Jump to content
dwightlooi

ATS Powertrain Lineup - Poll

ATS Powertrain Lineup - Poll  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Which two engines will you like to see offered on the ATS?

    • Lineup A -- 2.0T I4 + 6.2 V8
    • Lineup B -- 3.0 V6 + 6.2 V8
    • Lineup C -- 2.0T I4 + 3.6T V6
    • LIneup D -- 3.0 V6 + 3.6T V6


Recommended Posts

Assuming that you MUST choose from one of the following power train lineups for the Cadillac ATS, which do you most prefer?

atslineups.gif

(The objective here is to limit the number of different power train configurations offered to no more than two)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the curb weight estimates are a bit low, as the C-class and 3-series are near 3600 pounds. Given those line-up choices I picked C. Although I'd like to see 4 engines total, one of which a diesel. Turbo 4, V6, turbo V6 for the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you think the 3.0 is being phased out of some models?

is there a decent weight loss 3.0 vs 3.6?

and if the V is not a V-8 i will feel betrayed that gm decided against making its own car, and instead just copying a 3'er or a C

Edited by CanadianBacon94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given those line-up choices I picked C. Although I'd like to see 4 engines total, one of which a diesel. Turbo 4, V6, turbo V6 for the others.

smk's reply pretty much sums up my own thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Audi A4 route, I see.

I vote A, but I'd detune the I4T a bit (for efficiency's sake) and put the 3.6 in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATS needs the 3.6 L, the 3.0 is weak, has no torque and isn't even all that fuel efficient. Put that in Chevys or Buicks if they must, but this is Cadillac. Cadillac is supposed to have the best of the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you think the 3.0 is being phased out of some models?

is there a decent weight loss 3.0 vs 3.6?

and if the V is not a V-8 i will feel betrayed that gm decided against making its own car, and instead just copying a 3'er or a C

(1) The 3.0 (LF1) is not being phased out entirely. It is simply being omitted from the US lineup from 2012 model year onwards. It soldiers on overseas in markets where the 3.6 would out the car in a different tax class regardless of actual fuel economy ratings.

(2) There is no significant weight difference between the 3.0 and the 3.6. The blocks are the same size as are the bore centers. It has just as many valve train parts. The only "tangible" savings in weight comes from the 3.0's 3:1 exhaust collector which is integrated into the aluminum head and hence not requiring an iron or steel header as part of the exhaust system.

(3) The 3.0 is being phased out of the US because the anticipated efficiency gains of 1 mpg over the 3.6 was not realized -- in part due to the peakier nature of the short stroke engine forcing higher average revs -- and because it costs a similar amount to build as the 3.6. The decision was hence to simply standardize on the 3.6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Audi A4 route, I see.

I vote A, but I'd detune the I4T a bit (for efficiency's sake) and put the 3.6 in the middle.

There is no efficiency difference between the 220hp / 258 lb-ft (Regal GS) tune and a 270 / 275 lb-ft tune. The reason being that the compression ratio will be similar as the torque isn't that far apart (~9.2:1). The maximum torque attainable and hence boost level is a key factor in determining the compression ratio that can be used.

To gain cruising efficiency (off boost thermal efficiency) you'll want to increase the static compression. A 270hp / 220-ish lb-ft tune will allow for the use of 10.2:1 compression (of thereabouts) and about 12~14 psi of boost (vs 18~20 psi). The engine can still deliver 270hp, but with the reduced torque limit it'll do so at ~6400 rpm. The torque curve can be very, very, flat (eg 222 lb-ft @ 2400~6400 rpm) but acceleration will suffer due to the notably diminished area under the torque curve. If we stick with the basic turbo sizing you'll probably end up clipping the wheels to gain flow rates at higher operating speeds at the expense of a bit of efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the curb weight estimates are a bit low, as the C-class and 3-series are near 3600 pounds. Given those line-up choices I picked C. Although I'd like to see 4 engines total, one of which a diesel. Turbo 4, V6, turbo V6 for the others.

The C-class (W204) and the E90 3-series have grown to be solid mid size cars rather than the compact or large-compact they used to be. The weight estimates assumes that with the CTS offering people who want a larger car what they want, the ATS can be sized like the previous C-class (W203) or the 1990s 3-series (E36) in terms of size. A bit larger than the 1-series, but smaller than a Honda Civic, on the inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no efficiency difference between the 220hp / 258 lb-ft (Regal GS) tune and a 270 / 275 lb-ft tune. The reason being that the compression ratio will be similar as the torque isn't that far apart (~9.2:1). The maximum torque attainable and hence boost level is a key factor in determining the compression ratio that can be used.

To gain cruising efficiency (off boost thermal efficiency) you'll want to increase the static compression. A 270hp / 220-ish lb-ft tune will allow for the use of 10.2:1 compression (of thereabouts) and about 12~14 psi of boost (vs 18~20 psi). The engine can still deliver 270hp, but with the reduced torque limit it'll do so at ~6400 rpm. The torque curve can be very, very, flat (eg 222 lb-ft @ 2400~6400 rpm) but acceleration will suffer due to the notably diminished area under the torque curve. If we stick with the basic turbo sizing you'll probably end up clipping the wheels to gain flow rates at higher operating speeds at the expense of a bit of efficiency.

Interesting. One thing... and not to derail, but won't the Regal GS be getting a higher-powered engine, and isn't the 220/258 rating for the Regal Turbo?

Back to the topic, though, what you explained makes sense. I'm gonna pick your brain a bit... what do you know about the 2.8T and what it can do if turned longitudinally? And how would it compare to the 3.6?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The C-class (W204) and the E90 3-series have grown to be solid mid size cars rather than the compact or large-compact they used to be. The weight estimates assumes that with the CTS offering people who want a larger car what they want, the ATS can be sized like the previous C-class (W203) or the 1990s 3-series (E36) in terms of size. A bit larger than the 1-series, but smaller than a Honda Civic, on the inside.

The 3-series is 178 inches long, the C-class is 182 inches long. A Corvette is only 3 inches shorter than a 3-series, how small is the ATS going to be? I'm all for cutting weight, weight hurts performance in every way. But the Lambdas are heavy, Zeta cars are heavy, the CTS is heavy, the Equinox/Terrain are heavy, etc. Pretty much every GM product of the last 3 years has been near the top of its class in weight, so I would be surprised if the ATS is no different, and comes in heavier than a 3-series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. One thing... and not to derail, but won't the Regal GS be getting a higher-powered engine, and isn't the 220/258 rating for the Regal Turbo?

Back to the topic, though, what you explained makes sense. I'm gonna pick your brain a bit... what do you know about the 2.8T and what it can do if turned longitudinally? And how would it compare to the 3.6?

Why not just twin turbo the 3.6 DI V6? That is GM's best V6. Forget the 2.8L. In the ATS's class, 270-330 hp is the norm right now, in 2-3 years it could bet 300-350 hp. They better bring a big gun to the fight, and not do what they did with the 2005 STS, a 320 hp V8 which barely got them on par with the class, then 2 years later everyone had 380 hp and the STS was old news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. One thing... and not to derail, but won't the Regal GS be getting a higher-powered engine, and isn't the 220/258 rating for the Regal Turbo?

Back to the topic, though, what you explained makes sense. I'm gonna pick your brain a bit... what do you know about the 2.8T and what it can do if turned longitudinally? And how would it compare to the 3.6?

You are right. 220/258 is for the "non-GS" Regal. The GS is 255hp 290 lb-ft from its uprated 2.0T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3-series is 178 inches long, the C-class is 182 inches long. A Corvette is only 3 inches shorter than a 3-series, how small is the ATS going to be? I'm all for cutting weight, weight hurts performance in every way. But the Lambdas are heavy, Zeta cars are heavy, the CTS is heavy, the Equinox/Terrain are heavy, etc. Pretty much every GM product of the last 3 years has been near the top of its class in weight, so I would be surprised if the ATS is no different, and comes in heavier than a 3-series.

Well, here's hoping that GM, in its first iteration of a brand spanking new post-Chapter 11 platform, has learned how not to make it heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just twin turbo the 3.6 DI V6? That is GM's best V6. Forget the 2.8L. In the ATS's class, 270-330 hp is the norm right now, in 2-3 years it could bet 300-350 hp. They better bring a big gun to the fight, and not do what they did with the 2005 STS, a 320 hp V8 which barely got them on par with the class, then 2 years later everyone had 380 hp and the STS was old news.

I'm talking about using the 2.8T for a midlevel application. If they do twin-turbo the 3.6 in a production car, the assumption is that it will be a top-level engine... wherever they put it.

Oh, and if 270-330 HP is the norm, you're gonna have to explain the 3-Series' 230 HP, the IS 250's 204 HP, the A4's 211 HP, the C300's 228 HP, and the upcoming G25's estimated 215 HP offerings, all of which most likely outsell the uprated engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about using the 2.8T for a midlevel application. If they do twin-turbo the 3.6 in a production car, the assumption is that it will be a top-level engine... wherever they put it.

Oh, and if 270-330 HP is the norm, you're gonna have to explain the 3-Series' 230 HP, the IS 250's 204 HP, the A4's 211 HP, the C300's 228 HP, and the upcoming G25's estimated 215 HP offerings, all of which most likely outsell the uprated engines.

I am fine with a turbo 4 for the base engine for those that don't care about speed and buy 328i's C300s and A4s. But the mid-level needs over 300 hp. The new Benz V6 has 305 hp and will have been on sale a year or two before the ATS is on sale. The 335i had 300 hp in 2007, the ATS better have that in 2012. Even the Genesis coupe and Mustang have 305 hp.

On the weight issue, building a low weight car requires lots of aluminum, or perhaps magnesium wheels, or carbon fiber bits, and all that costs money. So if the ATS aims to be the price leader, it will likely be made of cheap steel that they need to use a ton of to meet crash standards, thus making the car heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fine with a turbo 4 for the base engine for those that don't care about speed and buy 328i's C300s and A4s. But the mid-level needs over 300 hp. The new Benz V6 has 305 hp and will have been on sale a year or two before the ATS is on sale. The 335i had 300 hp in 2007, the ATS better have that in 2012. Even the Genesis coupe and Mustang have 305 hp.

On the weight issue, building a low weight car requires lots of aluminum, or perhaps magnesium wheels, or carbon fiber bits, and all that costs money. So if the ATS aims to be the price leader, it will likely be made of cheap steel that they need to use a ton of to meet crash standards, thus making the car heavy.

I'd have no problem with a midlevel engine making around 300 HP. Which is why I mentioned either the 3.6 NA or the 2.8T. It'd be nice if there were a way to compare those two engines in comparable cars... but there are no RWD applications of the latter.

I'd prefer if they made the car the "value" leader instead of the "price" leader. By HP metrics, the current value leader is the G37... less expensive than a base 328i, but with 330 HP. I expect that difference to be more pronounced once the G25 comes over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fine with a turbo 4 for the base engine for those that don't care about speed and buy 328i's C300s and A4s. But the mid-level needs over 300 hp. The new Benz V6 has 305 hp and will have been on sale a year or two before the ATS is on sale. The 335i had 300 hp in 2007, the ATS better have that in 2012. Even the Genesis coupe and Mustang have 305 hp.

On the weight issue, building a low weight car requires lots of aluminum, or perhaps magnesium wheels, or carbon fiber bits, and all that costs money. So if the ATS aims to be the price leader, it will likely be made of cheap steel that they need to use a ton of to meet crash standards, thus making the car heavy.

Personally, I don't see a lot of "middle ground" in the car buying public. Buyers either don't really care for horsepower -- as long as they have enough to get on the freeway smartly. Or, they are people seeking a high performance vehicle for whatever reason -- ego, enthusiasm, or whatever. The only reason 335 buyers didn't buy an M3 is because they don't want to or can't afford to pay that much for a car. And, most 328 buyer don't care for the 300hp engine and much less want to pay for it. With the 3-series you have a 60K base price on the M3, a 45K 335 in the middle and 35K for the 328.

For the ATS, with trims on offer, GM can start with a 32K ATS 2.0T or 3.0 V6, and simply round it off with a $45K ATS-V. Basically, you satisfy the 335 buyers with an ATS-V, everyone else you vector to the regular ATS. The former offering more power and performance than the M3 for the price of a 335. The striking a comfortable performance balance between a 328 and 335 while offering an entry price about 2~3K under the Bavarians'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the ATS, with trims on offer, GM can start with a 32K ATS 2.0T or 3.0 V6, and simply round it off with a $45K ATS-V. Basically, you satisfy the 335 buyers with an ATS-V, everyone else you vector to the regular ATS. The former offering more power and performance than the M3 for the price of a 335. The striking a comfortable performance balance between a 328 and 335 while offering an entry price about 2~3K under the Bavarians'.

But at a low price can the ATS have an interior that exceeds that of the CTS? For Cadillac to be successful against the imports now and into the future, they need to appeal to sophisticated buyers. The "traditional" Cadillac buyers that drive the DTS are dead or dying. Just making the ATS-V another American hot rod isn't going to make it successful. Look at how the Corvette is struggling, and has mostly older buyers now. There aren't a lot of buyers out there that remember the 60s muscle car days.

The CTS tried the "value pricing" strategy, and the E-class crushes it in sales, despite costing $15,000 more. I think Cadillac needs to up the content and build quality to get their image going up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that you MUST choose from one of the following power train lineups for the Cadillac ATS, which do you most prefer?

atslineups.gif

(The objective here is to limit the number of different power train configurations offered to no more than two)

I think that horsepower rating for 6.2 l v8 with DI etc is on the low side. Maybe around 480 HP would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not just twin turbo the 3.6 DI V6? That is GM's best V6.

Block strength/durability, I think. Using a lower displacement version of that block, such as the 3.0L could give us an excellent engine. It seems GM had a 400 hp twin turbo 2.8L installed on a 9-3 mule as a test engine, so they could easily top that with a DI 3.0L twin turbo V6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I choose lineup A, simply because it's unique and GM has expertise in small-block V8s. They already make a supercharged version for a theoretical ATS-Vsquared. BMW and Audi already use superb forced-induction sixes throughout their range that would be hard to match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that horsepower rating for 6.2 l v8 with DI etc is on the low side. Maybe around 480 HP would be better.

Actually, that is more of a transmission issue...

I pegged the 6.2 DI at 450hp / 438 lb-ft is mainly because the torque limit of the 6L80 transmission is 439 lb-ft. This presents a unique problem because while you can go to the 6L90 to get past 439 lb-ft, the 6L90 also has a maximum shift speed of 6000 rpm (vs 6500 on the 6L80) which makes it impossible to exploit a peakier torque curve anyway! For example, a tune making 480hp @ 6600 rpm and 455 lb-ft at 4800 rpm won't work because it'll need to use a 6L90 transmission and that transmission will have to shift at 6000 rpm.

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 emoticons maximum 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

×