Detroit 2012: The 3 Engines Of ATS

Glad to see the 3.6L in there.

The Turbo will finally get a chassis that will let it show what it can really do.

I now really don't expect a V8 in the V but I still expect a lot of power.

Naturally aspirated 2.5L sounds like a fail. Hope the 2.0T improves on what's offered on the Opels, Buicks, and Saabs, as they've been generally underperforming engines with lousy NVH.

Can't understand why they would put the 2.5L in there unless they are mating it to a 2-mode hybrid.

If its small and light I don't see the problem, I'm interested in the 2.0T. Sounds like the best of the engines to me.

2.5 N/A To cater EU Market. Infiniti and Lexus have the smaller displacement 2.5 with around 200hp. I think Cadillac is covering the entire spectrum.

I think the 2.5 might see a hp bump for the ATS.

I think the 2.5 might see a hp bump for the ATS.

GM usually bumps the power when they turn their engines 90 degrees, so I agree.

By how much do you think?

I just looked up competitors.

The ATS will be matched only by the C-Class in the number of mainstream engine offerings (three). BMW, Infiniti, and Lexus only offer two, and Audi only has one.

I assume they will also have a diesel for Europe.

I don't like the idea of the 2.5 liter, that belongs in Chevy, not a Cadillac. If they want a 3rd engine, it should be a turbo diesel 4-cylinder because they need it in foreign markets anyway. I do like the 2.0T and V6 choices. Although I think the V6 needs more torque to set itself apart from the 2.0T and compete better with the 335i.

Problem is Cadillac is stuck with a 6-speed transmission while Infiniti, Mercedes and BMW have 7 or 8. So will the fuel economy and acceleration numbers be able to match up what that class has to offer.

This new 2.0T has less horsepower and torque than a Hyundai Sonata Turbo, so I hope the tail pipe emissions from the ATS can cure birth defects in baby seals.

I wonder how those poor saps at Acura manage with only 5 forward gears?

I wonder how those poor saps at Acura manage with only 5 forward gears?

They don't, their brand is folding up and moving down market.

Well the Dodge Dart is going to have a nine-speed ZF transmission. Shame BMW is "stuck" with a lousy seven or eight, when an economy car... from DODGE... will have them beat by two cogs.

What kind of rinky dink operation are they running? Get with the times, Germany.

BMW has 8-speed ZF, Mercedes though makes their own transmission and will have a 9-speed by they time the Dodge Dart does. But kudos to Dodge, it will be the Dart and the S-class ushering in the era of 9 forward gears. Although Hyundai has already begun working on a 10-speed transmission so the Book of Genesis may be rewritten to "in the beginning, there was a V8 and RWD and then God said "let their 10 forward gears" and there were 10 forward gears.

cadillac had better be light, otherwise the extra power is for naught vs. the competition

I don't like the idea of the 2.8 liter, that belongs in a Mini, not a BMW.

I don't like the idea of the 2.8 liter, that belongs in a Mini, not a BMW.

Huh? The biggest MINI engine is a 1.6, albeit a turbocharged one.

I am not sayin' the 2.0t won't be fairly decent, I'm just sayin' I like understressed engines in my luxury autos.

The 2.0 is not by any means stressed with the torque it will have. It will perform fine and run well into the six figures in miles with no issue. It is only now going to be in platform that it deserves.

I don't like the idea of the 2.5 liter, that belongs in Chevy, not a Cadillac. If they want a 3rd engine, it should be a turbo diesel 4-cylinder because they need it in foreign markets anyway. I do like the 2.0T and V6 choices. Although I think the V6 needs more torque to set itself apart from the 2.0T and compete better with the 335i.

Problem is Cadillac is stuck with a 6-speed transmission while Infiniti, Mercedes and BMW have 7 or 8. So will the fuel economy and acceleration numbers be able to match up what that class has to offer.

This new 2.0T has less horsepower and torque than a Hyundai Sonata Turbo, so I hope the tail pipe emissions from the ATS can cure birth defects in baby seals.

The Hyundai is not an issue since this will not be the highest powered engine in this car as time moves on. This turbo is more like the 220 Turbo in the Regal. It is the better engine not the best to be offered.

As for tranny GM does transmissions better than anyone. I am sure this car will be right no matter if it has 6-8 or 10 gears. Many of their six speeds now most people could not tell what gear they are in as they as so smooth. Even my 6 speed in the Malbu will suprise me on where it is at when I pull it into manual.

European POV: no diesel, no sales...

Changing the LFX from transverse to longitudinal takes the power from 305 to 317. So I would expect the 2.5 to be over 200 in the ATS.

Changing the LFX from transverse to longitudinal takes the power from 305 to 317. So I would expect the 2.5 to be over 200 in the ATS.

Why just 317 from the LFX when it makes 323 in the Camaro?

I would agree, and hope that you're right, on the 2.5.

Changing the LFX from transverse to longitudinal takes the power from 305 to 317. So I would expect the 2.5 to be over 200 in the ATS.

Why just 317 from the LFX when it makes 323 in the Camaro?

I would agree, and hope that you're right, on the 2.5.

Probably different intake or exhaust..and the Camaro is probably 300-500lbs heavier, so it needs more power..

^ Please tell me how a <2% power bump help offset 8 - 12% weight gain? And why cannot the same changes in intake and exhaust be employed to lighter car?

I hope they eventually replace the 3.6L LFX V6 with a DI Turbo 3.0L V6 with 330-350HP. That would put out more Torque then the LFX and better compete with the present and future competitors! Eventually Cadillac should be all DI Turbo across their range.

^ Please tell me how a <2% power bump help offset 8 - 12% weight gain? And why cannot the same changes in intake and exhaust be employed to lighter car?

Was just speculation...it just seems for most engines, there are power rating variations for different models.

I like these engine choices. It'll be interesting to see the take rate on the turbo 4 vs the V6.

We're still waiting on an engine option for the V, so I wouldn't start complaining about the lack of a diesel engine just yet.

I am not sayin' the 2.0t won't be fairly decent, I'm just sayin' I like understressed engines in my luxury autos.

There is nothing stressed about the 2.0T, even the current one has more torque than a Northstar at a lower RPM.

Drop the 2.5 now. Who needs a Cadillac with under 200hp? Epic Fail for GM if they make the 2.5 the base engine. If they do decide to include it, they should make it an option (and upcharge) for the dipsh*ts that insist on having it!

I am not sayin' the 2.0t won't be fairly decent, I'm just sayin' I like understressed engines in my luxury autos.

Stressed? Hardly. It appears it will make nearly as much horsepower while having a flatter torque curve than the V6 being an electronically controlled turbo, get better fuel economy, and best of all weigh less resulting in better wight distribution and chassis balance.

I am in ambivalence with the 2.5. In someways it represents beancountering, but at the same time, I see a smaller lo-po engine with emphasis on "fuel economy" a selling point. May be GM should have employed an Opel 1.6T and set itself apart from Buick and Chevy brethren.

SoCal - it will likely be over 200hp for the ATS. Turning the engine 90 degrees allows for better breathing.

Additionally, this is an all new engine, I believe there was some power left on the table when they announced the spec for the Malibu. Even the old 2.4 liter Ecotec could do 180hp with direct injection. They can get more than that from a brand new engine with DI.

Drop the 2.5 now. Who needs a Cadillac with under 200hp? Epic Fail for GM if they make the 2.5 the base engine. If they do decide to include it, they should make it an option (and upcharge) for the dipsh*ts that insist on having it!

100% agree and this is my favorite post of the year. The engine doesn't belong and l love the idea of upcharging for it.

SoCal - it will likely be over 200hp for the ATS. Turning the engine 90 degrees allows for better breathing.

Additionally, this is an all new engine, I believe there was some power left on the table when they announced the spec for the Malibu. Even the old 2.4 liter Ecotec could do 180hp with direct injection. They can get more than that from a brand new engine with DI.

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.

SoCal - it will likely be over 200hp for the ATS. Turning the engine 90 degrees allows for better breathing.

Additionally, this is an all new engine, I believe there was some power left on the table when they announced the spec for the Malibu. Even the old 2.4 liter Ecotec could do 180hp with direct injection. They can get more than that from a brand new engine with DI.

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.

The 2.5 will be for the entry level model I assume so they can keep the starting price at 29,995.

I agree the 2.5 is there to serve as a low ball price car for marketing. It will also serve well overseas where most people have no issue with small engines like this.

As for power we have yet to see much on the improvments they have planned for the new Eco engine line. 200 HP should not be a hard market to hit.

As for the V6 rating the exhaust has often been pointed to as the difference. Or like the Camaro engine it had the extra power but GM listed it lower. For all we know they may all be the same in the RWD cars but they just add and subtract a few HP to make it look different.

We should be seeing the Turbo DI VVT V6 engines soon. These should prove to be interesting.

SoCal - it will likely be over 200hp for the ATS. Turning the engine 90 degrees allows for better breathing.

Additionally, this is an all new engine, I believe there was some power left on the table when they announced the spec for the Malibu. Even the old 2.4 liter Ecotec could do 180hp with direct injection. They can get more than that from a brand new engine with DI.

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.

The 2.5 will be for the entry level model I assume so they can keep the starting price at 29,995.

Again, it is a Cadillac, cheap isn't supposed to be what they are selling. 328i starts at $34,600, the C250 starts at $34,800. I'd say $34,700 would be a nice starting point for the 2.0T and dump the 2.5.

SoCal - it will likely be over 200hp for the ATS. Turning the engine 90 degrees allows for better breathing.

Additionally, this is an all new engine, I believe there was some power left on the table when they announced the spec for the Malibu. Even the old 2.4 liter Ecotec could do 180hp with direct injection. They can get more than that from a brand new engine with DI.

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.

The 2.5 will be for the entry level model I assume so they can keep the starting price at 29,995.

Again, it is a Cadillac, cheap isn't supposed to be what they are selling. 328i starts at $34,600, the C250 starts at $34,800. I'd say $34,700 would be a nice starting point for the 2.0T and dump the 2.5.

It's GM though..if they don't undercut the competition, people will whine....it also has to compete w/ the 1-series and the upcoming A-class...

SoCal - it will likely be over 200hp for the ATS. Turning the engine 90 degrees allows for better breathing.

Additionally, this is an all new engine, I believe there was some power left on the table when they announced the spec for the Malibu. Even the old 2.4 liter Ecotec could do 180hp with direct injection. They can get more than that from a brand new engine with DI.

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?

People who don't care about performance at all?

If they don't care at all about performance then they aren't looking at, or shouldn't be buying, a Cadillac sports sedan. Why not then put a 2.0T in a Corvette because I am sure there are people that don't care about speed and like how the Corvette looks would buy it. Plus 270 hp in a 3300 lb car is good enough so maybe GM should do that too.

People who don't care about performance at all?

If they don't care at all about performance then they aren't looking at, or shouldn't be buying, a Cadillac sports sedan. Why not then put a 2.0T in a Corvette because I am sure there are people that don't care about speed and like how the Corvette looks would buy it. Plus 270 hp in a 3300 lb car is good enough so maybe GM should do that too.

So why is the 328i/528i traditionally the most-visible BMW? They're definitely not the performers of the family. Also, as another example, everyone pretty much agrees that of all the Acura TSX models, the 2.4 with the 6MT is the way to go. (Yes, Acura is fading into irrelevance, but work with me here.) Who's to say that the 2.5 couldn't be comparable to that (but more sporting since it's RWD)?

In favor of your point, though, I would hope that if the 2.5 isn't substantially upgraded for Cadillac duty, it should be rather hard to find on lots.

The 328i until the 2012 model was a 230 hp six cylinder, the new turbo 4 has 240 hp (and 260 lb-ft @ 1250 rpm). And it is the cheapest BMW sedan that is why you see it the most. So if for 2013, the benchmark car has a 2.0 liter turbo with 260 lb-ft, why would Cadillac match up with an engine that belongs in a base model Malibu/Sonta/Camry. This is the sort of thinking that keeps Cadillac chasing the Germans, everything they build has a compromise in it.

The 328i until the 2012 model was a 230 hp six cylinder, the new turbo 4 has 240 hp (and 260 lb-ft @ 1250 rpm). And it is the cheapest BMW sedan that is why you see it the most. So if for 2013, the benchmark car has a 2.0 liter turbo with 260 lb-ft, why would Cadillac match up with an engine that belongs in a base model Malibu/Sonta/Camry. This is the sort of thinking that keeps Cadillac chasing the Germans, everything they build has a compromise in it.

The BMW 128, though, still has a 230hp 6 cyl in the US...don't know if it will get the 4 cyl for 2013, but the ATS will compete with the 1 series also (sort of, since a 4dr 1 series isn't offered).

The 328i until the 2012 model was a 230 hp six cylinder, the new turbo 4 has 240 hp (and 260 lb-ft @ 1250 rpm). And it is the cheapest BMW sedan that is why you see it the most. So if for 2013, the benchmark car has a 2.0 liter turbo with 260 lb-ft, why would Cadillac match up with an engine that belongs in a base model Malibu/Sonta/Camry. This is the sort of thinking that keeps Cadillac chasing the Germans, everything they build has a compromise in it.

The BMW 128, though, still has a 230hp 6 cyl in the US...don't know if it will get the 4 cyl for 2013, but the ATS will compete with the 1 series also (sort of, since a 4dr 1 series isn't offered).

But why does Cadillac even care about that car, it hardly sells. The new 1-series M is said to be a really fun sports car, but it is more of a true sports car like a 370Z (but more expensive). It is a niche product, not mainstream and the ATS should only be concerned with the 3-series, C-class, and A4. That is where the sales volume is.

Cadillac also needs younger buyers in a bad way. 74% of CTS buyers are over age 65, and that is supposed to be the younger person's Cadillac. Time to scare off the old people with sheer performance.

The 328i until the 2012 model was a 230 hp six cylinder, the new turbo 4 has 240 hp (and 260 lb-ft @ 1250 rpm). And it is the cheapest BMW sedan that is why you see it the most. So if for 2013, the benchmark car has a 2.0 liter turbo with 260 lb-ft, why would Cadillac match up with an engine that belongs in a base model Malibu/Sonta/Camry. This is the sort of thinking that keeps Cadillac chasing the Germans, everything they build has a compromise in it.

Fair enough. What would you say, then, if that engine came standard with eAssist? (no one's really discussed it, but it is a possibility)

But why does Cadillac even care about that car, it hardly sells. The new 1-series M is said to be a really fun sports car, but it is more of a true sports car like a 370Z (but more expensive). It is a niche product, not mainstream and the ATS should only be concerned with the 3-series, C-class, and A4. That is where the sales volume is.

Cadillac also needs younger buyers in a bad way. 74% of CTS buyers are over age 65, and that is supposed to be the younger person's Cadillac. Time to scare off the old people with sheer performance.

1M is discontinued after spring of 2012.

And that 74% applies only to the CTS Sportwagon. The CTS line as a whole sees about 48%.

The 3.6L is certainly understressed compared to the turned-up 2.0, that much is blatantly obvious.

The 328i until the 2012 model was a 230 hp six cylinder, the new turbo 4 has 240 hp (and 260 lb-ft @ 1250 rpm). And it is the cheapest BMW sedan that is why you see it the most. So if for 2013, the benchmark car has a 2.0 liter turbo with 260 lb-ft, why would Cadillac match up with an engine that belongs in a base model Malibu/Sonta/Camry. This is the sort of thinking that keeps Cadillac chasing the Germans, everything they build has a compromise in it.

Fair enough. What would you say, then, if that engine came standard with eAssist? (no one's really discussed it, but it is a possibility)

Still no, make eAssist optional on the 2.0T and V6. Sports sedan: performance first, fuel economy second.

What does this creepy e-assist thing do to weight distribution? Curb weight?