Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
2009 CTS-V (TR-6060, Black Raven/Ebony, Recaros, Ultraview)
Joined
·
1,654 Posts
It would be enlightening to talk to the engineers about the decision to spend all the effort on upgrading the TTV6 versus dropping in the LT1. Aren't the horsepower and torque about the same? Who cares what the Germans are doing? The LT1 is more compact with a lower center of gravity and weighs about the same, plus you get that great V8 sound, not the annoying V6 buzz. I realize that the V6 is shorter and sits back a little more toward the center, but is that enough? Plus Cadillac would sell more cars. I haven't heard anyone that would refuse a V8. It would have certainly got my interest. Now I'm not going to buy an ATS-V. An automatic CTS-V doesn't interest me either. I'll keep my 2009 CTS-V and wait for a worthy successor.
 

·
Registered
Started with '04 BR V, moved on to '09 Slvr V, now '13 CRT coupe
Joined
·
1,957 Posts
OK, all you engineers chime in and explain what he is talking about......

From AutoBlog:
Tens of thousands of hours of CFD (Computational Flow Dynamics) computer time were also used to fine-tune airflow in order to finesse the vehicle's drag and lift dynamics. "The first fluid or function that overheats betrays all the other work we've done," says Cadillac chief engineer Tony Roma. "The idea here is controlled disaster, where all the temps are just below the threshold [to optimize airflow and balance drag and lift]."
I'm curious because I seem to remember watching an interview with Roma where he said that controlling underhood temps was their greatest challenge during development and why they have like 6 or 7 coolers on the ATS-V.
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS-V 6MT, 2017 AMG GLC43
Joined
·
310 Posts
It would be enlightening to talk to the engineers about the decision to spend all the effort on upgrading the TTV6 versus dropping in the LT1. Aren't the horsepower and torque about the same? Who cares what the Germans are doing? The LT1 is more compact with a lower center of gravity and weighs about the same, plus you get that great V8 sound, not the annoying V6 buzz. I realize that the V6 is shorter and sits back a little more toward the center, but is that enough? Plus Cadillac would sell more cars. I haven't heard anyone that would refuse a V8. It would have certainly got my interest. Now I'm not going to buy an ATS-V. An automatic CTS-V doesn't interest me either. I'll keep my 2009 CTS-V and wait for a worthy successor.
It's a damn good car for those who don't already have a CTS-V2.

There's something to be said about improved fuel economy and electronics, but I see mentions of turbo lag and an uninspired dashboard offsetting those benefits. An LT1 would have made a difference, but I have to agree, GM didn't really create an upgrade path for manual transmission CTS-V2 folks.
 

·
Registered
'16 CTS V-Sport Black/'16 CTS Luxury w/V-Sport Pkg White
Joined
·
5,784 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
It's a damn good car for those who don't already have a CTS-V2.

There's something to be said about improved fuel economy and electronics, but I see mentions of turbo lag and an uninspired dashboard offsetting those benefits. An LT1 would have made a difference, but I have to agree, GM didn't really create an upgrade path for manual transmission CTS-V2 folks.
it wasn't for GM to create an upgrade path .... it was for us consumers to require a manual by purchasing them ......we did not so they did not simple as that.....profit is not a dirty word, in fact it's quite necessary for companies to continue making the cars we desire, we simply don't want a manual enough to make it worthwhile, excluding the very vocal tiny minority that buys them of course
 

·
Registered
none
Joined
·
136 Posts
It looks like my earlier prediction stating that the ATS V would probably outhandle the M3/M4,but the M3/M4 would be faster in acceleration.The first numbers on the ATS V show 12.3 to 12.6 1/4 times at 114 mph to 115 mph.The M3/M4 tests are between 12.0 and 12.3 1/4 at 119 to 121 mph.It also appears the ATS V is about 200 lbs heavier than the M3/M4.
I am waiting for the inevitable comparison tests by the major magazines where all the factors such as weather and driver are not influencing the results.I think it is obvious that it is not a clear cut victory for the ATS V as many on this forum predicted.Never the less the ATS V deserves high praise.It is a very good high performance car in a segment of the industry that is highly competitive.
 

·
Registered
97 Eldo ETC,98 STS,04 SRX N*,06 STS N*,14 CTS VSport Premium, 17 CTS Vsport Prem Lux
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
I'm a bit underwhelmed at the results. Caddy is saying 3.8-3.9 to 60. All the results are over 4. I guess we'll see how it does against the competition when the playing field is level.
 

·
Registered
none
Joined
·
397 Posts
Seems as though it's a "tie" at best IF the automatic actually achieves the 3.8 0-60 AND a 12 flat 1/4.

Certainly not the undisputed superiority that we were all (not realistically)hoping for.
 

·
Registered
97 Eldo ETC,98 STS,04 SRX N*,06 STS N*,14 CTS VSport Premium, 17 CTS Vsport Prem Lux
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
CyberVlad said:
They all tested the manual version. 3.8-3.9 is for the automatic
Thanks for the info. That's good to know but do you think the auto will knock a half second off the time? Hope so...
 

·
Registered
2009 CTS-V (TR-6060, Black Raven/Ebony, Recaros, Ultraview)
Joined
·
1,654 Posts
CTS NV said:
It's a damn good car for those who don't already have a CTS-V2. There's something to be said about improved fuel economy and electronics, but I see mentions of turbo lag and an uninspired dashboard offsetting those benefits. An LT1 would have made a difference, but I have to agree, GM didn't really create an upgrade path for manual transmission CTS-V2 folks.
I suspect the engine choice was for more mundane reasons, such as playing the numbers game for CAFE requirements. The mpg improvement, if any, of the TTV6 is mostly a paper tiger. Only steady state cruising at normal highway speeds would yield little if no gains. Around town and mixed driving, one would have to keep out of the turbos to achieve the stated mpg. But then, why buy a high performance car if you won't use the hp/tq? That's often overlooked with these small displacement, blown engines.
 

·
Registered
'16 CTS V-Sport Black/'16 CTS Luxury w/V-Sport Pkg White
Joined
·
5,784 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I'm a bit underwhelmed at the results. Caddy is saying 3.8-3.9 to 60. All the results are over 4. I guess we'll see how it does against the competition when the playing field is level.
not quite there is a nuance missed here


They all tested the manual version. 3.8-3.9 is for the automatic
this is the nuance....with a little more digging you will discover the M3/4 is also a low to mid 4 second car with a manual transmission.....when playing the numbers robots shift better than us bags of squishy stuff:)

----------

I suspect the engine choice was for more mundane reasons, such as playing the numbers game for CAFE requirements. The mpg improvement, if any, of the TTV6 is mostly a paper tiger. Only steady state cruising at normal highway speeds would yield little if no gains. Around town and mixed driving, one would have to keep out of the turbos to achieve the stated mpg. But then, why buy a high performance car if you won't use the hp/tq? That's often overlooked with these small displacement, blown engines.
you are right on the money....the engine is a tax dodge

depending on where the car will be marketed there are various taxes this will avoid....some places have an engine size tax so keep it under 4 liters....some places have an emissions CO2 tax...and some places (like the U.S.) have a fuel consumption tax...and emissions and consumption figures are derived in a static or steady state test exactly the conditions that keep the engine off boost and running efficiently .....

so 3.6TT is:
under 4 liter tax in some markets - CHECK
meets CO2 requirements in some markets - CHECK
meets consumption requirements in some markets - CHECK

WOO HOO!!!! we have a global tax free hotrod motor!

this is why just about every manufacturer is doing this, especially on their volume cars
 

·
Registered
Had 2009 V, Red/Blk 2016 Now
Joined
·
4,186 Posts
Any chance the delay in the cars is the fact they're addressing the non-cooled seats?????
 

·
Registered
2011 CTS-V Sedan
Joined
·
156 Posts
Seems as though it's a "tie" at best IF the automatic actually achieves the 3.8 0-60 AND a 12 flat 1/4.

Certainly not the undisputed superiority that we were all (not realistically)hoping for.
I'm a bit underwhelmed at the results. Caddy is saying 3.8-3.9 to 60. All the results are over 4. I guess we'll see how it does against the competition when the playing field is level.
It looks like my earlier prediction stating that the ATS V would probably outhandle the M3/M4,but the M3/M4 would be faster in acceleration.The first numbers on the ATS V show 12.3 to 12.6 1/4 times at 114 mph to 115 mph.The M3/M4 tests are between 12.0 and 12.3 1/4 at 119 to 121 mph.It also appears the ATS V is about 200 lbs heavier than the M3/M4.
I am waiting for the inevitable comparison tests by the major magazines where all the factors such as weather and driver are not influencing the results.I think it is obvious that it is not a clear cut victory for the ATS V as many on this forum predicted.Never the less the ATS V deserves high praise.It is a very good high performance car in a segment of the industry that is highly competitive.
This car wasn't designed for drag-racing and 0-60 jaunts. For decades enthusiasts criticized American cars for being straight-line missiles but lacking the engineering finesse to dominate anything with turns. Now the tables are turned and the Germans are making numb, isolated, straight-line cars while the real drivers cars come wearing the crest and wreath or bowtie. Strange juxtaposition indeed.

2015 BMW M3
Car&Driver: 0-60 4.1sec, 1/4mile 12.4 @ 116.0mph
MotorTrend: 0-60 3.8sec, 1/4mile 12.1 @ 117.8mph DCT equipped

2016 ATS-V
Car&Driver: 0-60, 4.2sec; 1/4mile 12.6 @ 115.0mph
MotorTrend: 0-60, 4.0sec; 1/4mile 12.3 @ 114.6mph; automatic
Automobile: 0-60, 3.8sec; automatic

Keep in mind the ATS-V was tested in the parking lot at COTA, not at a test facility like Chelsea where the M3's times originated. I suspect same-day, same driver comparisons will be within 1/10th and 1mph of each other.

For comparison purposes, look at the V2's results:

Car&Driver: 0-60 in 4.3, 12.6 1/4mile at 116.0mph, 4292lbs
Edmunds: 0-60 in 4.3, 12.4 1/4mile at 114.7mph, 4313lbs*
MotorTrend: 0-60 in 4.0, 12.4 1/4mile at 117.0mph, 4292lbs
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.1, 12.3 1/4mile at 118.4mph, 4300lbs
Car&Driver: 0-60 in 3.9, 12.2 1/4mile at 119.0mph, 4268lbs*
Edmunds: 0-60 in 4.3, 12.5 1/4mile at 115.3mph
MotorWeek: 0-60 in 4.2, 12.5 1/4mile at 118.0mph
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.1, 12.3 1/4mile at 118.8mph, 4130lbs
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.2, 12.5 1/4mile at 115.3mph, 4360lbs

Average: 0-60 in 4.16, 12.41 1/4mile at 116.9mph, 4279lbs

They have essentially matched the V'2 straight-line performance and will almost certainly wipe the floor with it around a track. The real measure of the ATS-V will be how it performs and how it feels when pitted against the M3, C63, RC-F, RS5 around a track. I know where my money will be in that race...
 

·
Registered
97 Eldo ETC,98 STS,04 SRX N*,06 STS N*,14 CTS VSport Premium, 17 CTS Vsport Prem Lux
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
Any chance the delay in the cars is the fact they're addressing the non-cooled seats?????
My point of being underwhelmed stems from all the hype the media, Cadillac, and fan boys have created. You see plastered everywhere 3.8 to 60 and then a video of 0-130-0 or whatever the top speed was. To see plus 4 second times to 60 is a let down because of all the advertising and hype over this metric. That's all. This is similar to Chevy's claim of 0-60 in 2.95 seconds for auto Z06. I've yet to see it in any publication. I agree with you about how the Caddy will probably out-handle the competition though.
 

·
Registered
'16 CTS V-Sport Black/'16 CTS Luxury w/V-Sport Pkg White
Joined
·
5,784 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
This car wasn't designed for drag-racing and 0-60 jaunts. For decades enthusiasts criticized American cars for being straight-line missiles but lacking the engineering finesse to dominate anything with turns. Now the tables are turned and the Germans are making numb, isolated, straight-line cars while the real drivers cars come wearing the crest and wreath or bowtie. Strange juxtaposition indeed.

2015 BMW M3
Car&Driver: 0-60 4.1sec, 1/4mile 12.4 @ 116.0mph
MotorTrend: 0-60 3.8sec, 1/4mile 12.1 @ 117.8mph DCT equipped

2016 ATS-V
Car&Driver: 0-60, 4.2sec; 1/4mile 12.6 @ 115.0mph
MotorTrend: 0-60, 4.0sec; 1/4mile 12.3 @ 114.6mph; automatic
Automobile: 0-60, 3.8sec; automatic

Keep in mind the ATS-V was tested in the parking lot at COTA, not at a test facility like Chelsea where the M3's times originated. I suspect same-day, same driver comparisons will be within 1/10th and 1mph of each other.

For comparison purposes, look at the V2's results:

Car&Driver: 0-60 in 4.3, 12.6 1/4mile at 116.0mph, 4292lbs
Edmunds: 0-60 in 4.3, 12.4 1/4mile at 114.7mph, 4313lbs*
MotorTrend: 0-60 in 4.0, 12.4 1/4mile at 117.0mph, 4292lbs
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.1, 12.3 1/4mile at 118.4mph, 4300lbs
Car&Driver: 0-60 in 3.9, 12.2 1/4mile at 119.0mph, 4268lbs*
Edmunds: 0-60 in 4.3, 12.5 1/4mile at 115.3mph
MotorWeek: 0-60 in 4.2, 12.5 1/4mile at 118.0mph
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.1, 12.3 1/4mile at 118.8mph, 4130lbs
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.2, 12.5 1/4mile at 115.3mph, 4360lbs

Average: 0-60 in 4.16, 12.41 1/4mile at 116.9mph, 4279lbs

They have essentially matched the V'2 straight-line performance and will almost certainly wipe the floor with it around a track. The real measure of the ATS-V will be how it performs and how it feels when pitted against the M3, C63, RC-F, RS5 around a track. I know where my money will be in that race...
DUUUUDEEE!!!!! awesome post :worship:
 

·
Registered
none
Joined
·
136 Posts
This car wasn't designed for drag-racing and 0-60 jaunts. For decades enthusiasts criticized American cars for being straight-line missiles but lacking the engineering finesse to dominate anything with turns. Now the tables are turned and the Germans are making numb, isolated, straight-line cars while the real drivers cars come wearing the crest and wreath or bowtie. Strange juxtaposition indeed.

2015 BMW M3
Car&Driver: 0-60 4.1sec, 1/4mile 12.4 @ 116.0mph
MotorTrend: 0-60 3.8sec, 1/4mile 12.1 @ 117.8mph DCT equipped

2016 ATS-V
Car&Driver: 0-60, 4.2sec; 1/4mile 12.6 @ 115.0mph
MotorTrend: 0-60, 4.0sec; 1/4mile 12.3 @ 114.6mph; automatic
Automobile: 0-60, 3.8sec; automatic

Keep in mind the ATS-V was tested in the parking lot at COTA, not at a test facility like Chelsea where the M3's times originated. I suspect same-day, same driver comparisons will be within 1/10th and 1mph of each other.

For comparison purposes, look at the V2's results:

Car&Driver: 0-60 in 4.3, 12.6 1/4mile at 116.0mph, 4292lbs
Edmunds: 0-60 in 4.3, 12.4 1/4mile at 114.7mph, 4313lbs*
MotorTrend: 0-60 in 4.0, 12.4 1/4mile at 117.0mph, 4292lbs
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.1, 12.3 1/4mile at 118.4mph, 4300lbs
Car&Driver: 0-60 in 3.9, 12.2 1/4mile at 119.0mph, 4268lbs*
Edmunds: 0-60 in 4.3, 12.5 1/4mile at 115.3mph
MotorWeek: 0-60 in 4.2, 12.5 1/4mile at 118.0mph
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.1, 12.3 1/4mile at 118.8mph, 4130lbs
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.2, 12.5 1/4mile at 115.3mph, 4360lbs

Average: 0-60 in 4.16, 12.41 1/4mile at 116.9mph, 4279lbs

They have essentially matched the V'2 straight-line performance and will almost certainly wipe the floor with it around a track. The real measure of the ATS-V will be how it performs and how it feels when pitted against the M3, C63, RC-F, RS5 around a track. I know where my money will be in that race...
It depends on the track. I suspect that on a longer track with turns that are not very sharp the M3/M4 may more than hold its own due to the superior torque at lower revs.Most tests I have read are very impressed on how the M3/M4 accelerates out of a turn.A shorter track with sharper turns will favor the ATS V's handling advantage.I think you will find a split decision on track performance depending on the track layout.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top