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



Pages : [1] 2

Lord Cadillac
02-23-12, 05:55 PM
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...

JimmyH
02-23-12, 06:28 PM
I was under the impression twin scroll turbos were more efficient. I would prefer to see a biturbo; a small turbo to prevent lag, and a big honkin turbo for that boost.

If it's not a biturbo system, they better incorporate no-lift-shift with the manual, otherwise there will be no way to maintain boost.

All things considered, I would still rather have an NA V8. But I would also like 30 mpg. Perhaps the ATS-V is not my next car.

Lord Cadillac
02-23-12, 06:33 PM
Since I'm much less of a fan of BMW's twin turbo rather than their single turbo, I hope Cadillac uses the twin turbo method. Then again, the Grand National was a good example of what can be done from a production single turbo. I just still have the twin turbo Supra, RX7 and 300ZX in my head... Oh, and the 335i.

rand49er
02-23-12, 09:09 PM
Sure hope you're correct about the 3.6. That extra 600 cc will be felt and appreciated.

So, the discussion above is centered around the type of twin-turbo setup it would have. Personally, I think of a biturbo setup as being more complicated, and my money is on GM shying away from something like that for that very reason.

A TT3.6. Interesting. 425 hp would be even more interesting.

M5eater
02-25-12, 12:43 PM
I was under the impression twin scroll turbos were more efficient. I would prefer to see a biturbo; a small turbo to prevent lag, and a big honkin turbo for that boost.

If it's not a biturbo system, they better incorporate no-lift-shift with the manual, otherwise there will be no way to maintain boost.

All things considered, I would still rather have an NA V8. But I would also like 30 mpg. Perhaps the ATS-V is not my next car.

the twin K03 APB in the S4 had plenty of power everywhere. You don't need a sequential turbo engine these days. I would prefer a twin parallel style myself. Maybe even a scorpion sytle.

personally, since I grew up with a TTV6, I wouldn't mind going back to one, espically if we're talking about 20+mpg combined or so. I have a feeling $5 Gas this summer will be pretty painful in the 15mpg V.

JimmyH
02-25-12, 06:57 PM
The only turbo I have driven in the last 10 years is a GTI. It has one small turbo. It suffers from no lag that I could tell. But it also runs out of breath as it approaches redline. I understand these modern twin turbo systems are much better than the last one I drove (an old 90s Talon) But I will still need to drive one to set my mind at ease.

LS3 MN6
02-25-12, 07:41 PM
I'm not happy. I'd prefer the V8.

But if the next M3 is going this way (and all reports say it is) then you can't really fault them.

M5eater
02-25-12, 07:47 PM
I'm not happy. I'd prefer the V8.

But if the next M3 is going this way (and all reports say it is) then you can't really fault them.

exactly, I really hate to admit it too, but fuel economy is going to start to play a bigger role in sports sedans espically(since heavy cars+ big engines is always a bad recipie), and when people start to pay $100(which is only a few years away at this rate) to fill-up their LSA every 220 miles, people will get over a V8 real quick.

rand49er
02-25-12, 10:17 PM
Personally, I like getting good fuel economy, but there's lot of oil ... TONS of it. Any scarcity is artificial. But, artificial or not, it's "real" if you can't pipe it in and you can't drill for and those that have it want to raise the price. Getting 30 MPG highway effortlessly and do 0-60 in under 5 sec plus pull in excess of 0.9 Gs around corners is a decent future all considered.

thebigjimsho
02-26-12, 11:43 PM
Well, the LSA is extreme. The V1 and tall gearing could get mid-high 20s all day long. A turbo V6 will drink fuel just as quickly when flogged...

M5eater
02-27-12, 07:33 AM
Well, the LSA is extreme. The V1 and tall gearing could get mid-high 20s all day long. A turbo V6 will drink fuel just as quickly when flogged...

It's when you're not flogging it that I care about.

rand49er
02-27-12, 10:29 AM
It'll have a pretty decent drag coefficient with a slightly smaller frontal area compared to a Gen 1 CTS (good for highway MPG), and the low weight will help with city MPG. With DI, VVT, and a small (vs a V8) displacement, 30 MPG hwy while not flogging would seem a cinch.

M5eater
02-27-12, 10:50 AM
It'll have a pretty decent drag coefficient with a slightly smaller frontal area compared to a Gen 1 CTS (good for highway MPG), and the low weight will help with city MPG. With DI, VVT, and a small (vs a V8) displacement, 30 MPG hwy while not flogging would seem a cinch.

30 is probably a pipe dream stock, but 25-27 is realistic, I could see 30 with big turbos.

Lord Cadillac
02-27-12, 12:29 PM
Well, the LSA is extreme. The V1 and tall gearing could get mid-high 20s all day long. A turbo V6 will drink fuel just as quickly when flogged...


It's when you're not flogging it that I care about.

This is why a turbo V6 is a better choice, in my opinion. I've noticed that when driving a turbo V6 lightly all the time, I get noticeably better gas milage compared to driving a V8 lightly all the time. When driving aggressively, both are about the same. This brings me to the conclusion that a forced injected car will give you better gas mileage over the long run unless you're ALWAYS driving aggressively.

JimmyH
02-27-12, 12:47 PM
30 is probably a pipe dream stock, but 25-27 is realistic, I could see 30 with big turbos.

I am getting 24 right now with my 4000lb 6.2L Camaro. If I work it, I can get 25. So a V6 ATS-V has to be better than 27.

Lord Cadillac
02-27-12, 02:17 PM
I am getting 24 right now with my 4000lb 6.2L Camaro. If I work it, I can get 25. So a V6 ATS-V has to be better than 27.

I got the same performance out of my 335i that you're getting out of your Camaro SS. I got 24 miles per gallon with hardly ANY highway driving and mostly aggressive driving. You're doing a heck of a lot of highway driving.

JimmyH
02-27-12, 03:36 PM
I am almost ALL highway.

M5eater
02-27-12, 03:43 PM
I am almost ALL highway.
There are high and lows to every EPA estimated figure if you read the fine print. I would bet most people will fall between 25-27 highway in a turbo ATS, it's all just guesses at this point anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the EPA's high-end estimate for the ATS turbo is nearly 30mpg, just like the SS you drive actually *can* get better than 24.

JimmyH
02-27-12, 03:54 PM
Most of the guys I know are getting 20 on the highway. Of course, I am sure it's because they can't keep their foot out of it. After filling up and resetting, I usually get 28 from the gas station to my office. But, by the time I complete my round trip it's usually down to 24. Been more like the 22-23 lately with extreme cold.

M5eater
02-27-12, 03:59 PM
Most of the guys I know are getting 20 on the highway. Of course, I am sure it's because they can't keep their foot out of it. After filling up and resetting, I usually get 28 from the gas station to my office. But, by the time I complete my round trip it's usually down to 24. Been more like the 22-23 lately with extreme cold.
25-27 is still a vast improvement on what's currently available, even if it's not great by other car's.
M3; 14/20
C63; 13/19
CTS-V 12/18 or 14/19
IS-F 16/23
B7 RS4 13/20

rand49er
02-27-12, 08:51 PM
Drove my wife's '12 SRX (3.6L 6AT) to Sandusky, OH and back this past week. This was my first opportunity to see what it could get. Got 24.2 MPG at a steady 68 MPH over about 200 miles. Though we consisted of two adults and two kids plus all the luggage that would fit, I realize weight is not a big factor at constant speeds, but I had hoped for it to do better. Not sure what the Cd is on it, but it's gotta be > 0.30.

So, now that I think about it, maybe 30 MPG in a TT3.6 ATS-V is a bit optimistic afterall.

rand49er
02-27-12, 11:48 PM
Here's a thread in gminsidenews about the TT3.6 plausibly putting out "in excess of 400" hp and is the probable engine for the ATS-V:

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/blown-gm-working-two-twin-turbo-v6s-109058/

O (http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/blown-gm-working-two-twin-turbo-v6s-109058/)ne poster predicted a TT3.6 making 425-480 hp. Works for me.

thebigjimsho
02-28-12, 12:30 AM
30 is probably a pipe dream stock, but 25-27 is realistic, I could see 30 with big turbos.

Well, with 3400-3500lbs, a more aerodynamic body and more advanced technology, I would think 30mpg would be doable.

My V1 with 3850lbs, an unaerodynamic body and a V8 would get 26mpg all day long on the highway...

Lord Cadillac
02-28-12, 06:48 PM
Here's a thread in gminsidenews about the TT3.6 plausibly putting out "in excess of 400" hp and is the probable engine for the ATS-V:

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/blown-gm-working-two-twin-turbo-v6s-109058/

O (http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/blown-gm-working-two-twin-turbo-v6s-109058/)ne poster predicted a TT3.6 making 425-480 hp. Works for me.

I believe even the TT 3.0 was over 400 horsepower...

rand49er
02-28-12, 11:15 PM
I believe even the TT 3.0 was over 400 horsepower...Isn't it really purely a function of the boost level ... the peak power rating, I mean? Boost the snot out of it, and you keep getting more and more power. The only real tradeoff (besides cost) is motor longevity which was hinted at as being an issue in one post in that thread. SB LS motors have raised the bar to stratospheric heights as far as durability goes.

Tailoring the turbo to get the best compromise between lag and top-end performance is another, related aspect.

JimmyH
02-29-12, 06:03 PM
I still question the longevity of these highly boosted motors. Randy, aren't you worried what the maggie will do to your internals over the long run?

----------

Your LS6's internals, I mean :D

rand49er
02-29-12, 06:41 PM
I still question the longevity of these highly boosted motors. Randy, aren't you worried what the maggie will do to your internals over the long run?

----------

Your LS6's internals, I mean :DMy personal internals are doing just fine.

There's no question that if average cylinder pressures run high due to high throttle openings and times of boost over the life of the motor, it would put increased stress on wrist pin bearings, on rod bearings, on piston skirts and rings, and probably on main bearings. In my case, I really don't spend a lot of time at boost conditions, so I don't really feel my motor is detrimentally affected especially with good oil pressure and fresh Mobil 1 in it all the time.

In another example, if you look at guys like ronr who has 70k maggied miles on his LS6 and drives more frequently while under boost conditions (i.e. "spirited") than I do, that might be something to look at. But, I'd bet his motor goes close to 200k miles before he needs a rebuild, but that's because it's a proven LS motor design. We're talking here about a 3.6L V6 that's almost exclusively found in passenger cars, and I'd be concerned that there is less known about this design under severe operating conditions than LS motors in general. I would hope that GM has flogged the piss out of this motor and has addressed any weak points in it before sending it out into the public with a couple of turbos slapped on it to be flogged by all of us.

Anybody follow common issues with the 3.6 motor? I have not myself, so I'm all ears.

JimmyH
02-29-12, 09:28 PM
Looking in the 2nd gen CTS forums, there are not many complaints about the engine, other than the premature timing chain wear problem.

Lord Cadillac
03-01-12, 11:04 AM
Looking in the 2nd gen CTS forums, there are not many complaints about the engine, other than the premature timing chain wear problem.

Not to change the subject but speaking of the timing chain/belt (whatever is in there) situation. My brother in law has 10,000 miles on his 2008 or 2009 CTS sedan and at a recent service noticed that Cadillac adjusted something to do with, I believe timing, and mentioned something about the belt/chain on the invoice - and the car had been noticeably slower since. Has GM "fixed" this potential issue by making the car weaker? Is there already a discussion going on in reference to this?

M5eater
03-01-12, 11:30 AM
Not to change the subject but speaking of the timing chain/belt (whatever is in there) situation. My brother in law has 10,000 miles on his 2008 or 2009 CTS sedan and at a recent service noticed that Cadillac adjusted something to do with, I believe timing, and mentioned something about the belt/chain on the invoice - and the car had been noticeably slower since. Has GM "fixed" this potential issue by making the car weaker? Is there already a discussion going on in reference to this?

sounds to me like it's off by a tooth or two.

rand49er
03-01-12, 04:30 PM
sounds to me like it's off by a tooth or two.That's the thought that hit me immediately ... then, I thought, but a dealer? Please don't tell me a dealer did that!?!!

M5eater
03-01-12, 04:40 PM
That's the thought that hit me immediately ... then, I thought, but a dealer? Please don't tell me a dealer did that!?!!
iirc the 3.6 does not have cam marks. It's incredibly easy to miss a few teeth when you don't have cam marks. In your own garage on your own time there's less a chance. In a work environment when you're working as fast as possible to start on the next job, yeah. Honestly? It's the most idiotic engineering decision for an overhead cam motor. I have to use a nice $80 bar to lock the 4 cams on the AHA in the Audi to change the timing belt.

rand49er
03-01-12, 10:59 PM
iirc the 3.6 does not have cam marks. ... It's the most idiotic engineering decision for an overhead cam motor. ...:helpless:

JimmyH
03-02-12, 02:42 PM
Not to change the subject but speaking of the timing chain/belt (whatever is in there) situation. My brother in law has 10,000 miles on his 2008 or 2009 CTS sedan and at a recent service noticed that Cadillac adjusted something to do with, I believe timing, and mentioned something about the belt/chain on the invoice - and the car had been noticeably slower since. Has GM "fixed" this potential issue by making the car weaker? Is there already a discussion going on in reference to this?

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/2008-cadillac-cts-general-discussion/222387-2008-cts-timing-chain-recall.html

rand49er
03-02-12, 03:02 PM
Got my Car & Driver issue today. Page 49 predicts an ATS-V with a twin-turbo V6 rated at 380-420 hp weighing in the neighborhood of 3,600 lbs. They have cost pegged at $55k to start.

I'd love to see it come in at, say, 435 hp (or more) and weigh a shade under 3,500 lbs just to rub C&D's nose into their bowl of sauerkraut.



Oh, btw, their rendition looks just Jimmy's photoshop slightly rotated. :D

Lord Cadillac
03-02-12, 04:19 PM
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/2008-cadillac-cts-general-discussion/222387-2008-cts-timing-chain-recall.html

Thank you!


Got my Car & Driver issue today. Page 49 predicts an ATS-V with a twin-turbo V6 rated at 380-420 hp weighing in the neighborhood of 3,600 lbs. They have cost pegged at $55k to start. I'd love to see it come in at, say, 435 hp (or more) and weigh a shade under 3,500 lbs just to rub C&D's nose into their bowl of sauerkraut.

If we're hearing 380 to 420, I bet we WILL see that 435 you're looking for...

rand49er
03-03-12, 10:28 AM
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/2008-cadillac-cts-general-discussion/222387-2008-cts-timing-chain-recall.htmlAfter reading this entire thread (whew!), here are some observations that jumped out at me:

1) The recall notice says, "... we have determined that under certain driving conditions, and with extended oil
change intervals, the timing chain could wear prematurely and cause the illumination of the
Service Engine Soon light. Timing chain wear can be affected by the age of the engine oil and
driving conditions.

What We Will Do:
To ensure that your vehicle will not experience this condition, your GM
dealer will change the calibration of the engine control module, including the engine oil life
monitor, which in most cases will recommend more frequent oil changes.


2) On 3/7/11, RippyPartsDept (Chris) posted this:
"... the 3.6L engines ARE interference engines ... however that doesn't guarantee valve damage when a chain breaks

we have seen about 25% of the cars w/ broken chains not need any valve work

also, Mileage is not a factor at all in the OLM system - engine temp and RPM are the only variables (besides the type of engine since other variables in the algorithm are determined by the engine type)"



3) On 3/9/11, RAB posted this:
"My thoughts on this entire issue are:

1) I understand completely GM's thinking in their issuance of Bulletin 10287. Is has nothing to do with 'Customer Satisfaction' and everything to do with 'Cost Mitigation' for GM.

2) Warranty timing chain work on 2007-2009 HFV6 engines has cost GM a bundle. Changing ECM programming (i.e. upping the chain stretch threshold for when the Check Engine light is thrown) will have an immediate and huge downward effect on GM's further/future costs for this issue.

3) With a significantly increased amount of chain stretch now 'tolerated' by way of the re-programmed ECM, the point in time now at which the timing chain will become a show-stopping issue for many (the majority?) of owners of 2008-09 CTS's (i.e. problems of poor engine performance, engine misfire, timing chain breakage and potential for catastrophic engine damage) will more likely materialize shortly after the 5 year powertrain warranty expires. At that point in time of course the customer gets to pay the bill.

4) Further to item 3 above, to help ensure that the potential for a timing chain show-stopping issue is not made greater during the warranty period for reasons of a less-than-ideal oil condition (or an oil level that's less-than-ideal), the OLM parameters are revised to demand/encourage much more frequent oil changes.. at, of course, the cost of the customer (in the US).

5) GM's 2007-2009 HFV6 is found in the 2007-2009 GMC Acadia, Saturn Outlook, Cadillac CTS, Cadillac STS & Cadillac SRX as well as the 2009 Buick Enclave & Chevrolet Traverse. Only the Cadillac applications of GM's HFV6 engines get synthetic oil installed at the factory; all other non-Cadillac applications of the HFV6 engine get traditional mineral oil. With this in mind, it would appear that the use of synthetic oil in Cadillac applications provides nothing in the way of improved lubrication (vs. mineral oil) for the timing chain(s). It appears now that the OLM parameters in HFV6-equipped Cadillacs will more closely follow (duplicate?) the parameters set out for GM's non-Cadillac HFV6-equipped vehicles using mineral oil.

6) It appears, at least at this stage, that the re-design of GM's HFV6 engine (the 'LLT' and likely all other HFV6 engines) for model year 2010 effectively addressed the timing chain issue. I'm guessing the overall re-design involved quality improvements to the chain itself (manufacturing and/or material revisions), but more importantly, an improved system for the lubrication of the chain(s).

7) Anyone planning on keeping their 2008-09 CTS beyond GM's 5-year powertrain warranty period should give serious thought to purchasing an extended warranty.

8) The 'new GM' could have and should have handled this issue differently. They could have broken with the bad habits of the past and dispensed with the BS. Instead they continue to assume the majority of owners are idiots. It's pretty sad really."



4) On 5/5/11, RippyPartsDept (Chris) posted this:
"... it's my opinion that most of the timing chain problems are due to people always running low on oil (not checking the level periodically between oil changes)"



5) On 11/23/11, RippyPartsDept (Chrs) posted this:
"... the recall does shorten the oil change intervals but that's just part, the more important part is to recalibrate the tolerances for the chain stretching so the light will come on sooner than before to hopefully prevent catastrophic failure ..."



In summary, lots of bitchin' (some justified, but mostly irrational) and no absolutely clear resolution. It does, however, appear that a redesign in 2010 did something that may have improved the 3.6L motor so this will not be an issue in the future. This should be confirmed. Before Chris posted up his theory, I was already suspicious that low oil levels were a major contributing factor to the timing chain failures observed and that the 3.6 design itself was susceptible in this regard. Of course, that begs the question as to why there were low oil levels at all ... were the motors consuming the oil or was the OLM set too high by GM? But, if the motor was in fact redesigned and eliminated timing chains as a problem, the past is the past, and this is a moot point.

I've only read one thread (the one JimmyH linked to, above), but time permitting I might do a little more searching over the next few weeks to learn a little more about the redesign in 2010.

rand49er
03-03-12, 12:01 PM
Doing a search, I found this thread on gminsidenews: http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f53/3-6l-timing-chain-failures-due-redesign-98426/index4.html

Here's another post from XXSS on 2/27/11:
"... I can speak from first hand experience that over 90% of the vehicles that land in my shop with P0008 current and require chains, also have low oil level (Most with none on the dipstick) and have traveled anywhere from 9000-20000kms between oil changes. The Camshaft actuators do require
oil pressure to function properly."


Apparently, GM went to a different timing chain/sprocket with smaller spacing in order to reduce noise, and that's what caused a problem. These chains may have been more susceptible to low oil/low oil pressure conditions.



Another search showed this link: http://gmpowertrain.ca/Product/3.6%20LLT/LLT%20Camaro%20Summary.pdf

Talks about the 3.6, but no mention of a change. It DOES, however, speak to the problem design (see bold print):
"2010 GM 3.6L V-6 VVT DI (LLT) 3.6L V-6 VVT DI (LLT) CAR and TRUCK ENGINE
− Base engine in the Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia, Chevrolet Traverse, Chevrolet Camaro,
and Cadillac STS.
− Optional engine for the Cadillac CTS, CTS Wagon, and Buick LaCrosse
− Advanced multi-outlet high pressure fuel injectors that inject fuel directly into
the combustion chamber
− Variable, high-pressure engine-driven fuel pump for multiple injection events
− Stainless steel fuel rail
− Advanced engine control module (ECM) for direct injection control
− RWD applications matched to 6L50 six-speed automatic transmission
− FWD applications matched to 6T75 six speed automatic transmission. It is an advanced
transmission with clutch-to-clutch shift operation for front- and all-wheel drive vehicles.
The transmission's six-gear configuration allows for a "steep" 4.48:1 first gear, which
helps deliver exceptional launch feel, and a 0.74:1 overdrive sixth gear. Sixth
gear lowers rpm at highway speeds, reducing noise and vibration while improving fuel
economy. Also, the 6T75 offers automatic grade braking, shift stabilization and precise
shift control.
− New direct injection engine keeps oil life monitoring system
− Cam phasing coupled with direct injection further reduces cold start exhaust emissions
− Cast aluminum cylinder block and heads
− Double overhead cams with four valves per cylinder
− Cams driven by small-pitch, inverted tooth chain
− Variable valve timing with four-cam phasing for precise intake and exhaust tuning and
control
− High-power and high efficiency 11.3:1 compression ratio
− Cast aluminum polymer coated oil cooled pistons, with a fully floating wristpin
− Oil jets cool the pistons, while polymer-coated skirts reduce noise and friction
− Durable forged crankshaft, and precision sinter-forged connecting rods
− Cast aluminum structural oil pan stiffens the cylinder block structure and reduces noise
− Electronic throttle control with advanced integrated cruise control
− Reliable coil-on-spark-plug ignition
− Optimally tuned exhaust manifolds with close-coupled catalytic converters
− Composite camshaft covers are fully isolated and reduce noise
− Numerous other noise, vibration and harshness controls
− Exclusive durability enhancements and minimal maintenance requirements
− Manufacturing techniques refined for exceptional quality and manufacturing efficiency

Full Description of New and Updated Features
Base engine in Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia, Chevrolet Traverse, Cadillac STS, and Chevrolet
Camaro. Optional engine in Cadillac CTS, CTS Wagon, and Buick LaCrosse."



Here's a little bit more about a 3.6 redesign: http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2011/Apr/0413_camaro_engine

S (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2011/Apr/0413_camaro_engine)pecifically: "Compared to the 3.6L V-6 in 2011 models, the new LFX engine features:

New cylinder head design with integrated exhaust manifold
Improved intake port design and larger intake valves within the cylinder heads
Longer-duration intake camshafts
Composite intake manifold
New fuel pump and isolated fuel rail
New, optimized-flow fuel injectors
Structural front cover and cylinder block enhancements
Stronger and lighter-weight connecting rods
Camshaft cap and throttle body design enhancements."
No mention here of a timing chain redesign, but this is 2012 compared to 2011 (supposedly after the 2010 redesign).



Okay, I'm done.

JimmyH
03-03-12, 04:18 PM
head asplode

thebigjimsho
03-03-12, 05:12 PM
Indeed. Time for Tylenol...

rand49er
03-03-12, 05:50 PM
Nothing else going on today except watching snow showers and the wind.

Sorry. Got carried away.

concorso
03-03-12, 10:14 PM
30 is probably a pipe dream stock, but 25-27 is realistic, I could see 30 with big turbos.V8 Camaros see that right now if they are babied. The 1st gen V was seeing 25 on the highway, did it myself.

----------


Apparently, GM went to a different timing chain/sprocket with smaller spacing in order to reduce noise, and that's what caused a problem. These chains may have been more susceptible to low oil/low oil pressure conditions.This explanation doesnt support whats happening in reality. The earlier 3.6L are just as susceptible to timing chain failure as the newer 3.6L DI's. The failures are happening to engines with both timing chain designs.

----------

Guys, any idea when the ATS-V is suppose to show up? Im getting conflicting reports from dealers. Id like to know if the ATS-V will show up before the 2nd Gen CTS-V production is ceased. Depending on how the ATS-V looks and what the powertrain is, I might just go for the CTS-V instead. Ive been eying the coupe for a couple years now, and even tho I want a light V, I sheepishly admit a V8 is just as important.

rand49er
03-04-12, 08:14 AM
... This explanation doesnt support whats happening in reality. The earlier 3.6L are just as susceptible to timing chain failure as the newer 3.6L DI's. The failures are happening to engines with both timing chain designs. ...If true, then the problem was possibly inherent in the block and in the oil passage design and independent of the chain type. Do you know what the 2010 redesign consisted of?

JD03Cobra
03-09-12, 05:33 PM
Got my Car & Driver issue today. Page 49 predicts an ATS-V with a twin-turbo V6 rated at 380-420 hp weighing in the neighborhood of 3,600 lbs.

Randy - My cousin told me last month the 3.6TT was making 412hp on the dyno and testing wasn't done. Around 400 is what they were looking to get. Also he's been told that the ATS-V will get a V8 option...It may be a long shot in the end but I sure hope so.

RippyPartsDept
03-09-12, 05:55 PM
also note that 2007 V6 Cadillac, Acadia and Outlook engines have a warranty extension on them ('special coverage' is the terminology - i think it is 10yr 120,000miles)
it will reimburse you if you had to pay out of pocket for a timing chain repair - so i'm told

...

as far as I'm concerned the low oil levels due to longer intervals between oil changes are the biggest factor
(blame here lies both with owners for not checking and with GM for not having a low oil light/message)
i'd really like to know why a certain percentage of these engines seem to consume oil while the rest don't or barely do

on top of that there was a bad batch of timing chains - at least that's the 'rumor' i heard
(sht happens - not sure if this was ever proven or admitted to)

on top of that the sprockets/actuators have short teeth that allow a timing jump a lot easier
(i guess this was part of that engineering design to make them quiet - apparently a double edged sword)


...

anywho... back to our regularly scheduled thread topic

rand49er
03-09-12, 10:13 PM
Randy - My cousin told me last month the 3.6TT was making 412hp on the dyno and testing wasn't done. Around 400 is what they were looking to get. Also he's been told that the ATS-V will get a V8 option...It may be a long shot in the end but I sure hope so.Very interesting, Jason. Wow ... having the ability to choose from both of these would be outstanding!

In my case, if given the option between the two, gimme the one that's rated higher. A 400-hp TT3.6 vs a 450-hp V8? You're not gonna catch me saying, "I could've had a V8!"

thebigjimsho
03-12-12, 02:53 PM
Obviously, since you need it for your health...

rand49er
03-12-12, 03:22 PM
A V8 every day keeps a guy young and full of vigor.

concorso
03-13-12, 10:50 AM
If they can squeeze 400 hp from the TTV6, itll still be down on the present M3, but it would be a step up from the 335. Is it possible to have a near 400 hp TTV6 non-V? Call it a platinum...offer model specific upgrades aimed at a little more comfort and luxury comparatively to the V, maybe even some subtle styling changes interior and exterior that differentiate it from the regular ATS, but also from the V. Then offer the V, with all the usual V upgrades, including the V8, maybe even an LS7. :) The platinum could run same width/diameter tires all around to ease in changeovers, have a quiet exhaust, a softer ride, optional awd, offer gearing that aims at better mileage, optional brightwork, with optional body colored lighting for the V. All of this is relative to the V, not to the regular ATS. Also, Id love to see Cadillac offer a new high end interior fabric that isnt leather or fo-swade.
Sorry, guys, trying to hammer out a response when your busy and tired leads to a post like that...all sorts of messy. :)

JD03Cobra
03-13-12, 12:10 PM
Is it possible to have a near 400 hp TTV6 non-V? Call it a platinum...offer model specific upgrades aimed at a little more comfort and luxury comparatively to the V, maybe even some subtle styling changes interior and exterior that differentiate it from the regular ATS, but also from the V. Then offer the V, with all the usual V upgrades, including the V8, maybe even an LS7. :)

Its funny you say this because my source said the same thing...The 3.6TT was not going to be in the V model. Possibly a different trim level ATS with the TT option. Most likely end up in other GM cars too. Still hoping that ATS-V get the V8.

rand49er
03-13-12, 10:15 PM
Whoa! That would be an interesting model setup vis a vis BMW. A TT3.6 to compete with the 335 and a V8 to compete with the M. GM might be wise to do that with each Caddy model just nosing out the BMW counterpart.

I'll take a V8, myself.



EDIT: If that V8 is NA, do you suppose they'll make a Maggie (or an equivalent) for it?

Lord Cadillac
03-14-12, 06:07 PM
Randy - My cousin told me last month the 3.6TT was making 412hp on the dyno and testing wasn't done. Around 400 is what they were looking to get. Also he's been told that the ATS-V will get a V8 option...It may be a long shot in the end but I sure hope so.

That's great information. Hopefully it's accurate. Thank you!


Very interesting, Jason. Wow ... having the ability to choose from both of these would be outstanding!

In my case, if given the option between the two, gimme the one that's rated higher. A 400-hp TT3.6 vs a 450-hp V8? You're not gonna catch me saying, "I could've had a V8!"

I'd probably take the V8 as well - but that would depend on how tunable the TT V6 was. If I can get in the upper 400 range with just a tune/chip, that's probably all I'd need. Then again, it would awhile before anything like that became available. So I'm leaning toward the V8. Hopefully it's an option.


If they can squeeze 400 hp from the TTV6, itll still be down on the present M3, but it would be a step up from the 335. Is it possible to have a near 400 hp TTV6 non-V?

I really don't think that's going to happen. Cadillac is going to be perfectly happy with how the 3.6 V6 competes with the 335i. And my guess is it'll be close in performance - even though the 2.0T is technically going to be the "performance" model. I don't like the way that sounds, though. The "performance" ATS is going to compete with the entry 328i. So believe me - I'd love to see a TT V6 compete with the 335i and a V8 compete with the M3 - but I don't think that's going to happen.

I think it's important for Cadillac's ATS-V to be at least on par with BMW's M3 - giving people a reason to choose IT over the BMW. Otherwise, there aren't going to be many conquest sales - which at this point is important for Cadillac. Though you DO have the inside of the car - which is going to be a really nice place to be over the M3.

concorso
03-16-12, 04:16 PM
The rumors about the F03 M3 suggest 450 hp. What are the rumors saying about the 3.0lTT and the 3.6lTT? If the V8 ends up being lighter then the 3.6lTT, makes 450+ (according to the math that uses the LS3 + DI ), and I think it has a lower centre of gravity, most likely more reliable...I dont see it making sense for the V6TT. Im really hoping for the V8. If no V8, Ill go with the turbo4.

I agree, the ATS-V HAS to be on par with the M3. Not necessarily in hp, but in performance. Im hoping Cadillac challenges BMW to a head to head shootout of the M3 and ATS-V.

M5eater
03-16-12, 05:10 PM
The rumors about the F03 M3 suggest 450 hp. What are the rumors saying about the 3.0lTT and the 3.6lTT?
I don't know about rumors, but the facts are, the B8 RS4 is getting the RS5 450HP V8.

rand49er
03-16-12, 05:43 PM
... If the V8 ends up being lighter then the 3.6lTT, makes 450+ (according to the math that uses the LS3 + DI ), and I think it has a lower centre of gravity, most likely more reliable...I dont see it making sense for the V6TT. ...

... Im hoping Cadillac challenges BMW to a head to head shootout of the M3 and ATS-V.I agree that if the small block outshines the V6 in those four respects, it indeed doesn't make sense not to make the V8 at least an optional motor. Better yet, both might be offered in different trims (or something) ... the V6 with AT only and the V8 with a choice of AT or MT. I'm guessing.

As far as a head-to-head shootout like maybe a 30-minute video shown on TV, I'd love it.

JimmyH
03-16-12, 07:57 PM
If anyone is keeping score, I want 3500 lbs, 350 hp, and 30 mpg.

rand49er
03-16-12, 11:33 PM
If anyone is keeping score, I want 3500 lbs, 350 hp, and 35 mpg.Fixed. :cool:

mikesul
03-17-12, 01:43 PM
3.6TT could be ATS Sport, with the V8 for the V. I'm still thinking the 5.5L under development is the right size, as long as it's ~ 450 hp.

JimmyH
03-17-12, 04:45 PM
35 would be nice, but I think that would be a bit much to expect. For a daily driver, I would be thrilled with 30 mpg.

Realistically, I am much more likely to keep the Camaro (maybe start modding again :D) and get a Cruze Eco as my DD. 42 mpg and a 6-speed manual :thumbsup:

----------

And there is NO 5.5L under development. That is the C6R racing engine.

gtg732w
11-08-12, 01:37 AM
Latest rumor I heard was that the initial TT V6 powertrain didn't meet the requirements the design folks set for themselves (not sure whether it was a TT3.0 or TT3.6), so they were re-evaluating. No outcome that I know of, just delays.

My initial thought was that if the engine didn't meet their expectations, a) they have goals for the car being competitive with the next M3 (I was told this is their benchmark), which is a good thing, and b) they're willing to re-evaluate rather than produce a car that can't compete, also a good thing.

I've seen some camouflaged ATS test cars up here, in addition to the production versions given to GM employees, but I've not been able to discern anything unique about the test cars that would indicate the V model (but what the hell else could it be?).

JimmyH
11-08-12, 04:20 PM
The next gen CTS are driving around as well. And they look alot like the ATS.

M5eater
11-08-12, 04:31 PM
35 would be nice, but I think that would be a bit much to expect. For a daily driver, I would be thrilled with 30 mpg.

Realistically, I am much more likely to keep the Camaro (maybe start modding again :D) and get a Cruze Eco as my DD. 42 mpg and a 6-speed manual :thumbsup:

----------

And there is NO 5.5L under development. That is the C6R racing engine.

I want a cruze 1.4turbo for my DD too T_T

JimmyH
11-08-12, 11:51 PM
i finally test drove the cruze a few weeks ago. it was ok. but i cannot see myself drving it every day. not gonna happen.

Has No Left
11-11-12, 08:31 PM
Let's assume the ATS-V is around 3500 lbs and has 400 hp. What does that put it 0-60? 1/4 mile?

Wonder if they will have launch control with the manuals?

Its an ATS
11-12-12, 03:30 PM
Let's assume the ATS-V is around 3500 lbs and has 400 hp. What does that put it 0-60? 1/4 mile?

Wonder if they will have launch control with the manuals?

Cadillac will need to fix power delivery issues in order for the numbers to be impressive. For instance:
2012/13 Audi S4 with 333 hp will do a 12.9 1/4 (curb weight 3800ish)
2013 3.6 ATS with 321 hp will do. 14.0 1/4 (curb weight 3400ish)

I know it's not all about the 1/4 mile, but the visceral feel of a hard accelerating car is like none other.

concorso
12-13-12, 01:44 PM
Let's assume the ATS-V is around 3500 lbs and has 400 hp. What does that put it 0-60? 1/4 mile?Well behind the competition.

Jinx
12-14-12, 12:26 AM
It'll be more like 3600 lbs and 450+hp.

rand49er
12-16-12, 09:46 AM
Cadillac will need to fix power delivery issues in order for the numbers to be impressive. For instance:
2012/13 Audi S4 with 333 hp will do a 12.9 1/4 (curb weight 3800ish)
2013 3.6 ATS with 321 hp will do. 14.0 1/4 (curb weight 3400ish)

I know it's not all about the 1/4 mile, but the visceral feel of a hard accelerating car is like none other.

Well behind the competition.The only reason they get these kind of numbers is the AWD. Look at their 5-60 times, and they aren't so inflated.

Its an ATS
12-17-12, 09:26 PM
The only reason they get these kind of numbers is the AWD. Look at their 5-60 times, and they aren't so inflated.

Ummm, no... How do you explain my 3.6 AWD ATS not having a better 0-60 and 1/4 mile? It's all about power delivery, and there is no denying that Audi has basically written the book on AWD. The first year they entered the a Quattro equipped car in rally they dominated and continued to dominate until finally an AWD category was created to even the playing field.

jurzdevil
12-18-12, 07:01 PM
Ummm, no... How do you explain my 3.6 AWD ATS not having a better 0-60 and 1/4 mile? It's all about power delivery, and there is no denying that Audi has basically written the book on AWD. The first year they entered the a Quattro equipped car in rally they dominated and continued to dominate until finally an AWD category was created to even the playing field.

Quattro isn't the entire reason why. The fast times with the S4 are with a dual-clutch automatic. The torque converter in the ATS AWD can't compete with the initial power delivery from a "real" clutch.

Its an ATS
12-20-12, 10:47 AM
Quattro isn't the entire reason why. The fast times with the S4 are with a dual-clutch automatic. The torque converter in the ATS AWD can't compete with the initial power delivery from a "real" clutch.

Agreed, my original statement is that cadillac needs to fix power delivery. That pretty much sums up everything after the flywheel in my mind.

concorso
12-22-12, 12:32 PM
Agreed, my original statement is that cadillac needs to fix power delivery. That pretty much sums up everything after the flywheel in my mind.The twin turbo V6 thats coming, even in a 330 hp trim, and a DCT would wake the car up. After finally driving an V6 ATS, I must say that the trans tuning is great, throttle response is fantastic, and that V6 enjoys all its powerband in that car. Saying that the ATS needs to improve its power delivery really shows how competitive this segment is.

Its an ATS
12-23-12, 03:44 AM
The twin turbo V6 thats coming, even in a 330 hp trim, and a DCT would wake the car up. After finally driving an V6 ATS, I must say that the trans tuning is great, throttle response is fantastic, and that V6 enjoys all its powerband in that car. Saying that the ATS needs to improve its power delivery really shows how competitive this segment is.

Without a doubt. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy driving my AWD V6 ATS. It's just on the slow side, comparatively of course...

JFJr
12-23-12, 02:22 PM
Admittedly I'm prejudiced, but I don't think that a V-6, in any trim is appropriate, regardless of what the Germans are doing. I love the sound cranking up my "V" in an underground parking garage; it has a beautiful rumble, shakes the ground and gets everyone's attention. The new LT1 or existing LS7, somewhat "enhanced" and naturally aspirated, is what is needed. That will put a smile on all American car guys and we won't have to be embarrassed driving a V-6 that sounds like a bumblebee. We were successful with the V1 and V2, and should continue as leaders, not "me too" followers.

Jud

rand49er
12-31-12, 09:47 PM
Don't if this is going to be revealed at the NAIAS later this month, but I was just wondering if GM would ever consider both the LT1 (at ~450 hp) and a 3.6TT (at ~380 hp). The latter would be a V while the former would be like a "Black Series" or something more clever (i.e. marketable).

Jinx
12-31-12, 11:46 PM
I don't think GM wants to debut ATS-V and Corvette at the same show. Let Corvette have the spotlight at Detroit, then introduce ATS-V at Chicago or New York or even a European show. Or perhaps as late as Los Angeles.

thebigjimsho
01-01-13, 05:41 AM
I don't think GM wants to debut ATS-V and Corvette at the same show. Let Corvette have the spotlight at Detroit, then introduce ATS-V at Chicago or New York or even a European show. Or perhaps as late as Los Angeles.

They debuted the V2 and ZR1 together in '08...

Jinx
01-01-13, 07:40 PM
ZR1 was a big deal, but not as big a deal as a whole new generation Corvette.

Personally I hope ATS-V shows up in Detroit, because I want to see it sooner rather than later. I just don't expect it.

thebigjimsho
01-02-13, 04:00 PM
ZR1 was a big deal, but not as big a deal as a whole new generation Corvette.

Personally I hope ATS-V shows up in Detroit, because I want to see it sooner rather than later. I just don't expect it.I bet it's more to do with the TTV6 not being ironed out. If it had a V8, it would be ready for an NAIAS debut...

pacoflyer
03-03-13, 05:49 PM
I am all for a V6 TT. Ecoboost SHO owners are making 420 AWHP with meth injection on the stock 3.5L With associated drivetrain loss its 500+ Crank HP and not a single one has broken or transmission failures. It's too bad the turbos are so small!!

JFJr
03-03-13, 10:00 PM
I am all for a V6 TT. Ecoboost SHO owners are making 420 AWHP with meth injection on the stock 3.5L With associated drivetrain loss its 500+ Crank HP and not a single one has broken or transmission failures. It's too bad the turbos are so small!!

Again, ad nauseum, and focusing on a street engine, if the TTV-6 is heavier than a comparable LSx V-8, has more moving parts and doesn't get significantly better gas mileage, and sounds like an insect, why??

Jud

mikesul
03-04-13, 05:28 PM
The April Car and driver says Buick will have a GNX with a 3.6TT V6 with 400 hp. Sounds like the upcoming ATS-V engine to me.

ral1960
03-04-13, 11:48 PM
Based on the Regal or LaCrosse?
I assume that drivetrain will also be offered on the XTS.

RippyPartsDept
03-05-13, 10:00 AM
regal - and that is the rumor

Jinx
03-05-13, 12:35 PM
Again, ad nauseum, and focusing on a street engine, if the TTV-6 is heavier than a comparable LSx V-8, has more moving parts and doesn't get significantly better gas mileage, and sounds like an insect, why??

Some people are addicted to the idea of free extra power. Stock it might only be 350hp, but there are guys making 4 bajillion with a simple swap that even I could do! That makes me more awesome than the guy who has to have engine surgery to make more power, haha. --Yes my AAA Membership is paid up, why do you ask?

SC2150
03-05-13, 08:53 PM
These are all low HP compared to the 3.6 DI's runing single and twin turbos already....450-700 hp out of these awesome engines already all over the country.

:thumbsup:

JFJr
03-06-13, 09:32 PM
These are all low HP compared to the 3.6 DI's runing single and twin turbos already....450-700 hp out of these awesome engines already all over the country.

:thumbsup:

Why stop there, let's go with a 4 with 4 turbo chargers and get the same horsepower and sound like a fart going through an empty can? That ought to improve Cadillac's performance image. Smaller is better, right?

Jinx
03-07-13, 01:39 AM
450+hp V6s with factory warranties aren't exactly common.

SC2150
03-07-13, 11:38 AM
No small dispalcement 4-6cyl will ever equal the muscle sound we love in the v8's.....but the DI small displacement engines are the future and not much is going to halt that move.

JFJr
03-07-13, 05:34 PM
Offering tiny engines that have to be blown several times over to make the kind of torque we expect in a high performance car, makes absolutely no sense if they're not getting significantly better gas mileage in the real world. On top of that, all the extra plumbing increases weight and bulk in the engine compartment. High performance enthusiasts will flog these small engines and make them work harder than a comparable V-8. The high performance market is fairly small, so why not continue to offer appropriate engines for that market and save the puny engines for enclosed golf carts and ultralight bare bones race cars?

Jud

RippyPartsDept
03-07-13, 05:59 PM
guys... tiny blown engines are not the future

this is the future (near future)

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/50f6d6bcecad043c48000006-650/cadillac-elr-electric-detroit-naias-2013.jpg

and this is the present
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/09/2012-tesla-model-s-fd.jpg

i'm not saying ICE powered vehicles will go away entirely, but there are other alternatives

...

in theory, i like the range-extended electric propulsion vehicles (volt, elr)
much more practical than the model-s right now
kind of like a best of both worlds gap filler until battery and power grid technology can catch up

DMCEDDoc
03-30-13, 09:44 AM
Rightfully so. I agree that there's no replacement for displacement however the comparible V8 at the same HP gets worse gas mileage. I average 18 MPG with my SC 3.6DI which is better than my friend's '11 V. He hardly gets me in a 1/4 mile. I find that most V8 owners are bothered by little engines performing as good or better than their larger displaced power plants.

ETHANOREO
03-30-13, 02:57 PM
I think we will be devoid of news until late 2013 while they release the new CTS. Once that has calmed down, then we should hear something.
I also think that since the new M3/M4 is a turbo 6 so will the ATS-V at least for the 1st couple years.
But if Caddy is listening...get it into this car sooner than later. You have a chance to jump start the germans...not just benchmark them. It seems like a no brainer to me.
Priced well, at 420HP it would be the hottest car in the segment...which is what they want don't they?

thebigjimsho
05-06-13, 04:47 PM
Electric vehicles will never be the future until we find more efficient ways of making the electricity. If every ICE car in the US were replaced by electrics right now, we'd be doomed.

RippyPartsDept
05-06-13, 04:59 PM
every horse was not immediately replaced by a horse-less carriage ... we would have been doomed in that situation too

thebigjimsho
05-06-13, 05:10 PM
There is a difference between harvesting a fuel source and reinventing an entire process...

RippyPartsDept
05-06-13, 05:56 PM
There are also similarities

thebigjimsho
05-06-13, 08:00 PM
There are similarities to Venus and Uranus...

M5eater
05-06-13, 08:11 PM
Electric vehicles will never be the future until we find more efficient ways of making the electricity. If every ICE car in the US were replaced by electrics right now, we'd be doomed.
making it ,storing it, transferring it, and in making the batteries. Nothing about Hybrid vehicles or electric cars is a better way to transport people about their daily lives. Except unless you care to smell your own farts.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMLWa0MGTtF2jvEQc4Sl5gSbIXy-3lTnLgKhsBuE_Mi6X8iTZA

Jinx
05-09-13, 05:30 AM
Future schmuture, what matters to the ATS-V is three model years, and the V8 will be plenty viable in that timeframe.

JFJr
05-11-13, 10:21 AM
Hmm.. If we eliminate that awful DOD feature, we could reduce V8 displacement to, say, 5.5 liters; and if we can't get sufficient torque as NA, strap on the TT. Voilà, we now have a smaller, but very potent, version of what may wind up in the V3. Just add the TR6070 as the standard transmission, along with Brembo brakes, magnetic shocks, 2 stage exhaust, etc., and we have the makings of a proper ATS-V, and get separation from the V Sport, or whatever. Cadillac, listen up!

Jud

JFJr
05-29-13, 07:13 PM
Hmm.. If we eliminate that awful DOD feature, we could reduce V8 displacement to, say, 5.5 liters; and if we can't get sufficient torque as NA, strap on the TT. Voilà, we now have a smaller, but very potent, version of what may wind up in the V3. Just add the TR6070 as the standard transmission, along with Brembo brakes, magnetic shocks, 2 stage exhaust, etc., and we have the makings of a proper ATS-V, and get separation from the V Sport, or whatever. Cadillac, listen up!

Jud

I hope that Cadillac monitors this thread and listens to potential customers. If they want an exclusive sedan, ignore the flakey marketing types and listen to the enthusiasts that will ultimately determine credibility in the super sedan category.

Jud

M5eater
05-29-13, 07:57 PM
I hope that Cadillac monitors this thread and listens to potential customers. If they want an exclusive sedan, ignore the flakey marketing types and listen to the enthusiasts that will ultimately determine credibility in the super sedan category.

Jud

Most people that buy cars are not enthusiasts though. Sometimes we need to pick and choose our battles and count our blessings.

the existence of a 6MT F10 m5 exclusively for North America for example. Everywhere else in the world that car is automatic only.

The fact that Cadillac so finely tuned this chassis to be as good as it is *and* said ultimately 'no' to a FWD ATS (that very nearly happened) are also wins.

a 6MT for the 2.0T RWD car is also a win, as Lexus to my knowledge offers no 6MT in any of their IS models, which btw is the car that just beat the 3 series in a recent Car and Driver comparison.

Cadillac's certainly listening to us, but as the saying goes, you can't always get what you want.

That said, I certainly hope they listen a bit more ;)

JFJr
05-29-13, 09:24 PM
I think that car guys know best when it comes to the halo/high performance editions. I don't think that we're "lucky" to have what is given. Cater to us and we will help far more than the country club set that will obsess over the TTV6. I thought that Cadillac was trying to break away from its decades older mold, but it needs to resist older ways and realize that the success that the "V 's" have given it will propel it from the past. I think that Lutz and other car guys know it.

Jud

M5eater
05-29-13, 09:25 PM
whoops.. nvm.

bollyjack
05-31-13, 12:32 AM
anybody want to guess how much an ATS-V will cost?

Jinx
05-31-13, 12:26 PM
CTS Premium RWD is $49,185.
CTS-V is $65,410.
ATS 3.6L Premium RWD is $47,590.
I predict ATS-V will be the answer to the $64,000 question.

SC2150
05-31-13, 02:21 PM
I agree w/M5eater.....the masses that are the target demographic will always dictate the end versions....only a small percentage ever even find these forums or even care about the mechanical side. It is car they drive and put gas in and never open the hood.

I'm all for just strapping one of these on and go:

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/TVSLFX018_zps4d62a228.jpg

bruff1977
05-31-13, 07:26 PM
Maybe $64k fully loaded. Hopefully the starting price will be $54995.

M5eater
05-31-13, 07:46 PM
Maybe $64k fully loaded. Hopefully the starting price will be $54995.

I would bet this thing will start at between 59-61 Grand and go a bit over 70.

The car aggressively mirrors 3 series pricing.

A C63, and M3 are both 60-80K cars. Even the Flabby IS-F that starts at 61,780 and has only 3 trim package choices bumps 68K.

Stevo Supremo
05-31-13, 08:00 PM
well I dunno, 4XX ponies, TT, good tuning possibilities, call me glass half full but I think with some small tweaks this thing'll be a rocket. Whats a camaro SS have, 425?

I did drive the new XTS TT v6 today (which is what made me comment here in the first place) and it was DAMN FAST! even for that boat, that engine in the ATS will be nothing to sneeze at

M5eater
05-31-13, 08:03 PM
well I dunno, 4XX ponies, TT, good tuning possibilities, call me glass half full but I think with some small tweaks this thing'll be a rocket. Whats a camaro SS have, 425? and thats from a v8, eh, I'll have to see it to believe it.

I did drive the new XTS TT v6 today (which is what made me comment here in the first place) and it was DAMN FAST! even for that boat, that engine in the ATS will be nothing to sneeze at

it will have good possibilities, but seeing as this brand has very nearly shit for vendors, it's still going to take a few good years before we see widespread cracking of the ECU and figure out what a good tune can pull.

The top mount water IC bricks are a shitty design to work with in trying to get something aftermarket to work, and of course, being D/I you'll have to deal with carbon deposits. The fact that the LF3 is only debutting in Cadillac's doesn't help.

The LT1 will by far, be a better platform. The LF3 will need to get some momentum before it snowballs.

The reason the V has such widespread support is because it piggybacks off the LS blocks in the camaro and vette.

The LF3 can't even piggyback off the LFX in the camaro which itself has a lot of vendor support.

Stevo Supremo
05-31-13, 08:06 PM
I suppose, well, I wont be a customer anyways for that car so I suppose my points are all moot lol, but seriously that TT xts hauled ass!

JFJr
05-31-13, 10:29 PM
I'm glad that the XTS TTV6 is really good, but the "V's" are supposed to be the ultimate, so we don't need another version of that engine for the ATS-V. They will be low production cars so who cares about mass appeal? Something for everyone in standard XTS's and CTS's, but the lowest common denominator is irrelevant for any "V." Otherwise, an LSA SS Chevrolet might be an alternative. Still, car guys can do more for Cadillac than country club lizards.

Jud :lildevil:

M5eater
06-01-13, 10:39 AM
I'm glad that the XTS TTV6 is really good, but the "V's" are supposed to be the ultimate, so we don't need another version of that engine for the ATS-V. They will be low production cars so who cares about mass appeal? Something for everyone in standard XTS's and CTS's, but the lowest common denominator is irrelevant for any "V." Otherwise, an LSA SS Chevrolet might be an alternative. Still, car guys can do more for Cadillac than country club lizards.

Jud :lildevil:

There's a lot that could be said, but the facts are, the next M3 gets a tri-turbo N54. The LSA was mostly a blown LS3, and traditionally, General Motors has reserved corvette power to corvettes for at least 1 model year before supplanting it into 'lessor' vehicles (like the camaro)

If the ATS-V gets even a mildly detuned LT1. Minds will be blown, but they may risk not beating the M3 at the numbers game, and ultimately, that's their mission; to beat BMW.

Jinx
06-01-13, 12:02 PM
Are we suggesting that the 420hp LF3 can be pushed into M3-beating territory but the 460hp LT1 can't? Surely not. Remember, this is not a shadetree boost-till-it-blows job, this is a production automobile.

And if anybody thinks GM is going to be precious about following vague old Corvette protection traditions when the mission is to beat the BMW M3, they need a time out.

bruff1977
06-01-13, 06:30 PM
Cadillac really should create a focus group to discuss/decide this, if they haven't already... (hand raised)

I don't think the ATS-V, even with a tuned LT1 (470-500hp) will undermine the forecasted market of the Stingray. It may very well give a kick in sales because of the potential of the LT1 experienced in the ATS-V. (win-win)

JFJr
06-01-13, 07:44 PM
Cadillac really should create a focus group to discuss/decide this, if they haven't already... (hand raised)

I don't think the ATS-V, even with a tuned LT1 (470-500hp) will undermine the forecasted market of the Stingray. It may very well give a kick in sales because of the potential of the LT1 experienced in the ATS-V. (win-win)

I'm with you and would be happy to be a part so the marketing types will be minimized.

Jud

RippyPartsDept
06-01-13, 09:32 PM
This is already a focus group. Didn't you know? All your posts are being recorded for posterity.

rand49er
06-01-13, 11:07 PM
This is already a focus group. Didn't you know? All your posts are being recorded for posterity.This reminds of about 5-6 years ago when everyone was trying to guess what motor and hp rating the '09 CTS-V would have. Nobody, I mean NOBODY, guessed anything near 556 hp.

I hope we're as pleasantly surprised coming up when the ATS-V powerplant becomes known just as we all were back then when the LSA was announced.

JFJr
06-01-13, 11:26 PM
This is already a focus group. Didn't you know? All your posts are being recorded for posterity.

There needs to be a dialogue between potential customers, also car guys, and marketing and engineering types, for the "V's"; other cars don't really need that as the lowest common denominator is sufficient. If it's important to really stay ahead in the super sedan market, outside advice could be helpful to Cadillac.

Jud

rand49er
06-02-13, 08:51 AM
The guys deciding this stuff know exactly what we think and want. However, they have to sell whatever they decide to the brass, and that's the tough part.

M5eater
06-02-13, 10:17 AM
The guys deciding this stuff know exactly what we think and want. However, they have to sell whatever they decide to the brass, and that's the tough part.

I'm sure this battle has raged since the ATS-V was a little glimmer in an engineers eye.

The bottom line is trying to convince the people that matter which is the better sale.

Do we use our brand-spanking new, twin turbo V6 to match BMW's Tri-turbo N54, or play it safe and use the LT1.

JFJr
06-02-13, 01:14 PM
Well, Cadillac could even face competition from the Chevy SS if an LSA or other stronger version is offered, a 6 or 7 speed manual becomes available, and the ATS-V winds up with any kind of V6 instead of a V8. I know that I would consider an SS under those circumstances.

Jud

M5eater
06-02-13, 09:11 PM
Well, Cadillac could even face competition from the Chevy SS if an LSA or other stronger version is offered, a 6 or 7 speed manual becomes available, and the ATS-V winds up with any kind of V6 instead of a V8. I know that I would consider an SS under those circumstances.

Jud

The SS isn't going to cannibalize any worthwhile ATS-V sales.

JFJr
06-02-13, 10:51 PM
The SS isn't going to cannibalize any worthwhile ATS-V sales.

The question is what is "worthwhile"; some think that any 6 cyl. is caca in an American super sedan.

M5eater
06-02-13, 11:30 PM
The question is what is "worthwhile"; some think that any 6 cyl. is caca in an American super sedan.

I don't know of anyone that picks a car based solely on it's engine. Except you.

There's also the irony in that you claim people are going to want a larger car when the car you're comparing it to was created specifically because people didn't want a bigger car?

Hoosier Daddy
06-03-13, 09:43 AM
I don't know of anyone that picks a car based solely on it's engine. Except you.

Add to your list:


Wow am I in a pickle,, I just love the ATS and really want to look into buying one, HOWEVER, I would have to let my 1999 Olds Aurora go.
Wonderful BIG car ride with a 4.0 V8 that will scat. ... Wow, do I want to give it up? If I have to trade down ( and it is) to a 2.0 - 4 cylinder (Just 1/2 of what I have)

M5eater
06-03-13, 09:53 AM
And the List grows. Damn those cubes.

bruff1977
06-24-13, 02:04 PM
http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/article.content_pages_news_us_en_2013_jun_0624-xts-twin-turbo.gm.html

This presser places the TTV6 in the XTS Vsport. Just to facilitate more discussion, take a look at this statement from the release:

'In both the CTS and XTS product lines, the twin turbo will be the centerpiece of a new model offering called Vsport. The new Vsport is inspired by and slotted “underneath” Cadillac’s elite high-performance V-Series models. Vsport includes the best-performing technical elements inside the “regular” car line in a single model, headlined by Twin Turbo engine.'

I'll try to break it down:

'In both the CTS and XTS product lines the twin turbo will be the centerpiece of a new model offering called Vsport.' -- Could the Vsport just be offered for these two vehicles at least for 2014?

'The new Vsport is inspired by and slotted “underneath” Cadillac’s elite high-performance V-Series models.' -- Why underneath in quotation marks? Possible sharing of components, to include powertrain perhaps. :suspense:

'Vsport includes the best-performing technical elements inside the “regular” car line in a single model, headlined by Twin Turbo engine.' -- Headlined. Across ALL Vsport models I suppose?

This press release really keeps my hopes up high for a V8 powered ATS-V. I probably have about fifteen months to save up. :thumbsup:

pissedoffwookiee
06-26-13, 08:12 PM
http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/article.content_pages_news_us_en_2013_jun_0624-xts-twin-turbo.gm.html

This presser places the TTV6 in the XTS Vsport. Just to facilitate more discussion, take a look at this statement from the release:

'In both the CTS and XTS product lines, the twin turbo will be the centerpiece of a new model offering called Vsport. The new Vsport is inspired by and slotted “underneath” Cadillac’s elite high-performance V-Series models. Vsport includes the best-performing technical elements inside the “regular” car line in a single model, headlined by Twin Turbo engine.'

I'll try to break it down:

'In both the CTS and XTS product lines the twin turbo will be the centerpiece of a new model offering called Vsport.' -- Could the Vsport just be offered for these two vehicles at least for 2014?

'The new Vsport is inspired by and slotted “underneath” Cadillac’s elite high-performance V-Series models.' -- Why underneath in quotation marks? Possible sharing of components, to include powertrain perhaps. :suspense:

'Vsport includes the best-performing technical elements inside the “regular” car line in a single model, headlined by Twin Turbo engine.' -- Headlined. Across ALL Vsport models I suppose?

This press release really keeps my hopes up high for a V8 powered ATS-V. I probably have about fifteen months to save up. :thumbsup:

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:

light weight?

check

next M3 probably an inline 6

check

better fuel economy than a 400HP V8?

check

under 500HP so as not to have power to weigh ratio better than CTS-V?

check

fully modern overhead cam anti muscle car engine befitting a euro fighting cadillac?

check

will the TTV6 help retain near 50/50 weight balance?

check

is that engine ready to go?

check, check

Could they do a V8 sure, the alpha platform that underpins the ATS was designed for a V8 too, but that is for the next gen Camaro, and it seems to me to fit the marketing of the brands high tech ponies (caddy) vs traditional muscle ponies (chevy)

I would rather see a TTV6 for the tuning potential (woo hoo 500hp software upgrade here we come)

JFJr
06-26-13, 10:10 PM
Sure, blow it until it breaks. Who really cares about what the Germans are doing; how about their reliability beyond the warranty period? GM is better than that. This is a production car; anyone can over-stress a production engine and disclaim responsibility. Why not use a V8 which is a successful formula? I'm sure that GM engineers are smarter than the average forum member.

Jud

al pettee
06-26-13, 10:39 PM
...I hope that GM is smarter than the average forum member....

Jud

Unfortunately, they aren't.... :rolleyes:

JFJr
06-26-13, 10:43 PM
Unfortunately, they aren't.... :rolleyes:

Wow! where's the proof, let's have it?

Jinx
06-27-13, 02:42 AM
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:

40hp short? check

No performance heritage or reputation at all? check

Most plebeian engine architecture possible compared to BMW's legendary inline six? check

Fuel economy compared apples-to-apples with the LT1 not demonstrated nor proven? check

Weight and overall packaging compared apples-to-apples with the LT1 unknown? check

LT1 ready to go with 40hp more than the TTV6? check


The superiority of the TTV6 is far from a foregone conclusion.

.Jinx

pissedoffwookiee
06-27-13, 08:31 AM
40hp short? check

No performance heritage or reputation at all? check

Most plebeian engine architecture possible compared to BMW's legendary inline six? check

Fuel economy compared apples-to-apples with the LT1 not demonstrated nor proven? check

Weight and overall packaging compared apples-to-apples with the LT1 unknown? check

LT1 ready to go with 40hp more than the TTV6? check


The superiority of the TTV6 is far from a foregone conclusion.

.Jinx

I don't buy it , cadillac is going to make the tt v6 their hero engine, they have an aversion to a highly refined corporate engine as evidenced by their sticking with the northstar which was finally replaced with the 3.6DI engine that out performed it

the v8 is nice but it's a blunt instrument and their vision for themselves is as BMW's nemesis, they are tightly aligning themselves with BMW products the CTS-V was the m5 killer at an m3 price the ats is the 3 series killer and the new CTS is the 5 series killer. even the trims are lining up. mainline BMW, m-sport and m with cadillac mainline v-sport and v.

frankly 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.

and to the point I made earlier about weight distribution cadillac is extremely proud that they achieved that with both the ATS and the new CTS, they would need to use the dry sump and titanium connecting rods among other tricks to get the weight down, which I'm sure is not in their cost targets

M5eater
06-27-13, 09:46 AM
and to the point I made earlier about weight distribution cadillac is extremely proud that they achieved that with both the ATS and the new CTS, they would need to use the dry sump and titanium connecting rods among other tricks to get the weight down, which I'm sure is not in their cost targets
I'm not understanding your reasoning, but I can assure you, given the LT only weighs aproximately 420-440lbs, and a LFX weighs in at a lofty 350, a pair of turbochargers, intercoolers, pumbing, along with block reinforcements and ect in the LF3 will put it within 20lbs of an LT1. Even amung the weight concerned, 20lbs is a small price to pay either way.

With the LT1 bringing VVT , DI and DOD to the table,It wouldn't surprise me to know that the LT1 may be on par with, or better than the LF3 in fuel economy either. Before the CTS-V received a ridicliously short final gear, it was achieving 14/22 in the first gen V with an LS2.

Anything less than 18/26 in an ATS-V will be a let down, in my opinion.

bruff1977
06-27-13, 12:05 PM
I was a bit surprised when GM DIDN'T release official mileage numbers with the performance figures for the Stingray Z51. I know, different beast, but at least it would've given a ballpark figure of what to expect in a V8 powered ATS-V (27mpg highway?).

The biggest take for me from the release was the last sentence. I think all Vsports will have the LF3.

pissedoffwookiee
06-27-13, 02:47 PM
I'm not understanding your reasoning, but I can assure you, given the LT only weighs aproximately 420-440lbs, and a LFX weighs in at a lofty 350, a pair of turbochargers, intercoolers, pumbing, along with block reinforcements and ect in the LF3 will put it within 20lbs of an LT1. Even amung the weight concerned, 20lbs is a small price to pay either way.

With the LT1 bringing VVT , DI and DOD to the table,It wouldn't surprise me to know that the LT1 may be on par with, or better than the LF3 in fuel economy either. Before the CTS-V received a ridicliously short final gear, it was achieving 14/22 in the first gen V with an LS2.

Anything less than 18/26 in an ATS-V will be a let down, in my opinion.

i don't think it will be as heavy as you think, remember the standout features of the LFX is the cast in integrated exhaust manifold and composite intake manifold, this means the turbos directly bolt to the engine, the turbo is it's own downpipe.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/2014-cadillac-cts/9742-1_53-50143706.html

here's a video of the cutaway of the LF3

all these tricks in my analysis are about maximum weight savings. now the cynic in me doesn't think GM is doing this because they just woke up and found themselves disciples of Colin Chapman (Lotus), it is my belief this is all because of the new CAFE standards that are coming, it's the same reason BMW is downsizing its motors too dropping the v10 and v8 in their respective m cars they're under similar pressure. in the face of these weight savings that they must do, they are taking this time to go with it and exploit what they must already do.

bruff1977
06-27-13, 03:28 PM
The point is the LF3 won't be significantly lighter than the LT1 (old debate). What's yet to be discovered is whether or not the LF3, for the CTS Vsport, is at its limit mechanically. Same goes for the LT1.

pissedoffwookiee
06-27-13, 07:01 PM
The point is the LF3 won't be significantly lighter than the LT1 (old debate). What's yet to be discovered is whether or not the LF3, for the CTS Vsport, is at its limit mechanically. Same goes for the LT1.

significant or no, another thing Cadillac is super proud of is the 50/50 weigh distribution. the ATS goes from 50/50 to 51/49 when you go up to the v6. if you look under the hood of a turbo ATS the engine is way in the back of the bay, the v6 fills it more and the current v8 will probably fill it completely. my point is the weight is shifting forward and increasing , this will have an effect on the handling which is another high mark of the ATS

Jinx
06-28-13, 03:39 AM
Of course you don't buy it, it was your post I countered. But you haven't helped your case.

Sticking with the Northstar wasn't a good move. The two cars most responsible for putting Cadillac back in a good light are the first- and second-gen CTS-Vs. Cadillac's bacon was saved by the smallblock V8.

LT1 is a blunt instrument? What exactly makes it blunt and the TTV6 sharp? You're just making stuff up now.

The CTS-V doesn't fit your "tightly aligning themselves with BMW products" theory. At all. The new Vsport doesn't really line up with the M-Sport either, because Vsport has an engine. See, Cadillac is not just copying someone else's recipe, they're putting their own twist on things -- and they're better for it.

Your conspiracy theory about the ZL1 and ZR1 doesn't hold up either. Occam's Razor -- it was simpler for GM to do nothing more to the CTS-V than to revisit it in its tiny-volume twilight. And you should know better than to think LSA and LS9 are "the same motor." They are not.

M5eater
06-28-13, 08:02 AM
There's nothing blunt about a small block. It's power band is exceptionally smooth in the LSA, and I haven't seen any legitimate car journalist 'complain' that the car lacked an additional 3 cams. Quite the opposite infat, car-rags love the rumble of an LS. The only complains about it are purely psychological in nature.

It's a simple design, but it's also lightweight, compact, and the design is so mature it has a fraction of the problems 'high tech' engines have. The C6R, you know, one of the most successful manufacture backed teams for the past few years, the one that defeats Ferrari, Porsche and aston in the GT races and at le mans? Powered by an LS.

rand49er
06-28-13, 08:57 AM
... the cast in integrated exhaust manifold and composite intake manifold, this means the turbos directly bolt to the engine, the turbo is it's own downpipe.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/2014-cadillac-cts/9742-1_53-50143706.html
...I love this design feature. But, you have to wonder how much this limits the ability to change the turbo in any way to further increase performance. Just dreaming here now, but next step might be putting six individual turbos (one on each exhaust port) on a V6 like having an ignition coil for each cylinder when there was only one for the whole motor in the past. Would be near instant response. I know: plumbing nightmare ... unless the plumbing was accomplished with a casting. Hm-m ...

Maybe I just having been paying attention, but that was news to me that the trans can do a double upshift when conditions permit. Great idea in an eight-speed AT.

mikesul
06-28-13, 10:43 AM
Like that new CTS Sport! He did say there would be a new CTS Coupe, I had heard they wouldn't have one. Can't wait to see it. I traded in an '11 CTS coupe for the ATS because the coupe was so heavy, seems they took 300# out of it- very nice! Now that 3.6TT engine paired with a manual trans could get me back into a CTS coupe. :)

M5eater
06-28-13, 10:57 AM
I love this design feature. But, you have to wonder how much this limits the ability to change the turbo in any way to further increase performance.
not very.

Eliminator style turbochargers(ie OEM fitment with larger compressor housings) are very popular, and the housing is practicly identical to a T3/T4 Flange to begin with.

JFJr
06-28-13, 11:03 AM
I love this design feature. But, you have to wonder how much this limits the ability to change the turbo in any way to further increase performance. Just dreaming here now, but next step might be putting six individual turbos (one on each exhaust port) on a V6 like having an ignition coil for each cylinder when there was only one for the whole motor in the past. Would be near instant response. I know: plumbing nightmare ... unless the plumbing was accomplished with a casting. Hm-m ...

Maybe we could add a supercharger to those 6 turbochargers. That would be "windy city." Seriously, I believe that the turbocharger-supercharger combo was used in some aircraft engines during WWII. So much for "modern technology."

Jud :lildevil:

Jinx
06-28-13, 01:21 PM
I think in WWII they called turbos "turbosuperchargers." Were there aircraft engines back then that actually used both exhaust-driven and crank-driven boost?

As for a turbo on each cylinder, doesn't that subject the impellor to greater pressure variation, even a vacuum during valve overlap on intake? Turbo lag might even be worse.

JFJr
06-28-13, 02:10 PM
I think in WWII they called turbos "turbosuperchargers." Were there aircraft engines back then that actually used both exhaust-driven and crank-driven boost?
A little light reading before bedtime: http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm. I haven't read it yet, but it should answer your question. I'm pretty sure that the Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 used in the P-51 Mustang was supercharged, but don't know if was a combo or not. BTW, I wish that I could afford to restore and fly a P-51D; marvelous fighter.

Jud

pissedoffwookiee
06-28-13, 02:56 PM
And you should know better than to think LSA and LS9 are "the same motor." They are not.

same motor, tweaked bolt ons:

tweaks are

LS9-ti connecting rods
LSA-forged steel

LS9-dry sump oil system
LSA-traditional with baffles in oil pan

LS9-2.3 liter supercharger & 9.1:1 compression
LSA-1.9 liter & 9.0:1 compression

This is why tuners have been loving the LSA it was built for more power and dialed down


LT1 is a blunt instrument? What exactly makes it blunt and the TTV6 sharp? You're just making stuff up now.

it's a turn a phrase, and you seem to take offense to it, any instrument can be a fun one and I think both are great but it seems to me getting similiar work/ability from a smaller machine could be described as sharper.....

Jinx
06-28-13, 03:42 PM
"Blunt instrument." It's a turn of phrase that you used to belittle the LT1 compared to the TTV6, essentially without substance, so I object to it. And "smaller" is debatable. It seems to me getting similar work/ability from a simpler machine could be described as sharper.

I will never convince you that this V8 is not inferior to this TTV6, despite the fact that in the only versions of these engines announced so far the V8 produces significantly more power. You're arguing what could be against what is.

As for LSA-vs-LS9, you undersell the differences a bit:

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/2009-2013-cadillac-cts-v-performance/159345-differences-between-ls9-lsa.html

JFJr
06-28-13, 04:13 PM
For the TTV6 to be more fuel efficient than the LT1 in the real world, the driver would have to stay out of boost as much as possible. That is probably wishful thinking for those that opt for the TTV6. I suspect Cadillac developed the engine to show it could and snub its nose at the Germans, and to attract those types of buyers that wrongly equate complexity with superiority.

Jud

rand49er
06-28-13, 05:52 PM
The LT1 is a gorgeous cam-in-block, naturally-aspirated engine. The LF3 is a gorgeous overhead cam, forced-induction engine.

What's not to like?

Jinx
06-28-13, 07:00 PM
A little light reading before bedtime: http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm. I haven't read it yet, but it should answer your question. I'm pretty sure that the Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 used in the P-51 Mustang was supercharged, but don't know if was a combo or not. BTW, I wish that I could afford to restore and fly a P-51D; marvelous fighter.

Jud

Yeah, planes make cars look cheap.

Found -- the B-17 Flying Fortress engines had both a blower and a turbo. This is a fascinating video, a mechanic giving an overview of the B-17's engines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbPrfqfCg7I

----------

It seems the Merlins had two-stage superchargers but not exhaust-driven turbos.

JFJr
06-28-13, 08:09 PM
Those that appreciate WWII technology will understand current automotive "advancements." Younger guys take notice. At the moment we're talking about refinements, not totally new technology.

Jud

pissedoffwookiee
06-29-13, 06:15 AM
"Blunt instrument." It's a turn of phrase that you used to belittle the LT1 compared to the TTV6, essentially without substance, so I object to it. And "smaller" is debatable. It seems to me getting similar work/ability from a simpler machine could be described as sharper.

I will never convince you that this V8 is not inferior to this TTV6, despite the fact that in the only versions of these engines announced so far the V8 produces significantly more power. You're arguing what could be against what is.

As for LSA-vs-LS9, you undersell the differences a bit:

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/2009-2013-cadillac-cts-v-performance/159345-differences-between-ls9-lsa.html

blunt instrument is a turn of phrase and that's all, if you think I'm belittling your pick of engines then that is a problem you need to work out with yourself. if you think I dislike traditional American muscle you'd be mistaken. a little background as the son of mechanic from the third world who started his career converting American diplomatic limos for use on poor quality local gas and ended up a factory Mercedes Benz mechanic trainer, I've been around and in and built more of this stuff than most. I dig all kinds of cars for different reasons and should mention I learned to drive a stick on '76 stingray picked up directly from bowling green by an original top gun pilot the first instructor class (so this car wasn't gimped by smog stuff) and also mention the Hennessy v-wagon I had built for my work month before last. so you don't know diddly about my preferences.

a blunt instrument is merely blunt it's neither bad nor good, it's designed for smashing... a sharp instrument likewise has no moral leaning and is simply used to cut or poke. in the historical past both blunt and sharp instruments would be used on the same battlefield and both with amazing effectiveness.

now I happen to own an ats and happen to believe the cadillac reps I come in contact with and it is my belief the ats-v will be a v6. this belief is based on the hints I hear but will not be confirmed when i ask directly, the marketing messages available to us all, and my driving experience with the car. as v owners I get your passion for the v8 but you seem a little too wound up, I just think the 6 lines up with the car, and Cadillacs stated goals and message.

now for the next gen CTS I can't wait to see what they do, and I sincerely hope they can fix this situation of being punk'd by Chevy (580hp in 2013 and '14 caddy still has 556 Chevy's just gotta be pullin strings to keep the premier brand out of the goody box) and yes it's v8 all the way here which for the same reasons I stated with the ats. the CTS-V lines up nicely with the m5 which also has a v8.

Jinx
06-29-13, 07:02 PM
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.

M5eater
06-29-13, 09:31 PM
Meanwhile, at the legion of doom

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/22927000/ngbbs4dfecc4481f9b.jpg

pissedoffwookiee
06-29-13, 10:29 PM
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.

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.

Jinx
06-30-13, 04:06 AM
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.

rand49er
06-30-13, 09:35 AM
... conspiracy theory of Chevrolet holding back Cadillac doesn't make it any more true ...Not sure if this still occurs, but it certainly did in the past. My dad was a Pontiac product engineer from '47 to '85. When the Firebird was being proposed to GM management by Pontiac in the early '60s, Chevrolet vetoed the idea of it being a two-seater (as proposed) so as not to compete with the Corvette and insisted on coming out with their own version, effectively a spinoff, the Camaro. True story.

Does Chevy still get their panties in a bunch and put pressure at the corporate level to prevent the other "divisions" from, as they see it, stealing their sales? I'm not so naive.

Jinx
06-30-13, 12:35 PM
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

JFJr
06-30-13, 12:55 PM
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

pissedoffwookiee
07-01-13, 02:57 PM
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.

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.

rand49er
07-01-13, 07:35 PM
... the target of 4.6 0-60 for the twin turbo 8speed combo ...Are you referring to a CTS V-Sport doing this? If so, at 300 lbs lighter, an LF3-equipped ATS should be a couple ticks under 4.0 sec 0-60 I'd wager.

Nice.

bruff1977
07-02-13, 12:01 PM
Hopefully no more than 3600 lbs. Please!

pissedoffwookiee
07-02-13, 04:33 PM
Are you referring to a CTS V-Sport doing this? If so, at 300 lbs lighter, an LF3-equipped ATS should be a couple ticks under 4.0 sec 0-60 I'd wager.

Nice.

yes that's the target so far for the CTS v-sport

the '14 CTS has a weight range of 3615lbs for the base to 3950lbs for the v-sport premium

the '14 ATS has a weight range of 3315lbs for the base to 3461lbs for the 3.6 premium rwd

now assuming a couple hundred pounds for turbos and overall car beefing up, and assuming the v-sport drivetrain in the ATS-v, and assuming Cadillac hits their target for speed on the CST v-sport, this bodes well for our little car being quite the rocket ship.

***disclaimer***
for our more sensitive readers, these thoughts on the ATS-V are assumptions in this future model dreamers thread and not to be taken as fact, only to be taken as 'that could be fun' wishfull thinking. the weight figures are in fact actual taken from the autobook.

----------


Hopefully no more than 3600 lbs. Please!

i agree, that would be so nice

a side note, autobook has the M3 curb weight as 3704lbs

rand49er
07-02-13, 10:28 PM
... a side note, autobook has the M3 curb weight as 3704lbsThat's encouraging, but either their hp is underrated or their drivetrain (DCT?) transmits power to the rear wheels more efficiently or (God forbid) both because, IIRC, their 0-60 times are so quick.

pissedoffwookiee
07-02-13, 11:30 PM
That's encouraging, but either their hp is underrated or their drivetrain (DCT?) transmits power to the rear wheels more efficiently or (God forbid) both because, IIRC, their 0-60 times are so quick.

BMW has been in the habit of underrating lately my best friends '13 M5 is rated at 560 hp but we had a laugh the other day when he told me someone in his BMW forum asked a BMW rep about the hp being a lie, and their response was a cagey "well we guaranty that you will get 560 hp no matter what, whether the weather is hot or not or any conditions" (not exact quote, i'm quoting my buddy) so we were laughing because that would mean it's pushing closer to 600 hp just to allow for hot thin air and and elevation. I know this is 'friend of a friend' hearsay but i believe it that car pulls like the hennesy 600 wagon i recently drove and harder than a stock CTS-V it's insane. i hope GM gets in the trickery game to our benefit.

Jinx
07-03-13, 12:13 AM
for our more sensitive readers, these thoughts on the ATS-V are assumptions in this future model dreamers thread and not to be taken as fact, only to be taken as 'that could be fun' wishfull thinking. the weight figures are in fact actual taken from the autobook.

Nice to see you're learning the difference; you were struggling with this earlier.

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...

pissedoffwookiee
07-03-13, 05:11 AM
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

Jinx
07-03-13, 11:51 AM
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.

pissedoffwookiee
07-03-13, 03:28 PM
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.

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.

thebigjimsho
07-03-13, 05:17 PM
:popcorn:

JFJr
07-03-13, 06:48 PM
20 paces with water pistols, guys.

Jud :lildevil:

bruff1977
07-03-13, 06:50 PM
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.

pissedoffwookiee
07-04-13, 04:01 AM
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.

these are GM's numbers, and it may not have a sunroof, it's a standalone option on CTS-v and all ats I think this a nod to the segment of premium customers who need the sun off their domes. either way ill find out about this option Friday

Jinx
07-04-13, 07:14 AM
of course it will continue, but you err in your assumption that i consider the V6 superior...

You're trying to split hairs but your blunt instrument isn't up to the task. Recall:


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:

light weight?

check

next M3 probably an inline 6

check

better fuel economy than a 400HP V8?

check

under 500HP so as not to have power to weigh ratio better than CTS-V?

check

fully modern overhead cam anti muscle car engine befitting a euro fighting cadillac?

check

will the TTV6 help retain near 50/50 weight balance?

check

is that engine ready to go?

check, check



Better suited, superior -- in the context of an ATS-V engine choice discussion, they're the same thing. You checked off items, implying factual advantages of the TTV6 over the V8, and I questioned whether they're factual or advantages, with specific counterpoints. You didn't address them except with handwaves, including the "blunt instrument" gem which you've yet to explain. Since then you've been trying an appeal to authority with your resume and professed love of V8s. (Your effort wasn't lost, it wasn't relevant.) You can't, or won't, focus and address the points raised head-on, but you can't not have the last word, either, so you keep trying to laugh it off with disparaging remarks. It's not working. Are you going to add another layer of absurdly-ironic insults now?

Look -- I understand your stated reasons for believing that the V6 is the right choice for the ATS-V, but I do not accept them as valid and sound i.e. truthful, and it's not because I'm delusional. If you want to discuss those reasons further, cool -- we probably won't agree but might still find interesting points or at least appreciate depth of thought. If you just want move on and discuss something else, cool, but don't make a show of standing on the high road if you're not going to take it.


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.

Your 33lb supercharger subtraction doesn't account for the fact that the 2nd-gen CTS-V upgrades handle 556hp/550lbft; the 3rd-gen Vsport upgrades do not. The ATS-V's won't have to either, so the use of the V8 in place of the TTV6 doesn't add 200 pounds. Not to mention the NA pushrod V8's lower center of gravity :)

From the Camaro's weights we see the delta from the 3.6DI to the LS3 as about 80 pounds, and IIRC the Stingray press says the LT1 weighs 26 pounds more than the LS3 -- 106 pounds, neck and neck with the TTV6.

.Jinx

pissedoffwookiee
07-05-13, 12:18 AM
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:

bruff1977
07-09-13, 12:33 AM
17/29 for the LT1 with a manual folks...

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/08/2014-chevy-corvette-stingray-good-for-up-to-30-mpg/

pissedoffwookiee
07-09-13, 02:46 AM
17/29 for the LT1 with a manual folks...

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/08/2014-chevy-corvette-stingray-good-for-up-to-30-mpg/

that's really good, corvette has had great fuel economy for a while

M5eater
07-09-13, 09:49 AM
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.

Jinx
07-09-13, 11:18 AM
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.

M5eater
07-09-13, 12:51 PM
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.

Jinx
07-09-13, 01:37 PM
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

M5eater
07-09-13, 01:46 PM
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.

pissedoffwookiee
07-09-13, 02:38 PM
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

M5eater
07-09-13, 03:10 PM
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).

pissedoffwookiee
07-09-13, 03:25 PM
unibody,........... but if you keep reading that line i'm talking about the high strengh steel they used which was in the unibody, i'll try to be clearer next time

M5eater
07-09-13, 03:27 PM
unibody

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.

Jinx
07-09-13, 03:37 PM
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

M5eater
07-09-13, 05:34 PM
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.

pissedoffwookiee
07-09-13, 06:22 PM
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.


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.

if you look at the whole statement, i'm agreeing with you.


i'm leaning toward the use of high strength steel for weight savings having a double purpose with the v in mind.

but since no one except GM actually knows I left open the (slight in my opinion) possibility it could be the other way


we are in the 'lightweight euro cap/cafe era' and as i see it, there is the possibility that it needs beefing up

----------


platform engineering and manufacturing are more flexible than ever before -- even the terms "platform" and "architecture" have been stretched quite a bit.

very true the theta premium aka theta-epsilon of the SRX is a new platform comprised of the combination of theta (equinox/terrain) and epsilon 2 (lacrosse/malibu) those guys can can be wizards

BDAdkins
08-08-13, 05:18 PM
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.

JFJr
08-08-13, 10:23 PM
We need a subthread devoted to those that are looking for more mpg out of these high performance cars, so that they can stop cluttering up the other forums.

Jud

Ancient Mariner
08-09-13, 07:28 AM
We need a subthread devoted to those that are looking for more mpg out of these high performance cars, so that they can stop cluttering up the other forums.

Jud

It was the same thing on GT500 forums when I had a Shelby - even there some people were complaining about gas mileage...never did understand that level of concern either, with any type of performance car :)

Jinx
08-09-13, 01:26 PM
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? ;)

M5eater
08-09-13, 09:54 PM
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.

JFJr
08-09-13, 10:11 PM
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

pissedoffwookiee
08-11-13, 03:16 AM
here's a thought, since most reviews of the ATS state one of the things that let it down hampering test results is the transmission one test specifically stating that the gearing let the bmw beat it to 60 and with Cadillac engines starting to show they might be slightly overbuilt as evidenced by the big gains pfadt is getting, i was thinking with just using cadillacs parts bin, having the ATS V-Sport have the 8 speed which should bring the car in line with the M-Sport cars, and the ATS-V the TTV6 tuned to 450 hp. the additional gears could definitely be set up to add some punch in acceleration and a V specific tune for the TTV6 seems feasible if GM's turbo engineers are working with the same conservative margins with the TTV6 as they seem to have with the 2.0T.....thoughts?

mikesul
08-11-13, 10:20 AM
I read in the new Car & Driver that the 2014 CTS with the 2.0T option engine gets the 6 speed auto trans. The Sport with the 3.6TT gets the 8 speed auto. Probably means the ATS with the 2.0T will also get the "old" six speed and not the 8 speed even when available in the ATS. :bonkers:

pissedoffwookiee
08-12-13, 03:23 AM
I read in the new Car & Driver that the 2014 CTS with the 2.0T option engine gets the 6 speed auto trans. The Sport with the 3.6TT gets the 8 speed auto. Probably means the ATS with the 2.0T will also get the "old" six speed and not the 8 speed even when available in the ATS. :bonkers:

it is a little nutty especially considering the 2.0T would probably benefit more from the 8 speed than the 3.6, that said they both will benefit greatly. if I had to guess, I'd say this is a supply cost thing, meaning GM is buying this transmission and the supply to roll it out on the 2.0T, 3.6, and the TTV6 on both the ATS and CTS may not be there this or next year. plus the cost of a new tranny vs one long in hand may have blown some pricing targets.

----------

let the jokes begin regarding the wording of my last sentence

mikesul
08-12-13, 10:28 AM
I read that GM is using the Aisin-Warner 8 speed auto until they finish development on their own version. Then maybe it will be available in all their models. They need a stronger version to handle higher torque.

roadpie4u
08-12-13, 12:29 PM
Just to answer some questions and thoughts:

The 8 spd will become common... eventually. While the 8spd will help with mpg on any application, the issue is when the transmission starts shifting constantly and hunts for "ideal" when driving normally. Compare a 4 cylinder Malibu with the A6 from a few years ago to the ATS LTG A6 of today - the software on the LTG is significantly better, but more work still needs to be done.

Will the ATS-V come with the A8 and M6? Or will it get an M7? That's an excellent question. Further, would the 2.0T benefit from an M7? I don't know.

The government has multiple methods of testing mpg and emissions. Thanks to recent changes in the testing procedures, a car may be rated 42mpg hwy according to CAFE, but 32mpg hwy according to DOT (and thus the window sticker). Manufacturers now have to make a choice - optimize a car's calibration and gearing for the DOT & sticker or for CAFE.

The ATS *should* be able to parts-bin-raid the ATS-V for suspension and brake components - but once you get to things like Recaro Seats and other unique trim components, it might make more sense to trade in the ATS and get an ATS-V. That's where I'm on the fence. I guess we'll see in another year or so.

M5eater
08-12-13, 12:35 PM
Will the ATS-V come with the A8 and M6? Or will it get an M7? That's an excellent question. Further, would the 2.0T benefit from an M7? I don't know.
They have a brand new 6speed transmission from Tremec that was specifically designed for the ATS.

I think that it can be said with a generous amount of certainty, that an ATS-V will reuse this trans.

roadpie4u
08-12-13, 01:47 PM
They have a brand new 6speed transmission from Tremec that was specifically designed for the ATS.

I think that it can be said with a generous amount of certainty, that an ATS-V will reuse this trans.
Very unlikely. The TR3160 used in the ATS is only rated for 450Nm/310lb-ft of Torque, which is nowhere near enough to handle the output of the TTV6. Interestingly, the TR3160 weighs only like 110lb.

Unless Tremec comes out with a "high power" variant assembly like the Viper with the T56 or Tremec greatly changes the rating on the transmission, they cannot re-use it.

The AY6 in the Camaro V6 is rated to 273lb-ft, which is less than the TR3160, so that's useless (and its a heavier transmission by like 20lb)

The TR6060 in the Camaro SS and CTS-V is rated for 600lb-ft - which is super crazy overkill (and it's a good 40lb heavier than the TR3160) but it'd work. In theory, as next the Camaro is riding on alpha, the TR6060 needs to fit into the transmission tunnel (or whatever transmission is scheduled to replace the TR6060).

The TR6070 in the C7 has an unknown assembled weight and rating, but the goals of the "premium" TR6070 include working with the ECU for rev-matching, better NVH, shift quality, efficiency, and lighter weight in a smaller package.

Ancient Mariner
08-19-13, 08:02 AM
An article in Car and Driver yesterday, reported the ATS-V to get the TT V-6 and a manual trans option:

Cadillac’s Great Twin-Turbo

This week, I spent a good hour behind the wheel of a pre-production Cadillac XTS4 Vsport, partly on very challenging roads. It was a welcome opportunity to try the new twin-turbo V-6 and to resample the XTS, which left me underwhelmed last time I drove one. The twin-turbocharged, 3.6-liter V-6 will also be offered in the third-generation CTS. In the XTS, it produces 410 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque; in the CTS, it will make an even more impressive 420 horsepower and 430 lb-ft of torque. It will also be offered in the upcoming ATS-V, where it can be specified with a manual transmission.

The new twin-turbo engine is much more enjoyable than the XTS’s standard, naturally aspirated 3.6-liter V-6, on which it is based and which continues to be offered. Throttle pickup is instant, turbo lag virtually nonexistent. Power delivery is impeccably linear. The sound is subdued, yet there a subtly aggressive backdrop that will undoubtedly be more pronounced in the CTS Vsport and especially the ATS-V. The engine makes high-speed cruising an utterly effortless experience.

What’s more, Cadillac has recalibrated the previously overboosted steering, and the already competent suspension. The XTS4 Vsport provides decent feedback, and it is fun to push it hard through the corners. This car is a vast improvement, and I am impressed. It bodes well for the brand’s aspirations.

bruff1977
08-19-13, 05:03 PM
Glad this report isn't official. Who knows where Meiners received his info.

Ancient Mariner
08-19-13, 05:38 PM
As much as I would like to see a V8 of some type in the ATS-V too, I really don't see it happening. Papa GM is famous for not letting models lower in their respective family outshine higher end models, which what exactly would happen should the ATS-V and new CTS-V share the same V8 engine. They've put a lot of development time and money into this new TT V6 and it'll show up in a lot of models, including the ATS-V I'm thinking. There are some other signs out there too in the aftermarket - Lingenfelter for example have set up pages to cover the already announced TT V6 in the CTS V-sport...and the ATS-V.

JFJr
08-19-13, 05:40 PM
Glad this report isn't official. Who knows where Meiners received his info.

Yes, and with the latest news from GM that the Elmiraj concept is "very doable" and much desired by the dealer network, I find it hard to believe that its TTV8 will be limited to only the Elmiraj and possibly the range-topping sedan. It could also be used in the ATS-V in conjunction with more carbon fiber and aluminum in the body to save weight, like the aluminum hood and plastic mesh griils in the V2. The TTV6 is becoming more identified with the V Sport option, a notch below the V series.

Jud

RippyPartsDept
08-19-13, 05:51 PM
yeah anythings possible folks... but lets stick to plausible, likely, and logical

bruff1977
08-19-13, 10:26 PM
I think an AWD ATS Vsport with the LF3 is logical. Keep it detuned like the package for the XTS (410 hp). Hopefully the in house eight speed will be available to handle the torque.

The Elmiraj motor OR a tuned LT1 for the little V(500+ hp)...

The CTS-V should get a blown LT1 (570+ hp)

RippyPartsDept
08-20-13, 11:28 AM
from the rumors I've heard the ATS Vsport will be the NAV6 powered car and the V-series will be the TTV6

seems a bit weak unless they somehow figure out a way to get some more ponies out of the 3.6L

M5eater
08-20-13, 12:54 PM
from the rumors I've heard the ATS Vsport will be the NAV6 powered car and the V-series will be the TTV6

seems a bit weak unless they somehow figure out a way to get some more ponies out of the 3.6L

in comparison to the 3 series maybe, but in comparison to the old engines powering the C class, A4 and IS lineup, they're ahead of the curve. a Vsport playing to Alpha strengths would do just fine as long as it's not encroaching on S4 or 335i msport money too much.

thebigjimsho
08-21-13, 10:51 PM
I'd take a teeny tiny amount of turbo lag over the sc and its running out of breath at high rpms...

JimmyH
08-22-13, 03:01 PM
turbo lag virtually nonexistent

That's what they say instead of saying "the turbo lag isn't quite as bad as it was in the 80s and 90s".

roadpie4u
08-22-13, 07:30 PM
The TTV6 (at ~440hp) would be superior to the LT1 (at ~440hp) in the ATS-V. I know people want the better exhaust note of the V8, but the TTV6 is the better option for several reasons - which have been beaten to death over at other forums like gminsidenews and cz28.

It has also been decided for (wow, look how time flies) for a year which engine the ATS-V and ATS VSport would get.

Regardless, the ATS-V has more to think about than just itself and the CTS - it has to prepare (and provide) the development of the Camaro as well. GM is able to develop such a "low cost" car on a "high cost" platform by utilizing a lot of front end engineering off of Cadillac's budgets. By making sure that Camaro lines up properly with options, equipment, and materials - they can make a Camaro coupe, an ATS coupe, and a CTS coupe all on the same platform without being too similar in design and final specifications (or price!).

JFJr
08-22-13, 08:07 PM
Let's circle back around and talk about engine weight. Is there any positive proof that the NA LT1 is significantly or at all heavier than the TTV6? If not where is the advantage? Better EPA figures for the TTV6? I would hope so. But the way these cars will be driven, will there be any real world difference? Is this to appease the "feel good" yuppies? Or is this discussion begun by someone that owns no V and has nothing better to do than start trouble in a forum?

Jud

JimmyH
08-22-13, 08:07 PM
The TTV6 (at ~440hp) would be superior to the LT1 (at ~440hp) in the ATS-V.

Superior in what way? That's a heavy handed statement to make there.

Hoosier Daddy
08-22-13, 11:30 PM
Or is this discussion begun by someone that owns no V and has nothing better to do than start trouble in a forum?
Just to clarify, he's not talking about Cadillac recalling the current gen and swapping the V8 for a V6 turbo. And if that isn't what you thought, are you just starting trouble? I mean you don't even own a V3. ;)

roadpie4u
08-23-13, 09:35 AM
Is there any positive proof that the NA LT1 is significantly or at all heavier than the TTV6? If not where is the advantage? Better EPA figures for the TTV6? I would hope so. But the way these cars will be driven, will there be any real world difference?
If you think about it, there's pretty much no way the LT1 is heavier. Sure, it'll have two more cylinders in the shortblock - but the head castings are much smaller. Additionally, the V6 gets a pair of turbochargers and now requires an intercooler, which also add to the total powertrain weight of the vehicle. The weights for both fully dressed engines are going to be pretty close in the end, but there's no definitive proof or data to say what that difference will be.

The question isn't just how much mass they are adding, but the center of it. Alpha is intended to be a lightweight car, yes, but it is intended to go after the 3 series and handling/performance is more important than weight. Could a DOHC TT offer a center of mass that was farther back? Sure. Could it also be higher up? Possibly. Can we confirm or deny either at this point? Nope.

On fuel economy, the problem is thanks to the gap between testing techniques for the EPA and DOT testing (window sticker and CAFE averages) all manufacturers now have to play a game in their gearing & calibration tests. Do they set up a car for maximum CAFE ratings for their averages, or maximum on the window sticker (which would be closer to "real world" values, but still not perfect) or strike somewhere between? Tough call.


Superior in what way? That's a heavy handed statement to make there.
That's fair - it is really heavy handed, but I've had the luxury of talking to a lot of people about it for nearly two years now and I can understand the reasoning as I've been in the industry in powertrain. The problem is it's really hard to separate our own biases and prejudices on something as spiritual as going to a N/A V8 or a TTV6. The preference for one type of an engine or another is huge to us, as enthusiasts, where we have the luxury of knowing more than, and being vastly more critical than, the average consumer.

It's bonkers how much negative press GM's pushrods get - they are compact, lightweight, horsepower dense, powerful and pretty fuel efficient. But media around the world love blasting anything that isn't overhead cam. Which is better, to deal with media complaining about the engine note of the V6 versus BMW's or watch them write pages and pages about "old technology". Besides, even BMW uses the stereo to make engine notes now! Ah well.

GM needs to keep the alpha siblings differentiated to the point where someone doesn't just step back and say "why should I buy a cadillac coupe when I can get a Camaro?". Yes, they'll be at different market segments and different price points, but at the end of the day they'll be on the same platform built at the same plant on the same line - and that's a tough nut to crack. We give the Camaro a V8, but an ATS Coupe would be a TTV6. Both have the same bones, both have the same build - but one has the soul of boost and the other normal aspiration. That'll give them a distinctly different feel to the driver - and it means the Camaro in a way gets some better treatment from the average enthusiast - and I (as I am still a Camaro guy at heart) want to make sure Camaro gets some special treatment.

But what if the decision wasn't just about the ATS or even the CTS - but Cadillac in general? What if it was determined that the entire brand would just get boosted engines (espicially in top trim models) in order to change the brand identity and try to push the vehicles to a larger global stage where displacement matters?

Additionally, the TTV6 is going to appear in both transverse and longitudinal applications - the LT1 will not.

At the end of the day, the TTV6 theoretically offers the ATS-V better handling, better fuel economy, better tuning capability (without rebuilding the engine), better torque management for drivetrain reliability/traction control/stability control, packaging of AWD, similar power, more space in the engine bay for air control and the cooling module, similar NVH, similar reliability - and a spiritual difference to, the new LT1 - giving a unique feature for the future of the Camaro - at the cost of an exhaust note for the ATS-V. As a Camaro guy, I gotta say that's a good thing for Camaro purists and the ATS crowd will just have to deal with it. :halo:

JFJr
08-23-13, 11:12 AM
But at the end of the day, the ATS-V will be marketed to car guys, so why not cater to them and not some global marketing crap for the masses? It will be a low production model anyway and the LT1 is begging for that car. I don't agree that using the TTV6 frees up more engine bay space vs. the LT1 or that real world fuel economy will be better with the TTV6. I wonder if the owners of Ford Ecoboast (oops, Ecoboost) TTV6 vehicles are experiencing significantly better mpg when driving aggressively vs. the V8's they're replacing?

Jud

roadpie4u
08-23-13, 12:02 PM
But at the end of the day, the ATS-V will be marketed to car guys, so why not cater to them and not some global marketing crap for the masses? It will be a low production model anyway and the LT1 is begging for that car. I don't agree that using the TTV6 frees up more engine bay space vs. the LT1 or that real world fuel economy will be better with the TTV6. I wonder if the owners of Ford Ecoboast (oops, Ecoboost) TTV6 vehicles are experiencing significantly better mpg when driving aggressively vs. the V8's they're replacing?
Well, in regards to freeing up space for a cooling module, it does (as the engine is technically two cylinder bores shorter), as the turbos are in the width of the engine and the bay has been designed for that. What honestly amazes me is how BMW continues to tightly package their straight sixes so cleanly.

Around town, in day-to-day traffic, no load in the bed, a LOT of F150 owners see better mpg. Again, being enthusiasts that drive their cars harder and oftentimes use/abuse trucks for what they were theoretically intended, then you are right and the Ecoboost does no better. But that's what "YMMV" is for on the sticker. According to Ford's CAFE averages though, the Ecoboost is seriously superior than a V8 equipped model. Again, they have to play government games.

And I WISH you were right about the ATS-V being catered toward car guys. In theory you are. But how many CTS-V's ever see more than a few blips of the throttle? How many Z06's see the track? Heck, most CTS-Vs and Corvettes are automatics.

If the ATS-V accounts for 5% of ATS sales I'd be shocked it was doing so well. If that were true and 2% of all ATS sales were Manual Transmission ATS-V cars I'd be shocked it was doing so well.

My dealer has sold/leased quite a few ATS's - but only ONE with a manual transmission. I called the other Cadillac dealer a couple months ago and they haven't sold a single one with a manual.

JimmyH
08-23-13, 12:30 PM
I will be keeping my Camaro SS MT for a while. There is really nothing out there, ATS-V included, that interests me. I really believe the car scene is getting blah. Sure, they keep packing more horsepower in, more refinement in, more technology in, etc etc. And they will keep going as long as consumers keep buying this crap to the point that our "cars" have become completely sterile driving appliances.

M5eater
08-24-13, 10:30 AM
I will be keeping my Camaro SS MT for a while. There is really nothing out there, ATS-V included, that interests me. I really believe the car scene is getting blah. Sure, they keep packing more horsepower in, more refinement in, more technology in, etc etc. And they will keep going as long as consumers keep buying this crap to the point that our "cars" have become completely sterile driving appliances.
The Z28 doesn't interest you at all?

I'm half contemplating another trade-in when those hit shelves.

The thing comes standard with audio and a/c delete.

1BadCadSTS
08-24-13, 11:07 AM
1le>z28

bruff1977
08-24-13, 12:30 PM
Ls7 > ls3

1BadCadSTS
08-24-13, 12:42 PM
4th gen fbody > 5th gen alpha

RippyPartsDept
08-24-13, 01:05 PM
what's a 5th gen alpha ?

1BadCadSTS
08-24-13, 02:10 PM
Isn't the 5th gen Camaro based on a modified alpha frame?[COLOR="Silver"]

----------

Correction

Sorry confused. 6th gen alpha 5th gen zeta

RippyPartsDept
08-24-13, 02:20 PM
ok ... that makes more sense

JimmyH
08-24-13, 09:24 PM
The Z28 doesn't interest you at all?

I'm half contemplating another trade-in when those hit shelves.

The thing comes standard with audio and a/c delete.

Not for the $60k they are gonna want for it. Not including the inevitible market adjustment. Besides the z/28 is a track car. I need a commuter car.

----------


4th gen fbody > __________

Fill in the blank with whatever you want and it will always be false.

M5eater
08-25-13, 10:54 AM
Not for the $60k they are gonna want for it. Not including the inevitible market adjustment. Besides the z/28 is a track car. I need a commuter car.
it's using some pretty revolutionary suspension. I bet it will be just fine as a DD, but I agree on pricing. I suspect this thing will be in the 65K range, maybe closer to 70K OTD. I need to find me a 2+2 to replace the corvette though.

Damn thing is too impractical, and I'm an impulse buyer, which doesn't mix when I take it up to the outlet mall and realize 'oh, I can't buy this because corvette'.

JimmyH
08-25-13, 10:20 PM
when did you get rid of your V?

I know the Z/28 is gonna be amazing. It's gonna be mopping up mustangs everywhere. And bet you are right. Probably closer to $70k. One of those blogs got a snippet from some supposed GM insider who said it will cost more than the ZL1.

I am not sure I agree about it being a decent commuter car. It's gonna ride like a truck I bet. And those tires will be lucky to reach 15k miles. And that front spoiler; you will need a spotter every parking lot you enter.

M5eater
08-26-13, 11:49 AM
when did you get rid of your V?

I know the Z/28 is gonna be amazing. It's gonna be mopping up mustangs everywhere. And bet you are right. Probably closer to $70k. One of those blogs got a snippet from some supposed GM insider who said it will cost more than the ZL1.

I am not sure I agree about it being a decent commuter car. It's gonna ride like a truck I bet. And those tires will be lucky to reach 15k miles. And that front spoiler; you will need a spotter every parking lot you enter.

A couple of months ago.


I know the Z/28 is gonna be amazing. It's gonna be mopping up mustangs everywhere. And bet you are right. Probably closer to $70k. One of those blogs got a snippet from some supposed GM insider who said it will cost more than the ZL1
The GM person with jay Lenno mentioned that also. Maybe in a few years I might get lucky and pickup one in the mid 30s or low 40s, but I suspect they're going to be difficult to find. I would be shocked if they moved more than 2K of these annually.


I am not sure I agree about it being a decent commuter car. It's gonna ride like a truck I bet. And those tires will be lucky to reach 15k miles. And that front spoiler; you will need a spotter every parking lot you enter.
I'm sure it'll still be plenty harsh, but I bet no worse than a current gen c6z or ZR1. With A/C and a radio added back in, I can't imagine it being as unbearable as my miata I tried to drive around with poly bushings. We're still talking about a 3700lb car.

JimmyH
08-26-13, 03:01 PM
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.

JFJr
08-26-13, 05:11 PM
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

JimmyH
08-26-13, 06:01 PM
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.

JFJr
08-26-13, 09:02 PM
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

M5eater
08-26-13, 09:26 PM
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.

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.

roadpie4u
08-27-13, 12:13 AM
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
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...).

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.

bruff1977
08-28-13, 02:26 PM
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?

mikesul
08-28-13, 03:15 PM
Leftlanenews.com said the pricing of the XTS-V Sport would be almost $20K above the base price, hope that isn't the case with the ATS-V using the same 3.6TT.

M5eater
08-29-13, 09:13 AM
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?
I haven't seen any mention of this, however, the CTS is a larger car, and 200-300 lbs heavier. There's also the fact that, midsized super sedans are not supposed to be agile attack monsters, they're more like a GT .

roadpie4u
08-29-13, 01:04 PM
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?
In the case of the ATS, its not the weight of the powertrain - alpha (and the ATS) can handle it - they simply want to be careful of the location of the center of it for handling and dynamics. The CTS is bigger, heavier, and has different goals.

Alpha, the platform, has been package protected for just about everything GM has in the powertrain group (except a giant diesel). This includes the weight of the powertrain and the sheer strength required to put that power down to the ground.

Different vehicles on Alpha will be tweaked to suit their own needs/goals.

The CTS-V gen3 is going to have plenty of power it needs to put to the ground. Don't worry.

pissedoffwookiee
09-13-13, 02:30 AM
drove the XTS V-Sport today, and a stick premium ATS, you can feel some good torque in that boat, and the ATS was so fun and lively, can't wait till t
hey put that car and that engine together

studio caddi
10-12-13, 08:22 PM
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 !

JFJr
10-19-13, 10:49 AM
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

roadpie4u
10-19-13, 10:00 PM
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
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

JFJr
10-20-13, 10:45 AM
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#axzz2VB6gevE8I 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