The new Cadillac Blackwing sedans, including the 2022 Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing and CT5-V Blackwing, are the most track-capable Cadillac vehicles in history, arriving with heaps of power and performance, all without sacrificing luxury. Given the names, one would be forgiven for thinking that the new go-faster sedans should at least offer the twin-turbocharged 4.2L V8 LTA “Blackwing” gasoline engine, but according to Cadillac Performance Variant Manager, Mirza Grebovic, the LTA simply wasn’t right for the new Cadillac Blackwing sedans.
In a recent interview with GM Authority Executive Editor Alex Luft, Grebovic provided insight into the development process for the new Cadillac Blackwing sedans, including the decision not to offer the LTA Blackwing engine under the hood. For reference, the twin-turbo 4.2L V8 LTA was exclusive to the Cadillac CT6 Platinum and CT6-V. To note, the CT6 range has been discontinued in the U.S. and Canada while sticking around in China, where the Blackwing engine is not available.
“We thought about packaging any engine we could think of and we did consider the Blackwing LTA engine. In summary, that engine was created specifically for the CT6-V,” Grebovic told GM Authority. “That vehicle had a different philosophy and mission – it wasn’t meant to be track-capable. With the hot-V configuration and the horsepower it offered versus mass, it just wasn’t right. It wasn’t a better call for these track-capable V-Series Blackwings.”
Instead, Cadillac decided to equip the new Cadillac Blackwing sedans with proven track-ready engines, including the supercharged 6.2L V8 LT4 for the CT5-V Blackwing (previously equipped in the third-generation Cadillac CTS-V as well as the C7 Corvette Z06) and the twin-turbocharged 3.6L V6 LF4 for the CT4-V Blackwing (previously found in the Cadillac ATS-V).
“The LT4 [for the CT5-V Blackwing] was bulletproof and the LF4 [for the CT4-V Blackwing] was bulletproof in previous models,” Grebovic said. “We learned a lot about the engines.”
To note, the LT4 produces 668 horsepower and 659 pound-feet of torque in the CT5-V Blackwing, while the LF4 produces 472 horsepower and 445 pound-feet of torque in the CT4-V Blackwing. Interestingly, Grebovic says the new Blackwing sedans’ Global B electric architecture (also known as Vehicle Intelligence Platform, or VIP) also played a role in the Blackwing sedan’s capabilities.
“And then the VIP [Global B electrical] architecture gave us all new calibrations and all new opportunities so we knew we could increase the performance and make them more robust for track,” Grebovic told GM Authority. As covered previously, Global B provides support for features like the Performance Data Recorder and fourth-generation Magnetic Ride Control.
In the end, despite its impressive specs and engineering, the LTA Blackwing engine did not make sense for the new Cadillac Blackwing sedans.
“We would have had to redesign the Blackwing engine significantly to make it as track-capable as these engines that we chose,” Grebovic concluded.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Cadillac CT4 news, Cadillac CT5 news, Cadillac news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
Interesting….
Is that torque rating a typo?
Why not call it Corvette wing. Or put an electric motor in it and call it Charging Wing. GM could call the one with the Cad motor sold in China the Chicken Wing. Or even Oligarch Wing sold exclusively to Communist Party Uighar murderers. Why doesnt GM just move to China. Where do I unsubscribe?
Efdee:
At the top right of the screen simply touch ” Sign Out”.
Bye.
megebee… Perfect response. lol
I do believe that the LTA TT V8 was not exactly conducive as the engineers have pointed out, they have done the testing and found issues. However with that said, I also believe there is a role for the LTA engine for a high speed grand touring ‘pure’ Blackwing CT5-V Cadillac sedan with some modifications.
So change the model name to CT5-VBWL(BlackWingLess)
so, basically saying, the Blackwing engine project was a fail because it’s incompatible with anything other than the 6, which also failed here…
No, I wasn’t. The Blackwing V8 shares similar architecture with the upcoming DOHC V8 in the upcoming C8 Z variants.
