2005 Cadillac CTS 2.8l vvt performance

[Sweet05CTS]

Ok so i'm lookin for what motor mods I can do for this motor. I'm assuming it's a pushrod because it's listed as such under the pushrod section, lol.

I know nothing about this car, and google doesn't give me s/c or turbo kits that are made for this car (i'm not looking for ebay junk-together kits).

I'm looking for all options from intakes, header back exahusts, FI, cams, changing parts w/ similar motors, etc... anything that makes more powa, lol

[carbon]

There is very little aftermarket support for the new 2.8 and 3.6VVT... they are not exactly high volume engines yet... heck.. the 3100/3400 was a high value engine that was used by every GM make and yet there is hardly anything. The reason you can't find anything on Google is because there is nothing find. You will need custom work done as far as exhaust, cams(not likeley due to VVT), etc. And there are no similar motors Sorry. You bought a nice car with a nice motor and for now you may be stuck with it.

[Sweet05CTS]

Yeah that sucks! LOL

You are right though, I bought it cause it's nice. It looks awesome and I love all the stuff inside. I can't afford anything anyway, I was just looking for a dream list, lol. I'm guessing it's not even on HPT software either so I would have to go old-school for all tuning /sigh.

I do like getting 27mpg on the highway though, lot better than my 22 from the ol Nissan I used to have

[robertisaar]

what do you mean by "old school" for tuning, and HPT does support your car...

[Sweet05CTS]

what do you mean by "old school" for tuning, and HPT does support your car...

Excellent, I didn't know that.

Old school meaning buying all the individual parts to control my spark & fuel vs doing everything via the computer. But since HPT supports it, I wouldn't have to

[robertisaar]

all the individual parts to control my spark & fuel

if HPT didn't support you, good luck finding those...

[MidnightriderZ24]

honestly they dont have much power stock, but they do have alot of room on the intakes and heads for porting. u could do basic intake exhaust mods. the 2.8 caddy is a dohc motor, not pushrod.

[no_doz]

first off-its a dohc, get on youtube & look up some videos-in a 3550lb car it sounds like a damn ecotec & doesnt make power until 6500rpm, and if you look at the gas mileage it is the same with 1 mpg.

2.8 vvt=3.50 x 2.94" dohc 4 valve 210 hp@6500rpm//194tq@3300rpm 15/24-25 mpg

3.6 vvt=3.70 x 3.37" dohc 4 valve 255hp@6200rpm//252tq@3200rpm 15/24-25 mpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4jdigNvLY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQBVJTfRSZc&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHLaV-cPrTc&feature=related

the 08 3.6 has 307 hp, so considering the sound, gas mileage, and potential, the 2.8 just isnt worth it-but this 2.8 engine isnt a 2 valve pushrod, its a 4 valve dohc vvt engine that appears to have been made for 1 year & then discontinued-kinda sounds like a failed experiment to me.

also megasquirt has everything you need, you just gotta buy all the little shit & learn how to program/assemble/tune it.

[TiredGXP]

the 2.8 DOHC VVT engine has been around since 2005. These appear to be made in Australia by Holden. The GM Media site shows it in Caddy's until 2008.

It's also been used in Saab's for several years. Saab currently has a turbo variant that makes 280 hp @5500 and 295 ft-lb @ 2000. Torque stays constant until ~4500 where it stops to drop off. This engine's all done by 6000, definitely not a high rpm screamer. Another case of an undersized OEM turbo?

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2009/HPT%20Library/HFV6/2009_28L_Turbo_LP9_english_280hp_Saab_Sedan_n.pdf

For 2009, only the turbo variant is in production.

[no_doz]

the non turbo is listed as making max power at 6500, thats pretty high rpm for an american engine.

also- www.fueleconomy.gov which is the govt site for these listings, has the 08 caddy's as not having any 2.8's.

fueleconomy/intellichoice/msn autos/gm's site-all list 08's as not having this engine.

so if you want a weak expensive hard to find engine that was made for only 3 years & has no gas mileage/power benefits over the 3.6, be my guest-but i dont really see the point...

[carbon]

the non turbo is listed as making max power at 6500, thats pretty high rpm for an american engine.

also- www.fueleconomy.gov which is the govt site for these listings, has the 08 caddy's as not having any 2.8's.

fueleconomy/intellichoice/msn autos/gm's site-all list 08's as not having this engine.

so if you want a weak expensive hard to find engine that was made for only 3 years & has no gas mileage/power benefits over the 3.6, be my guest-but i dont really see the point...

its a 4 valve dohc vvt engine that appears to have been made for 1 year & then discontinued-kinda sounds like a failed experiment to me.

What the F are you talking about... it's not what he wants, its what he has in his Cadillac. And a stock 2.8 that makes 20HP more than the stock 3400 is not really weak. And as far as making peak power at a high RPM thats a cam tuning thing... People have reworked the cams in the 3.4TDC to make over 240HP way up high in the RPM range but the torque falls off real fast. Notice that the torque rating is less than HP. With the flow of a DOHC head its easier to rev out for power.

[no_doz]

with 95% of NA 4 valve engines that ive seen, the torque is within 5-15 ft/lbs of the hp rating (not sure the physics reason for this, but its something i noticed YEARS ago & it still continues). it seems if you get your dohc engine to flow real well, you get the high hp numbers, but tq isnt much higher at all.

also my bad, i thought this was a different thread & that he was considering putting this engine in something, & i was saying that he might as well just get the 3.6-my mistake!

id like to know what anything other than the first sentence has to do with my post? i said nothing about the 3400-i was talking about the lq1 3.4 dohc.

also comparing a 2 valve engine designed/built nearly 10 years prior-to a 4 valve 20% higher revving vvt engine later having 30 (16-18%) more hp despite being 14% smaller? hardly something to brag about...

[carbon]

id like to know what anything other than the first sentence has to do with my post? i said nothing about the 3400-i was talking about the lq1 3.4 dohc.

I was talking about both... what do you suppose a 3.4 Twind Dual Cam engine is?

But OK... the 3.4 DOHC (if you prefer) was stock 215/200... so vs. 210/194, the 2.8 still doesn't look that weak.

[no_doz]

i didnt say it was weak...i said in comparison there are virtually (if -any-) benefits to the 2.8 vs the 3.6, but that was because i got this thread mixed up with another.

im done hijacking this thread, if youd like to argue how great the 2.8 is i dont really care either way, its just about damn time gm starts making more of their lineup 4 valvers.