Jump to content

2020 cadillac escalade spied


Dlcorbett

Recommended Posts

Both versions of the escalade has finally been spied with irs nonetheless.  Also, gm is benchmarking the nav for testing. They have a nav in their caravans, i dnt remember seeing any escalades for nav testing.  If im not mistaken, Lincoln benched the land rover range rover, particularly for the interior.  Anyway, gm gmed some design element from the nav, like the huge grill opening and rear tailgate.

cadescalade-h02-1544807814.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike the Navigator, the Escalade looks set to offer an optional engine (which of course will be the new 4.2L twin turbo V8). In the CT6 it debuted in, that engine does 550 horsepower @ 5,700 rpm and 627 lb-ft of torque @ 3,200 rpm. If it's numbers are anywhere close in the Escalade, it blows the Navigator's 3.5eb at 450 hp and 510 ft-lbs out of the water. Ford's decision to rely on the 3.5eb as the most potent powertrain in the corporate parts bin (outside of GT500 and truck engines) always seemed a bit short sighted to me. It was only a matter of time before the TT V8s hit the streets and now Ford has nothing to match it with (unless Ford is willing to use the GT500 mill or there is an aluminum DOHC version of the 7.x/godzilla in the works that hasn't leaked out yet). Plus, given the correct number of cylinders, the Caddy engine will actually sound like a luxury car instead of a fwd family sedan from the 90s.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

Unlike the Navigator, the Escalade looks set to offer an optional engine (which of course will be the new 4.2L twin turbo V8). In the CT6 it debuted in, that engine does 550 horsepower @ 5,700 rpm and 627 lb-ft of torque @ 3,200 rpm. If it's numbers are anywhere close in the Escalade, it blows the Navigator's 3.5eb at 450 hp and 510 ft-lbs out of the water. Ford's decision to rely on the 3.5eb as the most potent powertrain in the corporate parts bin (outside of GT500 and truck engines) always seemed a bit short sighted to me. It was only a matter of time before the TT V8s hit the streets and now Ford has nothing to match it with (unless Ford is willing to use the GT500 mill or there is an aluminum DOHC version of the 7.x/godzilla in the works that hasn't leaked out yet). Plus, given the correct number of cylinders, the Caddy engine will actually sound like a luxury car instead of a fwd family sedan from the 90s.

 

And how mich horsepower is in the GT 3.5?  Ford can easily modify and tune for higher with the 3.5.

Edited by blwnsmoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope Navigator gets that PHEV with the next update, it should give the TTV8 a run for its money. I think that's how Lincoln will answer that. 

The Navigator could also use a less visually benign presence next to the Escalade which should look quite a bit more modern.  I know people love the Navigator from the inside, but from the outside I struggle to find the allure.  

Edited by Assimilator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, blwnsmoke said:

 

And how mich horsepower is in the GT 3.5?  Ford can easily modify and tune for higher with the 3.5.

The problem with the 3.5 that by the time you put big enough turbos on it to hit 550+ hp, you're losing bottom end torque. While that's acceptable in a lightweight supercar, it's not acceptable in a 6000 lb SUV. Even with boost, displacement still matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

The problem with the 3.5 that by the time you put big enough turbos on it to hit 550+ hp, you're losing bottom end torque. While that's acceptable in a lightweight supercar, it's not acceptable in a 6000 lb SUV. Even with boost, displacement still matters.

That's why they need to supplement with the plug-in hybrid assist found in the Aviator. The electric motor boost is all about low-end torque, and it matches the overall torque pretty well. Doesn't have the sound of an 8, though, grant you that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

That's why they need to supplement with the plug-in hybrid assist found in the Aviator. The electric motor boost is all about low-end torque, and it matches the overall torque pretty well. Doesn't have the sound of an 8, though, grant you that.

Exactly..  500hp and 650tq with the hybrid system is plenty and will still net decent mileage.

Edited by blwnsmoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Assimilator said:

I really hope Navigator gets that PHEV with the next update, it should give the TTV8 a run for its money. I think that's how Lincoln will answer that. 

The Navigator could also use a less visually benign presence next to the Escalade which should look quite a bit more modern.  I know people love the Navigator from the inside, but from the outside I struggle to find the allure.  

I’m the opposite, I find the Nav exterior appealing, particularly if the chrome is dialed down a bit. I’m not a fan of Cadillac’s sharp lines and angles. That look is quite stale to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blwnsmoke said:

Exactly..  500hp and 650tq with the hybrid system is plenty and will still net decent mileage.

Agreed.  Anyone can add a bigger engine.  The winner in the future is going to be the company that can add the extra hp AND better mpg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm remembering something

9 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

Unlike the Navigator, the Escalade looks set to offer an optional engine (which of course will be the new 4.2L twin turbo V8). In the CT6 it debuted in, that engine does 550 horsepower @ 5,700 rpm and 627 lb-ft of torque @ 3,200 rpm. If it's numbers are anywhere close in the Escalade, it blows the Navigator's 3.5eb at 450 hp and 510 ft-lbs out of the water.

The difference is that you get the 3.5 EB  as standard on every Navigator, will Cadillac do that or hide the 4.2 TT on high end only versions?

 

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

i'm remembering something

The difference is that you get the 3.5 EB  as standard on every Navigator, will Cadillac do that or hide the 4.2 TT on high end only versions?

 

 

The 6.2 isn't that far behind the 3.5eb. Even in raptor/navi spec, the Ford 3.5 is only 30 more hp (420 vs 450), and 50 more ft-lbs (460 vs 510). Of course the ecoboost motor does it with less RPM, but it also doesn't like 5000+ rpm either. It's a lot like the 3.5 vs 5.0 in the F150 really. If you go look at standing 1/4 mile times, the 3.5 and 5.0 F150 are pretty neck and neck.

Overall I like the idea of an optional engine being available on pretty much any model, the Escalade being no exception. The 6.2 makes a nice base engine for Escalade buyers who prefer simple V8 power and the 4.2TT is there for buyers who really crave big power. There Ford 3.5 is neither a simple naturally aspirated V8 nor is it in the same big power numbers league of the forthcoming 4.2TT.

Ford does an excellent job at offering powertrain options to suit several different buyers priorities in the F-series, but for whatever reason won't do that in the Expy/Navi. There's really no reason not to offer the 5.0 F150 engine as the base setup at least in Expedition. In fact I know two long term Ford truck guys who were in the market for a new Expedition last year. Both are V8 guys through and through and were just turned off by the ecoboost motor. I tried to get them to at least test drive the new Expy, but they weren't interested. One ended up in a Suburban and the other is still contemplating his options. This is a case of Ford either not knowing their customer or simply choosing to ignore them.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect the Escalade to have the power crown for 1, maybe 2 years. If the current 3.5 is at 450/510, we can extrapolate a power estimate of a PHEV 3.5 from that. 500/710 (estimate) for the PHEV should be wayyyyyyy more than enough. Plus, I am sure it will have the fuel efficiency that the Escalade will lack. Just think about those numbers. That is almost Superduty numbers.

Edited by jcartwright99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then GM can add a similar phev system to the 4.2tt 6 months later. Displacement still matters.

Fuel economy is largely a function of how much power you use, not how much the engine is capable of making. There's a minor penalty with pumping losses in a larger displacement engine but it can be offset by a million other things. All other things being equal, I bet the Caddy 4.2 fuel economy is within 5% of the Ford 3.5eb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

And then GM can add a similar phev system to the 4.2tt 6 months later. Displacement still matters.

Fuel economy is largely a function of how much power you use, not how much the engine is capable of making. There's a minor penalty with pumping losses in a larger displacement engine but it can be offset by a million other things. All other things being equal, I bet the Caddy 4.2 fuel economy is within 5% of the Ford 3.5eb.

I've yet to see GM having a similar PHEV setup. Their hybrids were not very good and then they went straight electric. If you want to say it's necessary to have 1000 hp in 6000lb SUV, that's a different argument. With 10 speeds and limited top speed to 105-10, plus speed limits that maybe hit 75, I see very little use other than bragging rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

I've yet to see GM having a similar PHEV setup. Their hybrids were not very good and then they went straight electric. If you want to say it's necessary to have 1000 hp in 6000lb SUV, that's a different argument. With 10 speeds and limited top speed to 105-10, plus speed limits that maybe hit 75, I see very little use other than bragging rights.

And we all would have said the same thing in 1994 when 200 hp pushrod 350/351 engines were considered more than adquate. But now 400 hp is more or less the standard in 1/2 ton applications and yet everyone wants more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

And we all would have said the same thing in 1994 when 200 hp pushrod 350/351 engines were considered more than adquate. But now 400 hp is more or less the standard in 1/2 ton applications and yet everyone wants more.

Everyone wants more? I really think you are mistaking a d*ck measuring contest for usable power that people want. The funny thing is, most folks don't use the 400 they have now. Also, where do you stop? Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? Have you ever driven something with 600 hp? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

And we all would have said the same thing in 1994 when 200 hp pushrod 350/351 engines were considered more than adquate. But now 400 hp is more or less the standard in 1/2 ton applications and yet everyone wants more.

I would give up 50 HP and 250 ft-lbs of torque from my diesel for an additional 2-3 MPG.  I want more, yes, but I want more fuel economy.  As jcartwright mentioned, I don't even use all of the 440/925 that I have now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

Have you ever driven something with 600 hp? 

Yep. The thing with power is that it's like any addiction. Once you get used to a certain level, it loses it's thrill and you have to up the dose.

I actually made a hard decision to sell off all my fast stuff and limit myself to 200 hp about 10 years back. That managed to reset my expectations and I now find my recently built 300 hp 3200 lb turbo Ranger (old style obviously) to be a thrilling power/weight ratio again. I find I'm much more responsible with it now that I'm older so I may venture out further into the power level spectrum yet. I'm trying to take it slow this time.

But anyways, 600 hp in a 6000 lb vehicle is still perfectly streetable and even mannered. The same amount in a 4000 lb vehicle is starting to hit the limit of streetability.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Sevensecondsuv said:

And we all would have said the same thing in 1994 when 200 hp pushrod 350/351 engines were considered more than adquate. But now 400 hp is more or less the standard in 1/2 ton applications and yet everyone wants more.

And earlier than that contractors and farmers made due with 100hp straight sixes with 3 on the tree.

 

These days what I see are 350hp pickups racing with their boat trailer at 85mph. So perhaps it's just about meath ears that want Ferrari speeds with a 10,000# trailer and 2000# in the bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...