# data.attributes.title
'Truly catastrophic': why the Cadillac V8-6-4 engine was an epic fail

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
'Truly catastrophic': why the Cadillac V8-6-4 engine was an epic fail | Top Gear

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
In theory, a sound idea. But in reality it sounded... terrible

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
'Truly catastrophic': why the Cadillac V8-6-4 engine was an epic fail

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
In theory, a sound idea. But in reality it sounded... terrible

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
In theory, a sound idea. But in reality it sounded... terrible

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
'Truly catastrophic': why the Cadillac V8-6-4 engine was an epic fail

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
'Truly catastrophic': why the Cadillac V8-6-4 engine was an epic fail

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
'Truly catastrophic': why the Cadillac V8-6-4 engine was an epic fail

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
In theory, a sound idea. But in reality it sounded... terrible

# data.attributes.body.value
Why choose between a V8, a V6 or a four cylinder... when you could have all three? Meet Cadillac’s 1981 V8-6-4, a truly novel innovation that proved truly catastrophic.

In the wake of the ’79 oil crisis, US gas prices were through the roof. Cadillac engineers came up with the nifty fuel saving idea of cylinder shutdown, developing a computer-controlled system to allow its big-block V8 to run on just six or four depending on load. Fitted across pretty much the entire Caddy range, the theory was sound. It’s common in many modern cars, where it works seamlessly.

In 1981, it did not work seamlessly. Firstly, Caddy’s V8 didn’t enjoy not being a V8. Running on four cylinders, it sounded horribly agricultural. Six was worse, sending a furious unbalanced vibration through what were meant to be America’s most refined luxury cars.

Second issue? V8-6-4 kept trying to be all three, all at once. The tech required the cylinder deactivation and fuel injection systems to communicate instantaneously, but 1981’s computers couldn’t keep pace. So, the V8-6-4 would cycle frantically between configurations, lurching drunkenly as it did so. Engineers called it ‘mode-hunting’. Customers called it ‘broken’. In the rare moments it worked, efficiency gains were marginal.

All this went down poorly with Cadillac’s loyal traditional customer base. The complaints began pretty much as soon as the first cars left the forecourt. The lawsuits followed soon after.

Cadillac issued 13(!) software updates. All failed to fix the problem. Within a year, V8-6-4 was quietly euthanised. Dealers were dispatched a kit to disable the system in cars already sold. The V8-6-4 returned to simply being a V8. The reputational damage was lasting.

The tragedy is, V8-6-4 was a sound idea that arrived two decades too early. But when it comes to technological innovation, being ahead of your time is sadly the same as being plain wrong.

# data.attributes.body.processed
Why choose between a V8, a V6 or a four cylinder... when you could have all three? Meet Cadillac’s 1981 V8-6-4, a truly novel innovation that proved truly catastrophic.

In the wake of the ’79 oil crisis, US gas prices were through the roof. Cadillac engineers came up with the nifty fuel saving idea of cylinder shutdown, developing a computer-controlled system to allow its big-block V8 to run on just six or four depending on load. Fitted across pretty much the entire Caddy range, the theory was sound. It’s common in many modern cars, where it works seamlessly.

In 1981, it did not work seamlessly. Firstly, Caddy’s V8 didn’t enjoy not being a V8. Running on four cylinders, it sounded horribly agricultural. Six was worse, sending a furious unbalanced vibration through what were meant to be America’s most refined luxury cars.

Second issue? V8-6-4 kept trying to be all three, all at once. The tech required the cylinder deactivation and fuel injection systems to communicate instantaneously, but 1981’s computers couldn’t keep pace. So, the V8-6-4 would cycle frantically between configurations, lurching drunkenly as it did so. Engineers called it ‘mode-hunting’. Customers called it ‘broken’. In the rare moments it worked, efficiency gains were marginal.

All this went down poorly with Cadillac’s loyal traditional customer base. The complaints began pretty much as soon as the first cars left the forecourt. The lawsuits followed soon after.

Cadillac issued 13(!) software updates. All failed to fix the problem. Within a year, V8-6-4 was quietly euthanised. Dealers were dispatched a kit to disable the system in cars already sold. The V8-6-4 returned to simply being a V8. The reputational damage was lasting.

The tragedy is, V8-6-4 was a sound idea that arrived two decades too early. But when it comes to technological innovation, being ahead of your time is sadly the same as being plain wrong.

# data.attributes.field_standfirst
In theory, a sound idea. But in reality it sounded... terrible