dwightlooi

2014 Cadillac ATS - Powertrain Predictions

   10 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you like this lineup?

    • Love it.
      10
    • Hate it.
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

83 posts in this topic

atspowertrainprediction.gif

Edit: Due to the high influx of visitors, I must add this disclaimer: Contrary to what some media outlets have reported, this is not a leaked GM document. This is scientific speculation based on what we know about GM engines and other technologies GM has been working on. Simply put we are hypothesizing about what the power output of a 6.2 liter would be if direct injection was added for example. - DD

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it but I must be out of the loop on a few details: I wasn't aware that there was an 8-speed coming and also I could have sworn the ATS was due before 2014?!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... 2014 model year = introduction in August 2013. Somehow I doubt they are far along enough to introduce it August of next year or we'll be seeing spy shots of the real thing running around by now.

GM was working on the 8-speed when the whole bankruptcy business unfolded. It got put on ice. Not sure if it got restarted. But if it does, the 2014 model year is right where we may see the first ones. They'll probably introduce the 8-speed boxes over a period of 2~3 years rather than all at once. The logical thing to do will be to introduce it for the 220~300 lb-ft applications (that of the mainstream V6es) first -- the big V8s can make do with 6-gears and taller gearing for fuel economy, the econoboxes segment is probaby too price sensitive to splurge on 2 additional gears for another grand. This is why I kept the V-ship as a 6-speed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope they would have an 8 speed by then..the competition is moving to them now...I assume the next 3- and C-class will have them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.0L I4 engine would be about 280hp. At least that's my expectation for the Astra OPC engine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think as crucial as the powertrain data is on these engines, its all pretty tough to digest unless you got some curb weights to go with it.

GM needs to cut the fat.

for market reasons too, we need to know that this car will have AWD on the option sheet or its pretty much DOA in the market.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice lineup!! With no seeming DOHC V8 coming for Cadillac as a mid range CTS V8 this would be a good way to introduce the OHV V8 into future non V Cadillac models!---Nice going!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while it's not much, it is odd the v6 rpm @60 is less than the v8. i'm guessing you did that with higher drive ratio # so it'd be even more sporty than a v8 and 6 speed would be otherwise?

curious if the 4 Turbo is the base or the midlevel?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice lineup!! With no seeming DOHC V8 coming for Cadillac as a mid range CTS V8 this would be a good way to introduce the OHV V8 into future non V Cadillac models!---Nice going!

Nice lineup for USA,but for Europe it would need more engines..

Like something to fall between 150 and 200 hp, 200-250 hp, diesel engines are must.

Also,since there is no plans for DOHCv8 (there are rumors but nothing concrete), I think 5.5 l v8(or even 5.3 l v8) with or without SC maybe would be a better option than 6.2 l v8 in top V version. On European ground. It seems here people are obsessed with Hp/l, high rpm etc. They don't care much about outside dimensions of the engine or weight of the engine. Weight of the car is another thing.

Question is if Cadillac ATS is meant to be global product or for USA only? And does GM want to blend in BMW M, Mercedes AMG, Audi S, Jaguar R crowd or offer car with engines for american market, specific american flavor, which i think, at present time, many people here doesn't like or care for.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is the engine lineup GM will use, although I think the turbo 4 will have 230-250 hp. Especially since the Regal has 225 and many of the base German engines are in that range. I don't think they'll have the 8-speed ready at launch, but I'm sure they'll get one in there eventually. They should have it at launch, but GM likes to delay stuff until year 2 or 3 many times. But I've heard even Chrysler will have 9-speed transmissions in their front drive rental sedans by 2014.

I think the V-series should have DOHC, but I know it won't, so I think the pushrod V8 will be in there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice lineup for USA,but for Europe it would need more engines..

Like something to fall between 150 and 200 hp, 200-250 hp, diesel engines are must.

Also,since there is no plans for DOHCv8 (there are rumors but nothing concrete), I think 5.5 l v8(or even 5.3 l v8) with or without SC maybe would be a better option than 6.2 l v8 in top V version. On European ground. It seems here people are obsessed with Hp/l, high rpm etc. They don't care much about outside dimensions of the engine or weight of the engine. Weight of the car is another thing.

Question is if Cadillac ATS is meant to be global product or for USA only? And does GM want to blend in BMW M, Mercedes AMG, Audi S, Jaguar R crowd or offer car with engines for american market, specific american flavor, which i think, at present time, many people here doesn't like or care for.

Good points, you are right it will need a diesel engine. If the ATS doesn't get 40 mpg, it is dead in Europe for sure. Lexus (evne Lincoln) is pushing hybrids, the Germans are going to bring more and more diesels, Cadillac has to do one or the other, so their car isn't at 28 mpg, while everyone else has 35-40.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while it's not much, it is odd the v6 rpm @60 is less than the v8. i'm guessing you did that with higher drive ratio # so it'd be even more sporty than a v8 and 6 speed would be otherwise?

curious if the 4 Turbo is the base or the midlevel?

There are two reasons:-

(1) The V6 has higher specific consumption, so it needs a lower cruising speed more than the Turbo-4. Also, it can probably tolerate a taller cruising ratio than the the 2.0 liter four while crusing along off boost on the freeway.

(2) The final drives ratios are selected to "game" the system and provide the best 0-60 mph and 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) numbers for the magazines... I wanted either one shift or two shifts to 60 mph. The V6 gets to 62 mph in 2nd. With the turbo-4 it gets there in 3rd. In either case, they reach 0-60 right before the next shift.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice lineup for USA,but for Europe it would need more engines..

Like something to fall between 150 and 200 hp, 200-250 hp, diesel engines are must.

Also,since there is no plans for DOHCv8 (there are rumors but nothing concrete), I think 5.5 l v8(or even 5.3 l v8) with or without SC maybe would be a better option than 6.2 l v8 in top V version. On European ground. It seems here people are obsessed with Hp/l, high rpm etc. They don't care much about outside dimensions of the engine or weight of the engine. Weight of the car is another thing.

Question is if Cadillac ATS is meant to be global product or for USA only? And does GM want to blend in BMW M, Mercedes AMG, Audi S, Jaguar R crowd or offer car with engines for american market, specific american flavor, which i think, at present time, many people here doesn't like or care for.

(1) A 5.5 does not offer substantially better fuel economy than a 6.2. With the same amount of valvetrain friction and a mere 11% reduction in swept volume efficiency gains are in the 1~3% range. This may not even get you to the next 1 MPG. A 5.5 is about 420hp at the same specific output. The engine will be no smaller and no lighter. Hence, it is probably best to maximize the advantage of the pushrod engine -- which is the ability to deliver the highest power density from the smallest engine dimensions and weight.

(2) GM will probably add a diesel or two for Europe. It'll be something taken from the Open portfoilio. Probably a 4-potter at 180~220 hp and a V6 at 250~270hp.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) A 5.5 does not offer substantially better fuel economy than a 6.2. With the same amount of valvetrain friction and a mere 11% reduction in swept volume efficiency gains are in the 1~3% range. This may not even get you to the next 1 MPG. A 5.5 is about 420hp at the same specific output. The engine will be no smaller and no lighter. Hence, it is probably best to maximize the advantage of the pushrod engine -- which is the ability to deliver the highest power density from the smallest engine dimensions and weight.

I know in USA cars like CTS-V, M3 are relatively cheap compared to same cars in European countries.So maybe buyers of that kind of cars watch more at fuel consumption in USA. Here that kind of cars are very pricey.And believe me this. In my country people who drives that kind of car don't care about fuel consumption. I haven't met one person who drive that kind of car (with more than 350+ HP) who cares about fuel consumption. And here fuel isn't cheap either.

So here it is not about fuel consumption for that kind of car. It is bragging rights. Buyer come and see DOHC V8, 4 valves 4 cams, DI turbocharger, 120 hp/l (or something like that)...and more thing means better (not complicated, heavier, harder to work at, bigger chance to something go wrongs) because some paid journalist wrought that down in some crazy magazine. And then they will see 6.2 l v8 with 470 + hp 2 valves, readline at 6500 rpm (even though most of the time most drivers don't past even 4000 rpm). It is so low tech for them. I know people who would rather have 4.0 l v8 with 420 hp than 6.2 l with 480 hp, if 6.2 l v8 can't spin over 7200 rpm (not to mention if it has only 2 valves per cylinder). Because 6.2 l v8 is heavy, big engine. And DOHC, Hp/l is only things that matters to them. I've tried couple of time to explain some things to some people but i just waisted my time. Small block doesn't have such history here as in USA. When GM will try to sell 6.2 l in small ATS (maybe CTS can get away with it) most people will just say: "Oh..they need such a big engine to get to such HP rating. So low tech"

So maybe..just maybe.. 5.5 l v8 wouldn't be such a bad idea..with forced induction("high tech"),DI (also "high tech") it could go to 500+ hp.. and it would have good HP/l(ultimate uberalles, warp core level high tech criteria) :smilewide:

I hope they also put that new 2.9 l v6 diesel in use.

Edited by dado
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will wait to see what we really get.

The Caddy will need a diesel in Europe or not even bother to go. I supect that GM for the most will tune the line over there more to their market less the V series. Unless they adapt the entire car to Europes needs or wants it will be another fail. As Oil continues to rise it will become even more important.

You have to give Europe what they want and not expect them to fall all over American cars.

Edited by hyperv6
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Because 6.2 l v8 is heavy, big engine. And DOHC, Hp/l is only things that matters to them.

Actually, the converse is true. A pushrod engine is significantly lighter and smaller than a DOHC engine. If you take a DOHC V8, throw away three of the four camshafts, their sprockets, their bearings, halve the number of valves and make the cylinder heads about 1/3 the size... you'll arrive roughly where a Pushrod V8 is in terms of size and weight. In fact, the difference is so pronounced that a 6.2 liter Pushrod V8 is typically lighter than a 4.0 liter DOHC V8. Eg. The BMW S65 4.0 V8 engine in the M3 is 202 kg, whereas LS3 6.2 V8 in the Corvette is 183 kg.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dado, it's the same here in the US as it is in Europe. If you're buying an M, AMG, RS, V-Series, or SRT, chances are that fuel economy isn't top priority for you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dado, it's the same here in the US as it is in Europe. If you're buying an M, AMG, RS, V-Series, or SRT, chances are that fuel economy isn't top priority for you.

The reality is that despite the fact that people moan and bitch about it, fuel expenditures really aren't that big of a deal despite gasoline prices having tripled in the last 15 years.

I drive about 12500 miles a year. I get ~18.5 miles a gallon in the C55. That's $2,365 a year at $3.50 a gallon. If I have a Camry or Accord V6 and pull in an average of about 24 mpg in combined driving -- a good 30% improvement in fuel economy -- the same driving habits will cost $1,823 a year. That's a difference of $542 a year or $45 a month. $45 is not even enough for a dinner for two.

In the 90s, it's $70 vs $52. Today, it's $200 vs $150. That's three times, but it's also not a big deal either way. In general, people who explicitly sink $60~80K on a performance car is not going to care very much about whether they are out $200 or $150 on gas every month. On the same token, if a $5000 Hybrid system can get me from 18.5 to 24 mpg in with the same performance, they probably don't care for it if they can do the math because it'll take them over 9 years just to break even on the investment -- just in time for a $2000 battery replacement! Unless... they believe in the fraud of the century called Global Warming.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Actually, the converse is true. A pushrod engine is significantly lighter and smaller than a DOHC engine. If you take a DOHC V8, throw away three of the four camshafts, their sprockets, their bearings, halve the number of valves and make the cylinder heads about 1/3 the size... you'll arrive roughly where a Pushrod V8 is in terms of size and weight. In fact, the difference is so pronounced that a 6.2 liter Pushrod V8 is typically lighter than a 4.0 liter DOHC V8. Eg. The BMW S65 4.0 V8 engine in the M3 is 202 kg, whereas LS3 6.2 V8 in the Corvette is 183 kg."

I know that you know that (i forgot to write that my colleauge thinks it is big and heavy engine not me-i'm from Europe but i know advantages and disadvantage of engines with cam in block valvetrain )but for most buyers here they judge by displacement of the engine. To them-big displacement=big engine, heavy ..of course if you look at only DOHC type of engine with same cylindar configuration it could be partially true but not general rule (actually 6.2 l v8 from mercedes is lighter then 4.0 l v8 from BMW). To them 4.0 l v8 is smaller, lighter,rev higher, have higher HP/L rating than 6.2 l v8. They don't know much about advantages of pushrod engines (and why would they need to know that) since big pushrod V8 is not in use here for long time (accept Bentley but that is different story). This is perception GM must be ready to deal with if they are coming here.

Edited by dado
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Actually, the converse is true. A pushrod engine is significantly lighter and smaller than a DOHC engine. If you take a DOHC V8, throw away three of the four camshafts, their sprockets, their bearings, halve the number of valves and make the cylinder heads about 1/3 the size... you'll arrive roughly where a Pushrod V8 is in terms of size and weight. In fact, the difference is so pronounced that a 6.2 liter Pushrod V8 is typically lighter than a 4.0 liter DOHC V8. Eg. The BMW S65 4.0 V8 engine in the M3 is 202 kg, whereas LS3 6.2 V8 in the Corvette is 183 kg."

I know that you know that (i forgot to write that my colleauge thinks it is big and heavy engine not me-i'm from Europe but i know advantages and disadvantage of engines with cam in block valvetrain )but for most buyers here they judge by displacement of the engine. To them-big displacement=big engine, heavy ..of course if you look at only DOHC type of engine with same cylindar configuration it could be partially true but not general rule (actually 6.2 l v8 from mercedes is lighter then 4.0 l v8 from BMW). To them 4.0 l v8 is smaller, lighter,rev higher, have higher HP/L rating than 6.2 l v8. They don't know much about advantages of pushrod engines (and why would they need to know that) since big pushrod V8 is not in use here for long time (accept Bentley but that is different story). This is perception GM must be ready to deal with if they are coming here.

This is the main issue. GM needs to sell what people want and expect. GM for years has tried to sell the less is better concept with while true in many cased is still not accepted by the general public no matter how much they are coached. You can toss around all the numbers in the world but people still often think more is better. We even see it here as today we have some very good, powerful and efficent 4 and 6 cylinders but many will not buy them because they have less than 8 cylinders.

People in the general public for the most are idiots when it comes to cars and you need to give them what they want as you can not change their preception. Sometimes the best path is not always the most profitable.

Edited by hyperv6
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it wasn't so much the performance of GM's v8's that ruined the rep for the pushrod motors, it was the GM v6's that were left out in the cold for so long while the other maker's passed them by leaps and bounds. Then, GM refused to play catch up.

By the time GM got around to making the first 3.6, it took them ten years to get to the point where a lot of the competition had been with that sort of engine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it wasn't so much the performance of GM's v8's that ruined the rep for the pushrod motors, it was the GM v6's that were left out in the cold for so long while the other maker's passed them by leaps and bounds. Then, GM refused to play catch up.

By the time GM got around to making the first 3.6, it took them ten years to get to the point where a lot of the competition had been with that sort of engine.

This is so laughably wrong.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the main issue. GM needs to sell what people want and expect. GM for years has tried to sell the less is better concept with while true in many cased is still not accepted by the general public no matter how much they are coached. You can toss around all the numbers in the world but people still often think more is better. We even see it here as today we have some very good, powerful and efficent 4 and 6 cylinders but many will not buy them because they have less than 8 cylinders.

People in the general public for the most are idiots when it comes to cars and you need to give them what they want as you can not change their preception. Sometimes the best path is not always the most profitable.

Actually, I don't think that's the root of the problem. The root of the problem was that for decades GM -- and most US automakers for that matter -- did not realize one fundamental fact:

"The USA is a high cost country. You don't succeed as a business operating in a high cost country by trying to be the value leader."

