2.0 vs 3.6 - Page 2
cadillac ats forums cadillac ats forums
CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 50
Like Tree2Likes
Cadillac ATS General Discussion Forum Discussion, 2.0 vs 3.6 in Cadillac ATS Discussion Forums; Don't you need to put premium gas on the ATS Turbo? The 3.6 uses regular. Gas is already expensive I'd ...
  1. #16
    Cuest is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 2013 ATS 2.0T Performance w/Red & Carbon Interior
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    NYC / Florida
    Posts
    108

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    Don't you need to put premium gas on the ATS Turbo? The 3.6 uses regular. Gas is already expensive I'd rather go with the 3.6. Long term cost seems less.

  2. #17
    danscrim is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 2013 ATS 3.6L
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Posts
    252

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuest View Post
    Don't you need to put premium gas on the ATS Turbo? The 3.6 uses regular. Gas is already expensive I'd rather go with the 3.6. Long term cost seems less.
    It actually says "recommended but not required."

  3. #18
    investor74 is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): '97 Forest Green Catera
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    660

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    We've had a turbo Saab 9-3 since 2004 and it has been flawless. Reliability is no longer a problem, although I'd stay away from a 1980's Chrysler Corp turbo. Been there.

    Our Saab turbo is much, much better on fuel than our Catera. The turbo is also a lot of fun. However, I must say that the Catera V6 is a lot smoother than our Saab turbo, so if you have never driven a turbo before, might be worth a test drive first.

  4. #19
    gohawks63's Avatar
    gohawks63 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2012 Black Diamond CTS-V Coupe, 2011 BMW X5 Premium
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,774
    I haven't driven one, is there any turbo lag in the 2.0T? I know there have been improvements made in that area. There is virtually no lag in our '11 X5, but when I had my Acura, I drove a couple of RDXs (previous gen) as loaners and the turbo lag was very noticeable.

  5. #20
    Sevenfeet is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    Quote Originally Posted by Fraggy View Post
    The eight speed is a very very nice transition, but it does require a lot of shifting.
    I've seen magazine editors question why the ATS 3.6 is a few ticks slower than the 335i. The answer is simple...its the gearbox. Both cars have about the same power and weight but the difference of two extra cogs is a big deal. The BMW can find what gear it needs more often across all circumstances while having only six is a bigger compromise in the ATS. And then there's the mileage. When the GM-sourced 8 gear Hydramatic finally shows up, I'd expect to see similar numbers. This is one of those problems from the GM bankruptcy that is biting Cadillac in the butt right now...the ATS program continued forward during those dark days but the transmission programs were shelved until GM's future was settled.

  6. #21
    b4z
    b4z is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2014 Standard SrX grey/black
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chas. SC
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,714

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    The CTSs with the 3.6l have a 3.45 reared but the ATS only has a 3.27 gear ( just like the Camaro).
    3.45 gear would probably take another .2 secs off the 0-60 time.

  7. #22
    cdp
    cdp is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): ATS 3.6 Premium. Opulent Blue
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    70

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    Quote Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post
    I've seen magazine editors question why the ATS 3.6 is a few ticks slower than the 335i. The answer is simple...its the gearbox. Both cars have about the same power and weight but the difference of two extra cogs is a big deal. The BMW can find what gear it needs more often across all circumstances while having only six is a bigger compromise in the ATS. And then there's the mileage. When the GM-sourced 8 gear Hydramatic finally shows up, I'd expect to see similar numbers. This is one of those problems from the GM bankruptcy that is biting Cadillac in the butt right now...the ATS program continued forward during those dark days but the transmission programs were shelved until GM's future was settled.
    I think a new transmission will help, but the 335i likely will still be faster. Lots more torque and likely at least as much hp. BMW is notorious for underrating their turbo engines.

  8. #23
    Caddy809 is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): None
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    27

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuest View Post
    Don't you need to put premium gas on the ATS Turbo? The 3.6 uses regular. Gas is already expensive I'd rather go with the 3.6. Long term cost seems less.
    If you do the math even though you are paying for regular on the 3.6 it will still cost more, but not much more. By my estimates for
    Ats 3.6
    -15k miles/yr % by 23mpg combined = 652.17 gallons a yr x $4 a gallon = $2608 a yr.

    Ats 2.0
    -15k miles/yr % by 26mpg combined = 576.92 gallons a yr x $4.20 a gallon = $2423 a yr.

    That's a difference of only $185 a year not much in my opinion. I wouldn't use regular on the turbo since they said you will see a drop of about 20-30 HP and who knows what other issues it could cause in the long term. I've nerver owned a turbo engine, so feel free to lecture me. It seems to me if you don't care too much about the slight difference in weight, weight distribution, and $1800 msrp difference the V6 is the way to go.

