Cadillac Owners Forum banner

ATS-V wishlist??

87K views 372 replies 45 participants last post by  yatman60 
#1 ·
Since there isn't an ATS-V thread group yet, it made sense to ask here... And I know it'll eventually focus on the powertrain... :) So what would you like? Let's try to discuss everything.

----------

Rand49er brought up a few good points which should very well make it to production. Wider wheels/tires, mesh grille and an overall MORE agressive appearance. Personally, I would welcome functional fender vents or a tasteful vented hood. 19" wheels with sticky summer rubber and six piston front/four piston rear Brembos.
 
#312 · (Edited)
Guys, if we get the TTV6 for the ATS-V, it's only a weak attempt at keeping up with the competitors; we need fearless leadership from GM, and they certainly have the engineering expertise. We're on a role and should stay on it. The "V's" are halo cars and deserve the best. V-8's are hard to beat and are appropriate. Auto transmissions are fine for chicks, but GM needs to offer enthusiast options at no cost to be competitive (Tremec 7-speed manual anyone?). Going backwards is a failure for GM. Even the next M3 will match or increase the bar set by the GM TTV6. So what 's the point? Back to basics time.

Also, we need a choice of seats like in the V2. The C7's seats look interesting, even its "base" seats.

Jud
 
#313 ·
The announcement of the CTS Vsport has me very skeptical that the TTV6, even a tuned one, will be available in the ATS-V. If there is a moderate HP bump from the two, say to four hundred fifty, I think shoppers would buy the Vsport (new styling, slightly more room, maybe lower price). Plus a quick mod could easily get the Vsport into V territory. I know weight would factor into decisions as well. I'm guessing the difference between these cars would be two hundred pounds.

And just for my happiness... The CTS-V3 is going to be SPECIAL.
 
This post has been deleted
#316 ·
I really want this vehicle to be a success, but not necessarily from a sales perspective. More of a brand building angle. We all know Cadillac is on a roll now, especially with last month's sales figures in:

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/03/may-2013-coming-up-roses-edition/

Can the ATS-V officially put Cadillac back where it belongs? Like the GT-R did for Nissan? Or should another vehicle stake that claim? (Upcoming RWD flagship perhaps)

Sell these cars knowing GM will lose money on each and every one of them for the sake of brand building, industry publicity, and media accolades?

I wish the engineers for this vehicle put their all in this with no regard of pecking order or bean-counting.
 
#317 ·
Sell these cars knowing GM will lose money on each and every one of them for the sake of brand building, industry publicity, and media accolades?

I wish the engineers for this vehicle put their all in this with no regard of pecking order or bean-counting.
GM doesn't need to take a loss with Cadillac. The secret to luxury vehicles is that they don't cost that much more to make than entry level vehicles but you can charge exorbitant prices for them. Their 100 million dollar profit margin is heavily influenced by Cadillac's 200K annual sales, as small as that volume that may be.
 
#328 ·
concorso said:
No. Save words like 'fine' for the regular ATS. The V should have fantastic braking that you can repeat over and over again. 14" ventilated 2-piece rotors, 6potF/4PotR... Instead of matching the M3, continually playing catch up, set the bar.
Right, the ATS-V should be very special and exceed the M3. That's why some of us are lobbying for the proven performance of the American V8. The TTV6 is fine for the XTS and variations of the standard CTS and ATS.

Jud
 
#330 ·
I actually agree. I wont cross shop any cars if the V comes with the LT1 or LS7(LT7?) and a 6 speed manual or DCT and RWD and 2 doors. It would be the Cadillac Ive been dreaming about since the 1st gen CTS came out. With a TTV6 and only 4 doors, Ill crossshop the M3/4. People keep saying that BMW is moving forward with the times by turbocharging and going to smaller displacement. Thats one way of looking at it. The other way is that BMW is going back to their bread and butter, an I6 and updating it with turbos, which is akin to the LT1 (GM's bread and butter with modern updates. The ATS is going to need 450, there is no doubt about that. The LT1 is allready at that level, and it should be less then 50 lbs heavier then the LF3, if that much at all, and it will have a lower center of gravity. I have no doubt, tho, that the LF3 in the ATS-V will make 450 hp. It will get its ass handed to it, with 420. It seems Cadillac knows how important the product is, now, versus the old way of building based on cost. I really hope they deliver the goods with this car.


For arguments sake, the 328i is faster then the ATS 2.0T in a straight line, with less advertised hp. They dyno about the same, but the 328i is still faster. BMW consistently makes better use of its power, it seems.

----------

ATS-Sport should have the TTV6, while the ATS-V should have a V8. Simple, huh!
Yes, exactly. Actually, I think the TTV6 should replace the LFX entirely. A low hp TTV6 is needed to compete with the 335i, which is much faster then the 3.6L. The ATS is so close to being a great car, but the drivetrains need a little more work.
 
#332 ·
6.2L V8 in 4 cylinder mode versus 3.6L TTV6 not on boost...I bet its very very close. If the 1st gen V saw mid 20's mpg on highway, Im sure the ATS V with LT1 could see close to 30 if not over. Since the ATS-V should be lighter then the 1g CTS-V, and the LT1 is more efficient then the LS6/2, Id bet close to 20 in the city as well. 450 hp and 3700 lbs makes it a mid to low 12.
 
#334 ·
Well, the TTV6 is more mundane than absurd, in today's high performance market. What makes 4 camshafts instead of one more superior when weight and complexity are considered? And when's the "superior" fuel economy going to surface if one has to keep that little engine in boost just to keep up? The TTV6 will be the darling of the country club lizards but it has no place in the true "V" realm, IMHO. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Jud
 
#336 ·
pissedoffwookiee said:
very well put, I've been saying for a while within my circle of friends/co-workers that absurdity sells, which is why the SRT magnum/SRT anything , cts-v/v-wagon, shelbys, wrx, evo cars, M/AMG anything are such hits. they live in the absurd awesomeness of too much and why which we all know is a fun place.

so agreed, 6 pot/4 pot brembos, fine is good, just not good enough. carrot cake is fine, carrot cake with cream cheese icing is what were after.:thumbsup:

the only caveat i can think of is cadillac as a manufacturer leaving room for differentiation between Future CTS-V and ATS-V, lets hope they go the route of upping the CTS instead of neutering the ATS, much like Porsche did with the better clean sheet Cayman vs historical so we must keep it but challenging designed 911.
I think in terms of braking you can only do so much. That's why the 'best' (Brembo) should be used all around, with a configuration that mirrors or supersedes the competition.
 
#337 ·
concorso said:
I actually agree. I wont cross shop any cars if the V comes with the LT1 or LS7(LT7?) and a 6 speed manual or DCT and RWD and 2 doors. It would be the Cadillac Ive been dreaming about since the 1st gen CTS came out. With a TTV6 and only 4 doors, Ill crossshop the M3/4. People keep saying that BMW is moving forward with the times by turbocharging and going to smaller displacement. Thats one way of looking at it. The other way is that BMW is going back to their bread and butter, an I6 and updating it with turbos, which is akin to the LT1 (GM's bread and butter with modern updates. The ATS is going to need 450, there is no doubt about that. The LT1 is allready at that level, and it should be less then 50 lbs heavier then the LF3, if that much at all, and it will have a lower center of gravity. I have no doubt, tho, that the LF3 in the ATS-V will make 450 hp. It will get its ass handed to it, with 420. It seems Cadillac knows how important the product is, now, versus the old way of building based on cost. I really hope they deliver the goods with this car.

For arguments sake, the 328i is faster then the ATS 2.0T in a straight line, with less advertised hp. They dyno about the same, but the 328i is still faster. BMW consistently makes better use of its power, it seems.

----------

Yes, exactly. Actually, I think the TTV6 should replace the LFX entirely. A low hp TTV6 is needed to compete with the 335i, which is much faster then the 3.6L. The ATS is so close to being a great car, but the drivetrains need a little more work.
I think you hit the nail on the head saying the ats is so close to being a great car.....coming from mostly junk and buying an ats, I'm about 90% satisfied in all aspects. I love the car car but I feel it could ride just a bit better, handle just a bit better, and perform just a bit better. I really feel the transmission could be a bit smoother and 50 more hp would be perfect. For a $50,000 Cadillac, I expect just a bit more.
 
#338 ·
C'mon, a TTV6 ATS-V is nothing but an M3-wannabe ATS variant, and GM marketing is committing DWI (devising while intoxicated) if they believe the ATS-V with the TTV6 motor is going to woo M3 buyers over to Cadillac-it ain't gonna happen.

A modded LT1 for the ATS-V makes the most sense for the market and the brand.
 
#339 ·
al pettee said:
C'mon, a TTV6 ATS-V is nothing but an M3-wannabe ATS variant, and GM marketing is committing DWI (devising while intoxicated) if they believe the ATS-V with the TTV6 motor is going to woo M3 buyers over to Cadillac-it ain't gonna happen.

A modded LT1 for the ATS-V makes the most sense for the market and the brand.
The M3 is a yuppie chick car, anyway, and the V's are meant for real men. Why not the LS7? It has plenty of power and is not hamstrung with "advancements" like DOD, Eco-mode (whatever that is), engine off when stopped (I forget the marketing term) and other odious contraptions. Leave those for the Germans and their devotees. I guess a modified LT1, rid of all that baggage, would do in a pinch.

Jud :lildevil:
 
#340 ·
I'm glad to see the V8 fan base is growing.
Aside from the V8, I only think it needs big fenders for a wider meaner look and more cornering grip and a way to install an aftermarket radio and ditch the POS CUE system.

When are they supposed to announce this car?
I'm starting to wonder if GM chickened out and is figuring the ATS is profitable enough as is.
That thinking is what ruined them in the past.
 
#346 ·
pissedoffwookiee said:
agreed......

whatever engine they use, cadillac needs to trounce M3 to turn heads, they know this because that's exactly what they did with the CTS-V and the last M5 since it worked then....REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT...

a side note.... I like the Camaro very much, but we choose to play with Cadillacs GM's top brand and as such, I don't like the ZL1 having more HP.

my idea of ideal would be a target of 600 HP for CTS-V and 480-500 HP for ATS-V, the f1 loving geek in me finds the idea of getting this in a high revving ttv6 very interesting, the gear head in me doesn't care as long as it has that level of power.

the other part of the equation is transmission 8 speed auto 7 speed manual please, and start working on a twin clutch too late for this gen but get to work, and put the paddles on the column.

lastly, GM needs to buy a failing cell phone maker and gut them take their software and hardware engineering and integrate them into the infotainment group(I'm thinking Nokia) why? because these guys can put amazing infotainment in our pockets for $600 and GM can't in our luxury cars for $1350, I'm even ok with being charged $1350 for a dashboard tablet phone, tech is here to stay, let's get it right, and this could open up a new kind of software hotrodding
I truly believe the reason behind the HP bump from CTS-V2 to ZL1 was merely timing. Chevrolet had more time to tune the engine even more given the numbers the LSA put out for the V2.

I do agree with your 'ideal' scenario regarding HP for these upcoming Vs. My guess is the CTS-V3 will get a 'variant' of whatever the new ZR1 shall receive. Definitely over six hundred HP(!)

Don't forget! CUE is open source and Linux based. One could create a multitude of apps and plug them right in (last I read).
 
#347 ·
yes this is open source, but a closed ecosystem, GM did put out a SDK for CUE but I'm sure we'll only see a curated GM approved set of apps out of this, but more to the point i was making was better usability, some basic things make no sense, like the home button on the right in north america, the cd player part of CUE tucked in glove box (i'm ok with this) all the way to the right out of reach (not ok with this) it's so far away it might as well be outside in the mirror, or the selected preset becoming a highlighted color is cool, but using the wheel buttons and watching the highlighted color pop off screen (both directions) is puzzling, why highlight at all if only 6 of your sixty presets can communicate that its the selected source at any random moment. (this is in default one line view I know but still silly)

since this is a wishlist one of my wishes is a supremely bad ass tech setup in the v that lets you play with car setup and is also auxiliary dashboard guages some cool combo of Nissan GTR, Lexus LFA, BMW M5, Gran Turismo
 
#350 ·
I've never driven a DCT-equipped vehicle, but love the concept. However, someone else posted that they're fine for car magazine tests, but aren't very friendly in a DD on the street.

I'm wondering why, if such a criticism has some validity, can't they be controlled to provide softer shifts or at least mitigate whatever aspects the poster was referring to?
There are plenty of soft shifting DCT's. The problem is making it both soft for Drive ability and aggressive for quick precise shifting.
 
#352 · (Edited)
I think you'll find that the last decade of power wars is going to start to come to a close. Cafe and Euro Cap are about to come down like a plauge of locusts. Alot of this has already started to happen with the illusion of performance in mind.

