ATS Powertrain Lineup - Poll

[pow]

4-cylinder LaCrosse is an odd idea, especially in light GM wants to eliminate trim levels for Buick, leaving only well-equipped cars.

The four-cylinder *will* find buyers, IMO, as it's more economical and provides enough power for most drivers, but it's not particularly aspirational. Perhaps they should continue offering it, but only with CXL-equivalent equipment.

[Z-06]

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

Nope. It is already there as a 2011.

[Drew Dowdell]

Gas prices are just about $3.00 a gallon here and it's not yet memorial day. One of the things actually holding them down is the rising strength of the dollar and the weakness of the Euro.

GM is betting on gas prices continuing to go up... that's the reason for the 4-cylinder Lacrosse.

[smk4565]

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.

And that engine is dying for a 5.5 liter turbo V8, and the 5.5L V8 in the S-class is going away for a new 4.7L turbo V8. The engines BMW and Mercedes are using in 2012-2013 when the ATS is on sale, won't be the same old stuff they are selling now. ATS needs engines that match where the Germans will be in 5 years, not engines that match where the Germans are today.

[loki]

Gas prices are just about $3.00 a gallon here and it's not yet memorial day. One of the things actually holding them down is the rising strength of the dollar and the weakness of the Euro.

GM is betting on gas prices continuing to go up... that's the reason for the 4-cylinder Lacrosse.

sucks to be you? it's about 2.55 here, but i think the action in the gulf caused it to spike last week to ~2.70+.

it will no doubt go higher, but remember, the dollar is still not really "strong", index of ~84.5, up 10 points from dec but still not as strong as it was last year in march... almost 90. and more of our money is being spent on bailing out the your-o (-$h!, hahahaha), which will weaken the dollar forcing gas higher anyway in the same supply demand relationship.

[smk4565]

Gas prices are just about $3.00 a gallon here and it's not yet memorial day. One of the things actually holding them down is the rising strength of the dollar and the weakness of the Euro.

GM is betting on gas prices continuing to go up... that's the reason for the 4-cylinder Lacrosse.

LaCrosse is supposed to be a premium car though, so the people buying it shouldn't have gas mileage as a top concern. I think GM over-worries about gas mileage on their cars, and just to get a good EPA highway number they put a weaker engine in or use really tall gear ratios, and the driving experience suffers. The Malibu gets better fuel economy than the Camry, yet no one cares, Camry still outsells it by a ton.

If GM is betting on rising gas prices, where is the V6 Silverado and Tahoe? I dislike how GM has a belief that trucks need V8s, but cars are fine with garbage 180 hp 4-bangers. This is just like the late 90s/early 2000s, when trucks got all the attention, while cars got worthless 3.1 and 3.4 pushrod V6s.

[loki]

This is just like the late 90s/early 2000s, when trucks got all the attention, while cars got worthless 3.1 and 3.4 pushrod V6s.

WOAH!!!!!! worthless? they had the coolant/gasket problem, but i got 37MPG over in indiana. that beats the civics rated highway mileage.

[pow]

LaCrosse is supposed to be a premium car though, so the people buying it shouldn't have gas mileage as a top concern. I think GM over-worries about gas mileage on their cars, and just to get a good EPA highway number they put a weaker engine in or use really tall gear ratios, and the driving experience suffers. The Malibu gets better fuel economy than the Camry, yet no one cares, Camry still outsells it by a ton.

If GM is betting on rising gas prices, where is the V6 Silverado and Tahoe? I dislike how GM has a belief that trucks need V8s, but cars are fine with garbage 180 hp 4-bangers. This is just like the late 90s/early 2000s, when trucks got all the attention, while cars got worthless 3.1 and 3.4 pushrod V6s.

I don't know... I've ridden in a brand-new E250 CGI (gas, not diesel) last week and thought it was awesome. As a passenger, it seemed like none of its Mercedes-ness was gone even with just four cylinders under the good. Some people want a solidly engineered, quality prestigious car, engine size be damned.

[regfootball]

Gas prices are just about $3.00 a gallon here and it's not yet memorial day. One of the things actually holding them down is the rising strength of the dollar and the weakness of the Euro.

GM is betting on gas prices continuing to go up... that's the reason for the 4-cylinder Lacrosse.

the lacrosse 4 pot should have more hp/displacement or it should be the turbo.

[regfootball]

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.

The v6 as the only mill has no chance of giving Caddy all the FE it needs for this car and the CAFE so right there alone you've blown the 'v6 only' argument out of the water. The ATS would get no better FE than the CTS so what would even be the point of the ATS then? That, and Europe will demand a four pot gas mill anyways....for that reason alone if any the four enters the discussion. Also, principal competitors do well in the segment with a turbo 4. The turbo 4 outperforms the 3.0 in this car and gets better gas mileage. So you'd actually prefer to offer the customer who is scrutinizing every spec sheet detail vs an 800 dollar a month car payment, that a weak v6 with poor gas mileage and is outperformed by principal competition is justified?

You have to immediately strike the 3.0, at least from the US market because there will be those US buyers who no matter what will want a six because of Cadillac's American history and all of that. Cadillac has a traditional customer base that will not want a four, so you will have at least one six cylinder mill on the spec sheet too. So in this case the 3.6 automatically wins because it brings more to the aforementioned customer, and to the mainstream enhanced performance customer who feels that 300+ hp is the minimum expectation in a luxury car (note the MKs has 365 hp). More power, no loss of FE, same weight, same cost to build, same reliability all that. The engineers should be able to figure out how to deal with the refinement and vibration aspects adequately in a luxury vehicle.

We know the diesel is there because they want to sell this in Europe and Europe requires it. diesel would need a business case here in the US. I don't feel they have that.

You must be insinuating with your 12 years comment that GM doesn't have the engineering capability to make a trustworthy turbo. I'll just say the current climate of the auto biz is requiring them to and leave it at that. I know turbos go bad a lot, so I assume its not GM's problem or failure only. SInce there will be half a million Cruzes around at some point with turbos on them, i hope for GM's sake they didn't cheap out on them.

You say GM could save 200 bucks to put leather on the dash if they remove another attribute. Well, when GM typically decontents like that, or doesn't provide the market requirements in these cases, its usually been to line their own pockets more, not to return that value to the customer. You know GM still won't have the best interior because they haven't proven in the past that they will do that. If anything they take that 200 bucks saved to give the marketers more slush to play with incentives and such. The proper thing to do is address the expectation of the buyer, in this case 200 bucks on a nicer interior should not be at the cost of something else, and they can get the extra 200 bucks on the showfloor for it if they make the investment, instead of having to add another 1000 bucks of incentives to move the car because it has a cheap interior. For the record, the SRX interior is pretty good, its not top in class for details and material quality but it actually is rather competitive so we know Cadillac is moving in that direction.

I realize you have knowledge that says 300hp out of a 3.0 is not possible, however I would say, yes but by 2015 will it be the expectation and will other auto companies have done it? Nissan is at what 340hp with their 3.7 v6....... lots of new technologies keep evolving at breakneck speed........

Summary, the 3.0 is suicide for the US market. Your v6 needs to be the 3.6. You have the 4 by default already due to Europe and FE reasons. In 2013 a loss leader 24k ford taurus will have a 3.6 v6, and a 40k Cadillac won't? SRX v6 should be the 3.6 too. Caddy can't deliver product attributes it needs to with only 3 litres of v6.

Caddy needs to bring the goods. It has to look better than the 3 series. It has to have the best interior in the segment. It has to be lighter than its competition. Its weight distribution on the spec sheet has to be 50-51% on the RWD version (remember AWD as an option is required). The interior has to be larger and more commodious and more comfortable than the 3 and others in the segment. The engines across the board have to out spec and out muscle the Audis and Mercs and BMW's. It has to outdrive, outhandle the best. It has to exceed them all in tactile feel in steering and braking and all the touch points. It has to be quieter and feel more refined.

Every attribute must be able to be proven on the spec sheet to get people to even think of breaking rank with the establishment to consider the new one.

Take the lesson from Hyundai like they use on the Sonata, cheaper price, less bulk, more hp, better FE, more warranty, more styling, more interior room, more trunk space. They addressed each metric that the customer can quantify quickly vs a competitor and they determined themselves to be at or near the top with virtually everything. ATS has no rep to rely on so they must use a similar approach. Boils down to, how do you sell a car vs the 3 series, C class, G, and A4? After the BLS, Caddy will receive no mercy from the press or consumers in their attempt at this segment next time.

Here is a relevant question I think. When the ATS arrives, do you offer a stick and if you do, do you remove that option from the CTS? I think you do.

Edited May 12, 2010 by regfootball

[dwightlooi]

You must be insinuating with your 12 years comment that GM doesn't have the engineering capability to make a trustworthy turbo. I'll just say the current climate of the auto biz is requiring them to and leave it at that. I know turbos go bad a lot, so I assume its not GM's problem or failure only. SInce there will be half a million Cruzes around at some point with turbos on them, i hope for GM's sake they didn't cheap out on them.

...

I realize you have knowledge that says 300hp out of a 3.0 is not possible, however I would say, yes but by 2015 will it be the expectation and will other auto companies have done it? Nissan is at what 340hp with their 3.7 v6....... lots of new technologies keep evolving at breakneck speed........

...

Summary, the 3.0 is suicide for the US market. Your v6 needs to be the 3.6. You have the 4 by default already due to Europe and FE reasons. In 2013 a loss leader 24k ford taurus will have a 3.6 v6, and a 40k Cadillac won't? SRX v6 should be the 3.6 too. Caddy can't deliver product attributes it needs to with only 3 litres of v6.

...

Caddy needs to bring the goods. It has to look better than the 3 series. It has to have the best interior in the segment. It has to be lighter than its competition. Its weight distribution on the spec sheet has to be 50-51% on the RWD version (remember AWD as an option is required). The interior has to be larger and more commodious and more comfortable than the 3 and others in the segment. The engines across the board have to out spec and out muscle the Audis and Mercs and BMW's. It has to outdrive, outhandle the best. It has to exceed them all in tactile feel in steering and braking and all the touch points. It has to be quieter and feel more refined.

(1) I didn't say that a GM turbocharged engine will be objectionable in reliability. However, all else being equal, it'll have more common points of failure that an NA powerplant. Pressurized Intercooler plumbing, a bunch of hose clamps, bypass or blow-off valves and the turbocharger itself (thrust bearings, journal or ball bearings, oil seals, wastegate control pneumatics, etc ) are articles that do not exist on an NA engine, and things that don't exist cannot fail. Most engines degrade over time. Valve cover gaskets seep a little oil, piston rings wear out a bit, rubber hoses harden, oil pans leak a little, etc. Most 5~6 year old engines exhibit a bit of these and most owners ignore them. They seldom cause a catastrophic failure or notable decrease in drivability. However, similar degradation on a turbocharged system can cause a show stopping, repair warranting issue.

(2) I didn't say 300hp from 3.0 Normally aspirated liters is impossible. I said that 300 lb-ft is impossible. This means that a 100hp/liter engine will necessarily be rather peaky and soft on the low end. The 3.0 at 90hp/liter is already making its peak torque at 5700 rpm and its peak power at 7000rpm. Any higher and becomes really objectionable, plus you'll need a new transmission since the 6L45 and 6L50 has a maximum input shaft speed of 7000rpm.

(3) I don't think the ATS has to be bigger, more powerful and all that compared to the 3-series. In fact, slotting below the 3-series and above the 1-series in sizes is not a bad way to go since it is fills a niche that the progressively oversized "compacts" from BMW and M-B has grown themselves out of. That everyone is ding one thing is sometimes a good reason for you not to -- defacto differentiation. 270hp (between a 328 and 335 in power), slightly smaller, 150~200 lbs lighter than the 3-series or C-class at ~$33K is not a bad place to be. It's where the 3-series/c-class (E46/W203) was at the turn of the millenium. Not everyone wants a bigger car and those who do can always get a 5-series, CTS or E-class.

[balthazar]

>>"270hp (between a 328 and 335 in power), slightly smaller, 150~200 lbs lighter than the 3-series or C-class at ~$33K is not a bad place to be."<<

Sounds like a good target to me.

[regfootball]

(1) I didn't say that a GM turbocharged engine will be objectionable in reliability. However, all else being equal, it'll have more common points of failure that an NA powerplant. Pressurized Intercooler plumbing, a bunch of hose clamps, bypass or blow-off valves and the turbocharger itself (thrust bearings, journal or ball bearings, oil seals, wastegate control pneumatics, etc ) are articles that do not exist on an NA engine, and things that don't exist cannot fail. Most engines degrade over time. Valve cover gaskets seep a little oil, piston rings wear out a bit, rubber hoses harden, oil pans leak a little, etc. Most 5~6 year old engines exhibit a bit of these and most owners ignore them. They seldom cause a catastrophic failure or notable decrease in drivability. However, similar degradation on a turbocharged system can cause a show stopping, repair warranting issue.

(2) I didn't say 300hp from 3.0 Normally aspirated liters is impossible. I said that 300 lb-ft is impossible. This means that a 100hp/liter engine will necessarily be rather peaky and soft on the low end. The 3.0 at 90hp/liter is already making its peak torque at 5700 rpm and its peak power at 7000rpm. Any higher and becomes really objectionable, plus you'll need a new transmission since the 6L45 and 6L50 has a maximum input shaft speed of 7000rpm.

(3) I don't think the ATS has to be bigger, more powerful and all that compared to the 3-series. In fact, slotting below the 3-series and above the 1-series in sizes is not a bad way to go since it is fills a niche that the progressively oversized "compacts" from BMW and M-B has grown themselves out of. That everyone is ding one thing is sometimes a good reason for you not to -- defacto differentiation. 270hp (between a 328 and 335 in power), slightly smaller, 150~200 lbs lighter than the 3-series or C-class at ~$33K is not a bad place to be. It's where the 3-series/c-class (E46/W203) was at the turn of the millenium. Not everyone wants a bigger car and those who do can always get a 5-series, CTS or E-class.

CTS already gets ripped for being a tweener car. the CTS is supposed to grow in size. AMericans don't like small cars, the 3 series is as small passenger wise a luxury car should go in this country and be considered marketable. If a Hyundai Elantra and Chevy Cruze can achieve midsize status in interior space, there is no reason an ATS can't at least match a current 3 in passenger accomodations. Note how badly the 1 series sells, and how it really doesn't offer any other market advantages to the 3. You don't want to handicap the ATS with those some sellability problems. Even the Lexus IS gets and takes digs for having a small interior. If the ATS has a smaller interior than the IS, then Cadillac is in real trouble. Your exec dad whose wife 'lets' him get the ATS as the second family car will still poo poo the decision if they can't get the kids in the back in a pinch.

The press who needs to be your biggest advocate for this car won't be comparing it to the 1 series because the 1 series is a non factor in the market. The 1 series is sold here to add some global 1 series sales. They will be comparing it to the 3 series, which is the meat of the market. 'DeFacto differentiation' = messing with the formula. I sure hope Cadillac is not trying to outthink itself here.

Also the ATS platform is to serve for other cars as well, none of which can afford to be too small either.

I think the turbo 4 is the best standard mill. It's better than the 328's mill. It brings more value to the customer than the 3.0v6, while beating its principal competition. So it has the base 3 series mill beat. Then the 3.6v6 would compare favorably to the 335 mill. Then whatever ends up being the ATS-v motor, when its prudent to bring that into the equation, it probably could either be the v8 or TTv6.

The turbo may have more plumbing and stuff than the 3.0, but it also has a smaller and less complex block. It only has one set of cyl heads. It has 2 less cylinders. Overall, the turbo 4 vs v6 is a wash in terms of complexity. Caddy's concern should be warranting the turbo in the even a car is sold CPO. In that case, the new SRX already has a turbo so it looks like GM is perfectly fine rolling out the turbo where they see fit.

[dwightlooi]

The press who needs to be your biggest advocate for this car won't be comparing it to the 1 series because the 1 series is a non factor in the market. The 1 series is sold here to add some global 1 series sales. They will be comparing it to the 3 series, which is the meat of the market. 'DeFacto differentiation' = messing with the formula. I sure hope Cadillac is not trying to outthink itself here.

Based on that reasoning, there is no reason to do a compact! Just do a ATS at the CTS's size and a full size to go up against the 5-series!

Bigger is not always better. There is an optimal size which as small as it can be while being comfortable to the average person under 6 ft. That is where the E36 was, that is where W203 C-class was and that was where the B5 A4s were. Overtime, in an effort to be slightly bigger than the competition and their own previous generation offering, sizes have crept up. This created extra space that isn't needed by the purality of buyers and extra weight which hampers performance, handling and fuel economy.

If bigger is better, there won't have been initiatives to introduce a new model slotted below those models that have grown pretty big over time... BMW won't have tried with the 1-series to complement the 3-series. Audi won't need the A3 to complement the A4. Honda won't need the Fit to complement the Civic. Nissan won't need the Versa to complement the Sentra. Toyota won't need the Yaris to complement the Corolla. Granted, not all of these efforts were sales successes. But an argument can be made that the "optimum" size for a compact would be between the two offerings these companies ended up with. This is especially true when you have to do one car and not two.

Personally, I don't see a problem with a 1995 325 or a 2002 C230. It's a comfortable size without excesses and I think that's about wear the the optimum size is.

[regfootball]

the CTS is a pig in terms of weight and size for the 3 series class. it also is space inefficient, length and size and weight and not much room inside. that's why it was supposed to be gaining size to go more against the 5 series.

the STS was undersized, look where that got them, they lengthened it for China to compensate. Never did that here.

Cadillac is confused and is trying to outthink itself. What they need to do is identify which car is competing in which segment, and identify the segments that can bring the most sales.

As you even admit the smaller cars are not selling here. The A3, the 1 series. Therefore if US sales are a priority, it they want the model to be a success, then the 3 series class needs to be addressed. The current CTS is a tweener and only competes with the 3 series price wise. That might be exactly why the current version of CTS is having fits and stops of sputtering in the market.

It'd be one thing if you were saying the ATS is dead aimed to succeed in Europe but the flaw there is Caddy needs to make a foothold of any kind there. This version of ATS will do nothing more than re-introduce Caddy there and hope it doesn't embarass itself. Which only outlines even more why Caddy's entries should not vary from the current winning formulas in the classes they are in. No 'tweeners'.

A4 is a usable car now that its decent sized. It brings more value. No one could say they want LESS room in a 3 series. If you do, you pay the same for a just as heavy 1 series. Even Car and Driver said, the one series is a nice car, but there is no point to it when the 3 is better all around for pretty much the same money.

Caddy is not going to make waves by trying to be outside the box. They have no cred to try that. The 3 series size class sells far better than the 1 series size class. It is imperative that Cadillac have a marketable car in the showroom or the expenditure on the platform is a waste. If the engineers are incompetent and can't meet the performance and weight targets for a car of the given size with the budget given then maybe there should be no engineering. Caddy's principal market is still the US and consumers are size sensitive and sales data suggests the smallest lux cars struggle here.

Really the best course of action is the ATS is the 3 series / C class / A4 clone and it follows the formula. The CTS evolves and builds on its name recognition to in a few years pick up the 5 series / e class segment where the STS really should have been. THe XTS becomes caddy's barge. Same way it could work just resizing the CTS, and bringing in a right sized STS.

If one thought Caddy could actually attract large sales in Europe vs the 1 series then i would say the ATS could go that route but then you are pretty much designing a car to sell 5-10,000 units a year in the US and no exec is going to want to hear that.

The ATS in 3 series size can reach the sales level success of the last CTS. The CTS can move up a bit and grow the mid size market that the STS lost by taking on the 'now its a pig too' 5 series. The XTS is merely the all you can eat buffet cadillac. If a non tweener / 5 series sized CTS is great, it could even grow some volume by enticing XTS intenders to bite as well. Someday Caddy should have a true S class competitor but its hard to justify a business case for it instead of the higher volume the XTS will claim, mostly from cadillacs traditional barge loving buyers. Caddy will always have blue haired folks that will buy the largest Cadillac.

If Caddy was really tyring to become a bigger force in Europe than the US, then i would say making the car a tweener size may hold merit if they could pull it off and live with low sales volume. But Caddy will not get cred for 2-3 more generations of the car/platforms no matter what they do. So in the meantime its prudent to make the car most marketable vs the main competition in the largest market they can.

i think some of the confusion and discussion relates to you may be thinking coupes more. I tend to think sedans more, mainly because they sell way better. I actually liked the C230 a lot. It was a nice coupe but sedan wise 2-3 more inches of length would be nice. I am not suggesting these cars need to get too much wider, its usually back seat leg room where cars like the 3 series have suffered in the past. The 1 series is pretty snug all around. I even think the current C class is snug. The Lexus IS is pretty much unusable in the back seat.

Edited May 13, 2010 by regfootball

[dwightlooi]

I wasn't advocating building the ATS in as a 1-series or A3 sized vehicle. What I was trying to say is that bigger is not always better, and there is an optimal size with "Compacts". Personally, I feel that this optimal size is around where the previous 3-series and C-classes were at. Based on that opinion, I do not believe that caddy should play one-up-manship on size and try to make the ATS a bigger vehicle than the current 3-series and C-class. In fact, I think they can make a slightly smaller car and focus on getting weight out of the platform. If size is the leading concern for a buyer, that buyer can be directed to a CTS.