dwightlooi

The camouflaged car has a profile so much like the C6 I am not sure it is not a C6. The funny thing is... if it is just some special edition of the C6, why the camouflage?

It'll be interesting to see if the Corvette will soldier on with the venerable body-on-frame Y-Platform or if it'll adopt the Alpha Platform. Theoretically, the Alpha will work with a Vette. At 3,350 lbs for a 5-seater sedan with steel body panels, it can conceivably be aluminized and composited to the 3,000 lbs range for a 2-seat Vette. Using the Alpha will mean considerable economy of scale given that the Vette will probabbly share a lot of components with the ATS Coupes and possible a Chevy or two. The Y-Platform on the other hand is getting really long in the tooth -- the last major revision on the underlying structure being 25 years ago with the 1984 C4. The only thing about the Alpha being that it probably precludes the use of a rear mounted transaxle.

Well, there is already a 3rd generation Epsilon. The stretched version used in the XTS; that is not exactly an Ep II.

With GM's announcement yesterday, we finally have concrete numbers on the ATS's weight. ATS 3.6 V6 = 3,456 lbs ATS 2.5 / 2.0T < 3,400 lbs Honestly, this is at the lowest end of the expect range for the V6 powered car and only about 100 lbs heavier than the 328i. It also means that with the same engine, the ATS is no heavier than the Delta II Verano -- that's no small feat. Given GM's porky track record, I expected the ATS to come in at about ~3,600 for the V6. This is excellent news. Given that the Small Block V8 is only 40 lbs heavier than the DOHC 3.6 V6, this opens up the possibility of a Pushrod V8 powered ATS-V at around 3,600 lbs and still under 3,700 lbs if they go with a bi-turbo V6. The 202 hp / 191 lb-ft rating of the 2.5 liter also brings it to the front of the 2.4~2.5 cylinder pack, toping Acura and Hyundai's 201 and 200 hp mills. The engine is still running on Regular, another plus.

The Cruze doesn't need a face lift. The front and flanks of the car are pretty enough. Class leading in asthetics from those angles actually. The Cruze needs an ASS LIFT. The rear of the car is untidy and generic. A revision of the tail light cluster and adoption of cleaner, more tidy lines in the back will help.

Well, they are not going to get far. Those plants are all in "Right to Work" states. In other words, even if they succeed in unionizing a plant, the only union workers will be those who voted to join, or want to join, the union. The rest will be non-union, wouldn't pay union dues and wouldn't obey union rules in any shape or form. Union membership, paying union dues or abiding by union instructions cannot be a condition for hiring or continued employment at ANY workplace in a right to work state. Good luck trying to get a strike going when say 42% of the workers are non-union and will disregard the union vote to strike to begin with, while at least some portion of the union workers will cross picket lines or resign their union membership so they can continue to work.Plus, the law forbid ANY contractual agreement that forbids or restricts the Employer from actively campaigning against the union before or after unionization to try to undermine or decertify a union. Any labor action can easily lead to rebellion and a decertification election.

I do wonder how GM markets Cadillac in Europe or China..never seen ads from those markets...do they emphasize the American nature of it? They should... Buicks dominate in China.

It'll be higher than if you use light weight forged pistons, but no higher than on the 2.5 itself. The idea is to use the 2.5 pistons. The rods and crank will be 2.0T parts basically; those are forged for the turbo application. 8200 rpm is based on the same piston speeds and the same piston weight as the 2.5 @ its 7000 rpm redline.

Yes you got what I ment. But while power goes up I feel the engines will move down in size. But I have been hearing that the regular Vette may be seeing power in NA form closer to the Grans Sports power now. We may see at least in the Vette form a much higher jump than many think. We don't know if they'll go to a smaller displacement. What we do know is that the 5.5L displacement selected for the race cars have absolutely no bearing on the displacement of the production engines -- that was dictated by the rules. Having said that, given that we are not changing the block size, a lower displacement V8 is not going to be lighter or smaller. It is also unlikely to be substantially more fuel efficient -- given that friction will essentially be the same while aspiration losses between a 5.5 and a 6.2 is minimal, especially with half the cylinders shut off as needed. All we know is that some form of variable timing and direct injection are confirmed. We also know that if nothing changes on the engines except the addition of AFM, DI and a 1 point bump in compression ratio, we can except about 17 mpg (City) / 28 mpg (Hwy) from a 6.2 V8 in a 3200 lbs vette -- representing a 6~7% fuel economy improvement over the current LS3. The 1 point compression bump also gets you ~464hp with no improvement whatsoever in any other respect of the engine (which is unlikely). Hence, an output of about 470 hp, perhaps as much as 500 hp, but no lower than 450hp should be expected. That is, in every respect, competitive with the numbers that competing DOHC V8 or Turbo V6 solutions offer. GM always seems to change something in the tune so I would expect a little change. I just hope they don't detune it. This engine is not even near what it can do. I suspect Cadillac will be the first to get it with over 300 HP at some point. 270/260 is plenty competitive; no need to push the boundaries here. What may be interesting -- for foreign markets at least -- is a high speed 2.1 NA based on the 2.5 block. With the same 88mm pistons, but using the 2.0T crank & rod set that shortens the stroke from 101mm to 86 mm, you get a 2141 cc displacement. More importantly, assuming the same piston speed limits, you end up with a 8200 rpm redline. Such an engine will make about 220 bhp @ 8000 rpm with about 156 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm. Quite a screamer.

