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...
 
#236 ·
LS7 aside (and I admit that's a point that is VERY hard to push aside) I would rather build up the suspension on my SS than buy a Z/28. Pedders has pretty much a complete kit that will likely blow away the 1LE and even the Z/28 itself from a pure handling standpoint. But I would imagine their kit would be even worse for ride quality than either.

What I would love to do is get rid of the SUV wheels and tires and go to a smaller wheel with a lower profile tire. Take about 2-3" off the overall diameter. And cut 150 lbs of unsprung weight in the process. That alone would improve both ride and handling. Problem is that I would have to change the rear end to compensate for the higher revs and fuel consumption.

In the end, I will likely just wait for the Buick Grand National. If it's a ~$30k ATS turbo, I'm all in.
 
#240 ·
In the end, if I do ever buy another car to replace the ATS and C4 I'm sure it'll be a 2SS or something as well, I've had a GTO/ Terminator on the brain for a while, but.. dead car brand vibes are hard to shake and the termi is rocking an interior and unibody from 96.
 
#237 · (Edited)
I would love the LS7 in the ATS-V and I would be willing to pay extra since it is a hand-built engine. If it is going in the Z28, it might make business sense, too. And the best part is that it wouldn't have the DOD and stop-engine-off crap. Paired with the TR6070, highway mileage could be in the mid-to-high 20's. Recall that the LS6 went into the first 2 model years of the initial generation of the CTS-V, so there's precedent. Then we wouldn't have to worry with the embarrassment of a buzzy 6 cylinder engine in a true "V."

Jud
 
#241 ·
The LS7 isn't going to remain in production long enough to make it into the 6th Gen Camaro Z28 - the engine will be dead before then. In regards to the LS6 being in the CTS-V equals a "precedent" for the ATS-V, no. The LS6 was in its day GM's "top dog" engine, later the "top dog" LSA in the current gen. The LS7 will not appear in an ATS-V or CTS-V, end of story. The engine is not only not intended for volume applications, its WAY too expensive, way too rough, and (personally) I don't think the engine belongs in a Cadillac. The engine is a back-fisted brawler chock full of brutally raw power and noise - perfect for a Corvette - but lacks the refinement Cadillac (in theory) needs to market. I loved driving the Z06 when I had the opportunity - but having actually driven one - I don't think it'd be a good fit (and I don't know if the ATS could even accommodate the cooling module...).
JimmyH said:
In the end, I will likely just wait for the Buick Grand National. If it's a ~$30k ATS turbo, I'm all in.
Not going to happen at that price tag. GM wouldn't even put the "Grand National" sticker on a Regal GS, a ~$40k car (soon to be going up, too) - they're not going to put that name on a $30k car, end of story.
Of course there is alot of talk of a revived GNX. If the ATS-V bows with a TT3.6, and then they bring on the GNX with the same engine, they will have to make sure the ATS-V has more power.
If the Grand National is a "we don't even know if we'll make it" from GM, the GNX is even less likely - but if they did make a GNX, it wouldn't have to be restricted to less power than the ATS-V. It'd likely be a low volume production trim (like the ZR1/ZL1/Z28) with a pretty crazy pricetag to match its rarity - and I'd expect them to do a run of 547 cars to match the original. In 87' when a Grand National stickered for $18k, the GNX option added $10k to the car - moving it from a $40k car in today's dollars to a $60k car - and that'd be one hard pill to swallow for a Buick.
 
#238 ·
Well that is just the thing. With the 6th gen Camaro coming, it doesn't make sense to put a big V8 in the ATS.
Of course there is alot of talk of a revived GNX. If the ATS-V bows with a TT3.6, and then they bring on the GNX with the same engine, they will have to make sure the ATS-V has more power. At that point, either a higher output V6, or maybe then an LS. I just don't see it as they have stated they are competing with the M3, and an Alpha Camaro SS is coming soon.
 
#239 ·
JimmyH said:
Well that is just the thing. With the 6th gen Camaro coming, it doesn't make sense to put a big V8 in the ATS.
Of course there is alot of talk of a revived GNX. If the ATS-V bows with a TT3.6, and then they bring on the GNX with the same engine, they will have to make sure the ATS-V has more power. At that point, either a higher output V6, or maybe then an LS. I just don't see it as they have stated they are competing with the M3, and an Alpha Camaro SS is coming soon.
Well, this is a good discussion and could go on for sometime, unless Cadillac decides to quit playing marketing games and gives its real customer base some meaningful information. The Frankfort show would be a perfect time. Ha haa! To say hello to BMW.

Jud
 
#242 ·
Food for thought... Then I'll fall back. Last year of Undergrad for me.

If the LT1, LS7, V8TT is deemed too heavy for the Alpha chassis and will theoretically unbalance the handling dynamics of the frame, then why isn't there an uproar regarding the CTS-V3 which we ASSUME will have a larger displacement engine than the LF3 on the same platform?
 
#247 ·
bruff1977 said:
Food for thought... Then I'll fall back. Last year of Undergrad for me. If the LT1, LS7, V8TT is deemed too heavy for the Alpha chassis and will theoretically unbalance the handling dynamics of the frame, then why isn't there an uproar regarding the CTS-V3 which we ASSUME will have a larger displacement engine than the LF3 on the same platform?
The next Camaro will have a V8 and it is going to be built on Alpha so we already know that Alpha can handle a V8 !
 
#248 ·
Do you guys remember when someone from the car mags heard what was believed to be an ATS-V prototype going by and said that it sounded "aggressive," or words to that effect? Well, that should be a clue that a V8 is probably in the cards. The TTV6 insect isn't in that league. I just wished Cadillac would get on with it. I guess they need to test a real M3 to make sure the ATS-V thoroughly kicks its ass.

Jud
 
#249 ·
An "aggressive" note may not be a V8 - just aggressive. Sound is in the eye of the beholder and based on personal preference. Many people think the new F1 engines sound like vacuume cleaners - too bad unrestricted they happen to be "vacuume cleaners" with a specific horsepower per liter that'd make any production car weep. Not only that, but tuning an engine has an incredible amount of impact on the engine's sound - look up the Ghost Cam tunes.

And Cadillac tested the ATS-V against an M3. Welcome to June.

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/2015-cadillac-ats-v-testing-with-bmw-m3-227871.html#axzz2VB6gevE8
 
#250 ·
roadpie4u said:
An "aggressive" note may not be a V8 - just aggressive. Sound is in the eye of the beholder and based on personal preference. Many people think the new F1 engines sound like vacuume cleaners - too bad unrestricted they happen to be "vacuume cleaners" with a specific horsepower per liter that'd make any production car weep. Not only that, but tuning an engine has an incredible amount of impact on the engine's sound - look up the Ghost Cam tunes. And Cadillac tested the ATS-V against an M3. Welcome to June. http://rumors.automobilemag.com/2015-cadillac-ats-v-testing-with-bmw-m3-227871.html#axzz2VB6gevE8
I don't think the last generation M3 is Cadillac's real target, only all they had at the time. You're right that we can have different opinions about what constitutes aggressive engine exhaust sound; and my opinion is that V6's sound like insects. Why else would Cadillac be messing with a variation of the last generation M5's piped-in engine sound? Putting lipstick on a pig is not acceptable for a real "V."

Jud
 
#251 ·
I don't think the last generation M3 is Cadillac's real target, only all they had at the time.
It's been said Cadillac beat BMW at their own game with the 3 series. Personally, I prefer the "days of yore" 3 series that were stripped down lightweight corner carving machines. With today's safety features and requirements, that's pretty much impossible in a new car - but I think the ATS handles and rides very well. While GM only could use the last 3 series to benchmark, we now know the direction BMW went with the newest 3 series, and we can realistically infer what the new M3 will be capable of based off its chassis design and the 3 series of the past and what improvements they made from the 328i-335i-M3. As GM buys a brand new 3 series (several, in reality) and meticulously takes them apart bolt by bolt to learn anything they can about their designs - as EVERY manufacturer does - I doubt they'll miss anything.

In terms of "piped-in engine sound" I totally agree - its one seriously tough nut to crack. With people expecting cars to be quieter than ever and modern DI engines having a "diesel" quality to their notes, it's no shock that manufacturers are fighting NVH for performance and cruising on the highway as the two states are in absolute conflict. This is typically solved one of three ways - fancy stereo stereo technology, resonators that try to increase certain frequencies to pass them into the cabin, or an active butterfly valve in the exhaust system that opens under certain conditions when you "give it the beans". Personally, I believe that a valve is the most ideal, and hope that is the direction GM takes with all of their performance vehicles in the future - it provides a genuine "raw mechanical" sound while also effectively requiring the stock exhaust system provide enough flow to make an aftermarket catback virtually unnecessary (which is great when you mod your car). I like having a good catback - but I've yet to have small kids or females that loved that loud drone on the highway. On my grandprix (ZZP downpipe, GMPP catback) it made the backseat effectively unhabitable on the highway due to resonance. I won't dare risk that in my ATS.
 
#252 ·
IMO there is nothing better sounding than a healthy V8 with an decent exhaust setup, but again I think there's been enough press on the matter of the ATS-V by now to leave little doubt that it'll be a TT V6 powering it - in whatever state of tune. And as already established in the XTS, GM "enhances" the exhaust sound there with piped in speaker enhancement. This DI engine note is definitely distinctive, and not in a good way IMO, and I've no previous experience with such to know if a purely mechanical solution can actually help improve things there.
 
#254 ·
Well, riding lawnmowers sound aggressive, too, but I don't think that a car mag guy would envision that engine in the top of the line, real "V" model, either; therefore, I don't think that the passing prototype was confused with a TTV6 insect. However, I'm sure that it would be a good subject for Tool Time. Ha haa!

Jud
 
#255 ·
This whole insect vs arachnid thing may have already been decided by GM ... we may just be farting in the wind. It reminds me of the discussions on this forum of the '09 CTS-V powerplant ... those were epic.

I'm reading stuff about the '14 CTS, and it's really good ... REALLY good. We should not be disappointed if the ATS-V comes with the TTV6, because it should exceed the very capable CTS-Vsport, and that would mean the CTS-V is gonna be one very incredible car. This is ALL going to be good ... REALLY good.
 
#257 ·
You've got too be kidding me. You can't possibly be that ignorant to think that only a v8 is a worthy engine. If so you probably have the wrong car and the wrong forum. The purpose of designing the ATS in the first place was to build a modern luxury performance sports sedan to compete with the rest of the world, namely BMW. Your backward thinking and traditionalist philosophy is the very reason why cadillac has been stuck in the Stone Age for so long when it comes to this competitive class of automobile. You need to buy yourself either a comfortable STS or a used c5 corvette and stay away from this category of car completely. I agree the LS motor is one of the greatest motors ever designed and it has many great uses, but if you have followed the luxury sports sedan market for any length of time you would know that you can't be afraid to try new things.
 
#259 ·
nachopappyscaddy said:
You've got too be kidding me. You can't possibly be that ignorant to think that only a v8 is a worthy engine. If so you probably have the wrong car and the wrong forum. The purpose of designing the ATS in the first place was to build a modern luxury performance sports sedan to compete with the rest of the world, namely BMW. Your backward thinking and traditionalist philosophy is the very reason why cadillac has been stuck in the Stone Age for so long when it comes to this competitive class of automobile. You need to buy yourself either a comfortable STS or a used c5 corvette and stay away from this category of car completely. I agree the LS motor is one of the greatest motors ever designed and it has many great uses, but if you have followed the luxury sports sedan market for any length of time you would know that you can't be afraid to try new things.
We all have the right to our opinions, even you, infantile ranting notwithstanding. You probably aren't old enough to know any better, so you get a free pass for youthful ignorance.

Jud
 
#260 ·
Latest issue of Motor Trend, in the "Motor Trend Confidential" section,

"He [Mark Reuss] confirmed that the Alpha architecture underpinnig the ATS is designed to accept a V-8. Hello, ATS-V."

I say "hello, Camaro," but this statement does give me a little hope. The only reason ATS-V isn't an option for me is if there is no V8 in it. We shall see.
 
#261 ·
Alpha being "protected" for a V8 isn't news - that's been an accepted part of the plan for a long time now - well over a year. In truth, alpha was package protected for every car engine GM made and had in the production plan for the next decade. But that doesn't mean anything for either the ATS or CTS. Just because the chassis is capable of it on a drawing board doesn't mean variations can't eliminate certain options.

And it's not just a matter of the physical engine - it's the transmission tunnel. Rear cradle. Cooling package. Suspension mount locations. Etc. The CTS's front end and grille the size of a semi? Not for no reason. The TTV6 makes a lot of heat, and the engine in the CTS-V is going to make even more.

The engine for the ATS-V has already been decided, and it'll be finally be public knowledge in a couple months. Till then, we might as well just cool our heels and wait.

If it's a TTv6, that will disenfranchise some people - and that's not great but it's not bad. Look how many "Cadillac loyalists" hated the CTS and now ATS. Look how the "new Cadillac" enthusiasts hate the XTS saying a FWD barge was a bad move. GM can't please everyone - but I think if we're honest and unbiased and look at the sales data... Cadillac is doing better than they have in a LONG time. Not perfect, and still with growing pains, but better.

If it's a V8 in the ATS-V, that's going to have other consequences - but most gear heads will applaud the decision. We, here, are the minority - make no mistake otherwise despite what anyone thinks.
 
#263 · (Edited)
If it's a V8 in the ATS-V, that's going to have other consequences - but most gear heads will applaud the decision.
If a n/a V8 weighs about the same or less (and with a lower center of gravity) than the TTV6, generates less heat under the hood and provides better performance, why wouldn't it be the logical choice? If fuel economy is an issue, the TTV6 might do better cruising on the highway at a constant moderate speed, but when driving aggressively, no. And like you said, it's not just the engine. I have high hopes for the availability of the new Tremec 6070 which is standard in the C7. Hopefully, there's enough room for it. The combination would make for a fantastic ATS-V in the American tradition.
 
#264 ·
Jfjr, there is no actual legitimate reason to put the ttv6 in the ats-v.

You could argue that the engine is available, but so is the LT1.

You could argue that BMW is doing it but then you're just being a follower, and unoriginal. There's more than one way to skin a cat. BMW is expecting others to follow suit with a ttv6 so there's no reason we can't say nope, you go ahead and do that, and stick with a v8 and blow them out of the water. You know what I'd really love to see? I'd love to see the atsv with a v8 absolutely walk away from the m3 with its v6 and cause BMW to put a v8 in the next m3. Let them follow us. Convince them that v8 is in fact the way to go.

You could argue fuel economy but you'd just be kidding yourself. Look at the f150 with the ecoboost v6. Truth is, the only benefit to the v6 is that you can say you have a v6 and sound Eco friendly.

You could argue weight but you wouldn't actually be basing that on hard facts at this point. You'd just be speculating and the truth is, with the small block being a smaller engine dimensionally than the DOHC v6, plus the LT1's lack of forced induction hardware, the weight of the engines will be very similar.

You could say that the car will do 60 in 4 seconds, but I guarantee the m3 will do it sooner.

You could say that we don't want the atsv to outrun the ctsv but then you're just shooting yourself in the foot. You're not allowing the atsv to effectively compete with the m3 because you're forcing it to take a back seat to the ctsv. The new e63 does 60 in 3.3 seconds. The new ctsv needs to be no slower than 3.5. If Cadillac does it right, the ats needs to do it in 3.5 as well to compete with the c63 and m3. Sorry but if the ats does it in 4 secs.. A 335i can run with it. No good.

----------

Oh and if the 7 speed isn't put in the atsv, Cadillac will really have missed the boat.

----------

Regardless, I'm pretty convinced that ttv6 is going to go into the atsv unfortunately.
 
#274 ·
Jfjr, there is no actual legitimate reason to put the ttv6 in the ats-v.
You could argue fuel economy but you'd just be kidding yourself. Look at the f150 with the ecoboost v6. Truth is, the only benefit to the v6 is that you can say you have a v6 and sound Eco friendly.
Totally untrue. The main advantage of the ecoboost v6 isn't in the window sticker or "real world mpg" to its users - it is actually what the CAFE numbers are. Due to variations in testing for the EPA and DOT testing (Window Sticker and CAFE) manufacturers now have to calibrate a powertrain for one method or the other (or somewhere in the middle). In the case of replacing a V8 with a TTV6 (where the CAFE testing leaves the engine entirely out of boost, it blows the V8 out of the water something fierce. GM putting the TTV6 in the ATS/CTS/XTS helps to allow the vehicles to do better on CAFE, which allow boosted V8s through without killing the entire curve. It's dumb that the government has multiple ways to test the same thing and multiple departments to do it - but it's been that way for decades.
You could argue weight but you wouldn't actually be basing that on hard facts at this point. You'd just be speculating and the truth is, with the small block being a smaller engine dimensionally than the DOHC v6, plus the LT1's lack of forced induction hardware, the weight of the engines will be very similar.
From what I've heard (for a year) it's not the total weight - I'd wager good money the TTV6 with intercoolers and all hardware will be slightly heavier than the LT1 - but the center of mass will be several inches closer to the firewall and apparently if you were interested in maximizing steering feel and handling performance, that makes a big difference.
You could say that the car will do 60 in 4 seconds, but I guarantee the m3 will do it sooner.
If you're going to accuse others of speculation about engine weights, you gotta admit your comment about a "guarantee" of under 4 seconds is speculation as well. We know the fastest times won't be with manual transmissions now, but that's about it. The first big hurdle is the addition of Euro6 emission standards on the M3 - the penalty it hits having to hit those standards will also apply to the US, which is something that Cadillac actually doesn't have to deal with. Second, any car that can hit a 0-60 about 4 seconds or faster with only 2WD starts to become increasingly inconsistent on the street to hit that time - I suspect BMW will be slightly conservative with the car's 0-60 and set up the car to be consistent instead of just balls-to-the-wall fast. The last M3 and 335i are actually really close in 0-60 despite all the advantages the M3 had. The new one isn't adding that much to the table.

The new e63 does 60 in 3.3 seconds.
There is no "New E63". Lets be specific here. The new E63 AMG hits it in 3.4 seconds (rated). It also has AWD, which is how it hits those numbers. Second, the E63 AMG starts at $93,000 - which is in the stratosphere compared to the second gen CTS-V at $65,000.

That said, you do hit a good talking point that doesn't belong in this thread, but is valid. Should GM really "kick up" the CTS-V's price from one generation to the next by $25,000? Does GM really push the CTS-V that high? Or would it make more sense in some strange way to have a "CTS-V+" sitting above it, much like an "AMG Black"?
The new ctsv needs to be no slower than 3.5.
In order to get to 60 that fast consistently, it'll need AWD, which is a whole new direction for the CTS-V.
Oh and if the 7 speed isn't put in the atsv, Cadillac will really have missed the boat.
Agreed 110% - I hope it fits. The next question becomes will they eventually offer the 7 speed manual with the TTV6 in the CTSV-Sport? GM has this habit of having the same engine in different cars on the same platform with different transmissions, and it needs to stop. The Germans are getting away from manual transmissions these days and I think it would bring GM credit to offer them - even at a price premium - in as many vehicles as possible. Just take the hit in engineering for the street credit you gain.
 
#265 · (Edited)
Guy.Seminerio said:
Jfjr, there is no actual legitimate reason to put the ttv6 in the ats-v. You could argue that the engine is available, but so is the LT1. You could argue that BMW is doing it but then you're just being a follower, and unoriginal. There's more than one way to skin a cat. BMW is expecting others to follow suit with a ttv6 so there's no reason we can't say nope, you go ahead and do that, and stick with a v8 and blow them out of the water. You know what I'd really love to see? I'd love to see the atsv with a v8 absolutely walk away from the m3 with its v6 and cause BMW to put a v8 in the next m3. Let them follow us. Convince them that v8 is in fact the way to go. You could argue fuel economy but you'd just be kidding yourself. Look at the f150 with the ecoboost v6. Truth is, the only benefit to the v6 is that you can say you have a v6 and sound Eco friendly. You could argue weight but you wouldn't actually be basing that on hard facts at this point. You'd just be speculating and the truth is, with the small block being a smaller engine dimensionally than the DOHC v6, plus the LT1's lack of forced induction hardware, the weight of the engines will be very similar. You could say that the car will do 60 in 4 seconds, but I guarantee the m3 will do it sooner. You could say that we don't want the atsv to outrun the ctsv but then you're just shooting yourself in the foot. You're not allowing the atsv to effectively compete with the m3 because you're forcing it to take a back seat to the ctsv. The new e63 does 60 in 3.3 seconds. The new ctsv needs to be no slower than 3.5. If Cadillac does it right, the ats needs to do it in 3.5 as well to compete with the c63 and m3. Sorry but if the ats does it in 4 secs.. A 335i can run with it. No good. ---------- Oh and if the 7 speed isn't put in the atsv, Cadillac will really have missed the boat. ---------- Regardless, I'm pretty convinced that ttv6 is going to go into the atsv unfortunately.
I have no doubt that the V3 will be a little quicker than than the ATS-V, regardless of a n/a V8 in the ATS-V. I think that we have a lot of German car drones on this forum, that probably couldn't afford this or any other comparable car. Hopefully, Cadillac will realize that it is a leader and not a follower. Otherwise, it is an opportunity missed. They need us to help. Ha haa!
 
#266 ·
Let me say at the outset that I'd love to see a V8 in the ATS-V ... with FI, no less.

BUT, if GM has to do that to beat a V6/I6 M3, it will be viewed as a weakness on the part of American ingenuity and capability. No ... if GM does do the TTV6, it should be dialed up closer to 500 hp, because I'm thinking Guy is correct. It needs to do better than 4.0 0-60 ... as well as beat it in handling, ride, styling, interior, amenities, etc, etc, AND price.

Are we really going to have to wait till the Detroit Auto Show in January all while we beat this subject to death?
 
#268 ·
Hahaha are there cue upgrades?!?

Even though it would be a Cadillac na v8 vs a BMW v6 with forced induction, yes I agree that it will be viewed as a v6 and a v8 on the same playing field. There are just so many benefits of n/a that are enthusiast friendly. High revving, linear torque curve, SOUND!!!!!!!!, ahh... So helpless. It's so gonna be the v6.
 
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