ATS Results are in and They are Good Very Good!

[Z-06]

Wake up SMK, use your wikipedia and google search efficiently. Ecotec turbos in drag racing are producing at least 750 hp. So they are better than Porsche and Nissan sixers. Just like you said in the other thread about turbo charged V6 in Cadillac cannot compete with a V8 in BMW or MB, a turbo charged Gen V V8 is just another step away from taking that precious crown of more hp from Nissan and Porsche sixers.

[Drew Dowdell]

ATS-V I don't care if they do V6 or V8, but if it is the same V8 from a Silverado or even Camaro SS, why am I paying not just Cadillac price, but V-series price for the engine out of a $30k Chevy. The engine has to be worth the price premium, and I'd probably lean toward 6 cylinders because BMW is doing it, even though V8s are nice to have.

Saying that they are the same is akinned to saying the the Toyota Tundra DOHC V8 is the same as the IS-F or LS460 DOHC V8 just because they share the same valvetrain configuration. Why would anyone want to buy a Lexus LS460 or IS-F when the Tundra Pickup uses a DOHC V8?

[David]

In all honesty, I think GM has the right focus and the right people working on the ATS-V project that regardless of the count, 6 or 8, we will all be very pleased with the end result.

C & G I hope can get their hands on an ATS and then ATS-V to test drive and review.

[Drew Dowdell]

C & G I hope can get their hands on an ATS and then ATS-V to test drive and review.

It's only a matter of time.

[David]

C & G I hope can get their hands on an ATS and then ATS-V to test drive and review.

It's only a matter of time.

It would be good if you get two different versions of the same product line, to not only have the individual reviews, but then do a compiled comparison of the two.

[dwightlooi]

Cadillac needs to bring back the name "Northstar" even if has nothing at all in common with the Northstars of old. There is name recognition out there for it. It's just like Chrysler using the Hemi name again.

Nah... the Northstar has too much negative baggage associated with it -- a spotty reliability record with earlier renditions and a mediocre performance throughout its life. I am not sure anyone ever revered Northstar or was impressed by its performance. Although it was a decent enough engine it was never truly impressive in any way.

If they want to name their V8s and stick to the same theme, try Polaris. It means North Star and it is the US's first submarine launched nuclear ballistic missile.

Polaris is also a snowmobile/snow machine. Not sure they would want to use that one.

Just as the Camaro and ATS having the same identical engines be all good with you. Most people who are buyers in this call like to feel they are getting something special and more even if they are just fooling themselves. While the Camaro engine is fine it does not fool most of them.

Engines are more than just a bunch of assumed numbers in this class people want to look and feel special with the car and what it offers. You want to prevent the detractors from pointing out it's just a Chevy with more chome.

Here is a good example of marketing that GM did get right. The Alpha was designed and built for Cadillac first. It will next be shared with Chevy. On the other hand it would have hurt them to build it as a Chevy and then share it as a Cadillac. While it is still the same damn thing people precieve this as Chevy being based on a better platform vs the Cadillac just being a fancy Chevy. People are idiots and if you play the platform or engine shell game you have to keep the ball moving.

It is not a sin to pass things down from Cadillac but it is a sin to pass Chevy things up to Cadillac. It makes a difference in how it is precieved by the general buyers.

In this day and age it is easier to built a car vs market as marketing today has become even more important since there are so many models so close together.

(1) The same argument about engines can be made regarding sharing of power plants between Nissans and Infinitis, Honda and Acura, Toyotas and Lexus, or VW and Audi. In fact within the GM family one can say that no one will want a ATS 2.0T because the Malibu will have a version of that engine, or a 3.6 DI V6 CTS because and Impala also uses that engine. If you go with a 3.0 LF3 Bi-turbo V6, I can guarantee that it will also be shared with a chevy, a buick or GMC -- that is going to be a 360hp class V6 applied across a large number of GM vehicles who needed more omph than the 3.6, sorta GM's answer to the Ford Ecoboost 3.5. It is not going to be an ATS only powerplant. Fact is, this hasn't been a problem with any of the aforementioned automakers, GM included. And, it will be completely impractical for Cadillac to have its unique engine lineup not shared with anybody because it'll add $10000 to the price of the car from high production costs and R&D amortization due to pitifully small volumes.

(2) As for as which brand a platform is launch first with, that matters even less. People who are well informed know that a Cadillac and a Chevy built on the same platform are vastly different cars in the same manner that a Honda Civic is not an Acura ILX. People who don't probably don't know what "platform" is much less which model used what!

[David]

Cadillac needs to bring back the name "Northstar" even if has nothing at all in common with the Northstars of old. There is name recognition out there for it. It's just like Chrysler using the Hemi name again.

Nah... the Northstar has too much negative baggage associated with it -- a spotty reliability record with earlier renditions and a mediocre performance throughout its life. I am not sure anyone ever revered Northstar or was impressed by its performance. Although it was a decent enough engine it was never truly impressive in any way.

If they want to name their V8s and stick to the same theme, try Polaris. It means North Star and it is the US's first submarine launched nuclear ballistic missile.

Polaris is also a snowmobile/snow machine. Not sure they would want to use that one.

Just as the Camaro and ATS having the same identical engines be all good with you. Most people who are buyers in this call like to feel they are getting something special and more even if they are just fooling themselves. While the Camaro engine is fine it does not fool most of them.

Engines are more than just a bunch of assumed numbers in this class people want to look and feel special with the car and what it offers. You want to prevent the detractors from pointing out it's just a Chevy with more chome.

Here is a good example of marketing that GM did get right. The Alpha was designed and built for Cadillac first. It will next be shared with Chevy. On the other hand it would have hurt them to build it as a Chevy and then share it as a Cadillac. While it is still the same damn thing people precieve this as Chevy being based on a better platform vs the Cadillac just being a fancy Chevy. People are idiots and if you play the platform or engine shell game you have to keep the ball moving.

It is not a sin to pass things down from Cadillac but it is a sin to pass Chevy things up to Cadillac. It makes a difference in how it is precieved by the general buyers.

In this day and age it is easier to built a car vs market as marketing today has become even more important since there are so many models so close together.

