I know next to nothing about this engine except that it was apparently used in the early Cadillac CTS's and then used in Suzuki SUVs. I'm looking at a Suzuki with this engine and what to know as much as possible about it before I get to the "wheelin' and dealin' part.
I'm guessing it's a DOHC engine, it produces about 230 horsepower (at least in the Suzuki)....and that's about it. Decent engine or a pitiful pile?
Any and all direct experiences would be helpful.
If gm doesn't use it anymore its either an innovative design that is good or its a pile of crap......either or, no inbetween. Hope that helps, but I know nothing of a 3.2L 24valve that gm made. AFAIK, the cts came with 3.6L only....
The CTS, according to one reference book I have, used the 3.2 in 2003 through 2005 when it was replaced by the 3.6. I don't know if the 3.6 is the same basic engine....but enlarged, or is an entirely different design. Edmunds commentors DON'T give good marks to the first CTS....not sure if the engine design is entirely to blame, tho, as these folks are not like the more knowledgeable folks here at GRM.
Suzuki had to stop using this engine because GM pulled out of their "joint-venturing" and took the engine with them.
The 3.2 in the CTS was an updated version of the 54* Opel V6 found in Saabs, Saturn Vue, Saturn L300, and the Caddy Catera. I had a 2.5l one in a Saab - it wasn't horrible when mated to a 5spd. But nothing to write home about.
I think the Suzuki 3.2 is based on the GM HF 3.6 VVT.
The GM 3.6/Suzuki 3.2 is a completely different engine than the 3.2 in the early CTS.
I'll take your word that the 3.2 in the CTS is different from the 3.2 used in Suzukis, because I don't currently have a way to possibly dispute it. However, it is "interesting" that the 2 engines have nearly the same horsepower figures and apparently share a weak cooling system as their majorly engine design...flaw?
integraguy wrote: I'll take your word that the 3.2 in the CTS is different from the 3.2 used in Suzukis, because I don't currently have a way to possibly dispute it. However, it is "interesting" that the 2 engines have nearly the same horsepower figures and apparently share a weak cooling system as their majorly engine design...flaw?
The LA3 in the CTS was an iron block 54* V6, with a 87.5 mm bore and 88 mm stroke, making it 3175 cc.
The Suzuki N32A is aluminium block 60* V6 with a 89 mm bore and 85.6 mm stroke, making it 3195 cc.
http://www.media.suzuki.com/auto/uploads/2010_Suzuki_Grand_Vitara_Technical_Specs.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=TBp1CzGZN_IC&pg=PA392&lpg=PA392&dq=cts+LA3+bore&source=bl&ots=SYPvrnsmtt&sig=b7LsH5Wdecg-Qv12Bwik1bXhZVo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TYeIUKXcJKas2wWLwYCwBg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=cts%20LA3%20bore&f=false
You'll need to log in to post.
