Cadillac ATS-V On the Way, Will Get Twin-Turbocharged V-6 - Car News

[BigPontiac]

Link to article

[smk4565]

I'm fine with a twin turbo V6, but 380 hp isn't going to get it done against the M3 and C63. And "lightweight" and "GM sedan" usually don't go together, so I guessing they don't plan on undercutting the M3 in weight by significant margin to make up for the lack of power.

[hyperv6]

I suspect it will be more than the 380 HP as stated. GM has shown several times that this engine can produce much more HP still with good V6 MPG numbers.

Who is to say that there will only be one level of Turbo V6? I expect the Alpha Camaro will be getting one too along side a V8 offered in the top level car so I would expect they will offer more than 400 HP in at least one version of the V6 Turbo.

Trust me Cadillac will not make a car that is not at the time of release at the top of it's class. They have stated already they are not comprimising on this car nor the future CTS. I expect the Supercharged V8 will remain a CTS item only. No need to undercut it with the cheaper car. You need to give people a reason to pay more for the CTS.

[smk4565]

Considering a 2008 M3 had 420 hp, I hope a 2014 ATS-V can muster up more than 380. And why is it that Chevy gets V8s, but GM seems to want to take every V8 out of Cadillac, save for the Escalade, which is a Chevy. The report is already out that the XTS will have a 4-cylinder as the base engine, this future engine lineup isn't looking too promising.

[regfootball]

i think it will have plenty of power and the twin turbo 6 is more marketable to euros than a pushrod v8

[dwightlooi]

Link to article

It's speculation at best, and I think they are wrong.

My guess is that the ATS-V will get a Normally Aspirated Pushrod V8. This alone puts differentiates it from the bigger and more expensive CTS-V. The Gen V Direction Injected Pushrods will make about 450~470hp out of 6.2 liters. This is less than the 556 from the LSA, but it'll be adequate to trump the M3 and the C63. The Pushrod V8 will have the additional advantages of being lighter, smaller and cheaper to build. Fuel Economy probably won't be that different and may actually be better since you are not dragging along 32 valves, four camshafts and all their drive parts.

[smk4565]

Link to article

cheaper to build.

This sums up Cadillac, not "standard of the world"

[aldw]

Link to article

It's speculation at best, and I think they are wrong.

My guess is that the ATS-V will get a Normally Aspirated Pushrod V8. This alone puts differentiates it from the bigger and more expensive CTS-V. The Gen V Direction Injected Pushrods will make about 450~470hp out of 6.2 liters. This is less than the 556 from the LSA, but it'll be adequate to trump the M3 and the C63. The Pushrod V8 will have the additional advantages of being lighter, smaller and cheaper to build. Fuel Economy probably won't be that different and may actually be better since you are not dragging along 32 valves, four camshafts and all their drive parts.

If the choice is between marketing and simplicity for the same level of power, marketing will trump this one.

[67impss]

Considering a 2008 M3 had 420 hp, I hope a 2014 ATS-V can muster up more than 380. And why is it that Chevy gets V8s, but GM seems to want to take every V8 out of Cadillac, save for the Escalade, which is a Chevy. The report is already out that the XTS will have a 4-cylinder as the base engine, this future engine lineup isn't looking too promising.

Maybe it's the VOLUME brand and they have to pay for the R&D so that they can offer these GREAT engines!

[67impss]

Link to article

cheaper to build.

This sums up Cadillac, not "standard of the world"

Like MB never makes a decision on a cost basis if not they'd never make a profit.

[Z-06]

Link to article

cheaper to build.

This sums up Cadillac, not "standard of the world"

That is how the 4,300 lb 5er is the Ultimate Driving Machine, because of cheaper to build it by platform sharing.

That is how Bentleys share platform with lowly Phaeton.

[hyperv6]

Cheaper and better value is for Chevy. For marketing more and better technology is key for Cadillac marketing. People will pay more to get more in this class.

The bottom line is people pay more for a car like a Cadillac to feel and look special. If they just give the samethings you can get in a Chevy how special will they feel. They can go to other brands to get the advancements that set them appart from their neighbor good value car.

Cadillac can afford to add some good as they are not as limited on price.

[smk4565]

Link to article

cheaper to build.

This sums up Cadillac, not "standard of the world"

Like MB never makes a decision on a cost basis if not they'd never make a profit.

AMG engines are hand built and 6.2 V8 does not share parts with other Mercedes engines. You get the best of the best when you buy an AMG car. You can get $12,000 brakes on a CLS AMG, for example. A V-series Cadillac should also offer the best of the best, not the engine out of a $30k Silverado or Camaro.

