Cadillac ATS Forecast

[dado]

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..

I was refering to this "The beautiful thing is that the Gen V pushrod V8 is probably no more expensive than the 3.6 DOHC V6". If engine is cheaper but more powerful profit will be bigger (usually) . If gen V cost almost as 3.6 l dohc v6 engine, but it has 150+hp you can charged much more for the car. Of course the car will have bigger brakes,different transmissions, different setup which will effect price of the car. But you "saved" some money on the engine.

[dwightlooi]

I was refering to this "The beautiful thing is that the Gen V pushrod V8 is probably no more expensive than the 3.6 DOHC V6". If engine is cheaper but more powerful profit will be bigger (usually) . If gen V cost almost as 3.6 l dohc v6 engine, but it has 150+hp you can charged much more for the car. Of course the car will have bigger brakes,different transmissions, different setup which will effect price of the car. But you "saved" some money on the engine.

I think the point is that comparing the price of crate engines are not necessary a good way to decipher the actual cost of the engines.

When installed in a car, what really matters is whether the product -- a well handing, 470hp, $45,000 car finished to a standard (presumably) similar to that of the current CTS -- is sellable in the market. Some individuals here contend that it won't be as sellable as a $65,000 product packed with more content or simply more margin, because of the desirability of exotic content or simply price driven exclusivity, or both.

I disagree.

[dado]

When installed in a car, what really matters is whether the product -- a well handing, 470hp, $45,000 car finished to a standard (presumably) similar to that of the current CTS -- is sellable in the market. Some individuals here contend that it won't be as sellable as a $65,000 product packed with more content or simply more margin, because of the desirability of exotic content or simply price driven exclusivity, or both.

I disagree.

I won't say i disagree or agree but i will give you example. Situation in your country (USA) is very different than in my.

I now couple of peoples that are..lets say they parents are much above average in income section. They drive Audi, BMW, mercedes..well not everyone but enough. They went in law, and business universities (i went in engineering so i know thing or two about engines).

One of them bought BMW M3 with V8. In my country it cost about 105000 euros. And that is a lot of money here.

One day we meet and started to talk about cars. Now you must understand he doesn't know much about engines. He was talking about his car that "has superb engine that has over 100 hp/l and over 8000 rpm redline" etc. All the stuff you can read in some car magazines review.I told him there are more important things than that if you look at engine alone and that even americans had an engine in late 60 which could rev to 8000 rpm (the one in Camaro z28 from'69). Now he was little offended by that but conversation carried on.

To summarized my end conclusion was. He bought a car with engine that can rev to 8000 rpm, but 98% of time spend in driving he doesn't go beyond 5 000 rpm. He has over 400 Hp which he doesn't use, his engine has over 100hp/l but he doesn't now what that really means. So why he bought that car? Because he wants to be noticed. Even little boys in my country know what M3 stands for. Because every magazine writes how good that car is and how good sound engine makes when it is spinning to 8000 rpm. Because that car cost so much not everyone can afford it. Because with that car he is accepted in club of rich, modern, young,successful etc. etc . people. Or that is what he likes to think.

Now everything what is described here it can't be said for ATS-V with pushrod engine. It probably won't have high rpm capabilities (i will be suprised if it hits 7000 rpm) it doesn't have over 100 hp/l and it doesn't cost much. Audi RS4 on the other hand...well it was second car he looked before he bought M3.

Now i would never give that kind of money for M3 when i can have same kind of performance for less money. It doesn't have to go to 8000 rpm or have 100 hp/l. But it has to be better in handling, overall perfomance etc. But i'm not the buyer of that kind of cars. I don't have that kind of money. But guy described before is. I would like to think that most of the buyers aren't like him.. but like i sad on the beginning. In my country it is a little bit different situation. I bet first thing when ATS-V comes out with CIB engine most European car magazines will say something like " it is good,etc etc, despite engine coming from stoneage" well maybe DI will change their minds but i doubt it.

Edited September 20, 2010 by dado

[Drew Dowdell]

Oh! You've met SMK!?

[dwightlooi]

I won't say i disagree or agree but i will give you example. Situation in your country (USA) is very different than in my.

I now couple of peoples that are..lets say they parents are much above average in income section. They drive Audi, BMW, mercedes..well not everyone but enough. They went in law, and business universities (i went in engineering so i know thing or two about engines).

One of them bought BMW M3 with V8. In my country it cost about 105000 euros. And that is a lot of money here.

One day we meet and started to talk about cars. Now you must understand he doesn't know much about engines. He was talking about his car that "has superb engine that has over 100 hp/l and over 8000 rpm redline" etc. All the stuff you can read in some car magazines review.I told him there are more important things than that if you look at engine alone and that even americans had an engine in late 60 which could rev to 8000 rpm (the one in Camaro z28 from'69). Now he was little offended by that but conversation carried on.

To summarized my end conclusion was. He bought a car with engine that can rev to 8000 rpm, but 98% of time spend in driving he doesn't go beyond 5 000 rpm. He has over 400 Hp which he doesn't use, his engine has over 100hp/l but he doesn't now what that really means. So why he bought that car? Because he wants to be noticed. Even little boys in my country know what M3 stands for. Because every magazine writes how good that car is and how good sound engine makes when it is spinning to 8000 rpm. Because that car cost so much not everyone can afford it. Because with that car he is accepted in club of rich, modern, young,successful etc. etc . people. Or that is what he likes to think.

Now everything what is described here it can't be said for ATS-V with pushrod engine. It probably won't have high rpm capabilities (i will be suprised if it hits 7000 rpm) it doesn't have over 100 hp/l and it doesn't cost much. Audi RS4 on the other hand...well it was second car he looked before he bought M3.

Now i would never give that kind of money for M3 when i can have same kind of performance for less money. It doesn't have to go to 8000 rpm or have 100 hp/l. But it has to be better in handling, overall perfomance etc. But i'm not the buyer of that kind of cars. I don't have that kind of money. But guy described before is. I would like to think that most of the buyers aren't like him.. but like i sad on the beginning. In my country it is a little bit different situation. I bet first thing when ATS-V comes out with CIB engine most European car magazines will say something like " it is good,etc etc, despite engine coming from stoneage" well maybe DI will change their minds but i doubt it.

It is easy to criticize stereotyping, but more often than not stereotypes developed for very valid reasons. Much through the 80s and 90s, American "performance" cars are heavy, not that fast, not that great handling and pretty low rent on the inside. They also used Pushrod motors. These things then become inter-associated.

None of those things are particularly true anymore with regards to cars like the CTS (although it is still 300 lbs too heavy). Over time, if Cadillac can deliver the quality, handling and performance customers expect, perception will change. Driving volumes to 3-series levels will take 2, maybe 3 generations.

[Camino LS6]

Oh! You've met SMK!?

[dado]

Oh! You've met SMK!?

:roflmao: :roflmao:

Kind of..but in European version. But sad thing is..here are a lot of people who thinks like that.Like it or not it is reality. These kind of buyers don't know much about engines (and why should they) so they read what car magazines write about it. And thinks that the more expensive the car is that you have higher status in society. And more complicated engine means better . I don't think that in USA is much different. Or am i wrong??

[dado]

It is easy to criticize stereotyping, but more often than not stereotypes developed for very valid reasons. Much through the 80s and 90s, American "performance" cars are heavy, not that fast, not that great handling and pretty low rent on the inside. They also used Pushrod motors. These things then become inter-associated.

None of those things are particularly true anymore with regards to cars like the CTS (although it is still 300 lbs too heavy). Over time, if Cadillac can deliver the quality, handling and performance customers expect, perception will change. Driving volumes to 3-series levels will take 2, maybe 3 generations.

Problem is CTS didn't change much in Europe about how people thinks about american cars. Common perception when you say to normal guy or woman (not some car fanatics) is: HUGE fuel consumption (especially when they heard it has above 6.0 l engine), very bad handling, boat,...oh yes...famous truck engine not suited for sedans , low on new technology, of course most of them read it in car magazines or heard it from their parents.

So if Cadillac is planing to sell ATS-v here..well you can guess what kind of car will normal people see when they read it has 6.2 l v8 with 450 hp and then compare it to.... i don't know 3.x I6 or 4.x v8 TT with even more HP .

On the other hand . Maybe Cadillac should first sell versions with I4 Turbo and V6, and diesel so people can get accustomed to idea of modern american vehicle and then drop in V version with "old" technology.

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't think the ATS-V will get the LS engine. I'm fully expecting it to be something like a twin turbo 3.0 or 3.6

[aldw]

:roflmao: :roflmao:

Kind of..but in European version. But sad thing is..here are a lot of people who thinks like that.Like it or not it is reality. These kind of buyers don't know much about engines (and why should they) so they read what car magazines write about it. And thinks that the more expensive the car is that you have higher status in society. And more complicated engine means better . I don't think that in USA is much different. Or am i wrong??

The Luxury vehicle consumers I know think along those very lines, which is why I feel that Cadillac has to take those things into consideration when developing new vehicles, and why having parts like the Ultra V8 or TTV6 is so important also.

I don't think the ATS-V will get the LS engine. I'm fully expecting it to be something like a twin turbo 3.0 or 3.6

For me, if the ATS-V gets a 3.6 TT I would buy one as soon as I possibly could.

Edited September 20, 2010 by aldw

[dado]

I don't think the ATS-V will get the LS engine. I'm fully expecting it to be something like a twin turbo 3.0 or 3.6

I would like to see that. But on the other haand..i don't know how version with let say 4.8-5.0 l v8, forced induction,DI, CIB. and close to 480 hp+ would be accepted. I mean it has 100 hp/l, not too big displacement, direct injection, it doesn't have to spin to 8000 because it has turbo and turbo is well accepted, in some circles on car engine, as "new and modern technology" (it was put in first car in...'60s..very new.) What else?? oh yes..the price. Now maybe Cadillac should offer that for extra 15 000 they could put some carbon fiber, lighter wheels, better tires, more powerful engine, parachuet, capuccino maker or something like that. Customer choice.

Edited September 20, 2010 by dado

[ZL-1]

I would like to see that. But on the other haand..i don't know how version with let say 4.8-5.0 l v8, forced induction,DI, CIB. and close to 480 hp+ would be accepted. I mean it has 100 hp/l, not too big displacement, direct injection, it doesn't have to spin to 8000 because it has turbo and turbo is well accepted, in some circles on car engine, as "new and modern technology" (it was put in first car in...'60s..very new.) What else?? oh yes..the price. Now maybe Cadillac should offer that for extra 15 000 they could put some carbon fiber, lighter wheels, better tires, more powerful engine, parachuet, capuccino maker or something like that. Customer choice.

Capuccino maker would be cool

[dwightlooi]

I don't think the ATS-V will get the LS engine. I'm fully expecting it to be something like a twin turbo 3.0 or 3.6

I fully expect GM to do a 3.0 or 3.6 Bi-Turbo. I am leaning towards the 3.0 because of wall thickness issues on the 3.6 block. This will replace the 2.8T in the Opel lineup and will provide a high torque power plant to vehicles currently underpowered by a 3.6 NA or is currently using the 5.3 LS4. In the case of the 5.3 replacements, the 3.0BT will create more distinction between a Turbo V6 in the low tier models and a V8 in the upper tier models. I expect a 300~360 hp engine with relatively low boost, very responsive (small) turbos and 87 octane compatibility.

For the ATS-V, I expect GM to go for performance and dynamics, and that calls for a NA Pushrod. A high strung, 480hp class 3.0 or 3.6 TT (133~160hp/liter) simply doesn't offer any weight, packaging or fuel economy advantage, while being significantly costlier and possibly a tad laggy due to to boost levels used (about 8.8:1 compression and 20~25 psi of boost is needed). Besides, the Gen V pushrod engine is confirmed for the Vette and building it just for the Vette will be uneconomical.

But you are right, it wouldn't be an LS. The LS ends with the LS9 and LSA; a new block means it'll be an L-something else. It also makes sense that the same engine in NA form powers the ATS-V whereas a supercharged version powers the CTS-V.

Edited September 21, 2010 by dwightlooi

[smk4565]

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.

I'm not saying make it expensive just for the sake of doing it, I am saying don't design the car on a shoe-string budget knowing you are going to sell at bargain basement prices. A loaded V6 ATS should be nearing $45,000, a loaded LaCrosse is near $40k, a loaded CTS about $50k. The ATS interior/features should be on par with the current CTS and the CTS has to move upward some.

My worry is you want the ATS-V to basically take the drive train out of the Corvette, and sell it for less than a Corvette. The Corvette interior is already stripped down, the ATS can't be cheaper than that thing.

[smk4565]

If Cadillac were smart (and that is a big IF) they should make the ATS-V a twin-supercharged V6 (I'd prefer 3.6 - 4.0 liter V8, but that ain't gonna happen) combined to a lithium-polymer battery hybrid system with an 8-speed automatic. No one else builds that, and 28 mpg combined is probably doable out of such a powertrain, and it would make enough horsepower to propel the car from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds or less.

Cadillac should build a "green" performance sedan, and get it first before everyone else does it and they are late to the party, again. That is where the market is going to go.

Edited September 21, 2010 by smk4565

[smk4565]

The last time a compact Cadillac had a pushrod was.....

[regfootball]

I always thought that J2000 was a really nice car.

those foglights are pretty.

Edited September 21, 2010 by regfootball

[dwightlooi]

Let's consider two engines:-

Hypothetical 3.6 liter Bi-Turbo DOHC-32v V6*

Power: 470 hp @ 6400 rpm

Torque: 420 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm

Redline: 7000 rpm

Engine Weight: 262 kg

Recommended Fuel: 91 Octane

Est. Fuel Economy: 18/25 (3700 lbs vehicle)

Cost Premium: $5000

Hypothetical Gen V 6.2 liter NA Pushrod-16v V8**

Power: 470 hp @ 6200 rpm

Torque: 438 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm

Redline: 6500 rpm

Engine Weight: 183 kg

Recommended Fuel: 91 Octane

Est. Fuel Economy: 17/26 (3700 lbs vehicle)

Cost Premium: $0

* Hypothetical 3.6 Bi-Turbo V6 based on the Nissan GT-R's VR38DETT engine. Same specific power output, same specific torque output, same power peak, same torque peak and same weight-to-displacement ratio. MPG figures assumption are +2 MPG (city) / +4 MPG (hwy) over Nissan GT-R (16/21 MPG) for reduced vehicular weight and elimination of AWD.

** Hypothetical 6.2 Gen V V8 based on LS3 engine with 1 point higher compression, direct injection, VVT and cylinder deactivation. 7% increase in power, 3% increase in torque and +1 MPG (city) / +1 MPG (hwy) improvement over the automatic Camaro SS for reduced weight and increased engine efficiency.

Why will you pick the Turbo V6?

Edited September 21, 2010 by dwightlooi

[Z-06]

Let's consider two engines:-

Hypothetical 3.6 liter Bi-Turbo DOHC-32v V6*

Power: 470 hp @ 6400 rpm

Torque: 420 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm

Redline: 7000 rpm

Engine Weight: 262 kg

Recommended Fuel: 91 Octane

Est. Fuel Economy: 18/25 (3700 lbs vehicle)

Cost Premium: $5000

Hypothetical Gen V 6.2 liter NA Pushrod-16v V8

Power: 470 hp @ 6200 rpm

Torque: 438 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm

Redline: 6500 rpm

Engine Weight: 185 kg

Recommended Fuel: 91 Octane

Est. Fuel Economy: 17/26 (3700 lbs vehicle)

Cost Premium: $0

* Hypothetical 3.6 Bi-Turbo based on the Nissan GT-R's VR38DETT engine. Same specific power output, same specific torque output, same power peak, same torque peak and weight-to-displacement ratio.

Why will you pick the Turbo V6?

Because it sounds "technologically advanced", it has "more street cred", it is a "DOHC" and it can be "developed" even further.

[dado]

Because it sounds "technologically advanced", it has "more street cred", it is a "DOHC" and it can be "developed" even further.

o.o.o.o...it also has higher rpm But i would like to see torque curve on that 3. 6 l v6 TT. I say put his engine in it- “Sneak Attack” LS7 5.7L from Katech. Add DI to it.

With an 8000rpm redline, this crate engine is ideal for that "sleeper" ride. Package includes LS7 case, Katech forged piston-rod assembly, forged crankshaft, LS7 cylinder heads, and an LS7 derived valvetrain coupled with Katech specified camshaft.

2 Stage dry sump oiling system

For off-road racing use only

Application: Racecars with displacement-limited classes, customers wishing to rev over 7000rpm

Displacement: 346ci, 5.7L

Bore: 4.125

Stroke: 3.240

Compression ratio: 12:1

Fuel: 100 octane

Horsepower: 580

Torque: 500

Block: LS7

Heads: LS7

Crank: Callies forged steel

Connecting rods: Carrillo A-Beam forged steel

Pistons: Katech forged aluminum with DLC coated pins

Camshaft: custom

Oiling system: Dailey 4 stage

Throttle body: 90mm electronic cable

Intake manifold: LS7

[smk4565]

Why will you pick the Turbo V6?

Ask that to all the people that buy an F150 Ecoboost this year instead of a Ram or Silverado with big ol' fashion displacement.

[Drew Dowdell]

Dwight, that Turbo V6 may not have the torque peak down low, but I bet it would have 95% of peak available at something like 1,700rpm right?

That's why I would pick the Turbo.

[smk4565]

Cadillac has to remember by the ATS comes out, there will be a new 3-series, and a new C-class shortly there after. Plus Jaguar is coming into this segment and the small Jaguar will be based on the XK's aluminum chassis. Jaguar has turbo V6 gas and diesel engines planned. M3 has a turbo straight six planned. So that is what the ATS is up against.

[smk4565]

GM almost always finds areas to cost cut and design the car on a budget because they have a low price in mind from the start. This Mercedes commercial says it all, it isn't about putting a big engine and chrome wheels on a standard car and calling it a performance sedan, it is about doing everything well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTluiXWxE3o&feature=related

[Drew Dowdell]

There hasn't been a single vehicle released that was developed under post bankruptcy GM. That GM vehicles are as competitive as they are today and were developed under "old" GM just goes to show how much potential hurt GM can do to it's competition.

Look at the Equinox, entirely developed with all the albatrosses of old GM, yet selling so well they had to add production at Oshawa to keep up with sales.

[dwightlooi]

Dwight, that Turbo V6 may not have the torque peak down low, but I bet it would have 95% of peak available at something like 1,700rpm right?

That's why I would pick the Turbo.

Actually, the GT-R engine doesn't peak that low. Turbo charged engines typically have a very sharp torque rise followed by a plateau and a sharp fall off. Modern turbos can maintain the plateau for about 3000 rpm at moderate boost levels. At lower boost levels this widens, possibly as much as 4000 rpm worth. At high boosts it is narrower, maybe 2500 to even 2000 rpm. Let's say you are running about 14~15psi. You can set an engine up for a 2000~5000 plateau or 3000~6000 plateau, but you can't do both. To do the former you use smaller turbos, for the latter you use bigger ones. Bigger ones can support higher flow rates but do not spool as quickly and needs more exhaust energy to drive. In the GTR I think they chose the latter. They could also use more boost, less compression and pull everything in to a lower rpm range but they didn't. The GT-R engine is a little soft down low, but doesn't run out of breath all the way to 7000 rpm. I think they want it that way.

Edited September 22, 2010 by dwightlooi

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm thinking more in terms of the Ford Ecoboost that hit's it's plateau at around 1700rpm and holds it till 5500 rpm.

This is the Taurus SHO, but the F-150 turbo gets a stump ripping 420 ft/lbs

[dwightlooi]

I'm thinking more in terms of the Ford Ecoboost that hit's it's plateau at around 1700rpm and holds it till 5500 rpm.

This is the Taurus SHO, but the F-150 turbo gets a stump ripping 420 ft/lbs

Yes, you can do that on a low boost application. 350 hp 365lb-ft from 3.5 liters is calls for about 10~12psi on 9.5~10.5:1 compression. When you start looking at higher specific outputs, boost goes up and the plateau gets narrower. 1700~5500 is about 3800 rpm. I believe that even a 4000 rpm spread is possible.

Try drawing a big arch between the start and end of the plateau. That is what the turbo will deliver if you basically let the boost go unchecked and assuming you have fuel with infinite octane. In reality you can't do that of course, but that what the airflow limits of the turbo will provide. The curve becomes a plateau because the waste gate opens, arresting boost rise and manages the boost pressure to keep the torque production at the prescribed level.

When you go from 350hp to say 460 hp, you need the turbo to spin to high speeds and deliver more boost before arresting boost rise with the wastegate. In essence you are chopping off the top of the arch at a higher point. At 460 hp your plateau is going to be about 2500~3000 rpm wide.

[dwightlooi]

Cadillac has to remember by the ATS comes out, there will be a new 3-series, and a new C-class shortly there after. Plus Jaguar is coming into this segment and the small Jaguar will be based on the XK's aluminum chassis. Jaguar has turbo V6 gas and diesel engines planned. M3 has a turbo straight six planned. So that is what the ATS is up against.

Right, and how does that point to Turbos or DOHC V8 power plants of smaller displacement at high revolutions?

I'll say that you go for the more powerful, lighter and more fuel efficient option. And, that is an advanced Pushrod V8. If it is also lower cost, that is a good thing; that gets you more budget to spend on the rest of the car.

It is not better because it has more displacement and appeals to people who look for big cubic inches. It is better because the combination of less valves and less cams equal less mechanical drag which provides for better fuel economy at low loads. It is better because the absence of broad and heavy DOHC heads reduces the engine's size and weight. It is better because its reduced complexity makes the engine less costly to produce. It is better because its performance matches that of turbo sixes and DOHC V8s of greater cost, complexity, weight, bulk and fuel consumption. Actually, it is better for the same very reasons it was created over half a century ago after advent of SOHC and DOHC engines.

[ZL-1]

Cadillac should build a "green" performance sedan

That is an excellent idea.

[Drew Dowdell]

Yes, you can do that on a low boost application. 350 hp 365lb-ft from 3.5 liters is calls for about 10~12psi on 9.5~10.5:1 compression. When you start looking at higher specific outputs, boost goes up and the plateau gets narrower. 1700~5500 is about 3800 rpm. I believe that even a 4000 rpm spread is possible.

Try drawing a big arch between the start and end of the plateau. That is what the turbo will deliver if you basically let the boost go unchecked and assuming you have fuel with infinite octane. In reality you can't do that of course, but that what the airflow limits of the turbo will provide. The curve becomes a plateau because the waste gate opens, arresting boost rise and manages the boost pressure to keep the torque production at the prescribed level.

When you go from 350hp to say 460 hp, you need the turbo to spin to high speeds and deliver more boost before arresting boost rise with the wastegate. In essence you are chopping off the top of the arch at a higher point. At 460 hp your plateau is going to be about 2500~3000 rpm wide.

Excellent explanation! Thank you sir!

[dwightlooi]

The LNF 2.0T engine is a good case study...

Here we have the same engine, same turbo, same transverse layout. The only difference is the maximum boost we allow the turbo to reach. On the manual Cobalt, we let it rise to 18.5 psi before arresting it. In the automatic HHR it was only allowed to get to about 14.5 psi. On the former we get a 3250 rpm torque plateau starting at 2000 rpm, on the latter the torque peaks at 1650 rpm but holds its lower value to 5500 rpm.

There is only a 10 hp difference between the two engines but there is also a more significant 38 lb-ft gap. At the higher end of things, the extra boost didn't help very much as the turbo was running off the efficient part of its compressor map anyway. Hence, only a 10 hp difference is realized despite the ~4 psi of extra boost. At some point you are making for heat than you are compressing air molecues.

If we take things further, such as with the GM Performance Parts upgrade kit which further ratchet up the boost with larger injectors and a new ECU program, power gets to 290 hp @ 5200 rpm, torque climbs to 315 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm. Here, boost climbs to 24~25 psi (under normal sea level conditions) and there is practically no plateau to speak of.

http://www.gmpartshouse.com/products/19212670-lnf-turbo-upgrade-kit.html

Edited September 22, 2010 by dwightlooi

[hyperv6]

The LNF 2.0T engine is a good case study...

Here we have the same engine, same turbo, same transverse layout. The only difference is the maximum boost we allow the turbo to reach. On the manual Cobalt, we let it rise to 18.5 psi before arresting it. In the automatic HHR it was only allowed to get to about 14.5 psi. On the former we get a 3250 rpm torque plateau starting at 2000 rpm, on the latter the torque peaks at 1650 rpm but holds its lower value to 5500 rpm.

There is only a 10 hp difference between the two engines but there is also a more significant 38 lb-ft gap. At the higher end of things, the extra boost didn't help very much as the turbo was running off the efficient part of its compressor map anyway. Hence, only a 10 hp difference is realized despite the ~4 psi of extra boost. At some point you are making for heat than you are compressing air molecues.

If we take things further, such as with the GM Performance Parts upgrade kit which further ratchet up the boost with larger injectors and a new ECU program, power gets to 290 hp @ 5200 rpm, torque climbs to 315 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm. Here, boost climbs to 24~25 psi (under normal sea level conditions) and there is practically no plateau to speak of.

http://www.gmpartshouse.com/products/19212670-lnf-turbo-upgrade-kit.html

This is good but it would be intersting to see the HHR SS LNF compared with the GMPD upgrade kit. It makes thing more equal as the Turbo Auto and Turbo 5 speed both have the same numbers. They average 23 PSI Boost depending on where you live. GM opened the door on the Auto to the same 290 HP and 315 FT LB no matter what tranny. The Solstice sees same HP but 325 FT LB Auto and 335 FT LB 5 speed with the stronger tranny. The Cobalt SS gets less HP but more FT LB due to the intake system.

Note not only did the HHR SS perform better but it also gets 1-2 more MPG.

Edited September 22, 2010 by hyperv6

[dwightlooi]

This is good but it would be intersting to see the HHR SS LNF compared with the GMPD upgrade kit. It makes thing more equal as the Turbo Auto and Turbo 5 speed both have the same numbers. They average 23 PSI Boost depending on where you live. GM opened the door on the Auto to the same 290 HP and 315 FT LB no matter what tranny. The Solstice sees same HP but 325 FT LB Auto and 335 FT LB 5 speed with the stronger tranny. The Cobalt SS gets less HP but more FT LB due to the intake system.

Note not only did the HHR SS perform better but it also gets 1-2 more MPG.

It'll be interesting, but that wasn't my point. What I was trying to illustrate was that with the same engine, same turbo and same intercooler, you have a broader torque plateau at lower boost levels. As you increase the boost (and hence torque) you narrow that plateau. If you take boost up to the limits, there is no longer a plateau.

[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.

Seems my gut isn't so far off.

[dwightlooi]

Seems my gut isn't so far off.

The article has some inconsistencies.

(1) There is no way Holden Commodores will be both Epsilon (FWD) and Zeta II (RWD). It is just not practical. They'll either stick to one, or they make one a Commodore and the other an entirely different model with a different styling and a different name.

(2) There is no mention of the Small Block V8 going into the "ultra Lux" Caddy based on the Sixteen concept being DOHC. Honestly, an LS9 or its Gen V equivalent of a supercharged SB V8 is more than good enough with over 630 hp and surprisingly civilized character. The biggest problem will be the transmission. Currently, GM's stoutest 6-speed auto transmission (6L90) is rated for 550 lb-ft of torque and a 6200 rpm max shift speed, ultra lux buyers are not going to want to row a stick. They may have to develop a new transmission, or if the usage is limited to this one model, go outside and buy one -- possibly the 5-speed ZF auto used in the S65 AMG.

[Lamar]

possibly the 5-speed ZF auto used in the S65 AMG.

I thought MB made all its transmissions in-house as of more recent times.

[Camino LS6]

The article has some inconsistencies.

(1) There is no way Holden Commodores will be both Epsilon (FWD) and Zeta II (RWD). It is just not practical. They'll either stick to one, or they make one a Commodore and the other an entirely different model with a different styling and a different name.

(2) There is no mention of the Small Block V8 going into the "ultra Lux" Caddy based on the Sixteen concept being DOHC. Honestly, an LS9 or its Gen V equivalent of a supercharged SB V8 is more than good enough with over 630 hp and surprisingly civilized character. The biggest problem will be the transmission. Currently, GM's stoutest 6-speed auto transmission (6L90) is rated for 550 lb-ft of torque and a 6200 rpm max shift speed, ultra lux buyers are not going to want to row a stick. They may have to develop a new transmission, or if the usage is limited to this one model, go outside and buy one -- possibly the 5-speed ZF auto used in the S65 AMG.

I have no argument with either point. Even the article mentions that the Holden Epsilon car may be called something other than Commodore. It is probably more accurate to say that current Commodore volume will be split between Zeta II and Epsilon. That would give the home market more choices and allow greater exports of the new Zeta.

[dwightlooi]

I have no argument with either point. Even the article mentions that the Holden Epsilon car may be called something other than Commodore. It is probably more accurate to say that current Commodore volume will be split between Zeta II and Epsilon. That would give the home market more choices and allow greater exports of the new Zeta.

Holden already has a FWD mid-size. It's called the Epica.

[Camino LS6]

Holden already has a FWD mid-size. It's called the Epica.

Well, I have to confess that what they do with the FWD cars doesn't interest me much. It does seem, however, that they are trying to create a more exclusive niche for the RWD cars in each given market while expanding the number of markets they sell in to preserve overall volume.

I could see it working.

[Drew Dowdell]

Holden already has a FWD mid-size. It's called the Epica.

Yeah... I can't imagine any reason to want to replace the Daewoo Tosca....

[Camino LS6]

Yeah... I can't imagine any reason to want to replace the Daewoo Tosca....

I seem to remember reading that Holden is planning to dump the Daewoo stuff...

[dwightlooi]

Yeah... I can't imagine any reason to want to replace the Daewoo Tosca....

The Daewoo stuff isn't bad. The Cruze is a Daewoo stuff.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think the Tosca is still old Daewoo

[Blake Noble]

The Holden-badged Tosca will be replaced by a tweaked Chevrolet Malibu for Australia. Holden = Chevy down under.

Also consider the Euro Epica will be replaced by a Euro-spec Malibu.

We've pretty much already knew this was going to happen from the start.

[aldw]

The article has some inconsistencies.

(1) There is no way Holden Commodores will be both Epsilon (FWD) and Zeta II (RWD). It is just not practical. They'll either stick to one, or they make one a Commodore and the other an entirely different model with a different styling and a different name.

(2) There is no mention of the Small Block V8 going into the "ultra Lux" Caddy based on the Sixteen concept being DOHC. Honestly, an LS9 or its Gen V equivalent of a supercharged SB V8 is more than good enough with over 630 hp and surprisingly civilized character. The biggest problem will be the transmission. Currently, GM's stoutest 6-speed auto transmission (6L90) is rated for 550 lb-ft of torque and a 6200 rpm max shift speed, ultra lux buyers are not going to want to row a stick. They may have to develop a new transmission, or if the usage is limited to this one model, go outside and buy one -- possibly the 5-speed ZF auto used in the S65 AMG.

GM was supposed to be developing a dry dual-clutch transmission, so something of that sort needs to come out anyways.

Edited September 23, 2010 by aldw

[hyperv6]

I would expect GM to use a special engine in the Caddy flagship. It may be a Chevy based engine but they will do something special as they did with the ZR-1 and it will be an engine only available in that one Caddy. Nothing but the best GM engine will do for this car. If you want it special you have to make it special.

As for the trany I wonder where GM is going with this. They like to down the Duel Clutch and 8 speed trannys. I often wonder if they have some new technology of their own coming. Lets face it GM has and still builds some of the best auto trannys in the world. Often when they say no to one thing does not mean they have something else in mind.

Like the Zeta Chevy. GM said it was not coming here when ask about the present car but now Motor Trend is stating a new smaller RWD sport sedan is coming on the next gen.

[dwightlooi]

I thought MB made all its transmissions in-house as of more recent times.

Yes, you are right. I thought the M-B 722.6 5-speed Auto is a ZF sourced part. It is NOT. It was developed in house.

If you want to go above the power and torque levels of the CTS-V, this is the only game in town. It all comes down to torque ratings:-

M-B 722.6 5-speed auto --> 796 lb-ft

GM 6L90 6-speed auto --> 550 lb-ft

M-B 722.9 7-speed auto --> 542 lb-ft

GM 6L80 6-speed auto --> 439 lb-ft

[Z-06]

Yes, you are right. I thought the M-B 722.6 5-speed Auto is a ZF sourced part. It is NOT. It was developed in house.

If you want to go above the power and torque levels of the CTS-V, this is the only game in town. It all comes down to torque ratings:-

M-B 722.6 5-speed auto --> 796 lb-ft

GM 6L90 6-speed auto --> 550 lb-ft

M-B 722.9 7-speed auto --> 542 lb-ft

GM 6L80 6-speed auto --> 439 lb-ft

There is always Allisson.

[Lamar]

There is always Allisson.

Has Allison ever made a heavy-duty transmission for a non-heavy-duty vehicle?