[good2go]

I wouldn't take that bet. Technology has come a long way since the 1980's. ****, the 3.8 Turbo engine from the 80's GN & TTA is basically bulletproof with a stock turbo. People need to get over the old misconceptions of turbocharged engines. Turbo lag is essentially gone now, they don't require additional work, you can get much better fuel mileage, and you can still make stupid HP with some boltons and a tune. There are very low 11 second ATS-V's out there that share the motor with the CTS Vsport. Enjoy these last V8's while you can, cause they will be going the way of the dodo before the next round of CAFE regs are due to kick in.

Check back with me after 100K miles on that turbo and see if you still feel the same.

 

[69Mach390]

Check back with me after 100K miles on that turbo and see if you still feel the same.

Car and Driver had an article last month and reader letters about this exact thing.

Their response summarized why modern turbos are much more reliable than those in the past (has to do with cooling and lubrication) then their conclusion was that even if the turbo fails, its' a $500-1000 part to replace.

Basically, reliability isn't a concern.


However, the thing that DOES concern me, is how many modern turbo cars EAT oil. Like several quarts per oil change on a brand new car.


Does that do engine damage by itself? Well.... if you don't watch the oil levels and only go by manufacturer recommended oil changes (15,000 miles for BMW) it could definitely cause issues!

 

[umop-apisdn]

That price figure ultimately depends on how it fails.

If the compressor wheel goes you could very well have engine damage downstream of the turbo.

 

[good2go]

That price figure ultimately depends on how it fails.

If the compressor wheel goes you could very well have engine damage downstream of the turbo.

^^ Yep
Also, was that C&D article relating to turbo charged engines in general, or hi-perf engines in modern performance cars specifically? I have no doubt turbos can be engineered to be reliable within more modest output expectations. It is when little motors are boosted up into big boy range that compromises are more often realized.

 

[esfoad]

If you live at a high altitude then turbos make sense. Otherwise, I still read about cars that exhibit turbo lag even though many are better than ever at that. Some new technologies coming down the road should help the lag, like electric driven turbos for example. And if you like to "put your foot in it" then the mileage on turbos is just average. I had a 2010 SHO with the first generation twin turbo 3.5 with no issues for 100K miles and the guy I sold it to has put another 25K trouble free miles on her. It's really a personal decision.

 

[Fedge378]

If you live at a high altitude then turbos make sense. Otherwise, I still read about cars that exhibit turbo lag even though many are better than ever at that. Some new technologies coming down the road should help the lag, like electric driven turbos for example. And if you like to "put your foot in it" then the mileage on turbos is just average. I had a 2010 SHO with the first generation twin turbo 3.5 with no issues for 100K miles and the guy I sold it to has put another 25K trouble free miles on her. It's really a personal decision.

Sounds like a valid reason to turbo the LS3



Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Clutchfoot]

Car and Driver had an article last month and reader letters about this exact thing.

Their response summarized why modern turbos are much more reliable than those in the past (has to do with cooling and lubrication) then their conclusion was that even if the turbo fails, its' a $500-1000 part to replace.

Basically, reliability isn't a concern.


However, the thing that DOES concern me, is how many modern turbo cars EAT oil. Like several quarts per oil change on a brand new car.


Does that do engine damage by itself? Well.... if you don't watch the oil levels and only go by manufacturer recommended oil changes (15,000 miles for BMW) it could definitely cause issues!

GM seems to be pretty good comparatively on the oil consumption thing. But GM/suppliers have cheaped out on some of the interior engine components. The side effect of putting the turbo motor in your non high performance car is that you don't get the same budget as the performance cars for the engine internals which have caused problems under pressure.

 

[Clutchfoot]

^^ Yep
Also, was that C&D article relating to turbo charged engines in general, or hi-perf engines in modern performance cars specifically? I have no doubt turbos can be engineered to be reliable within more modest output expectations. It is when little motors are boosted up into big boy range that compromises are more often realized.

Agreed, they haven't figured out the right balance between economy, performance, and reliability. Its a choose two out of three thing right now.

Things were going pretty good for turbo motors till Direct Injection came around and started gunking up intake manifolds, valves, throttle bodies and in some cases sludge in intercoolers. Thats where catch cans are supposed to help but if the manufacturer thinks it should last 60-100K without blowing the motor, they will roll the dice and save the money on the catch can, and spend it somewhere else.

Turbo + DI needs some continued development.

I had 250K on my tuned Saab 9000 Aero, never had a problem with the motor or turbo, but it wasn't direct injection and had some stronger factory internals than it really needed, no wonder they lost money on each one they made. Cars are just now catching up in power and fuel economy. Never should have sold it.

In the end, everyone should check the enthusiast forums to see the issues before buying any car.

 

[69Mach390]

^^ Yep
Also, was that C&D article relating to turbo charged engines in general, or hi-perf engines in modern performance cars specifically? I have no doubt turbos can be engineered to be reliable within more modest output expectations. It is when little motors are boosted up into big boy range that compromises are more often realized.

They actually did a good job with 4 matchups from mild supercars to the "boring" daily drivers

To Blow or Not to Blow: Turbocharging vs. Natural Aspiration ? Feature ? Car and Driver

Here were the matchups:

McLaren 570S vs Porsche GT3 RS

Camaro v6 vs Mustang ecoboost

F150 5.0 v8 vs 3.5 ecoboost

Mazda 3 vs VW golf tsi


But let's be honest, most of us here care more about the "big boy range" if we were driving a factory turbo car. Hard to resist the urge to spend $500 on a tune to add 100 rwhp and tq to the wheels!

 

[NHRATA01]

GM seems to be pretty good comparatively on the oil consumption thing. But GM/suppliers have cheaped out on some of the interior engine components. The side effect of putting the turbo motor in your non high performance car is that you don't get the same budget as the performance cars for the engine internals which have caused problems under pressure.

Yeah, GM has done this with the 2.0T. The old LNF/LHU (what is in my GS) were pretty much bulletproof, it was GM's first real modern turbocharged I4 with DI, VVT, etc. They overbuilt it back then probably out of safety factor, and there were articles about putting out 700whp or so on the stock bottom end. They update it to the LTG starting in the ATS and now proliferating through the lineup under the guise of improved fuel efficiency and better NVH properties, but now you hear of them popping rods and pistons routinely in stock form.

 

[jbawden]

I had a Vsport for 2 years, it's a great car, a really great car in fact. The way power was delivered gave the impression that it had much more power than it did, no lag, just giant amounts of torque even at low RPM. Very nimble and willing at all speeds and VERY comfortable as a daily. Car guys should appreciate the Vsport rather than give it as much grief as they do, but change is hard (turbo vs. na V8). As posted earlier in this thread, styling arguments on an SS forum are laughable, but I think both are good looking in different ways.

 

[Clutchfoot]

Yeah, GM has done this with the 2.0T. The old LNF/LHU (what is in my GS) were pretty much bulletproof, it was GM's first real modern turbocharged I4 with DI, VVT, etc. They overbuilt it back then probably out of safety factor, and there were articles about putting out 700whp or so on the stock bottom end. They update it to the LTG starting in the ATS and now proliferating through the lineup under the guise of improved fuel efficiency and better NVH properties, but now you hear of them popping rods and pistons routinely in stock form.

I had the same GS, the injectors failed at 92K but the rest of the motor was fine. The F40 manual transmission was the worst sounding clunkbox on the planet. Drive train was "overbuilt" but sounded awful. That drone around 2100 rpm made cruising on the free way annoying. I liked the turbo whistle, the HK audio, and the way the rear doors sound when they close, those are the only good sounds the car makes. Great handling, i can only image if it had the 2.8t AWD from europe. I looked hard at the ATS before buying the SS but the things you hear about the motors popping even on loaner cars, some people are on their third motor...:eek no thanks. I think the v6 turbos in the ATS-v and CTSVsport have been doing better.

 

[Rich]

I have a 2010 CTS-V and a 2015 Chevy SS and while I can't comment with any experience with the new Caddy V-Sport, I can say without reservation that I still LOVE my CTS-V. Its 556 HP is far more than normally needed, but when passing a semi on a hill, that extra oomph really comes in handy. What turned me off with the new Cadillac is that horrible CUE system. If you can get past that irritation, then the V-Sport may be a good choice. Be aware that the Caddy will cost you probably $20k more than the SS especially with the 15 or 20% off discounts on the SS.

The LS3 is a great bullet-proof engine with "simple" well-proven design compared to the far more complex twin-turbo V6. I have yet to feel "under-powered" in the SS and it really comes alive above 4,000 RPM and it sounds GREAT.

Being an old guy who came of age back in the 50's and 60's and thought that was the golden age of muscle cars, who would have thought we would now be living in the greatest time ever with many, many great choices of high-performance cars. Just get one that will put a smile on your face every time you fire it up. It doesn't get any better than that.

One option that is missing from these modern incarnations of pure American Street Muscle is the manual transmission with the front bench seat in lieu of the buckets and console. Aside from being cool, the bench is much more accommodating when courting a female. :devil
That makes it just little bit better.

 

[Clutchfoot]

Aside from being cool, the bench is much more accommodating when courting a female. :devil

The classic car does a lot for that situation. I'd rather keep the bench in the classic and just buy that.

 

[Rich]

The classic car does a lot for that situation. I'd rather keep the bench in the classic and just buy that.

I agree the classics are still there. Having said that, I think it would be neat to be able to get the bench seat with a manual in a modern incarnation. It will never happen but still worthy of bringing the subject up even in slight jest. To all, sorry about deviating from the topic of the thread. Carry on...

 

[Dirty Vegas]

Yeah, GM has done this with the 2.0T. The old LNF/LHU (what is in my GS) were pretty much bulletproof, it was GM's first real modern turbocharged I4 with DI, VVT, etc. They overbuilt it back then probably out of safety factor, and there were articles about putting out 700whp or so on the stock bottom end. They update it to the LTG starting in the ATS and now proliferating through the lineup under the guise of improved fuel efficiency and better NVH properties, but now you hear of them popping rods and pistons routinely in stock form.

This has been blown so far out of proportion that it is comical at this point. We hear more people talking about failures now due to the proliferation of social media and dedicated auto forums. If you looked at the ATS owners forum, no one would ever buy an ATS because you would think that they all blow up. Fact is that they don't all blow up. People are much more vocal about the issues via these mediums. I'd love to find the info on failure rates for the LTG vs. any other GM engine, but I doubt that is available publicly and I doubt it is significantly higher. They pop pistons, not rods. That is mostly caused by inadequate fuel. People put any old 87 octane in a boosted engine, then stand on the loud pedal during a hot summer day, and wonder why they've shattered a piston?!?!? It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out, and no amount of forged engine internals will stop that from happening. My own brother just did this in his MY17 LTG Camaro. Piss water fuel +excessive load = grenaded piston in any forced induction engine. It has also come to light that most of the grenaded ATS LTG's were tuned by 3 completely incompetent "tuners". Pfadt went out of business primarily due to the amount of ATS's they blew up. Vermont "Tuning" is a joke, they've blown up a few customer cars with their 'tune'. And lastly KPE, another wanna be "Tuner" with a long list of blown up LTG's. Big 'Tuners' like Diablo and Trifecta seem to have broken the least customer cars, but aren't immune to dumb people doing dumb things either. My 14 ATS LTG has 25k miles and 0 engine issues. I always use Top Tier 93 octane fuel obsessively and religiously. I know better than to keep beating on my car if the Intake Air Temp is over 180 degrees, which it can reach in completely stock form.

 

[Clutchfoot]

This has been blown so far out of proportion that it is comical at this point. We hear more people talking about failures now due to the proliferation of social media and dedicated auto forums. If you looked at the ATS owners forum, no one would ever buy an ATS because you would think that they all blow up. Fact is that they don't all blow up. People are much more vocal about the issues via these mediums. I'd love to find the info on failure rates for the LTG vs. any other GM engine, but I doubt that is available publicly and I doubt it is significantly higher. They pop pistons, not rods. That is mostly caused by inadequate fuel. People put any old 87 octane in a boosted engine, then stand on the loud pedal during a hot summer day, and wonder why they've shattered a piston?!?!? It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out, and no amount of forged engine internals will stop that from happening. My own brother just did this in his MY17 LTG Camaro. Piss water fuel +excessive load = grenaded piston in any forced induction engine. It has also come to light that most of the grenaded ATS LTG's were tuned by 3 completely incompetent "tuners". Pfadt went out of business primarily due to the amount of ATS's they blew up. Vermont "Tuning" is a joke, they've blown up a few customer cars with their 'tune'. And lastly KPE, another wanna be "Tuner" with a long list of blown up LTG's. Big 'Tuners' like Diablo and Trifecta seem to have broken the least customer cars, but aren't immune to dumb people doing dumb things either. My 14 ATS LTG has 25k miles and 0 engine issues. I always use Top Tier 93 octane fuel obsessively and religiously. I know better than to keep beating on my car if the Intake Air Temp is over 180 degrees, which it can reach in completely stock form.