Yes you got what I ment. But while power goes up I feel the engines will move down in size. But I have been hearing that the regular Vette may be seeing power in NA form closer to the Grans Sports power now. We may see at least in the Vette form a much higher jump than many think. We don't know if they'll go to a smaller displacement. What we do know is that the 5.5L displacement selected for the race cars have absolutely no bearing on the displacement of the production engines -- that was dictated by the rules. Having said that, given that we are not changing the block size, a lower displacement V8 is not going to be lighter or smaller. It is also unlikely to be substantially more fuel efficient -- given that friction will essentially be the same while aspiration losses between a 5.5 and a 6.2 is minimal, especially with half the cylinders shut off as needed. All we know is that some form of variable timing and direct injection are confirmed. We also know that if nothing changes on the engines except the addition of AFM, DI and a 1 point bump in compression ratio, we can except about 17 mpg (City) / 28 mpg (Hwy) from a 6.2 V8 in a 3200 lbs vette -- representing a 6~7% fuel economy improvement over the current LS3. The numbers can get as high as 18/30 if the Vette sheds a couple of hundred pounds, get to a lower drag number, and/or the engines get independent VVT via a cam-in-cam setup. The 1 point compression bump also gets you ~464hp with no improvement whatsoever in any other respect of the engine (which is unlikely). Hence, an output of about 470 hp, perhaps as much as 500 hp, but no lower than 450hp should be expected. That is, in every respect, competitive with the numbers that competing DOHC V8 or Turbo V6 solutions offer.

Actually, sometimes technology makes engines less refined. I can easily name two... Direct Injection -- all else being equal makes an engine significantly noisier and introduces a gritty groan to the acoustic signature. The Port Injected 3.6 V6 is significantly more refined than the DI 3.6 V6 (prior to the LFX revision) specifically because it doesn't have DI Aluminum blocks -- all else being equal are noisier and less refined than Iron blocks because of Aluminum's lower tensile and higher radiative properties. Two leading contributors to the Cruze's 1.4T perceived refinement is that it has an iron block and doesn't use direct injection! The aluminum blocks are more than supported by other means. In many cases cranks and other parts stiffen the engine more than the iron counter part. The LS bottm end is much siffer than other Chevy V8s in the past. To the contrary the noise of a direct inject is mostly the injector noise that is similar in sound to a Deisel. But to combat that they have insulated the engine more and it is not detectable in most cars. So refinement is a matter of where you stand or in this case sit. It is a case of two steps forward one step back. I think they will quiet the DI engines as time goes on. They will come up with much quieter injectors and High Pressure pumps as the system becomes more common. GM added a nice insualted box to cover my injector pump to kill most of the noise. My worst noise is on start up the inake adjust to get the car warm as quick as possible. My engine temp is up in less than the first mile. The intake makes a loud hollow sound that sounds damn near horrible. But it the door shuts once the temp is up. It too is only heard outside car but not behind the wheel. I will gladly accept these sound to get the MPG and power I have. Actually part of the reason the GM DIs are noisier than say the VW/Audi ones is their choice of solenoid injectors vs Piezo injectors. But even the T-FSI 2.0T GTi is noiser than the old port injected 1.8T ones.

Are you sure you don't have a flex plate with a missing or bent tooth or something?

Actually, sometimes technology makes engines less refined. I can easily name two... Direct Injection -- all else being equal makes an engine significantly noisier and introduces a gritty groan to the acoustic signature. The Port Injected 3.6 V6 is significantly more refined than the DI 3.6 V6 (prior to the LFX revision) specifically because it doesn't have DI Aluminum blocks -- all else being equal are noisier and less refined than Iron blocks because of Aluminum's lower tensile and higher radiative properties. Two leading contributors to the Cruze's 1.4T perceived refinement is that it has an iron block and doesn't use direct injection!