(1) The same argument about engines can be made regarding sharing of power plants between Nissans and Infinitis, Honda and Acura, Toyotas and Lexus, or VW and Audi. In fact within the GM family one can say that no one will want a ATS 2.0T because the Malibu will have a version of that engine, or a 3.6 DI V6 CTS because and Impala also uses that engine. If you go with a 3.0 LF3 Bi-turbo V6, I can guarantee that it will also be shared with a chevy, a buick or GMC -- that is going to be a 360hp class V6 applied across a large number of GM vehicles who needed more omph than the 3.6, sorta GM's answer to the Ford Ecoboost 3.5. It is not going to be an ATS only powerplant. Fact is, this hasn't been a problem with any of the aforementioned automakers, GM included. And, it will be completely impractical for Cadillac to have its unique engine lineup not shared with anybody because it'll add $10000 to the price of the car from high production costs and R&D amortization due to pitifully small volumes.

(2) As for as which brand a platform is launch first with, that matters even less. People who are well informed know that a Cadillac and a Chevy built on the same platform are vastly different cars in the same manner that a Honda Civic is not an Acura ILX. People who don't probably don't know what "platform" is much less which model used what!

Reality is with the ability to re-program an engine, you can take the 2.0T and have 3 or 6 different power/torque ratings depending on which product line it goes in and different tuned exhausts so that people would not even know that a slightly more powerful 2.0T with performance exhaust is the same engine as the mid power level 2.0T in a Buick or a DE-tuned version in a Chevy.

All the customer will care is that they got the performance engine version for that product line.

Edited August 2, 2012 by dfelt

[hyperv6]

That has been my point where I would like to see Cadillac get different tunes to their engines that you can't get at Chevy. If you can not afford to make a totally different engine tune the Turbo to give more than a Chevy.

While I love and own a 2.0 Tubo myself the idea of the same engine in the ATS to me cheapens the image a little. The least Cadillac could have done is tune it to 300 HP to make a statment over the 270 HP Buick.

To tune to 300 HP would only require premium fuel and in a Cadillac V that should not be an issue.

I am almost have 300 HP now and GM only limited it because of the transmission. Hell the Solstice even has 340 FT LBS of torque with the GM upgrade.

The real truth is not everyone is in love with the V8 anymore. Yes it has a place but GM needs to get moving with the TT V6 and T 4 as Ford is selling many many cars with these engines and the EcoBoost marketing. GM has a better Turbo 4 but no one knows. It is time to market this engine as they should have if they had the money when they came out.

[A Horse With No Name]

Wake up SMK, use your wikipedia and google search efficiently. Ecotec turbos in drag racing are producing at least 750 hp. So they are better than Porsche and Nissan sixers. Just like you said in the other thread about turbo charged V6 in Cadillac cannot compete with a V8 in BMW or MB, a turbo charged Gen V V8 is just another step away from taking that precious crown of more hp from Nissan and Porsche sixers.

Again, this misses the point of reliability. Go to any amateur SCCA, NASA, Porsche Club, et al weekend and count the number of cars there running LS series GM power. Notice how these guys pretty much add gas and oil and check tire pressures...and how often the Asian "super" cars break down or have issues.

I know people who have Evo's that make as much power out of 4 cyl. as your ZO6 makes out of eight....but they work on them every week to keep them on the road.

An LS motor will pretty much run on monkey piss and swamp water if it needs to. To finish first, first you must finish...a classic and under appreciated rule of racing.

Perhaps SMK could take this to heart.

[dwightlooi]

That has been my point where I would like to see Cadillac get different tunes to their engines that you can't get at Chevy. If you can not afford to make a totally different engine tune the Turbo to give more than a Chevy.

While I love and own a 2.0 Tubo myself the idea of the same engine in the ATS to me cheapens the image a little. The least Cadillac could have done is tune it to 300 HP to make a statment over the 270 HP Buick.

To tune to 300 HP would only require premium fuel and in a Cadillac V that should not be an issue.

I am almost have 300 HP now and GM only limited it because of the transmission. Hell the Solstice even has 340 FT LBS of torque with the GM upgrade.

The real truth is not everyone is in love with the V8 anymore. Yes it has a place but GM needs to get moving with the TT V6 and T 4 as Ford is selling many many cars with these engines and the EcoBoost marketing. GM has a better Turbo 4 but no one knows. It is time to market this engine as they should have if they had the money when they came out.

Yes, it would be possible without too much cost to have a "High Output" 3.6 specially for Cadillac, or perhaps Cadillac & Buick. It'll need more than an ECU program change and exhaust work though. The 3.6 is pretty optimized as it is. To get notable gains out of it will require, among other things, raising the compression of the LFX engine from 11.5 to 12.5:1, swapping out the cams, widening/shortening the intake tracts, revamping the 6-speed auto transmission (or making the HO engine a Manual Trans exclusive item) and mandating Premium Fuel. Such an engine will be around 100hp/liter (360hp) vs 89hp/liter (323hp) the LFX is currently churning out. The 91 octane Fuel requirement isn't particularly objectionable for a luxury given that it is the norm with the competition anyway. The others however are kinda turn offs for GM. Raising compression means unique pistons, new cams means a different set of cams, new intake tracts means unique head variant and plenums -- all of which take away from the economies of scale. These however pale in comparison with needing a new transmission. A new transmission is needed because the 6L50 6-speed auto has a maximum shift speed of 7000 rpm. A higher output 3.6 with better breathing will peak higher -- probably between 7500 and 8000 rpm. If the transmission must shift at 7000, that defeats all the tuning put into the engine. GM currently does not have an automatic that goes that higher and a new transmission variant is a big ticket item -- perhaps more so than new engine.

In the end, GM figured that 321hp is enough. And, using the (mechanically) the same engine represents a bigger benefit than getting an extra 30~40hp. Being on 87 octane though not much of a selling point to the luxury crowd certainly didn't hurt either.

As far as the 2.0T I think they believe that 270hp/260 lb-ft represents the best balance between lag, longevity, power delivery and specific output. Going higher means more boost. More boost always equal more lag because more time is needed by the turbos achieve a higher boost pressure. It also means more rpms for the turbines which shortens longevity -- although the precise extent of which probably won't be apparent until past 150,000 miles on the odo. It also means a less linear power delivery because the boost will peak later and the horsepower will peak sooner. (Eg. you'll go from 270hp @ 5500 / 260 lb-ft @ 2200 to 300hp @ 4800 / 330 lb-ft @ 3000) -- whether is this objectionable is subjective but the physical effect is a given. Finally 270hp is already best in class and for all intents and the right distance from the 321 from the V6.

