Cadillac's new reverse flow twin turbo V8

Vigo said:

I can't see that motor going in a vehicle with the motor in front of the driver.

Yes, they do have funny looking and poorly performing downpipes

 

Wow. That's the last time ill ever show you my down pipe!

I’m intrigued by this engine. Hope GM has some solutions for the issues that cropped up in the BMW hot-v engines. This is a good read (credit to eEuroparts) and explains why I keep seeing recent vintage 7-series executive sedans on Craigslist for not much money.  

coexist said:

Needs a bag of snakes

 

I also would like to de-turbo it and do this. 

I like it and I hope it takes off.

I know alot of Caddy Vcar popularityis because of the LSx stuff with its saturated aftermarket.

I am all about smaller diaplacements and snails

conesare2seconds said:

I’m intrigued by this engine. Hope GM has some solutions for the issues that cropped up in the BMW hot-v engines. This is a good read (credit to eEuroparts) and explains why I keep seeing recent vintage 7-series executive sedans on Craigslist for not much money.  

 

GM already has a multitude of timing chain, oil consumption and injector related issues on their direct-injection engines that aren't a hot-vee setup. In fact, I'd likely say most of those BMW issues are more related to the flaws of DI than anything else.

Are they planning on mounting this thing transversely, possibly with an AWD configuration?

Armitage said:

Are they planning on mounting this thing transversely, possibly with an AWD configuration?

I would highly doubt it. The only two transverse-engine vehicles in their lineup currently are the slow-selling/fast-depreciating XTS (an Impala in Caddy clothing for twice the price) and the XT5 (formerly the SRX, and the same basic vehicle since the FWD-version debuted in '07). Neither have more room in the engine bay to fit a V8. The V6 barely fits in them. The only transverse vehicle in the pipeline is the XT4, which is, as you guessed, smaller than the XT5. It might maybe make it's way into the Escalade.

It's' like no one is reading the thread before commenting. 

Hope GM has some solutions for the issues that cropped up in the BMW hot-v engines. This is a good read (credit to eEuroparts)

That was a good read! As part of my 'continuing education' requirements last year i did a bunch of factory Audi web based training including on their newest twin turbo v8. It was sort of mind boggling how much of what appeared to be 'technology for the sake of technology' was packaged into their newer stuff. I can only HOPE that it's mostly an inelegant response to overzealous regulation and thus not entirely their own shortsighted masturbatory fault. The amount of tiny plastic and rubber pieces crammed into places with extreme heat cycling or access issues means these cars will likely be throwaways due to the cost and tedium of keeping them functioning when all these dealer-only items hit the ends of their lifespan.  

The caddy unit may well be better designed, more reliable, and easier to service than the BMW and Audi versions, so i'm not counting it out yet. I guess the bigger question is will v8s in general last long enough to make it past the teething problems of this new design. 

My thinking is this is the new engine for the C8/Mid Engine Corvette that keeps on making the rounds.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Cadillac making a version of the C8 to compete with the LS-A/Acura NSX/R8/etc.  It'd help offset the costs of the mid-engine Corvette platform and engine.

NickD said: ....XTS (an Impala in Caddy clothing for twice the price) and the XT5 (formerly the SRX, and the same basic vehicle since the FWD-version debuted in '07). Neither have more room in the engine bay to fit a V8. The V6 barely fits in them. The only transverse vehicle in the pipeline is the XT4, which is, as you guessed, smaller than the XT5. It might maybe make it's way into the Escalade.

This post made me realize I have no idea about current vehicles. Out of the six vehicles mentioned, I only know what an Imapala and an Escalade are. The other four (XTS, XT5, SRX, XT4) I don't have the foggiest notion of what they even are, don't know if they are cars, crossovers or SUVs. I guess I don't really care. I don't think my ignorance is limited to Caddies either. I am still confused about the new BMW numbering scheme, but at least I can understand the method to their madness.

Will caddy make an XT6 and will Subaru object?

Why a Hot Vee with twin turbos?

I can see simplified and VERY short plumbing with a single turbo application and getting the thermal energy into the Turboloator as quickly as possible.

