Cadillac ATS Forecast

[dwightlooi]

2012 Cadillac ATS Initial Lineup Forecast

[Drew Dowdell]

The diesel would be Europe only I assume...

[pow]

Sounds good... though a six-cylinder, 3800-lb BMW 528i already gets 22/32 MPG.

[hyperv6]

Nice but i just do not think this is what we will get.

[dwightlooi]

Nice but i just do not think this is what we will get.

What do you think we'll get?

In any case, the power trains I forecasted are based on the following deductions:-

• 2.0T -- Basically a LNF engine tuned for 87 octane; boost goes down, hp decreases by 10, torque by 38, torque plateau extended.
  
• 2.0TD -- OPC Twin Sequential Turbo 4-pot Diesel engine burrowed from Opel
  
• 3.6 -- Same engine as the Camaro; 87 octane
  
• 6.2 -- Gen V Small Block V8; ATS-V gets naturally aspirated version, Supercharged version reserved for CTS-V and Vette
  

The basic Turbo-4 + V6 strategy is similar to VW-Audi's. For the specialty ATS-V, a small block provides class beating performance and unique Cadillac character.

Edited September 17, 2010 by dwightlooi

[Camino LS6]

Sounds spot-on to me, although I could see slight differences in displacements being a possibility.

[NOS2006]

Sounds spot-on to me, although I could see slight differences in displacements being a possibility.

Agree completely. I don't at all expect the 6.2, I expect the replacement motor that will be put in the C7. Something in the mid 5.x liter range that will produce 420+ HP (depending on the vehicle's weight).

[dwightlooi]

Agree completely. I don't at all expect the 6.2, I expect the replacement motor that will be put in the C7. Something in the mid 5.x liter range that will produce 420+ HP (depending on the vehicle's weight).

I am assuming that they'll keep it as a 6.2. The 5.5 is a racing engine limited by class rules to 5.5 liters, I don't think it'll have any bearings on the production engine's displacement(s). Chances are they'll have a few displacements like they do today.

Realistically, though the engine outputs will vary quite a bit depending on displacement and configuration:-

Gen V Pushrod Small Block

• 7.0 Supercharged -- N/A (Cylinder Walls Too Thin)
  
• 7.0 NA -- 525hp / 500 lb-ft
  
• 6.2 Supercharged -- ~620hp / 620 lb-ft
  
• 6.2 NA -- ~470hp / 440 lb-ft
  
• 5.5 Supercharged -- ~550hp / 550 lb-ft
  
• 5.5 NA -- ~420hp / 390 lb-ft
  
• 4.8 Supercharged -- 480hp / 480 lb-ft
  
• 4.8 NA -- 370 hp / 340 lb-ft
  

These estimates assume the incorporation of Direct Injection along with a 1 point increase in compression ratio.

[NOS2006]

Yeah, it's too bad they had to design the 427 with such thin cylinder walls.

I wouldn't at all mind seeing the 4.8 SC or 5.5 make its way into an ATS-V given your estimated numbers. And put the 4.8 NA in some Buicks, full size Chevrolets, and small trucks (as the performance model).

[regfootball]

the powertrains look good, except the curb weights are quite porky.

where's the all wheel drive?

22/32 mpg for the 'common model' is promising.

ATS is distant, they should really bring out 8 speeds for them.

If GM does indeed do something like a nice 4.8l 72 degree v8 DOHC i'd much rather see that in the ATS than a pushrod.

Edited September 17, 2010 by regfootball

[smk4565]

The engines seem likely, GM often doesn't release an all new engine on an all new model. So I'd expect the 2.0 Turbo 4 out of the Regal/Solstice, the CTS's current 3.6 V6 and a Camaro/Corvette 6.2 V8. I don't think the weights will be that low though, 3500 lbs is ambitious for a GM product. Which means I don't see 32 mpg highway happening either, the 2.0T in the Solstice (a small, light car) got 26 mpg, although it does get 30 mpg highway in the Regal. I think 30 is tops in the ATS, more likely 29 mpg.

[FAPTurbo]

Forget DOHC! With an engine like that, people will be too busy to care, as they'll be melting into their seats, mouths agape, because that car will go 0-60 faster than you can say Holy Shi-.

[hyperv6]

What do you think we'll get?

In any case, the power trains I forecasted are based on the following deductions:-

• 2.0T -- Basically a LNF engine tuned for 87 octane; boost goes down, hp decreases by 10, torque by 38, torque plateau extended.
  
• 2.0TD -- OPC Twin Sequential Turbo 4-pot Diesel engine burrowed from Opel
  
• 3.6 -- Same engine as the Camaro; 87 octane
  
• 6.2 -- Gen V Small Block V8; ATS-V gets naturally aspirated version, Supercharged version reserved for CTS-V and Vette
  

The basic Turbo-4 + V6 strategy is similar to VW-Audi's. For the specialty ATS-V, a small block provides class beating performance and unique Cadillac character.

I like what you have but I just get the gut feeling the ATS will not get a V8.

I think you are correct on a 4 cylinder non turbo but not a 2.0.

A Turbo 2.0 will be there but it will not be Diesel in this country. GM just is not showing the will to do it.

I see a NA V6 3.6

The V my gut says it will be the Twin Turbo V6. GM will leave the V8 for the bigger Alpha CTSV. GM has to make these car different in some way. THe ATS V will be like a Camaro SS while the CTS V will be the Z28. Note I kind of expect the 6th gen Camaro will get a V6 TT SS and a V8 Z/28.

My feelings are coming on hints from people I know that can't really say much so I have to fill in around their hints for now. I know GM is hard at work in the TT V6 and they will not just use it only in a car or two but many models. I also have been told the V8 is alive but will be more limited to less models in the future. It has also been noted the cost buy a the V8's will climb too it will be mostly in higher end models. The MFG want people to chose smaller engines and will make them pay for it in the top models.

I could be wrong but this is only my obervations. Either way we will still have some very sweet cars. I just hope you are high on you weights. GM has been working for the new models to be lighter and I hope they can do much better than you have listed. If they don't they have failed at something they need to do. A lighter car is coming from most MFG Mazda has already show some results.

GM can gain some real ground with a lighter car. The GM engineer stated that if they can get it light like they would like it will advance the car in all directions not just one area as power does. Less mass improves not only acceleration buy MPG, braking distances and handling. I just hope they can achieve this with the Alpha as it would give GM a leg up.

The trannys I suspect will remain 6 speed. The Vette engineers are already stating that more is not better in all cases and hinted that the C7 would not gain gears. I don't really care one way or the other but that is what they are saying so it tells me more gears are not a priority with them.

Like I state this is just my gut feeling and I may be totaly wrong or even on part right but just my own thoughts till I get something more to base it on.

Might want to change the tire make on teh V to Pilots. Michelin is doing the OE work on the V series of late. Goodyear has cut back some on OE work as there is little profit and often the tires are not as good as if they were built to the tire companies spec vs the comprimised automaker spec. Goodyear is now back being profitable and they have killed many OE contracts I just see them working were it is to their advantage or the auto makers want a special tire that they have and is will to pay more for it like the Volts Fuel Max tires.

Edited September 17, 2010 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

TTV6 vs. V8 for the ATS-V is a very tough call to make.

I give it even money.

[Dsuupr]

I take the diesel in a 4-door and trade in my Tahoe.

[hyperv6]

TTV6 vs. V8 for the ATS-V is a very tough call to make.

I give it even money.

I just see it in steps as the TT V6 will give the ATS a very Euro like driveline that would appeal there and here. The V8 would make the CTS a car that people would pay mroe to own and make it a different car from the ATS. With them both on the Alpha it will be very very important to make them different vs just making CTS a bigger version of the ATS.

The CTS will need to offer things the ATS does not have and make make the CTS a better car to be worth the extra money. Also offer the CTS with the TT V6 in a middle model too. The NA V6 is the base model CTS.

[67impss]

I to hope for a lighter ATS this could be what makes it a premium chassie. Also would the TDI really only be 28/40mpg? or you low balling us

[Camino LS6]

I just see it in steps as the TT V6 will give the ATS a very Euro like driveline that would appeal there and here. The V8 would make the CTS a car that people would pay mroe to own and make it a different car from the ATS. With them both on the Alpha it will be very very important to make them different vs just making CTS a bigger version of the ATS.

The CTS will need to offer things the ATS does not have and make make the CTS a better car to be worth the extra money. Also offer the CTS with the TT V6 in a middle model too. The NA V6 is the base model CTS.

Everything rides on the specifics of the Alpha architecture that we don't yet know.

[dwightlooi]

I'll try to make a comprehensive response to the multiple posts above.

(1) MPG numbers on the 2.0T are derived from that of the Solstice GXP -- 22/31 MPG. The engine here will have a higher static compression and lower boost (est. 10.2:1 vs 9.2:1; 13.2psi vs 18 psi). This should result in Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) numbers lower than the LNF in the Solstice GXP. I expect the EPA City numbers to be unchanged despite a 400 lbs weight growth mainly due to the wider ratio spread of the 6L45 vs the 5L40 in the GXP and improved off-boost/low-load BSFC. EPA Highway numbers are basically a function of the top gear ratio and aerodynamics; weights does not matter very much because it is practically a constant speed test cycle. For the Highway cycle I expect a 1 MPG improvement simply because of the 6.05 ratio spread of the 6L45 vs the 4.56 ratio spread of the 5L40 in the Solstive GXP.

(2) I don't believe that they'll go for a 3.0TT or 3.6TT simply because there will be no weight, packaging or performance advantage. Plus it'll be an additional development whereas a DI Small Block V8 is already available from the Vette. The same thing goes for a DOHC V8, that is a new, separate development whereas the SB V8 is already a given. It too offers no weight, packaging or performance advantages. A 6.2 Pushrod V8 will fit in roughly the same space as the 3.6 DOHC V6, a TT 3.6 is actually harder to fit because of the space required for the turbos, intercooler plumbing and intercooler itself.

(3) If they do commit to a second V8 line that is DOHC, I strongly believe that it'll be a 60 deg engine based off of the 3.0 and 3.6 V6es. 90 deg engine will have to be all new. A 72 deg based off the 4.5 Duramax DOHC Diesel is unlikely -- that is a relatively heavy iron block.

(4) I'll like to see the ATS 2.0 weigh in at 3300 lbs and the ATS-V tipping the scales at 3500 lbs. But I don't think it's going to happen. GM is not going to splurge on aluminum space frames and the like.

[hyperv6]

Everything rides on the specifics of the Alpha architecture that we don't yet know.

This is true. We do know it will be suited for a 4 and V6 but we have yet to hear anything on a V8. Most of us assume with the CTS and Camaro heading for this a V8 may be an option. But till we hear more there is a chance a V8 still may not be part of the program. Note I only say a chance.

I hope they do keep it as an option so cars like a CTSV and Camaro Z28 Can still have the bigger engine.

Right now we still need to hear more on the new Ecotec and the variations they will be offered in. Also the V6 will we see a 3.6 TT or will it be a different engine that is smaller in displacement.

I talked to one of the Camaro Disciples and while I could not get specific info I was told things will not be disapointing with some new things that we do not know that are on the table. Not sure if this means the Zeta or Alpha. I know they are speaking to them already in terms of the Alpha and giving feed back. Just none are able to say what they are being asked. They are still also giving feed back on the Zeta cars too.

I mentioned something about Buick and I was told there are some very interesting things going on. Note they all were given many of the new 2011 cars to drive in Warren including CTS V coupe and sedan as well as other new GM models.

Camaro 5 had a post from one of the others that were there and again he was not able to say much of anything but also set the tone that the things covered were in the wow territory.

GM has clamped down and we will just have to wait till things get closer as they no longer have to show cars 5 years out to keep the stock prices up.

In fact I have not seen things this quiet on new product in years. Even Scott Settlemire is not saying much anymore.

[hyperv6]

I'll try to make a comprehensive response to the multiple posts above.

(1) MPG numbers on the 2.0T are derived from that of the Solstice GXP -- 22/31 MPG. The engine here will have a higher static compression and lower boost (est. 10.2:1 vs 9.2:1; 13.2psi vs 18 psi). This should result in Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) numbers lower than the LNF in the Solstice GXP. I expect the EPA City numbers to be unchanged despite a 400 lbs weight growth mainly due to the wider ratio spread of the 6L45 vs the 5L40 in the GXP and improved off-boost/low-load BSFC. EPA Highway numbers are basically a function of the top gear ratio and aerodynamics; weights does not matter very much because it is practically a constant speed test cycle. For the Highway cycle I expect a 1 MPG improvement simply because of the 6.05 ratio spread of the 6L45 vs the 4.56 ratio spread of the 5L40 in the Solstive GXP.

(2) I don't believe that they'll go for a 3.0TT or 3.6TT simply because there will be no weight, packaging or performance advantage. Plus it'll be an additional development whereas a DI Small Block V8 is already available from the Vette. The same thing goes for a DOHC V8, that is a new, separate development whereas the SB V8 is already a given. It too offers no weight, packaging or performance advantages. A 6.2 Pushrod V8 will fit in roughly the same space as the 3.6 DOHC V6, a TT 3.6 is actually harder to fit because of the space required for the turbos, intercooler plumbing and intercooler itself.

(3) If they do commit to a second V8 line that is DOHC, I strongly believe that it'll be a 60 deg engine based off of the 3.0 and 3.6 V6es. 90 deg engine will have to be all new. A 72 deg based off the 4.5 Duramax DOHC Diesel is unlikely -- that is a relatively heavy iron block.

(4) I'll like to see the ATS 2.0 weigh in at 3300 lbs and the ATS-V tipping the scales at 3500 lbs. But I don't think it's going to happen. GM is not going to splurge on aluminum space frames and the like.

1 You may be close on the MPG. THe LNF in the HHR at 3200 with an auto is 22 city and 30 Highway in real life. With the Turbo upgrade kit it increases 1-2 MPG confirmed by Bill Duncan of GMPD. This is with the 290 HP and 315 FT LB. Note too the HHR is not the most aero vehicle too and was hindered with a 4 sp auto.

2 You are only looking at it from a techincal side while I look at it from a Marketing side. They can make the TT engine fit if they really want it too. Cost is not so much a factor in a Cadillac vs if this was a Malibu. GM does have plans for a TT turbo as they do not hide the engine much. The idea with the Cadillac is to offer something more than a Chevy. This engine will be added value to the people who pay more for a Cadillac. Also I just will be suprised if they offer a V8 in a ATS. If they do not make the ATS and CTS fundimentally different they will have another CTS vs STS issue on their hands and we know how that effected the STS. They can have to different but quaity cars on their hands if they can give them different options.

3 I just do not see them spending a lot of money on a new second V8. More investment in the V6 but not anymore than they are already doing on the new Vette/pickup engine. Each and every year forward I see a decline in the sales of V8 engines.

4 As for weight 3300 would be a major win. Odds are against it but we can hope. Again more expensive materials are something that Cadillac could do but not Chevy. We will see an increase in the next 10 years of more aluminum and composites and with more use the prices will drop. The cars to use them first will be the Vette and Cadillacs. Just where and how they will be used will just have to wait and see.

Edited September 18, 2010 by hyperv6

[dwightlooi]

1 You may be close on the MPG. THe LNF in the HHR at 3200 with an auto is 22 city and 30 Highway in real life. With the Turbo upgrade kit it increases 1-2 MPG confirmed by Bill Duncan of GMPD. This is with the 290 HP and 315 FT LB. Note too the HHR is not the most aero vehicle too and was hindered with a 4 sp auto.

2 You are only looking at it from a techincal side while I look at it from a Marketing side. They can make the TT engine fit if they really want it too. Cost is not so much a factor in a Cadillac vs if this was a Malibu. GM does have plans for a TT turbo as they do not hide the engine much. The idea with the Cadillac is to offer something more than a Chevy. This engine will be added value to the people who pay more for a Cadillac. Also I just will be suprised if they offer a V8 in a ATS. If they do not make the ATS and CTS fundimentally different they will have another CTS vs STS issue on their hands and we know how that effected the STS. They can have to different but quaity cars on their hands if they can give them different options.

3 I just do not see them spending a lot of money on a new second V8. More investment in the V6 but not anymore than they are already doing on the new Vette/pickup engine. Each and every year forward I see a decline in the sales of V8 engines.

4 As for weight 3300 would be a major win. Odds are against it but we can hope. Again more expensive materials are something that Cadillac could do but not Chevy. We will see an increase in the next 10 years of more aluminum and composites and with more use the prices will drop. The cars to use them first will be the Vette and Cadillacs. Just where and how they will be used will just have to wait and see.

(1) I won't be surprised if the did a TT DOHC V6. My suspicions is that it'll be a low boost (~0.8 bar; 11.8 psi) ~350hp 3.0 liter rendition. The TT V6 will most likely be in the vicinity of 350 lb-ft with a very low peak of 1600~1800 rpm. This puts it in the same power class as the BMW N55 and the Ford Ecoboost 3.5. It'll be useful in applications where the 3.6 is under torqued. The SRX and perhaps the entry Suburbans and others can use such an engine. The reason I favor the 3.0 over the 3.6 is that it has 14mm cylinder walls whereas the 3.6 has somewhat marginal 9 mm cylinder walls. The 3.0 also has an integrated exhaust collector in the heads (it has one exhaust port per bank) meaning the manifold feeding the turbo can be very simple and efficient. The reason I doubt it'll be a used in the ATS-V is that it'll have to be a high boost engine using the 3.6 block. To match a Small block, it'll be something along the lines of the Nissan GT-R's 480hp VQ38DETT -- neither cheap nor particularly efficient given its low compession, plus those 9mm cylinder walls on the 3.6 and ~17.4 psi of boost is on the edge at best.

(2) The ATS and CTS are separated by vehicle size. They are also substantially different in powertrain. The CTS starts with a six andd ends with a Supercharged V8. The ATS starts with a turbo four and ends with a normally aspirated V8. The separation of the ATS-V and the CTS-V will be that the CTS has a superrcharged version of the engine. In many ways it'll be like the previous generation AMG cars. The C55 had a NA 5.5 V8. The E55 had the Supercharged version. In all likelihood, you'll see a 450~470hp engine in the ATS-V and a 550~625 hp engine in the CTS-V -- quite substantially different.

(4) Aluminum is not new. Aluminum and its various alloys have been an industrial mainstay for a century. Aluminum is every where from sidings to cases to blinds to shower doors. Any process economies have probably been tapped. If Aluminum usage in cars increase, prices may actually increase due to increased demand and a relatively mature and inelastic supply. Aluminum promises an ~33% weight savings on the chassis, high strength steel about 15%. A typical car has a chassis weight of about 500~750 lbs (227~340 kg) That is about 1/6th the vehicle's curb weight. The rest is the driver train, the interior, the doors, the suspensions, the wheels, etc. So the use of aluminum space frames really amounts to about 150~225 lbs of savings. High strength steel gets you 70~100 lbs off. At some point you start wondering if the 80~125 lbs its worth the cost of aluminum which is almost twice that of steel in a per unit strength basis.

[hyperv6]

(1) I won't be surprised if the did a TT DOHC V6. My suspicions is that it'll be a low boost (~0.8 bar; 11.8 psi) ~350hp 3.0 liter rendition. The TT V6 will most likely be in the vicinity of 350 lb-ft with a very low peak of 1600~1800 rpm. This puts it in the same power class as the BMW N55 and the Ford Ecoboost 3.5. It'll be useful in applications where the 3.6 is under torqued. The SRX and perhaps the entry Suburbans and others can use such an engine. The reason I favor the 3.0 over the 3.6 is that it has 14mm cylinder walls whereas the 3.6 has somewhat marginal 9 mm cylinder walls. The 3.0 also has an integrated exhaust collector in the heads (it has one exhaust port per bank) meaning the manifold feeding the turbo can be very simple and efficient. The reason I doubt it'll be a used in the ATS-V is that it'll have to be a high boost engine using the 3.6 block. To match a Small block, it'll be something along the lines of the Nissan GT-R's 480hp VQ38DETT -- neither cheap nor particularly efficient given its low compession, plus those 9mm cylinder walls on the 3.6 and ~17.4 psi of boost is on the edge at best.

(2) The ATS and CTS are separated by vehicle size. They are also substantially different in powertrain. The CTS starts with a six andd ends with a Supercharged V8. The ATS starts with a turbo four and ends with a normally aspirated V8. The separation of the ATS-V and the CTS-V will be that the CTS has a superrcharged version of the engine. In many ways it'll be like the previous generation AMG cars. The C55 had a NA 5.5 V8. The E55 had the Supercharged version. In all likelihood, you'll see a 450~470hp engine in the ATS-V and a 550~625 hp engine in the CTS-V -- quite substantially different.

(4) Aluminum is not new. Aluminum and its various alloys have been an industrial mainstay for a century. Aluminum is every where from sidings to cases to blinds to shower doors. Any process economies have probably been tapped. If Aluminum usage in cars increase, prices may actually increase due to increased demand and a relatively mature and inelastic supply. Aluminum promises an ~33% weight savings on the chassis, high strength steel about 15%. A typical car has a chassis weight of about 500~750 lbs (227~340 kg) That is about 1/6th the vehicle's curb weight. The rest is the driver train, the interior, the doors, the suspensions, the wheels, etc. So the use of aluminum space frames really amounts to about 150~225 lbs of savings. High strength steel gets you 70~100 lbs off. At some point you start wondering if the 80~125 lbs its worth the cost of aluminum which is almost twice that of steel in a per unit strength basis.

1 You can has the numbers but the fact is a TT V6 is coming and I will GM decide what is best. You numbers give us something to play with till then. We wll see domething over 400 HP and one in the 300 HP range.

2 We all know size is different even in the STS and CTS today. But the flavor of the cars is very similar. The CTS works out to be the better so there is no reason to buy a STS. The ATS if left to a 4 and V6 with a Turbo V6 V car would give way to a CTS with the V6 and Turbo V6 with the not available V8 in the CTS V. The key here is to offer more advaced and mre technally advanced engines in the CTS to give people a reason to move up and pay more. We do not want CTS buyers to want the ATS but we want ATS buyers to want to move to a CTS if they can afford too. Tech and marketing are key in this class. You can afford to spend the money on more advanced systems as people will pay for them here. Yes all are not must haves but they all are selling points that attract. It is not alway the point of the best thing in this class but more about the more fancy, exciting and coolest thing that helps sell this class.

4 We are all aware of the use of aluminum. Reclaim keep the price down as it has for years. The fact is Aluminum is only a part of this. Besides GM has already been using much in the way of Aluminum. Just look under a W body and the front Cradle. It save just over 50 pounds alone on the nose of a 03 and 04 and later Imapala Regal and GP. If they can afford a Aluminum Sub frame on a Impala they will incorperate more into the more expensive cars too. Besides the cost is also factored by weight vs MPG and often anymore they will spend more to get more MPG such as with the many engine systems.

Compsites and othe alloys will come into play. The industry as a whole is looking to move to and help cut the cost of mass produced Cabon Fiber. Several deals have been struck even with GM. The ZR 1 is not the last car to have Carbon Fiber at GM.

At this point all either of us can do is guess as neither of us have the full story and I think we both will find suprises will be in store. We both I think are on the right track in some areas and out to lunch on others. Time will tell what we did get right and wrong.

Edited September 18, 2010 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

My gut feeling is that:

CTS will not be on Alpha

Sigma/Zeta will merge into a single architecture and move forward.

An ATS lineup, the next Camaro, and a new Buick will all share Alpha but will be dramatically differentiated. Both in appearance and drivetrains.

No separate DOHC V8 will be produced, but a new V8 capable of both DOHC and pushrod configurations could be very appealing to GM. Short of that, I expect no DOHC V8s at all.

[hyperv6]

My gut feeling is that:

CTS will not be on Alpha

Sigma/Zeta will merge into a single architecture and move forward.

An ATS lineup, the next Camaro, and a new Buick will all share Alpha but will be dramatically differentiated. Both in appearance and drivetrains.

No separate DOHC V8 will be produced, but a new V8 capable of both DOHC and pushrod configurations could be very appealing to GM. Short of that, I expect no DOHC V8s at all.

I would like to see the CTS on the Hybird. I read some that feel this could happen. Hard to tell yet but could is in play yet as far as we know. The more they can keep the CTS and ATS appart the better. Similar but different is improtant here.

I knew about the Camaro Alpha but the Buick is still a mystery. That is where I posted a couple weeks ago a insider that talked of a new GN like car with w TT V6. That tells me RWD may be in play and Alpha would be prime.

I know you hate hearing this but the V8 while around will become smaller and smaller in numbers sold and built. I see them keeping the present engine upto date but no large investment. With 4 cylinders now 70+% of the market it will only grow and V6 engines with Turbo's will be the main players for upscale in most cars in 10 years.

Once GM makes the move for a Turbo V6 in the trucks I see the numbers really dropping on the V8. I expect Ford and Chevy to both offer this and they will move the price of the V8 up that it will be around but may force many into the turbo engine. Or GM could just make a even smaller V8 as that is always on the table and could be a smart move.

Bit I agree there will not be two v8 engines and I just don't see a duel DOHC and In block cam coming.

[Camino LS6]

As I said, just my gut feelings about it all.

And maybe a bit of logical deduction.

[dwightlooi]

Prediction for 3.0 DOHC V6 - Twin Turbo

• Super Linear Torque Delivery -- 332 lb-ft from 1600 rpm to 5600 rpm
  
• Super fast response -- air-water aftercooler = minimum pressurized volume
  
• Regular 87 Octane compatibility
  
• 6L50 transmission compatibility -- 332lb-ft = 6L50 torque limit
  

Engine Code: LFx

Configuration: 60-deg V6

Construction: Aluminum Block and Heads

Valvetrain: Chain Driven DOHC 24-valve, Dual VVT

Aspiration: Twin Turbocharged, 11.8 psi (max. boost), air-to-water aftercooler

Bore x Stroke: 89 x 80.3 mm

Displacement: 2997 cc

Compression Ratio: 10.2:1

Recommended Fuel: 87 Octane Unleaded Gasoline / E85 Ethanol (at reduced power)

Power: 360 bhp @ 5800 rpm

Torque: 332 lb-ft @ 1600~5600 rpm

Redline: 6000 rpm

Applications:-

Buick Lacrosse GS

Buick Enclave GS

Cadillac SRX 3.0T (replacing 2.8T)

Cadillac XTS 3.0T

Cadillac CTS 3.0T (replacing 3.6 NA V6; 3.6 NA v6 replaces 3.0 V6 as base engine)

Chevy Tahoe (replacing 5.3 V8)

Chevy Suburban (replacing 5.3 V8)

GMC Acadia Denali

GMC Yukon/Yukon XL (replacing 5.3 V8; Yukon Denali gets Gen V Small Block)

Holden Commodore Series II (replacing 3.6 NA V6; 3.6 NA v6 replaces 3.0 V6 as base engine)

Opel Insignia OPC (replacing 2.8T V6)

Edited September 18, 2010 by dwightlooi

[dwightlooi]

Side Note:

In FWD/Transverse-AWD applications, the DOHC V6 TT will probably be detuned to:-

335 hp @ 6000 rpm

300 lb-ft @ 1400~5800 rpm

Redline: 6000 rpm

This is for compatibility with the 6T75 6-speed automatic transmission's 300 lb-ft max input torque rating.

The 6T75 is the stoutest transverse auto in GM's parts bin.

[smk4565]

My gut feeling is that:

CTS will not be on Alpha

Sigma/Zeta will merge into a single architecture and move forward.

An ATS lineup, the next Camaro, and a new Buick will all share Alpha but will be dramatically differentiated. Both in appearance and drivetrains.

No separate DOHC V8 will be produced, but a new V8 capable of both DOHC and pushrod configurations could be very appealing to GM. Short of that, I expect no DOHC V8s at all.

Rumor is that the next generation CTS will be on Alpha (long version) and that the CTS will get a 4-cylinder as the base engine. V6 will become optional. Sigma goes back to 2002, and Zeta seems too heavy to go forward with, so I think those platforms are toast.

I don't see why Buick needs an Alpha car, it would likely be smaller than a Regal, but more expensive than a LaCrosse? Way too much overlap with other GM products.

[smk4565]

As far as the ATS-V getting the Corvette engine, I think that is what they will do since it is easiest and cheapest. However, is a car with essentially the same engine in a $35,000 Camaro going to sell for $65,000? Probably not. The new Dodge Challenger is getting a 6.4 liter pushrod with 475 hp, that doesn't seem like the sort of market Cadillac should be going after.

[hyperv6]

As I said, just my gut feelings about it all.

And maybe a bit of logical deduction.

Gut! That is about all we have to go on right now.

I still think it will be the Alpha CTS since we have not heard much on the future of Zeta that far in advance. But again we have so little info right now.

[regfootball]

I'll try to make a comprehensive response to the multiple posts above.

(1) MPG numbers on the 2.0T are derived from that of the Solstice GXP -- 22/31 MPG. The engine here will have a higher static compression and lower boost (est. 10.2:1 vs 9.2:1; 13.2psi vs 18 psi). This should result in Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) numbers lower than the LNF in the Solstice GXP. I expect the EPA City numbers to be unchanged despite a 400 lbs weight growth mainly due to the wider ratio spread of the 6L45 vs the 5L40 in the GXP and improved off-boost/low-load BSFC. EPA Highway numbers are basically a function of the top gear ratio and aerodynamics; weights does not matter very much because it is practically a constant speed test cycle. For the Highway cycle I expect a 1 MPG improvement simply because of the 6.05 ratio spread of the 6L45 vs the 4.56 ratio spread of the 5L40 in the Solstive GXP.

(2) I don't believe that they'll go for a 3.0TT or 3.6TT simply because there will be no weight, packaging or performance advantage. Plus it'll be an additional development whereas a DI Small Block V8 is already available from the Vette. The same thing goes for a DOHC V8, that is a new, separate development whereas the SB V8 is already a given. It too offers no weight, packaging or performance advantages. A 6.2 Pushrod V8 will fit in roughly the same space as the 3.6 DOHC V6, a TT 3.6 is actually harder to fit because of the space required for the turbos, intercooler plumbing and intercooler itself.

(3) If they do commit to a second V8 line that is DOHC, I strongly believe that it'll be a 60 deg engine based off of the 3.0 and 3.6 V6es. 90 deg engine will have to be all new. A 72 deg based off the 4.5 Duramax DOHC Diesel is unlikely -- that is a relatively heavy iron block.

(4) I'll like to see the ATS 2.0 weigh in at 3300 lbs and the ATS-V tipping the scales at 3500 lbs. But I don't think it's going to happen. GM is not going to splurge on aluminum space frames and the like.

GM (and Ford) rarely even spend the bucks to put the high strength steel in their cars, part of the reason they both have all the pork.

Imagine all the good will it would get in the market to bring a 280-300hp, 2.0t ATS w/ 6 sp manual to market that weighed in at 3250 pounds. That would bring so much more cred instantly letting the buff books drive it and rave about it rather than paying all the idiot marketers to concoct some expensive and useless social networking marketing campaign.

If getting that booming press means spending money on some high strength steel and some aluminum.....then stop being cheap about it.

If you're gonna retain weight in the car, you can talk about the offset of whether you are ok with a heavier engine and tranny and the complexity but benefit that can come with it. More mass in the body can make a car more solid but you can also make the car just as solid with lighter materials. You can't market a heavy car just on the basis that it's built with a lot of heavy cheap steel. But complex motors with turbos and valves and vvt and vtec will sell and is a marketing point even if it makes the car heavier.

Edited September 18, 2010 by regfootball

[dwightlooi]

As far as the ATS-V getting the Corvette engine, I think that is what they will do since it is easiest and cheapest. However, is a car with essentially the same engine in a $35,000 Camaro going to sell for $65,000? Probably not. The new Dodge Challenger is getting a 6.4 liter pushrod with 475 hp, that doesn't seem like the sort of market Cadillac should be going after.

Which is why the ATS-V shouldn't, and probably wouldn't, be $65,000. That pays for a CTS-V. The two wouldn't be the same price, just like the M3 and the M5 aren't the same price.

The ATS-V will probably start at $45,000. While the "regular" ATS starts at around $30,000 (around $5000 less than the entry price for the CTS).

For $10,000 more than a Camaro, you get a Caddy will four doors, a posh interior, more amenities and a completely different style. That it shares the same basic engine as the Camaro and the Vette isn't an impediment to desirability. For 3/4 the price of an M3 you have a faster, better handling car with a similar level of utility and polish. That it doesn't have to rev to 8300 rpm is actually a positive thing.

[smk4565]

Which is why the ATS-V shouldn't, and probably wouldn't, be $65,000. That pays for a CTS-V. The two wouldn't be the same price, just like the M3 and the M5 aren't the same price.

The ATS-V will probably start at $45,000. While the "regular" ATS starts at around $30,000 (around $5000 less than the entry price for the CTS).

For $10,000 more than a Camaro, you get a Caddy will four doors, a posh interior, more amenities and a completely different style. That it shares the same basic engine as the Camaro and the Vette isn't an impediment to desirability. For 3/4 the price of an M3 you have a faster, better handling car with a similar level of utility and polish. That it doesn't have to rev to 8300 rpm is actually a positive thing.

Thinking like that is why Cadillac is a bargain basement luxury brand. Lack of guts to go after the Germans, in price, not horsepower.

[regfootball]

Which is why the ATS-V shouldn't, and probably wouldn't, be $65,000. That pays for a CTS-V. The two wouldn't be the same price, just like the M3 and the M5 aren't the same price.

The ATS-V will probably start at $45,000. While the "regular" ATS starts at around $30,000 (around $5000 less than the entry price for the CTS).

For $10,000 more than a Camaro, you get a Caddy will four doors, a posh interior, more amenities and a completely different style. That it shares the same basic engine as the Camaro and the Vette isn't an impediment to desirability. For 3/4 the price of an M3 you have a faster, better handling car with a similar level of utility and polish. That it doesn't have to rev to 8300 rpm is actually a positive thing.

ATS -V will play to a young demographic, 45k is about right.

But, at that price point to that demographic, a pushrod v8 may not be a motivator for purchase.

Which is why a twin turbo with balls out horsepower may be more marketable.

Let's argue that caddy and chevy for that matter if they put ats and camaro on alpha and are developing a new 2.5l 4 ecotec, maybe the v8 needs to a 5.0 litre double ecotec 4 v8 that can both mate into the alpha for camaro and ats....for camaro so it can match mustang 5.0 and for ATSv so it has the cred to battle in the luxury segment.

Edited September 19, 2010 by regfootball

[dado]

ATS -V will play to a young demographic, 45k is about right.

But, at that price point to that demographic, a pushrod v8 may not be a motivator for purchase.

Which is why a twin turbo with balls out horsepower may be more marketable.

Let's argue that caddy and chevy for that matter if they put ats and camaro on alpha and are developing a new 2.5l 4 ecotec, maybe the v8 needs to a 5.0 litre double ecotec 4 v8 that can both mate into the alpha for camaro and ats....for camaro so it can match mustang 5.0 and for ATSv so it has the cred to battle in the luxury segment.

That is what i'm afraid of. If ATS aims at younger demographics maybe DOHC engine in ATS-v would be a better choice or CIB but with smaller displacement.Pushrod engines are great.. And yes they are lighter, smaller, cheaper, easier to work on, less complicated. But that means a little to finall buyer because they don't work on their engine,don't care about engine weight as long as car is light i etc. I know people who will see hp/l number and say that engine with higher HP/l is better. I know it is stupid argument but most people believe in what they are told by carmagazines, journalist etc (most of them, at least in my country don't know nothing about car engines but that doesn't stop them from writing about cars).

So buyer will see 6.2 l and 450+ hp. That is 73 hp/l. Yes the torque will be high but i don't think young people take too much notice on that. That kind of engine would be great for luxury sedan..but this is sport sedan.

My suggestion. If GM will put pushrod engine in ATS-V let it be something like 5.0 l v8 with turbocharger (or supercharger ) and 480+ hp.Or 4.5 l v8 with 430 hp. Hp/l is high, torque curve will be great, redline wouldn't have to be high since it is forced induction..now the weight of the engine?? I don't think supercharger like the one on LS9 engine would add too much weight.

And im' curious. What is the differences between new Ford 5.0 l v8, BMW V8, Mercedes new TT v8 and LS3? Yes i know LS3 is smaller in external dimension but i never heard people(who are not engineer,mechanics,tuners etc.)complain about external size of the engine.

Edited September 19, 2010 by dado

[dwightlooi]

Let me put it this way... an ATS-V at $45K is the right price point, whereas an M3 at $60K is the wrong price point.

Why? Because cars like the M3 price themselves out of the meat of the market for this class of vehicles.

Case and point... The E36 M3 used to go for about $40K. Back then, about 20% of 3-series sold was an M3. Today, the the E90s the M3 is $60K and about 4% of 3-series sold is an M3.

I think the reason is very simple. The 22 to 35 year old college grads and working professionals can usually afford a $35K new car. They can also -- with some pain -- afford the $45K car they have always wanted. $60K puts it out of reach. And when it is out of reach, it really doesn't matter if its a $60K M3 or a $250K Ferrari.

The other problem here is the CTS-V. If you move the ATS-V to $60~65K, you'll need to move the CTS-V to 75~80K. Then none of the Vs will sell enough to cover their own development costs. If Caddy wants a "halo car" like the LFA or the Viper or the GT-R, then they should go build a supercar for that purpose. Resurrect the XLR or call it something else. Intentionally, making the top model of your bread and butter models too expensive to sell is a horrible way of doing it.

[hyperv6]

The new ATS will be starting just under the present CTS and will go up from there the the V. The CTS will in the next Gen move up in price and size a little.

We will have a little conflict till they get both new models out.

The model and price structure is under revamp as we go here so expect changes.

[regfootball]

Let me put it this way... an ATS-V at $45K is the right price point, whereas an M3 at $60K is the wrong price point.

Why? Because cars like the M3 price themselves out of the meat of the market for this class of vehicles.

Case and point... The E36 M3 used to go for about $40K. Back then, about 20% of 3-series sold was an M3. Today, the the E90s the M3 is $60K and about 4% of 3-series sold is an M3.

I think the reason is very simple. The 22 to 35 year old college grads and working professionals can usually afford a $35K new car. They can also -- with some pain -- afford the $45K car they have always wanted. $60K puts it out of reach. And when it is out of reach, it really doesn't matter if its a $60K M3 or a $250K Ferrari.

The other problem here is the CTS-V. If you move the ATS-V to $60~65K, you'll need to move the CTS-V to 75~80K. Then none of the Vs will sell enough to cover their own development costs. If Caddy wants a "halo car" like the LFA or the Viper or the GT-R, then they should go build a supercar for that purpose. Resurrect the XLR or call it something else. Intentionally, making the top model of your bread and butter models too expensive to sell is a horrible way of doing it.

it certainly doesn't help that BMW has a 335i now that will outperform the old M3's. essentially the new 335i is an M3, the M3 was purposely made more exclusive.

your point, about price point, well made. I guy i know who is about 30 has an older M3, but I can tell you he has told me he has wanted to get a newer one and all he can afford is the 335. For some reason he keeps his old M3 (but strangely he has a spare BMW AWD wagon to drive as a winter car). Bottom line, BMW took the price of the M3 up even further to make them absolutely exclusive.

the thing is, Cadillac does not have the same status in the market and 45k is pushing it, maybe 50k sticker if the car is lights out on the track and GM has room to throw 5-10 grand of incentives at it to move it at the end of the model year.

any ATSv needs to be the 'entry level V car' that can bring in exactly the sort of buyers Dwight says. And also as said, it has to set up the pricing for success with the CTSv as well.

there may be no XLRv or XTSv and there probably should never be an SRXv. Cadillac needs to get the ATSv and CTSv dead on in every aspect to keep any sort of performance cred with Cadillac.

I wonder what production level goals caddy has set for the ATS and next gen CTS. I am certain caddy is expecting a big rebound in sales vs the DTS when they bring the XTS to market.

[smk4565]

Let me put it this way... an ATS-V at $45K is the right price point, whereas an M3 at $60K is the wrong price point.

Why? Because cars like the M3 price themselves out of the meat of the market for this class of vehicles.

Case and point... The E36 M3 used to go for about $40K. Back then, about 20% of 3-series sold was an M3. Today, the the E90s the M3 is $60K and about 4% of 3-series sold is an M3.

I think the reason is very simple. The 22 to 35 year old college grads and working professionals can usually afford a $35K new car. They can also -- with some pain -- afford the $45K car they have always wanted. $60K puts it out of reach. And when it is out of reach, it really doesn't matter if its a $60K M3 or a $250K Ferrari.

The other problem here is the CTS-V. If you move the ATS-V to $60~65K, you'll need to move the CTS-V to 75~80K. Then none of the Vs will sell enough to cover their own development costs. If Caddy wants a "halo car" like the LFA or the Viper or the GT-R, then they should go build a supercar for that purpose. Resurrect the XLR or call it something else. Intentionally, making the top model of your bread and butter models too expensive to sell is a horrible way of doing it.

BMW sold more M models in 2008 and 2009 than they did at any point in the past, the M3 is expensive but they still sell them at a good rate. Also, an E36 M3 had 240 hp and dd 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, a 335i has 300 hp and 0-60 in 4.9 seconds. So a mid-line 3-series today out performs an M3 of a few years ago.

If $60k is the wrong price point, what about the Corvette then? The Corvette bases at $50k, and an LT3 or Gran Sport can easily hit over $60,000. That car is comparable to an M3 in performance, but doesn't have a back seat and has a bargain basement interior. So an ATS-V with Corvette level power and far better interior should sell for $10-15,000 less than a Corvette?

You also bring up Cadillac's biggest problem. You mention that if a CTS-V was $75-80,0000 it would not sell. Yet Mercedes and BMW can charge $90,000 for their sedans that are slower than a CTS-V. Cadillac is a SECOND TIER luxury brand for this very reason. Cadillac cuts corners all over the place on their cars (the "old GM" influence) they build an inferior product, and they sell it for an inferior price. What annoys me most about Cadillac is they act like and claim to be a tier one brand, but they aren't. Cadillac is no better than Acura, Lincoln, Volvo or the Luxury Hyundais.

[smk4565]

any ATSv needs to be the 'entry level V car' that can bring in exactly the sort of buyers Dwight says. And also as said, it has to set up the pricing for success with the CTSv as well.

there may be no XLRv or XTSv and there probably should never be an SRXv. Cadillac needs to get the ATSv and CTSv dead on in every aspect to keep any sort of performance cred with Cadillac.

I wonder what production level goals caddy has set for the ATS and next gen CTS. I am certain caddy is expecting a big rebound in sales vs the DTS when they bring the XTS to market.

Two good points are made here. Cadillac and "entry level" is the first. Cadillac is an entry level luxury brand. If the ATS-v is $45,000 it will be full of compromises, just like a Chrysler 300C is.

Performance cred is the next point, how much do you have when your top 2 volume cars are a soccer-mom crossover and a land barge for senior citizens. This is why Lexus has no performance credibility, and went out and made the LF-A in hopes to find some. And Lexus still has no performance cred.

Cadillac has to figure out what it wants to be, if they are a performance-luxury brand go all out at it. If they want to build big, soft riding cars like they did in the past, then fine, do that and build snooze-mobiles to meet or exceed Lexus. But you can't do both and not know what to do and change your mind every 5 years as to what you are.

[FAPTurbo]

Two good points are made here. Cadillac and "entry level" is the first. Cadillac is an entry level luxury brand. If the ATS-v is $45,000 it will be full of compromises, just like a Chrysler 300C is.

Weird, because the Hyundai Equus undercuts the competition by thousands of dollars and I've yet to hear of any 'compromises.' Why is it when Hyundai makes a luxo-barge that's affordable, that people say it's the best thing since the discovery of Fire, but when Cadillac makes a sedan that matches or beats the competition for less money that it's somehow 'compromised' or flawed?

Performance cred is the next point, how much do you have when your top 2 volume cars are a soccer-mom crossover

Last I checked, Acura, Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Lexus, Lincoln, Mercedes, and Porsche all make 'soccer mom crossovers.' Using that logic, only until a month or so ago, Porsche was as boring as Lexus because its best seller was the Cayenne... a vehicle driven primarily by 'soccer moms!' BMW has as much performance credibility as Geo now, because they've got what, like, half a dozen 'crossovers' now?

and a land barge for senior citizens.

No argument there, but the DTS is going to die. Besides, I don't think normal consumers shop for a sports-sedan like the CTS and abruptly leave the Cadillac dealership in a huff because a DTS happens to be in the same room as them. Seriously, a vehicle like the XTS will not 'harm' Cadillac's image. If that opinion held water, the public would be leaving BMW in droves because of the horrid X6 which handles like a pig.

[smk4565]

Reviews I have seen of the Equus do state how the dash materials are not on the same level of a Benz or BMW, and how handling is not as good as a 7-series, but the features list on the Equus is very impressive and unmatched at that price. I don't see heated/cooled/messaging/reclining seats and a refrigerator in any Cadillac. And Hyundai's competition is not Mercedes, it is Chevy, Ford, Honda and Toyota. Hyundai has the Equus on sale here to make a statement so they can sell more Sonatas and Tuscons.

The difference between the SRX and the Cayenne or X5, is the BMW and Porsche are rear drive and offer 500 hp, not the engine out of an Equinox.

DTS will be gone, but the XTS is the same car. It may have awd, but it is a car for seniors. And perhaps even worse, is the DTS had a platform made for big/premium sedans and the Northstar V8 (both of which are now dated) that gave it some exclusivity from the rest of GM sedans in the 2000-2010 era. Now the XTS is basically the platform/engine you get in a Malibu or LaCrosse. This is why the Acura RL and Lincoln MKS are sales duds, we all know it's an Accord or Taurus for $45,000.

[FAPTurbo]

Reviews I have seen of the Equus do state how the dash materials are not on the same level of a Benz or BMW, and how handling is not as good as a 7-series, but the features list on the Equus is very impressive and unmatched at that price. I don't see heated/cooled/messaging/reclining seats and a refrigerator in any Cadillac. And Hyundai's competition is not Mercedes, it is Chevy, Ford, Honda and Toyota. Hyundai has the Equus on sale here to make a statement so they can sell more Sonatas and Tuscons.

Well, every reviewer is comparing the Equus to the big boys from Bavaria, so its competition is obviously the luxury marquees. When the Genesis came out, it was compared to the BMW's, Merc's, Caddy's and Infiniti's of its class and nobody batted an eye. Hyundai's product stable simply cannot be compared to just one tier of manufacturers like Chevrolet and Toyota.

The difference between the SRX and the Cayenne or X5, is the BMW and Porsche are rear drive and offer 500 hp, not the engine out of an Equinox.

They're still crossovers, and you can bet the majority of the Cayenne sales are V6 models, an engine out of a Volkswagen. Big deal. Cayenne customers don't care it's out of a Vee Dub, and once again, only you, me, and maybe 20,000 people are actually are aware that the SRX shares an engine with a Chev. At the end of the day, the SRX and X3 are driven the same: stop and go traffic, from Starbucks to soccer to Starbucks. The Cayenne, and X3/X5 are total mommy-mobiles, as is the SRX. And they represent massive sales figures for their respective companies. It's what the market demands, and if Cadillac is owning that market, so much the better. SRX sales revenue will translate to better CTS', a worthwhile XTS, and a show-stopping ATS. Plus, the previous SRX with it's V8 and RWD didn't set the world on fire in terms of sales, no matter how well it tested on the skidpad.

DTS will be gone, but the XTS is the same car. It may have awd, but it is a car for seniors. And perhaps even worse, is the DTS had a platform made for big/premium sedans and the Northstar V8 (both of which are now dated) that gave it some exclusivity from the rest of GM sedans in the 2000-2010 era. Now the XTS is basically the platform/engine you get in a Malibu or LaCrosse.

Right now, it is anyone's guess as to how the XTS turns out. The vehicle does not portend to be a sports-sedan but instead a boulevard cruiser; that doesn't mean it's for oldies. The concept had a high-tech hybrid drivetrain, and was packed with technology. If GM keeps the powertrain, technical wizardry, and the interior, then it will sell to people who appreciate luxury; a high-tech 'coach' for the next decade. If GM doesn't deliver, and my expectations aren't terribly high, then yes, it'll be a gilded Malibu. But let's all wait and see.

This is why the Acura RL and Lincoln MKS are sales duds, we all know it's an Accord or Taurus for $45,000.

'We' as in, forum dwellers and enthusiasts. Joe Q. Public doesn't buy the RL because it has design that makes an Aveo look as exciting as an Aston.

[cavalier36]

well Cadillac rebadges a Chevy Tahoe and sells it as an Escalade. a very simular Tahoe would be about $51,000 and they Escalade starts at $63,000.. so you pay $12,000 for diffrent badges, steering wheel, grille, headlights and taillights. sounds like a DEAL to me. So I dont see why they cant rebadge a Buick Lacrosse and sell it as a XTS and charge $12,000 more than the Lacrosse that would have about the same equipment and the same engine.

[dwightlooi]

The idea that you should make a car more expensive simply to get respect is ridiculous. Based on that logic, you'll sell more iPhones if you simply make them $500 more expensive because the high price makes them more "desirable". Well, it doesn't work because demand for pretty phones and cars are pretty darn elastic.

If the price tag is such that it'll force a low rent interior or compromise performance it would have been one thing. But $45,000 won't. The ATS-V at $45K is about $10K more than a fully optioned out 3.6 ATS. The beautiful thing is that the Gen V pushrod V8 is probably no more expensive than the 3.6 DOHC V6. So that leaves $10,000 to play with for brakes, tires, limited slip differentials, magnetologic shocks and whatever else. The interior is not going to be any different from the standard ATS-V save for a few emblems and trim pieces.

Edited September 20, 2010 by dwightlooi

[dado]

If the price tag is such that it'll force a low rent interior or compromise performance it would have been one thing. But $45,000 won't. The ATS-V at $45K is about $10K more than a fully optioned out 3.6 ATS. The beautiful thing is that the Gen V pushrod V8 is probably no more expensive than the 3.6 DOHC V6. So that leaves $10,000 to play with for brakes, tires, limited slip differentials, magnetologic shocks and whatever else. The interior is not going to be any different from the standard ATS-V save for a few emblems and trim pieces.

What is a price diferrences of new ford 5.0 l v8 and ls3? I think ls3 weight less, have smaller external dimensions but what is the price? I think Ford engine is on sale for around 7000 $. IF (big if) LS3 version is around that price(i think it cost less) then i can't understand how Ford can make V8 with Dohc heads etc (without DI) for same money GM needs to make V6 DOHC (with DI). I'm not sure how much version with 440 Hp from Boss cost. Does anyone knows what was the price of northstar engine when it was in production?

Edited September 20, 2010 by dado

[NOS2006]

What is a price diferrences of new ford 5.0 l v8 and ls3? I think ls3 weight less, have smaller external dimensions but what is the price? I think Ford engine is on sale for around 7000 $. IF (big if) LS3 version is around that price(i think it cost less) then i can't understand how Ford can make V8 with Dohc heads etc (without DI) for same money GM needs to make V6 DOHC (with DI). I'm not sure how much version with 440 Hp from Boss cost. Does anyone knows what was the price of northstar engine when it was in production?

LS3 costs $6134. LINK

Current/past cost of Northstar isn't available on this site, but they do list the XLR-V's supercharged Northstar engine at $14,354. Using the percentage between the LS3 and LSA (LS3 is about 56.5% the price; LSA costs $14,087), the Northstar would cost about $8110 if made today based on the supercharged Northstar price.

[Robert Hall]

I see no relevance of the cost of a crate engine compared to the cost of a car with the same engine..people buy cars w/ specific engines, not engines by themselves..

[dwightlooi]

What is a price diferrences of new ford 5.0 l v8 and ls3? I think ls3 weight less, have smaller external dimensions but what is the price? I think Ford engine is on sale for around 7000 $. IF (big if) LS3 version is around that price(i think it cost less) then i can't understand how Ford can make V8 with Dohc heads etc (without DI) for same money GM needs to make V6 DOHC (with DI). I'm not sure how much version with 440 Hp from Boss cost. Does anyone knows what was the price of northstar engine when it was in production?

The LS3 is around ~$6100 (retail). But these are not a good measures of actual costs to Ford and GM. The profit margins may be different.