I believe that GM will detune the Chevy and Buick versions of the engine rather than push the Caddy version further. What will happen is that the Buick and Chevy renditions of the 2.0T will be detuned to the possibly around 250hp. But that is just an educated guess.

Edited August 2, 2012 by dwightlooi

[Drew Dowdell]

Didn't I read a while back that the 3.6 could be enlarged up to 4.0 by swapping out cylinder sleeves? Chevy could have the 3.6, Buick could have a 3.8 for historical reasons, Caddy could get a 4.0. Boom! The impression of unique engines with minimal cost.

[dwightlooi]

Didn't I read a while back that the 3.6 could be enlarged up to 4.0 by swapping out cylinder sleeves? Chevy could have the 3.6, Buick could have a 3.8 for historical reasons, Caddy could get a 4.0. Boom! The impression of unique engines with minimal cost.

I doubt it...

The 3.6 engines have a bore center spacing of 103 mm and a bore diameter of 94mm. This means that the cylinder walls are 9 mm thick. Getting to 4.0 liters by enlarging the bore will require enlarging the bore to 99 mm. This leaves 4mm of metal between the cylinders which is ridiculously thin. To put the numbers into context, the 2.5 liter four has has 8mm of wall thickness, the 2.0T has 10mm, the 3.0 V6 has 14 mm and the 6.2 V8 has 8.5 mm.

Enlarging the bore also entails a lot more additional changes than simply using thinner tron sleeves. Putting bigger slugs in there doesn't do any good unless you also put bigger valves in there. Putting bigger valves means a head with bigger intake and exhaust passages. These in turn require a new intake manifold and exhaust collector.

If GM is looking for more than 323 hp, the answer is already in the works. It's called the LF3. A Bi-turbo version of the 3.0 V6. This can make between 300 and 400 hp using reasonably levels of boost, with about 360 being what I'll expect for applications like the Silverado, Acadia or XTS.

[balthazar]

^ Where do you obtain this info (cyl wall thicknesses) ?

[hyperv6]

You don't have to go into the petty details on what they can do as I know fuil in well what they can do as does everyone else here. Second the GM engines are not even as far as they can be pushed yet as we will see more power gains in some V6 and 4 applications.

As for your vew on the 2.0 I can see you really do not know the engine well. The only issue with the 290 HP I have is the need for premium fuel with no regular option. On a Cadillac that should be no issue. The 260 HP with only a change in to Maps and a flash bump it to the 290 Hp and as much as 340 FT LBS in the Solstice 5 speed for less than $300. Oh the magic and ease of playing with boost.

GM also found 2 more MPG and as damn near little lag as you will find. Note too GM also keeps the torque and HP in the same range.

I have seen other GM performance versions and what they did some production ready and some not that span over 300 HP to 500 HP with ease. I see it not too far off that a company without a 300 HP plus 4 will be out of the game.

These higher HP engines could still be treated to the programing that would limit power if regular was used so that option would still be in play.

Note too there are already 2.0 Turbo's with well over 100,000 miles and the upgrade on them with no failures of turbo's or anything else. I have have seen a couple intercoolers split in the plastic caps.

I wish you could speak to Bill Duncan GM Driveline Engineer. He is one guy that really knows GM engines and what they can do.

Edited August 3, 2012 by hyperv6

[hyperv6]

http://gmtunersource.com/racertech/ecotec-build-book

Here are a few free dowloads on the Eco and while it is racer based it also gives you an idea of what this little engine can do. It is real data from real engineers at GM. The first book at the top is the best and give the levels of power most of the main parts will take. It is amazing how well built this engine is even is stock form.

Note these books are a few years old and do not reflect the upgrades or the new gen Eco engines to come. That is why they are free.

[dwightlooi]

^ Where do you obtain this info (cyl wall thicknesses) ?

http://gmpowertrain....inProducts.aspx

Wall thickness = Bore Spacing - Bore Diameter

The bore spacing is the distance between the center of each of the cylinders. Because half of each piston occupies the the space between the bore centers, the maximum available space left for the cylinder wall between each pair of cylinders is Bore_Spacing - ((Bore_A / 2) + (Bore_B / 2)). Unless your engine have different bore sizes from cylinder to cylinder, this simplifies to Bore_Spacing - Bore_Diameter. This assumes siamesed cylinder walls which is what most of these modern engines have. In some cases wall thickness can actually be less because they cut a water gap between each cylinder to improve cooling between them. However, it is impossible for the wall thickness to exceed that derived from the above formula.

Edited August 3, 2012 by dwightlooi

[dwightlooi]

You don't have to go into the petty details on what they can do as I know fuil in well what they can do as does everyone else here. Second the GM engines are not even as far as they can be pushed yet as we will see more power gains in some V6 and 4 applications.

As for your vew on the 2.0 I can see you really do not know the engine well. The only issue with the 290 HP I have is the need for premium fuel with no regular option. On a Cadillac that should be no issue. The 260 HP with only a change in to Maps and a flash bump it to the 290 Hp and as much as 340 FT LBS in the Solstice 5 speed for less than $300. Oh the magic and ease of playing with boost.

GM also found 2 more MPG and as damn near little lag as you will find. Note too GM also keeps the torque and HP in the same range.

I have seen other GM performance versions and what they did some production ready and some not that span over 300 HP to 500 HP with ease. I see it not too far off that a company without a 300 HP plus 4 will be out of the game.

These higher HP engines could still be treated to the programing that would limit power if regular was used so that option would still be in play.

Note too there are already 2.0 Turbo's with well over 100,000 miles and the upgrade on them with no failures of turbo's or anything else. I have have seen a couple intercoolers split in the plastic caps.

I wish you could speak to Bill Duncan GM Driveline Engineer. He is one guy that really knows GM engines and what they can do.

It is one thing to offer a tuner kit to enthusiasts and quite another to adopt such a tune across the board. Enthusiasts probably won't mind a split IC cap in 5% of the vehicles, and they will probably tolerate or even love an engine that does not reach full boost until 3000 rpm instead of 2000 rpm and is peakier in the sense that max power arrives sooner at 4800 rpm rather than 5500 rpm, or an engine that feels stronger at 5000 rpm than at 6300 (not as linear as stock). The general public wants the engine to feel like a very linear V6 like the 3.6 and cry bloody murder to consumer reports when a hose clamp leaks even though it is a $5 fix.

I never claim that GM cannot tune the 2.0T to 300hp or even 340hp. I am saying that they probably don't want to considering that 270 already at the top of the class, is extremely linear with 234 lb-ft available from 1500 rpm to 5500 rpm (260 lb-ft @ peak) and is as reliable as they want it to be.

[balthazar]

I know the definitions of the terms, just wondering the source. You don't usually see this spec mentioned.

Interesting- the 3.6 has a bore center of 103mm, the Buick 455's is 120mm- not much difference for over double the displacement.

EDIT: DUH, and 2 more cylinders.

Edited August 4, 2012 by balthazar

[A Horse With No Name]

You don't have to go into the petty details on what they can do as I know fuil in well what they can do as does everyone else here. Second the GM engines are not even as far as they can be pushed yet as we will see more power gains in some V6 and 4 applications.

As for your vew on the 2.0 I can see you really do not know the engine well. The only issue with the 290 HP I have is the need for premium fuel with no regular option. On a Cadillac that should be no issue. The 260 HP with only a change in to Maps and a flash bump it to the 290 Hp and as much as 340 FT LBS in the Solstice 5 speed for less than $300. Oh the magic and ease of playing with boost.

GM also found 2 more MPG and as damn near little lag as you will find. Note too GM also keeps the torque and HP in the same range.

I have seen other GM performance versions and what they did some production ready and some not that span over 300 HP to 500 HP with ease. I see it not too far off that a company without a 300 HP plus 4 will be out of the game.

These higher HP engines could still be treated to the programing that would limit power if regular was used so that option would still be in play.

Note too there are already 2.0 Turbo's with well over 100,000 miles and the upgrade on them with no failures of turbo's or anything else. I have have seen a couple intercoolers split in the plastic caps.

I wish you could speak to Bill Duncan GM Driveline Engineer. He is one guy that really knows GM engines and what they can do.

Speaking with him would be great, I would love it.

However, let me point out that even without the reflash the Cobalt SS TC was Eleven seconds faster around Virginia international than the NEW FASTER civic SI, 14 seconds faster than the VW Jetta GLI, 16 seconds faster than the MX-5 Miata, faster than the GTI, faster than the Golf R, faster than the WRX STI, faster than the previous Mustang GT, faster than a speeding locomotive....well you can't pull a train with the thing, but you get the point.

Can't fault GM powertrain, and as hyper pointed out, they only have had gains since then.

[A Horse With No Name]

You don't have to go into the petty details on what they can do as I know fuil in well what they can do as does everyone else here. Second the GM engines are not even as far as they can be pushed yet as we will see more power gains in some V6 and 4 applications.

As for your vew on the 2.0 I can see you really do not know the engine well. The only issue with the 290 HP I have is the need for premium fuel with no regular option. On a Cadillac that should be no issue. The 260 HP with only a change in to Maps and a flash bump it to the 290 Hp and as much as 340 FT LBS in the Solstice 5 speed for less than $300. Oh the magic and ease of playing with boost.

GM also found 2 more MPG and as damn near little lag as you will find. Note too GM also keeps the torque and HP in the same range.

I have seen other GM performance versions and what they did some production ready and some not that span over 300 HP to 500 HP with ease. I see it not too far off that a company without a 300 HP plus 4 will be out of the game.

These higher HP engines could still be treated to the programing that would limit power if regular was used so that option would still be in play.

Note too there are already 2.0 Turbo's with well over 100,000 miles and the upgrade on them with no failures of turbo's or anything else. I have have seen a couple intercoolers split in the plastic caps.

I wish you could speak to Bill Duncan GM Driveline Engineer. He is one guy that really knows GM engines and what they can do.

It is one thing to offer a tuner kit to enthusiasts and quite another to adopt such a tune across the board. Enthusiasts probably won't mind a split IC cap in 5% of the vehicles, and they will probably tolerate or even love an engine that does not reach full boost until 3000 rpm instead of 2000 rpm and is peakier in the sense that max power arrives sooner at 4800 rpm rather than 5500 rpm, or an engine that feels stronger at 5000 rpm than at 6300 (not as linear as stock). The general public wants the engine to feel like a very linear V6 like the 3.6 and cry bloody murder to consumer reports when a hose clamp leaks even though it is a $5 fix.

I never claim that GM cannot tune the 2.0T to 300hp or even 340hp. I am saying that they probably don't want to considering that 270 already at the top of the class, is extremely linear with 234 lb-ft available from 1500 rpm to 5500 rpm (260 lb-ft @ peak) and is as reliable as they want it to be.

And very, very few people on test drives push cars to 90 miles per hour on an on ramp.

Not that the salesman hasn't turned white a few times when I've driven a car...but then I'm not an average car buyer.

Vehicles like the Regal Turbo are already at the top of the class in terms of build quality and powertrain, GM mostly needs to work on marketing IMHO.

[hyperv6]

You don't have to go into the petty details on what they can do as I know fuil in well what they can do as does everyone else here. Second the GM engines are not even as far as they can be pushed yet as we will see more power gains in some V6 and 4 applications.

As for your vew on the 2.0 I can see you really do not know the engine well. The only issue with the 290 HP I have is the need for premium fuel with no regular option. On a Cadillac that should be no issue. The 260 HP with only a change in to Maps and a flash bump it to the 290 Hp and as much as 340 FT LBS in the Solstice 5 speed for less than $300. Oh the magic and ease of playing with boost.

GM also found 2 more MPG and as damn near little lag as you will find. Note too GM also keeps the torque and HP in the same range.

I have seen other GM performance versions and what they did some production ready and some not that span over 300 HP to 500 HP with ease. I see it not too far off that a company without a 300 HP plus 4 will be out of the game.

These higher HP engines could still be treated to the programing that would limit power if regular was used so that option would still be in play.

Note too there are already 2.0 Turbo's with well over 100,000 miles and the upgrade on them with no failures of turbo's or anything else. I have have seen a couple intercoolers split in the plastic caps.

I wish you could speak to Bill Duncan GM Driveline Engineer. He is one guy that really knows GM engines and what they can do.

It is one thing to offer a tuner kit to enthusiasts and quite another to adopt such a tune across the board. Enthusiasts probably won't mind a split IC cap in 5% of the vehicles, and they will probably tolerate or even love an engine that does not reach full boost until 3000 rpm instead of 2000 rpm and is peakier in the sense that max power arrives sooner at 4800 rpm rather than 5500 rpm, or an engine that feels stronger at 5000 rpm than at 6300 (not as linear as stock). The general public wants the engine to feel like a very linear V6 like the 3.6 and cry bloody murder to consumer reports when a hose clamp leaks even though it is a $5 fix.

I never claim that GM cannot tune the 2.0T to 300hp or even 340hp. I am saying that they probably don't want to considering that 270 already at the top of the class, is extremely linear with 234 lb-ft available from 1500 rpm to 5500 rpm (260 lb-ft @ peak) and is as reliable as they want it to be.

First off the caps have split on the stock engines too and few complain as it is a small deal and they were replaced with better I/C under warranty,. Were talking 08 cars here.

.

From your comments you really have not driven the LNF with the upgrade have you? There is no peak issues and it is a linear flow of power from 2000 RPM and up. the only usse use is you have to learn not to over power the tires from stop to near 40 MPH as it will light them up if you step on it in a FWD. GM let the traction control not jump in as soon as they do on some cars.

Owning and driving a upgraded Turbo dailly I can say that it is not an issue on RPM or how the power comes in,. Like stated the only issue is the upgrade removed the ability to use regular gas and why would you if you you had upgraded.

GM has one of the best engines now but it will not stop there as others have now gotten to where they are at. In due time we will see 300-320 HP Turbo 4 cylinders and GM needs to lead this move or they will be left behind.

I expect with the new Eco there will be a new upgraded performance version in time and we will see the added power. There is not one single reason to stop at 270 HP.

[hyperv6]

You don't have to go into the petty details on what they can do as I know fuil in well what they can do as does everyone else here. Second the GM engines are not even as far as they can be pushed yet as we will see more power gains in some V6 and 4 applications.

As for your vew on the 2.0 I can see you really do not know the engine well. The only issue with the 290 HP I have is the need for premium fuel with no regular option. On a Cadillac that should be no issue. The 260 HP with only a change in to Maps and a flash bump it to the 290 Hp and as much as 340 FT LBS in the Solstice 5 speed for less than $300. Oh the magic and ease of playing with boost.

GM also found 2 more MPG and as damn near little lag as you will find. Note too GM also keeps the torque and HP in the same range.

I have seen other GM performance versions and what they did some production ready and some not that span over 300 HP to 500 HP with ease. I see it not too far off that a company without a 300 HP plus 4 will be out of the game.

These higher HP engines could still be treated to the programing that would limit power if regular was used so that option would still be in play.

Note too there are already 2.0 Turbo's with well over 100,000 miles and the upgrade on them with no failures of turbo's or anything else. I have have seen a couple intercoolers split in the plastic caps.

I wish you could speak to Bill Duncan GM Driveline Engineer. He is one guy that really knows GM engines and what they can do.

Speaking with him would be great, I would love it.

However, let me point out that even without the reflash the Cobalt SS TC was Eleven seconds faster around Virginia international than the NEW FASTER civic SI, 14 seconds faster than the VW Jetta GLI, 16 seconds faster than the MX-5 Miata, faster than the GTI, faster than the Golf R, faster than the WRX STI, faster than the previous Mustang GT, faster than a speeding locomotive....well you can't pull a train with the thing, but you get the point.

Can't fault GM powertrain, and as hyper pointed out, they only have had gains since then.

This engine is a mystery to many and even many here as few have driven one or driven one much. I make no concessions to using it daily and it drive very normal under regular conditions but the beast comes out when you want it. The flow of power comes in low and is smooth right to 5300 RPM. This engine does tings many V8 engines I have drive can do or in some cased can't do.

The key though is with cars like the Regal the extra weight comes into play. Also Ford is now just getting to 253 HP with there engine and have shown they are looking to move up in the future. I would only have to assume GM is doing the same but is quiet on this as they are on most new coming products. They have shown they can do more HP easily and at some point it will come.

GM driveline Rocks and is one of their strongest parts of the company.

Also with any AWD additions they will want a little more power too. An ATS with AWD and a 325 Tubo 4 would be amazing.

My only complaint on my daily driver is the FWD. It is limited at times and you have to rely on comp mode to hook it up. The weight transfer off the front wheels can be a pain at lower speeds. Most love it but I hate tire spin as that is where real performance is lost and expensive tires get wasted. LOL!

[A Horse With No Name]

Glad your still enjoying the HHR SS.

Neat car, and we live in wonderful times to be able to enoy rides like these.

[hyperv6]

Glad your still enjoying the HHR SS.

Neat car, and we live in wonderful times to be able to enoy rides like these.

To be honest I never wanted a HHR, never wanted a FWD and never wanted a Turbo 4 but I made the mistake to drive the SS and I loved it so much in how it drove that I could not pass it up. It is great for beating to work and back getting 25 MPG city and 32 Highway.

The crazy thing is I have owned severl old were Muscle cars and it is as fast as my old Tunnel Ram Chevelle and faster than my BBC GMC Sprint SP.

The SS as I have it now is able to dip into the 13's if you can get traction and though I have not tested it stock it will do 153 MPH top Speed and with my added power it may be closer too 160 MPH. To be honest I really don't want to go that fast in a HHR.

But the one thing many miss by never having driven one is how well The GM Performance Division tuned the suspension. This thing is amazing on back roads where the surface is uneven. You feel like your are just cruzing along and then you look at the speedo and find you may be 30 MPH faster than it feels. To me the mark of a well tuned suspension is that it feels like the car is slow but carrys a lot of speed. I find this in the 911.

I was pleased to see that the guys that did the GMPD suspension work were put on the cars from the start and tune them right from the start and not just have to fix them after they hit the market. The new cars like the ATS, ZL1,1LE and even the Cruze are products from the same people who did all the work at GMPD. Guys like Mark Stielow and others have done some great tuning on the new GM products.

I used to think the old Trans Ams were so great and now the new GM product show me how much they lacked. Even the cars with out the magnetic ride like the base ATS are getting praise.

[A Horse With No Name]

Yeah, modern GM suspension tuning is just fantastic. We loved the Verano we test drove, and if I could force myself to buy a "normal" car, that would be it.

Suspension tuning and handling is one of the things that got me out of the old stuff and into the new stuff.

[hyperv6]

I took the Fiero on a 1.5 hour drive to the Pontiac Nationals today and was reminded how far GM has come. LOL!

Bump steered that sucker 130 miles today and it is improved with a Herb Adams suspension. I still need to weld in the ball bearing rear busings and that should take care of it.

[David]

America has truly woke up to building driving machines. This allows all modern cars to benefit and even better yet is for those that like projects or has the cash to pay to have it done, it allows us to take our favorite older auto and put a quality suspension and power train under them.

Rock on GM powertrain

Edited August 6, 2012 by dfelt

[Drew Dowdell]

Didn't I read a while back that the 3.6 could be enlarged up to 4.0 by swapping out cylinder sleeves? Chevy could have the 3.6, Buick could have a 3.8 for historical reasons, Caddy could get a 4.0. Boom! The impression of unique engines with minimal cost.

I doubt it...

The 3.6 engines have a bore center spacing of 103 mm and a bore diameter of 94mm. This means that the cylinder walls are 9 mm thick. Getting to 4.0 liters by enlarging the bore will require enlarging the bore to 99 mm. This leaves 4mm of metal between the cylinders which is ridiculously thin. To put the numbers into context, the 2.5 liter four has has 8mm of wall thickness, the 2.0T has 10mm, the 3.0 V6 has 14 mm and the 6.2 V8 has 8.5 mm.

Enlarging the bore also entails a lot more additional changes than simply using thinner tron sleeves. Putting bigger slugs in there doesn't do any good unless you also put bigger valves in there. Putting bigger valves means a head with bigger intake and exhaust passages. These in turn require a new intake manifold and exhaust collector.

If GM is looking for more than 323 hp, the answer is already in the works. It's called the LF3. A Bi-turbo version of the 3.0 V6. This can make between 300 and 400 hp using reasonably levels of boost, with about 360 being what I'll expect for applications like the Silverado, Acadia or XTS.

Well ok, couldn't some of the increase in displacement come from stroke? I am certain that the max displacement on the block is 4.0 somehow.

[A Horse With No Name]

Rock on Gm indeed!

[dwightlooi]

Didn't I read a while back that the 3.6 could be enlarged up to 4.0 by swapping out cylinder sleeves? Chevy could have the 3.6, Buick could have a 3.8 for historical reasons, Caddy could get a 4.0. Boom! The impression of unique engines with minimal cost.

I doubt it...

The 3.6 engines have a bore center spacing of 103 mm and a bore diameter of 94mm. This means that the cylinder walls are 9 mm thick. Getting to 4.0 liters by enlarging the bore will require enlarging the bore to 99 mm. This leaves 4mm of metal between the cylinders which is ridiculously thin. To put the numbers into context, the 2.5 liter four has has 8mm of wall thickness, the 2.0T has 10mm, the 3.0 V6 has 14 mm and the 6.2 V8 has 8.5 mm.

Enlarging the bore also entails a lot more additional changes than simply using thinner tron sleeves. Putting bigger slugs in there doesn't do any good unless you also put bigger valves in there. Putting bigger valves means a head with bigger intake and exhaust passages. These in turn require a new intake manifold and exhaust collector.

If GM is looking for more than 323 hp, the answer is already in the works. It's called the LF3. A Bi-turbo version of the 3.0 V6. This can make between 300 and 400 hp using reasonably levels of boost, with about 360 being what I'll expect for applications like the Silverado, Acadia or XTS.

Well ok, couldn't some of the increase in displacement come from stroke? I am certain that the max displacement on the block is 4.0 somehow.

Sure, but you said "by swapping out the cylinder sleeves" ...

[Drew Dowdell]

I think that was part of where the increase comes from.

[hyperv6]

Increases can come from larger bores or longer stokes or both. Just depends on what you are working with and what you want to achieve.

We sell all kind of stroker kits to make some pretty large SBC just with the crank. You also have to clearance the block and pan too in this case.

[smk4565]

Or instead of a 4.0 V6 that sounds like something an SUV would use, they could make a 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 with around 440 hp that could be an ATS-V engine, or a CTS V8, or Escalade V8 or used in a flagship sedan, etc.

[Drew Dowdell]

Only 440 HP out of a twin turbo V8? Lame...

[smk4565]

Only 440 HP out of a twin turbo V8? Lame...

They could go higher, but you need reliability and smoothness and refinement also, this is Cadillac. If they can go closer to 500 hp and keep it smooth great, but it has to deliver torque more importantly. But if people like the ATS 2.0T, I think they'd like 2 of them put together even more.

[Robert Hall]

450hp seems sufficient for an ATS-v...wouldn't want it getting too close to the CTS-v power level...

[A Horse With No Name]

450hp seems sufficient for an ATS-v...wouldn't want it getting too close to the CTS-v power level...

Agreed...

[hyperv6]

The space for the CTS V needs to be protected. We want the ATS to be best in class but we do not want it to be a cheaper better alturnitive to the CTS. That is what hurt the STS is that the CTS was as good or better in many ways but it cost more. Why pay more for less of a car?

In the past GM had this right where cars like the Nova were good but not as good as a Chevelle. Then the Chevelle was not as good as Impala. In todays market GM has not always made this progression work.

Cadillacs need to grow with the owners with age and income. It would give people the ability to move up or remain where they are happy.

As for 440 HP V8 don't bother in the ATS. If you can get a V8 in the ATS why would you want to move to the CTS? I would make the CTS offered with a V series V8 and a small V8 with the TT V6. While the ATS and CTS will share the underpinnings it will be important to make them different....as much different as they can but still keep a similar theme.

Seeing the present CTS never had but one V8 I would be shocked to see the ATS to get one. The CTS and LTS are where the V8 belongs and the higher prices would help GM control the number of V8 engines sold. While they will offer them in the future smaller and smaller engines will be pushed more and more. Yes you can make arguments about the magic high MPG V8's but GM has already shown their hand as has Ford with limited use of V8's already.

The TTV6 was shown a few years ago and it was around 420-430 HP and it got the same MPG as the non Turbo V6. I expect TT V6 engines to be seen in 380 HP-440 HP. The new V8 should be over this.

Edited August 7, 2012 by hyperv6

[Robert Hall]

I haven't memorized the numbers, but how big is the power gap between the M3 and M5, or C63 and E63? IIRC, the gap is narrow, esp. with the AMGs.

[Z-06]

Sarcasm is indeed missed.

[smk4565]

The space for the CTS V needs to be protected. We want the ATS to be best in class but we do not want it to be a cheaper better alturnitive to the CTS. That is what hurt the STS is that the CTS was as good or better in many ways but it cost more. Why pay more for less of a car?

I wouldn't hold back the ATS to protect the CTS, the CTS just has to get better. Mercedes makes a V8 C-class and they still sell a crap ton of E-classes. There is nothing wrong with an ATS-V being quicker (especially on a track) than a CTS-V, the CTS is giving the customer more room and more luxury. The ATS right now offers much more performance than the XTS, doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone. The CTS-V just has to bring luxury and technology that the ATS doesn't have.

[smk4565]

I haven't memorized the numbers, but how big is the power gap between the M3 and M5, or C63 and E63? IIRC, the gap is narrow, esp. with the AMGs.

C63 is 451 hp, but in the black series it is 510 hp

E63 is 518, but 550 hp with the performance package.

S63 with performance package is 564 hp and 664 lb-ft.

[A Horse With No Name]

At some point, it's utterly irrelevant....Where is anyone with a luxury car gonna use this much power anyways...

Unless one is racing a CTS-V in Perelli World Challenge, we've gotten badly off topic.

[dwightlooi]

I haven't memorized the numbers, but how big is the power gap between the M3 and M5, or C63 and E63? IIRC, the gap is narrow, esp. with the AMGs.

C63 is 451 hp, but in the black series it is 510 hp

E63 is 518, but 550 hp with the performance package.

S63 with performance package is 564 hp and 664 lb-ft.

Well, from 2007 up till 2010 M-B used the same 6.2 liter M156 in the C63, E63 and S63 AMG, albiet with different tuning for the C, E and S-class AMG cars. In 2011 the S63 switches over to a 5.5 Bi-turbo V8 and in 2012 the E63 did the same. But the C63 is still on the 6.2 NA V8 and it will remain so until the next generation at least.

Previously, up till 2006 M-B used a NA 5.4 liter M113 V8 in the C55 and a Supercharged 5.4 M113 V8 in the E55 and S55 AMG. They never had an issue with not wanting an E-class or S-class because of any of these.

A 450~470hp class NA V8 in the ATS and a 550~600 hp class SC V8 in the CTS-V offers more than ample power train differentiation. But even if there is no engine differentiation, it won't really affect the desirability of the CTS-V -- people who buy it will buy it simply because it is a bigger and better equipped car.

The problem with a TT V6 is that:-

• An appropriate (450hp class) TT V6 does not yet exist so it'll have to be developed -- unlike the C7 V8 engine which will be ready to be plucked one ATS-V or no ATS-V
  
• If it is developed there will be poor economies of scale because there will be no other application (a 360hp V6TT will be used for other vehicles
  
• It will have some degree of turbo lag however mild that turns out to be.
  
• It will be more expensive than a Gen V Pushrod V8
  
• It will weight more than a Gen V Pushrod V8
  
• It will have a more demanding maintenance schedule than a Gen V Pushrod V8
  
• It will be less desirable to some buyers
  
• It won't have a power advantage to justify the above
  
• It won't have a big enough fuel economy advantage (if any at all) to justify all of the above
  

All it'll have is the ability to say DOHC Twin-Turbo and that isn't particularly unique on the market place.

Edited August 8, 2012 by dwightlooi

[A Horse With No Name]

Agreed.....

[smk4565]

Even if the ATS-V and CTS-V had the same engine (not that I think they will) the CTS should still be able to justify the additional price with additional luxury. BMW puts the same engine in the 335i as the 535i and each have a lot of buyers. Granted the M3 and M5 have different engines, but the M5 is way heavier than an M3. If the CTS-V is 600 lbs more than the ATS-V then it will need more power so they are close in acceleration. But if weights are closer, the CTS-V doesn't need as much power, a 420 hp Audi S6 is quicker than a 556 hp CTS-V so it isn't all about the engine.

[Drew Dowdell]

Even if the ATS-V and CTS-V had the same engine (not that I think they will) the CTS should still be able to justify the additional price with additional luxury. BMW puts the same engine in the 335i as the 535i and each have a lot of buyers. Granted the M3 and M5 have different engines, but the M5 is way heavier than an M3. If the CTS-V is 600 lbs more than the ATS-V then it will need more power so they are close in acceleration. But if weights are closer, the CTS-V doesn't need as much power, a 420 hp Audi S6 is quicker than a 556 hp CTS-V so it isn't all about the engine.

If you're quoting the 0-60 in 3.7 seconds that C&D got in the S6, that has turned out to be false. It is actually 4.7 seconds to 62 mph.... so just about a full second behind the 3.9 the CTS-V does.

[hyperv6]

The problem with a TT V6 is that:-

• An appropriate (450hp class) TT V6 does not yet exist so it'll have to be developed -- unlike the C7 V8 engine which will be ready to be plucked one ATS-V or no ATS-V . It does exist and is already testing in the new CTS.
  

• If it is developed there will be poor economies of scale because there will be no other application (a 360hp V6TT will be used for other vehicles
  
• Not true as it is planned for several Cadillacs and word it for the Camamro future Vettes and may find it's way into the trucks/SUV.
  
• It will have some degree of turbo lag however mild that turns out to be.
  
• Turbo lag is minimal today and with twin turbo's even more minimal.
  
• It will be more expensive than a Gen V Pushrod V8
  
• May or may not be as we have yet to see the new gen V8 and the added technology that keeps it alive. The V8 is no longer the cheap cast Iron engine of old. At this point we don't know as you or I do not have the numbers.
  
• 
  
• It will weight more than a Gen V Pushrod V8
  
• It is pretty close in weight and not that much of an issue or they would not be building it.
  
• It will have a more demanding maintenance schedule than a Gen V Pushrod V8
  
• As a present owner of a Tubo I have no extra maintenance than any other GM engine I have ever owned. Mobil One and that is it.
  
• 
  
• It will be less desirable to some buyers
  
• But also more desirable to many other buyers. Those who dislike these engine for the most have never driven one.
  
• It won't have a power advantage to justify the above
  
• Unproven and much easier to extract more power for different applications.
  
• It won't have a big enough fuel economy advantage (if any at all) to justify all of the above
  
• I do agree not a big advantage but an advantage it is. In todays market 1 MPG alone is never overlooked by any MFG.
  
• 
  
• The fact is Ford has proven that the EcoBoost is well accepted and profitable. They have proven it can run everythng from a Mustang, family sedan, truck and even durable enough for a Police car. Prices have remained good enough to not scare any buyer off. The cost to maintain has not proven any more or less. The Ford has proven that the moden turbo can do and last as well as anything else.
  
• Either way the TT V6 is coming and will be used much at GM and find it's way into many models.
  

[David]

So question, why do we have to have a v8 or v6 in the ATS-V at all?

Why could we not go with a Turbo 4 or twin turbo 4 and use Electric engines and battery pack to give it a CTS-V performance level or even better?

I think it was Porsche who had a high performance hybrid. This would give it green credentials and performance to boot. We all know you can have some amazing performance with using electric engines and a solid powerful small 4 banger.

If a Hybrid ATS-V can beat a M3 while being green, you just hit the lottery for Cadillac.

[dwightlooi]

The problem with a TT V6 is that:-

• An appropriate (450hp class) TT V6 does not yet exist so it'll have to be developed -- unlike the C7 V8 engine which will be ready to be plucked one ATS-V or no ATS-V . It does exist and is already testing in the new CTS.
  

• If it is developed there will be poor economies of scale because there will be no other application (a 360hp V6TT will be used for other vehicles
  
• Not true as it is planned for several Cadillacs and word it for the Camamro future Vettes and may find it's way into the trucks/SUV.
  
• It will have some degree of turbo lag however mild that turns out to be.
  
• Turbo lag is minimal today and with twin turbo's even more minimal.
  
• It will be more expensive than a Gen V Pushrod V8
  
• May or may not be as we have yet to see the new gen V8 and the added technology that keeps it alive. The V8 is no longer the cheap cast Iron engine of old. At this point we don't know as you or I do not have the numbers.
  
• 
  
• It will weight more than a Gen V Pushrod V8
  
• It is pretty close in weight and not that much of an issue or they would not be building it.
  
• It will have a more demanding maintenance schedule than a Gen V Pushrod V8
  
• As a present owner of a Tubo I have no extra maintenance than any other GM engine I have ever owned. Mobil One and that is it.
  
• 
  
• It will be less desirable to some buyers
  
• But also more desirable to many other buyers. Those who dislike these engine for the most have never driven one.
  
• It won't have a power advantage to justify the above
  
• Unproven and much easier to extract more power for different applications.
  
• It won't have a big enough fuel economy advantage (if any at all) to justify all of the above
  
• I do agree not a big advantage but an advantage it is. In todays market 1 MPG alone is never overlooked by any MFG.
  
• 
  
• The fact is Ford has proven that the EcoBoost is well accepted and profitable. They have proven it can run everythng from a Mustang, family sedan, truck and even durable enough for a Police car. Prices have remained good enough to not scare any buyer off. The cost to maintain has not proven any more or less. The Ford has proven that the moden turbo can do and last as well as anything else.
  
• Either way the TT V6 is coming and will be used much at GM and find it's way into many models.
  

The is no 450 hp TT V6 under development. GM has a 3.0 TT V6 (LF3) under development, but that is not a 450hp engine, more like a 360hp engine designed to go up against the Ecoboost 3.5. If a 3.6 TT is to be developed, it'll be for the ATS-V and very little else. It will even less sense to turn the LF3 into a 150hp/liter, high boost engine for all the cars and trucks the TT V6 is intended for. In otherwords, while a low boost 3.0 TTV6 does exist, a 450hp class TT V6 does not, that is what an ATS-V needs to be performance competitive with the teutons.

Any charged engine will have turbo lag. The only question is how much. This is because no matter how efficient and well sized, a turbocompressor does not go from 5,000 to 70,000 rpm instantaneously and it cannot pressurize the ducts, IC and intake plenum from vacuum to 15 psi (or whatever boost level is used) instantaneously. You may not find it objectionable but that doesn't mean it does not exist. The presence of a slight delay between throttle input and steady state power delivery at that throttle position makes a car more difficult to control in the middle of a turn or during transitions.

All else being equal, turbocharged engines always require more frequent maintenance intervals. This is because oil has to be exposed to the turbocharger's bearings which is a lot hotter than anything it passes over in an NA engine. The difference is substantial. A full synthetic like Mobil 1 is good for 15,000~25,000 miles on a NA engine, on an LNF for instance it is between 8,000~12,000. Again, it may not be objectionable to you or any performance enthusiast, but there is very definitely a difference in oil life between a turbocharged engine and one that is not. Also, there is no running away from the fact that there will be half a dozen to a dozen more hose clamps, IC tank(s) that can leak and needs to be checked, not to mention usually an after run electric water circulation pump for the turbo bearings.

I am not new to turbocharged cars... I have had a Celica All-trac Turbo (ST185), Eagle Talon Tsi AWD (w/ mitsubishi's 4G63 Turbo engine), NB 1.8T and an Audi S4 2.7T (B5) over the years. In my time I had replaced three turbochargers and dealt with a bunch of non-catastrophic nuisance like pressure leaks and bypass valves that sticks. Yes, the newer designs are better. But to say that you can design out all the additional service and failure modes compared to an NA engine is something I cannot see ever happening.

As far as costs go, well displacement costs nothing. It is complexity that drives engine costs. Here's a list of differences...

TT DOHC V6 Gen V V8 Camshafts 4 1 Camphasers 4 1 Valves/springs/lifters 24 16 Pistons 6 8 Rods 6 8 Crank 1 1 Direction Injectors 6 8 Water pumps 2 1 Electric water pump 1 0 Oil Pump 1 1 Turbochargers 2 0 Intercoolers 2 0 Intake duct pieces 6 1

Edited August 8, 2012 by dwightlooi