[FAPTurbo]

Considering a 2008 M3 had 420 hp, I hope a 2014 ATS-V can muster up more than 380.

Perhaps GM actually will get the weight down, and have better handling than the 3'er. Judging a vehicle's potential performance by horsepower is so 1973.

And why is it that Chevy gets V8s, but GM seems to want to take every V8 out of Cadillac, save for the Escalade, which is a Chevy.

Because "certain people" fervently believe that 'pushrods r t3h sux0rz' and a small, OHV V8 capable of higher rev's would simply not compete against the 3-Series, and its tagalong copycats like the Hyundai Genesis and Infiniti G-Series. So naturally, GM decided that in order to compete, it needed to do what everyone else is doing because it's 'in' right now.

The report is already out that the XTS will have a 4-cylinder as the base engine, this future engine lineup isn't looking too promising.

Oh dear...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/22/officially-official-2012-mercedes-benz-c-class-gets-new-four-cy/

http://www.emercedesbenz.com/autos/mercedes-benz/e-class/2011-mercedes-benz-e-class-engines-now-more-efficient/

Petrol engines at their finest: E 200 BlueEFFICIENCY and E 250 BlueEFFICIENCY

Updating the powertrain has also led to more fuel efficiency in the four-cylinder petrol engines. The 135 kW (184 hp) E 200 BlueEFFICIENCY with 7G-TRONIC PLUS now has an NEDC consumption of only 6.5-6.9 litres of premium petrol per 100 kilometres (152-160 g CO2/km).

Perhaps GM has clued in that fuel-efficiency and ride quality can successfully coexist in a luxury setting, and potential XTS buyers would be more concerned about gadgetry and overall opulence.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm sure those are special AMG 4-cylinders that aren't used in any other MB models.

[dwightlooi]

Link to article

cheaper to build.

This sums up Cadillac, not "standard of the world"

Well... more expensive and inferior does not make you standard of the world either.

GM has lots of failings, Cadillacs have lots of failings, but the Pushrod Smallblock isn't one of them. Forget about a 380hp or 400hp turbo V6, even the 500hp turbo H6 in the 911 Turbo or the 480hp mill in the GT-R does not match a 6.2 liter small block in power density. The Pushrod simply makes more power per pound of engine weight or per cubic-ft of engine space. And, it does so with an equivalent or better fuel consumption. That it is also cheaper to build should not be seen as a demerit. The Pushrod V8 should not be seen as a disadvantage, it should be seen as a unique advantage.

The Gen V Pushrod V8 will is expected to make 450~470hp. It can also be expected to have 8~10% better fuel economy numbers than today's LS3. This translates to about 7.6 lb/hp and 17~18/27~28 mpg on a 3600~3800 lbs car we expect the ATS-V to be. This is better than the RS4, C63 or the M3. There is simply no smaller, lighter and more fuel miserly way of making 450+ hp. But all of that aside, the key factor is that the Pushrod V8 will exist with or without the ATS-V because it is already being built for the Corvette among others. A 400hp class turbo V6 does not currently exist and it will not exist unless GM goes out of the way to build one for the ATS-V because it is fundamentally incompatible with the drivelines of the transverse FWD or AWD applications GM may want a turbo V6 for (which are limited to the 300 lb-ft rating of the 6T transmission).

[Drew Dowdell]

Though Dwight, isn't there that 8-speed in the works as well?

[Lamar]

The report is already out that the XTS will have a 4-cylinder as the base engine, this future engine lineup isn't looking too promising.

Oh dear...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/22/officially-official-2012-mercedes-benz-c-class-gets-new-four-cy/

http://www.emercedesbenz.com/autos/mercedes-benz/e-class/2011-mercedes-benz-e-class-engines-now-more-efficient/

Don't forget that BMW is heading that way too, starting with the Z4 and most likely moving to the 1- and 3-Series.

[Drew Dowdell]

The report is already out that the XTS will have a 4-cylinder as the base engine, this future engine lineup isn't looking too promising.

Oh dear...

http://www.autoblog....ts-new-four-cy/

http://www.emercedes...more-efficient/

Don't forget that BMW is heading that way too, starting with the Z4 and most likely moving to the 1- and 3-Series and 5-series.

Fixed that for ya. They already have the 4-cylinder available in Germany, just not with a turbo. The turbo will make the 4-cylinder more palatable to SMK's BMW-Humpers' tastes.

When I had one 2 years ago, the NVH was such that I thought it was a diesel until I went to fill it up.

[Lamar]

Yeah, I knew they had the I-4 across the ocean. But that doesn't matter to those who perpetually think "German cars good, American cars bad."

[dwightlooi]

Though Dwight, isn't there that 8-speed in the works as well?

There were a couple of 8-speeds under development before the whole bankruptcy debacle. Above is the actual trademark registered by GM in anticipation of their launch. As far as I know all work ceased in the months leading up to insolvency. Whether they have resumed and how far along they are is anybody's guess.

However, there is no reason to believe that an 8-speed transverse tranny will be significantly stronger than the current 6T75 (300 ft-lbs). A prudent guess would be that if they make something stronger it'll be in the 350~360 lb-ft range (very much like the Ford 6F55 used in the Ecoboost SHO) If anything, priority would be given to developing a 170~240 ft-lb 8-speed to replace the 6T40 (177 ft-lbs) and 6T45 (232 ft-lbs). Engines these "milder" trannies are mated to modest engines which will benefit more from the additional gears than a twin-turbo powerhouse V6. In anycase, stronger is not better. The best -- or at least most efficient -- transmission is the weakest you can find which meets or slightly exceeds the engine's torque output. All else being equal, strength means broader gears, fatter bearings, a larger converter and higher frictional losses. If you use a 6T70 (280 lb-ft) on a Cruze instead of a 6T40 (177 lb-ft) fuel economy suffers and acceleration times suffer, all owing to higher drivetrain losses. This is why they build various different variants of the 6T and not ONE 300 lb-ft version and use it on everything.

[balthazar]

...even the 500hp turbo H6 in the 911 Turbo or the 480hp mill in the GT-R does not match a 6.2 liter small block in power density. The Pushrod simply makes more power per pound of engine weight or per cubic-ft of engine space. And, it does so with an equivalent or better fuel consumption.

Superior power packaging efficiency!!

Certainly a numbers guy like smk HAS to acknowledge the more advanced engineering here!

This is NO DIFFERENT than proclaiming 'larger insides with smaller outside' superior! WIN!!

Edited May 6, 2011 by balthazar

[dwightlooi]

...even the 500hp turbo H6 in the 911 Turbo or the 480hp mill in the GT-R does not match a 6.2 liter small block in power density. The Pushrod simply makes more power per pound of engine weight or per cubic-ft of engine space. And, it does so with an equivalent or better fuel consumption.

Superior power packaging efficiency!!

Certainly a numbers guy like smk HAS to acknowledge the more advanced engineering here!

This is NO DIFFERENT than proclaiming 'larger insides with smaller outside' superior! WIN!!

Actually, let me back this up with emprical statistics on output vs engine mass (power density):-

• Ford Ecoboost 3.5 DOHC-V6 (SHO) = 365 hp / 350 lb-ft @ 204 kg = 1.79 hp / 1.72 lb-ft [per kg]
  
• Ford Ecoboost 3.5 DOHC-V6 (F-150) = 365 hp / 420 lb-ft @ 204 kg = 1.79 hp / 2.06 lb-ft [per kg]
  
• Ford Coyote 5.0 DOHC-V8 (Mustang GT) = 412 hp / 390 lb-ft @ 195 kg = 2.11 hp / 2.00 lb-ft [per kg]
  
• BMW S65 4.0 DOHC-V8 (M3) = 414hp / 295 lb-ft @ 202 kg = 2.05 hp / 1.46 lb-ft [per kg]
  
• BMW S85 5.0 DOHC-V10 (M5) = 507 hp / 384 @ 240 kg = 2.11 hp / 1.6 lb-ft [per kg]
  
• Nissan VR38DETT 3.8 DOHC-V6 (Nissan GT-R) = 520 hp / 451 lb-ft @ 276 kg = 1.88 hp / 1.63 lb-ft [per kg]
  
• GM LS3 Pushrod-V8 (Corvette) = 436 hp / 428 lb-ft @ 183 kg = 2.38 hp / 2.34 lb-ft [per kg]
  
• GM LS7 Pushrod-V8 (Corvette Z06) = 505 hp / 470 lb-ft @ 206 kg = 2.45 hp / 2.28 lb-ft [per kg]
  
• GM LSA Pushrod-V8 (CTS-V) = 556 hp / 551 lb-ft @ 212 kg = 2.62 hp / 2.60 lb-ft [per kg]
  
• GM LS9 Pushrod-V8 (Corvette ZR-1) = 638 hp / 604 lb-ft @ 241 kg = 2.65 hp / 2.51 lb-ft [per kg]
  

Pushrods are clearly superior...

Edited May 6, 2011 by dwightlooi

[smk4565]

Horsepower to engine weight is not how I would classify an engine as superior. What about noise, vibration, harshness, fuel economy, displacement taxes, CO2 taxes etc. And if the pushrod was the superior valvetrain, why is there no pushrod 4 cylinder and only the Impala/Lucerne have a pushrod V6. GM fans want to say the pushrod V8 is better because it is what they have.

GM thought the pushrod was superior in the 90s with the 3800 V6, then in 2004, the HF V6 came out, GM could have put that into Chevy/Buick/Pontiac, instead, the 3800 soldiered on and 3500 and 3900 V6s were released. In the case of all 3 pushrod V6s, they paled in comparison to what the imports had, the market share loss GM sedans suffered in the 1990s and 2000s was gigantic.

If they put the pushrod V8 in the ATS-V (which wouldn't surprise me), they gain no credibility for being innovative. If I'm buying a V-series Cadillac, I don't want the engine out of a $30k Chevy. It better be special.

[dwightlooi]

Horsepower to engine weight is not how I would classify an engine as superior. What about noise, vibration, harshness, fuel economy, displacement taxes, CO2 taxes etc. And if the pushrod was the superior valvetrain, why is there no pushrod 4 cylinder and only the Impala/Lucerne have a pushrod V6. GM fans want to say the pushrod V8 is better because it is what they have.

GM thought the pushrod was superior in the 90s with the 3800 V6, then in 2004, the HF V6 came out, GM could have put that into Chevy/Buick/Pontiac, instead, the 3800 soldiered on and 3500 and 3900 V6s were released. In the case of all 3 pushrod V6s, they paled in comparison to what the imports had, the market share loss GM sedans suffered in the 1990s and 2000s was gigantic.

If they put the pushrod V8 in the ATS-V (which wouldn't surprise me), they gain no credibility for being innovative. If I'm buying a V-series Cadillac, I don't want the engine out of a $30k Chevy. It better be special.

Noise, Vibration, Harshness will be no worse than an DOHC powerplant of equivalent displacement. It is only worse because pushrod engines tend to have larger displacement and higher reciprocating mass. But is really not bad at all. If you believe it's bad you probably haven't driven a Vette or CTS-V. Actually, the 3.6 DI V6 sounds harsher and is noisier than a pushrod 3.5 V6 -- really. Fuel economy can actually be equivalent or better. CO2 and displacement taxes do not apply to the USA, and generally does not sway buyers of this category of cars. BTW, a Pushrod V8 is not what I have, but it is what I'll prefer in an ATS-V over a DOHC V8 or a bi-turbo V6. My current cars are a M-B C55 AMG with an SOHC 5.5liter V8, before that it was a Bi-turbo Audi S4.

GM thought the Pushrod was cheap in the 90s. They never strove to make their pushrods state of the art. This has nothing to do with the configuration, it has everything to do with the bean counting mentality.

If they put a Pushrod V8 in the ATS-V it will have a more unique powerplant and better performance than a twin turbo V6. Everybody has a twinturbo, DOHC DI V6. No other luxury compact has a Pushrod V8.

[balthazar]

IBC, FTW!

[aldw]

Horsepower to engine weight is not how I would classify an engine as superior. What about noise, vibration, harshness, fuel economy, displacement taxes, CO2 taxes etc. And if the pushrod was the superior valvetrain, why is there no pushrod 4 cylinder and only the Impala/Lucerne have a pushrod V6. GM fans want to say the pushrod V8 is better because it is what they have.

GM thought the pushrod was superior in the 90s with the 3800 V6, then in 2004, the HF V6 came out, GM could have put that into Chevy/Buick/Pontiac, instead, the 3800 soldiered on and 3500 and 3900 V6s were released. In the case of all 3 pushrod V6s, they paled in comparison to what the imports had, the market share loss GM sedans suffered in the 1990s and 2000s was gigantic.

If they put the pushrod V8 in the ATS-V (which wouldn't surprise me), they gain no credibility for being innovative. If I'm buying a V-series Cadillac, I don't want the engine out of a $30k Chevy. It better be special.

