Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Leaked: 2016 Cadillac ATS-V

      The Cadillac ATS-V Makes A Surprise Appearance

    Auto show season is upon us and that usually means that leaks are bound to happen. Case in point is Road and Track which published, and subsequently pulled an article revealing the 2016 Cadillac ATS-V. But this being the age of internet, Road and Track's info and pictures made onto to other sites (like the one you're reading).

    The car shown here is very much the same that spy photographers caught only a few weeks back. However these studio shots give us a much better look of what to expect. The front sports a mean look with black mesh grille and heat extractor on the hood. Around back is a spoiler and a set of quad exhausts. Those looking for a bit more aggression will be happy to know that a package offering different front, splitter, side skirts and rear spoiler will be on offer.

    Under the hood is TT 3.6 V6 from the CTS V-Sport. For the ATS-V, it makes 450 horsepower and 445 pound-feet of torque. Transmission choices include a six-speed manual and an eight-speed automatic. The suspension has been tuned to provide 50 percent more stiffness and a set of Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires keep it on the road.

    We'll have more details when the Cadillac ATS-V is revealed at the LA Auto Show next week.

    Source: Road and Track via Autoblog

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Love it. Nice powerful stance.

     

    If rumors are true, why didn't GM put a 7 speeder from Corvette? I think GM needs to let this one go and have at least same hp as the LT1 considering Germans like to not follow SAE.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It looks much better than the outgoing CTS(V) coupe.

     

    Agreed on that.

     

     

    If rumors are true, why didn't GM put a 7 speeder from Corvette? I think GM needs to let this one go and have at least same hp as the LT1 considering Germans like to not follow SAE.

    I've been wondering the same Z. My guess it could either be the transmission couldn't work the TT 3.6 (least likely), to a issue of cost.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree that the CTS V sport and ATS-V would have been better with the 6.2L V6, but apparently affluent buyers are more impressed with turbo V6's than V8's.  I asked the question on Autoline After Hours months ago, and that was the response the Cadillac spokesman gave.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    LF3 is inferior in every way to the LT1. 20 lbs heavier than the V8, less powerful, bigger, more expensive, laggier and no more fuel efficient.

     

    If sense and sensibility overcame pride and prejudice then people like SMK would not be humping Germans.

     

    As Drew stated, it is what the market wants.

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If rumors are true, why didn't GM put a 7 speeder from Corvette? I think GM needs to let this one go and have at least same hp as the LT1 considering Germans like to not follow SAE.

    I've been wondering the same Z. My guess it could either be the transmission couldn't work the TT 3.6 (least likely), to a issue of cost.

     

     

    No, because the transmission does not depend on whether the motor is forced induced or not and it is capable of handling excess of 700 lb-ft torque.

     

    If these rumors are true, then I personally think GM does not want to slaughter one of its sacred cows. That logic to me is shameful and old school as this version of the car is a top of the line car of a brand that needs impetus.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It looks much better than the outgoing CTS(V) coupe.

     

    I like it and take one with the manual transmission.

     

     

    I guess I'm biased, but I think it looks JUST as good in some ways, but possibly better in others because of the more updated A&S

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Love it. Nice powerful stance.

     

    If rumors are true, why didn't GM put a 7 speeder from Corvette? I think GM needs to let this one go and have at least same hp as the LT1 considering Germans like to not follow SAE.

     

     

    Might have something to do with packaging since the Vette's tranny is mounted in the rear and set up for the shifter rods to go thru the tunnel.  Just Speculating tho. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    LF3 is inferior in every way to the LT1. 20 lbs heavier than the V8, less powerful, bigger, more expensive, laggier and no more fuel efficient.

     

     

    No offense but U do not kno what the upgraded engine will put out so that dyno chart is irrelevant. Even at the (I believe conservative guess)450 HP R&T is reporting we don't kno where in the power band that comes in, nor what GM was able to do in terms of FE. I have heard that the tuning for the engine was at 460 and not the 450. Also the LF3 is well known to be able to be ECU tuned to a quick 500HP with no bolt ons.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    At this point, we have no reason to not believe R&T. They basically leaked the press release. 

     

     

    I hear U.. but when the Stingray "leaked" from GM they were touting 450 as well.. then suddenly it showed up with 460. The Z06??? Originally was 620 horsepower and 650 lb-ft of torque  http://blog.caranddriver.com/2015-chevy-corvette-z06-output-figures-leaked-620-hp-650-lb-ft/. That changed to 30 more ponies.

     

    I'm not saying they weren't given certain info.. I'm just saying GM may have held some cards closer to the chest so as to amaze more come LA.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    At this point, we have no reason to not believe R&T. They basically leaked the press release. 

     

     

    I hear U.. but when the Stingray "leaked" from GM they were touting 450 as well.. then suddenly it showed up with 460. The Z06??? Originally was 620 horsepower and 650 lb-ft of torque  http://blog.caranddr...0-hp-650-lb-ft/. That changed to 30 more ponies.

     

    I'm not saying they weren't given certain info.. I'm just saying GM may have held some cards closer to the chest so as to amaze more come LA.

     

     

    In the case of the Z06, GM only 'guessed' what the V8 engine would produce till they got the ratings from SAE.

     

     

    If rumors are true, why didn't GM put a 7 speeder from Corvette? I think GM needs to let this one go and have at least same hp as the LT1 considering Germans like to not follow SAE.

    I've been wondering the same Z. My guess it could either be the transmission couldn't work the TT 3.6 (least likely), to a issue of cost.

     

     

    No, because the transmission does not depend on whether the motor is forced induced or not and it is capable of handling excess of 700 lb-ft torque.

     

    If these rumors are true, then I personally think GM does not want to slaughter one of its sacred cows. That logic to me is shameful and old school as this version of the car is a top of the line car of a brand that needs impetus.

     

     

    I have the feeling you are correct on GM wanting to leave its scared cow alone.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Isn't the primary reason GM pushes the LF3 over the LT1 in almost every car boil down to MPG and nothing else?  I am sure that the ATS-V will probably get the LT1 instead, but MPG concerns (and newer regs) still exist.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Isn't the primary reason GM pushes the LF3 over the LT1 in almost every car boil down to MPG and nothing else?  I am sure that the ATS-V will probably get the LT1 instead, but MPG concerns (and newer regs) still exist.

     

     

    No.. The Fuel economy has nothing to do with it.. it boils down to the fact that there are plenty of idiots who no nothing about cars, but insist that a "truck" engine has no place in a luxury car despite that "truck" engine being more refined than many of the engines coming from their beloved Benz, BMW or Audi

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If Cadillac wanted to tout the biggest factor that it has that no other German or Asian manufacturer has - It's rich American history - then it would have gone with real names and big pushrods for its performance line.  

     

    It obviously wants to take the much "safer" (and I put safer in quotes because GM does not do a good job being Toyota or BMW. They do a good job when they do their own thing - follow their own heritage - so to the bean counters it appears to be safer, but we all know it isn't) route and copy the "I'm too dumb to tell how big a car is if the numbers/letters in the name ain't in order" and "I have more turbos than you" mentality of the foreign manufacturers. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The "claim" that rich buyers prefer a turbo V6. What's that based on? But, let's say some of them do. The problem is that these same buyers will also be more inclined to choose that M3 with a Turbo I6 over the ATS-V. At the same time, you'll lose those buyers who prefer 8-cylinders. I know one thing with certainty though... the ATS-V is no longer a candidate to replace the Jaguar XF Supercharged I currently drive.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Very True, GM is walking away from heritage in favor of Bean counter mentality of taking an existing path rather than the road less traveled but has better profit.

     

    I understand that the Lemmings of Europe have been brainwashed by the socialist pigs of gov to think smaller is better except for the rich class who deserve the bigger is better message.

     

    Class warfare if you ever saw it!

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Isn't the primary reason GM pushes the LF3 over the LT1 in almost every car boil down to MPG and nothing else?  I am sure that the ATS-V will probably get the LT1 instead, but MPG concerns (and newer regs) still exist.

     

    The 3.6 Twin turbo is not more fuel efficient than the LT1 V8. So that is not it. It is also heavier than the V8, take up more under hood space than the V8 and cost more than the V8.

    • Agree 2
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    After seeing these running around in camo for so long, it's nice to finally see what was hiding beneath it. So far, I like everything I see. Well, I do wish they would have done an about face on CUE, but that's probably for another day. Otherwise, it looks fantastic and the new wreath-less badge sort of fits with the more aggressive design. Combined with the terrific stance this car has going down the road along with the rather pleasing sound it also makes, it ought to be a winner. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The 3.6 TT is being used because it is a "Cadillac" engine.  Otherwise, if you have the 6.2 v8 in the ATS-V, then there is no difference between it and the Camaro SS.

     

    The 7-speed manual could very well come along in the next year or two depending upon the sales ratio of auto/manual selection by the owners.

     

    Will it go racing?  Will there be a sedan? 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The "claim" that rich buyers prefer a turbo V6. What's that based on? But, let's say some of them do. The problem is that these same buyers will also be more inclined to choose that M3 with a Turbo I6 over the ATS-V. At the same time, you'll lose those buyers who prefer 8-cylinders. I know one thing with certainty though... the ATS-V is no longer a candidate to replace the Jaguar XF Supercharged I currently drive.

    If U are directing at me I wasn't saying that a turbo V6 was what luxo buyers prefer... I was saying that it what non-enthusiasts require in terms of an exclusive engine for the luxury brand. It didn't have to be a Turbo V6.. it could have just the same been a NA V8. Either way it has to be exclusive to the brand. It is quite possible that the Ultra V8 is debuting in the CT6. Who knows? 

     

    And second.. Why was the ATS-V, a sport compact, being considered as a replacement for a Sport MID-SIZE, the XF SC (I am assuming the 5.0L ) when the CTS-VSport beats it handily.. looks better.. and offers as much luxury. Even more important is why not just replace the XF with a CTS-V, which will have a V8? Just askin

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The 3.6 TT was the logical choice because it is a Cadillac engine and they don't want to be seen as using a Camaro or Corvette engine. Cadillac could have made a brand new dohc twin turbo V8 for V-series cars only, but we know they don't have that sort if engineering budget.

    Cadillac has to work out of the parts bin, until they day when they don't have to, they'll probably always lag behind the Germans.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Both the C7 Stingray and Chevy SS I drove--and really, any GM pushrod V8--idle roughly. You can feel the engine shaking around after start up. That's okay for a Corvette or a muscle car, but something like a Cadillac sports sedan should have better refinement. 

     

    The naturally-aspirated SS also has fairly awful fuel economy: 14 mpg in the city. The C7 gets good numbers on the highway because of its tall gearing and aerodynamics; good luck accelerating in seventh gear. A heavily reworked 3.6 TT is more appropriate for a vehicle like ATS-V.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you can't wait for me to upload the pictures here, follow and watch the Cheers and Gears Facebook Page or @CheersnGears on Twitter. 

     

    I would also appreciate if you see those posts that you share on FB or re-tweet on Twitter.  Helps get the word out about the site.  I see some of you sharing from other media outlets too, so maybe you could throw a share or 3 my way as well.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Those use cases will necessitate the purchase of something with a long range, like 300+. But even still, two hours at 11.5kW would put 50 - 70 miles of range back in the car. You might need to make one 10-minute DCFC stop if you had a really busy day, but otherwise, you could make it.
    • I can understand this, but then this is part of my daily life. With two kids with their own families and grandkids it is not uncommon for us to be out and about for the day, come home for a bit before heading out to help with the grandkids and their afterschool activities. Plus, with family that is living from both sides north and south of us, it would not be uncommon to drive 75 miles down south to deal with my wife's side of the family, see the nieces/nephews and then up north to my side to see folks and with both our parents in senior years with health issues, also moving back in forth. Course this is why Sun puts on about 15,000 miles a year on the SS. We all have different use cases.
    • That's all I'm worried about. I'm not going to spend a sht ton more money having a 19.2kW charger installed for the 1 day every 3 years I empty the battery, get home for 2 hours, and have to again drive enough that I couldn't make it back home...  
    • I could see settling on three charger rates, but definitely not one. A Bolt or Kia EV4 type vehicle simply does not need 19kW home charging.  It would be an excessive cost to retrofit a house and the number of buyers who actually use that rate would be pretty close to zero.  That would be like insisting that the Corolla has to have a 6.2 liter. It's excessive and doesn't fit the use case. Now, if we settled into 7.5kW, 11.5kW, and 19.4kW as a standard, that would probably achieve what you are proposing while still giving cost flexibility.  It would allow for entry-level EVs to get the lower cost / lower speed charger while allowing the larger vehicles or premium vehicles to have faster home charging.  For example, the EV6 could have a lower cost 7.5kW charger while the Genesis GV60 on the same platform could get the 11.5kW charger because it is a premium brand and higher cost vehicle.  Then any large EV with or near a 200kW battery could have the 19.4kW charger, but even then, unless it is a newly built house or a commercial fleet, it will still probably charge only at 11.5kW, as that's about the max that the vast majority of homes are wired to do.  Unless you're driving an EV with a 200kW battery to 10% every day, an 11.5kW charger can "fill" an EV to 80% overnight with room to spare, so most people (including me), won't want the extra expense of spending extra money just to say my EV charged faster while I slept.  Either way, it will be ready for me when I need to leave at 7 am.
    • @ccap41 @Drew Dowdell Thank you both, this is the kind of dialogue I feel the Auto buyers need to be made aware of and the various use cases in understanding as I feel most DO NOT really understand this and give into the FEAR Mongering of News Stories. While I still feel that everyone should have the same charging rate capabilities, I also understand both your points. I do feel that this will change electrical across the WORLD over time due to the need of charging.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings