ATS will be in July Automobile

[hyperv6]

I got an electronic advanced copy of Automobile magazine. It has a pretty accurate ilitration of the new ATS. Small C pillar and short Deck lid are the two new suprises. The rear deck look like a CTS coupe.

It also stated it will be a powered by high out put small displacement engines one with a turbocharged power.

They said it will pull no punches and will be aimed directly at the BMW. V series will be included.

The magazine has a good interview with Tadge Juechter of the Vette team. He did not give any direct comments on what they will do but made it clear everything is on the table and changing traditional things is one of them. The car will get what is going to be best for for it. Also 7-8 speed trasmissions are not alwasy the answer in some applications.

[Lamar]

Pics or it didn't happen...

[Intrepidation]

I got an electronic advanced copy of Automobile magazine. It has a pretty accurate ilitration of the new ATS. Small C pillar and short Deck lid are the two new suprises. The rear deck look like a CTS coupe.

Accurate based on what?

[hyperv6]

Pics or it didn't happen...

Sorry I can't copy it out of work due to security. So find you own copy.

[hyperv6]

Accurate based on what?

Based on what I have already seen and many of the hints they have given us.

The money back Ed Whitacker ad has a car that looks like it in clay behind the Malibu clay nose. The nose is very similar to the blue in the same comercial we already know what it looks like.

The only thing that may come into play it the rear roof line may be a little more slanted based on the clay car seen in the comercial.

I think they hit it pretty close based on available info and knowing it is not going to be a Revolutionary design.

Either I state pretty accurate not exact or perfect.

Look for yourself in the coming weeks and be the judge.

[Lamar]

Sorry I can't copy it out of work due to security. So find you own copy.

Fair enough. I didn't expect you to be able to anyway.

[aldw]

Fair enough. I didn't expect you to be able to anyway.

The latest issue of Automobile magazine I saw had a nice rendering of the ATS in the preview section, if it turns out like that I would definitely be in line for one.

[RjION]

In line ?

I don't get in lines.

[Lamar]

The latest issue of Automobile magazine I saw had a nice rendering of the ATS in the preview section, if it turns out like that I would definitely be in line for one.

Hmm, I'll have to check for it then.

[smk4565]

It also stated it will be a powered by high out put small displacement engines one with a turbocharged power.

They said it will pull no punches and will be aimed directly at the BMW. V series will be included.

I hope "high out put, small displacement" doesn't mean 4-cylinder and turbo 4-cylinder. A turbo-4 cud suffice for the base model, but this car needs the 3.6 V6 tuned to at least 330 hp, turbo charge it if needed.

Cadillac has been claiming they were going after BMW and Benz since the late 1980s, that I will believe when I see it. Can Cadillac really charge $45,000 for a compact car and sell it in volume?

[hyperv6]

In line ?

I don't get in lines.

Might take a look at what is in the driveway and that may be why you have no lines.

Hmm, I'll have to check for it then.

It should be out shortly. We do get the copies early but not too far ahead.

I hope "high out put, small displacement" doesn't mean 4-cylinder and turbo 4-cylinder. A turbo-4 cud suffice for the base model, but this car needs the 3.6 V6 tuned to at least 330 hp, turbo charge it if needed.

Cadillac has been claiming they were going after BMW and Benz since the late 1980s, that I will believe when I see it. Can Cadillac really charge $45,000 for a compact car and sell it in volume?

I expect a 4, 4 Turbo and a Turbo V6. Just don't expect a V8 till the CTSV is moved over.

[smk4565]

I expect a 4, 4 Turbo and a Turbo V6. Just don't expect a V8 till the CTSV is moved over.

An NA 4-cylinder in a Cadillac should not happen. Cadillac should have the best engines of General Motors. That is still a problem at GM, they hold back on Cadillac so they can pump money into other brands, or figure Chevy needs V8 trucks and muscle cars, but Cadillac can get by with only V6s because the old geezers won't care. The ATS needs to be running 0-60 in 4.8 or 4.9 seconds in standard trim, the ATS-V better be closer to 4.3 seconds. So I hope they don't hold back any punches as they say.

[Lamar]

The ATS needs to be running 0-60 in 4.8 or 4.9 seconds in standard trim

Why should a base ATS be able to run with an Audi RS4? To satiate the bench racers?

[CanadianBacon94]

ATS should beat the CTS in base 1+ a V form, if only by a couple hairs

[smk4565]

Why should a base ATS be able to run with an Audi RS4? To satiate the bench racers?

A base ATS (turbo 4) should be 0-60 in about 6.2 seconds, since a BMW 328i can do that, and with the V6 it should be closer to 4.9 seconds because a 335iS can do that now. BMW will have the next generation 3-series out by the time the ATS comes out. The G37 does 0-60 in the low 5s, but that car is closer to the CTS's size than the 3-series. They have to make the ATS faster than the CTS to keep up with the rest of the class. The ATS-V would have to have CTS-V type performance to match the M3.

Edited May 2, 2010 by smk4565

[Lamar]

A base ATS (turbo 4) should be 0-60 in about 6.2 seconds, since a BMW 328i can do that, and with the V6 it should be closer to 4.9 seconds because a 335iS can do that now. BMW will have the next generation 3-series out by the time the ATS comes out. The G37 does 0-60 in the low 5s, but that car is closer to the CTS's size than the 3-series. They have to make the ATS faster than the CTS to keep up with the rest of the class. The ATS-V would have to have CTS-V type performance to match the M3.

OK, that's all fair and makes sense.

I do wonder which V6 they'll use. If they want to use the 3.0, I hope they tune it for more torque... or, better yet, use the 2.8T.

Infiniti's two sedans are in a weird place... the G is closer to the size of the 5/E/A6 but positioned a class lower. Same for the M.

[smk4565]

OK, that's all fair and makes sense.

I do wonder which V6 they'll use. If they want to use the 3.0, I hope they tune it for more torque... or, better yet, use the 2.8T.

Infiniti's two sedans are in a weird place... the G is closer to the size of the 5/E/A6 but positioned a class lower. Same for the M.

I think they need the 3.6 at minimum, and probably a turbo or supercharged 3.6. Unless they twin-turbo the 3.0 and really boost the power on it. Infiniti has 328 hp now and thanks to their 7-speed tranny, it gets 19/27 mpg. The 2.8T just doesn't have enough power or fuel economy to go against BMW's straight-six or Infiniti's V6.

The G37 sedan is 187 inches long, the coupe is 183, so the coupe is near the 3-series coupe and A5 in size. The G-sedan is a bit of a tweener in terms of size. The M37 is 194 inches long, the A6 I think is 193 inches long, an XF is 195. Infiniti's offerings do run a bit bigger than the Lexus or German rivals.

[hyperv6]

An NA 4-cylinder in a Cadillac should not happen. Cadillac should have the best engines of General Motors. That is still a problem at GM, they hold back on Cadillac so they can pump money into other brands, or figure Chevy needs V8 trucks and muscle cars, but Cadillac can get by with only V6s because the old geezers won't care. The ATS needs to be running 0-60 in 4.8 or 4.9 seconds in standard trim, the ATS-V better be closer to 4.3 seconds. So I hope they don't hold back any punches as they say.

5-6 sec 0-60 in base trim is enough as that fits the target market. Also MPG will be important in the not too distant future.

Now on the V it needs to be around 4-4.3 sec 0-60.

The Cadillac just as Audi and BMW needs to have standard models as well as the performance. BMW and Audi sell a lot of regular powered sedans driven by people who want just a well built premium car and do not care if it carves a canyon. They offer the M series and other performance variants just for this reason.

On of GM's best engines is a LNF 2.0 and it can be tuned to 300 HP with outstanding mileage. It would make a great engine in this car for it's class. Now I would in no way put a 2.2 in.

We too often here forget the Luxury Euro cars are everything to everyone over there just as Cadillac is to North America. Too often we only see the high level trim and performance models here and forget they use the same car with less power trim for a family sedan or as a Taxi in Munich.

As it is I would expect the Turbo V6 in the V and maybe a non turbo V6 as an option in the standard trim with a Turbo 4 as a base engine.

Edited May 2, 2010 by hyperv6

[ocnblu]

hyper says the rear deck is short, like a CTS coupe's. I am not liking this Gremlin-esque trend in my Cadillacs.

[Drew Dowdell]

Cadillac has been claiming they were going after BMW and Benz since the late 1980s, that I will believe when I see it. Can Cadillac really charge $45,000 for a compact car and sell it in volume?

Why should that be a requirement for Cadillac? BMW can't even build a compact car for $27,000 and sell it in volume. Mercedes tried and gave up.

[ocnblu]

Drew, have you met smk yet? I see he's in the Pittsburgh area, as well.

[smk4565]

Why should that be a requirement for Cadillac? BMW can't even build a compact car for $27,000 and sell it in volume. Mercedes tried and gave up.

The 3-series is a compact car, unless you want to call Minis compacts, and the 3-series class "small car". Either way, a 3-series is about the size of a Civic and they can sell them for $40-45,000. My question was/is, can Cadillac build a sedan the same size as a Cruze and get $40-45,000 for it? The CTS isn't a hot seller, can they make the ATS smaller, and yet equally expensive as a CTS, and sell at double the volume of the CTS?

[smk4565]

What Cadillac needs is to get an identity and to get some soul and passion pumped into their brand. The one thing that prevents me from buying a Genesis is that the car has no soul or passion. It looks great on the stat sheet, it drives great, but it doesn't stir emotion or have personality. The Genesis is the polar opposite of an Alfa Romeo.

[Drew Dowdell]

The 3-series is a compact car, unless you want to call Minis compacts, and the 3-series class "small car". Either way, a 3-series is about the size of a Civic and they can sell them for $40-45,000. My question was/is, can Cadillac build a sedan the same size as a Cruze and get $40-45,000 for it? The CTS isn't a hot seller, can they make the ATS smaller, and yet equally expensive as a CTS, and sell at double the volume of the CTS?

I was referring to the 1-series.. but ok

[ZL-1]

What Cadillac needs is to get an identity and to get some soul and passion pumped into their brand. The one thing that prevents me from buying a Genesis is that the car has no soul or passion. It looks great on the stat sheet, it drives great, but it doesn't stir emotion or have personality. The Genesis is the polar opposite of an Alfa Romeo.

Lexus is kinda deprived of soul and passion, yet it sells. But I agree with you fully, Cadillac should be more like Alfa Romeo than like Lexus in the passion/soul scale.

Edited May 3, 2010 by ZL-1

[dwightlooi]

I will whole heartedly support a mainstream ATS strategy based solely on a 2.0T four potter. Personally, I'll prefer it over a V6 3.0. I really don't want the costs and logistics expanded to offer both an I4 and a V6. Both engines can make approximately 270hp, but the turbo four will make more torque than the V6 and be slightly more economical. The downside is a slight lag in throttle response and a moderate loss of linearity (especially at part throttle).

How about the following engine lineup?

• ATS 2.0T - 2.0 DI-VVT Turbo DOHC I4 - 220hp @ 5300 rpm / 258 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm / 6200 rpm Fuel cut - 6L45 6-spd Automatic
  
• ATS 2.0T - 2.0 DI-VVT Turbo DOHC I4 - 290 hp @ 5200 rpm / 325 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm - 6L50 6-spd Automatic
  
• ATS-V] - 5.5 DI-VVT AFM Pushrod V8 - 420hp @ 6300 rpm / 412 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm - 6L80 6-spd Automatic
  
• ATS 1.9TD - 1.9 DI-VVT Turbo DOHC I4 - 170 hp @ 4200 rpm / 258 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm - 6L45 6-spd Automatic (EU Only)
  

Edited May 3, 2010 by dwightlooi

[ZL-1]

ATS 1.9TD - 1.9 DI-VVT Turbo DOHC I4 - 170 hp @ 4200 rpm / 258 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm - 6L45 6-spd Automatic

There's a 190 hp twin turbo variant of that block that should be the main diesel IMHO. The 160 hp variant used at Opel and at SAAB could perhaps be used as Cadillac's Efficient Dynamics equivalent.

Edited May 3, 2010 by ZL-1

[regfootball]

lots of US buyers will still want to see one of the HF v6's on the engine option sheet.

i think the 3.6DI with 320hp would be a fine mid level offering, with all wheel drive as there is no way they can sell this car nationwide with only rwd on the option sheet. the v6 / awd combo would sell a lot in bad weather climes.

i do like the notion of two different turbos. perhaps the low end turbo four is the base engine for the automatic crowd. the high end four pot four is a sports model with sticks mostly. I still think the v6 as the top makes sense. then for the V series, either a TTv6 or the small block.

i think a diesel might sell a little here in the US. But Europe definitely needs one.

Edited May 3, 2010 by regfootball

[Robert Hall]

The June issue of Automobile came over the weekend. There is a well done large right front 3/4 view illustration of how it might look. Pointy and angular. Very sleek.

[smk4565]

Lexus is kinda deprived of soul and passion, yet it sells. But I agree with you fully, Cadillac should be more like Alfa Romeo than like Lexus in the passion/soul scale.

Lexus has an identity and reputation of high quality and reliability. That allows them to sell to luxury buyers that don't care about performance, but want comfort and a car that will never need repaired. Whether the car goes 200,000 miles without needing a major repair or not is besides the point, the people that buy a Lexus believe it will.

BMW and Infiniti sell to buyers that want performance. Cadillac doesn't have that clear cut identity. Most of the people in the 45-60 age group that buy luxury cars still perceive Cadillac as a big American boat for old people, or a gangster Escalade. By trying to be all things, Cadillac doesn't hit any one thing really well. Alfa builds crummy cars, but they sell because of that Italiano passion/style/soul. Aston Martin has it too.

[smk4565]

I will whole heartedly support a mainstream ATS strategy based solely on a 2.0T four potter. Personally, I'll prefer it over a V6 3.0. I really don't want the costs and logistics expanded to offer both an I4 and a V6. Both engines can make approximately 270hp, but the turbo four will make more torque than the V6 and be slightly more economical. The downside is a slight lag in throttle response and a moderate loss of linearity (especially at part throttle).

How about the following engine lineup?

• ATS 2.0T - 2.0 DI-VVT Turbo DOHC I4 - 220hp @ 5300 rpm / 258 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm / 6200 rpm Fuel cut - 6L45 6-spd Automatic
  
• ATS 2.0T - 2.0 DI-VVT Turbo DOHC I4 - 290 hp @ 5200 rpm / 325 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm - 6L50 6-spd Automatic
  
• ATS-V] - 5.5 DI-VVT AFM Pushrod V8 - 420hp @ 6300 rpm / 412 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm - 6L80 6-spd Automatic
  
• ATS 1.9TD - 1.9 DI-VVT Turbo DOHC I4 - 170 hp @ 4200 rpm / 258 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm - 6L45 6-spd Automatic (EU Only)
  

4-cylinder engines lack refinement, even the best in the world can't compare to a good 6 cylinder. Plus with all that turbo boost, the power delivery isn't going to be as smooth. Those power numbers aren't enough either. This engine makes 320-330 hp (depending on model) and 332 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm, with an overboost that can produce 370 lb-ft for 7 seconds.

[CanadianBacon94]

The June issue of Automobile came over the weekend. There is a well done large right front 3/4 view illustration of how it might look. Pointy and angular. Very sleek.

do you think it will be on the site?

[dwightlooi]

4-cylinder engines lack refinement, even the best in the world can't compare to a good 6 cylinder. Plus with all that turbo boost, the power delivery isn't going to be as smooth. Those power numbers aren't enough either. This engine makes 320-330 hp (depending on model) and 332 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm, with an overboost that can produce 370 lb-ft for 7 seconds.

The refinement issue is actually a little more complicated than that.

(1) Power Pulse Frequency -- For any given displacement, an engine with more cylinders fire more frequently and in smaller installments than a engine with fewer cylinders. However, this is actually a relatively minor contributor to engine refinement. Just look at it this way. Does your engine feel much "smoother" at 3000 rpm vs 2000 rpm, or 1500 rpm vs 1000 rpm? Because that is exactly the pulse proximity improvement you'll see when you go from a four to a six.

(2) Balance -- A bigger contributor to refinement is engine balance. Reciprocating engines have a tendency to have a dynamically shifting center of gravity in operation. This causes the engine to shake. This shake, if not absorbed by the engine mounts ultimately transmits to the vibrations you can feel while driving the car and gives an impression of crudeness. Here, more cylinders is not always better. In fact, vibrations have nothing to do with cylinder count but rather the engine configuration. Horizontally opposed engines, the I6 and the V12 are the only naturally balanced layouts. Everything else vibrates* The magnitude of the vibration gets worse as engine displacement (actually mostly engine stroke) increases. The key here is how it is dealt with. Smaller I4s (up to 1.8 liters) generally do not employ balancers because the the vibrations aren't too bad, most 2.2 and 2.4 engines use contra-rotating (lancester) balancers at twice the engine speed and can achieve near perfect balance. A 2 liter usually don't need balancers, but some of them -- including the GM 2.0T -- have them. A V6 is a different story. A 90 deg six uses a single balancer at crank speed but in the opposite direction. A 60 degree six usually does not because its vibration characteristics are not as bad as the 90 deg engine and because there is usually no room in the narrow Vee for a balance shaft. At the end of the day, many 60 degree V6es of larger displacements (eg 3.5~4.0 liters) can actually have worse vibrations than a 2.0 liter with balance shafts (like the LNF) and be roughly equivalent to a balancer equipped 2.4 liter I4 residual vibes.

(3) Block and accessory noise -- An engine block flexes and vibrates as it is stressed by the combustion pulses. Accessories and their serpentine drives make noise and shakes of their own. These affect the overal refinement of an engine, but has nothing to do with the engine layout or cylinder count.

At the end of the day, a good 4-potter of 2-liters can actually be more refined than many sixes out there, especially the bigger ones. The LNF (2.0T) is plenty refined, the Mitsubishi 4G63 (2nd Gen Eclipse GS-T/GS-X) is buttery smooth. Personally I feel that the LNF engine in the Solstice GXP is smoother than the 3.6 in the Malibu when I drove them back to back.

* A 1-cylinder has significant 1st order up-down vibrations. A three has a 1st order end-to-end rock. A four becomes 1st order balanced thanks to an equivalent number of pistons going up and down, but picks up 2nd order up down shake because the acceleration of the pistons going up and those coming down are not equal except at mid stroke. A V6 picks up the three cylinders end to end rock again -- 60 deg sixes being milder than 90 deg ones. A V8 has again end to end rock. The key here is how you deal with it. In a 4-cylinder, contra rotating balancers at twice the engine speed can achieve near perfect balance. In a V8, a cross plane crank can mitigate vibrations through the use of heavy counterweights. In a 90 deg V6, a single balancer a crank speed can do the same. A 60 deg six usually do not employ a balancer because the vibrations are relatively mild.

As far as power goes, I think 290 hp 2.0T ATS is plenty good enough, especially if they can keep the weight to around 3300 lbs. You don't have to beat the 335i. For those with the budget and inclination for a 335 or an M3, the salesman can always direct him to the ATS-V with its 420+ horsepower small block V8 -- which ought to be in the $40K bracket and right in line with a 335 while offering 2 more cylinders and about 100 more horses.

[regfootball]

the LNF is a smooth engine. rather shocking that GM does make an ultra smooth 4, but it really is a nice engine.....

[smk4565]

the I6 and the V12 are the only naturally balanced layouts. Everything else vibrates

As far as power goes, I think 290 hp 2.0T ATS is plenty good enough, especially if they can keep the weight to around 3300 lbs. You don't have to beat the 335i. For those with the budget and inclination for a 335 or an M3, the salesman can always direct him to the ATS-V with its 420+ horsepower small block V8 -- which ought to be in the $40K bracket and right in line with a 335 while offering 2 more cylinders and about 100 more horses.

Exactly right on the first point. And the car in that class with the I6, is the #1 seller and considered by every automotive publication to be the gold standard of the class.

I can't see GM keeping weight to 3300 pounds. Almost nothing GM makes is among the lightest in the class, they are usually among the heaviest in the class. A Corvette is near 3300 pounds, and the ATS has to have dual power heated and ventilated seats, Sat-Nav, 10-12 speakers, moonroof, leather, wood, sound deadening, etc. All that stuff adds weight. My guess is weight closer to 3600-3700 pounds, in which case they will need 300+ hp to keep it running with the 335i and G37. The ATS-V should be closer to $60k. If the regular ATS is in the $28-38k price range, it won't have the build quality the Germans have, and it will fall flat on its face. The ATS is going into a segment no American car has ever had success in.

[Drew Dowdell]

Exactly right on the first point. And the car in that class with the I6, is the #1 seller and considered by every automotive publication to be the gold standard of the class.

I can't see GM keeping weight to 3300 pounds. Almost nothing GM makes is among the lightest in the class, they are usually among the heaviest in the class. A Corvette is near 3300 pounds, and the ATS has to have dual power heated and ventilated seats, Sat-Nav, 10-12 speakers, moonroof, leather, wood, sound deadening, etc. All that stuff adds weight. My guess is weight closer to 3600-3700 pounds, in which case they will need 300+ hp to keep it running with the 335i and G37. The ATS-V should be closer to $60k. If the regular ATS is in the $28-38k price range, it won't have the build quality the Germans have, and it will fall flat on its face. The ATS is going into a segment no American car has ever had success in.

The ATS is going to be the first platform released that had a greater part of it's development time under the Post-Bankrupt GM rather than Pre-Bankrupt GM. All bets are off for weight and build quality.... especially considering the build quality GM is putting out these days (world class)

The EPSII, Sigma II, Delta II, Theta II were all pre-bankruptcy development have all the baggage associated with it.

[CanadianBacon94]

"The ATS-V should be closer to $60k. If the regular ATS is in the $28-38k price range, it won't have the build quality the Germans have"

just because something is cheaper to lure in new buyers doesn't mean its down on quality

[smk4565]

"The ATS-V should be closer to $60k. If the regular ATS is in the $28-38k price range, it won't have the build quality the Germans have"

just because something is cheaper to lure in new buyers doesn't mean its down on quality

It will be, American cars often find places to cut corners. As I said before, no American car ever made an impact in the small luxury class, in fact the only attempt really was the Cimarron (uh oh, I said it), and we know how that turned out. The Catera was a midsize car, as are the CTS and MKZ. Faux wood, leather out of the Malibu, and engine out of a defunct Solstice, and the corporate radio unit aren't going to cut it. Remember GM is launching an unproven, unknown car and going after the #1 selling luxury car in the world that has 30 years worth of awards and accolades on the shelf. They can't compromise this car.

[Drew Dowdell]

If all you can point to is the old GM stuff as evidence.......

[smk4565]

If all you can point to is the old GM stuff as evidence.......

Well they currently build nothing on par with the Germans. The closest thing they have is the CTS, which is like a watered down 5-series/E-class that sells for $13,000 less. So there is nothing to point to. The ATS is going into territory GM hasn't gone in 25 years, and the one time they tried, they built the worst car in Cadillac history.

[CanadianBacon94]

Well they currently build nothing on par with the Germans. The closest thing they have is the CTS, which is like a watered down 5-series/E-class that sells for $13,000 less. So there is nothing to point to. The ATS is going into territory GM hasn't gone in 25 years, and the one time they tried, they built the worst car in Cadillac history.

what did they say when the 1st gen CTS came out?

[Drew Dowdell]

Well they currently build nothing on par with the Germans. The closest thing they have is the CTS, which is like a watered down 5-series/E-class that sells for $13,000 less. So there is nothing to point to. The ATS is going into territory GM hasn't gone in 25 years, and the one time they tried, they built the worst car in Cadillac history.

They currently build nothing that was designed post-bankruptcy without all the cost saving measures built in to counter balance their debt and UAW.

The Alpha platform will be the first post bankruptcy platform released. You can't use any previous assumptions.

[CanadianBacon94]

the CTS is probably the best looking car i have ever seen, or at least up there with Gallardo's and r8's.

ant i dont expect the ATS to break the styling streak

edit: :duh: that is the wrong quote at the top of the page it s supposed to be

"The ATS is going into a segment no American car has ever had success in. "

Edited May 6, 2010 by CanadianBacon94

[dwightlooi]

Exactly right on the first point. And the car in that class with the I6, is the #1 seller and considered by every automotive publication to be the gold standard of the class.

I can't see GM keeping weight to 3300 pounds. Almost nothing GM makes is among the lightest in the class, they are usually among the heaviest in the class. A Corvette is near 3300 pounds, and the ATS has to have dual power heated and ventilated seats, Sat-Nav, 10-12 speakers, moonroof, leather, wood, sound deadening, etc. All that stuff adds weight. My guess is weight closer to 3600-3700 pounds, in which case they will need 300+ hp to keep it running with the 335i and G37. The ATS-V should be closer to $60k. If the regular ATS is in the $28-38k price range, it won't have the build quality the Germans have, and it will fall flat on its face. The ATS is going into a segment no American car has ever had success in.

The I6 is not without its flaws. The I6 is a VERY long engine; Longer than a V8, almost as long as a V-12. It is also heavy due to the long bottom end. This negatively impacts balance and weight. To get to 50/50 weight distribution, the BMWs have to have the front wheels very far forward of the A-pillars and the battery in the trunk. This is bad for torsional rigidity and adds weight (because the stressed load bearing structure is longer. They also had to tuck the I6 very far back and cannot implement an integral cross member between the front strut towers (ala Audi). That the 3-series is not overly heavy and has good dynamics is a testament to BMW's engineering discipline. But that same discipline will produce a lighter, stiffer and similarly balanced car if a shorter engine is employed.

If you concede that GM cannot build a car in the same size and weight as the 2000~2006 C-class (3250 lbs for the C230 to 3500 lbs for the C55) then you are also conceding that GM cannot get within 10 years of the competition in engineering and manufacturing. Based on that assumption, they will not build a competitive car, period. Adding weight and engine power doesn't change that.

As far as pricing goes, the CTS-V -- one size class up and fitted with a force fed 6.2 V8 -- is already at $60K. The ATS-V will have to be slotted lower. If the run of the mill ATS is to be priced high-20s to high-30s. The ATS-V should come in at $45K or thereabouts. This will be consistent with the premium that the CTS-V commands over the CTS. It is also a good price point to be at. That was where the E36 M3s were (adjusted for inflation). An ATS-V priced at $45K will under cut the $60K European Uber sport compacts by about $15K. It also returns an Uber compact to the price segment which saw their best sales (the E36 was the best selling M3); a price segment the Europeans had gradually priced themselves out of. Why is $45K the magic number? Because it is what a young 25~35 year old making a decent salary can painfully afford. Any higher and they can't afford it even if they dream of owning one every day through their college and internship years. Once you need to pander to the 40 and 50 year olds with more established careers and financials, you start getting push backs like them wanting a bigger car, wives complaining about the ride, etc. When that happens they start looking at the M5s and the E63s and the CTS-Vs and away from the ATS-V or the AMG C-class or the M3. This is exactly the situation where the Europeans find themselves in.

My formula for the ATS-V will be very simple -- Keep it simple, keep it light, keep it small and keep it at $45K.

• 5.5 liter Gen V DI VVT AFM Pushrod V8 making ~420hp
  
• Rear mounted 6-Spd Hydramatic Auto with Helical LSD.
  
• Hyper Strut fronts, Multi-link rears, free floating calipers all around.
  
• No active steering, no active differentials, no active dampers, no air springs, no active headlamps.
  
• No power sun shades, no massage chairs, no air conditioned cushions, no moonroofs.
  
• All steel construction, 3500 lbs.
  

[Z-06]

Well they currently build nothing on par with the Germans. The closest thing they have is the CTS, which is like a watered down 5-series/E-class that sells for $13,000 less. So there is nothing to point to. The ATS is going into territory GM hasn't gone in 25 years, and the one time they tried, they built the worst car in Cadillac history.

Past experience is irrelevant to the future. CTS-V took only two iterations to dry the throats of German competitors in terms of performance. There is no string attached in the ATS from the past GM, if you do not have faith it would be wise to just keep quiet and observe.

[67impss]

+1

[regfootball]

The I6 is not without its flaws. The I6 is a VERY long engine; Longer than a V8, almost as long as a V-12. It is also heavy due to the long bottom end. This negatively impacts balance and weight. To get to 50/50 weight distribution, the BMWs have to have the front wheels very far forward of the A-pillars and the battery in the trunk. This is bad for torsional rigidity and adds weight (because the stressed load bearing structure is longer. They also had to tuck the I6 very far back and cannot implement an integral cross member between the front strut towers (ala Audi). That the 3-series is not overly heavy and has good dynamics is a testament to BMW's engineering discipline. But that same discipline will produce a lighter, stiffer and similarly balanced car if a shorter engine is employed.

If you concede that GM cannot build a car in the same size and weight as the 2000~2006 C-class (3250 lbs for the C230 to 3500 lbs for the C55) then you are also conceding that GM cannot get within 10 years of the competition in engineering and manufacturing. Based on that assumption, they will not build a competitive car, period. Adding weight and engine power doesn't change that.

As far as pricing goes, the CTS-V -- one size class up and fitted with a force fed 6.2 V8 -- is already at $60K. The ATS-V will have to be slotted lower. If the run of the mill ATS is to be priced high-20s to high-30s. The ATS-V should come in at $45K or thereabouts. This will be consistent with the premium that the CTS-V commands over the CTS. It is also a good price point to be at. That was where the E36 M3s were (adjusted for inflation). An ATS-V priced at $45K will under cut the $60K European Uber sport compacts by about $15K. It also returns an Uber compact to the price segment which saw their best sales (the E36 was the best selling M3); a price segment the Europeans had gradually priced themselves out of. Why is $45K the magic number? Because it is what a young 25~35 year old making a decent salary can painfully afford. Any higher and they can't afford it even if they dream of owning one every day through their college and internship years. Once you need to pander to the 40 and 50 year olds with more established careers and financials, start getting push you backs like them wanting a bigger car, wives complaining about the ride, etc. When that happens they start looking at the M5s and the E63s and the CTS-Vs and away from the ATS-V or the AMG C-class or the M3. This is exactly the situation where the Europeans find themselves in.

My formula for the ATS-V will be very simple -- Keep it simple, keep it light, keep it small and keep it at $45K.

• 5.5 liter Gen V DI VVT AFM Pushrod V8 making ~420hp
  
• Rear mounted 6-Spd Hydramatic Auto with Helical LSD.
  
• Hyper Strut fronts, Multi-link rears, free floating calipers all around.
  
• No active steering, no active differentials, no active dampers, no air springs, no active headlamps.
  
• No power sun shades, no massage chairs, no air conditioned cushions, no moonroofs.
  
• All steel construction, 3500 lbs.
  

LOL, why do you think all the lux makers sell more crossovers than their upper tier sedans? why do pigs like the Q7 exist? Because the wives pick the car. ATS-V would be a perfect go to work car for a 40+ well to do exec whose wife spends 60k on the Q7.

I will just mention one thing here, i think 3500 pounds is a bit much for a tiny car like the ATS-V. could you knock 100 pounds off it? Perhaps just leaving it normally aspirated and leaving off all the heavy supercharger stuff would help weight and distribution.

One more thing I will throw out there. I think this car could distinguish itself with an 8 speed automatic. Before you poopoo this, the 8 speeds are emerging, and GM will need to develop them at some point. Yes the v8 is a torque monster, but an 8 speed may be required down the pike anyways. My guess is GM won't rear mount the tranny on a chassis they intend to proliferate to lots of cars, including lower priced ones.

I would only buy this with the expectation that power sunshades should be on it because eurolux cars have them. Moonroof is an option.

I think GM would need to offer magnetic adjust real time suspension on this model too.

[CanadianBacon94]

i think the 8-speed should be a FWD transmission.

i just don't see there being an actual improvement with an 8 vs. a 6 speed with this kind of torque.

when your trying to push a two ton lacrosse with 182 hp there is a difference

Edited May 6, 2010 by CanadianBacon94

[regfootball]

agree on the 8 speed for the front drivers.

[aldw]

I'd still prefer to have a 6-cylinder for the mid-level versions, and I for one wouldn't like to have to purchase a BMW just because someone decided to leave that out.