Cadillac Owners Forum banner

Cadillac ATS-V is probably getting a twin turbo 3.6 liter V6

73K views 318 replies 40 participants last post by  iVwishing 
#1 ·
The ATS-V might not be getting a V8 or TT 3.0 after all. Now it looks like GM is favoring a twin turbo 3.6 liter V6. More displacement (over the 3.0) certainly doesn't bother me. What I wonder now is if it'll be a true twin turbo or a twin "scroll" turbo...

The CTS and XTS will still be getting the 3.0 liter twin turbo V6 engine...
 
#157 ·
Your life story and resume don't do a thing to shore up your metaphorical slapdashery.

And your impressive inside knowledge obtained from your Cadillac connections on what the ATS-V will have changes nothing about the relative merits of the two powertrains or the fact that your list of advantages were based on a foundation of what could be compared to what is. Either that or you're still having trouble acknowledging that 460hp > 420hp.

I'm not saying the ATS-V couldn't possibly have a TTV6. I merely offered counterpoint to your enthusiastic but not very robust "checklist" "proving" a TTV6 to be better than the LT1 for the ATS-V. You're welcome to your preference, but don't act like it's obviously technically superior (it isn't) or even obviously a more fitting choice.

And repeating your conspiracy theory of Chevrolet holding back Cadillac doesn't make it any more true. There is a simpler, more straightforward, and more believeable explanation, which someone with your legendary history shouldn't have trouble seeing. You seem a little too wound up.

I'm sure the ATS-V will be a thrilling ride no matter which engine ends up under the hood.
 
#159 ·
you CTS-v guys are seriously funny easily bothered people, crying afoul one persons belief that one model of a car is likely going to have a certain engine equates to hatred of the v8, or the the technical superiority of one over the other. my so called resume was offered to counter any belief that any may have that I'm a v8 hater, it was obviously lost on you. so to each his own, and hopefully you CTS guys will leave us ats guys alone to talk about our cars in peace in an open minded place. too bad, it's lost on you guys that you are exhibiting the very closed mindedness in favor of your beloved motor that you are accusing me of, makes me laugh.
 
#160 ·
I see. Not accepting wishful thinking ("look at the boxes the TTV6 ticks off that play into the overall goals for this car") as fact makes people closed-minded. BTW, the ATS-V Series Forum isn't yours. Talk about your ATS in peace all you like in ATS General, but don't get your feelings hurt when you come here to talk about the future ATS-V and your checkbox conclusions are questioned. That would be closed-minded. Or at least making posts that read like a blunt instrument. Maybe, if you'd stuck to the car instead of making it about who you are vs who I am and whipping the oh-so-tired "hater" label around like overcooked spaghetti, we'd have gotten somewhere interesting instead of dramatic. But I'm glad to hear you're laughing -- you're not alone there.
 
#164 ·
you're funny, last i checked this is the ATS section as an owner of one of these this place is for me as much as anybody else, and as far as facts go if you think anything said in this section about a non-existing model in a wishful thinking engine thread is fact then that's something else you have to work out. you're wrong I'm right in my mind, I'm wrong you're right in yours, it's all conjecture until Cadillac pulls the wraps off the car, until then it's wishfull debate, nothing more.

a side note, I will get to drive a pre-production CTS v-sport probably end of summer beginning of fall, on a car that will be 300lbs heavier than ATS the target of 4.6 0-60 for the twin turbo 8speed combo should be quite interesting debate fodder.
 
#162 ·
Yes, the story of the Pontiac Banshee, which happened 49 years ago, is pretty well documented. Of course, some things have changed since then. What hasn't changed is the oversimplifying-to-the-point-of-mischaracterization nature of the original comment:

I suspect Chevy has a lock on that motor I don't think they're letting cadillac have the fun they want, I don't see another logical reason cadillac would want the camaro to have 580hp and the corvette 638hp to Cadillacs 556hp with the same motor.
LS9 was a hand-built exotic-internals engine. CTS-V blew everyone away and grabbed the fastest production sedan lap time at Nurburgring without being a tiny-volume too-expensive-for-a-Cadillac stunt.

The Camaro ZL1 was a critically-necessary response to the Mustang GT500. While I'm sure we'd all be over the moon had that updated engine been backported to the CTS-V, maybe reclaim the edge over the new M5, is "Chevy won't let Cadillac have it" the only possible reason? How about the cost of recertifying in the fourth year versus the sales benefit. Or all the other critical projects keeping GM and Cadillac busy.

But let's not forget that the context of this quote is the ATS-V's engine choice, and the "that motor" we're talking about is the LT1. Is it reasonable to think GM wouldn't let Cadillac have the LT1 for a MY2015 BMW M3 fighter because of Chevy protectionism? Quite simply no. The first CTS-V got the tip-of-the-sword LS6; the GTO got the LS1 and got the LS2 a year later -- in C6's debut year no less. And the ATS-V is too important to Cadillac to hold anything back for Chevy pride. If the brain trust deems the LT1 necessary for ATS-V's success, it'll have it.

Not to say that there's no lingering sentiment of protectionism, but it's naive to think it's the driving force in GM product planning today. It's less unlikely that Cadillac's own sense of pride tilts it toward using a motor it can call its own, but we should hope they've learned from past attempts that it's more important to build a winning car.

Picking a TTV6 over the LT1 is a risky move, and if they go that way, I really hope they build a winner, and I'm worried the LF3 as we've seen it so far may not be enough. Few competitors are as daunting as the M3, and market biases being what they are, Cadillac cannot afford to show up with fewer ponies. Then again, maybe with the V6 they say "damn the gaskets, full boost ahead!"

BTW, anyone interested in GM politics should read Car Guys vs Bean Counters by Bob Lutz. And the dated but still illuminating All Corvettes Are Red by James Schefter. There are other good books, but these are fascinating reads.

.Jinx
 
#163 ·
Also, the ATS-V will probably be significantly heavier than the C7 and is designed for a different market, so putting an LT1 in it won't take away from C7 sales. While we're at it, why not add the Tremec 6070 and 2-stage exhaust, too? Now that's a winning package for the ATS-V!

Jud
 
#171 ·
too bad you just can't handle opinions other than yours, it's ok, your chip your shoulder.....but you're a fellow petrol head / car nut so it's ok......car guys can be given extra latitude besides smelling too much gasoline will do that

I have the full specs will post tomorrow

oh....and a case of beer says it a ttv6
 
#172 ·
Pot, meet kettle. You're the one who went all drama queen and whipped out your life story when I disagreed with your V6 superiority checklist. The problem isn't that I can't handle your opinion, it's that I did handle it. You've been bristling with "don't criticize my comments" defensiveness poorly disguised as jokey jabs ever since. But I trust that the discussions about cars will continue.
 
#173 ·
of course it will continue, but you err in your assumption that i consider the V6 superior, which is why i shared a little background showing a couple much loved v8's in my past and present (again this effort was lost on you), instead of the assertion, and my belief the v6 is right for the ATS, que será, será. as far as my being a defensive, drama queen, jokey jabber, keep on hurling these at me, it matters not, but if it strokes your ego to lob the zingers, i'm glad to be of service keep firing away, and if someone sharing some background, and some levity bothers you (as it really does seem to you keep bringing it up) as i said before, your chip, your shoulder, have fun with that.

as promised:

'14 CTS Premium 3.6 RWD - base curb weight is 3843lbs - price $64,500
'14 CTS V-Sport - base curb weight is 3950lbs - price $59,070
'14 CTS V-Sport - Premium base curb weight is 3950lbs - price $69,070

so a reasonable guestimate for the drivetrain upgrade and it's accouterments is 107lbs

one thing i find interesting is the $10k bump in price and equipment for the two V-Sports and no weight gain.

FWIW, the old CTS added 333 pounds to get from 3.6 Premium to V; of course, that's a bigger jump...
subtracting the weight of the supercharger, 300 approximate pounds v8 over v6 vs 100 approximate pounds turbo v6 over na v6 bodes well for my argument, not to mention the longer block pushing the weight forward having more effect on weight balance.
 
#176 ·
pissedoffwookiee said:
of course it will continue, but you err in your assumption that i consider the V6 superior, which is why i shared a little background showing a couple much loved v8's in my past and present (again this effort was lost on you), instead of the assertion, and my belief the v6 is right for the ATS, que será, será. as far as my being a defensive, drama queen, jokey jabber, keep on hurling these at me, it matters not, but if it strokes your ego to lob the zingers, i'm glad to be of service keep firing away, and if someone sharing some background, and some levity bothers you (as it really does seem to you keep bringing it up) as i said before, your chip, your shoulder, have fun with that.

as promised:

'14 CTS Premium 3.6 RWD - base curb weight is 3843lbs - price $64,500
'14 CTS V-Sport - base curb weight is 3950lbs - price $59,070
'14 CTS V-Sport - Premium base curb weight is 3950lbs - price $69,070

so a reasonable guestimate for the drivetrain upgrade and it's accouterments is 107lbs

one thing i find interesting is the $10k bump in price and equipment for the two V-Sports and no weight gain.

subtracting the weight of the supercharger, 300 approximate pounds v8 over v6 vs 100 approximate pounds turbo v6 over na v6 bodes well for my argument, not to mention the longer block pushing the weight forward having more effect on weight balance.
The Vsport Platinum has a roof... and it weighs the same? Not sure about that one.

The LT1 will not be 300 lbs over the LFX/LLT. There's an existing post with a link for the weight of the LT1 and someone commented with the weight of both versions of the V6.
 
#179 · (Edited)
to me the evidence points to the TTV6, the ATS is in lockstep with the 3 series, if the new M3 retained the V8, then maybe, but look at the boxes the TTV6 ticks off that play into the overall goals for this car:
dude get off your soap box and put away your violin you keep saying I'm implying facts but cannot decifer the words actually there, let alone acknowledge what everyone else knows that this thread is pure conjecture until the car is revealed.

to me the evidence points to the TTV6
means in my opinion and minor bits of news/info may lead to a particular engine choice in this case the v6

the ATS is in lockstep with the 3 series
Cadillac has stated as much, they even pinpointed the e46 as the very 3 series they benchmarked


if the new M3 retained the V8, then maybe
if = allowing that or whether
maybe = perhaps or uncertainty

multiple times in one post that you fixated on, I squarely put my words as my opinion let alone skipped over the implication that we discussing this in a guessing game thread can only put forth opinion, unless a poster actually making the car is here leaking info, there can be no fact. the worst you can accuse me of is having an opinion on which motor I feel is better suited for the ats-v, I never said overall one is superior over the other, and I never claimed my thoughts on the v6 were ever fact. no matter how hard you try the strongest language you'll find on this subject from me is my stating Cadillac will make the ttv6 their hero engine something they've come close to doing already with the CTS V-Sport and XTS V-Sport.

bottom line get over it

happy 4th of July :thumbsup:
 
#182 ·
Once we see full specs for the new CTS, specifically the weight difference between the 3.6 Premium and the Vsport, we'll have a better idea of how much weight to add to the ATS 3.6 Premium RWD. I think 200 lbs is a good place to start, but don't be heartbroken if it ends up being a little more; the ATS was trimmed down so much it may need more beefing up than we're used to. FWIW, the old CTS added 333 pounds to get from 3.6 Premium to V; of course, that's a bigger jump...
I would be surprised if it needed any 'beefing up'

Cadillac learned with the V1 that they need to design the platform with a V model in mind. They did that with the V2 and all of the weight from that car came from the upgraded power train, brakes and rear diff. There were no strutural reinforcements that I'm aware of aside from sway bars and the fact that they deleted rear folding seats for a marginally larger gas tank.
 
#183 ·
But how much mass was added to the base second-generation CTS to make it strong enough for the V? It's no featherweight.

They may have learned not to add V strength to the base model. In other words, they may have chosen to add a few pounds of beef to the small-volume high-hp model to save a few pounds on the high-volume every-gram-counts-for-CAFE models.

I'd expect engineers to lean slightly toward mass savings on the compact and lean slightly toward strength on the midsize. Though we may even find with the next CTS-V that GM leaned toward mass savings on both platforms.
 
#184 · (Edited)
But how much mass was added to the base second-generation CTS to make it strong enough for the V? It's no featherweight.
Your analogy doesn't work.

The base CTS was heavy for it's size when it launched in 08. Mostly because Simga II was grossly weight inefficient. The 1st generation CTS was not exactly petite either.

The ATS is not heavy at all for it's size.

It has a very rigid uni body and a 5 link rear suspension that just needs some tighter bushings to cope with non RFT tires. The standard cars already make use of strut stabilizer bars and ultra high strength steel in critical areas. Any weight increases are going to come from bigger brakes, a bigger engine, and maybe the trans. I say maybe because I would bet money on the new tremec's reuse for the ATS-V, and possibly use of a 6L50E in the automatic version. Otherwise you're talking about outsourcing, a 50E over the 45E that's used in current cars brings about a 10-25lb weight disadvantage.
 
#185 ·
Your analogy doesn't work.
It was your analogy -- you said they built the second-gen CTS platform with the V model in mind:

Cadillac learned with the V1 that they need to design the platform with a V model in mind. They did that with the V2 and all of the weight from that car came from the upgraded power train, brakes and rear diff. There were no strutural reinforcements that I'm aware of aside from sway bars and the fact that they deleted rear folding seats for a marginally larger gas tank.
That's partly why, as you said

The base CTS was heavy for it's size when it launched in 08.
I contend that the CTS 2.0 was heavier than it needed to be as a 300hp luxury sedan in order to be strong enough to be great as a 550hp M-class sport sedan.

The ATS is not heavy at all for it's size.
Exactly, it was optimized to be just strong enough. GM made a point of this in their press outings. Is it inconceiveable that they chose to leave the added strength for a 450+hp M version out of the base chassis in order to optimize the 320hp version? That's why I say don't be heartbroken if the math for brakes + drivetrain doesn't quite cover the mass delta from ATS Premium to ATS-V. Of course, they may also subtract mass from the base car with more exotic materials. After all, we can see from the way ATS and CTS 3.0 are priced that Cadillac isn't trying to be the bargain choice anymore.

.Jinx
 
#186 · (Edited)
I contend that the CTS 2.0 was heavier than it needed to be as a 300hp luxury sedan in order to be strong enough to be great as a 550hp M-class sport sedan.
It was heavy because it used a revised Sigma platform, which, like most GM products before it were grossly weight inefficient. It didn't make use of a lot of high strength steel and the platform itself needed to be cost effective for it's tweener price range. The bits that were introduced for the V were very lightweight.

IE the aluminum/magnesium front cradle, the front tower brace, the revised points for the rear-end carrier, the folding seat delete..

The first generation CTS was by comparison, similarly heavy for it's size compared to other vehicles in it's class, most of which were larger. It was not CTS-V optimized I will add.

Is it inconceivable that they chose to leave the added strength for a 450+hp M version out of the base chassis in order to optimize the 320hp version?
You can conceive anything you wish. However, if you want to theorize based on what the Germans --and Cadillac-- have said works in the past, then there will be no structural reinforcements to the ATS-V. I might concede to bigger strut tower bars(the spy photos of the F80 has them), but if you're suggesting uni body or sub frame changes, no.

Exactly, it was optimized to be just strong enough. GM made a point of this in their press outings.
GM made a point to beat the 3 series first and foremost. Weight savings in design and use of materials was one of the methods used to accomplish this. I never once read their press material and read it as 'we could have done better but decided not to' Your point of 'strong enough' might only be applied in a few quips about how they considered fastener size even in trying to figure out what was the minimum required to keep the bits together. I can assure you, they didn't compromise uni body rigidity, and if you believe they did, I'm not certain you've ever really driven an ATS.

Remember, this platform is going to be used not just in the Cadillac, but in the Camaro and who knows what else.

What specific changes do you anticipate they'll make in order to accomplish this vague idea of a stiffer uni body or structure for the ATS-V? I would very much like for you to go in detail.
 
#191 ·
It was heavy because it used a revised Sigma platform, which, like most GM products before it were grossly weight inefficient. It didn't make use of a lot of high strength steel and the platform itself needed to be cost effective for it's tweener price range. The bits that were introduced for the V were very lightweight.

IE the aluminum/magnesium front cradle, the front tower brace, the revised points for the rear-end carrier, the folding seat delete..

The first generation CTS was by comparison, similarly heavy for it's size compared to other vehicles in it's class, most of which were larger. It was not CTS-V optimized I will add.
We all know past GM platforms were overweight. But if you're saying that NONE of the CTS 2.0 mass was there to provide added strength for V duty, then what was the point of your original comment that CTS 1.0 wasn't designed with the V in mind but CTS 2.0 was?

However, if you want to theorize based on what the Germans --and Cadillac-- have said works in the past, then there will be no structural reinforcements to the ATS-V. I might concede to bigger strut tower bars(the spy photos of the F80 has them), but if you're suggesting uni body or sub frame changes, no.
What worked in the past didn't necessarily produce the optimally-efficient base car. That's a lot more important today than it used to be. Also, platform engineering and manufacturing are more flexible than ever before -- even the terms "platform" and "architecture" have been stretched quite a bit.

And I'm not casting aspersions on the engineering of the ATS as you suggest I am -- quite the opposite, I'm saying the ATS was optimized to an extent beyond what GM has done before, nothing there that isn't needed. Watch GM guys' talks about the ATS and you'll pick up what I'm talking about. It will take me a while to dig back through all that and pull some quotes; I'll try to find the time. (Finding that ATS video you saw 18 months ago, not always easy.)

Remember, this platform is going to be used not just in the Cadillac, but in the Camaro and who knows what else.
And the Camaro and CTS won't use all the same body stampings. Do we even know how much of the suspension and drivetrain components in the CTS are common to the ATS? Obviously a low-volume ATS-V won't be as different, but it doesn't have to be identical either.

What specific changes do you anticipate they'll make in order to accomplish this vague idea of a stiffer uni body or structure for the ATS-V? I would very much like for you to go in detail.[/QUOTE] Beyond bigger strut tower bars? Front subframe, crossmember, engine cradle; maybe stiffening where the rear suspension mounts to the body. The flared rear fenders that everybody wants are unique stamping, so I don't discount the possibility of tweaked structure between them. Rear diff and halfshafts too, though that's drivetrain weight :) -edit- Undercarriage braces? Maybe.

.Jinx
 
#187 ·
Gentleman,

to add to this, Cadillac did plan on the CTS-V when designing the CTS unibody, so no structural changes were made, i recall this being said in their press, and in the series of Nurburgring developement videos, and they were representing it as 'if strong enough for V then its good for everybody'.

further evidence of this was with the V-Wagon, i also recall reading (it was either in autoline or automotive news) they were still on the fence as whether to create one or not for about a year and a half, in the end what convinced cadillac was how easy it was to do since all the pieces were there already and the article stated that because of this they only needed to sell something like 42 of them for the V-Wagon to be profitable.

that said we are in the 'lightweight euro cap/cafe era' and as i see it, there is the possibility that it needs beefing up, i'm leaning toward the use of high strength steel for weight savings having a double purpose with the v in mind. i'll quote Martin Whitmarsh Team Principal for McLaren F1 when asked if the loss of their trick downforce producing exhaust due to regulation changes would hurt the team, he responded "probably not much, once an engineer has learned a perfomance enhancing trick he cannot unlearn it". I'm thinking the same is going on with the V team on the ATS
 
#188 · (Edited)
that said we are in the 'lightweight euro cap/cafe era' and as i see it, there is the possibility that it needs beefing up
There it is again, vagueness, what specifically, needs beefing up? Are you talking about undercarriage braces? About strut tower bars?

or are you talking about unibody changes, subframe changes, or something else?

The former is feasible, the latter is not. Suggesting the car is somehow structurally compromised for the sake of weight savings is far fetched.

What it might need, is some lateral supports to account for uneven weight distribution to re balance the handling characteristics of the car that people like, which is why I suspect the F80 uses a big fat brace on the front of the spy photos we've seen. It lacks one entirely compared to the ATS which already has 2 a arms jutting from the strut towers (mostly because they're aluminum and need it).
 
#190 ·
I'm just going to have to disagree then. That would be gigantically cost prohibitive, and we already know a 420HP longer wheel base of this car is using the exact same unibody. We also know the Camaro will use a shortened alpha unibody which has the potential to go well over 500Hp. They're going to do a one-off design for a < 3K unit a year car and then run that through all the safety and homoglation required (millions of dollars)? Not buying it.
 
#192 ·
We all know past GM platforms were overweight. But if you're saying that NONE of the CTS 2.0 mass was there to provide added strength for V duty, then what was the point of your original comment that CTS 1.0 wasn't designed with the V in mind but CTS 2.0 was
I did not say none of the weight was relevant. You stated the CTS 2 weighed so much because it was designed for a V. That has no evidence to support that other than your opinions. I on the other hand explained that Sigma is an overweight platform anyway by evidence of the CTS 1 which was not designed for a V and still weighed too much. The CTS 2 was a larger car and they strengthened some bits to provide for a safer more rigid structure as well.

And the Camaro and CTS won't use all the same body stampings. Do we even know how much of the suspension and drivetrain components in the CTS are common to the ATS? Obviously a low-volume ATS-V won't be as different, but it doesn't have to be identical either.
By nature of riding on the same platform, they will have McPherson aluminum front suspension and a steel 5 link rear. I expect they will be stretched versions of these components.

Beyond bigger strut tower bars? Front subframe, crossmember, engine cradle; maybe stiffening where the rear suspension mounts to the body. The flared rear fenders that everybody wants are unique stamping, so I don't discount the possibility of tweaked structure between them. Rear diff and halfshafts too, though that's drivetrain weight -edit- Undercarriage braces? Maybe.
I could see front subframe modifications only in the circumstance that they use an LT1, or that the LF3 for some reason doesn't already fit in the LFX's mounting locations. Stiffing though? I couldn't comment.
 
#194 ·
Gas mpg with ATS and sports car is a ridiculous conversation.

I have 2 ATS's my wife's 2.5L 4 cyl at best gets 22 mpg. The advertized mpg for ATS is a complete joke.

why spend extra money on the V if it is just a 3.6. Get the current 3.6 and add a supercharger kit. No turbo lag and no extra $$ for it being the V model.

I love my ATS with premium package. 3.6 L with new programming, running premium gas and axle back exhaust dumped the huge muffler.

it rocks sounds magnificent at the hood and at the tail and immediately responds to a smash of the pedal to the floor.

I am just waiting for kpe to release supercharger kit. Bet u my 2013 sc 3.6 will smoke the whimpy turbo lag! I don't give a flip bout mpg. The stock engine mpg already sucked, and I don't fill up any more often now.
 
#197 ·
What's difficult to understand about the fact that some people daily drive their performance cars?

I never did understand why people were so concerned about modifying their cars for more power. If you wanted more power, why didn't you just buy a more powerful car in the first place? ;)
 
#198 ·
Gas mpg with ATS and sports car is a ridiculous conversation.
Sports cars get excellent MPG. The new Corvette will hit 30 mph highway(so did the old ones). My 25 year old C4 easily manages 20+. Various other 2 door coupes get excellent mileage.

Super sedans, traditionally get horrible MPG because they use the same huge engines in a car that weighs a half ton more than the coupes which use the same engines.

a twin turbo V6 in a 3600lb platform has no reason to not manage at least 25 highway. Plastering 'low mpg because racecar' signage in this era of fuel economy conscious consumers is the ridiculous conversation. Not the other way around.
 
#199 ·
M5eater said:
Sports cars get excellent MPG. The new Corvette will hit 30 mph highway(so did the old ones). My 25 year old C4 easily manages 20+. Various other 2 door coupes get excellent mileage.

Super sedans, traditionally get horrible MPG because they use the same huge engines in a car that weighs a half ton more than the coupes which use the same engines.

a twin turbo V6 in a 3600lb platform has no reason to not manage at least 25 highway. Plastering 'low mpg because racecar' signage in this era of fuel economy conscious consumers is the ridiculous conversation. Not the other way around.
What about real world mpg when you have to be in boost all the time to keep up because you have very little displacement? Forget EPA figures, they only apply if you drive like your grandparents. Those that own the great Ford Ecoboost engines may be experiencing that phenomena. So lets wait and see what real world results are, not projected EPA figures.

Jud
 
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