...it'll be naturally aspirated - no supercharger or turbo (unless plans change). It still appears as if the ATS-V will get the twin turbo 3.0 liter direct injected V6. Either way, I'm thinking this doesn't sound too good for people who want a small Cadillac to compete with the new BMW M3 and cars like it. The ATS-V is probably not going to be a whole lot lighter than the CTS-V - but it'll have probably 100 less horsepower. GM may surprise us, though...
Aside from what my instructor said, I'm guessing it won't. One of the selling points of the ATS with the 3.6 is a 50/50 weight balance. An 8 would hose that up and throw off the handling of the car. I can't blame you for getting a V wagon though. That's badass! When I was on track with one, being in a station wagon was the farthest thing from my mind when driving it.
It has nothing to do with balance. The LS V8s actually weigh less than a 3.6DI (LS3=350lbs, LLT=370 lbs, LFX probably a little lighter). What weighs more is the transmission and powertrain, but that's distributed along the length of the car. There is one simple reason why the ATS-V is going to get a turbo 6; because the M3, its target, is going to have one.
You said it. I don't understand what you mean. Are you simply pointing out what a (dumb) GM will probably do and use as an excuse, or are you saying it's also a good idea?
A handful of enthusiasts might understand the the difference between an inline 6 and a V6. Most buyers will not.
Other than the ravings of a bunch of auto journalists, what evidence have you that BMW's inline 6 is better than GM's V6? It's BMW being brilliant at marketing (we'll underrate our engines so everyone compares our "weaker" engines to the competition and think they are magical because they are just as powerful) I'll give them that.
What evidence have you that GM's turbo V6 is better than BMW's inline 6? It doesn't exist yet.
And you acknowledge that BMW's inline six has marketing cachet.
In light of these two facts, how can one advocate a turbo V6 as anything but a crazy and needless risk for the ATS-V?
No one said the M3 was going to have a turbo V6. We said "turbo 6."
Regardless, who cares. An inline 6 does not run on magic dust like BMW would have you believe. It's an internal combustion engine. Nothing more.
If no one cares about the difference between a turbo V6 and a turbo I6, why would the difference between a turbo I6 and a NA V8 be a problem? Your "one simple reason" doesn't really make sense.
The difference between an all-new TT V6 or all-new TT I6 is essentially ease of working on the thing and natural balance.
The difference between an 6 and SBC is 60 years of V8 development, and 15 years of LS aftermarket .
a SBC V8 ATS would be an *instant* hot-rod sedan. One that would totally, and completly, take over the M3 for the younger tuner crowd.
an I6/V6 would sort of just 'be keeping up with the Germans' so to speak(even though the B8 RS4 has a 4.2).
The CTS-V is a perfect example of this. Both generations *easily* eclipsing the aftermarket support of any german super sedan, and they are freaking tweaner cars!
You're also considering the implied reliability of an established platform (the SBC) and the linear powerband a N/A engine provides.
BMW does inline 6 engines because they're good at them and they have a long history with them. Most manufacturers including the domestics, gave up on them generations ago. GM has similar expertise and history with the small block V8 and should stick with it even if just in specialty vehicles in the future. Cult followers for both camps.
uhh.. The LL8 Atlas in the Chevrolet Blazer was an I6, it was a ward's 10 best engines from 02-05. That was a wonderful engine, infact it got a mid-model refresh and made 291 HP (the Small Block V8 Blazer only made 308) . No idea why they canned it or excluded it to a freaking SUV. Maybe the package was too large, I don't know. However, they sold 1.5million of the things.
And the Slant 6 in the jeeps were being made up until very recently when they finnally ditched them for V6's for the fuel economy. People worship those engines like they're gods.
Maybe you're referring to their use in passenger vehicles?
"one simple reason"?? I do not understand what you mean.
A handful of enthusiasts might understand the the difference between an inline 6 and a V6. Most buyers will not.
Other than the ravings of a bunch of auto journalists, what evidence have you that BMW's inline 6 is better than GM's V6? It's BMW being brilliant at marketing (we'll underrate our engines so everyone compares our "weaker" engines to the competition and think they are magical because they are just as powerful) I'll give them that.
uhh.. The LL8 Atlas in the Chevrolet Blazer was an I6, it was a ward's 10 best engines from 02-05. That was a wonderful engine, infact it got a mid-model refresh and made 291 HP (the Small Block V8 Blazer only made 308) . No idea why they canned it or excluded it to a freaking SUV. Maybe the package was too large, I don't know. However, they sold 1.5million of the things.
And the Slant 6 in the jeeps were being made up until very recently when they finnally ditched them for V6's for the fuel economy. People worship those engines like they're gods.
Maybe you're referring to their use in passenger vehicles?
they say packaging an inline 6 in a compact engine bay is a nightmare. Probably why bmw cost so much to service; there's no room to get at parts of the engine.
but I would bet that's why GM and chrysler only used those engines in SUVs with bigger engine bays.
Unfortunately, the ATS-V is not going to have a V8. Might as well not hate each other arguing over what's better. Me? Personally? I like the I6 over V6 for natural balance - as mentioned. However, JimmyH has a good point in regards to room in the engine bay. The twin turbo V6 ATS-V and twin turbo I6 M3 will perform very closely. The ATS-V will have a much nicer interior.
Unfortunately, the ATS-V is not going to have a V8. Might as well not hate each other arguing over what's better. Me? ...... The twin turbo V6 ATS-V and twin turbo I6 M3 will perform very closely. The ATS-V will have a much nicer interior.
If that's true, you are effectively saying there will not be an ATS-V.
Maybey they should call it the ATS-U for underperforming.
A killer V is in the bag, I hope they don't screw it up and go U on us trying to be clever.
The ATS-V doesn't need to beat anything but the M3 and it doesn't need a V8 to do that. Cadillac is trying to stay away from V8s in all but it's most expensive LARGE vehicles. The last thing that some executives in the company want to see happen is a V6 Escalade and full-size, premium flagship. In order to do that, they're keeping V8s out of everything else but the CTS-V (the only exception to the rule and even THAT wasn't easy to accomplish). If the M5 ever gets a turbo V6, Cadillac will surely follow suit.
The M3 will have around 430 horsepower. The only way the ATS-V is getting a V8 is if they can't bring the twin turbo V6 to the table in time.
A bit late, but just one quick comment on the the V-6 vs I-6 debate.
The I-6, while it may have some packaging issues with respect to its length, is a naturally-balanced configuration with two cylinders always at 120 deg to each of the other two pairs making counterbalancing a bit easier and a very smooth motor. Not saying the V-6 can't be smooth, just that it takes a little more effort on the part of the designers.
Then executives at the company have the craniums up their keisters. Yeah, I get the long-term. Sure, develop a powerful turbo V6. Put it in the next CTS in a model that slots below the CTS-V (and fill that product gap). But the ATS-V is a performance niche, not a mainstream product. Its impact on CAFE is negligible no matter what's under the hood -- but its impact on the brand is devastating if it stumbles. In some ways it needs to be more conservative, not more radical. Prove the TTV6's mettle elsewhere, then drop a hotter version in the A when it's not such a huge leap of faith.
Then again, the XLR-V and STS-V had such a huge impact on the brand, and the turbo SRX sold like hotcakes...
There really is no such thing as overkill when it comes to performance.
Who here wants cheap easy HP taken off the table?
Honestly, I'm not surprized that GM is hoping to con us into accepting a lesser engine, instead of the real thing.
They probably hope it will tank, as I bet most insiders at GM don't even want a V Series.
Also, aftermarket tuning potential would not be one of their concerns either.
Aren't fast cars adolescent and irresponsible?
It's just sad they are going back to their practice of aiming low instead of going for the kill.
There is no excuse when they have the star engine sitting on the shelf screaming to be put in the game.
I have a problem buying into a half hearted ATS-V effort.
The CTS-V is a great effort and even IT wasn't better than the competition on the first try. That being said, the ATS-V CAN perform better than the M3 without a V8.
Just an FYI - I'd rather see a V8 as well. I'd never complain if the ATS-V turned out to be a monster that "blew the doors off" the GTR. I just understand Cadillac's point of view and don't feel they're giving us a half-hearted attempt at giving Cadillac enthusiasts what they want - a viable alternative - OR better - than what's available at BMW.
"...the ATS-V CAN perform better than the M3 without a V8."
This is true. I'm sure GM Powertrain still has engineers who can build on the excellent V6 and the I4 turbocharging knowledgebase and produce a great engine... if they're given the job and given enough time to work through the challenges. But will GM make that investment? Will they stay focused on the task long enough for it to survive the scrutiny that will befall a BMW M3 competitor? This engine has to be good enough to replace the Corvette LS3 V8 on Day One. Anything less is half-hearted. Sure, GM has a lot riding on a turbo V6, if it needs one for full-size pickups, but that's a different target; the 450hp screamer that an M3 competitor needs requires its own brief. GM has just doubled-down on the Corvette V8; does it make business sense to build a direct competitor at the same time? They have limited resources, and global products with far more impact on the next several quarters that need GM Powertrain's best efforts.
I would be incredibly impressed to learn that GM had the vision and depth to make that kind of investment. I just don't think it's likely. It think it's more likely to be a let's-try-something good-enough-for-now more-important-work-is-waiting effort. I think of many well-they-tried and because-the-competition-has-one engines in GM's past. And I say, "prove me wrong."
"...the ATS-V CAN perform better than the M3 without a V8."
This is true. I'm sure GM Powertrain still has engineers who can build on the excellent V6 and the I4 turbocharging knowledgebase and produce a great engine... if they're given the job and given enough time to work through the challenges. But will GM make that investment? Will they stay focused on the task long enough for it to survive the scrutiny that will befall a BMW M3 competitor? This engine has to be good enough to replace the Corvette LS3 V8 on Day One. Anything less is half-hearted. Sure, GM has a lot riding on a turbo V6, if it needs one for full-size pickups, but that's a different target; the 450hp screamer that an M3 competitor needs requires its own brief. GM has just doubled-down on the Corvette V8; does it make business sense to build a direct competitor at the same time? They have limited resources, and global products with far more impact on the next several quarters that need GM Powertrain's best efforts.
I would be incredibly impressed to learn that GM had the vision and depth to make that kind of investment. I just don't think it's likely. It think it's more likely to be a let's-try-something good-enough-for-now more-important-work-is-waiting effort. I think of many well-they-tried and because-the-competition-has-one engines in GM's past. And I say, "prove me wrong."
In reply to what I bolded - that's typical GM-think and I don't blame you for feeling that's the plan. But it really isn't. Cadillac knows how close they are to the 3-Series so they're not going to go easy on it. One of the good points made for the TT V6 while going back and forth refers to bragging rights. If the ATS gets a supercharged V8 and beats the turbocharged I6 M3 - you're going to get a whole lot of "unfair" and "apples to oranges" in media reviews - as well as all over internet forums. The TT V6 going head to head with the TT I6 is where they want to be.
A V8 would be sweet. A lot of aftermarket support out their. Put a supercharger on it and it will have some serious horsepower. It will surprise a lot of people and be a blast to drive.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Cadillac Owners Forum
4.8M posts
369.7K members
Since 2002
Cadillac Forums is the perfect place to go to talk about your favorite Caddys including the ATS, CTS, SRX, Escalade, LYRIQ, Vistiq, concept and future Cadillac models.