: 2.0T Ats Vs Cts 3.6 2013



JoeyCts
07-01-13, 08:54 PM
This is kind of bias posting this on the Ats Forum, but in a zero to 60 race who would win ?? And in overall opinion which is the better car pound for pound ?? I miss my Cts so much I might try to switch out of my lease to the last year of the CTS with f**kin buttons inside ...

gohawks63
07-01-13, 09:58 PM
This is kind of bias posting this on the Ats Forum, but in a zero to 60 race who would win ?? And in overall opinion which is the better car pound for pound ?? I miss my Cts so much I might try to switch out of my lease to the last year of the CTS with f**kin buttons inside ...

I test drove a 2.0T performance ATs. I believe 0-60 is comparable with a CTS with the 3.6L. If the CTS has the 3.0 I believe the ATS will be quicker.

Which is a better car becomes subjective. The ATS is newer, interior materials in the ATS are upgraded. The ATS is lighter and has upgraded technology, but it seems like you aren't happy with that given your desire for real buttons. The CTS is bigger, but the ATS is lighter.

Again, it is a matter of preference.

M5eater
07-01-13, 10:09 PM
This is kind of bias posting this on the Ats Forum, but in a zero to 60 race who would win ?? And in overall opinion which is the better car pound for pound ?? I miss my Cts so much I might try to switch out of my lease to the last year of the CTS with f**kin buttons inside ...
Pound for pound, the ATS has the CTS beat, in every aspect.

There is nothing the CTS does better than the ATS, except for offering more size.

This is coming from someone that owned a CTS-V.

The question you should ask yourself is if you're comfortable in a compact sedan. From a shear quality of car aspect, there is little comparison here, this is a clean sheet brand new vehicle compared to a 5 year old model at the end of it's life.

As for CUE, after using it for a week so far, I have no complaints, and to be honest a lot of the critiques seem unfounded, or maybe because they're compared directly with 'button' infotainment systems instead of how you adapt quickly to it after a few days of ownership. That's personal preference. I've been around touch screens for years already, so it's nothing new to me.

Ultimately, basing a 40K purchase down to infotainment is a ridiculous notion I've yet to understand. I don't want to sound harsh, but if technology is what is of interest to you, there are much cheaper alternatives to get your fix.

JoeyCts
07-01-13, 11:15 PM
I agree in what is being said ... But I also feel next year CTS might be out of my price league .. From my understand ... The Standard 2014 CTS will come with the 2.0T which I have with the ATS and the upgrade CTS will come with the same 3.6 which they offer now .. I feel the 2.0T will not have enough power for the CTS .. Right now you can get a really good deal on a 3.6 CTS which will be the same engine as the 2014 in essence ..

Felton10
07-01-13, 11:32 PM
Looked at both cars-side by side. Was trading in my 2008 CTS which was the best car I ever owned. But sitting in the 2013 CTS, I felt like I was sitting in my old car. Nothing had changed except for the backup camera in the rear view mirror. In fact, the CTS with the same trim level was $ 700 cheaper. Was tempted to go with the CTS, but really wanted a smaller car, 5 year old vs new technology, my wife wanted the IPad, and everyone wants to be excited about driving a new car and buying one that looked almost the same as the one I was trading in just didn't do it for me.

Thunder Gray STS
07-01-13, 11:34 PM
I had a 3.6 luxury collection for a rental when they were putting a new rear end in my CTS V. Loved the ATS, but hated the 3.6. It sounded like someone dragging a chain saw chain over a log really fast. Since I've had turbo and supercharged cars before, 87 Grand National (new) and a CTS V the turbo was the way to go. You have huge potential out of turbos, because there are more variables to work with. Plus the torque curve on a turbo is much flatter than a naturally aspirated engine and usually peaks lower as well. Appearantly, for about 500 bucks you can mod the car with just a tune and get another 30-40 HP out of the 2.0.

Peyton
07-02-13, 01:07 AM
Not sure if you're leasing or buying, but one thing to consider is that maybe you have this car for 3-5 years, you will then have a car that is 2 body styles old and you simply won't have the same resell since there are a blue million CTSes out there and the design language of the new ATS will carry it at least 5 years.

That said, the ATS is a better car, the new CTS is going to be same CUE situation and 6k more expensive...I know you're talking about the old CTS but just throwing that out there.

I also understand what you mean about the buttons, not because I have the same issue but because when I spend x amount on a car I want it to be exactly what I want and if there's a huge black eye on the deal it sours it. I think if you looked at any other car (c350, is350 (the new one) or the bmw) you will probably hate all the infotainment systems, and the CUE I have had no problems at all with although I admit it could be more peppy, but definitely not bad.

ben.gators
07-02-13, 02:48 AM
Pound for pound, the ATS has the CTS beat, in every aspect.

There is nothing the CTS does better than the ATS, except for offering more size.

This is coming from someone that owned a CTS-V.

The question you should ask yourself is if you're comfortable in a compact sedan. From a shear quality of car aspect, there is little comparison here, this is a clean sheet brand new vehicle compared to a 5 year old model at the end of it's life.

As for CUE, after using it for a week so far, I have no complaints, and to be honest a lot of the critiques seem unfounded, or maybe because they're compared directly with 'button' infotainment systems instead of how you adapt quickly to it after a few days of ownership. That's personal preference. I've been around touch screens for years already, so it's nothing new to me.

Ultimately, basing a 40K purchase down to infotainment is a ridiculous notion I've yet to understand. I don't want to sound harsh, but if technology is what is of interest to you, there are much cheaper alternatives to get your fix.

Very well said! Last year I test drove a CTS and I wasn't sold! This year I test drove an ATS 2.0L Turbo and two hours later I left the dealership in my new ATS! It was a spontaneous decision!
Other than size, ATS is better in every aspect. And I am single guy and as a result don't care about rear seats or trunk space. And not only that, I think the rear seats in my ATS are actually very usable. I can sit there and I have enough head and leg room.

And I have no problem with CUE system! It is actually very intuitive too. I have NOT read CUE's manual yet, but I have been able to use CUE with no problem!

AND the 2013 CTS is going to be the old model very soon! Sure enough, you may get a good deal because of that. But that means your brand new car will be the old model.

EnvoyBu
07-02-13, 05:15 AM
If its any help (doubt it), I raced a 2012 CTS 3.6L Performance Sedan and a 2013 CTS 3.6L Premium Coupe and blew both of them out with my ATS 3.6L Premium. It really wasn't much of a race...

Siren05
07-02-13, 08:33 AM
I would love to do some pulls against an ATS 3.6.
I'm in a tuned 2.0T.

Toronto area.

Pm if interested.

donavo
07-02-13, 10:37 AM
I would love to do some pulls against an ATS 3.6.
I'm in a tuned 2.0T.

Toronto area.

Pm if interested.

I second this. I'm in LA area. Stock 2.0 pulls also wouldn't be bad to see how much of a difference the tune makes.

gohawks63
07-02-13, 12:14 PM
If its any help (doubt it), I raced a 2012 CTS 3.6L Performance Sedan and a 2013 CTS 3.6L Premium Coupe and blew both of them out with my ATS 3.6L Premium. It really wasn't much of a race...

That's a no-brainer. The horsepower numbers between the 3.6 in the two cars is almost the same (318 in the CTS and 321 in the ATS) and I think the torque is almost identical. With that said, an ATS with the 3.6L will blow the doors off of the CTS because of the significant weight advantages the ATS has. Whereas a CTS has a 0-60 at around 6.1 seconds an ATS 3.6 is in the mid 5s. The 0-60 is more comparable between the CTS 3.6 and the ATS 2.0T, but again the ATS will feel more nimble because of the lighter chassis.

EnvoyBu
07-02-13, 05:34 PM
I would love to do some pulls against an ATS 3.6.
I'm in a tuned 2.0T.

Toronto area.

Pm if interested.
I second this. I'm in LA area. Stock 2.0 pulls also wouldn't be bad to see how much of a difference the tune makes.

If either of you are in the Metro Detroit area, I'm down. I have a tuned 3.6L, so I'll race you guys stock, then I'll flip it in sport mode and we'll see what happens.


That's a no-brainer. The horsepower numbers between the 3.6 in the two cars is almost the same (318 in the CTS and 321 in the ATS) and I think the torque is almost identical. With that said, an ATS with the 3.6L will blow the doors off of the CTS because of the significant weight advantages the ATS has. Whereas a CTS has a 0-60 at around 6.1 seconds an ATS 3.6 is in the mid 5s. The 0-60 is more comparable between the CTS 3.6 and the ATS 2.0T, but again the ATS will feel more nimble because of the lighter chassis.

Yeah... I enjoyed the race though... :D

When I was stock, I beat my cousin's 2013 Charger R/T Road and Track though. I had him by a little bit and kept walking him at 75 MPH. I did lose to my other cousin's modded TrailBlazer SS though, but he has an aggressive tune, CAI, and exhaust. That said, it was a really close race. I was at his rear fender all the way.

I think with my tune, I'll beat him though.

Siren05
07-02-13, 06:17 PM
If either of you are in the Metro Detroit area, I'm down. I have a tuned 3.6L, so I'll race you guys stock, then I'll flip it in sport mode and we'll see what happens.



Yeah... I enjoyed the race though... :D

When I was stock, I beat my cousin's 2013 Charger R/T Road and Track though. I had him by a little bit and kept walking him at 75 MPH. I did lose to my other cousin's modded TrailBlazer SS though, but he has an aggressive tune, CAI, and exhaust. That said, it was a really close race. I was at his rear fender all the way.

I think with my tune, I'll beat him though.

Too bad.. I think my tuned 2.0T will out perform your tuned 3.6. Especially on a roll.

----------


Too bad.. I think my tuned 2.0T will out perform your tuned 3.6. Especially on a roll.

I'm in Toronto.

blue_skies
07-02-13, 07:15 PM
This is kind of bias posting this on the Ats Forum, but in a zero to 60 race who would win ?? And in overall opinion which is the better car pound for pound ?? I miss my Cts so much I might try to switch out of my lease to the last year of the CTS with f**kin buttons inside ...

ATS: 2013 Cadillac ATS Performance (3.6L, Auto) 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter Mile 13.8


http://www.zeroto60times.com/Cadillac-Caddy-0-60-mph-Times.html


ATS: 0-to-60 mph time of 5.7 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 14.1 seconds at 101.6 mph. That's actually a bit slower than Cadillac predicted. It said the V-6 should do a 5.4 to 60 and 14 flat in the quarter


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1207_2013_cadillac_ats_first_test/viewall.html


CTS: 2014 model gets same 3.6L tuning as the ATS (321hp). It also gets a 8-speed automatic transmission and it is 200lbs less than the comparable BMW 5-series, putting it on an estimated curb weight of around 3,700lbs (for the 3.6L), or about 300lbs over the ATS (almost 10% more curbweight).


http://www.edmunds.com/cadillac/cts/2014/


So it comes down to weight versus transmission. A 2014 ATS should also have the same 8-speed transmission, so it would even out. A 2013 ATS has the 6-speed which could affect 0-60 times more than quarter mile times.

I would still bet on the ATS - lesser weight (with same hp) is always a better way to go. Imagine the CTS as if you had an ATS with a 300lb guy sitting in the passenger seat at all times ...

pissedoffwookiee
07-02-13, 09:47 PM
ATS: 2013 Cadillac ATS Performance (3.6L, Auto) 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter Mile 13.8


http://www.zeroto60times.com/Cadillac-Caddy-0-60-mph-Times.html




ATS: 0-to-60 mph time of 5.7 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 14.1 seconds at 101.6 mph. That's actually a bit slower than Cadillac predicted. It said the V-6 should do a 5.4 to 60 and 14 flat in the quarter


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1207_2013_cadillac_ats_first_test/viewall.html


CTS: 2014 model gets same 3.6L tuning as the ATS (321hp). It also gets a 8-speed automatic transmission and it is 200lbs less than the comparable BMW 5-series, putting it on an estimated curb weight of around 3,700lbs (for the 3.6L), or about 300lbs over the ATS (almost 10% more curbweight).


http://www.edmunds.com/cadillac/cts/2014/


So it comes down to weight versus transmission. A 2014 ATS should also have the same 8-speed transmission, so it would even out. A 2013 ATS has the 6-speed which could affect 0-60 times more than quarter mile times.

I would still bet on the ATS - lesser weight (with same hp) is always a better way to go. Imagine the CTS as if you had an ATS with a 300lb guy sitting in the passenger seat at all times ...

overall targets for 2014 CTS is just above 6 second 0-60 for 2.0t and just below 6 second 0-60 for 3.6, thus a '13 CTS 3.6 is just about equal to 2.0t '14 CTS, (makes sense, less power but less weight and better torque band). this would make the 2.0t ATS a good match for the 3.6 '14 CTS, the 3.6 ATS would be on its own, in the low/mid 5 second range, then the '14 CTS v-sport in the mid/high 4 second range.

the '14 CTS RWD with the 3.6 will have a curb weight of 3750-3843lbs depending on luxury,performance or premium.

there is no 8 speed in the '14 ATS, only the '14 CTS 3.6 and 3.6t will get the 8 speed, CTS 2.0t and AWD models get the 6 speed.

JoeyCts
07-02-13, 10:17 PM
I would still bet on the ATS - lesser weight (with same hp) is always a better way to go. Imagine the CTS as if you had an ATS with a 300lb guy sitting in the passenger seat at all times ...[/QUOTE]


The only comment that hit a sore note so far is the one above ...! But lets call spade to spade how many people are running a Daytona 500 in their Caddy ... I mean I drive fast and hard (border line beating up my car) but I think we'll talking about minimum difference ... if a 2013 CTS can compete with my 2.0T ATS than I would still be thinking about switching .. I understand with the 3.6 ATS being lighter so having the significant advantage... I also feel if I posted this in the CTS forum I would be getting different answers ( obviously)

Siren05
07-02-13, 10:42 PM
Guys the LTG engine in the 2.0T has been de tuned from the factory so they can sell 3.6s. A trifecta tuned automatic 2.0T RWD base weighing in at 3370 lbs will hand a 3.6 it's ass.

EnvoyBu
07-03-13, 03:13 AM
Too bad.. I think my tuned 2.0T will out perform your tuned 3.6. Especially on a roll.

I doubt that. Until your 2.0T gains you AT LEAST 80 HP and 80 TQ, you'd lose to my tuned 3.6L.

My tuned 3.6L is now F30 335i quick. I'd put 0-60 at about 4.8 seconds. The car gained serious straight line performance.


Guys the LTG engine in the 2.0T has been de tuned from the factory so they can sell 3.6s. A trifecta tuned automatic 2.0T RWD base weighing in at 3370 lbs will hand a 3.6 it's ass.

Maybe if the 3.6L driver wasn't in sport mode and if he was stock.

I highly doubt a 2.0T, even tuned, can beat a stock 3.6L in a race. At best, you'd probably tie it.

Siren05
07-03-13, 08:59 AM
I doubt that. Until your 2.0T gains you AT LEAST 80 HP and 80 TQ, you'd lose to my tuned 3.6L.

My tuned 3.6L is now F30 335i quick. I'd put 0-60 at about 4.8 seconds. The car gained serious straight line performance.





Maybe if the 3.6L driver wasn't in sport mode and if he was stock.



I highly doubt a 2.0T, even tuned, can beat a stock 3.6L in a race. At best, you'd probably tie it.

A tuned 2.0t will destroy a stock 3.6.. I figure my 2.0 is up 100 tq and about 60 hp.

Don't be ignorant. I have several friends will little 2.0 litre turbo EVOS. THAT MAKE OH UPWARDS 350
Awhp with just downpipe and tune.

Stock 3.6 about 280tq. Tuned 2.0 tq around 330-375..
How could a 3.6 stock win?...
Like I said bring a 3.6 let's test your theory.

By the way tuning NA ENGINES WITHOUT MECHANICAL MODIFICATIONS= FAIL
TUNING ANY TURBO ENGINE = FTW

gohawks63
07-03-13, 09:15 AM
I doubt that. Until your 2.0T gains you AT LEAST 80 HP and 80 TQ, you'd lose to my tuned 3.6L.



What tune did you use?

M5eater
07-03-13, 09:33 AM
I doubt that. Until your 2.0T gains you AT LEAST 80 HP and 80 TQ, you'd lose to my tuned 3.6L.

My tuned 3.6L is now F30 335i quick. I'd put 0-60 at about 4.8 seconds. The car gained serious straight line performance.
What tune? The LFX camaro's I've seen have gained very minimally from just a tune. There are no Header options, so your major power adders beyond an additional 20/20 are going to be cams (which don't exist, yet) or F/I.


By the way tuning NA ENGINES WITHOUT MECHANICAL MODIFICATIONS= FAIL
TUNING ANY TURBO ENGINE = FTW
let's not bring any NASIOC crap in here please, thanks.


Maybe if the 3.6L driver wasn't in sport mode and if he was stock.

I highly doubt a 2.0T, even tuned, can beat a stock 3.6L in a race. At best, you'd probably tie it.
I'm going to have to disagree. I feel very confident a 'tuned' 30HP and 60FT/LB bump in an LTG,would pull on an LFX. They're practically equal as it is until you start hitting the taller gears.


My tuned 3.6L is now F30 335i quick. I'd put 0-60 at about 4.8 seconds. The car gained serious straight line performance.
How did you measure this?


I also feel if I posted this in the CTS forum I would be getting different answers ( obviously)
I don't. Unless you absolutely love the styling or the amount of room in the car, I would pass. Or at least wait until the new CTS arrives. There are no other factors to consider here. It seems to me you have some emotional connection to your CTS , if that's the case, Buyout the car at lease end. You'll have the exact same car for 50% off.

From a Shear Value for money and quality of vehicle standpoint, this whole discussion is irrelevant. You'll not find one sane-thinking person tell you it's a good idea to start another brand-new car payment on the same exact car when a much better vehicle is available.

If you're honestly considering a car because of some vauge 0-60 figures and deciding because one is 3/10 ths faster than another, you've bought the wrong car. There are Camaro's and mustangs for that which have gigantic communities devoted to the pursuit of straight-line acceleration.

EnvoyBu
07-03-13, 10:16 AM
A tuned 2.0t will destroy a stock 3.6.. I figure my 2.0 is up 100 tq and about 60 hp.

Don't be ignorant. I have several friends will little 2.0 litre turbo EVOS. THAT MAKE OH UPWARDS 350
Awhp with just downpipe and tune.

Stock 3.6 about 280tq. Tuned 2.0 tq around 330-375..
How could a 3.6 stock win?...
Like I said bring a 3.6 let's test your theory.

Okay...

I guess if I'm ever in the area, I'll show up?

Even if your 2.0T is up 100 TQ and 60 HP, you're at 332 HP and 360 TQ, which I doubt a simple BNR tune can gain that much power without any other mods.

Regardless, figuring my tune added about 30 HP and 30 TQ, I'm at 351 HP and 305 TQ. It'd be a close race, but I think the 3.6L may win.


What tune did you use?

BNR's Trifecta tune.


I'm going to have to disagree. I feel very confident a 'tuned' 30HP and 60FT/LB bump in an LTG,would pull on an LFX. They're practically equal as it is until you start hitting the taller gears.

A stock LFX, perhaps, but a tuned LFX would win from what I know.


How did you measure this?

Seat of pants, and a few quick 0-60 pulls on back roads using my phone (not the greatest way) as a stop watch. I will admit I haven't truly timed it yet, but I have no doubt my tuned 3.6L can keep up with the F30 335i.

Here's a cool video I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhBdohZa6oM

A stock LFX can apparently hold its own against a lightly modded 335i, which, IMHO, is pretty impressive in and out of itself.

sonny@bnr
07-03-13, 10:25 AM
on e85 we gained 137whp and 123whp just from a tune on the 2.0t

EnvoyBu
07-03-13, 10:27 AM
on e85 we gained 137whp and 123whp just from a tune on the 2.0t

Is that an experiment, or is every single 2.0T tune gaining that much?

Siren05
07-03-13, 10:43 AM
Is that an experiment, or is every single 2.0T tune gaining that much?

My tuned 2.0T will munch a stock 3.6 I'm finished. I've raced stock 335 I won.

EnvoyBu
07-03-13, 10:46 AM
My tuned 2.0T will munch a stock 3.6 I'm finished. I've raced stock 335 I won.

Impressive.

Was it a newer one, or like the one in the video I posted?

A 335i is capable of low 13's in the quarter mile bone stock. A stock 2.0T is running mid to high 14's in the quarter. You'd need some SERIOUS power to bring your time to the low 13's, possibly even very high 12's to blow out a newer 335i. I guess the Trifecta tune supplies all of that power in the 2.0T's?

sonny@bnr
07-03-13, 10:52 AM
Is that an experiment, or is every single 2.0T tune gaining that much?
on e85 your average gain on the 2.0t is 100whp 100wtq

Siren05
07-03-13, 10:55 AM
Impressive.

Was it a newer one, or like the one in the video I posted?

A 335i is capable of low 13's in the quarter mile bone stock. A stock 2.0T is running mid to high 14's in the quarter. You'd need some SERIOUS power to bring your time to the low 13's, possibly even very high 12's to blow out a newer 335i. I guess the Trifecta tune supplies all of that power in the 2.0T's?

Dunno what year I couldn't ask him he was behind me. Lol.. And ya. My car is lighter and more power.
We were already moving no dig

EnvoyBu
07-03-13, 10:58 AM
I guess you win then, lol.

Siren05
07-03-13, 11:12 AM
I guess you win then, lol.

It's not about winning. Just stating facts. If you don't want to mod 3.6 is a great engine with ample power.

I just love boooost

EnvoyBu
07-03-13, 11:19 AM
It's not about winning. Just stating facts. If you don't want to mod 3.6 is a great engine with ample power.

I just love boooost

I guess...

I'll be honest with you, I hated the 2.0T in my two test drives with it. I didn't find it powerful or refined. It sounded awful, and it really wasn't all that powerful. The 3.6L IMHO is the way to go if you buy an automatic ATS.

M5eater
07-03-13, 11:27 AM
A stock LFX, perhaps, but a tuned LFX would win from what I know.
I would have to see this to be convinced.
The power band in the LTG is superior to that in the N/A LFX. Even with a tuned LFX(which again, from what I've seen nets in the 10-15 range) The LTG would have the jump in every gear, and given equal or similar power figures, the LTG will pull by shear hp/lb ratio.


Seat of pants, and a few quick 0-60 pulls on back roads using my phone (not the greatest way) as a stop watch. I will admit I haven't truly timed it yet, but I have no doubt my tuned 3.6L can keep up with the F30 335i.

Here's a cool video I found
There is no credibility to your claims then. Get a Vbox and report back. You're telling me you've picked up almost a second from a (see above)tune? I'm pretty sure a BNR LTG doesn't even do that.


Seat of pants, and a few quick 0-60 pulls on back roads using my phone (not the greatest way) as a stop watch. I will admit I haven't truly timed it yet, but I have no doubt my tuned 3.6L can keep up with the F30 335i.

Here's a cool video I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhBdohZa6oM

A stock LFX can apparently hold its own against a lightly modded 335i, which, IMHO, is pretty impressive in and out of itself.
I would strain to call an 08 with possibly carbon buildup (due to age) and an exhaust lightly modified. I would consider a 'lightly' modified 335i to have at a minimum a tune, given that they cost $500 and increase BHP by between 60-80hp.

The results of that video are clearly a result of the transmission differences(the poster even mentions this). If you found a manual, stock, F30 335i. You probably will keep up. Anything more than that however, he's going to pull on you.

sonny@bnr
07-03-13, 11:54 AM
335I with a tune are no joke

Siren05
07-03-13, 11:55 AM
335 tuned stock 400 rwtq

ATSwannabe
07-03-13, 12:04 PM
I doubt that. Until your 2.0T gains you AT LEAST 80 HP and 80 TQ, you'd lose to my tuned 3.6L.

My tuned 3.6L is now F30 335i quick. I'd put 0-60 at about 4.8 seconds. The car gained serious straight line performance.



Maybe if the 3.6L driver wasn't in sport mode and if he was stock.

I highly doubt a 2.0T, even tuned, can beat a stock 3.6L in a race. At best, you'd probably tie it.

Pure fantasy,the quickest CTS 3.6 listed in dragtimes is 14.72 sec for the 1/4 mile.A stock 335I could beat that time with 2 cylinders missing.A stock 335I turns the 1/4 in about 13.3 secs at 105 mph.The only way a CTS 3.6 could come close to this is with forced induction,either supercharged or turbo charged.

----------


Okay...

I guess if I'm ever in the area, I'll show up?

Even if your 2.0T is up 100 TQ and 60 HP, you're at 332 HP and 360 TQ, which I doubt a simple BNR tune can gain that much power without any other mods.

Regardless, figuring my tune added about 30 HP and 30 TQ, I'm at 351 HP and 305 TQ. It'd be a close race, but I think the 3.6L may win.



BNR's Trifecta tune.



A stock LFX, perhaps, but a tuned LFX would win from what I know.



Seat of pants, and a few quick 0-60 pulls on back roads using my phone (not the greatest way) as a stop watch. I will admit I haven't truly timed it yet, but I have no doubt my tuned 3.6L can keep up with the F30 335i.

Here's a cool video I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhBdohZa6oM

A stock LFX can apparently hold its own against a lightly modded 335i, which, IMHO, is pretty impressive in and out of itself.

More pure fantasy.I bet that the BMW shown in the video is not a 335I but a pre 2012 328I which is not turbocharged and is rated at about 270 hp.They are capable of low 14 sec times in the 1/4 mile.Probably a good match for a modified CTS 3.6,or a stock 3.6 ATS.There is nothing you can do to a CTS 3.6 short of forced induction to make it perform like a 335I.I would like to hear from the BMW driver in the video for his view on the race

M5eater
07-03-13, 12:06 PM
Envoy owns and is speaking of an ATS, not a CTS.

Siren05
07-03-13, 12:12 PM
I'm pretty sure my tuned ATS is now mid to low 13 second car. Not that I care a ton about 1/4 mile. I like twisties.

ATSwannabe
07-03-13, 12:33 PM
Envoy owns and is speaking of an ATS, not a CTS.

My mistake but still doesn't change much.An ATS 3.6 is not a match for a 335I.Times for the 3.6 ATS range from a best of 13.8 to 14.1 in all tests I have read.And in any comparison tests with the 335I all magazines give the acceleration tests to the 335I by a wide margin.There is not much you can do to gain hp in a 3.6 without forced induction.I seriously doubt if anyone has installed different cam or any other internal modifications in a ATS.Things like exhaust,intake mods or reprograming the CPU give marginal if any improvements in hp despite the manufacturers claims.

Hoosier Daddy
07-03-13, 12:35 PM
My tuned 3.6L is now F30 335i quick. I'd put 0-60 at about 4.8 seconds.


I'm pretty sure my tuned ATS is now mid to low 13 second car. Not that I care a ton about 1/4 mile. I like twisties.
Did you guys forget the smilies or something?

Pretty funny stuff.

Why didn't you both save a bunch of money and pay a hypnotist $50 to make you believe your stock motors were good for 3.8 0-60 and high 11 quarter miles. It's not like these are Fords where the simple visit to the hypnotist will void your warranty.

Seriously, universal law of the internet: Post the timing slip or back to back before and after dyno sheets or it didn't happen.

thebigjimsho
07-03-13, 04:46 PM
I would have to see this to be convinced.
The power band in the LTG is superior to that in the N/A LFX. Even with a tuned LFX(which again, from what I've seen nets in the 10-15 range) The LTG would have the jump in every gear, and given equal or similar power figures, the LTG will pull by shear hp/lb ratio.

There is no credibility to your claims then. Get a Vbox and report back. You're telling me you've picked up almost a second from a (see above)tune? I'm pretty sure a BNR LTG doesn't even do that.


That's the thing, EnvoyBu is going by the seat of his pants. Yes, the 2.0T doesn't feel all that powerful. Why? Because seat of the pants often doesn't discern flat torque curves. Seat of the pants may feel an engine not broken in, as it seems these turbo cars need to be.

Seat of the pants does not equal actual performance.

EnvoyBu
07-03-13, 05:27 PM
I would have to see this to be convinced.
The power band in the LTG is superior to that in the N/A LFX. Even with a tuned LFX(which again, from what I've seen nets in the 10-15 range) The LTG would have the jump in every gear, and given equal or similar power figures, the LTG will pull by shear hp/lb ratio.


Maybe, but I'd be surprised and impressed at the same time.


There is no credibility to your claims then. Get a Vbox and report back. You're telling me you've picked up almost a second from a (see above)tune? I'm pretty sure a BNR LTG doesn't even do that.

A second on 0-60 or quarter mile?

Stock 0-60 was around 5.3 seconds right? Gaining more power and getting rid of the torque management that kills the car stock improved the time. I'll have to shoot a video and see.

Where does one buy a vBox?


The results of that video are clearly a result of the transmission differences(the poster even mentions this). If you found a manual, stock, F30 335i. You probably will keep up. Anything more than that however, he's going to pull on you.

I actually doubt I can keep up with an MT 335i. The auto I probably can, but I'd lose in the long run. The N55 3.0T is no joke.


Pure fantasy,the quickest CTS 3.6 listed in dragtimes is 14.72 sec for the 1/4 mile.A stock 335I could beat that time with 2 cylinders missing.A stock 335I turns the 1/4 in about 13.3 secs at 105 mph.The only way a CTS 3.6 could come close to this is with forced induction,either supercharged or turbo charged.

----------



More pure fantasy.I bet that the BMW shown in the video is not a 335I but a pre 2012 328I which is not turbocharged and is rated at about 270 hp.They are capable of low 14 sec times in the 1/4 mile.Probably a good match for a modified CTS 3.6,or a stock 3.6 ATS.There is nothing you can do to a CTS 3.6 short of forced induction to make it perform like a 335I.I would like to hear from the BMW driver in the video for his view on the race

I have an ATS 3.6L, not a CTS 3.6L


Envoy owns and is speaking of an ATS, not a CTS.

:yup:


My mistake but still doesn't change much.An ATS 3.6 is not a match for a 335I.Times for the 3.6 ATS range from a best of 13.8 to 14.1 in all tests I have read.And in any comparison tests with the 335I all magazines give the acceleration tests to the 335I by a wide margin.There is not much you can do to gain hp in a 3.6 without forced induction.I seriously doubt if anyone has installed different cam or any other internal modifications in a ATS.Things like exhaust,intake mods or reprograming the CPU give marginal if any improvements in hp despite the manufacturers claims.

For convenience, lets say the car ran a 13.9 second quarter mile time. Adding 30 HP and 30 TQ and deleting all of the nannies that limited power delivery when the car was stock should gain a few tenths in the quarter mile, right? I think 13.5 seconds is doable, but then again, I've only ran down the quarter mile one time, and I haven't in the ATS yet.

I think the tune knocked off a solid half second in the quarter, but like I said, I might be overestimating. Any opinions on this?


Seriously, universal law of the internet: Post the timing slip or back to back before and after dyno sheets or it didn't happen.

What's so difficult to believe? A car that did 0-60 in the low fives without a tune should be able to break into the 4's with a tune right? Am I missing something?


That's the thing, EnvoyBu is going by the seat of his pants. Yes, the 2.0T doesn't feel all that powerful. Why? Because seat of the pants often doesn't discern flat torque curves. Seat of the pants may feel an engine not broken in, as it seems these turbo cars need to be.

Seat of the pants does not equal actual performance.

That's true, actually.

I think a good example is that most diesel motors "feel" fast, but in reality, gasoline cars usually blow by them.

That said, I'd be pleasantly surprised if I lost to a tuned 2.0T in a race. That would seriously impress me, actually.

M5eater
07-03-13, 05:33 PM
A second on 0-60 or quarter mile?

Stock 0-60 was around 5.3 seconds right?
You were talking about a 4.8 60 time, so 0-60. GM's calculations are 5.7

I've seen some rags report slower and faster.

GM's generous calculations are 5.7 for a 3.6 ATS. I've seen C&D report as low as a 5.4, but that's by far the quickest I've seen, and


Yes, the 2.0T doesn't feel all that powerful. Why? Because seat of the pants often doesn't discern flat torque curves.
you're crazy, the 2.0T feels just as fast as an LFX, I've driven them back to back.

Multiple car rags also back this up.


I actually doubt I can keep up with an MT 335i. The auto I probably can, but I'd lose in the long run. The N55 3.0T is no joke.
The 8 speed N55 is a sub 5.0s vehicle. A MT is slower than the ZF 8speed N55 just like every other car.

https://www.bimmerfest.com/news/692427/f30-335i-8at-0-60-4-point-6-seconds-car-driver-test/

EnvoyBu
07-03-13, 05:40 PM
You were talking about a 4.8 60 time, so 0-60.

GM's generous calculations are 5.7 for a 3.6 ATS.

No, it's rated at 5.4 seconds 0-60, straight from GM's media page.

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Jun/0626_ats.html


you're crazy, the 2.0T feels just as fast as an LFX, I've driven them back to back.

Multiple car rags also back this up.

To each his own. The 2.0T had pep for what it is, but the 3.6L just feels better to me in the car.

Again, to each his own.


The 8 speed N55 is faster than a MT N55.

I didn't know that. Interesting.

M5eater
07-03-13, 05:50 PM
Yup, you're right.
5.7 is for the LTG.
My mole-steak.

Siren05
07-03-13, 08:10 PM
Yup, you're right.
5.7 is for the LTG.
My mole-steak.
Tuned LTG 5.0.0-60
But downpipe intake and intercooler upgrades with a protune when HP TUNERS releases very soon I would say mid 4s knot-60

EnvoyBu
07-04-13, 12:17 AM
Tuned LTG 5.0.0-60
But downpipe intake and intercooler upgrades with a protune when HP TUNERS releases very soon I would say mid 4s knot-60

If you're running a 5 second 0-60, I want to race you. It'd be close!

Also, do you plan to do anything else to the car?

ATSwannabe
07-04-13, 07:08 AM
EnvoyBu you say you have a tune.If you discount the tune manufacturers claims you will find that a tune on a NA car is a waste of money.If you do some research from actual results by creditable testers you will find that there is little or no improvement in power or acceleration from a tune on a NA car.In some cases the tune actually gave poorer results.I would be surprised if your 0-60 time is any better with a tune.A tune on a turbocharged car is a different story.By increasing the boost pressure you can gain 100 HP or more,but you have to make other changes in order to prevent engine damage.

EnvoyBu
07-04-13, 08:09 AM
EnvoyBu you say you have a tune.If you discount the tune manufacturers claims you will find that a tune on a NA car is a waste of money.If you do some research from actual results by creditable testers you will find that there is little or no improvement in power or acceleration from a tune on a NA car.In some cases the tune actually gave poorer results.I would be surprised if your 0-60 time is any better with a tune.A tune on a turbocharged car is a different story.By increasing the boost pressure you can gain 100 HP or more,but you have to make other changes in order to prevent engine damage.

Sure.

I bought the tune for my 3.6 so I can gain better overall driveability, not to gain 100+ HP and 100+ TQ. I'm well aware that a tune won't gain anything over 30 HP or 30 TQ on a N/A car.

Like I said, I was sick of the car being neutered to protect the transmission, so I bought a tune to increase response, downshift faster, etc. Of course, gaining about 30 HP and 30 TQ in the process isn't a bad thing either.

Believe me, if I wanted more power, I'd twin turbo the car and, well, yeah. :)

gohawks63
07-04-13, 08:13 AM
EnvoyBu you say you have a tune.If you discount the tune manufacturers claims you will find that a tune on a NA car is a waste of money.If you do some research from actual results by creditable testers you will find that there is little or no improvement in power or acceleration from a tune on a NA car.In some cases the tune actually gave poorer results.I would be surprised if your 0-60 time is any better with a tune.A tune on a turbocharged car is a different story.By increasing the boost pressure you can gain 100 HP or more,but you have to make other changes in order to prevent engine damage.

I disagree. We bought a 2006 Mustang convertible back in 2009 (mint, only had 26K miles). We bought it more because we wanted a convertible as a third summer fun car than really wanting a muscle car, otherwise I would have bought a GT. Well it didn't take long to get the mod bug. I put a cold air intake on it which really didn't do much if anything to the performance. Same with the axle back exhaust, although it did sound better. The car did transform once I installed a tune. The car is markedly quicker. Whereas before I couldn't break the tires loose no matter how hard I tried. Now I will lay a decent patch if I'm not careful pulling away from a light and it pulls much harder.

Now mind you I'm not getting V8 performance, but it definitely woke the car up. The only driveability issues is that the throttle response is much more sensitive now and the shifts are much firmer (not necessarily a bad thing). It's also a 93 octane tune so I have to burn premium now.

Now I agree that you get more out of a tune with a FI engine as there are other parameters that can be adjusted, boost being the most obvious, but with NA cars you can still work with timing and throttle response along with shift points to improve acceleration. You just have to be realistic on what those improvements are. At best it's a few tenths of a second.

It also depends on the engines. In the Mustang case, specifically the 2005 - 2010 era, the 4.6L V8 had more untapped power than the 4.0L V6. While you could get marginal at best improvements like I experienced with my V6, you could unleash relatively more power in the 4.6L V8 with just the tune.

ATSwannabe
07-04-13, 11:10 AM
Sure.

I bought the tune for my 3.6 so I can gain better overall driveability, not to gain 100+ HP and 100+ TQ. I'm well aware that a tune won't gain anything over 30 HP or 30 TQ on a N/A car.

Like I said, I was sick of the car being neutered to protect the transmission, so I bought a tune to increase response, downshift faster, etc. Of course, gaining about 30 HP and 30 TQ in the process isn't a bad thing either.

Believe me, if I wanted more power, I'd twin turbo the car and, well, yeah. :)

I agree with most of what you say about why you get a tune.Better throttle response & better drivability & better mileage I agree with.It's the 30 hp gain I don't agree with.A well know tuner for BMW advertises 8 hp increase for their tune and even that is dubious.Better throttle response does not mean more hp and quicker acceleration.

gohawks63
07-04-13, 11:19 AM
I agree with most of what you say about why you get a tune.Better throttle response & better drivability & better mileage I agree with.It's the 30 hp gain I don't agree with.A well know tuner for BMW advertises 8 hp increase for their tune and even that is dubious.Better throttle response does not mean more hp and quicker acceleration.

I agree that 30 seems ridiculous. Even the 12 HP increase claimed by the tuner that I used for my Mustang seems like a stretch. I dyno'd it.

Hoosier Daddy
07-04-13, 11:46 AM
Do you guys go around telling kids there ain't no Santa Claus? If someone believes their NA tune gave them 30 HP, why ruin it for them?

angelbones
07-04-13, 07:00 PM
I can respond to the OP from personal experience. I own a 3.6 CTS. When I took it in for maintenance, I was actually able to keep the loaner car ATS 2.0T for about a week. My take is that the ATS definitely feels more nimble than my CTS coupe. However, I was able to notice a difference in power. The 3.6 was faster, not by a lot, but noticeable enough to me. If power is your ONLY consideration if you're considering the two, then you're either going to have go for the 3.6 CTS, or pay more for an ATS with the 3.6. One comment on the CUE system. I found it extremely annoying at first to use, but after a week, I did adjust. That said, NO car should force you to take your eyes off the road as long as all of these infotainment systems are on cars like this. It would be a helluva lot easier if I could look ahead and feel a BUTTON to change whatever it is want to change. Instead with CUE, and all systems like it, you are forced to look down for 2-4 seconds to figure out what you want to change. If you didn't know 2 seconds is an eternity in a potential crash situation. I understand why carmakers are doing this because people are used to touchscreen technology. It just doesn't belong in cars. Florida just passed an anti-texting law (like a lot of states) and to me these consoles are just as distracting, even after I got used to it. Sorry to ramble about that but hopefully the first part of my answer, assisted in answering your original question.

EnvoyBu
07-05-13, 03:13 AM
IDK the exact number, I just threw 30 HP and TQ out there to be honest. It drives like it gained that much more power.

If someone has a 2.0T with a tune and is happy with it, good for them. I personally would never buy a car with an engine that sounds like a blender. But again, that's just me.

Yes, Santa is real, isn't he? :bigroll:

CTSCHICK
07-05-13, 06:19 AM
Having a 2011 3.6 CTS and after having 2 loaner ATS turbos and a 3.6
My b.f. data logged them because him and his friend who just got the Hp software for the turbo wanted to use my loaners as the test mules for tuning.
He said the ATS was consistently a few 10th's faster than my CTS and the 3.6 well over a 1/2 a second faster.

He lost me on the technical stuff like the CTS having lower gears than the ATS and stuff.

And No I did not let them use the loaners as test mules on the dyno lol

I also laugh at the NA engines being a waste tuning every one of my NA GM's always gained double digits on the dyno including my last car gained 27hp & 17ft lbs from 1st pull to the 4th pull after tuning.
And that doesn't include the gains from eliminating the torue management, correcting the shift timing, rpms & ect.
I will keep on getting my cars tuned when there is software that supports them.

Siren05
07-05-13, 08:22 AM
Having a 2011 3.6 CTS and after having 2 loaner ATS turbos and a 3.6
My b.f. data logged them because him and his friend who just got the Hp software for the turbo wanted to use my loaners as the test mules for tuning.
He said the ATS was consistently a few 10th's faster than my CTS and the 3.6 well over a 1/2 a second faster.

He lost me on the technical stuff like the CTS having lower gears than the ATS and stuff.

And No I did not let them use the loaners as test mules on the dyno lol

I also laugh at the NA engines being a waste tuning every one of my NA GM's always gained double digits on the dyno including my last car gained 27hp & 17ft lbs from 1st pull to the 4th pull after tuning.
And that doesn't include the gains from eliminating the torue management, correcting the shift timing, rpms & ect.
I will keep on getting my cars tuned when there is software that supports them.


Lol. 27 hp and 17lbtq. ..good one..LOL

IT MADE ME LMAO

CTSCHICK
07-05-13, 09:00 AM
Lol. 27 hp and 17lbtq. ..good one..LOL

IT MADE ME LMAO

What ever you say 2.4 Ecotec with madmabb header & zzp 2.5" catted downpipe :)

Siren05
07-05-13, 09:55 AM
What ever you say 2.4 Ecotec with madmabb header & zzp 2.5" catted downpipe :)

Ecotec2.4??? Please explain

CTSCHICK
07-05-13, 10:00 AM
Ecotec2.4??? Please explain

Explain what? The ecotec 2.4 is an NA engine that GM used in the Cobalts, G5GT, HHR, Sky,Solstice, Malibu and whatever else.

Siren05
07-05-13, 10:03 AM
Just didn't see the correlation between 2.4 and thread comparison 2.0T ATS VS 3.6 CTS.

:)

CTSCHICK
07-05-13, 10:05 AM
Just didn't see the correlation between 2.4 and thread comparison 2.0T ATS VS 3.6 CTS.

:)

Just replying to your LOL

rustybear3
07-05-13, 10:23 AM
.... That said, NO car should force you to take your eyes off the road as long as all of these infotainment systems are on cars like this. It would be a helluva lot easier if I could look ahead and feel a BUTTON to change whatever it is want to change. Instead with CUE, and all systems like it, you are forced to look down for 2-4 seconds to figure out what you want to change. If you didn't know 2 seconds is an eternity in a potential crash situation. I understand why carmakers are doing this because people are used to touchscreen technology. It just doesn't belong in cars. Florida just passed an anti-texting law (like a lot of states) and to me these consoles are just as distracting, even after I got used to it. Sorry to ramble about that but hopefully the first part of my answer, assisted in answering your original question.

That's the point of CUE...almost every function of CUE and the infotainment system can be controlled by the buttons on the steering wheel or through the Siri type commands.....very seldom do you really have to manually fuss with the screen....with practice you CAN control volume, program and song changes, etc through CUE command and buttons. Having HUD, I don't even have to glance down at the CUE if I don't want to. A regular dial and knob radio forces you to fiddle around and take you eyes off the road. If anything, CUE has made it a lot safer.

Hoosier Daddy
07-05-13, 10:52 AM
Lol. 27 hp and 17lbtq. ..good one..LOL


What ever you say 2.4 Ecotec with madmabb header & zzp 2.5" catted downpipe :)


Explain what? The ecotec 2.4 is an NA engine that GM used in the Cobalts, G5GT, HHR, Sky,Solstice, Malibu and whatever else.
I think he was laughing at 27 HP from a tune. You say the 27 HP you mentioned were with headers and other hardware changes in addition to the tune. Apples and oranges.

You just won't get much HP from the 3.6 with a tune. It already requires 91 octane, so you can't even get the typical tune increases from timing and bumping octane from 87.

As mentioned, it may feel like there were big HP improvements but that's a combination of wishful thinking, throttle response and automatic transmission programming tweaks. It's pretty standard for tuners (and some auto makers) to simply increase the amount of throttle opening for a given pedal movement. So, yeah, if you get a tune and give it quarter throttle and the car takes off like it did before with half throttle its easy to be fooled into thinking it has more HP.

Don't misunderstand. I think a tune may be worth the cost for a NA engine (and pretty much mandatory if you make hardware changes), particularly if it regprograms the automatic transmission. I just don't think a tune by itself buys much HP for a NA engine.

gohawks63
07-05-13, 12:35 PM
I think he was laughing at 27 HP from a tune. You say the 27 HP you mentioned were with headers and other hardware changes in addition to the tune. Apples and oranges.

You just won't get much HP from the 3.6 with a tune. It already requires 91 octane, so you can't even get the typical tune increases from timing and bumping octane from 87.

As mentioned, it may feel like there were big HP improvements but that's a combination of wishful thinking, throttle response and automatic transmission programming tweaks. It's pretty standard for tuners (and some auto makers) to simply increase the amount of throttle opening for a given pedal movement. So, yeah, if you get a tune and give it quarter throttle and the car takes off like it did before with half throttle its easy to be fooled into thinking it has more HP.

Does the 3.6 in the ATS require 91 octane? I thought only the 2.0T did. The 3.6L In the CTS does not require premium.

Hoosier Daddy
07-05-13, 01:23 PM
Does the 3.6 in the ATS require 91 octane? I thought only the 2.0T did. The 3.6L In the CTS does not require premium.
Sorry. You're right that the 3.6 does not require 91 although the HP rating is likely based on it leaving not much to be gained with timing with gasoline. But since the 3.6 is flex-fuel if the injectors are big enough you could get a bit more HP with a E85 tune since E85 is effectively very high octane.

No, the 2.0T does not require 91 octane either although it is recommended.

M5eater
07-05-13, 01:52 PM
Sorry. You're right that the 3.6 does not require 91 although the HP rating is likely based on it leaving not much to be gained with timing with gasoline. But since the 3.6 is flex-fuel if the injectors are big enough you could get a bit more HP with a E85 tune since E85 is effectively very high octane.

No, the 2.0T does not require 91 octane either although it is recommended.
not all LFX engines are Flex Fuel.

any modern engine with knock sensors can run 87

EnvoyBu
07-05-13, 02:24 PM
A bit of cool info:

A client of mine works at the Milford Proving Grounds and is a powertrain engineer (I think that's his job title?). Anyway, I asked him if the ATS 3.6L was SAE tested using premium, and he told me it was tested on 87 octane.


not all LFX engines are Flex Fuel.

any modern engine with knock sensors can run 87

My ATS 3.6L is Flex-Fuel capable, but I've never used it.

CTSCHICK
07-05-13, 02:43 PM
A bit of cool info:

A client of mine works at the Milford Proving Grounds and is a powertrain engineer (I think that's his job title?). Anyway, I asked him if the ATS 3.6L was SAE tested using premium, and he told me it was tested on 87 octane.
My ATS 3.6L is Flex-Fuel capable, but I've never used it.

The fuel they use also doesn't have the 10% ethanol mix, Same goes with fuel for their mileage testing.

Siren05
07-05-13, 06:13 PM
Only running 94 . We have she'll V power 0 ethanol i just find my blown cars prefer to drink 94 only.
It's better to run higher octane with Ethanol in turbo engines because ethanol has a cooler combustion
Temperature therfore reducing instances of knock under heavy load avoiding loss of power from timing
Being pulled.

ben.gators
07-05-13, 06:31 PM
What ever you say 2.4 Ecotec with madmabb header & zzp 2.5" catted downpipe :)

That's what we have been trying to say! Just a tune, and by tune I mean the software update itself WITHOUT any mechanical change or upgrade, it would be very hard to get any considerable amount of extra HP or tq increase from a NA engine! In your case, you mechanically changed the engine too, and after all of that you got 27 hp and 17lbtq.

EnvoyBu
07-05-13, 08:30 PM
The fuel they use also doesn't have the 10% ethanol mix, Same goes with fuel for their mileage testing.

Doesn't ethanol create more power than gasoline when used in an engine? IIRC, E85 yields better power than regular gasoline, but worse FE since it burns faster.

M5eater
07-05-13, 08:43 PM
Doesn't ethanol create more power than gasoline when used in an engine? IIRC, E85 yields better power than regular gasoline, but worse FE since it burns faster.
Ethanol has a higher detonation resistance than Gasoline, but it is less power dense.

IE. 87 E10 isn't actually 87 Gas, it's more like 84-85, which when blended with 10% Ethanol(which is 113), produces a blend that has a AKI of 87.

CTSCHICK
07-05-13, 08:58 PM
That's what we have been trying to say! Just a tune, and by tune I mean the software update itself WITHOUT any mechanical change or upgrade, it would be very hard to get any considerable amount of extra HP or tq increase from a NA engine! In your case, you mechanically changed the engine too, and after all of that you got 27 hp and 17lbtq.


The LFX tune we have produces around 25-30HP/TQ. I don't have any ATS 3.6 dyno sheets but I have CTS 3.6 LFX sheets if you want to see them.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2v8iszp.jpg




Other than that I am going to stay out of this conversation.

huna
07-05-13, 09:37 PM
That's the point of CUE...almost every function of CUE and the infotainment system can be controlled by the buttons on the steering wheel or through the Siri type commands.....very seldom do you really have to manually fuss with the screen....with practice you CAN control volume, program and song changes, etc through CUE command and buttons. Having HUD, I don't even have to glance down at the CUE if I don't want to. A regular dial and knob radio forces you to fiddle around and take you eyes off the road. If anything, CUE has made it a lot safer.

I'm gonna have to disagree with this one, maybe not the thread for this, but oh well. Voice commands can tune the radio, but in a PAINFUL and SLOW way. If you care about tuning the radio and browsing through a lot of stations, CUE sucks. (If you don't tune much, it doesn't matter, so I can appreciate that point of view.) Ford is bringing back the radio knobs to MyFord Touch after the disastrous market response of taking them away. Here's hoping GM follows suit.