The LTA was devloped for refinement too, over HP and grunt. Remember the engine, as installed in the CT6V, produces 550 hp. The LT4 in the CT5 BW puts out a lot more. That’s not to say more HP couldn’t have been coaxed from LTA.
Also, at its inception, the CT5 was to ride on the Omega platform too, like CT6. If this had happened the LTA would likely have been offered in a CT5 V.
So if you remove marketing, regulations & racing restrictions on displacemeny are dual overhead cams actually an engineering advantage (cost, mass, durability) for a specific hp level? Many companies developed OHC V8s in the 1960s then didn’t bother with them for 30 years.
Side note – car mags should include street start (5-60) times in performance evaluations since far as I can tell folks are not doing screaming clutch drops in daily driving so the VTEC can kick in.
Sounds like an indictment of the hot-v concept.
Why The 2022 Cadillac Blackwing Sedans Don’t Have The Blackwing Engine:
Because the Blackwing name was dropped onto these cars at the last minute, after Johan’s departure, long (i.e. several years) after any considerations were made about shifting from the existing powertrains. I’m positive that the LTA engine (that they initially worked so hard to tie with the ‘Blackwing’ name) was never, ever intended for the Alpha platform, and they’d already said that there were packaging issues. There were literally no good reasons to shift from the existing powertrains, from neither a cost nor performance standpoint.
Pardon the cynicism, but they’d like us to forget that under the previous leadership, the -V cars were originally conceived to be V-Sports, with -V still as the top tier. Consider also that the original GM Media release about the CT6 V-Sport was ‘revised’ later to reflect the CT6-V name change and all references to the Blackwing name on the engine were removed…after the decision to rename the top tier CT4/5-V cars was made. They also have co-existing/seemingly contradictory narratives where the 2.7T motor was “…developed from the outset as a truck engine.” and also “from the beginning, this engine was also planned for Cadillac’s new sub-compact sedan…”. I wish they’d just tell the real story instead of the revisionist-history version. The Marketing department needs more help than the actual products they’re trying to sell, which are generally good!
They wanted to save money so they put the same motor from cts and ats v so they could put there money in to electric cars
This.^
I will add the LTA is physically huge in the CT6 too, with barely any room to work on. I can’t imagine this fitting in the Alpha platform.
GM speak for no body really knows what is happening……. What it really means is COST CUTTING RULES!!
Cadriver:
I wonder what you’d say if the LTA was actually installed in the CT5 V with 100 FEWER horses?
I think your post might look something like this:
“Typical GM. They use a wimpier engine when they have the LT4 on the shelf with much more HP to slaughter the Germans! Stupid!”
What? No mention of bean counters and their role….they most aways have one at gm. Somehow, I really don’t believe any of this. What makes an engine track capable anyway? Is that a euphemism for reliability? This might be a round about way of confirming what some of us have speculated which is that Blackwing has an unacknowledged reliability issue which lead to its quick demise. It could be that especially when pushed, the Blackwing fails.
Reliability is a requirement for a ‘track capable’ engine. But also torque curves, responsiveness, weight, power, and (what this article is alluding to) ability to stay cool. The article is indicating the hot V setup makes it near impossible to keep the engine cool on the track.
I agree, cool is the key for consistant performance and reliability. With that being said my ’17 Z06 with the improved supercharger cooling runs hot even in normal driving. My CT6-V with the hot V from what I’ve experienced, runs very cool by comparison. I’ve never pushed either one of my cars on a track and I’m pretty sure the CT5-V other than occasional track days would perform fine with either engine. The CT5-V owner is going to find, I believe that most challenges with come from Dodge Charger and Hellcats who will see the direct 4 door sedan match-up. That’s where the LT4 engine will show its stuff.
The Blackwing engine doesn’t make sense for these new cars, neither does the name.
I have the LT4 in my Z06 and the Blackwing LTA in my CT6-V. Both engines are very powerful and yes the LT4 might be a better choice for the CT5-V. I do like the Blackwing 4.2L engine in my “V”, very much and yes, as stated above it is very refined. It still pulls my 4496 lb CT6 to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds according to Motor Trend and had been giving me a consistent 2 mpg better fuel mileage than my 3450 lb Z06 that does that 0-60 in 2.9 seconds. A reason the LT4 is a good fit for the CT5-V is Cadillac is better able to keep it cool and such they can tweak the horespower and torque figures up a bit. If the CT5-V had the AWD my CT6-V has it would really be quick! Alas it doesn’t, but it should hold its own with the competition.
I’m okay with it not having the Blackwing, just don’t call it the Blackwing. I don’t know why GM can’t resist reusing and rendering old meaningful name meaningless.
Out of all the sedans you could choose for a track going car you choose a caddy? Really? Cadillac chooses to show their engineering prowess with essentially an off the shelf blown small block? Does gm start out with good intentions and get then go off track or do they intentionally half ass everything?
I was hoping for a renaissance of Cadillac V8s with a NA Blackwing replacing the ubiquitous 3.6 V6, but the EV craze killed that pipe dream.
I think there’s some marketing going here and cost cutting.
The CT6V was advertised as track ready.
The real blackwing engine I’m told took 1.5-2 days for the mechanic to build.
The CT5v blackwing engine takes less then a day.
The CT6V has some serious snarl, grunt and pop on pulls and the sound is unique.
Don’t get me wrong the ct5v blackwing is great car with an awesome engine but I feel it looks quite a bit cheaper on the outside and the inside.
The ct6v bw was to expensive to make any real profit off.
And yes less horsepower, similar torque to the ct5v blackwing but again the ct6v bw is a full size sedan and 0-60 both do 3.7/3.8.
If you’re discussing a truly “track ready car”, then the CT6-V was not it.
Could the CT6-V be driven on the track? Yes. Would it do well on the track? Not really.
Let’s remember how we got here to begin with: the CT6-V was initially introduced as the CT6 V-Sport. Hence, it was a mid-tier performance car from the get-go, exactly identical to the positioning of the CT4-V and CT5-V. In other words, the CT6-V was not the ultimate “go fast” expression of the CT6 range. That title would have belonged to a CT6-V Blackwing, which obviously never came to be.
Now, for any car to repeatedly perform well on the track, it needs to have the tires to match. You can have all the engine, “grunt”, “snarl” and “pop on pulls” in the world, but it’s all irrelevant if the contact patch can’t handle it. The CT6-V rode on measly 245/40-20 at all four corners. To perform consistently on the track for the size and weight of the car that the CT6-V is, those tires would need to been at least 275 wide, and ideally 300, while gaining a staggered setup in the process.
So no, the CT6-V was no track car. It was a luxurious street car that could go fast… but it was not really a track car. Sure it could do a healthy 0-60 time… but it wasn’t really configured to do hot laps.
To address other elements of your comment:
– It doesn’t matter how long it takes to build an engine. GM decided to hand build the Blackwing LTA via a relatively slow, low-risk process, but it could just as well have been built in a few hours’ time on a line with more robotics.
– The fact that the CT6-V “feels” more premium than the CT5-V Blackwing is only natural, because it’s an entire segment (if not two) above it.
As for your notion that CT6-V was “too expensive to make any real profit,” nothing could be further from the truth. The vehicle would have made profit galore had it remained in production. In fact, it’s at the higher price points that all the profit is made… and there were many indicators that suggested very healthy interest in and demand for the CT6-V. Of course, we all know how that played out with the CT6 range being discontinued due to strategic initiatives associated with the D-Ham plant and the long-term outlook for sedans.
All need to see the newest internal combustion engine that will make the world environmentally better from CV Motion Tech. Their engine is an excellent choice for all forms of combustion-able fuels available today. This engine performs as good, and in some cases better than electric motors in use today. Increase in; Power, torque, mileage, and longevity. Decrease in; size, weight, number of moving parts and most of all emissions. I think CV Motion Tech has really got something here, and is on the move!
A quick read shows it doesn’t really do anything better. Sure it may be more efficient than a crankshaft engine, but nowhere near that of an electric motor.