Jump to content

  •  

Photo

2014 Cadillac ATS - Powertrain Predictions


82 replies to this topic

Poll: 2014 Cadillac ATS - Powertrain Predictions (10 member(s) have cast votes)

How do you like this lineup?

  1. Love it. (10 votes [100.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 100.00%

  2. Hate it. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts

Posted 16 January 2011 - 05:59 PM

Posted Image

Edit: Due to the high influx of visitors, I must add this disclaimer: Contrary to what some media outlets have reported, this is not a leaked GM document. This is scientific speculation based on what we know about GM engines and other technologies GM has been working on. Simply put we are hypothesizing about what the power output of a 6.2 liter would be if direct injection was added for example. - DD
  • 0

#2

Paolino

    Ultra Member

  • Editor/Reporter
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,109 posts

Posted 16 January 2011 - 06:28 PM

I love it but I must be out of the loop on a few details: I wasn't aware that there was an 8-speed coming and also I could have sworn the ATS was due before 2014?!
  • 0

#3

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts

Posted 16 January 2011 - 06:45 PM

Well... 2014 model year = introduction in August 2013. Somehow I doubt they are far along enough to introduce it August of next year or we'll be seeing spy shots of the real thing running around by now.

GM was working on the 8-speed when the whole bankruptcy business unfolded. It got put on ice. Not sure if it got restarted. But if it does, the 2014 model year is right where we may see the first ones. They'll probably introduce the 8-speed boxes over a period of 2~3 years rather than all at once. The logical thing to do will be to introduce it for the 220~300 lb-ft applications (that of the mainstream V6es) first -- the big V8s can make do with 6-gears and taller gearing for fuel economy, the econoboxes segment is probaby too price sensitive to splurge on 2 additional gears for another grand. This is why I kept the V-ship as a 6-speed.
  • 0

#4

Cubical-aka-Moltar

    American Cubicle Dweller

  • Premium Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,557 posts

Posted 16 January 2011 - 06:56 PM

I would hope they would have an 8 speed by then..the competition is moving to them now...I assume the next 3- and C-class will have them.
  • 0

#5

ZL-1

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,770 posts

Posted 16 January 2011 - 06:57 PM

2.0L I4 engine would be about 280hp. At least that's my expectation for the Astra OPC engine.
  • 0

#6

regfootball

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,113 posts

Posted 16 January 2011 - 10:17 PM

i think as crucial as the powertrain data is on these engines, its all pretty tough to digest unless you got some curb weights to go with it.

GM needs to cut the fat.

for market reasons too, we need to know that this car will have AWD on the option sheet or its pretty much DOA in the market.
  • 0

#7

Carguy

    GXP Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 628 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 10:01 AM

Nice lineup!! With no seeming DOHC V8 coming for Cadillac as a mid range CTS V8 this would be a good way to introduce the OHV V8 into future non V Cadillac models!---Nice going!
  • 0

#8

loki

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,208 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 10:24 AM

while it's not much, it is odd the v6 rpm @60 is less than the v8. i'm guessing you did that with higher drive ratio # so it'd be even more sporty than a v8 and 6 speed would be otherwise?

curious if the 4 Turbo is the base or the midlevel?
  • 0

#9

dado

    Red-Line

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 166 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 10:34 AM

Nice lineup!! With no seeming DOHC V8 coming for Cadillac as a mid range CTS V8 this would be a good way to introduce the OHV V8 into future non V Cadillac models!---Nice going!


Nice lineup for USA,but for Europe it would need more engines..
Like something to fall between 150 and 200 hp, 200-250 hp, diesel engines are must.
Also,since there is no plans for DOHCv8 (there are rumors but nothing concrete), I think 5.5 l v8(or even 5.3 l v8) with or without SC maybe would be a better option than 6.2 l v8 in top V version. On European ground. It seems here people are obsessed with Hp/l, high rpm etc. They don't care much about outside dimensions of the engine or weight of the engine. Weight of the car is another thing.
Question is if Cadillac ATS is meant to be global product or for USA only? And does GM want to blend in BMW M, Mercedes AMG, Audi S, Jaguar R crowd or offer car with engines for american market, specific american flavor, which i think, at present time, many people here doesn't like or care for.
  • 0

#10

smk4565

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,537 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 11:56 AM

I think that is the engine lineup GM will use, although I think the turbo 4 will have 230-250 hp. Especially since the Regal has 225 and many of the base German engines are in that range. I don't think they'll have the 8-speed ready at launch, but I'm sure they'll get one in there eventually. They should have it at launch, but GM likes to delay stuff until year 2 or 3 many times. But I've heard even Chrysler will have 9-speed transmissions in their front drive rental sedans by 2014.

I think the V-series should have DOHC, but I know it won't, so I think the pushrod V8 will be in there.
  • 0

#11

smk4565

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,537 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 12:00 PM

Nice lineup for USA,but for Europe it would need more engines..
Like something to fall between 150 and 200 hp, 200-250 hp, diesel engines are must.
Also,since there is no plans for DOHCv8 (there are rumors but nothing concrete), I think 5.5 l v8(or even 5.3 l v8) with or without SC maybe would be a better option than 6.2 l v8 in top V version. On European ground. It seems here people are obsessed with Hp/l, high rpm etc. They don't care much about outside dimensions of the engine or weight of the engine. Weight of the car is another thing.
Question is if Cadillac ATS is meant to be global product or for USA only? And does GM want to blend in BMW M, Mercedes AMG, Audi S, Jaguar R crowd or offer car with engines for american market, specific american flavor, which i think, at present time, many people here doesn't like or care for.


Good points, you are right it will need a diesel engine. If the ATS doesn't get 40 mpg, it is dead in Europe for sure. Lexus (evne Lincoln) is pushing hybrids, the Germans are going to bring more and more diesels, Cadillac has to do one or the other, so their car isn't at 28 mpg, while everyone else has 35-40.
  • 0

#12

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 02:41 PM

while it's not much, it is odd the v6 rpm @60 is less than the v8. i'm guessing you did that with higher drive ratio # so it'd be even more sporty than a v8 and 6 speed would be otherwise?

curious if the 4 Turbo is the base or the midlevel?


There are two reasons:-

(1) The V6 has higher specific consumption, so it needs a lower cruising speed more than the Turbo-4. Also, it can probably tolerate a taller cruising ratio than the the 2.0 liter four while crusing along off boost on the freeway.

(2) The final drives ratios are selected to "game" the system and provide the best 0-60 mph and 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) numbers for the magazines... I wanted either one shift or two shifts to 60 mph. The V6 gets to 62 mph in 2nd. With the turbo-4 it gets there in 3rd. In either case, they reach 0-60 right before the next shift.
  • 0

#13

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 02:48 PM

Nice lineup for USA,but for Europe it would need more engines..
Like something to fall between 150 and 200 hp, 200-250 hp, diesel engines are must.
Also,since there is no plans for DOHCv8 (there are rumors but nothing concrete), I think 5.5 l v8(or even 5.3 l v8) with or without SC maybe would be a better option than 6.2 l v8 in top V version. On European ground. It seems here people are obsessed with Hp/l, high rpm etc. They don't care much about outside dimensions of the engine or weight of the engine. Weight of the car is another thing.
Question is if Cadillac ATS is meant to be global product or for USA only? And does GM want to blend in BMW M, Mercedes AMG, Audi S, Jaguar R crowd or offer car with engines for american market, specific american flavor, which i think, at present time, many people here doesn't like or care for.


(1) A 5.5 does not offer substantially better fuel economy than a 6.2. With the same amount of valvetrain friction and a mere 11% reduction in swept volume efficiency gains are in the 1~3% range. This may not even get you to the next 1 MPG. A 5.5 is about 420hp at the same specific output. The engine will be no smaller and no lighter. Hence, it is probably best to maximize the advantage of the pushrod engine -- which is the ability to deliver the highest power density from the smallest engine dimensions and weight.

(2) GM will probably add a diesel or two for Europe. It'll be something taken from the Open portfoilio. Probably a 4-potter at 180~220 hp and a V6 at 250~270hp.
  • 0

#14

dado

    Red-Line

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 166 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 03:28 PM

(1) A 5.5 does not offer substantially better fuel economy than a 6.2. With the same amount of valvetrain friction and a mere 11% reduction in swept volume efficiency gains are in the 1~3% range. This may not even get you to the next 1 MPG. A 5.5 is about 420hp at the same specific output. The engine will be no smaller and no lighter. Hence, it is probably best to maximize the advantage of the pushrod engine -- which is the ability to deliver the highest power density from the smallest engine dimensions and weight.

I know in USA cars like CTS-V, M3 are relatively cheap compared to same cars in European countries.So maybe buyers of that kind of cars watch more at fuel consumption in USA. Here that kind of cars are very pricey.And believe me this. In my country people who drives that kind of car don't care about fuel consumption. I haven't met one person who drive that kind of car (with more than 350+ HP) who cares about fuel consumption. And here fuel isn't cheap either.
So here it is not about fuel consumption for that kind of car. It is bragging rights. Buyer come and see DOHC V8, 4 valves 4 cams, DI turbocharger, 120 hp/l (or something like that)...and more thing means better (not complicated, heavier, harder to work at, bigger chance to something go wrongs) because some paid journalist wrought that down in some crazy magazine. And then they will see 6.2 l v8 with 470 + hp 2 valves, readline at 6500 rpm (even though most of the time most drivers don't past even 4000 rpm). It is so low tech for them. I know people who would rather have 4.0 l v8 with 420 hp than 6.2 l with 480 hp, if 6.2 l v8 can't spin over 7200 rpm (not to mention if it has only 2 valves per cylinder). Because 6.2 l v8 is heavy, big engine. And DOHC, Hp/l is only things that matters to them. I've tried couple of time to explain some things to some people but i just waisted my time. Small block doesn't have such history here as in USA. When GM will try to sell 6.2 l in small ATS (maybe CTS can get away with it) most people will just say: "Oh..they need such a big engine to get to such HP rating. So low tech"
So maybe..just maybe.. 5.5 l v8 wouldn't be such a bad idea..with forced induction("high tech"),DI (also "high tech") it could go to 500+ hp.. and it would have good HP/l(ultimate uberalles, warp core level high tech criteria) :smilewide:
I hope they also put that new 2.9 l v6 diesel in use.

Edited by dado, 17 January 2011 - 03:36 PM.

  • 0

#15

hyperv6

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,568 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 03:32 PM

I will wait to see what we really get.

The Caddy will need a diesel in Europe or not even bother to go. I supect that GM for the most will tune the line over there more to their market less the V series. Unless they adapt the entire car to Europes needs or wants it will be another fail. As Oil continues to rise it will become even more important.

You have to give Europe what they want and not expect them to fall all over American cars.

Edited by hyperv6, 17 January 2011 - 03:34 PM.

  • 1

#16

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 08:02 PM

... Because 6.2 l v8 is heavy, big engine. And DOHC, Hp/l is only things that matters to them.


Actually, the converse is true. A pushrod engine is significantly lighter and smaller than a DOHC engine. If you take a DOHC V8, throw away three of the four camshafts, their sprockets, their bearings, halve the number of valves and make the cylinder heads about 1/3 the size... you'll arrive roughly where a Pushrod V8 is in terms of size and weight. In fact, the difference is so pronounced that a 6.2 liter Pushrod V8 is typically lighter than a 4.0 liter DOHC V8. Eg. The BMW S65 4.0 V8 engine in the M3 is 202 kg, whereas LS3 6.2 V8 in the Corvette is 183 kg.
  • 0

#17

Lamar

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,398 posts

Posted 17 January 2011 - 08:43 PM

dado, it's the same here in the US as it is in Europe. If you're buying an M, AMG, RS, V-Series, or SRT, chances are that fuel economy isn't top priority for you.
  • 0

#18

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts

Posted 18 January 2011 - 12:12 AM

dado, it's the same here in the US as it is in Europe. If you're buying an M, AMG, RS, V-Series, or SRT, chances are that fuel economy isn't top priority for you.


The reality is that despite the fact that people moan and bitch about it, fuel expenditures really aren't that big of a deal despite gasoline prices having tripled in the last 15 years.

I drive about 12500 miles a year. I get ~18.5 miles a gallon in the C55. That's $2,365 a year at $3.50 a gallon. If I have a Camry or Accord V6 and pull in an average of about 24 mpg in combined driving -- a good 30% improvement in fuel economy -- the same driving habits will cost $1,823 a year. That's a difference of $542 a year or $45 a month. $45 is not even enough for a dinner for two.

In the 90s, it's $70 vs $52. Today, it's $200 vs $150. That's three times, but it's also not a big deal either way. In general, people who explicitly sink $60~80K on a performance car is not going to care very much about whether they are out $200 or $150 on gas every month. On the same token, if a $5000 Hybrid system can get me from 18.5 to 24 mpg in with the same performance, they probably don't care for it if they can do the math because it'll take them over 9 years just to break even on the investment -- just in time for a $2000 battery replacement! Unless... they believe in the fraud of the century called Global Warming.
  • 0

#19

dado

    Red-Line

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 166 posts

Posted 18 January 2011 - 01:28 AM

"Actually, the converse is true. A pushrod engine is significantly lighter and smaller than a DOHC engine. If you take a DOHC V8, throw away three of the four camshafts, their sprockets, their bearings, halve the number of valves and make the cylinder heads about 1/3 the size... you'll arrive roughly where a Pushrod V8 is in terms of size and weight. In fact, the difference is so pronounced that a 6.2 liter Pushrod V8 is typically lighter than a 4.0 liter DOHC V8. Eg. The BMW S65 4.0 V8 engine in the M3 is 202 kg, whereas LS3 6.2 V8 in the Corvette is 183 kg."
I know that you know that (i forgot to write that my colleauge thinks it is big and heavy engine not me-i'm from Europe but i know advantages and disadvantage of engines with cam in block valvetrain )but for most buyers here they judge by displacement of the engine. To them-big displacement=big engine, heavy ..of course if you look at only DOHC type of engine with same cylindar configuration it could be partially true but not general rule (actually 6.2 l v8 from mercedes is lighter then 4.0 l v8 from BMW). To them 4.0 l v8 is smaller, lighter,rev higher, have higher HP/L rating than 6.2 l v8. They don't know much about advantages of pushrod engines (and why would they need to know that) since big pushrod V8 is not in use here for long time (accept Bentley but that is different story). This is perception GM must be ready to deal with if they are coming here.

Edited by dado, 18 January 2011 - 01:35 AM.

  • 0

#20

hyperv6

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,568 posts

Posted 18 January 2011 - 05:54 AM

"Actually, the converse is true. A pushrod engine is significantly lighter and smaller than a DOHC engine. If you take a DOHC V8, throw away three of the four camshafts, their sprockets, their bearings, halve the number of valves and make the cylinder heads about 1/3 the size... you'll arrive roughly where a Pushrod V8 is in terms of size and weight. In fact, the difference is so pronounced that a 6.2 liter Pushrod V8 is typically lighter than a 4.0 liter DOHC V8. Eg. The BMW S65 4.0 V8 engine in the M3 is 202 kg, whereas LS3 6.2 V8 in the Corvette is 183 kg."
I know that you know that (i forgot to write that my colleauge thinks it is big and heavy engine not me-i'm from Europe but i know advantages and disadvantage of engines with cam in block valvetrain )but for most buyers here they judge by displacement of the engine. To them-big displacement=big engine, heavy ..of course if you look at only DOHC type of engine with same cylindar configuration it could be partially true but not general rule (actually 6.2 l v8 from mercedes is lighter then 4.0 l v8 from BMW). To them 4.0 l v8 is smaller, lighter,rev higher, have higher HP/L rating than 6.2 l v8. They don't know much about advantages of pushrod engines (and why would they need to know that) since big pushrod V8 is not in use here for long time (accept Bentley but that is different story). This is perception GM must be ready to deal with if they are coming here.


This is the main issue. GM needs to sell what people want and expect. GM for years has tried to sell the less is better concept with while true in many cased is still not accepted by the general public no matter how much they are coached. You can toss around all the numbers in the world but people still often think more is better. We even see it here as today we have some very good, powerful and efficent 4 and 6 cylinders but many will not buy them because they have less than 8 cylinders.

People in the general public for the most are idiots when it comes to cars and you need to give them what they want as you can not change their preception. Sometimes the best path is not always the most profitable.

Edited by hyperv6, 18 January 2011 - 05:57 AM.

  • 2



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users