power and torque.
Reply
jg 1:45PM (7/03/2007)
Cheaper to repair is the main consideration.
1337 10:34AM (7/03/2007)
Seeing as efficiency is rapidly becoming a mainstream concern, I urge GM to stop making such a fuss about the CTS-V. Instead, approve production on the potential Saab version of the second generation CTS and offer it with the upcoming 4.5L V8 diesel and a blown version of the 3.6L V6. With proper marketing, GM could get a huge chunk of the quickly growing diesel car market in America.
Reply
Mattlach 10:39AM (7/05/2007)
Agreed.
I think GM has a lot of potential with Saab, especially considering the trend in the U.S. toward import brands.
I know a lot of people who would consider Saabs if they were more advanced, but would never even think of looking at a Cadillac.
GM saved Saab from its demise when they bought the company, but they proceeded to leave it in a kind of semi-stasis by not providing as much investment as they could and instead resorting to badge engineering.
A saab-caddy cooperation makes a lot of sense. A Saab SUV based on the SRX certainly makes a lot more sense than the current 9-7x based on a Trailblazer...
With enough investment, GM could make Saab a potent competitor to Audi, and capitalize on the high-powered Euro sedan market on a worldwide platform rather than the U.S. only Cadillac. (I know they sell them elsewhere, but noone buys them, and that won't change.)
I would love to see GM come to their senses, and create true S4, S6 and maybe even RS competitors with Saab badges.
1337 11:48AM (7/05/2007)
A Saab SRX is a very good idea. I would consider buying one if GM shoehorned the upcoming smaller diesel into it.
Ford could also revitalize Volvo with virtually the same strategy as I discussed GM doing for Saab (efficient sports sedans). Ford would need to invest a ton of money to make the performance of the S40 and S60 competitive with the 335i, A4 3.2, and the C350. However, Ford could easily put the European market TDCi diesel engines in American-market Volvos (and add a urea system to meet American emissions standards), essentially making Volvo into a "green" brand, which could take on Japanese hybrids and Volkswagen diesels.
Considering the fact that dealers cannot keep Volkswagen 1.9L TDI diesels on their lots (even in 2006 when the cars were on sale in the American market), and Volkswagen doesn't bother to advertise the diesel models, Saab and/or Volvo, with proper advertising, could sell a respectable number of diesel cars in America. When I bought my 2006 Jetta TDI DSG, I had to fight to get it off the lot, and I paid sticker. There is clearly a spot for European diesels in the American market, a spot that disheveled Swedish brands could certainly fill.
James 11:01AM (7/03/2007)
I'm eager to see what GM does with the CTS-V - this could be the fir Domestic car that brings me back to buying "American". I quote the word "American" since my Z4 is made in the US but considered an Import. I've been really impressed with GMs changes - it's the only domestic manufacturer that I believe has a chance to compete head to head with the imports. Ford is just too far behind and is too slow to change, and Chrysler needs to focus on quality/relibility/fuel economy...which perhaps they will do when they return to their American roots in August.
James
Reply
narcszm 11:13AM (7/03/2007)
I was really expecting to see a pushrod motor in there, too. DOHC ftw?
Reply
narcszm 11:17AM (7/03/2007)
Wait a second... That's just a CTS V6 with camo. Shame on you for posting this without doing a little digging or at least looking at the photographs.
Your blog post should be deleted; no reason to get others' hopes up over your so-called news blogging.
Reply
Dan Roth 11:55AM (7/03/2007)
We updated the post once we got word from World Car Fans