Cadillac XTS to use modified Buick LaCrosse underpinnings
08-11-09, 09:18 AM
#32
Incorrect. The frame is designed for a transverse mount, and would have to be completely redesigned for a longitudinal mount. I'm not aware of any production car that offers both transverse and longitudinally mounted engines in the same model year. It's just not that simple.
Nope. It was transverse mounted and FWD through 2004, when the platform for the STS changed from the old Seville to the Sigma platform, which is RWD. The Northstar LH2 was then substantially redesigned to enable it to work in a longitudinal RWD layout. The whole point of the Northstar project in the beginning was to design a small V8 that could work in a transverse FWD setup.
The fact that space between the cylinder bores is smaller than it could be doesn't change the fact that it's a BIG engine. It's no comparison whatsoever with the little tiny 4.6L and 4.8L Northstars (which, remember, were designed from the ground up with the express purpose of being small).
Longitudinally mounted. That's an important distinction that you keep missing.
AWD will definitely be a plus, but you can be damn sure with a transaxle and FWD bias, torque steer is going to be completely unmanageable (again if it's even possible to set up in the first place).
Last edited by DASHOCKER; 08-11-09 at 09:30 AM. Reason: malibu & CTS not the same
08-11-09, 09:47 AM
#33
Super Moderator
Wrong. ALL malibus are transverse mount, and ALL CTS are longitudinal mount. The Malibu is on the Epsilon Platform, and the CTS is on the Sigma platform. My point stands. No modern production car is available with both transverse and longitudinally mounted engines in the same model year. The frame has to completely change, and that's just not economically feasible, even for a "halo" trim level.
Incorrect again. You missed the part where they changed the platform between model years to make such a change possible. The fact that they also had to modify the engine is inconsequential. K-Body platform=FWD transverse. Sigma platform=RWD longitudinal. It's not like they all of a sudden made the old car into a RWD model. It was a brand new car from the ground up.
It remains to be seen if it's possible, but it's FAR beyond difficult to put a big engine sideways in the engine bay of any street-legal car. Hell, the Corvette's already generous engine bay had to be lengthened to make it fit (and it STILL wouldn't fit in sideways if they had to mount it that way).
NO IT DOES NOT. The CTS is the Sigma II platform, which is shared with NO other current models. The previous generation Sigma I was shared with the STS (2005+) and SRX. The Malibu is on the extended version of the Epsilon I platform, which is shared with the Pontiac G6 and Saturn Aura. The Epsilon II upon which the XTS is based is shared with the Buick Regal, Buick LaCrosse, Saab 9-5 and some future version of the Malibu.
The Sigma platform has been Cadillac-exclusive since day 1. No Chevy, Pontiac, Buick or Saturn has ever been built on it, and GM has stated they have no intention of changing that.
That remains to be seen, but it's far from the trivial endeavor you're making it out to be to cram the LS9 into the Epsilon II chassis.
The Sigma platform has been Cadillac-exclusive since day 1. No Chevy, Pontiac, Buick or Saturn has ever been built on it, and GM has stated they have no intention of changing that.
That remains to be seen, but it's far from the trivial endeavor you're making it out to be to cram the LS9 into the Epsilon II chassis.
08-11-09, 10:09 AM
#34
The LOL is because putting a 600hp motor in a FWD buick is plain retarded. Even if it is somehow possible, its doesnt make much sense and its not gonna make for a good car.
Now, the Northstar was not a small engine. Yes, the displacement was considered small for an American V8, but a DOHC engine is always bigger than a OHV.
Now, the Northstar was not a small engine. Yes, the displacement was considered small for an American V8, but a DOHC engine is always bigger than a OHV.
08-11-09, 10:20 AM
#35
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 7,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learned something today
I didn't know that the mounting position of the motor was related to which were the drive wheels. I guess I'd never really thought about it before.
Thx CL
I didn't know that the mounting position of the motor was related to which were the drive wheels. I guess I'd never really thought about it before.
Thx CL
08-11-09, 11:10 AM
#36
Super Moderator
You're correct, of course. I should have specified that I was talking about length rather than overall size when I said it was designed to be small.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LexFather
Car Chat
21
06-05-12 02:33 PM
LexFather
Car Chat
40
03-15-10 09:34 PM
