Jump to content
  • Greetings Guest!

    CheersandGears.com was founded in 2001 and is one of the oldest continuously operating automotive forums out there.  Come see why we have users who visit nearly every day for the past 16+ years. Signup is fast and free, or you can opt for a premium subscription to view the site ad-free.

hyperv6

ATS will be in July Automobile

Recommended Posts

They currently build nothing that was designed post-bankruptcy without all the cost saving measures built in to counter balance their debt and UAW.

The Alpha platform will be the first post bankruptcy platform released. You can't use any previous assumptions.

But in the 1980s, GM was making billions in profit, and couldn't come up with a car to rival the Germans. In the 90s, they still were making billions a year, and no rival or even attempt to go after the 3-series (or 5-series for that matter) was made. Even post bankruptcy, GM is still a pretty poor company, they are struggling to break even still even with the bankruptcy cleansing their balance sheet.

It is certainly possible to make a car to rival the 3-series, but Lexus even with their deep pockets and resources still came up short. I am waiting to see if GM really commits to the ATS, or if they just do a "good enough" job on it because they need to focus on re-doing the GMT900s or hold back so the ATS doesn't compete with the CTS.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My formula for the ATS-V will be very simple -- Keep it simple, keep it light, keep it small and keep it at $45K.

  • 5.5 liter Gen V DI VVT AFM Pushrod V8 making ~420hp
  • Rear mounted 6-Spd Hydramatic Auto with Helical LSD.
  • Hyper Strut fronts, Multi-link rears, free floating calipers all around.
  • No active steering, no active differentials, no active dampers, no air springs, no active headlamps.
  • No power sun shades, no massage chairs, no air conditioned cushions, no moonroofs.
  • All steel construction, 3500 lbs.

That sounds like a recipe for a Camaro. Simple doesn't sell in the luxury segment. The Audi RS5 is likely to cost $69,000-75,000 when it comes to the US. The ATS-V should be aiming closer to that, or the $60-65k for an M3. Why is Cadillac's goal to be the K-Mart of the luxury car brands? Bargain basement pricing isn't good for a luxury car brand, that is why Cadillac has a weak image.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in the 1980s, GM was making billions in profit, and couldn't come up with a car to rival the Germans. In the 90s, they still were making billions a year, and no rival or even attempt to go after the 3-series (or 5-series for that matter) was made. Even post bankruptcy, GM is still a pretty poor company, they are struggling to break even still even with the bankruptcy cleansing their balance sheet.

It is certainly possible to make a car to rival the 3-series, but Lexus even with their deep pockets and resources still came up short. I am waiting to see if GM really commits to the ATS, or if they just do a "good enough" job on it because they need to focus on re-doing the GMT900s or hold back so the ATS doesn't compete with the CTS.

I disagree that GM couldn't come up with a car to rival the what the Germans were doing in 1983. They had certainly figured out insta-rust bodies with the Vega and Chevette. They had all the vinyl experience needed for crafting German style interiors. They basically defined the market for slow, unreliable diesels plopped into ill handling RWD tanks. They even waded into rather Germanic, under developed yet overly complicated engine technology with the 8-6-4 and 4100.

So GM certainly could have used all those technologies in one car to make a 3-series rival.... but given what the market was demanding back then, I can see why they didn't.

Back then, the market was very different. "Luxury" back then was defined a very very different way. In 1983, BMWs weren't luxury cars for the way they were appointed.... they were only a luxury to own because only the rich could afford to keep them on the road. A 1983 3-series is every bit as drab and spartan as a 1983 Cimirron. "Luxury" in 1983 was the full sized Devilles with plush, living room like interiors. Oh sure, the top of the line Benz was more expensive, but it's interior was rather on the drab side... the luxury was just the statement that you could afford to blow that much money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like a recipe for a Camaro. Simple doesn't sell in the luxury segment. The Audi RS5 is likely to cost $69,000-75,000 when it comes to the US. The ATS-V should be aiming closer to that, or the $60-65k for an M3. Why is Cadillac's goal to be the K-Mart of the luxury car brands? Bargain basement pricing isn't good for a luxury car brand, that is why Cadillac has a weak image.

Is it not a testament to GM's skill that they build cars that out perform the Germans without having to resort to mechanical wizardry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not a testament to GM's skill that they build cars that out perform the Germans without having to resort to mechanical wizardry?

Cadillac builds one car, that out performs an older M5, and is on par with the RS6. On a race track the CTS-V can post good lap times, but the build quality still isn't there, the level of materials used isn't there. The Lancer Evo 10 can out perform a lot of cars also, and crush them around a race track, but it doesn't make it a class leading car at anything

Cadillac's problem isn't the CTS-V or the CTS, it is the inconsistency of their products and advertising. The CTS-V's problem isn't horsepower or 0-60 time, it is the interior trim, features list, and build quality. Cadillac made a car that beats the M5 0-60 and has to sell it for $30,000 less. Is Cadillac's image that much in the gutter that they have to put a 33% discount on their best product?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What build quality issues are you seeing with the CTS? I can see how you be upset that it doesn't have seats that give a reach around like the BMW does...

Even if Cadillac added all the content that you deem necessary, it still wouldn't add up to the price that BMW is charging for the M5.....

So I ask again, assume the content of the cars is the same for a moment because I'm comparing hardware here. Shouldn't Cadillac be commended for being able to beat "the king" with substantially simpler equipment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in the 1980s, GM was making billions in profit, and couldn't come up with a car to rival the Germans. In the 90s, they still were making billions a year, and no rival or even attempt to go after the 3-series (or 5-series for that matter) was made. Even post bankruptcy, GM is still a pretty poor company, they are struggling to break even still even with the bankruptcy cleansing their balance sheet.

It is certainly possible to make a car to rival the 3-series, but Lexus even with their deep pockets and resources still came up short. I am waiting to see if GM really commits to the ATS, or if they just do a "good enough" job on it because they need to focus on re-doing the GMT900s or hold back so the ATS doesn't compete with the CTS.

What is the point again to harp back in the history? Most of us know Roger Smith was not concerned with that. His idea was to bring profits while building W-bodies, which were beancountered. For him building performance oriented or fun factor cars were not a priority. What has been bygone let it be bygone. With ATS it is better late than never, and if it takes GM to be 25 years late, so be it. ATS like someone said before is first platform post bankruptcy as you said, wait before you make any comments. But sometimes hypocrisy takes priority for you.

Cadillac builds one car, that out performs an older M5, and is on par with the RS6. On a race track the CTS-V can post good lap times, but the build quality still isn't there, the level of materials used isn't there. The Lancer Evo 10 can out perform a lot of cars also, and crush them around a race track, but it doesn't make it a class leading car at anything

Cadillac's problem isn't the CTS-V or the CTS, it is the inconsistency of their products and advertising. The CTS-V's problem isn't horsepower or 0-60 time, it is the interior trim, features list, and build quality. Cadillac made a car that beats the M5 0-60 and has to sell it for $30,000 less. Is Cadillac's image that much in the gutter that they have to put a 33% discount on their best product?

You do not even know the performance numbers of the new M5, which is yet to be out. Do you think GM is just gonna tap dance after the new M5 comes out? You know not everybody is snob like you. I would save that $30k for a good investment than buy something for badge snobbery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The I6 is not without its flaws. The I6 is a VERY long engine; Longer than a V8, almost as long as a V-12. It is also heavy due to the long bottom end. This negatively impacts balance and weight. To get to 50/50 weight distribution, the BMWs have to have the front wheels very far forward of the A-pillars and the battery in the trunk. This is bad for torsional rigidity and adds weight (because the stressed load bearing structure is longer. They also had to tuck the I6 very far back and cannot implement an integral cross member between the front strut towers (ala Audi). That the 3-series is not overly heavy and has good dynamics is a testament to BMW's engineering discipline. But that same discipline will produce a lighter, stiffer and similarly balanced car if a shorter engine is employed.

If you concede that GM cannot build a car in the same size and weight as the 2000~2006 C-class (3250 lbs for the C230 to 3500 lbs for the C55) then you are also conceding that GM cannot get within 10 years of the competition in engineering and manufacturing. Based on that assumption, they will not build a competitive car, period. Adding weight and engine power doesn't change that.

As far as pricing goes, the CTS-V -- one size class up and fitted with a force fed 6.2 V8 -- is already at $60K. The ATS-V will have to be slotted lower. If the run of the mill ATS is to be priced high-20s to high-30s. The ATS-V should come in at $45K or thereabouts. This will be consistent with the premium that the CTS-V commands over the CTS. It is also a good price point to be at. That was where the E36 M3s were (adjusted for inflation). An ATS-V priced at $45K will under cut the $60K European Uber sport compacts by about $15K. It also returns an Uber compact to the price segment which saw their best sales (the E36 was the best selling M3); a price segment the Europeans had gradually priced themselves out of. Why is $45K the magic number? Because it is what a young 25~35 year old making a decent salary can painfully afford. Any higher and they can't afford it even if they dream of owning one every day through their college and internship years. Once you need to pander to the 40 and 50 year olds with more established careers and financials, you start getting push backs like them wanting a bigger car, wives complaining about the ride, etc. When that happens they start looking at the M5s and the E63s and the CTS-Vs and away from the ATS-V or the AMG C-class or the M3. This is exactly the situation where the Europeans find themselves in.

My formula for the ATS-V will be very simple -- Keep it simple, keep it light, keep it small and keep it at $45K.

  • 5.5 liter Gen V DI VVT AFM Pushrod V8 making ~420hp
  • Rear mounted 6-Spd Hydramatic Auto with Helical LSD.
  • Hyper Strut fronts, Multi-link rears, free floating calipers all around.
  • No active steering, no active differentials, no active dampers, no air springs, no active headlamps.
  • No power sun shades, no massage chairs, no air conditioned cushions, no moonroofs.
  • All steel construction, 3500 lbs.

Hey, I like the way you think!

The 5.5L is race only - no production intent. You'll have to do with 6.2L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What build quality issues are you seeing with the CTS? I can see how you be upset that it doesn't have seats that give a reach around like the BMW does...

Even if Cadillac added all the content that you deem necessary, it still wouldn't add up to the price that BMW is charging for the M5.....

So I ask again, assume the content of the cars is the same for a moment because I'm comparing hardware here. Shouldn't Cadillac be commended for being able to beat "the king" with substantially simpler equipment?

My issues with the CTS interior are the gray plastic that adorns the center console and map pockets in the doors. The backs of the front seat at plastic, the gauges are split into 3 parts with plastic rings, and the gauge cluster rises above the dash (same as the malibu and altima) which creates more cut lines than if it was just integrated into the dash. Also the gear shifter is only half wood as an option, the base gear shifter seems to be vinyl or plastic, when it should be wrapped with the same leather used for the seats. Furthermore, when you sit in a CTS, it just doesn't feel expensive or special, sure there is leather and wood and some stitching and that is nice and all, but it still feels like they cut corners or the beancounters got in there before it hit the showroom.

Even if we assume content the same, or not important to the buyer, the M5 still has the ability to rev to 8400 rpm which creates a Ferrari-like, race car sound. The CTS could make 1,000 horsepower, it won't sound like a Formula 1 car, that emotional payoff the M5 provides is what makes it the king of the class. It is similar to how Aston Martin can charge $250,000 for a DBS when it isn't any faster than a GT-R or Z06, in fact the DBS is probably slower than both, and I don't think anyone would trade a DBS for a Nissan or Chevy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you see 5.5L?

So far GenV displacements are 5.3 and 6.2. 5.5L is for Corvette racing rules.

Those are Gen IV. Gen V is supposedly the 5.5L, which the Corvette has been racing for the last couple of 24LM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are Gen IV. Gen V is supposedly the 5.5L, which the Corvette has been racing for the last couple of 24LM.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is the GEN V will have production displacements of 5.3 and 6.2L.

The 5.5 is a destroked 6.2 and that displacement is NOT intended for the production Gen V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe when Cadillac goes into their 2nd or 3rd renaissance (which ever they want to call the ATS-generation) they should go back to names for cars. The alphanumeric names are getting to be overkill, no where is worse than Lincoln and Acura, MKZDX, etc. Eventually real names will come back, Cadillac should start a trend, rather than follow. Rolls-Royce has it right, they build the Ghost and Phantom, that is far cooler than MKS or XTS.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe when Cadillac goes into their 2nd or 3rd renaissance (which ever they want to call the ATS-generation) they should go back to names for cars. The alphanumeric names are getting to be overkill, no where is worse than Lincoln and Acura, MKZDX, etc. Eventually real names will come back, Cadillac should start a trend, rather than follow. Rolls-Royce has it right, they build the Ghost and Phantom, that is far cooler than MKS or XTS.

WOW Smk I have to agree with ya there now :duck:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, why do you think all the lux makers sell more crossovers than their upper tier sedans? why do pigs like the Q7 exist? Because the wives pick the car. ATS-V would be a perfect go to work car for a 40+ well to do exec whose wife spends 60k on the Q7.

I will just mention one thing here, i think 3500 pounds is a bit much for a tiny car like the ATS-V. could you knock 100 pounds off it? Perhaps just leaving it normally aspirated and leaving off all the heavy supercharger stuff would help weight and distribution.

One more thing I will throw out there. I think this car could distinguish itself with an 8 speed automatic. Before you poopoo this, the 8 speeds are emerging, and GM will need to develop them at some point. Yes the v8 is a torque monster, but an 8 speed may be required down the pike anyways. My guess is GM won't rear mount the tranny on a chassis they intend to proliferate to lots of cars, including lower priced ones.

I would only buy this with the expectation that power sunshades should be on it because eurolux cars have them. Moonroof is an option.

I think GM would need to offer magnetic adjust real time suspension on this model too.

Well, the way I see it, ATS-V should be a $45k car because

  • The CTS-V is a $60K car and the ATS-V should slot in below it.
  • The Germans are pricing their "entry" level Uber sedans at $60K to their own detriment -- they were selling more them when they were $40K.
  • $45K is adequate to make a very nice car with very little compromises to quality. The interior and finishing is basically the same costs as the regular ATS, the V8 and uprated brakes and suspension pieces are not going to have a $15K marginal cost.
  • The price point also forces the elimination of things like active diffs, active suspension, active steering, etc. and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

The ATS-V as proposed does not sport a supercharger or turbocharger. It is a good old pushrod V8, naturally aspirated and fortified with direct injection, variable timing and cylinder deactivation. It makes 76hp/liter or roughly 5.5% higher specific output than already achieved with the Z06's LS7 V8 -- a rather conservative goal if you ask me considering the addition of direct injection, VVT and a 12.3:1 compression, all of which are features the LS7 does without.

3500 lbs is for the V8 powered ATS-V. The base car with a 2.0 Turbo I4 should be about 3300 lbs.

An 8A will not necessarily improve mileage or performance. It'll just have more gears and either have a lower torque rating or be heavier. The reason being the beyond 6 speeds you rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns with ratio optimization, while you incur additional drag from the spinning but disengaged gears. Distilled to the basics, you only want enough ratios and ratio spread to attain the lowest usable cruising RPM (say 1600 @ 60mph in top gear) while having a gearing low enough 1st gear to maximize acceleration and "enough" speeds to keep the engine operating within its prime power band as it shifts its way up. A Hydramatic 6L80's 6.1:1 spread and 6 steps is doing a pretty good job here with the top gear being set as tall as desired, the 1st gear is about where it ought to be. Any lower and you are getting additional wheel spin more than anything else unless you are running gumball slicks. An 8A is not necessarily a bad thing down the road if it is down right, but don't see it as a priority.

Edited by dwightlooi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe when Cadillac goes into their 2nd or 3rd renaissance (which ever they want to call the ATS-generation) they should go back to names for cars. The alphanumeric names are getting to be overkill, no where is worse than Lincoln and Acura, MKZDX, etc. Eventually real names will come back, Cadillac should start a trend, rather than follow. Rolls-Royce has it right, they build the Ghost and Phantom, that is far cooler than MKS or XTS.

They had the Series-XX (with XX being a number) for ages back in the old days. I actually think it's a cool naming scheme, provided that it uses some sort of logical progression from smallest to largest car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if we assume content the same, or not important to the buyer, the M5 still has the ability to rev to 8400 rpm which creates a Ferrari-like, race car sound. The CTS could make 1,000 horsepower, it won't sound like a Formula 1 car, that emotional payoff the M5 provides is what makes it the king of the class. It is similar to how Aston Martin can charge $250,000 for a DBS when it isn't any faster than a GT-R or Z06, in fact the DBS is probably slower than both, and I don't think anyone would trade a DBS for a Nissan or Chevy.

The sound of a supercharged LS engine is it's own character. It doesn't have to sound like a Formula 1 car, it just sounds like muscle.... which it simply oozes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW Smk I have to agree with ya there now :duck:

I think Fleetwood and Eldorado still have some weight and can be made cool. Deville and Seville I'd leave in the closet, but LaSalle they could use. I think Chrysler should be using Imperial and Atlantic, those are strong names, unlike Sebring and 300. Maybach is building the Zeppelin as their last hurrah. Acura traded the Legend for the RL, Legend sounds like it means something, RL means nothing, except for "really lame."

On engines, Mercedes just showed off their new multi-spark V6 and V8s today, and rumor of a 476 hp twin turbo V6 from AMG is out there. If I were Cadillac, I wouldn't want a turbo 4 when Mercedes, BMW and Infiniti have 300+ hp V6s, or a 400 hp pushrod when the other guy as 476 hp and AMG badges.

GM tried to sell a 400 hp, basic no frills car for $35,000 in the GTO, and it wasn't that good of a seller. Dodge has the Challenger, and Chrysler the 300 SRT, both with a 420 hp pushrod for $45k, and those are junk cars. The ATS needs to aim higher than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Fleetwood and Eldorado still have some weight and can be made cool. Deville and Seville I'd leave in the closet, but LaSalle they could use. I think Chrysler should be using Imperial and Atlantic, those are strong names, unlike Sebring and 300. Maybach is building the Zeppelin as their last hurrah. Acura traded the Legend for the RL, Legend sounds like it means something, RL means nothing, except for "really lame."

On engines, Mercedes just showed off their new multi-spark V6 and V8s today, and rumor of a 476 hp twin turbo V6 from AMG is out there. If I were Cadillac, I wouldn't want a turbo 4 when Mercedes, BMW and Infiniti have 300+ hp V6s, or a 400 hp pushrod when the other guy as 476 hp and AMG badges.

GM tried to sell a 400 hp, basic no frills car for $35,000 in the GTO, and it wasn't that good of a seller. Dodge has the Challenger, and Chrysler the 300 SRT, both with a 420 hp pushrod for $45k, and those are junk cars. The ATS needs to aim higher than that.

I always like the name Vigor.

SMK, did you ever stop to think that one of the things that isn't wrong with the LX cars is the valvetrain? I am no lover of the LX cars, but there are plenty of vehicles I'd love to see that engine power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for some strange reason i doubt the GTO can be considered in the same class as an ATS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caddy has made enough ground with their letter names, to go back to cronie names like deville or seville would be bad.

ATS - jury will be out. probably makes sense since it will be the smallest caddy.

CTS - obviously has name recognition and success

STS - being retired but i think could be revived down the road

XLR - hope they save that one too

SRX - another good one, just that maybe the new platform is questionable to the name for some

DTS - i still like it. i even liked DHS.

XTS - i actually think the X moniker is good and even may remind folks of all wheel drive. I approve of XTS.

the biggest fo paw to me is the CTS coupe. i know 'ctc' don't make sense probably, neither does 'ctw'. So i can see why we have 'CTS' but many body styles. I just wish the coupe had its own name. ETC never bothered me but aside from the obvious et cetera joke E still means Eldorado to many and Eldorado = old geezer car so again, it doesn't fit the new coupe.

Escalade is a brand by itself. Maybe it becomes ESC if they really wanted to mess with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On engines, Mercedes just showed off their new multi-spark V6 and V8s today, and rumor of a 476 hp twin turbo V6 from AMG is out there. If I were Cadillac, I wouldn't want a turbo 4 when Mercedes, BMW and Infiniti have 300+ hp V6s, or a 400 hp pushrod when the other guy as 476 hp and AMG badges.

GM tried to sell a 400 hp, basic no frills car for $35,000 in the GTO, and it wasn't that good of a seller. Dodge has the Challenger, and Chrysler the 300 SRT, both with a 420 hp pushrod for $45k, and those are junk cars. The ATS needs to aim higher than that.

The GTO and the Chrysler cars weren't home runs not because they are $35K or that they used a pushrod configuration. Their problem was that they were basically overweight cars outfitted with worse than KIA interiors which didn't handle all that well. It fact, the only reason they sold at all was their big displacement V8s.

It is OK for the ATS to use a V6 instead of a Turbo Four -- either the 270hp 3.0 DI V6 or the 304hp 3.6 DI V6. If GM uses a V6, it can be a 3.0 270 hp that slots between the 328'2 230hp unit and the 335's 300hp turbo six. That's not a bad way to go. But ultimately, an turbo I4 is more flexible because it actually performs better, uses a bit less fuel, can be tuned to two different power states without hardware changes and the 2.0 displacement means lower taxes in many foreign markets. I just don't want to see GM proliferate the model with both. Remember, every dime wasted on the logistics of multiple configurations is a dime taken away from that posh interior or a feature struck from the amenities list.

Finally, there is also a HUGE difference between no frills and low quality. An interior can be exceeding high quality but devoid of extraneous features. A car can do without active steering, suspension and differentials, as well as steering beam headlights or even HIDs and still be a great, direct, engaging drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caddy has made enough ground with their letter names, to go back to cronie names like deville or seville would be bad.

ATS - jury will be out. probably makes sense since it will be the smallest caddy.

CTS - obviously has name recognition and success

STS - being retired but i think could be revived down the road

XLR - hope they save that one too

SRX - another good one, just that maybe the new platform is questionable to the name for some

DTS - i still like it. i even liked DHS.

XTS - i actually think the X moniker is good and even may remind folks of all wheel drive. I approve of XTS.

the biggest fo paw to me is the CTS coupe. i know 'ctc' don't make sense probably, neither does 'ctw'. So i can see why we have 'CTS' but many body styles. I just wish the coupe had its own name. ETC never bothered me but aside from the obvious et cetera joke E still means Eldorado to many and Eldorado = old geezer car so again, it doesn't fit the new coupe.

Escalade is a brand by itself. Maybe it becomes ESC if they really wanted to mess with it.

It is hard to make alphabet soup names cool or desirable though. The 3,5,7-series works because that progression is in there. Acura names are a disaster, Lincoln at least has MK in everything but none of those names mean anything, and people can confuse them. Even XLR, it doesn't really mean anything, if they do a car like that again they should call it Eldorado. The SLS AMG I think is a poorly named car, Mercedes should have just called it the Gullwing, since that is what people are going to refer to it as.

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...

×   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.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.