What's happened is the cars have become lighter, or have gone F/I to upp torque and efficiency. A do more with less attitude. The ATS already has this in the bag with Alpha, so a big hammer of an engine will be both fuel inefficient (personally if I'm going to consider a car like this, it needs to manage at least 15/25 by today's standards) unnecessarily costly and expensive, because it's not just the tooling, it's the supporting the whole car for 6 years or 70K miles until the very last one is sold.

I agree, the chassis and handling are hugely important, the BMW has this in abundance as does the ATS, but it seems to me that great handling yet weaker powered cars seem to lose when it comes to mindshare, the examples that come to mind are the Mazda rx-7/8, miata, Porsche Cayman, and Subaru brz, all these cars have been heralded as some of the supreme cars in the area of chassis and handling, yet they've all been haunted with the 'needs more power' specter, the M3 has both supreme handling and great power, sidestepping these thought altogether. My vision and wish for the ATS-V is to be seen as uncompromising as the BMW, regardless of the fact that BMW has dulled a little.
Ahh yes, you are correct in those circumstances, but as Lexus and Cadillac have proven, you don't necessarily need to throw the hammer down on the engine when everything else is set just so.

The n55 and N54 in the 335i is vastly superior to the LFX 3.6 ATS or the ancient lineup powering the new IS, but both cars handed the BMW it's ass on a plate. The same goes for the 2.0T vs the 328i, which the transmission aside are generally on par with each other, and yet the ATS gets a tip of the hat in most cases.

You just need something that's somewhat comparable, if everything else is great then that makes up for it.

as far as tech goes, 4 years ago the Droid was released, that phone debuted with the highest resolution screen, (predating retina iPhone 4 by a few months), has to this day stellar voice command, and it set the GPS/Maps industry on its ear, by giving away top notch turn-by-turn and crowd sourced traffic. that phone had an 800 MHz Texas Instruments processor which is quite powerful and enough to run Linux (android is Linux after all), lets assume for arguments sake the next gen phone hardware was available for manufacturer development at that time, this is the same time of the ATS beginning development, so lets freeze ATS CUE to those specs, that phone and the generation after, (iPhone 4s) work better than CUE does today several years later, i understand the long development time and production volumes are different, but for 4 years development time and over double the cost, something slightly better than what we have is not an unreasonable expectation.
I can see where you're coming from now then, buy a cheap company to build you something decent, but I would remind you that phones are created by technology companies of which very few actually just build phones. The software that works so well is made by Apple and Google, and I must reinforce that none of these companies design hardware cycles for the length of time a car sees, or the condition a cars sees, and the ones that make the software, make it one of their primary products.

Panasonic is probably the closest any computer manufacturer can come in it's design of laptops that have something close to an automotive environment. Toughbooks take years to develop in order to pass testing and validation which appeal to it's buyers. The end result is that your 5K laptop buys you technology that's already from the previous generation of hardware. Even toughbooks are not designed to last for a decade or sit in 110 degree heat, take the drivetrain vibrations of a 7K RPM shift or the shock of a truck-eating pothole.

CUE is more the result of a development time that is twice the length of this rather than GM not knowing what they're doing. Hardware is easy, it's software that's the hard part, and the software that works which you suggest they take a page from, also is backed by companies with 10 fold the net worth of GM global combined, they also don't have to design a car in the mean time.
 
#353 ·
M5eater said:
I think you'll find that the last decade of power wars is going to start to come to a close. Cafe and Euro Cap are about to come down like a plauge of locusts. Alot of this has already started to happen with the illusion of performance in mind.

What's happened is the cars have become lighter, or have gone F/I to upp torque and efficiency. A do more with less attitude. The ATS already has this in the bag with Alpha, so a big hammer of an engine will be both fuel inefficient (personally if I'm going to consider a car like this, it needs to manage at least 15/25 by today's standards) unnecessarily costly and expensive, because it's not just the tooling, it's the supporting the whole car for 6 years or 70K miles until the very last one is sold.

Ahh yes, you are correct in those circumstances, but as Lexus and Cadillac have proven, you don't necessarily need to throw the hammer down on the engine when everything else is set just so.

The n55 and N54 in the 335i is vastly superior to the LFX 3.6 ATS or the ancient lineup powering the new IS, but both cars handed the BMW it's ass on a plate. The same goes for the 2.0T vs the 328i, which the transmission aside are generally on par with each other, and yet the ATS gets a tip of the hat in most cases.

You just need something that's somewhat comparable, if everything else is great then that makes up for it.

I can see where you're coming from now then, buy a cheap company to build you something decent, but I would remind you that phones are created by technology companies of which very few actually just build phones. The software that works so well is made by Apple and Google, and I must reinforce that none of these companies design hardware cycles for the length of time a car sees, or the condition a cars sees, and the ones that make the software, make it one of their primary products.

Panasonic is probably the closest any computer manufacturer can come in it's design of laptops that have something close to an automotive environment. Toughbooks take years to develop in order to pass testing and validation which appeal to it's buyers. The end result is that your 5K laptop buys you technology that's already from the previous generation of hardware. Even toughbooks are not designed to last for a decade or sit in 110 degree heat, take the drivetrain vibrations of a 7K RPM shift or the shock of a truck-eating pothole.

CUE is more the result of a development time that is twice the length of this rather than GM not knowing what they're doing. Hardware is easy, it's software that's the hard part, and the software that works which you suggest they take a page from, also is backed by companies with 10 fold the net worth of GM global combined, they also don't have to design a car in the mean time.
Look at what happened between 1965 and now. Very interesting. History repeats itself. Sorry, I gave up my bellbottom leisure suits. Is that the current latest-greatest "thing"; so what is it is for cars? Some things never change. Realize that "fashion" controls most of us more than substance. Thank God for real car guys. Think about it.

Jud
 
#354 · (Edited)
My gosh, i'm enjoying this intelligent debate, I tip my hat to you sir....

I think you'll find that the last decade of power wars is going to start to come to a close. Cafe and Euro Cap are about to come down like a plauge of locusts
Agreed, the flip side of this, is there's only so much power that is reasonable to put in untrained hands on public roads, My friends new M5 disappoints him, he always wanted one yet one thing or another has had him buy escalades, 7 series, 550i, A5, anyways he finally gets one and its so ungodly powerful, that its lost a lot of its fun, limits so high its boring unless driven way illegally, and you always catch up with traffic right before things get interesting, he feels he would have been most satisfied with an M5 two M5's ago, and misses his 750li m-sport that he traded in on the M5. like the saying goes "it's more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow"

You just need something that's somewhat comparable, if everything else is great then that makes up for it.
I would agree with this in an ideal world, yet what i hear too often is "this is a Cadillac?!!!!!" this surprise in strangers at random places i go tells me that the word isn't out that Cadillac is making these types of cars (they are relatively new at it), which leads me to the thought that the value may not be there because of this. so price/performance being equal buyers are more likely to buy what they're familiar with as a sports sedan. so a tweak in the value, same for slightly less money, or more for same money, might turn heads Cadillac way.

I would remind you that phones are created by technology companies of which very few actually just build phones. The software that works so well is made by Apple and Google, and I must reinforce that none of these companies design hardware cycles for the length of time a car sees, or the condition a cars sees, and the ones that make the software, make it one of their primary products.
CUE is more the result of a development time that is twice the length of this rather than GM not knowing what they're doing. Hardware is easy, it's software that's the hard part, and the software that works which you suggest they take a page from, also is backed by companies with 10 fold the net worth of GM global combined, they also don't have to design a car in the mean time.
Alan Mullaly (ford CEO, ex Boeing exec) is quoted in an interview with Leo Laporte at CES as saying when asked why he was at CES something like 'the modern car company in this day and age is a tech company and its important to keep up'.

and net worth, is just numbers on a ledger, it's not the people and talent, which when you compare Apple/Google the highest valued companies engineering staff, to GM's it is Apple/Google that is dwarfed, keep in mind, GM built the lunar rover (Delco), they're one of the owners of Direct tv (owned by Hughes, which is owned by Raytheon, which is partly owned by GM), Raytheon, Onstar, XM, not to mention their traditional engine, chassis, manufacturing, engineers. the sheer talent they could tap into is mind boggling. GM's ceo could practically pick up the phone and ask for the software that could enable him to target a fly and knock a wing off of it with a slingshot from across the a parking lot, all while streaming audio to just about every GM car with XM and have a video feed to sat tv viewers. my thought of buying a phone company is to bolster them in the area of consumer electronics, and help focus GM in the Mullaly defined arena of cars as tech.

EDIT... that being said, i recall several years ago reading that Google has more engineering PHD's on staff than anybody, so you have a very good point on that front.

EDIT #2

just stumbled across this

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57592188-94/app-store-in-the-drivers-seat-here-comes-your-next-car/
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top