With twin turbos, you can get them pretty close to the exhaust on a standard V8.

Packaging?

In reply to T.J. :

Ditto

In reply to wvumtnbkr :

Heat does work in turbos too. And heat rises. Keeping all of the heat together in one spot, up high, is more efficient than having it in 2 lower spots, on opposite sides of the engine where their waste heat will only heat soak an intake charge that you're trying to keep cool.

If they want really short plumbing, each bank should have 2 cylinders normal and two reversed.  They can then implement  Direct Exhaust Injection without the problematic long tubes. Maybe fit an icemaker in there for cooling the charge.

I guess that would mean 4 turbos, two inboard and two outboard, but that's not a negative.

Have any of you even looked at Caddies lately?

CTS is the first one that comes to my mind because I have one.

The V8 came in it

Plus there was a turbo version of the LFX (400ish hp) that was used in the SUV.

What electrical gremlins?  I've never heard of them nor have any one I know gone through them. 

I've been playing with the LFX as an engine transplant and at no time either at the dealer or forums has any electrical gremlins come up.  You must be thinking VW/Audi because that seems to be a common thread in their forums.

STM317 said:

In reply to dculberson :

That's a good point. Lincoln has done the same thing in recent years. They always claim that luxury buyers want "Unique" engines but it seems like Audis mostly get the same engines as VWs and they outsell Lincoln and Cadillac.

Audi has traditionally had a degree of drivetrain uniqueness from VW. 

Favorite example is the B5 S4 had the twin turbo 2.7l V6, which was never offered in a VW.  VW had the Passat W8, which was never offered in any Audi.

It hurt on an ideological level when Audi started devaluing the TT by putting a (gack) VR6 in it.

NickD said:

conesare2seconds said:

I’m intrigued by this engine. Hope GM has some solutions for the issues that cropped up in the BMW hot-v engines. This is a good read (credit to eEuroparts) and explains why I keep seeing recent vintage 7-series executive sedans on Craigslist for not much money.  

 

GM already has a multitude of timing chain, oil consumption and injector related issues on their direct-injection engines that aren't a hot-vee setup. In fact, I'd likely say most of those BMW issues are more related to the flaws of DI than anything else.

Timing chain and oil consumption issues are not limited to direct injection.  Heck, I have two cars at work right NOW that need major work because of oil consumption.  One is a Duratec, the other is a port injected 3.6.

The thing that gets me about the 3.6 is that it had no oil in it.  It had no oil leaks.  After removing one of the heads, the chambers and piston tops are the cleanest I have ever seen from an engine from the field, let alone something that drank five quarts of oil in a few thousand miles....

wvumtnbkr said:

Why a Hot Vee with twin turbos?

I can see simplified and VERY short plumbing with a single turbo application and getting the thermal energy into the Turboloator as quickly as possible.

With twin turbos, you can get them pretty close to the exhaust on a standard V8.

 

Packaging?

Packaging.  Exhaust hanging out on the outside is a liability packaging wise.  With turbos, if you do it right, you can feed and drain them right in the vee, no external lines necessary.  Plus, with direct injection, having air inlet on the outside isn't that big a deal.

Cadillac's flathead V8 was also a hot vee engine.  Technically.  Intake and exhaust were both inboard.

coexist said:

If they want really short plumbing, each bank should have 2 cylinders normal and two reversed. 

Lancia Triflux engine.  Four cylinder with four valves rotated 90 degrees relative to normal practice, so the exhaust went out both sides.

In reply to Knurled. :

It's interesting that the article credits Ferrari for hot-vees, when guys were building reverse-flow flathead Fords and Buick nailheads in the 1950s, and Ford's 1960s Indy V8 was also a hot-vee turbo V8. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were instances before that.

The Ford Indy engine wasn't a turbo, nor were the Weslake headed engines, but point made.

Knurled. said:

 

The Ford Indy engine wasn't a turbo, nor were the Weslake headed engines, but point made.

 

 

Hmmm, I could've sworn that Ford turbocharged the Indy V8 at some point. Maybe I'm just thinking of the guy who turbocharged the one and dropped it in a widebody, fastback Ford Falcon.