I disagree. Yes more people have access to more turbo options so there will be more failures out there. But they aren't all tuned. And the even the tuned LTG's seem to me failing more than the prior ecotechs which. I researched the Buick GS vs. Ats heavily before buying a GS and one of the issues that the ATS had was a whole lot more oil and gunk would deposit in the intercooler, that gunk is hard to compress.

The aftermarket tuners aren't the only fallible people, GM is too. Recall 14591 Engine Damage due to cylinder missfire on the ATS and malibu. It involves replacing the plugs with colder ones and reprogram ECM. GM is trying to correct a mistake. Good on them for doing this, but the motor's components or its tune or both were not optimized to meet buyers or management's expectations. No one with the re-tune is reporting more power, often less.

I believe that when you force the power train people to design a performance turbo motor targeted as the base motor in the range, you gotta cut some corners to make it cheaper than that v6.

I'm not an expert, but I did my homework, and as a whole I have less faith in the current ecotec than the previous ecotec's that were thought of internally as the premium option in their line up.

 

[NHRATA01]

The '13 LTG's had supposed "bad batch of pistons" right out of the box, there was a TSB for like the first 1,000 ATS's built or so.

The motor has had its share of issues, on the Regal forums you've now got 3 years of the LHU/LNF (11-13) and 3 years of the LTG (14-16) and LTG engine problems are far more prevalent - not to mention the sales of the car plummet like a rock by '14 so there's even less LTG cars out there.

IMO the LFX now LGX is a much more perfect motor for the ATS, modding of the turbo aside. It's really a sweet combo in that chassis, if only GM offered a stick (like they do in the Camaro!).

 

[Dirty Vegas]

I disagree. Yes more people have access to more turbo options so there will be more failures out there. But they aren't all tuned. And the even the tuned LTG's seem to me failing more than the prior ecotechs which. I researched the Buick GS vs. Ats heavily before buying a GS and one of the issues that the ATS had was a whole lot more oil and gunk would deposit in the intercooler, that gunk is hard to compress.

You proved my point. Just because it seems to you that it is failing more does not mean that is true. Like I said, I would love to see actual data to support your position. Most people join forums to bitch and complain once a problem develops with their vehicle, so you have a microcosm of owners all complaining about the issue skewing the view of the casual reader. Interesting point about the oil and gunk, as I haven't seen that issue discussed, and I'm quite active on the ATS forum, and follow the catch-can threads as I was concerned about having a DI engine.

The aftermarket tuners aren't the only fallible people, GM is too. Recall 14591 Engine Damage due to cylinder missfire on the ATS and malibu. It involves replacing the plugs with colder ones and reprogram ECM. GM is trying to correct a mistake. Good on them for doing this, but the motor's components or its tune or both were not optimized to meet buyers or management's expectations. No one with the re-tune is reporting more power, often less.

I'd love to see the 'old' tune and the 'new' tune side by side to determine the changes. I know my MY14 LTG isn't making less power, and I have data to support that statement. I have the latest GM calibration in my ECM, and ran the same ET at the track as the '13's that have posted results.

I believe that when you force the power train people to design a performance turbo motor targeted as the base motor in the range, you gotta cut some corners to make it cheaper than that v6.

You do know that the 2.5 is the Base engine in the ATS, right? I wouldn't call the LTG a 'performance' engine by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not an expert, but I did my homework, and as a whole I have less faith in the current ecotec than the previous ecotec's that were thought of internally as the premium option in their line up.

Wait, now I'm confused. Is the LTG a base engine or premium option? You've contradicted yourself again.

Just so we are clear, my position is that the failure rate of LTG's is no higher than any other GM engine. They just have a very vocal ownership group due to the vehicle owners expectations of a 'Cadillac'.

 

[Dirty Vegas]

The '13 LTG's had supposed "bad batch of pistons" right out of the box, there was a TSB for like the first 1,000 ATS's built or so.

The motor has had its share of issues, on the Regal forums you've now got 3 years of the LHU/LNF (11-13) and 3 years of the LTG (14-16) and LTG engine problems are far more prevalent - not to mention the sales of the car plummet like a rock by '14 so there's even less LTG cars out there.

IMO the LFX now LGX is a much more perfect motor for the ATS, modding of the turbo aside. It's really a sweet combo in that chassis, if only GM offered a stick (like they do in the Camaro!).

I'm really curious to hear why you feel the LFX/LGX is the better option.

I know why I bought an LTG, better fuel economy and way more fun. I can get 35mpg all day on my 115 mile cruise weekly. But that is on flat land through southern WI and northern IL with ZERO traffic.