Detroit 2012: The 3 Engines Of ATS

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.

I meant with the 2.5. Wouldn't dream of pairing it with those engines.

Plus, it would probably sell better than a diesel here. Europe can do what they want.

Lets see we have not see the car, we have not driven the car, we have not sat in the car, we don't even know the HP ratings, we also don't even know the weight and we don't even know if it has e Assist? That sure sounds like enough info to kill this combo before it even gets here.

The eAssist addition does not make a car a V series but it will not kill handling and performance based on the GM cars that have it. If anything the weight may be even more balanced.

I own a 3.6 V6 and a 2.0 turbo........No stress. In fact the turbo has less stress as it does not have to rev near as much to make the power the 3.6 does. The turbo has enough low end torque that I only need to rev it when I need too. The 3.6 I need to rev it to make the power as it has much less low end.

Yes the Turbo make more HP per piston but the LNF also has much better parts and oiling system to better handle the power and stress. What may be tough on one engine will not effect one that is built to handle the greater needs. GM and Lotus did a great job on the upgrades of the LNF. GM did not just bolt on a Turbo as this engine shares little in most parts with the other Eco engines.

Why not put eAssist on the V6? Porsche has start-stop and cylinder deactivation on their V8, other Euro luxury brands are doing similar, the S-class has a hybrid, the 3-series and 5-series will both have hybrid sixes. An Eco model doesn't have to be super slow. This is a Cadillac sports sedan, not a Chevy economy car.

I would support a diesel, because that would provide the fuel economy and solid acceleration that a Cadillac should have, and they need it for Europe and probably China, or else the ATS is a North American car, not a global car. And their top 3 competitors are global cars with diesels.

I'd like to see the diesel here in NA...a diesel ATS w/ a manual would get my attention...rather have a diesel over a hybrid.

So do you all want to see diesels here for performance, fuel economy, or both? BMW, MB, and Audi (and VW) have pretty much evidenced that you can't get both.

Now, I'm not against diesels by any stretch. But I also understand the market here, and I'm of the opinion that if Cadillac does offer a diesel ATS here, they shouldn't expect to move them by the droves.

Also, SMK, I was under the impression that the ActiveHybrids would use the turbo-4s, at least in the 3. Thanks for pointing out that they'll be the straight 6.

Underpowered & overpriced, I can see it coming already - I hope I'm wrong. Sell tons of them GM...

Diesel for power and economy. If it was a diesel 4 then more economy. But a diesel v6 could be very nice for both.

Underpowered & overpriced, I can see it coming already - I hope I'm wrong. Sell tons of them GM...

Gee a good observation of a car we do not know really anything about yet. Once we know the weight, HP and other factors then we can make such claims. None of us here should rush to judgment here before we get all the facts.

Just because they will offer a 2.5 does not mean they will build many unless there is demand.

What many here fail to remember is what they just anounced is only part of the story on this car. Their statment does not cover all the variations we will see in body or powertrain. Buick did not give us the Regal Turbo and GS till after the intro. Time to not get overly dramatic and let GM lay all the cards out and let us see them before we praise or condem this car.

I suspect based on the cars GM has done of late it will fit into the market well and not disapoint as its line expands. Even the critics are finding it hard to bash GM on their new products.

This car is a Cadillac sedan that will be able to be optioned as an affordable luxury car or a Sports Sedan. Years ago GM offered a Chevelle with everything from a I 6 to a 396 the public optioned them as they likes. The I 6 for the most was a slow seller but still people liked that option and some took it. It is nice GM is offering more than just 2 engines and letting the people choose.

It comes down to the point if you don't want a 2.5 then just don't buy it. Check off the V6 or turbo and be happy. Or you can wait for the other options to come.

This is going to be an entry level Cadillac so a base 2.5 should be expected. Not every buyer of this car is expecting or wants a M series killer.

I had expected the 2 ton Nox to be a slug with the 2.4 in it only to find it was a engine package that would make most very happy with performance and MPG. It may not be a race car but it is enough to make most buyers happy. Just count the tail pipes and most on the road today are not dues with a V6.

The Equinox/Terrain need the 2.5L as base engine, stat!

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).

Did they benchmark the S/C 3800 for that engine? Maybe GM should bring it back.

You clearly haven't driven each one back to back. The 3.6 is shift happy because it often has less torque than the 2.0T and the torque always is at a much higher, stressful, RPM than the 2.0T no matter which version of the 3.6 we're talking.

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.

2.5 liter four is what the Camry and Altima have standard. Those are $22k cars, a Cadillac should have a lot better than that. Cadillac isn't another GM brand on the level of Chevy and Buick, it should be well above them and above Acura, Volvo, and Lincoln. The bar has to be set high.

Secondly, BMW can sell 3-series on reputation alone. Cadillac does not have that luxury (no pun intended) with the ATS. They have to convince buyers who by default go to the BMW dealer to give the ATS a look. The ATS needs strong attributes, not cheap engine, cheap price if they want it to stand up to the Germans.

There is a clue in the description... naturally aspirated v. turbocharged. Turbochargers put an engine under stress that naturally aspirated engines aren't subject to.

The Equinox/Terrain need the 2.5L as base engine, stat!

With sales as they are the public as a whole never had a problem with the 2.4. The coming 2.5 will only make them better.

Stress is relative to the way the engine is built. See the oldsmobile diesel for example. No turbo yet way too much stress for the head bolts *as built*. The designers of this 2.0t walked into the room knowing this was going to be a turbo charged engine and designed accordingly.

Or do you really think that all of those million mile turbo diesel big rigs only survived the stress of the turbo because of xanax....

There is a clue in the description... naturally aspirated v. turbocharged. Turbochargers put an engine under stress that naturally aspirated engines aren't subject to.

It is clear they call it a Turbocharged engine vs NA because it is built to a higher standard. The engine has a forge crank, Stronger block andf head, Sodium valves, Forged Rods, Upgraded pistons, better oiling, etc

The stock NA pistons are good to 250 HP the LNF are good to 400 HP. The LNFstock head gasket is good to 500 HP, rockers till 700 HP, head casting well over 900 HP over. I could go on but I think the point is made.

The point is the Turbo engine is not just a NA engine with a turbo slapped on. The LNF was upgraded and built with the intent to take more stress and provide more power reliably.

GM learned their lesson with the old 3.8Turbo and that you can't cheap out and just bolt on a Turbo and expect it to last. Today they are building these engines to a higher standard that has proven reliable and effective for many many miles. Many of the HHR SS and Cobalts are already seeing well over 100,000 miles with no issues.

The argument you have in favor of the 3.6 is that it is a more quiet engine as long as you don't rev it. But to get it to go you do need to rev it. We will soon see a Turbo Vs coming too. The fact is it will be a engine designed and engineered to deal with the stresses of a Turbcharger.

The bottom line as long as an engine is designed, built to deal with the extra power and stress of a turbo there is no issue.

GM in the past has done many things right like the SBC but they also have under engineered and taken short cuts on many engines and paid the price for it. The Vega liners, Olds Diesels, early 3.38 Turbo engines. the OHC Turbo, Quad 4, Turbo 301, The cross fire injection, etc. From what I have seen with their new engines they have so far shown they have learned and are not repeating the same under built engines as they did in the past.

Add to this the better oils, oiling systems and cooling systems we have today and technology has also made them all less of an issue. These engines are warrantied for 100,000 miles and are not the time bombs they once were.

I only have seen a issue with some service departments not able to deal with some of the new Turbo systems do to the lack of training. My dealer has several techs that are dedicated to Turbo gas and Diesel engines and has been A1 in service.

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).

Did they benchmark the S/C 3800 for that engine? Maybe GM should bring it back.

Like the W body let the old girl go.

I may be the only one here that owns a 3.6, 2.0 Turbo and a Series III 3800 SC and have them in the garage right now. All are good engines but age has taken over the 3800. Like the W body the 3800 SC has done it 's job but is well past the time it should have been asked of it and needed to be put to rest.

We will see engines get smaller but power will be as good and better than the engines they replace. Turbo's will be offered on almost all models in some form.

The 2.0t and 3.6 are appropriate in the ATS... the 2.5 is not.

I owned a 1.8t in a Volkswagen GTI, model year 2000. It was underrated at 150 hp (closer to 180, I understand). I wonder how those groundbreaking modern turbo 4s have held up over the last decade.

You don't know what the spec of the 2.5 in the ATS will be. So how can you say that it isn't appropriate? Don't pre-judge.

Edit: The 2.5 has something over a 7,000 rpm red line. I think there is more to this engine than we already know.

I owned a 1.8t in a Volkswagen GTI, model year 2000. It was underrated at 150 hp (closer to 180, I understand). I wonder how those groundbreaking modern turbo 4s have held up over the last decade.

You know what? I've test-driven Passats from that same time period, one with the 1.8T and one with the 2.8L V6. The turbo-4 definitely felt faster.

I'm glad I'm not crazy.

Bottom line is... Cadillac needs engines that are perceived as "better" than Chevrolets and Buicks. Cadillac is doing what Lincoln has done for decades... dropped unchanged Ford engines in their so-called luxury cars, with very few exceptions. With the demise of the Cadillac V8 (after what, 80 years?), Cadillacs are running engines that are in the cheapest GM cars made. That can be construed as heresy in a top-tier luxury make. It's just not done by top-tier makes.

BMW and M-B don't have lower class cars to share mechanicals with, that's one thing that makes them seen as superior. Cadillac lost that important aspect when the Cadillac V8 was killed.

The V6 in the E-Class and S-class is the same V6 in the Sprinter.

So I guess it'd be cool if the ATS gets the 4.3 from the Savanna..... just saying.

sigh... oh Lord.

The Avalon has a better engine than the IS and the same engine as the ES.

The Maxima has a better engine than the base G. Even the Altima can be optioned with a better engine than the base G.

The 4.2 Liter currently in the Jaguar XF is just a variant of of 3.9 the Ford Thunderbird from years ago.

The Audi A4 uses the same 2.0T as the Beetle I was just driving. All Audi did was turn the boost up a bit.

All of Mercedes' work vehicles use one or other of Benz's engines from a taxi Premium German Luxury Sedan.

Bentley uses the W engine from the People's Car Volkswagen Phaeton.

Can we drop the double standard for Cadillac please?

Lexus is not a top-tier luxury brand. It has no history whatsoever.

Infiniti is not a top-tier luxury brand. It has no history whatsoever.

Jaguar was owned by Ford. The small V8 used in the LS and Thunderbird (NOT a mainstream Ford) was a RARE case of exclusivity.

Audi's 2.0t is longitudinally situated IIRC in addition to any other modifications.

Sprinter's diesel V6 is suited to it.

The Phaeton was not a mainstream Volkswagen, it was, and is, an anomaly.

So Audi gets a pass for turning the engine 90 degrees? Cadillac is turning the 2.5 90 degrees as well.

double standard yet again.

2.0t and 3.6... maybe in a pinch, post-bankruptcy. But 2.5? Really?

In 1975 Cadillac came out with their first "small" car, the Seville. It was powered by a 350 CID V8 (admittedly of Oldsmobile origin, but with FI, IIRC). It was NOT powered by a 250 CID Stovebolt Six out of a Nova.

Back then, Cadillac was higher, if not at the top of the luxury car field, save for RR, which was actually stuck in time about a decade behind, technologically, as a result of the devastation of WWII and an old-world culture. M-B and BMW were oddballs then.

This is the ultimate outcome of a beancounter mentality, using the same engine in a Chevrolet Malibu and an ATS. Or an Impala and an XTS.

The 2.5 will have more power than in the Malibu, most likely over 210, which puts it in the same starting class as the IS250 (204 hp), G25 (201 hp), A4 (210 hp), TSX (don't care enough to look it up), and C250 (201 hp from a stressed out turbo charged 1.8T). Only the 3-series will have substantially more HP, but the base price of the 3-series puts you into 2.0T or even 3.6 territory, so if you were actually cross shopping the two, the 2.5 isn't even going to be on the radar.

There are a lot of double standards going on around here lately, and I really don't like it.

2.0t and 3.6... maybe in a pinch, post-bankruptcy. But 2.5? Really?

In 1975 Cadillac came out with their first "small" car, the Seville. It was powered by a 350 CID V8 (admittedly of Oldsmobile origin, but with FI, IIRC). It was NOT powered by a 250 CID Stovebolt Six out of a Nova.

Back then, Cadillac was higher, if not at the top of the luxury car field, save for RR, which was actually stuck in time about a decade behind, technologically, as a result of the devastation of WWII and an old-world culture. M-B and BMW were oddballs then.

This is the ultimate outcome of a beancounter mentality, using the same engine in a Chevrolet Malibu and an ATS. Or an Impala and an XTS.

Well, it's not 1975 anymore...in 2011, GM can't afford to have exclusive engines for Cadillac...unfortunate, but that's just the way it is. At least the ATS will have an exclusive platform for some window of time, and Cadillac still has an exclusive platform in the Sigma. And the Chevy 250 6 was not a 'stovebolt', the Stovebolt was a nickname for the Chevy 6 from a much earlier era..

Still hard for me wrap my head around the idea of a 4cyl Cadillac, but such it is in today's market. I doubt if many potential ATS buyers will remember the FWD/4cyl $h!box Cimmaron.

Bottom line is... Cadillac needs engines that are perceived as "better" than Chevrolets and Buicks. Cadillac is doing what Lincoln has done for decades... dropped unchanged Ford engines in their so-called luxury cars, with very few exceptions. With the demise of the Cadillac V8 (after what, 80 years?), Cadillacs are running engines that are in the cheapest GM cars made. That can be construed as heresy in a top-tier luxury make. It's just not done by top-tier makes.

BMW and M-B don't have lower class cars to share mechanicals with, that's one thing that makes them seen as superior. Cadillac lost that important aspect when the Cadillac V8 was killed.

Agreed, and not just "perceived better" but Cadillac needs engines that actually are better.

2.0t and 3.6... maybe in a pinch, post-bankruptcy. But 2.5? Really?

In 1975 Cadillac came out with their first "small" car, the Seville. It was powered by a 350 CID V8 (admittedly of Oldsmobile origin, but with FI, IIRC). It was NOT powered by a 250 CID Stovebolt Six out of a Nova.

Back then, Cadillac was higher, if not at the top of the luxury car field, save for RR, which was actually stuck in time about a decade behind, technologically, as a result of the devastation of WWII and an old-world culture. M-B and BMW were oddballs then.

This is the ultimate outcome of a beancounter mentality, using the same engine in a Chevrolet Malibu and an ATS. Or an Impala and an XTS.

Well, it's not 1975 anymore...in 2011, GM can't afford to have exclusive engines for Cadillac...unfortunate, but that's just the way it is. At least the ATS will have an exclusive platform for some window of time, and Cadillac still has an exclusive platform in the Sigma. And the Chevy 250 6 was not a 'stovebolt', the Stovebolt was a nickname for the Chevy 6 from a much earlier era..

Still hard for me wrap my head around the idea of a 4cyl Cadillac, but such it is in today's market. I doubt if many potential ATS buyers will remember the FWD/4cyl $h!box Cimmaron.

Is it hard to wrap your head around a 1.8T 4-cylinder C-class? Or a BMW Z4 4-cylinder?

In fact, it is Toyota and Nissan getting left behind by using 2.5 liter V6es instead of moving to Turbo-4s

The ATS is no Cimarron, by any stretch. It's gonna be a heck of a nice car. I just hope it is perceived as such by the customers Cadillac is hoping to attract... Chevy motor and all.

Ha... funny, trying to spin a turbo 4 as superior to a V6...

Bottom line is... Cadillac needs engines that are perceived as "better" than Chevrolets and Buicks. Cadillac is doing what Lincoln has done for decades... dropped unchanged Ford engines in their so-called luxury cars, with very few exceptions. With the demise of the Cadillac V8 (after what, 80 years?), Cadillacs are running engines that are in the cheapest GM cars made. That can be construed as heresy in a top-tier luxury make. It's just not done by top-tier makes.

BMW and M-B don't have lower class cars to share mechanicals with, that's one thing that makes them seen as superior. Cadillac lost that important aspect when the Cadillac V8 was killed.

I suspect BMW will be (if not already) sharing engines w/ Mini...and their upcoming FWD stuff will share w/ Mini. A big part of the BMW/M-B superiority is the RWD..(M-B only has low-end FWD models, and not in the US yet--unfortunately, both BMW and M-B are going to polluting their lines with FWD inferiority soon..

The V6 in the E-Class and S-class is the same V6 in the Sprinter.

Tuned differently, and the Sprinter is more expensive than an ATS, CTS, or SRX. So it isn't like Mercedes is taking a low end engine, it is the engine out of a $40k+ commercial vehicle.

And Jaguar doesn't make the 4.2 V8 anymore.

The 2.5 will have more power than in the Malibu, most likely over 210, which puts it in the same starting class as the IS250 (204 hp), G25 (201 hp), A4 (210 hp), TSX (don't care enough to look it up), and C250 (201 hp from a stressed out turbo charged 1.8T). Only the 3-series will have substantially more HP, but the base price of the 3-series puts you into 2.0T or even 3.6 territory, so if you were actually cross shopping the two, the 2.5 isn't even going to be on the radar.

There are a lot of double standards going on around here lately, and I really don't like it.

The TSX may get discontinued though, and Cadillac shouldn't be competing with entry level Acuras anyway. The IS250 and G25 at least have a V6, so the engine would likely be more refined than an inline 4. So the power may be the same, but the delivery and smoothness may favor the IS250 and G25.

And I would hope a Cadillac does have substantially more power than a Malibu, it is Cadillac! Not too long ago a Malibu had 150 hp and a Cadillac had 300 hp. Now we are down to 190 hp vs 200 hp, and the scary thing is we are comparing the ATS to a Malibu. That thought shouldn't even enter one's thought process. The Cadillac should be so much better than the Chevy no one even thinks about it.

To me, a 2.0T is the engine for fuel efficient minded buyers that don't care about power. The V6 I'd like to see supercharged, especially for use in the CTS. And 300 hp might be fun, but 350 hp is more fun. Everyone likes more fun.

aannnd... yet again you ignore the 2.0T Audi and 1.8T Merc....

double standard......

Double Standard of the World?

aannnd... yet again you ignore the 2.0T Audi and 1.8T Merc....

double standard......

Mercedes and Audi (and BMW) have a turbo 4 standard. Cadillac should have a Turbo 4 standard. Mercedes put a weak engine in the C-class (it does have 229 lb-ft though) , doesn't mean Cadillac has to put a weak engine with even less torque in the ATS. The A4 has 258 lb-ft of torque, the 2.5 liter NA 4-banger isn't going to have that.

I don't have a double standard, the 3 cars Cadillac is attempting to go after all use a turbo 4 for the base model, 2 of them have approximately 260 lb-ft of torque. GM has a turbo 4 with approximately 260 lb-ft of torque, why not make it the base engine.

Also Mercedes and BMW have their customer base and Mercedes has high owner loyalty. The ATS is the new entrant, it needs to offer something better than what all the others have to stand out from the pack. This is a problem the Lexus IS has, it is boring, does nothing that the rest of the class didn't already do, and it is easy to forget about it.

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.
  

I'll point out that the CTS still sells with the 3.0 V6.

The 2.5 liter to me seems there to sell to rental companies, so I would be put off by that and the potential for it to drag down resale values of the higher level ATS. Although on the plus side, for someone looking to buy a used ATS, it could be a good deal on a V6 model.

I'll point out that the CTS still sells with the 3.0 V6.

They should dump that too. 2.0T can make the same power, but offer better mileage. The A6 and 5-series do turbo 4's, so the CTS certainly could. I'd like to see a supercharged 3.6 liter V6 offered in addition to the regular 3.6.

The 2.5 liter to me seems there to sell to rental companies, so I would be put off by that and the potential for it to drag down resale values of the higher level ATS.

"Mm-mmmm, rentals.....," said mercedees. "Eat 'em up, yum!"

Nothing wrong w/ rentals....I've rented a CTS and an STS from the Enterprise store about a mile from my house...

Mercedes is set to sell over 1.25 million cars this year, a record for them. And they are spending $5 billion to expand the factories in China and Alabama to prepare for future growth. They are the model of what others want to be. If Cadillac wants to be like Mercedes, and not like Lincoln and Acura, they had better bring out the big guns on every product and plan globally.

mercedeees = mass market mainstream, made easier by striving with clenched teeth for "a car (& cargo van) for every purse & purpose". Go mercedees!!!

Me, I'm hoping they realize their proclaimed goal of 'a mercedees in every driveway', now THAT would be special.

I just hope I don't get flak from my neighbors when there's none in my driveway...

Mercedes is set to sell over 1.25 million cars this year, a record for them. And they are spending $5 billion to expand the factories in China and Alabama to prepare for future growth. They are the model of what others want to be. If Cadillac wants to be like Mercedes, and not like Lincoln and Acura, they had better bring out the big guns on every product and plan globally.

If Cadillac wants to be like Mercedes, they better be developing a STV (Savanna Touring Van) and fleeting the CTS and XTS out to Taxi companies.

Edit: Oh yeah, and they'll need their own version of the Spark and Granite. Maybe they could reuse the tooling from Hummer to make their "old military vehicle turned luxury" SUV. And a garbage truck..... GOTTA make a garbage truck to compete with Benz.

If they wanted to be like Mercedes they would buy up a successful company under the pretense of "merger of equals", strip the company for all its worth, then sell it to some private equity douches.

After which point they would then start building increasingly ugly cars. It's a German thing (except Audis they all just look the same).

I have a compelling thought: lets wait and see until the car is actually unveiled and reviewed before passing final judgement on it.