Spying: Cadillac ATS-V Plays Cat & Mouse With An M3

Nice to see the ATS-V out and about... Wonder if a V-Sport ATS is in the cards as well...

I figured once BMW announced the M3 would get a 6 cylinder, that the ATS-V would also. The CTS V-sport powertrain is my guess, but you wonder if 420 hp is enough. It will be if it can beat the M3 in the corners, but the M3 since the day it was born has won in the corners.

i am going to guess twin turbo....

I figured once BMW announced the M3 would get a 6 cylinder, that the ATS-V would also. The CTS V-sport powertrain is my guess, but you wonder if 420 hp is enough. It will be if it can beat the M3 in the corners, but the M3 since the day it was born has won in the corners.

It all depends on how much GM can squeeze ouf of the TTV6, I guess... If they can match or surpass whatever the expectation is for the NG M3 with the ATS-V, and then offer a detuned TTV6 making some 380bhp-400bhp in a possible ATS V-Sport, the only issue might be engine build cost and how that affects the unit margin on the V-Sport...

Who says the TTv6 will only have 420 hp.

It is so easy to add boost to today's engines with a simple flash and map sensores.

I would still take a V8 over V 6 any day. Small engines especially turbo charged other than Subaru, just do not seem to have had a long life in the US that I have seen.

ZL-1, on 05 Jun 2013 - 18:58, said:

smk4565, on 05 Jun 2013 - 09:09, said:

I figured once BMW announced the M3 would get a 6 cylinder, that the ATS-V would also. The CTS V-sport powertrain is my guess, but you wonder if 420 hp is enough. It will be if it can beat the M3 in the corners, but the M3 since the day it was born has won in the corners.

It all depends on how much GM can squeeze ouf of the TTV6, I guess... If they can match or surpass whatever the expectation is for the NG M3 with the ATS-V, and then offer a detuned TTV6 making some 380bhp-400bhp in a possible ATS V-Sport, the only issue might be engine build cost and how that affects the unit margin on the V-Sport...

The problem with a turbo V6 -- or turbocharged anything -- is that optimal power delivery for a RWD super sedan requires that the engine be operated with very low boost (less than 10 psi), high compression (>10:1) and the consequently minimal lag and exceptional responsiveness. However, such a tune (very similar to what BMW uses on the 3.0L Inline-6 Turbos/Bi-turbos) is only good for about 360 hp. However, for a 3.6L engine to be competitive in output, it has to operate at about 16~18 psi of boost. A Supercharger offers a compromise between the two trading fuel efficiency for the elimination of turbine induced response lag. The more you squeeze out of a V6TT the worse the driving characteristics of the power train. At about 22 psi you get to about 500 hp and something that spools like a Lancer Evolution.

Another thing is that while it is easy to say that cost shouldn't matter. Reality is that it does -- a lot -- when you are trying to slot the ATS-V in a price bracket under that of the current CTS-V ($65K). It's hard to make the ATS-V a cheaper car when you saddle it with a more expensive engine. You cannot get the ATS-V under $60K unless you drop the two turbos (or a supercharger) and the air-to-water after cooler circuit. Even if you are comfortable with a $65K ATS-V, the savings on the engine front easily equals an active rear differential, a carbon fiber roof panel and magnetic ride control combined. Hence, there's always a trade off.

It really comes down to this...

• ATS-V with 3.6L DOHC V6 Bi-turbo (LF3) @ 420 hp / 430 ft-lbs with some turbo lag, a little bit more weight up front and a $65K price tag.
• ATS-V with 6.2L Pushrod V8 Naturally Aspirated (LT1) @ 460 hp / 465 lb-ft (SAE) with no turbo lag, a little less weight up front and a $60K price tag.

My guess is the ATS-V bases around $60k, they'll keep it lower than the M3 because they have to to get people to consider it. And in reality, the ATS-V should be as fast as a CTS-V in a straight line or around the Nurburring, or the M3 is going to blow it away. If the ATS-V runs like a current CTS-V, I see no problem in charging $65k for it. It is Cadillac, not Chevy, it isn't supposed to be cheap.

Let's also remember that most BMW's make more power than they claim, and they get a lot of acceleration out of their cars. Car and Driver had the 335i at 4.6 seconds 0-60 and Motor Trend had 4.8 seconds. So either that engine is underrated or the drivetrain is full of smoke and mirrors and witch craft.

It really comes down to this...

• ATS-V with 3.6L DOHC V6 Bi-turbo (LF3) @ 420 hp / 430 ft-lbs with some turbo lag, a little bit more weight up front and a $65K price tag.
• ATS-V with 6.2L Pushrod V8 Naturally Aspirated (LT1) @ 460 hp / 465 lb-ft (SAE) with no turbo lag, a little less weight up front and a $60K price tag.

Just asking: wouldn't putting the LT1 in the ATS engine bay (which I assume is smaller than the Corvette's) create some restriction issues for both intake and exhaust?

It really comes down to this...

• ATS-V with 3.6L DOHC V6 Bi-turbo (LF3) @ 420 hp / 430 ft-lbs with some turbo lag, a little bit more weight up front and a $65K price tag.
• ATS-V with 6.2L Pushrod V8 Naturally Aspirated (LT1) @ 460 hp / 465 lb-ft (SAE) with no turbo lag, a little less weight up front and a $60K price tag.

Just asking: wouldn't putting the LT1 in the ATS engine bay (which I assume is smaller than the Corvette's) create some restriction issues for both intake and exhaust?

Intake maybe. Exhaust, no.

On the intake side it won't be the plenum or throttle body though. If anything is potentially more restrictive, it'll be the need to use a different filter and air box design with a 90 degree turn to the side upstream from the throttle body. On the other hand, if they decide to redesign the intake plenum, the ATS-V's intake system can potentially be less restrictive than the Vette's. The ATS-V, even without a hood bulge, will have a much taller hood line than the Vette. They can use a much taller plenum with straighter runners and greater reserve air volume if they want to.

The 4:1 collectors on the LT1 are unitary and basically as compact as can be even on the corvette. It is already designed for packaging first, performance a close second. The only difference between the 455 hp and 460 hp installations in the Vette is downstream of the cats, and basically a trade off between noise/cost and flow. It really isn't much though -- just a 5 hp / 5 lb-ft difference.

Regardless, whatever differences the intakes and exhaust makes is unlikely to be more than 5~10hp. 450 hp being the worst case is adequate for the ATS-V.

It really comes down to this...

• ATS-V with 3.6L DOHC V6 Bi-turbo (LF3) @ 420 hp / 430 ft-lbs with some turbo lag, a little bit more weight up front and a $65K price tag.
• ATS-V with 6.2L Pushrod V8 Naturally Aspirated (LT1) @ 460 hp / 465 lb-ft (SAE) with no turbo lag, a little less weight up front and a $60K price tag.

Just asking: wouldn't putting the LT1 in the ATS engine bay (which I assume is smaller than the Corvette's) create some restriction issues for both intake and exhaust?

The engine will have no issue with intake or exhaust. Remember the car was designed also to be a Camaro and CTS with V8. But I do not expect the ATS to get the V8 due to marketing. If they put the V8 in the ATS it would cut into the CTS market. Since there is no real Cadillac engine they have to use particular engines in models to set them apart and drive different buyers.

The CTS-V has a SUPERCHARGED V8 with 556 bhp -- the next gen CTS-V will likely get a SUPERCHARGED V8 with DI making north of 600 bhp.

I don't see how an ATS-V with a NATURALLY ASPIRATED V8 with 450~460 bhp will cut into the CTS-V market. Any buyer who cares about the power train at all sees a big difference between a supercharged and normally aspirated engine and/or a 100~150 bhp difference in output.

That is like saying that a 385 hp V8 Jaguar XF Premium cuts into a V8 SUPERCHARGED 470 bhp Jaguar XF Supercharged's market, or that a M-B C55 AMG with its 362 hp NA 5.5 V8 cuts into the market of an E55 or S55 AMG of the same period with their 510 bhp Supercharged 5.5 V8s. Or that use of the 3.2L V6 in Audi A4 cuts into the market of the 3.0L Supercharged V6 in the S4. Or that the use of a 2.0L NA engine in the run of the mill Ford Focus eats into the market of a 2.0T Focus ST. In short, that's utter rubbish.

The CTS-V has a SUPERCHARGED V8 with 556 bhp -- the next gen CTS-V will likely get a SUPERCHARGED V8 with DI making north of 600 bhp.

I don't see how an ATS-V with a NATURALLY ASPIRATED V8 with 450~460 bhp will cut into the CTS-V market. Any buyer who cares about the power train at all sees a big difference between a supercharged and normally aspirated engine and/or a 100~150 bhp difference in output.

That is like saying that a 385 hp V8 Jaguar XF Premium cuts into a V8 SUPERCHARGED 470 bhp Jaguar XF Supercharged's market, or that a M-B C55 AMG with its 362 hp NA 5.5 V8 cuts into the market of an E55 or S55 AMG of the same period with their 510 bhp Supercharged 5.5 V8s. Or that use of the 3.2L V6 in Audi A4 cuts into the market of the 3.0L Supercharged V6 in the S4. Or that the use of a 2.0L NA engine in the run of the mill Ford Focus eats into the market of a 2.0T Focus ST. In short, that's utter rubbish.

Why do you use the same models with a different engine? XF NA XF SC? A4 NA S4 SC? Focus and Focus ST. We are talking about a different cars and different sizes and different weights in the ATS and CTS should they get different options to make the two models less alike? You are already taking a car built on the same platform and trying to convince it is different what better way than to offer a performance model with a different engine.

How do you get some one to buy the heavier and more expensive CTSV you offer a V8.

The key to marketing is to offer appealing but different packages to different models.

Since Cadillac has nothing as for its own engine it take some extra effort to set their models apart.

I also wish you would be more factual on the turbo engines. Yes there is some lag but it is pretty much a non factor anymore. It is nothing like the GN days, Also you seldom speak of the flat torque curve that even the LT1 is still not as wide or flat.

Finally GM also can sell tune kits to bump up power easily with any of these engines. There was a report the other day they are at work with new kits for the 2.0 cars that will push them over 300 HP and torque already on the Solstice kit was 340 FT LBS so it will be interesting to where they will set the new kits. I expect the 3.6 TT will see a similar kit. GM made a lot of money on the first 2.0 kit.

Also hold back the V8 for the ATS till later and add it as a special edition as the car ages to keep the car appealing longer as vs. just adding a flat paint job as they are doing today.

.

The ATS-V will have 6 cylinders because the M3 does. The M3 decides what the rest do, Cadillac basically copied every dimension of the last-gen 3-series when developing the ATS. BMW has the formula down, Cadillac (and the others) are trying to copy it. But the original always seems to be better.

The CTS-V has a SUPERCHARGED V8 with 556 bhp -- the next gen CTS-V will likely get a SUPERCHARGED V8 with DI making north of 600 bhp.

I don't see how an ATS-V with a NATURALLY ASPIRATED V8 with 450~460 bhp will cut into the CTS-V market. Any buyer who cares about the power train at all sees a big difference between a supercharged and normally aspirated engine and/or a 100~150 bhp difference in output.

That is like saying that a 385 hp V8 Jaguar XF Premium cuts into a V8 SUPERCHARGED 470 bhp Jaguar XF Supercharged's market, or that a M-B C55 AMG with its 362 hp NA 5.5 V8 cuts into the market of an E55 or S55 AMG of the same period with their 510 bhp Supercharged 5.5 V8s. Or that use of the 3.2L V6 in Audi A4 cuts into the market of the 3.0L Supercharged V6 in the S4. Or that the use of a 2.0L NA engine in the run of the mill Ford Focus eats into the market of a 2.0T Focus ST. In short, that's utter rubbish.

Why do you use the same models with a different engine? XF NA XF SC? A4 NA S4 SC? Focus and Focus ST. We are talking about a different cars and different sizes and different weights in the ATS and CTS should they get different options to make the two models less alike? You are already taking a car built on the same platform and trying to convince it is different what better way than to offer a performance model with a different engine.

How do you get some one to buy the heavier and more expensive CTSV you offer a V8.

The key to marketing is to offer appealing but different packages to different models.

Since Cadillac has nothing as for its own engine it take some extra effort to set their models apart.

I also wish you would be more factual on the turbo engines. Yes there is some lag but it is pretty much a non factor anymore. It is nothing like the GN days, Also you seldom speak of the flat torque curve that even the LT1 is still not as wide or flat.

Finally GM also can sell tune kits to bump up power easily with any of these engines. There was a report the other day they are at work with new kits for the 2.0 cars that will push them over 300 HP and torque already on the Solstice kit was 340 FT LBS so it will be interesting to where they will set the new kits. I expect the 3.6 TT will see a similar kit. GM made a lot of money on the first 2.0 kit.

Also hold back the V8 for the ATS till later and add it as a special edition as the car ages to keep the car appealing longer as vs. just adding a flat paint job as they are doing today.

.

If you want to insist that a 450 hp NA V8 and a 556~600 hp Supercharged V8 will be viewed as a similar engine, I cannot dissuade you from that opinion. But, nobody out there sees it that way. An NA V8 in one car and an SC V8 in another as big of a separation as a Bi-turbo V6 and a SC V8. There is no positioning issue whatsoever.

As far as turbolag is concerned, it is ALWAYS there the only question is one of magnitude. And the high the specific output you demand out of a turbo-ed engine the worse the problem gets. But, even a 3.0L bi-turbo with a "mere" 300 hp and a torque peak at 1200 rpm like the BMW 335i engine is laggy compared to naturally aspirated engine.

The point here is that there is very little technical reasons to prefer a 3.6 Bi-turbo over a Pushrod 6.2 V8. It costs more, it makes similar or less power. It is no more fuel efficient. It is heavier. It takes up more underhood space. It has more things to leak and/or break. And, in the eyes of most of the existing Cadillac customers it is a downgrade in terms of desirability. In the eyes of would be customers, it is really a toss up. About the ONLY thing it has going for it is a lower displacement tax in countries that have them. But, the typical clientele for cars like the M3, C63, RS4 or Cadillac-Vs do not really care about that. If they do, they'll be buying the lesser renditions of the same model -- perhaps one overloaded with luxury bits -- rather than the monster sedan edition,

The ATS-V will have 6 cylinders because the M3 does. The M3 decides what the rest do, Cadillac basically copied every dimension of the last-gen 3-series when developing the ATS. BMW has the formula down, Cadillac (and the others) are trying to copy it. But the original always seems to be better.

Which begs the question... do you believe that GM will be able to render a better Turbo 6 than BMW is putting in the new M3? FYI, by starting with a conventional V6 the GM engine already has some disadvantages -- not being able to use one larger turbo instead of two smaller ones for greater efficiency and responsiveness, not being able to use a sequential twin-turbo setup efficiently because the exhaust exits from both sides, etc.

On the other hand, GM already has a V8 engine that is better than BMW's Turbo 6 or Turbo V8s. Better as in -- lighter, smaller, similarly powerful, no turbo lag, no less efficient and cheaper to build. To not use it in the ATS-V will be like folding a pair of aces in a poker game when the flop has no pairs and is not a flush magnet. But then, people have been known to do that... LOL

The CTS-V has a SUPERCHARGED V8 with 556 bhp -- the next gen CTS-V will likely get a SUPERCHARGED V8 with DI making north of 600 bhp.

I don't see how an ATS-V with a NATURALLY ASPIRATED V8 with 450~460 bhp will cut into the CTS-V market. Any buyer who cares about the power train at all sees a big difference between a supercharged and normally aspirated engine and/or a 100~150 bhp difference in output.

That is like saying that a 385 hp V8 Jaguar XF Premium cuts into a V8 SUPERCHARGED 470 bhp Jaguar XF Supercharged's market, or that a M-B C55 AMG with its 362 hp NA 5.5 V8 cuts into the market of an E55 or S55 AMG of the same period with their 510 bhp Supercharged 5.5 V8s. Or that use of the 3.2L V6 in Audi A4 cuts into the market of the 3.0L Supercharged V6 in the S4. Or that the use of a 2.0L NA engine in the run of the mill Ford Focus eats into the market of a 2.0T Focus ST. In short, that's utter rubbish.

Why do you use the same models with a different engine? XF NA XF SC? A4 NA S4 SC? Focus and Focus ST. We are talking about a different cars and different sizes and different weights in the ATS and CTS should they get different options to make the two models less alike? You are already taking a car built on the same platform and trying to convince it is different what better way than to offer a performance model with a different engine.

How do you get some one to buy the heavier and more expensive CTSV you offer a V8.

The key to marketing is to offer appealing but different packages to different models.

Since Cadillac has nothing as for its own engine it take some extra effort to set their models apart.

I also wish you would be more factual on the turbo engines. Yes there is some lag but it is pretty much a non factor anymore. It is nothing like the GN days, Also you seldom speak of the flat torque curve that even the LT1 is still not as wide or flat.

Finally GM also can sell tune kits to bump up power easily with any of these engines. There was a report the other day they are at work with new kits for the 2.0 cars that will push them over 300 HP and torque already on the Solstice kit was 340 FT LBS so it will be interesting to where they will set the new kits. I expect the 3.6 TT will see a similar kit. GM made a lot of money on the first 2.0 kit.

Also hold back the V8 for the ATS till later and add it as a special edition as the car ages to keep the car appealing longer as vs. just adding a flat paint job as they are doing today.

.

If you want to insist that a 450 hp NA V8 and a 556~600 hp Supercharged V8 will be viewed as a similar engine, I cannot dissuade you from that opinion. But, nobody out there sees it that way. An NA V8 in one car and an SC V8 in another as big of a separation as a Bi-turbo V6 and a SC V8. There is no positioning issue whatsoever.

As far as turbolag is concerned, it is ALWAYS there the only question is one of magnitude. And the high the specific output you demand out of a turbo-ed engine the worse the problem gets. But, even a 3.0L bi-turbo with a "mere" 300 hp and a torque peak at 1200 rpm like the BMW 335i engine is laggy compared to naturally aspirated engine.

The point here is that there is very little technical reasons to prefer a 3.6 Bi-turbo over a Pushrod 6.2 V8. It costs more, it makes similar or less power. It is no more fuel efficient. It is heavier. It takes up more underhood space. It has more things to leak and/or break. And, in the eyes of most of the existing Cadillac customers it is a downgrade in terms of desirability. In the eyes of would be customers, it is really a toss up. About the ONLY thing it has going for it is a lower displacement tax in countries that have them. But, the typical clientele for cars like the M3, C63, RS4 or Cadillac-Vs do not really care about that. If they do, they'll be buying the lesser renditions of the same model -- perhaps one overloaded with luxury bits -- rather than the monster sedan edition,

I suspect as normal when the cars come to market GM will show again they have other major considerations in the project and will not agree with you findings just based on assumed numbers.

Won't be the first time.

The ATS-V will have 6 cylinders because the M3 does. The M3 decides what the rest do, Cadillac basically copied every dimension of the last-gen 3-series when developing the ATS. BMW has the formula down, Cadillac (and the others) are trying to copy it. But the original always seems to be better.

Which begs the question... do you believe that GM will be able to render a better Turbo 6 than BMW is putting in the new M3? FYI, by starting with a conventional V6 the GM engine already has some disadvantages -- not being able to use one larger turbo instead of two smaller ones for greater efficiency and responsiveness, not being able to use a sequential twin-turbo setup efficiently because the exhaust exits from both sides, etc.

On the other hand, GM already has a V8 engine that is better than BMW's Turbo 6 or Turbo V8s. Better as in -- lighter, smaller, similarly powerful, no turbo lag, no less efficient and cheaper to build. To not use it in the ATS-V will be like folding a pair of aces in a poker game when the flop has no pairs and is not a flush magnet. But then, people have been known to do that... LOL

I agree Dwight that I would rather have a naturally aspiration V8 over Turbo anything as I have not seen solid long term reliability in the Turbo it to the moon world of 4 & 6 bangers. I think the ATS V can do better with a V8 than a bi-turbo V6. Yet Europe's Cast control system of taxing on Size makes that hard to do for a global car. BMW has sold the world on their Turbo system and as such the Lemmings Marketing people are just following along and have sold GM executives that this is how they have to go.

Yet GM could have broke new ground by using a proper V8 with 8 spd tranny and done a creative job of marketing to show that this is the better way to go.

At this point, the direction is set so it will be interesting to see how it falls out. If the Bi-Turbo V6 shows itself to be reliable and hold up to abuse, then Caddy will have another winner on it's hands. I personally want the V8, but then the ATS is not built for me, but the average 5'8" tall person as it fails the interior test. I cannot sit up straight in the car and no one can sit behind me so it is not useful as a 4 door sedan.

The ATS-V will have 6 cylinders because the M3 does. The M3 decides what the rest do, Cadillac basically copied every dimension of the last-gen 3-series when developing the ATS. BMW has the formula down, Cadillac (and the others) are trying to copy it. But the original always seems to be better.

Which begs the question... do you believe that GM will be able to render a better Turbo 6 than BMW is putting in the new M3? FYI, by starting with a conventional V6 the GM engine already has some disadvantages -- not being able to use one larger turbo instead of two smaller ones for greater efficiency and responsiveness, not being able to use a sequential twin-turbo setup efficiently because the exhaust exits from both sides, etc.

On the other hand, GM already has a V8 engine that is better than BMW's Turbo 6 or Turbo V8s. Better as in -- lighter, smaller, similarly powerful, no turbo lag, no less efficient and cheaper to build. To not use it in the ATS-V will be like folding a pair of aces in a poker game when the flop has no pairs and is not a flush magnet. But then, people have been known to do that... LOL

GM's engine won't be better, an you mentioned many of the reasons. A straight six is going to beat a V6 in smoothness and vibration every day of the week, and the BMW inline six has been the gold standard of engines for about 30 years. Most automakers want a V6 though so they can use it in FWD cars, so Toyota, Ford, VW, GM, etc aren't going to make an inline 6, thus they are always fighting with 1 arm tied their back so to speak.

I think Cadillac so wants to be like BMW and Mercedes they will copy anything they do, but really they need to be Cadillac. At the same time, I think they could put the 550 hp CTS-V engine in the ATS-V and the M3 will still outsell it and sell for a higher price simply because of the badge on the hood.

The reliability issue is not as much if a issue at all anymore. The first thing most people need to do is realize this is not 1985 anymore and most turbo systems are very reliable anymore. I know with the many on the HHR sites and Solstice that if there are issues often it is due to someone playing around with a tune or a sensor failure. But sensor failures can happen on NA engines too and do fail just as often. GM has had a Turbo on the market since 2008 and many of the Cobalt's and others are well over 100,000 miles in many cases and have not had any more issue than any other NA engine. The new turbo units are good and the head gaskets have generally not been an issue. Have there been some issues yes but not anything unusual or in great numbers.

Back in the GN days the engines and turbos were not really up to standard. Too often GM would try to slap on a Turbo with the least amount of development they could to the engine. The T types were a mess with no water cooling and while the GN was better it still had great amounts of lag and the lack of a good synthetic oil from the factory generally would hurt the bearings in time.

There are only a few turbo MFGs out there and most companies source them from the same ones. The engines have been redone to deal with the stress and wear and tear. Just looking at the 2.0 vs. 2.4 or 2.5 will show how the oiling, valves, block and head casting are all different. Addition of oil cooling and sodium valves are now common now.

The 3.6 turbo engine is nothing new at GM. It has been in development since before 2005 or earlier since that is only when the public first saw it. GM has a lot of time in it and I am sure they know what they are doing. They do thing not just based on a bunch of guesstimated numbers and consider the many issues and reason to offer and even build this kind of engine.

It I not so much that GM wants to be BMW or Benz. It is more they want the people who buy their cars and they want that golden image that the others have. What people receive of there other brands as being more advance and higher quality is a bunch of BS but the general public has no clue.

While a V8 may be easier and cheaper it does not always reflect what many of these buyers are wanting. Lets face it the manager of Jaguar loves the new LT engine and how low it sits but still he has his company in other directions as he knows what his buyers want.

This is about giving people what they want and look for not so much what GM knows or thinks is best for them. You need to appeal to their thinking and vanity as that is why people buy expensive cars. They all could easily get by with a Impala or Cruze but that would not enhance their image. Even years ago did Cadillac really need a V16 or V12? Not really but it was one upmanship for the owners of these cars.

When catering to the affluent you appeal to what they perceive is great and they will spend a lot more for it.

Cadillac is not going to over take BMW and Benz any time soon as it takes time to build an image and even longer to rebuild an image. Cadillac is taking the steps not one model at a time. It may take the next gen to even catch up in the publics eyes. But generally they are doing it right. BMW was not the yuppie darling in the first 5 years of the 3 series. It took time and later models to take hold.

The real trick for GM at Cadillac is if they plan to use the Alpha for two different car they need to make them different in more than size and price. Doing different engines that are not based on the same engine will help make a larger difference. The Base engine in the CTS in a ATS is a good place to start. Offer the V8 in the CTSV and then make it more common in the LTS as the next step up. You have to lead these people to spend more money.

Also if the VF replacement ends up on the Alpha and the new SS comes with a V8 at a lower price than the ATSv what do you do then?

There is just a lot to consider than trashing just a bunch of assumed numbers.

The key to Cadillac is to give each model the ATS, CTS and LTS their own personality and Soul. You want them to appeal to many different people for differ reasons. The STS failed as it was just a larger and more expensive CTS. It has little appeal over the CTS that did it all and better in a smaller package. That does not mean a larger car can not be successful but it has to have its own set of details that makes it appealing in its own right.

When it comes to these classes the details matter and the price gives you more room to be creative do you damn well better take advantage of it. It is more difficult to build a Chevy as you have limitations vs. a Cadillac as price gives you more options and paths to choose.

Owning a Chevy is all about how much can I get for what I can afford. Owning a Cadillac needs to be what it can do for me in comfort, performance and image. The latter is the most important as seldom so people buy a BMW or Benz for economy. At least not here in the states.

Problem with trying to have unique cars, is Alpha will underpin the CTS and ATS, thus the CTS becomes a bigger, more expensive ATS, and the Camaro and maybe a Buick get that chassis too. So now you have a shared platform, an 8-speed bought of ZF that everyone else had 3 years ago, and the 3.6 V6 that is in every GM product, just with turbos added. AMG has hand built engines and carbon ceramic brakes.

Alpha is a great chassis, but GM seems to always default back to the parts bin, rather than developing an all new engine, all new transmission, and spending the money on all the little details that make the difference to make the car whole. You can't get the reputation the Germans have by taking shortcuts, Cadillac needs perfection, otherwise the people buying the German cars will keep on buying them. You have to give them a reason to switch, or just keep stealing sales off Lincoln, Infiniit and Acura, which works too.

The 7 series is just a bigger, more expensive 5 series, but that seems to work fairly well.

Audi runs the Volkswagon 2.0 4-banger in the A2, A3, A4, A5 AND the A6 aaaaaand that seems to work fine, too.
The way you spin things, you give the impression audi couldn't move more than a few dozen A6s annually based on that lil' factoid.

Most consumers --and this certainly includes the average dolts that buy bmw/mb on badge alone-- have very little car knowledge. In other words, the fact that this 3.6L is the same basic motor as that 3.6L over there doesn't register.

Problem with trying to have unique cars, is Alpha will underpin the CTS and ATS, thus the CTS becomes a bigger, more expensive ATS, and the Camaro and maybe a Buick get that chassis too. So now you have a shared platform, an 8-speed bought of ZF that everyone else had 3 years ago, and the 3.6 V6 that is in every GM product, just with turbos added. AMG has hand built engines and carbon ceramic brakes.

Alpha is a great chassis, but GM seems to always default back to the parts bin, rather than developing an all new engine, all new transmission, and spending the money on all the little details that make the difference to make the car whole. You can't get the reputation the Germans have by taking shortcuts, Cadillac needs perfection, otherwise the people buying the German cars will keep on buying them. You have to give them a reason to switch, or just keep stealing sales off Lincoln, Infiniit and Acura, which works too.

Actually, the C63 does not have Carbon Ceramic brakes at the ATS-V's assumed price point. You need to shell out $100K for a Black Edition for that. This is also one of those things which are for the most parts unnecessary and a poor value for money. Carbon Ceramic brakes actually do not stop any better than cast iron. They are just lighter and last about 3 times as long. With street acceptable pads fade resistance is about the same as properly sized cast iron rotors. At about $10K they are a waste of money given that traditional rotors are only about $200 a pair.

Anyway, back to the engine issue... the 420hp LF3 is in many ways, not particularly impressive. For one this is a parallel twin turbo engine. Which means that it will be less responsive than a sequential twin turbo or a single turbo mill. Unfortunately, given that it is not a reverse flow engine (which has exhaust exiting in the middle of the V), there isn't much they can do about it. If power is bumped to 450 bhp lag will get worse. If it is not, it won't be competitive with the C63 or the M3.

Regardless of the power plant of choice, the Aisin TL80 8-speed is an overdue upgrade. And, I believe they'll use it on the ATS-V (automatic) whether they had chosen a V8 or the TTV6. This application is a lot more stratight forward than the vette since it uses a traditional front located transmission rather than a torque tube and rear mounted transaxle which the Aisib box is not designed to accommodate without a new casing.

The real trick for GM at Cadillac is if they plan to use the Alpha for two different car they need to make them different in more than size and price. Doing different engines that are not based on the same engine will help make a larger difference. The Base engine in the CTS in a ATS is a good place to start. Offer the V8 in the CTSV and then make it more common in the LTS as the next step up. You have to lead these people to spend more money.

Also if the VF replacement ends up on the Alpha and the new SS comes with a V8 at a lower price than the ATSv what do you do then?

Nothing! That's perfectly fine, just like it is perfectly fine for the CTS-V and the Camaro ZL1 to use basically the same engine (with the Camaro's louder exhaust treatment actually making 24 more horsepower). I won't buy a Camaro ZL1 because of the cheap, tacky interior and the "retro" exterior. That the CTS-V's engine is also found in a Chevy costing $6K less doesn't even register as a concern. Another way to look at it is that I'll rather have an ATS-V which shares it's engine with the Corvette than one which shares it with the CTS 3.6T.

What really should happen is that the 2.5L should be dropped altogether. With the ATS carrying three engines across the lineup -- the 2.0T and 3.6NA for "normal" ATSes while the ATS-V packs the 450~460hp LT1 V8 for the enthusiasts. The CTS will then carry the 3.6NA, 3.6TT and a 600 hp Supercharged version of the LT1.

Dwight, what might a S/C 3.6 V6 look like in terms of power?

The real trick for GM at Cadillac is if they plan to use the Alpha for two different car they need to make them different in more than size and price. Doing different engines that are not based on the same engine will help make a larger difference. The Base engine in the CTS in a ATS is a good place to start. Offer the V8 in the CTSV and then make it more common in the LTS as the next step up. You have to lead these people to spend more money.

Also if the VF replacement ends up on the Alpha and the new SS comes with a V8 at a lower price than the ATSv what do you do then?

Nothing! That's perfectly fine, just like it is perfectly fine for the CTS-V and the Camaro ZL1 to use basically the same engine (with the Camaro's louder exhaust treatment actually making 24 more horsepower). I won't buy a Camaro ZL1 because of the cheap, tacky interior and the "retro" exterior. That the CTS-V's engine is also found in a Chevy costing $6K less doesn't even register as a concern. Another way to look at it is that I'll rather have an ATS-V which shares it's engine with the Corvette than one which shares it with the CTS 3.6T.

What really should happen is that the 2.5L should be dropped altogether. With the ATS carrying three engines across the lineup -- the 2.0T and 3.6NA for "normal" ATSes while the ATS-V packs the 450~460hp LT1 V8 for the enthusiasts. The CTS will then carry the 3.6NA, 3.6TT and a 600 hp Supercharged version of the LT1.

>The real trick for GM at Cadillac is if they plan to use the Alpha for two different car they need to make them different in more than size and price. Doing different engines that are not based on the same engine will help make a larger difference. The Base engine in the CTS in a ATS is a good place to start. Offer the V8 in the CTSV and then make it more common in the LTS as the next step up. You have to lead these people to spend more money.

Also if the VF replacement ends up on the Alpha and the new SS comes with a V8 at a lower price than the ATSv what do you do then?

Nothing! That's perfectly fine, just like it is perfectly fine for the CTS-V and the Camaro ZL1 to use basically the same engine (with the Camaro's louder exhaust treatment actually making 24 more horsepower). I won't buy a Camaro ZL1 because of the cheap, tacky interior and the "retro" exterior. That the CTS-V's engine is also found in a Chevy costing $6K less doesn't even register as a concern. Another way to look at it is that I'll rather have an ATS-V which shares it's engine with the Corvette than one which shares it with the CTS 3.6T.

What really should happen is that the 2.5L should be dropped altogether. With the ATS carrying three engines across the lineup -- the 2.0T and 3.6NA for "normal" ATSes while the ATS-V packs the 450~460hp LT1 V8 for the enthusiasts. The CTS will then carry the 3.6NA, 3.6TT and a 600 hp Supercharged version of the LT1.

Well we do agree on dropping the 2.5 but that is about it.

Here is what I would like to see but noting I know GM will keep the 2.5 and other base engines to have the low entry model pricing for advertising. I wish they would stop the practice

ATS should be 2.0T 3.6 NA and TTV6 500 HP V series

CTS should be 3.6 NA 3.6 TT and V8V 600+ LT5 Cadillac version

LTS should be 3.6TT LT5 and L88 or a Cadillac version 700+ HP V series.

Leave the XTS as it is as it is not declared a sports sedan but more refinement to the car as time goes on is fine.

I would also dress the Cadillac engines in stainless and their own valve covers in powder coating. Make them look as nice as the outside of the car. I know they use the cheap plastic covers to hide wires and kill noise but they look so cheap.

If Cadillac is going to ask a premium price for their cars as they will do they need to make sure they offer a fully premium product that is not just a car Chevy also offers with less options and leather. That is what got Pontiac in trouble. The details count as the price goes up. So far they are working better in this direction but I would like to see more Cadillac in the LTS than we have seen in 50 years. To ask a special price for this car it damn well needs to be more than a large Holden with a different grill. I have a feeling that they know that too and it will be a surprise to many what we do get. When I heard they were arguing over the quality and price of the door handles that is a good sign they are looking deep at the details.

Amen to dropping the 2.5 liter. 2.0T is a good base engine. Agreed that if they ask a premium price, you have to have a premium product.

As far as turbo V6's the Nissan GT-R does fine with what it has, in pretty much beats every V8 and V12 in 0-60 sprints. But I still think once BMW said the M3 would have 6 cylinders, Cadillac made it's mind on 6 cylinders. BMW decides what the market wants, and Cadillac is going for the Euro-Import buyer that BMW, Audi and Porsche already have groomed to shop a certain way. If that crowd wanted big V8s, they would buy the Corvette over the Boxter or an SRT8 Charger over an S4 or 335i, etc. Even Mercedes and Jaguar who used to love V8s are moving away from them to use more V6s.

Dwight, what might a S/C 3.6 V6 look like in terms of power?

Like the Turbo engine it depends on what you want out of it. You can get about 300 hp all the way past about 500 hp out of it with a Roots Blower if you want. The will also be zero turbo lag. The price you pay is that unlike turbocharger(s), spinning that compressor costs you power and hence fuel. In other words, you trade fuel efficiency for a method of forced induction that has no lag. If you still want about 17(city) / 27 (hwy) mpg, you'll probably feed that 3.6 with an Eaton TVS R1320... that'll be good for about 400 bhp @ 6000 rpm with about 380 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. Think of it as the Audi 3.0 Supercharged engine in the S4 with about 20% greater displacement and a 25% larger blower*. It is going to be a tall engine with a hood bulged though since the GM 3.6 is a 60 deg V6 as opposed to a 90 deg V6 with the Audi design. The narrower angle does not allow you to sit the blower as low in the valley.

*The Audi 3.0 S/C V6 uses an Eaton TVS R1050 derived blower integrated into the intake assembly. It delivers 333 hp @ 5500 rpm / 325 lb-ft @ 2900 rpm.

I agree on the power as you can make it do about what ever you want. GM could match the 3.6 TT in power easily if they would like but the parasitic drag is a trade off. This is why we are seeing less and less SC engine and if we do they tend to be on larger engines.

Now a SC does not have to sit in the V area of an engine. I have many models at work that mount on the side of the engine much like a AC compressor. So if they really wanted one you could get it in. I have many customers buying Vortech and Paxton models that are under stock hoods for Mustangs and Camaro's. I also have seen some very creative mounting of these system.

At this time Eaton is the model preferred by OE MFG. It would be interesting to see Eaton do a side mount but I do not see it happening.

Might note too that Ford looks to be getting out the SC game so that is one less major player in this field. They claim that the new Mustang will not have room for it in the engine compartment. Now there is word the car may just become a Cobra and drop the Shelby name all together. I have seen the new car in Chris's photo'd and it is much smaller. It looks almost Hyundai Coupe Small under the padded Camao. Under hood space and packaging will be more important than ever.

To be honest I have owned both Turbo and several cars with Superchargers. While the SC engine was ok I love my Turbo much more. Electronics just have taken the turbo engines to a new level they could not have done 15 years ago added in with VVT and they are thriving on DI.

The one advantage to a SC engine is it is easy to take and change a pulley to tailor the boost that you want but I can do that to some degree with a tune and a couple of Maps on a Turbo to a certain level.

Amen to dropping the 2.5 liter. 2.0T is a good base engine. Agreed that if they ask a premium price, you have to have a premium product.

As far as turbo V6's the Nissan GT-R does fine with what it has, in pretty much beats every V8 and V12 in 0-60 sprints. But I still think once BMW said the M3 would have 6 cylinders, Cadillac made it's mind on 6 cylinders. BMW decides what the market wants, and Cadillac is going for the Euro-Import buyer that BMW, Audi and Porsche already have groomed to shop a certain way. If that crowd wanted big V8s, they would buy the Corvette over the Boxter or an SRT8 Charger over an S4 or 335i, etc. Even Mercedes and Jaguar who used to love V8s are moving away from them to use more V6s.

The reality is everything is going to get smaller and while the V8 may be around it will get more and more expensive to drive people to smaller engines.

Europe and out side the USA the V8 is not a must have default as most of these countries have been paying much higher fuel prices for much longer, most have never even had a V8 in the family for several generations. Also the Green movement in places like Europe have an affect on the market.

In the State the V8 was the default for 80% of the buyers but in cars today it is becoming a are item. Even the V6 is no where as common as it once was. The last two generations have grown up in cars with 4 cylinder engines and they expect the same. Even many who have a V8 in the 80's in the family only had a V8 with just under or at 200 HP while today most 4 cylinders will do that even without a turbo.

The fact is it will be difficult to meet the coming CAFE standard even with small 4 cylinder car let alone larger cars with even larger engines. That is why we are seeing the goofy Hybrid systems that they hope will develop to give them room for larger cars. The V8 will remain longer but GM and others will limit it's use to models that have lower standards like heavier trucks and use loop holes of the larger trucks to still over them. As for cars like the SS they will price them high and you can have one but the price will limit the sales naturally for the MFG.

Europe just has a whole different outlook than the states at engines and even here it has evolved an continues to do so.

Yet Europe just as here in the states have realized they have maxed out the potential to tax to hell the size of the engine and with more hybrids and pure electric auto's coming, moving to a system based on taxing on miles driven is a more logical way to support the highway system.

The technology really was not there 10 years ago to tax per mile. today it can be done and it will only be more enabled as cars become web hot spots. Pumps and cars will link up and record your miles.

It is down right scary where this may be going. People are worried about the NSA now just wait you have seen nothing yet.

Amen to dropping the 2.5 liter. 2.0T is a good base engine. Agreed that if they ask a premium price, you have to have a premium product.

As far as turbo V6's the Nissan GT-R does fine with what it has, in pretty much beats every V8 and V12 in 0-60 sprints. But I still think once BMW said the M3 would have 6 cylinders, Cadillac made it's mind on 6 cylinders. BMW decides what the market wants, and Cadillac is going for the Euro-Import buyer that BMW, Audi and Porsche already have groomed to shop a certain way. If that crowd wanted big V8s, they would buy the Corvette over the Boxter or an SRT8 Charger over an S4 or 335i, etc. Even Mercedes and Jaguar who used to love V8s are moving away from them to use more V6s.

The reality is everything is going to get smaller and while the V8 may be around it will get more and more expensive to drive people to smaller engines.

Europe and out side the USA the V8 is not a must have default as most of these countries have been paying much higher fuel prices for much longer, most have never even had a V8 in the family for several generations. Also the Green movement in places like Europe have an affect on the market.

In the State the V8 was the default for 80% of the buyers but in cars today it is becoming a are item. Even the V6 is no where as common as it once was. The last two generations have grown up in cars with 4 cylinder engines and they expect the same. Even many who have a V8 in the 80's in the family only had a V8 with just under or at 200 HP while today most 4 cylinders will do that even without a turbo.

The fact is it will be difficult to meet the coming CAFE standard even with small 4 cylinder car let alone larger cars with even larger engines. That is why we are seeing the goofy Hybrid systems that they hope will develop to give them room for larger cars. The V8 will remain longer but GM and others will limit it's use to models that have lower standards like heavier trucks and use loop holes of the larger trucks to still over them. As for cars like the SS they will price them high and you can have one but the price will limit the sales naturally for the MFG.

Europe just has a whole different outlook than the states at engines and even here it has evolved an continues to do so.

The kink with that argument is that the assumption that a 6.2 liter Pushrod V8 consumes more fuel than a 3.6 Liter Bi-turbo V6 is in general not true. The only thing that dings the V8 is the large displacement incurring higher displacement taxes in those countries that have them. As far as MPG ratings is concerned, a Pushrod V8 is exemplary, matching beating DOHC V8s and force fed V6es of equivalent power output any day.

As far as the ATS-V is concerned, a 6.2 LT1 V8 will post MPG numbers better than 16 (city) /25 (hwy) MPG -- 16 /25 is achieved by a Camaro SS 6 speed-Auto using the previous generation Port Injected 6.2 V8. In other words, the V8 -- if employed -- will be 17 (city) / 26 (Hwy) or better, unless all the VVT, AFM and DI stuff they did amounted to no improvement in mileage numbers (one of the major engineering goals). Given that the 3.6 NA engine which has higher compression, resonance tuned intakes and freer flowing exhaust came in at 19 (city) / 28 (Hwy) it'll be very difficult for a 3.6 TT to beat 17/26 MPG. I don't think you fully comprehend the advantageous of a Pushrod valvetrain -- in addition to making the engine lighter and more compact, it is also somewhat more fuel efficient than a DOHC design (definitely so at the same displacement and still modestly so at the same output with a larger displacement).

The argument that going to smaller 4-cyliner engines equates to better mileage number is also for the most parts unproven at best. The 1.4L Turbo Cruze did not beat its 1.8 and 2.0L NA competitors (with similar or higher power ratings) in mileage numbers. In fact, it lost to the majority of these cars. If you really wanted the "best" mileage numbers than a 2.0 DOHC 16v DI four you are better off going BIGGER in displacement, dropping cams and ditching valves! Go to 2.5 or 2.7 liters, go to a SOHC head, go to 2-valves per cylinder and most importantly go to an Atkinson cam. Do that and you'll run circles around the 2.0L DOHC16v engine in MPG numbers while generating similar output. Even if you don't go atkinson cammed, just going to 2.3L, dropping one camshaft and dropping halve the valves will see an improvement in MPG numbers. Specific output goes down the drain... but we are after the best fuel economy here not bragging rights about hp/liter.

Dwight I agree with what you say, sadly Marketing has people believing in Fairy tales and the truth is going to be an ugly mess when the world wakes up and realizes that DOHC, small size, etc is not all it is cracked up to be.

Amen to dropping the 2.5 liter. 2.0T is a good base engine. Agreed that if they ask a premium price, you have to have a premium product.

As far as turbo V6's the Nissan GT-R does fine with what it has, in pretty much beats every V8 and V12 in 0-60 sprints. But I still think once BMW said the M3 would have 6 cylinders, Cadillac made it's mind on 6 cylinders. BMW decides what the market wants, and Cadillac is going for the Euro-Import buyer that BMW, Audi and Porsche already have groomed to shop a certain way. If that crowd wanted big V8s, they would buy the Corvette over the Boxter or an SRT8 Charger over an S4 or 335i, etc. Even Mercedes and Jaguar who used to love V8s are moving away from them to use more V6s.

The reality is everything is going to get smaller and while the V8 may be around it will get more and more expensive to drive people to smaller engines.

Europe and out side the USA the V8 is not a must have default as most of these countries have been paying much higher fuel prices for much longer, most have never even had a V8 in the family for several generations. Also the Green movement in places like Europe have an affect on the market.

In the State the V8 was the default for 80% of the buyers but in cars today it is becoming a are item. Even the V6 is no where as common as it once was. The last two generations have grown up in cars with 4 cylinder engines and they expect the same. Even many who have a V8 in the 80's in the family only had a V8 with just under or at 200 HP while today most 4 cylinders will do that even without a turbo.

The fact is it will be difficult to meet the coming CAFE standard even with small 4 cylinder car let alone larger cars with even larger engines. That is why we are seeing the goofy Hybrid systems that they hope will develop to give them room for larger cars. The V8 will remain longer but GM and others will limit it's use to models that have lower standards like heavier trucks and use loop holes of the larger trucks to still over them. As for cars like the SS they will price them high and you can have one but the price will limit the sales naturally for the MFG.

Europe just has a whole different outlook than the states at engines and even here it has evolved an continues to do so.

The kink with that argument is that the assumption that a 6.2 liter Pushrod V8 consumes more fuel than a 3.6 Liter Bi-turbo V6 is in general not true. The only thing that dings the V8 is the large displacement incurring higher displacement taxes in those countries that have them. As far as MPG ratings is concerned, a Pushrod V8 is exemplary, matching beating DOHC V8s and force fed V6es of equivalent power output any day.

As far as the ATS-V is concerned, a 6.2 LT1 V8 will post MPG numbers better than 16 (city) /25 (hwy) MPG -- 16 /25 is achieved by a Camaro SS 6 speed-Auto using the previous generation Port Injected 6.2 V8. In other words, the V8 -- if employed -- will be 17 (city) / 26 (Hwy) or better, unless all the VVT, AFM and DI stuff they did amounted to no improvement in mileage numbers (one of the major engineering goals). Given that the 3.6 NA engine which has higher compression, resonance tuned intakes and freer flowing exhaust came in at 19 (city) / 28 (Hwy) it'll be very difficult for a 3.6 TT to beat 17/26 MPG. I don't think you fully comprehend the advantageous of a Pushrod valvetrain -- in addition to making the engine lighter and more compact, it is also somewhat more fuel efficient than a DOHC design (definitely so at the same displacement and still modestly so at the same output with a larger displacement).

The argument that going to smaller 4-cyliner engines equates to better mileage number is also for the most parts unproven at best. The 1.4L Turbo Cruze did not beat its 1.8 and 2.0L NA competitors (with similar or higher power ratings) in mileage numbers. In fact, it lost to the majority of these cars. If you really wanted the "best" mileage numbers than a 2.0 DOHC 16v DI four you are better off going BIGGER in displacement, dropping cams and ditching valves! Go to 2.5 or 2.7 liters, go to a SOHC head, go to 2-valves per cylinder and most importantly go to an Atkinson cam. Do that and you'll run circles around the 2.0L DOHC16v engine in MPG numbers while generating similar output. Even if you don't go atkinson cammed, just going to 2.3L, dropping one camshaft and dropping halve the valves will see an improvement in MPG numbers. Specific output goes down the drain... but we are after the best fuel economy here not bragging rights about hp/liter.

Sadly there is more to this than just numbers.

You totally fail to address what the public feed back and expectations are. It is still more than just a game of assumed engine numbers that you supply.

Again you need to prove why you are right and most automaker even those other than GM things and commit billions of dollars differently.

I already did... and all you are able to say is something along the lines of "everybody says the world is flat, so it must be."

MY FACTS

FACT: Cruze 1.4T 6AT @138hp = 26/38 mpg vs Focus 2.0 @ 160hp = 27/38 mpg

FACT: Camaro SS 6.2 Pushrod @ 400hp = 16/25 mpg vs Taurus SHO 3.5TT @ 365 hp = 17/25 mpg vs M3 4.0 DOHC V8 @ 414 hp = 14/20 mpg vs Lexus IS-F 416 @ hp = 16/23 mpg

FACT: Corvette Stingray 6.2 @ 460 hp >= 17/27 mpg vs Porsche 911 GT3 @ 475 hp = 14/21 mpg

YOUR SECULATIONS

SPECULATION: Consumers prefer smaller engines regardless of fuel economy numbers

SPECULATION: Consumers prefers DOHC valvetrain (or even know what that is) over performance

SPECULATION: Consumers prefer a Twin Turbo V6 car even though it is slower, less fuel efficient and more expensive.

Aside from the Camaro... those speculations are borne out in the sales numbers.

MY FACTS

FACT: Cruze 1.4T 6AT @138hp = 26/38 mpg vs Focus 2.0 @ 160hp = 27/38 mpg

FACT: Camaro SS 6.2 Pushrod @ 400hp = 16/25 mpg vs Taurus SHO 3.5TT @ 365 hp = 17/25 mpg vs M3 4.0 DOHC V8 @ 414 hp = 14/20 mpg vs Lexus IS-F 416 @ hp = 16/23 mpg

FACT: Corvette Stingray 6.2 @ 460 hp >= 17/27 mpg vs Porsche 911 GT3 @ 475 hp = 14/21 mpg

YOUR SECULATIONS

SPECULATION: Consumers prefer smaller engines regardless of fuel economy numbers

SPECULATION: Consumers prefers DOHC valvetrain (or even know what that is) over performance

SPECULATION: Consumers prefer a Twin Turbo V6 car even though it is slower, less fuel efficient and more expensive.

Again not speculation just what they sell more of.

I do not challenge you because I find it sport. I do not generally post always what I feel but more of what I see. I would love the world you profess but I also see the other factors in the way that prevent it. Believe me I would want to buy your dreams for my garage but I am not what the mainstream is anymore. So please do not take my challenges personal.

Also when I say look at the big picture please look at what people want and do today and please factor that in, No matter how good your numbers are on paper if it is not what the general public it is doomed. Sales number speak loud. I have regret to say that the boring DOHC sedan or CUV are the dominate products and what most people see value and quality in while fitting their wallets best. They may be wrong in many cases but they do what they feel is right and who ever gives them what they want will win this game.

It is much easier and profitable to give them what they want vs. telling them they are wrong and trying to re educate them.

I have two views of this deal the one in my heart that is closer to you view but I also have the business end view of this and it is more than one dimensional. Even in his books Bob Lutz one of the biggest car guys in Detroit understands this. Why else is one of the biggest gear heads in Detroit pushing electric cars. God knows it is not because he is green.

This is an golden era of conflict. We have the best performance cars ever built but we are also seeing a decline in the large engine performance car. The market is shrinking and will only get smaller. It is sad. I know we will have some kind of performance as long as Google does not pry the wheel from us.

Now that is one area that is telling. I have seen post on Google's autonomous cars on Autoblog. A site for auto enthusiast of all things. If you go in and read the comments so many are just in love with the idea of their car driving them? What the Hell? I have asked there how people who love cars and love to drive could even consider giving up the wheel. Many say the daily commute could be better used reading their Pad or internet? They never consider that once the genie is out of the bottle they could lose the ability at some point to drive the car let alone when they go or what way they go. It could get to the point you would be given a travel time and your car goes when it goes not when you want to go.

Anyways Now that I am way off topic lets bring it back. It is time to look around and understand the public. You do not have to agree with them but you do have to give them products they want and demand. They like what they have and it is not going away. GM no longer leads in opinion that they lead in technology. The surveys I saw had them down on the list. I know it was bull but that is what they think. That is why cars like the Volt need to work and work well to gain the confidence with the public to better lead with the technology they want to use.

We are not talking about high performance cars in particular. We are talking about the simple fact that "small displacement does not equal low fuel consumption" and consumers by and large don't care how many cams or valves you have on an engine -- most don't even know what a cam is or what a valve looks like. What they the ones who do care about fuel economy look at is that MPG rating on the sticker and what those who care about performance look at is the power figures.

The fact is that if you really want the best MPG numbers -- irrespective of specific output or anything else -- what you will do is first and foremost, go to an Atkinson Cam, then use as few cams, valves and cylinders as you can. Doing so will reduce the output of your engine, so you simply scale up the displacement to recover the lost power. This is a more effective approach than scaling down displacement and piling on a turbocharger or two.

I like your arguments.

You give some accurate facts and mix them with assumptions and sell it all as the truth with no way to prove it.

Then you change the topic in general. I am speaking on engines and all cars in general as the smaller volume of performance is reliant on what engines are available from the higher volume lines.

The only reason you have a LT is because of the trucks. No trucks no V8 engines for anything. It is simple economics. Again you need to factor the whole picture not what just works for you. You can not leave the economic factors out either. Big Picture again!

As for your Atkinson engine it has been around for years and while things like modern supercharging may bring it to a practical option it is far off of being in wide spread use anytime soon. The power density issues are still an issue that have to be overcome. It is efficient but has issue. It is similar to the rotary engine where it has a lot of good but enough bad for wide spread acceptance in the industry.

If this was the way they why has so few really spent much time moving to this. Is it that they understand the issue better than you? I have a hunch the MFG have a little more info and that they have issues to be worked out yet.

I like your arguments.

You give some accurate facts and mix them with assumptions and sell it all as the truth with no way to prove it.

Then you change the topic in general. I am speaking on engines and all cars in general as the smaller volume of performance is reliant on what engines are available from the higher volume lines.

The only reason you have a LT is because of the trucks. No trucks no V8 engines for anything. It is simple economics. Again you need to factor the whole picture not what just works for you. You can not leave the economic factors out either. Big Picture again!

As for your Atkinson engine it has been around for years and while things like modern supercharging may bring it to a practical option it is far off of being in wide spread use anytime soon. The power density issues are still an issue that have to be overcome. It is efficient but has issue. It is similar to the rotary engine where it has a lot of good but enough bad for wide spread acceptance in the industry.

If this was the way they why has so few really spent much time moving to this. Is it that they understand the issue better than you? I have a hunch the MFG have a little more info and that they have issues to be worked out yet.

And the 3.6 Bi-turbo has "a lot" of applications? How about just two for now -- the XTS and CTS's premium power plant.

Power density is only important if you care about displacement. If you don't it doesn't really matter that much. Let's just say that an Atkinson cammed engine, all else being equal, has a power density about 70~80% that of the conventional Otto cammed counterpart. You'll use a 2.5 liter for similar output as a 1.8 or 2.0 L. The penalty is the additional weight of a 2.5 vs that of a 2.0 or 1.8 which really isn't that much (approximately 10 to 15kg; 22~33 lbs). Quite a small price to pay for about 12~15% gain in fuel efficiency or the equivalent of getting from 32 mpg to 36~37 mpg. You CANNOT match it with by dropping displacement from 2.0 liter to say 1.4 liter and adding a turbocharger. Heck, dropping displacement and adding a turbo often does not even get you better fuel efficiency than the baseline 2.0 liter! Yes, you trade additional weight and space for fuel economy. But then again, so does adding a hybrid drive train. The difference being that going to a larger displacement and using an Atkinson cam costs absolutely nothing financially whereas adding a motor generator, inverter assembly and a big battery pack sets you back several thousands of dollars. A similar argument cam be made for going to a larger displacement while adopting an SOHC 2-valve valvetrain -- except perhaps to a lesser degree.

The rotary is a completely different ball game. The Wankel has three huge problems -- the apex seals run dry unless you burn a pre-mix of oil and gasoline (which sucks for emissions and by design consumes oil), the compression of the mixture is always against the "cold" side of the housing because combustion and exhaust happen elsewhere along the torchoid (this is bad for thermal efficiency because combustion heat is perpetually lost and not recovered) and lastly because the rotary aspirates through ports cut into the sides or the periphery housing making it difficult to implement any kind of variable timing (again bad for emissions and worse for optimizing aspiration to wide range of operating speeds). Rotaries have always have bad fuel economy and worse emissions, and its operating fundamentals make it very hard to address these to the same degree as piston engines. In many ways, it's like trying to make a clean running 2-stroke and giving it a broad power band -- except that it's worse in the thermal efficiency department.

Bud the rotary issues are well documented as they have been around for years and you do not have to rehash what everyone already knows. God knows GM figured it out in the 70's.

Second you can use all your so called tech talk that you like to cloud the situation but the fact remains there will be little to no Atkinson engines being developed or in use in the future unless there is a great shift. If it were the way to go there would not be great investments into smaller turbo charged engines by all MFG.

As for the 3.6 TT there no applications yet as they have not gone into production., given time it will show up in more places.

I just find it funny how a guy who argues so much for two valve natural aspiration drives a 32 valve 5.0 SC Jag? I thought you would practice what you preach and stay away from those horrid DOHC.

Bud the rotary issues are well documented as they have been around for years and you do not have to rehash what everyone already knows. God knows GM figured it out in the 70's.

Second you can use all your so called tech talk that you like to cloud the situation but the fact remains there will be little to no Atkinson engines being developed or in use in the future unless there is a great shift. If it were the way to go there would not be great investments into smaller turbo charged engines by all MFG.

As for the 3.6 TT there no applications yet as they have not gone into production., given time it will show up in more places.

I just find it funny how a guy who argues so much for two valve natural aspiration drives a 32 valve 5.0 SC Jag? I thought you would practice what you preach and stay away from those horrid DOHC.

It's simple... because a Certified Pre-Owned (6yr/100K warrantied) XF S/C was available @ $34.8K with 40K miles. I couldn't find any CTS-V Coupes under $42K (or any C63s for that matter) with that kind of mileage and I am not interested in $5K clutch jobs every 20K miles with the E60 M5. The CTS-V is the preferred option, just not quite as good a deal used.

Fact of the matter is this...

The XF S/C is a 4300 lbs car with 470 bhp / 424 lb-ft and 15/21 MPG (ZF 6-speed auto). This car would have been faster, cheaper, potentially less problematic and have better fuel economy if it had the 460 bhp / 466 lb-ft LT1 Pushrod V8. If not anything, because the engine would be almost 100 lbs lighter and doesn't spend up to 30~40 hp driving the blower. Output is about the same.

Bud the rotary issues are well documented as they have been around for years and you do not have to rehash what everyone already knows. God knows GM figured it out in the 70's.

Second you can use all your so called tech talk that you like to cloud the situation but the fact remains there will be little to no Atkinson engines being developed or in use in the future unless there is a great shift. If it were the way to go there would not be great investments into smaller turbo charged engines by all MFG.

As for the 3.6 TT there no applications yet as they have not gone into production., given time it will show up in more places.

I just find it funny how a guy who argues so much for two valve natural aspiration drives a 32 valve 5.0 SC Jag? I thought you would practice what you preach and stay away from those horrid DOHC.

It's simple... because a Certified Pre-Owned (6yr/100K warrantied) XF S/C was available @ $34.8K with 40K miles. I couldn't find any CTS-V Coupes under $42K (or any C63s for that matter) with that kind of mileage and I am not interested in $5K clutch jobs every 20K miles with the E60 M5. The CTS-V is the preferred option, just not quite as good a deal used.

Fact of the matter is this...

The XF S/C is a 4300 lbs car with 470 bhp / 424 lb-ft and 15/21 MPG (ZF 6-speed auto). This car would have been faster, cheaper, potentially less problematic and have better fuel economy if it had the 460 bhp / 466 lb-ft LT1 Pushrod V8. If not anything, because the engine would be almost 100 lbs lighter and doesn't spend up to 30~40 hp driving the blower. Output is about the same.

Here we go again. LOL!