dwightlooi

3.6 Twin Turbo or 5.5 Pushrod for ATS-V?

   20 members have voted

  1. 1. Which engine should power the ATS-V?

    • V6 - 3.6 liter DI Twin Turbo DOHC-24v - 420hp
    • V8 - 5.5 liter DI Pushrod-16v - 420hp

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

51 posts in this topic

2012ats.jpg

36vs55.gif

You may assume that the Twin Turbo V6 is ~80 lbs heavier and ~$2500 more costly.

Fuel Economy numbers assume a 3,500 lbs curb weight & Hydramatic 6L80 6-speed automatic transmission.

Edited by dwightlooi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just some things that come to mind....

that's a low redline for the V6.

think the weight/cost issue would only come into play if it's pushed into another's price range too much.

yo umake the 5.5L premium for the power or because it's a cadi so it doesn't matter?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how comes the torque happens so high on the RPM scale with a DI small block?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how comes the torque happens so high on the RPM scale with a DI small block?

isn't that kinda typical of all NA engines? why would the peak move lower just cause of DI... shouldn't the torque curve just move up, maybe flatten in the lower ranges...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't that kinda typical of all NA engines? why would the peak move lower just cause of DI... shouldn't the torque curve just move up, maybe flatten in the lower ranges...

Well, Dwight posted a torque range for the 3.6, but didn't with the small block. On the DI Ecotecs without turbo the torque curve is fairly flat and the peak is at 4900.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answers:-

(1) Turbocharged engines using torque computing electronic boost control generally have a torque plateau as opposed to torque peak. Basically, the torque limit is reached and held until the ECU determines that boost should be reduced gradually to keep the turbocharges "on map" and prevent over spinning them to an early death.

(2) The low red line on the 3.6 TT is because there is little to be had from reving beyond 6000 rpm or so. The GT20 series turbo are sized to generate boost fast and early, they start to run against rpm and efficiency limits in the 5000+ rpm range. It is very much like winding an LNF (2.0T) beyond the mid-5000 rpm range simply makes noise and slows down the acceleration times of the car. The transmission will probably shift at 5600~5800 rpm for best acceleration, allowing the motor to wind to 6800 rpm is moot. The unfortunate reality of single stage compressors -- even ones with very modern aerodyanmics -- is that they can keep only about 3000 rpm worth of torque plateau at moderate boost levels (eg. 12 psi). You can size them up to get them to do this through say 3200~6200 rpm, but that costs your lag time and efficiency at low loads.

(3) The LS3 makes its peak power and torque at 5900 rpm and 4600 rpm respectively. A de-stroked version displacing 5.5 liters with the same bore with make power slightly higher in the rev range -- hence 6200 and 4800 rpm. This is a reality of the physics of moving air. Same bore + shorter stroke = same amount of air pumping at higher rpms. Direct injection does not change the amount of air you move with each intake stroke.

(4) Both engines run on premium to maximize output. The understanding is that anyone forking out cash for a 400+ hp compact sport sedan isn't exactly looking for the lowest fuel tab.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, the redlines are not the maximum engine speed. That's the fuel cut speed. The redlines are the basically the indicated shift points.

When the transmission is being shifted by the driver via paddles or switches on the steering wheel, a shift light comes on at the "redline" indicating that shifting should be inititated then or shortly thereafter for maximum acceleration performance. This should be the purpose of a "redline". The common, but misguided, practice of using the redline to indicate rev limit is flawed because when you bump the rev limiter, it is too late to do anything about it!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your very detailed clarification Dwight. After hearing that, my vote goes solidly in the TT3.6 side. I like my torque way down low.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your very detailed clarification Dwight. After hearing that, my vote goes solidly in the TT3.6 side. I like my torque way down low.

my vote goes to the V-8 because i like my IBC powerful engine note.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your very detailed clarification Dwight. After hearing that, my vote goes solidly in the TT3.6 side. I like my torque way down low.

Agreed on the torque issue, not so sure about casting my vote just yet.

Higher price and more weight are serious concerns, but I do see the TT 3.6 fitting into Caddy's portfolio better.

Tough call.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twin-turbo DOHC V6 would be my choice. It works for the GT-R. The next M3 is going to be an inline six, so that seems like a good way to do. The 5.5 liter pushrod sounds like something in the Silverado, thus not something that should be in a Cadillac. Notice Mercedes never put the Hemi V8 from the Ram into an E-class.

In an ideal world, I think the ATS would have a straight six and they would copy BMW's engine as closely as possible. GM's 3.6 V6 and Infiniti's 3.7 V6 still lag behind the BMW and Benz in refinement and smoothness. A Cadillac straight six would be more refined than the 3.6 and then Cadillac would also have an exclusive engine to offer.

Although I'd still like to see a twin turbo DOHC V8 the most, and a V12 Cadillac would be nice. Even if they did something like a 4-5 liter twin turbo V12. The Ferrari F40 only had a 3 liter V8, a 4 liter V12 is possible. The F50 had a 4.7 liter V12 that weighed 435 lbs, which is right in line with what the LS-series engines weigh and less than the Northstar.

Edited by smk4565
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. You want them to copy BMW's straight six in order to have an "exclusive" engine? :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool, the styling is quite awesome.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. You want them to copy BMW's straight six in order to have an "exclusive" engine? :blink:

Exclusive from the rest of GM.

The BMW straight six (gas or diesel) is the world standard for that class, and straight sixes are smoother than V6s.

Now my 4.4 or 4.8 liter V12 idea would be really exclusive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool, the styling is quite awesome.

That's DF's "ZTS" chop, one of the coolest things you missed in your absence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my vote goes to the V-8 because i like my IBC powerful engine note.

+1.

That sort of engine sound is characteristic of this class of car, no matter who's building it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BMW sure is working hard to retain their ultimate driving machines, by adding 1/4 ton of weight to the 5 series, by making front drive and three cylinder cars going forward, and other driver centered things.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIDE NOTE: The two engine proposals are intended to represent two directions Cadillac can take...

  • Join the bandwagon of the force induced DOHC sixes (eg. Audi 3.0 Supercharged DI V6, BMW turbo straight sixes, Ford Ecoboost 3.5, etc.)
  • Carve out a unique identity with the American tradition of big displacement, push rod V8 albeit one loaded with contemporary technologies.

The output will be roughly equal. In this case it is set at 420bhp, which gives the ATS-V a power to weight ratio superior to the C63 or M3 and in the same class as the Nissan GTR.

The Turbo V6 has a slight (city) fuel economy advantage. It also has the advantage of incurring lower taxes in countries where new cars are taxed based on the displacement of the engine.

The V8 is lower in costs, complexity and weight. It also has the advantage of providing a more direct response due to the absence of turbine induced lag.

The pushrod 5.5 V8 and DOHC 3.6 V6 are roughly equivalent in the weight and size of the engine itself. The additional mass (est. 80 lbs) of the V6 setup comes from the two turbochargers, their manifolds, their plumbing, the air-to-water aftercooler, the water-to-air coolant radiator and the associated pumps and accessories.

Edited by dwightlooi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2012ats.jpg

36vs55.gif

You may assume that the Twin Turbo V6 is ~80 lbs heavier and ~$2500 more costly.

Fuel Economy numbers assume a 3,500 lbs curb weight & Hydramatic 6L80 6-speed automatic transmission.

Looking at competition I think it should aim close to 500 HP (Mercedes c63 AMG with sport pack offer around 480 hp). I don't know if V6 TT from GM can offer that much HP and keep warranty,reliability etc. Maybe 5.5 l v8 with forced induction would be better choice.

I wouldn't be suprised if AMG put their new 5.5 lv8 TT in next gen. C class.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caddy has been tearing up the track and shutting out the competitors using their 6.2L in the CTS-V. I think continuing that trend with a 5.5 in the ATS-V is the best way to go. Everyone is using twin-turbo setups in their cars; Caddy would continue to offer something distinct. Plus, vehicle weight is a concern, so why not save a few pounds going with the V8, and be rewarded with a mean engine note?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caddy has been tearing up the track and shutting out the competitors using their 6.2L in the CTS-V. I think continuing that trend with a 5.5 in the ATS-V is the best way to go. Everyone is using twin-turbo setups in their cars; Caddy would continue to offer something distinct. Plus, vehicle weight is a concern, so why not save a few pounds going with the V8, and be rewarded with a mean engine note?

I agree why limit your top HP with a topped out V6. The smallblock can always be bumped with forced induction and the V-series has this tradition of V8's be they S/B or N/S after all it's American send the few that go to Europe with the 6 pop.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at competition I think it should aim close to 500 HP (Mercedes c63 AMG with sport pack offer around 480 hp). I don't know if V6 TT from GM can offer that much HP and keep warranty,reliability etc. Maybe 5.5 l v8 with forced induction would be better choice.

I wouldn't be suprised if AMG put their new 5.5 lv8 TT in next gen. C class.

Actually, I feel that while it is easy to get giddy with horsepower the appropriate positioning of the V-series ought to be:-

  • ATS-V: 420hp / 3500 lbs / compact - 3.6 V6 TT or 5.5 V8
  • CTS-V: 550hp / 4200 lbs / mid-size - 5.5 V8 Supercharged or turbocharged

As far as the C63 is concerned, that is a 3900 lbs car and exactly what the ATS-V should beat it terms of weight. Shooting for 3500 lbs with a pushrod V8 or TT V6 is not unrealistic. It'll put the vehicle in the same size and weight class as the previous (W203) C55 AMG. 420hp in a 3500 lbs car is roughly equivalent to 468hp from a 3900 pounder -- I'll say it is "competitive". Besides, it'll be easier to make a 3500 pounder handle well.

I agree why limit your top HP with a topped out V6. The smallblock can always be bumped with forced induction and the V-series has this tradition of V8's be they S/B or N/S after all it's American send the few that go to Europe with the 6 pop.

I won't consider a 420hp 3.6 twin turbo V6 "topped out". A topped out DI Turbo will make around 150hp/liter or about 540hp for a 3.6 liter powerplant. That's what the Japanese market WRX STis and Lancer Evolutions do. At 116 bhp/liter for 420hp, we are shooting for an engine that has very minimal turbo lag and better response than the 260hp 130hp/liter 2.0T (LNF). 116hp can be done with undersized turbos with very fast spool times and with moderately high compression ratios for improved cruise economy.

Edited by dwightlooi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the length differences between v6 TT and 5.5 l v8 ?

I assume v8 would be longer (bigger bore and more cylinders). I know that wouldn't be such problem when engine is longitudinally mounted (like the engine in CTS is mounted and most likely in ATS)but i think it would present difficulty in cars such as XTS. I mention that car because there is rumors that it could get v6 with TT and about 420 hp, so maybe this is the engine that GM is already planning to put in ATS-V also.

So GM could use V6 TT for V version of ATS, between model of CTS (between 3.6 with 300 hp and future V model with 5.5 l v8 and forced induction) and top engine in XTS (i'm not sure if XTS can acommodate V8)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 Eco Turbo and TT 3.6 for the ATS and leave the V6 and V8 for the larger CTS. If there is a V8 at all.

The key with the TT turbo is technology sells in this class. People who buiy these cars like the exotic things. The Chevy V8 by many no matter how good is still a Chevy truck V8. We know that it is good but the snobs you need to buy this car need to get something they will think is a cut above and not something you will find under the hood of a truck.

Image and not just real world performance means a lot to non GM fans and needs to be considered. There are may who dis the CTSV because of the engine. Yes a very good engine still gets snubbed by many who drive German cars.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who diss the CTS-V's engine would never buy a Cadillac in the first place, and are really just trying to justify their preference for a Merc or BMW. AKA, grasping at straws.

At first, haters pointed to the first generation CTS' lesser performance compared to the Germans, and now that Caddy's current CTS has whipped their 'Teutonic' butts, the criticism has changed from how quick the vehicle is around the Nurburgring, to how 'refined' , and 'technologically superior' DOHC is compared to 'pushrods.'

Obviously DOHC is far more advanced because it's an acronym, unlike the archaic, agricultural pushrod!!

At the end of the day, Haters gonna hate, and Caddy shouldn't be chasing that crowd. Caddy needs to forge its own direction, like it did with the CTS.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room