In light of reports that the Alpha-based, third-generation Cadillac CTS-V has been testing with both supercharged and turbocharged V8 powertrains, we felt it would be an opportune time for us to ask our audience what they would prefer. The instantaneous, though gas-guzzling whine of a super charger, or the spooling whirl of sequential turbochargers? There are no wrong answers. Unless of course, you suggest an EcoTec.
Community Question: Should Cadillac Supercharge Or Turbocharge The Next CTS-V?
Comments
As much as it pains me to say.. Twin Turbo. Less fun but no doubt better fuel efficiency. Sign of the times
Why not both?
Not twincharging, but the option of either one or the other.
I know it’s not cost effective….but I don’t think going solely SC from now on is healthy if GM hasn’t tried other options at least once.
Maybe we will see that, if Cadillac decides to target both the M line as well as the AMG Black line. They definitely have the engine and suspension know-how to do it.
Turbo has lag builds up too much heat and obviously you don’t want to ad a coolant and ad unnecessary weight, stick with sc
If it was raw unhinged power, I’d say supercharge it… but it’s not. The CTS-V is a Cadillac. More than just a street hungry, performance machine, it is a Nice comfortable car. The twin turbos will offer better fuel economy (not that this is really an big deal… no one ever bought a CTS-V to save gas), but it will offer more refinement. The power will be more civil and less brutish. The design will be more elegant and subtle.
While a super charged CTS would be cool, that’s what the corvette is for. The CTS-V should be turobed, because it’s a Cadillac.
Ii think it will be a supercharger for emissions control. On the federal emissions test 90% of the emissions are in the first 2 minuets before the catalyst is warmed up. If there is a turbo up stream of the catalyst it will absorb heat and delay the warm up of the catalyst. Either way it will be a torque monster.
I own a 2012 CTS-V Wagon. It is an absolute pleasure to drive.
Hard or soft.
I vote for the SUPERCHARGER !!!
It’s absolutely great supercharged the way it is: Wonderfully brutal. Drive it, you’ll like it!
Turbocharging was Buick’s forte. Build Buick versions on the same platform as the CTS and offer turbocharged versions thereof. Call them Rivieras, and Riviera Grand Sports in their turbocharged versions, thereby capitalizing on Buicks reputation for turbocharged cars AND giving Buick a halo car to bring prospects into their dealerships–they desperately need one!
Superchargers offer better drivability & are easier to tune (linear power curve) Why copy the Euro’s & all those turbo’s, stick to what works. If you’ve ever driven A CTS-V you’ll know what I mean!
By the way, blower whine is just plain cool!!
Supercharge.
Man, you guys are old school. Turbos all the way. Higher volumetric efficiency of the engine vs. super charger. Flatter torque curve ALL the way to redline (try that with a supercharger), lower parasitic losses (factors partially into better VE). All this translates into higher peak hp, higher trap speed, smoother power delivery (this is a Cadillac after all).
Turbo lag is practically a thing of the past with modern turbine design, 6+ speed transmissions, and computerized engine control.
Either system is going to require an intercooler and additional coolant and oil systems so that’s a wash.
You might look like a hot shot coming off the line with a supercharger (smoking your tires with all that torque that you can’t put down) but when you pass 100mph and it’s REALLY time to play, a properly designed turbo engine will simply walk away from a similarly equipped SC’d vehicle.
@Jeremy.
Yeah, we are old school enough to know that most of us don’t run our vehicles over 100mph, most of the time.
Superchargers are more reliable than turbos. Priced a replacement turbo lately? After it blows up on you… get ready for sticker shock.
Modern turbos don’t suffer from premature failure any more often than other engine components. They are designed to last the life of the vehicle. I have replaced/upgraded several turbos over the years and it’s no harder than anything else. I promise that a belt driven supercharger is going to require maintenance long before a turbo charger will.
I have driven a turbocharged Volvo. It may seem fun when you run it, but iot is a monster to service. The turbo can lock up if it is too hot and there isn’t enough oil. Or the wastegate valve ( a bad necessity) can also fail and lock open, then your turbo loses pressure and you run with the original I4 engine power.
I rather have a supercharger on any gas vehicle (electrics are “supercharged” by design) because 90% of the drive is at low speeds where the supercharger runs best.
I will concede that a SC setup does provide better off-line acceleration and punch coming off closed/partial throttle (i.e. coming out of a corner), but in every other aspect I prefer a turbo.
All I can say is I hope GM makes the correct “engineering” decision here and doesn’t bow to the those pushing for a more traditional engine setup.