  9. #24
    marktanner is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 2013 ATS Premium 2.0T 6M Black Raven/Caramel
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    769

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    The BMW 335i has a lot more low end torque than the ATS 3.6. It has at least 30 more Lb/ft, and it peaks at much lower revs than the normally aspirated 3.6. The BMW's 300 hp rating is also probably lower than what it really puts out, and even if true, one rarely uses peak horsepower, and it's always high up the rev range. The eight speed also more easily accesses the power range than a six speed. This will easily account for the performance difference, though I suspect 0-60 in the mid 5's will be more than adequate for most people. The tests of the 335 have not shown the best fuel mileage, especially if one uses the turbos a lot. That engine is also a lot happier with Premium fuel, whereas the 3.6 only ever requires regular. Around Atlanta, Premium is usually thirty cents more expensive than Regular, except at Costco where it's only twenty cents. With that fueling difference, the total fuel costs between the 2.0 and the 3.6 won't be that great, and it will certainly be more refined. It may not handle quite as well, though the weight differential between the engines will be smaller than the 335 and 328 ( no turbo, plumbing, and intercooler on the 3.6). Since the 2.0 is sort of an unknown, if you have to order now, I'd go with the 6. I drove one, and it performed far better than the same engine in the CTS, as would be expected of a car weighing 400-500 lb less.

  10. #25
    FlyTrap's Avatar
    FlyTrap is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): 2013 ATS 2.0T man., Premium
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Windermere, FL
    Posts
    1

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    Quote Originally Posted by gohawks63 View Post
    I haven't driven one, is there any turbo lag in the 2.0T? I know there have been improvements made in that area. There is virtually no lag in our '11 X5, but when I had my Acura, I drove a couple of RDXs (previous gen) as loaners and the turbo lag was very noticeable.
    I've had my ATS 2.0T man. for a month and the engine performance is outstanding. Highest hp per liter of any car I've ever seen. The power band on this motor is as smooth and even as any NA engine I've driven. Plus if your somewhat of a tuner, you can get higher gains with less effort on the 2.0T. It's may understanding the 2.0T also has some forged internals which should help it easily handle 300+ whp. Needless to say... I like it.

  11. #26
    gohawks63's Avatar
    gohawks63 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2012 Black Diamond CTS-V Coupe, 2011 BMW X5 Premium
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,774
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyTrap

    I've had my ATS 2.0T man. for a month and the engine performance is outstanding. Highest hp per liter of any car I've ever seen. The power band on this motor is as smooth and even as any NA engine I've driven. Plus if your somewhat of a tuner, you can get higher gains with less effort on the 2.0T. It's may understanding the 2.0T also has some forged internals which should help it easily handle 300+ whp. Needless to say... I like it.
    I drove one a few weeks ago when I had my CTS coupe in for an oil change. It was a Performance 2.0T model. I was impressed. Obviously felt lighter than the CTS. The acceleration felt about the same as in my CTS. Yeah, the CTS has the 3.6L, but it is heavier.

  12. #27
    CTSCHICK is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2013 ATS 2.0 Rwd Performance Radiant Silver
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,754

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    From the stat's I seen the ATS 2.0 & 3.6 smoke the CTS sedan and slower coupe.
    I plan on test driving a ATS 3.6 rwd when I get my oil change in a couple weeks because Majestic metallic plum has my interest

  13. #28
    USe-car is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): 2013 ATS & 2012 Volt
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Georgetown, TX
    Age
    66
    Posts
    74

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Cadillac View Post
    If price isn't a concern, I'd take the V6 IF I didn't want to tune the car. If I wanted to tune the car, I'd take the turbo...
    That's exactly how I feel. I chose the instant torque, quietness, and smoothness of the V6. Plus, I have a problem with buying a Cadillac and powering it with a 4 cylinder. Just my opinion.

  14. #29
    gohawks63's Avatar
    gohawks63 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2012 Black Diamond CTS-V Coupe, 2011 BMW X5 Premium
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,774

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    Quote Originally Posted by CTSCHICK View Post
    From the stat's I seen the ATS 2.0 & 3.6 smoke the CTS sedan and slower coupe.
    I plan on test driving a ATS 3.6 rwd when I get my oil change in a couple weeks because Majestic metallic plum has my interest
    Edmunds reported a 0-60 time of 6.3 seconds (6.1 with a 1 ft rollout) on a 2.0T ATS which is consistent with what I have seen in other road tests and in coincides with my "seat of the pants" assessment since the CTS is known to be in the low 6s for 0-60. I have seen 6.0 for the CTS, but I think that's a bit optimistic.

    The 3.6L ATS will spank the current gen CTS as I have seen 0-60 times in the mid 5s.

    http://www.edmunds.com/cadillac/ats/...oad-test1.html
    http://www.autoblog.com/2013/02/06/2...mium-2-0t-6mt/


    Other sources...

    http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...he-competition
    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html

  15. #30
    rustybear3's Avatar
    rustybear3 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2013 ATS White Pearl Turbo
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    63
    Posts
    1,089

    Re: 2.0 vs 3.6

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuest View Post
    Don't you need to put premium gas on the ATS Turbo? The 3.6 uses regular. Gas is already expensive I'd rather go with the 3.6. Long term cost seems less.
    First you don't need premium gas with the ATS turbo; the difference between regular & premium gas is about 20 horses.........Second, you gotta stop worrying about a few extra dollars per tank for a performance car.......especially when you are paying top dollar for a Cadillac...on top of it all, the Turbo gets better gas mileage than the 3.6.....so.....no long term cost differences....negligible.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting