...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...
My guess is one year. If the ATS-V is getting the twin turbo V6 which won't be available until late 2013 - then I guess that's about when we'll see the ATS-V. Hopefully there are no further delays with that engine (LF3).
I wouldn't be looking for it prior to MY2015. Think about it. Cadillac has too focus on the Gen3 CTS. It would be a mistake to worry about an ATS-V right now. Once the Gen3 CTS is out the door, I'd imagine the V will debut. Also if it is a V8 it has to debut in the Corvette first (which I believe is a 2014), if it's the Twin Turbo I doubt that drops until 2014.5 or so. My money is on the V more than likely to be a MY2016.
I wouldn't be looking for it prior to MY2015. Think about it. Cadillac has too focus on the Gen3 CTS. It would be a mistake to worry about an ATS-V right now. Once the Gen3 CTS is out the door, I'd imagine the V will debut. Also if it is a V8 it has to debut in the Corvette first (which I believe is a 2014), if it's the Twin Turbo I doubt that drops until 2014.5 or so. My money is on the V more than likely to be a MY2016.
I don't think that's bad. If it were an LS V8, the engine shouldn't bloat the scales and should be inline with the V1. And since current LS motors are in the 430hp range, it would be competitive, methinks...
My cousin is a Engineer at GM (Milford Test Track) and he's currently testing the emissions for the twin turbo 3.0L V6. Not sure if it's going into the V model but it's in it's final stages.
... It still appears as if the ATS-V will get the twin turbo 3.0 liter direct injected V6. ... 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. ...
We were watching the Michigan Sugar Bowl game the other day and he was telling me it's a 3.6L TT making over 400 HP most likely for the V model. He works on the calibrations/emissions.
I cant see why the V8 wouldnt be a good option. Will the ttV6 make 450 hp? The M3 already makes 415 and thatll surely get a TTV8 bump to around 450. Its also lighter then what the ATS-V is looking to weigh.
That TTV6 will almost surely be close in weight to the LS V8. The V6 is allready more expensive to build then the LSV8...the TTV6 will be even more expensive then the V6. I think the TTV6 should simply replace the V6.
From a production standpoint, the LS3 (or its successor) makes the most sense. But a luxury performance sedan is not about making sense. There are rumors flying around that Cadillac (probably GM in general) wants to get away from pushrod engines. I love my LS3, but I don't expect that choice to be around much longer. I think GM is the only manufacturer left who is widely using them.
From a production standpoint, the LS3 (or its successor) makes the most sense. But a luxury performance sedan is not about making sense. There are rumors flying around that Cadillac (probably GM in general) wants to get away from pushrod engines. I love my LS3, but I don't expect that choice to be around much longer. I think GM is the only manufacturer left who is widely using them.
I'm pretty sure all the domestics use at least one or two Pushrods in their trucks and SUV's, but certinally GM is the last one shoving them into sedans and performance cars. Assuming gas prices don't suddenly spike another $2 (which is entirely possible these days) I expect another 20 years of life out of the SBC and pushrod technology before either the efficiency technology just can't keep up in making them easier on the wallet or F/I V6's just totally wash them out of any advantages other than the noise. We already see a little bit of that today acutally, the ecoboost for example..
I don't count truck engines. Efficiency isn't a concern there. Though I suppose that is changing these days. Ford's V8 is overhead cam, though I suppose they aren't really any more advanced than a pushrod.
But as I said, there are rumors that the powers at GM want the pushrod retired.
Efficency is just as big a player in truck and SUV land as it is anywhere else. That's why when gas prices doubled truck/suv sales drove off a clif, and that's part of the reason why the ecoboost F150 is accounting for 40% of all F150 sales. http://green.autoblog.com/2011/12/24/ford-f-150-ecoboost-hits-100-000-sales/
and even more to the point;
Still more impressive is the fact that Ford also sold plenty of 3.7-liter V6 models as well, and the overall take rate of V6 engines is over 50 percent on the year.
Hey, I am quite happy with my pushrod engine. And if sales of big SUVs and pickups declined, it was everywhere but in chicago. I see brand new Tundras, F150, Silverados and Lexus, Infiniti full size suvs everywhere. And they are all driving 75 mph+. They don't seem too interested in conservation :lol:
The only way (most) people are going to become concerned about saving gasoline is if they're not sure they're going to be able to fill up on their next tank. The current Administration seems to be trying to make that happen.
I think what the competition has, and the political situation will weigh heavy on whether or not you get the Turbo V6 or the V8 in the ATS-V. If GM lived in a vacuum the V8 would be a lock.
I think politics is going to reshape the automotive world over the next decade. Sadly. But I think it is going negatively affect manufacturers like BMW more, who will have to start making cars that people will buy based on their needs, rather than being based on image.
I agree.. and the US is also becomming less of a centerpoint for decision making for automobiles. You can't design a car just for americans anymore, you have to think about it on a global economic scale, and while everyone can agree an american V8 is nice, I'm thinking even more would think a fuel effecient V6 in light of what the rest of the world pays in gas is even better. Which is also why I will probally be holding onto the V2 for a good long time. Dodge and Chrysler being the true exceptions, because even if Chevrolet starts selling Caprice's to the public, it's no V2. Although, I can't honestly say that I would remain V2 loyal should gas hit say, $5-6 a gallon.
I am starting to get used to the idea of twin turbo 6. They seem to have it pretty well figured out now.
I still remember driving an old eagle talon tsi that felt like there was switch that turned the power on and off around 4000 rpm. It was horrible. That guy installed a turbo timer that kept his car running for 5 min when he parked. That sort of thing seems to be in the past though.
yup... I can't think of any F/I turbo engine that doesn't make tons of power and torque low end these days. The ecoboost 3.5 in the 150 makes 400+ at 2500rpms for crying out loud.
Not really having followed the reliability of today's turbos, what's really involved in their maintenance? If they have cast iron housings, they tend to get an exterior of rust which is, of course, accelerated by the heat they see. They also have an oil supply for their bearings, I believe, so those might have to be replaced at some point. There has to be BOV, but those must last a long time unless the spring lets go.
I just mean a twin turbocharged, multi-valve, multi-overhead-cam and all its associated hardware versus a simple old pushrod, naturally aspirated engine. You know which one is going to be cheaper and easier to fix.
Not really having followed the reliability of today's turbos, what's really involved in their maintenance? If they have cast iron housings, they tend to get an exterior of rust which is, of course, accelerated by the heat they see. They also have an oil supply for their bearings, I believe, so those might have to be replaced at some point. There has to be BOV, but those must last a long time unless the spring lets go.
Thank god..
They have a valve, but it's a BPV. It doesn't vent into the atmopshere, it recirculates it into the system. Audi and VW have used this kind of setup for years. Leave the turkey noises to the Civic's, Evo's and STi's. If they're even more like Audi/VW it's a diaphragm, not a spring and piston.
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.