GM had always tried to sell their cars for a few hundred to a few tens of thousands less than the competition. This means that they need to cut quality, cut material grades, cut technology and cut all kinds of things to get to the price point. This created a perception -- much of it grounded in fact -- that GM equals low quality and low tech. Designs associated with GM such as the Pushrod small block garnered the same kind of associations, justly on unjustly. At the end of the day it's a no win situation. Despite all the bean counting and discounting, the difference between US labor costs and, first, Japanese, then Korean and now Chinese, cannot be overcome. GM gets stuck with inferior products compared to the European "prestige & quality" leaders. They are also no cheaper and often still worse off in technology, quality and features compared to Asian imports.

I think they realize that now... or at least I hope they do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they consider putting eAssist on the vehicle as standard equipment. It isn't supposed to degrade performance but can make huge strides in mileage for little cost increase.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't think that's the root of the problem. The root of the problem was that for decades GM -- and most US automakers for that matter -- did not realize one fundamental fact:

"The USA is a high cost country. You don't succeed as a business operating in a high cost country by trying to be the value leader."

GM had always tried to sell their cars for a few hundred to a few tens of thousands less than the competition. This means that they need to cut quality, cut material grades, cut technology and cut all kinds of things to get to the price point. This created a perception -- much of it grounded in fact -- that GM equals low quality and low tech. Designs associated with GM such as the Pushrod small block garnered the same kind of associations, justly on unjustly. At the end of the day it's a no win situation. Despite all the bean counting and discounting, the difference between US labor costs and, first, Japanese, then Korean and now Chinese, cannot be overcome. GM gets stuck with inferior products compared to the European "prestige & quality" leaders. They are also no cheaper and often still worse off in technology, quality and features compared to Asian imports.

I think they realize that now... or at least I hope they do.

And if they offer 6.2 l v8 in Europe most people will just say: "Same old GM..stuffing big truck engine in car. They probably haven't change a thing in other areas too". Couple years ago when new gen. 2 cadillac CTS was introduced there was autoshow in my country. There was new Cadillac CTS on that show (and escalade and corvette). I was sitting and admiring new CTS when i overheard older man commenting about engine-something like-"it must have about 7.0 l and 200hp".I've sad to him it was a v6 engine with 300 hp.Since all dealers was at corvette, hummer and escalade, showing kids how big this cars are (and they are big) he asked me,who came at show to watch cars not to explaing type of engines in american cars, if i know maybe if it is V6 diesel.Of course it wasn't. He said too bad..and yes similar comment was said at corvette stand (red z06)..7.0 l v8 with only 505 hp (it seems 505 hp is not enough power to move corvette???).And stupid dealer wouldn't want to open engine hood.

So here are couple of problems (i think) what GM should solve before they try to sell Cadillac in Europe(in USA some of those probably aren't problems)...

-More diesel engines

-try to fight opinions (or educate people which is close to impossible) that gen V is 50 year old engine and show them it is new technologically advanced engine.That will be a challenge here (maybe it would be easier just to make DOHC v8 but then again..how much of this top V models does Cadillac plan to sell)

-decide if Cadillac is luxury companie or something like citroen, opel etc.

-it would help if engine in top cadillac model wouldn't be same engine as in chevrolet truck.

Now i'm not sure if sharing engines with Opel is a good or bad thing from image point of view. I mean Opel is in class with Ford , Citroen, Peugeot, VW...which is not excatly luxurie class like Mercedes, jaguar, BMW..but then again there is VW and audi, and now something about Mercedes and Nissan....i don't know. For me if it is an exellent engine it shouldn't be important who made it.

And CTS isn't cheap here in Europe so i don't think that ATS will be cheap here. Here, if people will have money for ATS, CTS they probably have money for something from Mercedes or BMW. Both of this company have much higher reputation here. Cadillac probably has lower reputation than Ford or opel.

I hope that Cadillac will have success with ATS (all around the world) but i'm afraid that there are maybe too much expectations.

Edited by dado
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

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

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

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

Loading...