: ATS Weight



McShibbs
05-27-12, 02:29 PM
I was just thinking about the weight of the new ATS.

I know it'll weigh in just under 3,400 lbs. Does this apply to the 2.5, 2.0T and the 3.6?

I would think the 2.0T and 3.6 might end up weighing in a bit more.

Ilovecars
05-27-12, 09:53 PM
Not sure anyone is 100% certain on the exact weights, but I think it is safe to assume they gave the lowest weight of the lowest model. An AWD 3.6 loaded is going to be closer to 3600 lb if I had to guess.

Lord Cadillac
05-28-12, 07:15 PM
Not sure anyone is 100% certain on the exact weights, but I think it is safe to assume they gave the lowest weight of the lowest model. An AWD 3.6 loaded is going to be closer to 3600 lb if I had to guess.

I agree. Nobody knows for sure...

EnvoyBu
05-29-12, 06:34 AM
We do know that the 3.6L has a power to weight ratio of 10.8 lb/HP, so...

321(10.8) = 3,467 lbs for a V6.

rand49er
05-29-12, 01:22 PM
We do know that the 3.6L has a power to weight ratio of 10.8 lb/HP, so...

321(10.8) = 3,467 lbs for a V6.The math is correct. Where does the "10.8" figure come from? Was that published somewhere, and I missed it?

EnvoyBu
05-29-12, 03:41 PM
The math is correct. Where does the "10.8" figure come from? Was that published somewhere, and I missed it?

IIRC, it was mentioned when the car was released.

I found this:

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Jan/2012_naias/cadillac/0108_ats_powertrain.html

It explains a little about it.

rand49er
05-29-12, 05:18 PM
Yup. There's their 10.8 figure referring to the 3.6 motor.

Playing with that number a bit, a Gen 1 V at 3,850 lbs would be powered by a 356 hp motor to get 10.8 lbs/hp. As it is, it came with a 9.625 lbs/hp.

Using the 9.625 figure and the ATS weight of 3,467 lbs (I know, it's a bit apples and oranges), the motor would have to be rated at 360 hp.

If an ATS-V came out with, say, 454 hp, again using the weight of 3,467 lbs, the figure would be 7.64, same as a 4,250 lb V2.



I like numbers.

EnvoyBu
05-29-12, 06:35 PM
^ Me too.

I'd assume the V is going to have around 480-500 HP, and I think it'll weight around 3,600 lbs, so using those numbers, it would have a power to weight ratio of 7.5 using 480 HP, which puts it around where the V2 is now. Using 500 HP, it would have a ratio of 7.2, which is where the Camaro ZL1 is. Can't go wrong either way. :D

MikeTerp
05-29-12, 08:55 PM
Car mags are getting 0-60 times of 5.6 sec for the new BMW 328 (N52 2.0T engine) with automatic transmissions. This engine is rated at 240 hp, but BMW almost always underrates their engines. I would be surprised if the Caddy 2.0T makes any more power even though it will be rated at 270 hp. I don't think the ATS has to be faster, but it cannot be much slower. The ATS just needs to feel solid. People fall in love with BMWs when they drive them. Cadillac needs to achieve this "feel" as well. The luxury part will take care of itself.

EnvoyBu
05-29-12, 09:21 PM
Car mags are getting 0-60 times of 5.6 sec for the new BMW 328 (N52 2.0T engine) with automatic transmissions. This engine is rated at 240 hp, but BMW almost always underrates their engines. I would be surprised if the Caddy 2.0T makes any more power even though it will be rated at 270 hp. I don't think the ATS has to be faster, but it cannot be much slower. The ATS just needs to feel solid. People fall in love with BMWs when they drive them. Cadillac needs to achieve this "feel" as well. The luxury part will take care of itself.

I have very high hopes for the ATS. If the ATS 2.5L can do 0-60 in around 7.2 seconds, its in great shape. If the ATS 2.0T can do 0-60 in around 6 flat, it's in great shape. If the ATS 3.6L can do 0-60 in 5.2 seconds... that'll just sweeten the deal when I buy it. :D