Ecoboost Performance Forum

Vehicle Specific Boards => Continental => Performance Upgrades => Topic started by: Brucelinc on January 01, 2017, 11:36:53 AM

Title: Stock Continental vs. stock Cadillac CT6
Post by: Brucelinc on January 01, 2017, 11:36:53 AM
Car & Driver has road tested both the Continental with the 3.0 Twin turbo and the Cadillac CT6 with its 3.0 twin turbo.  In spite of the Continental being heavier, it is more than competitive.  Note the 5-60 times.  The Caddy had a lot of turbo lag unless it was brake boosted.  The Conti cleaned the Caddy's clock in that measurement.  I can't wait to get a tune for my Continental.   Shouldn't be too hard to get into the 12s.

(http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w562/brucelinc/acceleration_zpsotlavlyn.jpg)

(http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w562/brucelinc/PC280018_zpsljiy3kke.jpg)
Title: Re: Stock Continental vs. stock Cadillac CT6
Post by: SHOdded on January 01, 2017, 01:19:16 PM
Solid numbers, looks like you made a good buy :thumb:
Title: Re: Stock Continental vs. stock Cadillac CT6
Post by: nelsonbullitt on January 01, 2017, 08:01:13 PM
Just curious, why didn't Ford use the 3.5 TT like in the SHO or MKS?
Title: Re: Stock Continental vs. stock Cadillac CT6
Post by: AJP turbo on January 01, 2017, 08:16:24 PM
Just curious, why didn't Ford use the 3.5 TT like in the SHO or MKS?

I would say because of cafe regs and it seems the transverse 3.5 eco is going by the wayside

And with 400hp it doesn't seem like the 3.5 is needed

Each year the feds mandate an increase of mpg across the vehicle lineup for all mfg'...engines will continue to shrink in order to meet the standards for average mpg
Title: Re: Stock Continental vs. stock Cadillac CT6
Post by: Brucelinc on January 02, 2017, 09:12:26 AM
While fuel economy may have been a factor, in reality, they gained nothing.   My 3.5 MKS had a 2.77 gear while the Continental has a 3.39.    By turning slower, the 3.5 MKS got better highway cruising mileage than my new Conti.  Overall mixed driving mileage seems to be about the same, though.

I am not an expert on the 2.7/3.0 engine but I have done a lot of research.  It is made from Compacted Graphite Iron (CGI).  Advantages over the aluminum 3.5 are added strength, greater stiffness, less noise, and the ability to have thinner walls.  The 3.0 simply takes up less space than the 3.5.  It was designed strictly as a twin turbo engine and uses Borg Warner turbos than generate 16-17 PSI of boost in stock form.   

I loved the 3.5 ecoboost in my MKS but the 3.0 is a newer and improved design.  It is a much quieter running engine and has even less turbo lag than the 3.5.   The fact that it simply takes up less underhood space is also a factor since they use the 2.7 version in the Fusion and the 3.0 in the MKZ.  The 3.5 ecoboost would not fit in those vehicles due to the dimensions and the way the turbos were incorporated into the exhaust system.  The 2.7/3.0 family is a more compact.

I hope that over time the tuners can do as much or more with this engine than they have done with the 3.5.  It seems that the potential is certainly there.
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal