ATS Powertrain Lineup - Poll

[dwightlooi]

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

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

[smk4565]

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.

[CanadianBacon94]

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 May 8, 2010 by CanadianBacon94

[ZL-1]

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.

[Lamar]

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.

[smk4565]

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.

[dwightlooi]

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.

[dwightlooi]

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.

[dwightlooi]

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.

[Lamar]

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?

[smk4565]

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.

[smk4565]

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.

[dwightlooi]

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.

[Lamar]

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.

[Lamar]

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.

[smk4565]

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.

[Lamar]

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.

[dwightlooi]

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'.

[smk4565]

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.

[CanadianBacon94]

I have not seen a single word against the build quality of the CTS

[dado]

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

(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.

[ZL-1]

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.

[pow]

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.

[dwightlooi]

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.

[67impss]

I love the incite to the Engineer's mind

[dado]

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.

Wouldn't then 5.7 l v8 with around 450 HP (direct injection etc) be better choice.It won't make as much torque as 6.2 l v8 (it would probably have to go to higher rpm for power).

IF Cadillac plans to offer ATS-V on European market i can already see bad comments about so much displacement and so low HP per liter ratio (unfortunately this is what critics and car reporters mostly watch in sports car; they don't really care about weight and outside dimensions of an engine as long as it fits inside car... Hp/l are one of the main criteria.Weight ,handling etc are other).

Also isn't 6L90 used in Cadillac CTS-V which has max power output at 6100 or 6200 rpm? I'm not sure what are maximum rpm before limiter is engage.

I think 5.0 l v8 turbo (or supercharger) would be good choice. It doesn't matter if it would be CIB or DOHC. It would have direct injection, pretty high HP/l (let say around 90 hp/l), flat torque and since it has forced induction it won't have to go to higher rpm for power. I'm not sure if it would fit under hood (supercharger+intercooler etc.), but small block is small in size and i think if V6 with TT can go under hood small block with supercharger could also fit.

Edited May 9, 2010 by dado

[CanadianBacon94]

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.

so according to this the TT V-6 could have more torque since it makes max power at 5600 RPM?

[regfootball]

I chose A, but didn't like the choices I got.

I do endorse a turbo 4 as the primary motor as long as it gets AT LEAST the power specs noted above. What bugs me is why we never get a 2.4 turbo. It's always 2.0. I assume that is a European thing. The extra .4 of displacement would help I assume.

I would offer that as the main / base engine in the ATS, and offer it with a manual six speed and an automatic 6 or 8 speed.

Where I differ is I would offer the 3.6 v6 of 320hp as an uplevel option, and with any of the all wheel drive models. GM and Cadillac might as well not bother unless they can put AWD on the spec sheet as an option.

The V series would be limited displacement. I would rather wait to determine driving characteristics to see which I prefer. I probably would actually choose the twin turbo 6 if I drove them, but why I chose A, I would mandate that the NA v8 is the V series standard engine, but a supercharger kit would be an accessory option to make big power and big bucks on for those boy racers and autocrossers. You've already maxxed the 3.6 v6 with those specs, the v8 still has room to amp it up.

I think the weight as quoted above needs to lose 100 pounds on the base and at least 150 on the V series. If I am an exec, that is a mandate on my part. If the engineers tell me that's not doable, then i simply say, 'well apparently you are not doing your job then'....and if its a finance related issue, then I turn the screws up on the finance people.

Weight distribution is crucial too. The ATS is DOA if it doesn't come out of the chute with 51/49 at worst weight distribution. I would even call the ATS-V a failure if its a 52/48 car.

Interior, the car IMO must exceed the interior room and space of the current 3 series slightly. This car in non salable in north America if some traditional cadillac fans and GM fans who are used to bigger cars and hate small euro cars don't fit inside....bottom line is that maybe it doesn't need to have exactly the room as the current CTS but it had better be more than a 3 series and be somewhat within range of the current CTS.

The Catera was an incredibly commodious car. Of course, it was not developed in North AMerica. FOr some reason the GM cars developed in North America never demostrate great space efficiency. If the ATS is cramped, it rots on the lot. Plain and simple. For reference, the 3 series is what i call a cramped car.

The only way the ATS sells is to remove each and every barrier that one can knock against the car compared to the competition.

What is the redline on the V engines?

Edited May 10, 2010 by regfootball

[pow]

I chose A, but didn't like the choices I got.

I do endorse a turbo 4 as the primary motor as long as it gets AT LEAST the power specs noted above. What bugs me is why we never get a 2.4 turbo. It's always 2.0. I assume that is a European thing. The extra .4 of displacement would help I assume.

A 2.4 turbo wouldn't be as smooth and revvy as a 2.0 turbo, and besides, extra turbo boost would make up for less displacement without ruining fuel economy. The Subaru 2.5 turbos and the old Mazdaspeed6/CX-7 2.3 turbo are as thirsty as V6s.

Interior, the car IMO must exceed the interior room and space of the current 3 series slightly. This car in non salable in north America if some traditional cadillac fans and GM fans who are used to bigger cars and hate small euro cars don't fit inside....bottom line is that maybe it doesn't need to have exactly the room as the current CTS but it had better be more than a 3 series and be somewhat within range of the current CTS.

The Catera was an incredibly commodious car. Of course, it was not developed in North AMerica. FOr some reason the GM cars developed in North America never demostrate great space efficiency. If the ATS is cramped, it rots on the lot. Plain and simple. For reference, the 3 series is what i call a cramped car.

It'll be a trade-off between styling and practicality. If Cadillac goes with the fastback or "four-door coupe" cliche roofline, there will be absolutely no rear seat room if it's 3-series sized. I'm 5'11" and feel cramped in the back of the CTS, but don't in my parents' previous-gen 5-series, which is smaller outside. And let's face it, Cadillac's signature rear door window design makes getting in and out a pain, and it hampers outward visibility for passengers. The now ubiquitous Hofmeister kick does the complete opposite.

Edited May 10, 2010 by pow

[regfootball]

all cars i have been in with the hofmeister kink, really makes it a lot easier to get in and out of the back. even on our new cobalt, i don't curse trying to get my kid in and out of the car seat. the rear door getting wider towards the top is very functional.

in the CTS wagon the door opening is brutally small bordering on unusable so i know what you mean about this and cadillac.

[loki]

i voted #1, just to keep the base quite sporty, and the V all american.

was curious Dwight, would the V8 beable to be downsized a tad while keeping the vast majority of that power, since you're holding it back for tranny reasons? like, upgrade the 6.0L to the same power? it wouldn't be a weight savings i guess, but .... just curious.

[dwightlooi]

i voted #1, just to keep the base quite sporty, and the V all american.

was curious Dwight, would the V8 beable to be downsized a tad while keeping the vast majority of that power, since you're holding it back for tranny reasons? like, upgrade the 6.0L to the same power? it wouldn't be a weight savings i guess, but .... just curious.

Yes, and the initial assumption is that GM may be moving to a 5.5 liter displacement. But this is not to be. It appears that the Gen V (production) engines will retain the 6.2 liter and 5.3 liter displacements.

If you distill it down to the basics -- assuming the bottom end holds together and the engine doesn't pile on additional parasitic drag -- power "potential" of a motor is a function of airflow. The amount of air ingested per unit time governs the amount of fuel you can burn, and this by and large determine your gross output. Hence, if you keep the bore constant and destroke the engine you can end up with the same output, albeit higher in the rev range. This is because a 10% shorter stroke and a 10% INCREASE in rpm results in nearly identical airflows given the same bore, valve, lift and runner geometries. That said, fuel economy from the destroked engine will not be tangibly (if at all) better because the amount of friction and aspiration losses are relatively equal save for a small amount of bore drag from the shorter travel of the pistons, and this is offset by a reduction in the stroke length reduces the engine's ability to capture the energy from expanding combustion products.

This is why most engines targeting maximum economy are long stroke designs. Whereas engines with very short strokes (eg. the Ferrari 4.3 V8s; 94 x 77.4 mm) also have pretty sub-par fuel economy ratings to match their exceptional specific output.

But a "held back" (aka less peaky) 6.2 compared to a loftier 5.5 has its advantages too. Weight is about the same and the torque curve can be flattened out and dialed in lower such the maximum torque arrives 500~600 rpm sooner. This is significant because it allows the engine to go from a 2000 rpm cruise rpm (@ 70 mpg ) to the vicinity of it's torque peak of 4200 rpm in two gear jumps instead of three. Important because regardless of the transmission's snappiness, the engine takes time to make up the rev difference during downshifts.

Edited May 10, 2010 by dwightlooi

[ZL-1]

Interesting that the voting is now completely polarized

Edited May 10, 2010 by ZL-1

[dwightlooi]

Interesting that the voting is now completely polarized

What's more interesting is that the combination of a V6 for the regular car and the V8 for the ATS-V got ZERO votes. This, is in fact a VERY likely choice by GM! Perhaps the most likely.

Edited May 10, 2010 by dwightlooi

[Drew Dowdell]

Isn't Choice D the most logistically easy choice?

[Z-06]

Isn't Choice D the most logistically easy choice?

I personally think, given the "performance oriented" nature of ATS, 3 would be logical, given the "anemic" nature of the 3.0.

[regfootball]

the 3.0 should NEVER see duty in this car in the US.

What's more interesting is that the combination of a V6 for the regular car and the V8 for the ATS-V got ZERO votes. This, is in fact a VERY likely choice by GM! Perhaps the most likely.

sounds typical for GM.

turbo 4 base, 3.6v6 premium, v8 for the ATS-V is what it oughtta be.

Edited May 10, 2010 by regfootball

[ZL-1]

What's more interesting is that the combination of a V6 for the regular car and the V8 for the ATS-V got ZERO votes. This, is in fact a VERY likely choice by GM! Perhaps the most likely.

Interesting indeed!

[dwightlooi]

the 3.0 should NEVER see duty in this car in the US.

sounds typical for GM.

turbo 4 base, 3.6v6 premium, v8 for the ATS-V is what it oughtta be.

There are three arguments against that.

(1) The first being that variations are logistically expensive. And the ATS in the first year of its first model cycle may not have the volume to justify having three or four engine choices. The money saved -- probably a few hundred dollars is better employed in spiffing up the interior or making an LSD standard. Acura has pretty decent success with a 2 engine strategy on the TSX, Lexus has a decent one on the IS (before the advent of the IS-F) and Infiniti makes very good inroads with just one when it introduced the G35.

(2) The second being that between a 2.0T making 260~290 hp and either a 270hp 3.0 or 304hp 3.6 V6 there isn't a tangible power gap unless you artificially create one by limiting the output on the 2.0T. Hence, from a plain performance stand point it may be better to simply choose between the 2.0T and the V6 but not offer both.

(3) The third being that in offering 3 engines you are also necessarily creating stratification in price within the lineup since a 2.0T and 3.6 priced within $1000 of each other doesn't make a lot of sense. Creating a $20K gap between the base car and the top of the line car either makes the top of the line car hard to sell due to its price or makes the base car too cheap to be profitable.

[regfootball]

Dwight, no one wants the 3.0 in this car in the US. It has ZERO advantage in a car like this over the 3.6. No cost advantage, no fuel economy advantage, its a performance detriment.

the turbo4 is needed for europe anyways, and in the US, the ATS principal competition will have the same engines. if you are going to match your principal competition tit for tat, why not go to war with the A4's of the world?

This is a new model for GM so it needs to bring the best v6 it can for the 'mainstream uplevel' option choice.

BMW has no problem offering the discriminating luxury buyer a few engines.

The V is a specialty model for enthusiasts only so technically it is not the 'step up' car. it is a boutique car. there are many that will want a GOOD six cylinder mill in the mainstream step up model to match the 335i. So a 3.6l 320-340 hp engine is meant to address that bunch, and is meant also to match up to the REQUIRED ALL WHEEL DRIVE option choice on the spec sheet. If Cadillac does not bring the ATS to market with AWD as an option then they might as well not bother making the car. BMW, Merc, Infiniti, Audi, all have AWD.

The v6 RWD and v6 AWD models will address about 35-40% of ATS volume. THis is the model GM will make the most money on. A 3.0 won't please the CONSUMER.

It sure is nice if GM saves the couple hundred of bucks to put back in their pocket to make up for the 50B they got from the government, but someone buying a 40k car wants what they want, and if GM shortcuts that, they are merely repeating the sins of the past.

ATS-v is a boutique car. It will sell 5k units if they are lucky. It will account for MAYBE 10% of the ATS volume.

The 4 turbo could easily account for 50% of ATS volume, keeping the weight down, and keeping the fuel economy number higher and completely satisfying the lux car buyer in this class much the way an A4 turbo does. Think of Buffy's college graduation present.

Look at the LaCrosse. they had the 3.0 and the 3.6. Look at where that got them.

It's be a different story if the 3.0 didn't have a weakness in power for this particular market. There is no point to the 3.0 if the fuel economy sucks. If they want to put the 3.0 in the ATS, then get the hp up to 300, and get the torque up to 280+.

Edited May 10, 2010 by regfootball

[regfootball]

There are three arguments against that.

(1) The first being that variations are logistically expensive. And the ATS in the first year of its first model cycle may not have the volume to justify having three or four engine choices. The money saved -- probably a few hundred dollars is better employed in spiffing up the interior or making an LSD standard. Acura has pretty decent success with a 2 engine strategy on the TSX, Lexus has a decent one on the IS (before the advent of the IS-F) and Infiniti makes very good inroads with just one when it introduced the G35.

(2) The second being that between a 2.0T making 260~290 hp and either a 270hp 3.0 or 304hp 3.6 V6 there isn't a tangible power gap unless you artificially create one by limiting the output on the 2.0T. Hence, from a plain performance stand point it may be better to simply choose between the 2.0T and the V6 but not offer both.

(3) The third being that in offering 3 engines you are also necessarily creating stratification in price within the lineup since a 2.0T and 3.6 priced within $1000 of each other doesn't make a lot of sense. Creating a $20K gap between the base car and the top of the line car either makes the top of the line car hard to sell due to its price or makes the base car too cheap to be profitable.

if the third engine choice is the problem at the start, then the ATS-V has to sit on the bench for the first model year or two. It's a boutique model and should not be a priority that relegates the other 90% of ATS volume to being compromised. then you have your turbo 4 (shared with Europe) and one v6 (the 3.6). Europe would get the turbo 4 and the diesel.

Lexus IS-F = ATSv = cobra and shelby mustangs, svt, etc......those special cars are not going to impact whether the ATS is in caddy's lineup. you never plan for those vehicles, they are added primarily for the extreme enthusiast and publicity and they need to make a complete business case for themselves apart from the main models of the lineup.

Edited May 10, 2010 by regfootball

[Camino LS6]

Given the choices, and because of the Camaro, I will finally cast my vote for choice A.

But, for reasons pointed out by Reg, I expect a V6 to be offered as well.

I like the space between the 4 and the 8,it leaves plenty of room to make the two cars very different - tailored to their powertrains. But the market may demand the V6.

[Robert Hall]

A 4, a regular V6, and a high performance V6 for the V-series seems like a reasonable way to go..wouldn't necessarily want the same engine in the ATS-v as the CTS-v...

[Lamar]

A 4, a regular V6, and a high performance V6 for the V-series seems like a reasonable way to go..wouldn't necessarily want the same engine in the ATS-v as the CTS-v...

Why not?

I mean, it's not like it's uncharted territory in the luxury hi-po segment. Mercedes-Benz, for example, uses the same 6.2L V8 in the AMG models of the C, E, CL, CLS, S, SL, and ML-classes.

[Z-06]

Why not?

I mean, it's not like it's uncharted territory in the luxury hi-po segment. Mercedes-Benz, for example, uses the same 6.2L V8 in the AMG models of the C, E, CL, CLS, S, SL, and ML-classes.

That strategy is called whoring out the brand. To me AMG <<< M (old one at least new M's will be whoring out too), because M actually created a whole different and unique car for individual series.

The high power cars are already in high profit margins that different engines giving different personalities to the cars seems a better option. I do not want a one model engine only like the M5 V10 given the ginormous costs associated, but something like how LS7, LS9 and LSA are - base architecture is the same, hence costs are divided.

[Robert Hall]

Why not?

I mean, it's not like it's uncharted territory in the luxury hi-po segment. Mercedes-Benz, for example, uses the same 6.2L V8 in the AMG models of the C, E, CL, CLS, S, SL, and ML-classes.

Yes, but I was thinking more along the lines of BMW's M models..the next M3 will have a 6, the next M5 a V8...

[Lamar]

That strategy is called whoring out the brand. To me AMG <<< M (old one at least new M's will be whoring out too), because M actually created a whole different and unique car for individual series.

The high power cars are already in high profit margins that different engines giving different personalities to the cars seems a better option. I do not want a one model engine only like the M5 V10 given the ginormous costs associated, but something like how LS7, LS9 and LSA are - base architecture is the same, hence costs are divided.

I see your points. The M5 and M6 share that same V10 and will probably share the same V8TT next go 'round... the M3 is the only car that got its own engine, but even that one was the V10 with two cylinders lopped off.

Yes, but I was thinking more along the lines of BMW's M models..the next M3 will have a 6, the next M5 a V8...

... yeah, and that V8 comes from the M SUVs that BMW said they'd never build.

Chances are the 6 in the next M3 will be highly related to the turbo-6 that they have in the 5 GT. (but that's just my speculation)

[dwightlooi]

Look at the LaCrosse. they had the 3.0 and the 3.6. Look at where that got them.

It's be a different story if the 3.0 didn't have a weakness in power for this particular market. There is no point to the 3.0 if the fuel economy sucks. If they want to put the 3.0 in the ATS, then get the hp up to 300, and get the torque up to 280+.

The Lacrosse is a large mid-size FWD vehicle in the same segment as the ES350 and TL. It could have made do with just one engine -- the 3.6. In fact, starting august next year that is exactly what it'll do.

You know that 100hp/liter and more incredibly 93.5 lb-ft per liter is not going to happen on the 3.0. No NA V6 can make those numbers, not GM's not, BMW's not anyone's. The 3.0 with it's 270hp is OK for a 3300 lb car, it differentiates the ATS from the CTS, is more inline with the 3.0~3.2 liter class displacement of the other compacts in the segment and is marginally smoother than the 3.6 mainly because of it's shorter stroke*

The ATS, no matter how good, is not going to generate 3-series volume from day one. That's 80,000 cars -- more than the VW Jetta and Passat combined. If GM can get to 30,000 a year by 2015 -- roughly comparable to a TL or IS -- the program will be a resounding success. Going with fewer engine choices and configuration options, you cut down on logistical costs and make available a few hundred dollars per car to throw into the interior. That's the difference between a leather wrapped dash and a plastic one.

The M3 or C63 is not and "up level" car but a niche vehicle mainly because of their price. $60K is simply too much to ask of most 3-series buyers who bought 335s. Given the choice -- at the same price -- I am sure most 335 buyers will pick the M3. As for those who don't care about performance much they'll buy the 328 and sink the extra money into a navigation system or something if they want to splurge. If you have a $30~35K ATS and a $45K ATS-V the ATS-V then becomes the defacto up level car for enthusiasts -- the V the salary man can afford if you will. Back in the mid-90s the M3 was almost that and accounted for a good 1/5~1/4 of the 3-series US sales. Then it got more and more expensive, and further and further away from the young working enthusiast.

The question then becomes, if you need to limit yourself to one engine will it be an I4 turbo or a V6? That's a tough one even that the I4 will make the same amount of power, more torque with slightly better economy. The V6 has better main stream acceptance and is possibly a little less problematic 12 years out.

One thing I'll like to see GM do is update the 2.0T. It is a world class engine as is. But it can be the best there is and it is relatively simple to get there. The first thing they can do is go to a slightly more efficient turbo -- like the Honeywell-Garrett small frame, ball bearing, twin scroll units like the GT25RS and GT28RS. More importantly perhaps, they can ditch the air-to-air intercooler for an air-to-water one which they have a good deal of experience with in the ZR1 and CTS-V. An air-to-water intercooler can be kept small and close to the engine, eliminating big intercoolers up front and fat hoses going to and from them. This drops pressurized volume dramatically and pressurized volume is just as important if not more so than the turbocharger itself in causing lag.

* The 60 degree V6 exhibits an end-to-end rock in terms of operating vibrations due the shifting center of gravity as the pistons move up and down. This is most affected by the stroke length because kinetic energy needs to be reversed twice with each full stroke and kinetic energy is 1/2 x mass x velocity^2.

Edited May 11, 2010 by dwightlooi

[Drew Dowdell]

The Lacrosse is a large mid-size FWD vehicle in the same segment as the ES350 and TL. It could have made do with just one engine -- the 3.6. In fact, starting august next year that is exactly what it'll do.

Did Buick cancel the Ecotec Lacrosse and we not hear about it?

[Robert Hall]

Did Buick cancel the Ecotec Lacrosse and we not hear about it?

With a 4cyl Regal I see no point in a 4cyl LaCrosse except for fleet sales...