I can help answer that to some degree. The 2.5 will have about 40% lower radiated noise compared to the 2.4 liter Ecotec The 2.5's refinement tuning focuses particularly on low frequency noise below 2 KHz, giving the engine a more refined, more metallic note. The 2.5 features an isolated fuel injection system and an acoustic absorbing cover to mute the Direct Injection clatter The 2.5 uses a structural valve cover, oil pan and front cover to increase engine stiffness and reduce lower frequency acoustics The 2.5 uses a new silent chain drive featuring an inverted toothed chain The new 2.0T basically uses the 2.5 liter block, but has bore reduced from 88 to 86 mm for strength, and stroke reduced from 101 to 86 mm giving a 2.0 liter displacement. It also features a head integrated exhaust collector instead of 4 exhaust ports designed specifically to accommodate the turbocharger. In otherwords, the "new" 2.0T is basically the 2.5 in terms of the designed in refinement enhancing features -- apart from the natural benefits of having a shorter stroke which reduces vibrations exponentially.

Let me put it this way... Some people on this board, and perhaps others like this, will be put off by a Cadillac which uses a Malibu engine. The overwhelming majority of luxury buyers, however, doesn't know which engine is shared with what and don't care one bit even if they do. The only question that matters is whether the 2.5 in the ATS is sufficiently refined, sufficiently quiet and appropriately priced.

Definitely FWD proportions. But who says a less costly Lacrosse may not be an OK addition to the lineup. Yes, we have all been hoping for a G8 redux or some other Zeta adaptations. But at least RWD is here to stay with Caddies, Camaros and Vettes, with a new platform -- the Alpha -- to boot!

I see a lot of 2.5 bashing here, so let me say this... All the arguments about what the base engine in the 3-series is, or what is needed to match whatever the competition has or will have, may be very valid in justifying the absolute need for the 2.0T to be a 270hp engine with refinement and economy that matches or exceeds the competition. They are also valid for an insistance that the ATS 2.0T be priced no higher than the turbo-4 powered 328. They are completely irrelevant with regards to why a utilitarian 2.5 I4 should not be offered. There are plenty of car buyers who -- hopefully -- will subscribe to caddy's new found styling renaissance, compact availability, handling competence and qualitative improvements, but cannot care less if the car can out accelerate an Accord or Camry. Many of these buyers bought 2.4 liter TSXes, IS250s, S40 2.4is and, yes, the 1.8T A4s before they got a boost bump. Some may even be wary -- justified or not -- of turbocharged engines being fussy to maintain and short on lifespan. If getting the sticker under $30K will a chunk of this pie, trading $2000 worth of turbocharging hardware and its associated worries, for $2000 worth of cabin amenities and a better grade of vinyl may just be the perfect trade.

An engine's torque generally peaks when volumetric efficiency peaks. In turbocharged engines, this generally is when boost peaks. However, an engine ALWAYS reach a lower torque figure before it reaches a higher one. In otherwords, If an engine peaks with 260 lb-ft @ say 2500 rpm, it always reaches 90% of that before 2,500 rpm. Hence, if you are citing a range of RPMs where >= 90% of the maximum torque is made, the maximum torque is never realized at the very beginning of that range.

Yes, it does, but not over that wide range of rpms. Note the ">" sign... These days, we frequently see numbers like BMW 335i's 295 lb-ft @ 1200~5000 rpm. That is NOT strictly speaking true. The 335 engine, when dynoed, does not peak until about 2800 rpm and it doesn't peak at 295 lb-ft, more like 340~360 using a 12.5~15% drive train loss conversion factor. This in part explains why 335s are faster than their specs would suggest. However, it is not that BMW is lying, at least not if you take their number to mean "at least" instead of "exactly". You see, the 335's engine does indeed make around 295 lb-ft or more from 1200 rpm to around 5000 rpm. The 1200 rpm part is hard to measure on a dyno, but it is around that much as low as you can measure. BMW advertises the 1200~5000 rpm range -- albeit at a lower torque figure -- because it appears more impressive than 350 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm. In this case, I guess you can say that the ATS 2.0T will have about 234 by 1500 rpm and keep it above that level until a very impressive 5800 rpm -- a whopping 4300 rpm wide plateau. It will have 260 lb-ft somewhere in there; probably around the low 5000s because that is how you get to 270hp (any higher and you'll blow past 270hp, any lower and it wouldn't add up).

But why even bother? The A4, 328i, and C250 all have turbo 4's standard. The ATS should make the thro 4 standard. Who wants a Cadillac with a base model Malibu engine? Even if it has 210 hp who cares, it won't have the 252 lb-ft an A4 has. People who don't care about performance at all?

OK, verdict's out. I was right on the output, wrong on the Turbo-Miller combustion cycle. The new 2.0T will... 270hp @ 5,300 rpm >234 lb-ft @ 1,500 ~ 5,800 rpm 20 psi max. boost pressure w/ Air-to-air aftercooler Otto Cycle No announcements yet regarding the ATS-V question... so we'll just have to wait and see if it gets the Gen V Pushrod V8 or some Bi-turbo Six.

Yes, GM has confirmed that the ATS (and other GM products following that) will see a brand new four cylinder turbocharged engine. No, it will not be related to the 1.4T. The 1.4T block will never accommodate the expected 2.0~2.5 liter displacement, plus it currently lacks provision for DI In fact, the 1.4T itself will be replaced by a series of new 3 and 4 cylinder engines ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 liters with Direct Injection come 2013 The assumption was that the ATS will get the Regal engine (LHU), but it is now confirmed that it will not. Architecturally the new engine will be based on the new 2.5 liter to see duty in the 2012 Malibu. Beyond that details are lacking.

A few reasons... GM's Epsilon, Zeta and Alpha architectures cannot accommodate an an inline 6 -- it's too long There is already a very competitive 3.6 liter DI V6, so an inline six will be major redundancy from a positioning stand point Having an Inline 6 by itself is no guarantee to stealing BMW's business -- just look at the 1st generation IS300 GM's unique strength is in highly efficient and superior performing pushrod V8 designs, they may want to capitalize on that, instead of abandoning it An Inline-4, Inline-6 and V8 have basically nothing in common from an architectural standpoint -- essentially it'll be new engine lines, hence the existence of a new turbo four engine has no bearing on the ease or cost of developing these

Actually, the 2.0T will not be the product with which to go up against the 335. It will go up against the new 328 and 528 with the 240 hp 2.0T engine. The low boost formula however means that it will not match the BMW or Hyundai engines in Torque. It will however exceed them in power, linearity and fuel economy. The 335 will be matched either with the naturally aspirated 3.6 with 315~330 hp or with a 3.0 bi-turbo with about 360 hp. The low torque 2.0T also provides a clear definition between it and the 3.6 or 3.0T. The M3 can be matched with a naturally aspirated pushrod V8 with about ~470 hp. There is also the Bi-turbo V6 option, but getting a 3.0 or 3.6 V6 force fed to the tune of 470 hp -- essentially a Nissan VR38DETT redux -- posses higher reliability, cost and weight penalties than a small, light, large displacement pushrod V8. In the end, if past records are any indicator, there may not even be a fuel economy payback. The German retreat from V8s actually helps GM giving them the V8 luxury sport compact club all to themselves should they stick to the Small Block V8. Believe me, not everyone in C63s and V8 M3s look upon the transition to smaller displacement force induction engines positively.

I am going to make the following predictions with regard to the all new 2.0T engine that will go into the base ATS and GM mid-size vehicles based on logical assumptions of GM's priorities and available technology. Essentially, this engine will mimic the output and torque of the 3.0 liter LF1 V6 while being structured around a design philosophy that minimizes fuel consumption. I predict that they will adopt a Turbo-Miller aspiration cycle engine built on the 2.5 liter block with thicker sleeves. The asymmetrical compression and power strokes maximizes energy recovery per unit fuel burned. Share the same engine block as the 2.5 liter Inline-4 with bore reduced from 88 to 86 mm 86 mm x 101 mm (bore x stroke) yielding 2347 cc static displacement Adopt a very high static compression ratio (~ 12.3:1) Very late closing intake cam profile reduces effective displacement to 2.0 liters and effective compression to ~10.5:1 (aka mild Miller Cycle) Adopt relatively low boost pressures (10~12 psi) Introduces a ball bearing cartridge dual-scroll turbocharger This engine shall be marketed as a 2.0T based on the length of its effective compression stroke (after the intake valves close) even though it is statically a 2.3 liter * * This practice has a precedent in the Mazda Millenia whereby the static displacement of the engine is 3.0 liters although Mazda marketed the car as a 2.3 liter based on the length of the effective compression stroke (after intake valve closure) Maximum Engine Speed: 6350 rpm Estimated Power Output: 270 bhp @ 6200 rpm Estimated Torque Output: 229 lb-ft @ 2200~6200 rpm Estimated Fuel Economy: 23 mpg (City) / 35 mpg (Hwy) in ATS Will find out if I am right in a few weeks...