Noise, Vibration, Harshness will be no worse than an DOHC powerplant of equivalent displacement. It is only worse because pushrod engines tend to have larger displacement and higher reciprocating mass. But is really not bad at all. If you believe it's bad you probably haven't driven a Vette or CTS-V. Actually, the 3.6 DI V6 sounds harsher and is noisier than a pushrod 3.5 V6 -- really. Fuel economy can actually be equivalent or better. CO2 and displacement taxes do not apply to the USA, and generally does not sway buyers of this category of cars. BTW, a Pushrod V8 is not what I have, but it is what I'll prefer in an ATS-V over a DOHC V8 or a bi-turbo V6. My current cars are a M-B C55 AMG with an SOHC 5.5liter V8, before that it was a Bi-turbo Audi S4.

GM thought the Pushrod was cheap in the 90s. They never strove to make their pushrods state of the art. This has nothing to do with the configuration, it has everything to do with the bean counting mentality.

If they put a Pushrod V8 in the ATS-V it will have a more unique powerplant and better performance than a twin turbo V6. Everybody has a twinturbo, DOHC DI V6. No other luxury compact has a Pushrod V8.

The better marketing in this case will be the key determinator in seeing which products win out, of which the TT DOHC V6 has the advantage for all intents and purposes. Technical excellence alone is not enough to win, and the history of the automobile has plenty of examples of such occurrences.

Edited May 7, 2011 by aldw

[dwightlooi]

The better marketing in this case will be the key determinator in seeing which products win out, of which the TT DOHC V6 has the advantage for all intents and purposes. Technical excellence alone is not enough to win, and the history of the automobile has plenty of examples of such occurrences.

The ability to say that you outperform the competition is a very powerful marketing tool and one that is pretty easy to wield. Sure as hell easier to wield than having to recite the number of valves, turbos or intecooler systems while justifying why you make less power than M3 or C63. Let's put it this way... for the technically inclined audience, the merits of your engine does not need any convincing once you post your power, torque, fuel consumption, weight and/or acceleration times. For the technically challenged, it won't matter if you cite acronyms like DOHC, DI, VVT or IBC. They don't know what these mean nor do they care. To these types of crowd, you simply tailor the add to convey the message that it's a pretty car and it is very fast.

[aldw]

The better marketing in this case will be the key determinator in seeing which products win out, of which the TT DOHC V6 has the advantage for all intents and purposes. Technical excellence alone is not enough to win, and the history of the automobile has plenty of examples of such occurrences.

The ability to say that you outperform the competition is a very powerful marketing tool and one that is pretty easy to wield. Sure as hell easier to wield than having to recite the number of valves, turbos or intecooler systems while justifying why you make less power than M3 or C63. Let's put it this way... for the technically inclined audience, the merits of your engine does not need any convincing once you post your power, torque, fuel consumption, weight and/or acceleration times. For the technically challenged, it won't matter if you cite acronyms like DOHC, DI, VVT or IBC. They don't know what these mean nor do they care. To these types of crowd, you simply tailor the add to convey the message that it's a pretty car and it is very fast.

That's assuming all other things being equal, but if the competition is willing to spend more on lightweight alloys and greater refinement to boost overall performance (chassis-wise), extra power alone wouldn't be enough to make the difference, particularly since GM has been shown to be reluctant to spend for the same level of refined quality.

[smk4565]

The GT-R as a twin turbo V6 and beats the ZR1 around the Nurburgring. I'm sure a turbo V6 can make the ATS-V powerful enough. The real important thing is handling, braking and steering.

[dwightlooi]

That's assuming all other things being equal, but if the competition is willing to spend more on lightweight alloys and greater refinement to boost overall performance (chassis-wise), extra power alone wouldn't be enough to make the difference, particularly since GM has been shown to be reluctant to spend for the same level of refined quality.

Of course, light weight alloys and chassis refinement matters a lot. But, how does going for a heavier, more expensive and less powerful engine help?

[dwightlooi]

The GT-R as a twin turbo V6 and beats the ZR1 around the Nurburgring. I'm sure a turbo V6 can make the ATS-V powerful enough. The real important thing is handling, braking and steering.

I am sure a twin turbo V6 can be made powerful enough too. And, yes, handling, braking and steering are very important as well. But that is not the point. The point is this...

• If a Pushrod V8 is smaller, lighter, cheaper, more powerful and just as economical on fuel, why do you want a twin turbo V6?
  

Speaking of which, have you ever considered the fact that "If" the GT-R has a Pushrod V8, it might be a faster car than it currently is? Think about it... that 520hp/440 lb-ft VR38DETT is heavy -- 276 kg to be exact. A similarly powerful (505hp/470 lb-ft), naturally aspirated LS7 engine is a scant 206 kg. That's 154 pounds of mass removed from the nose of the car. Not to mention the elimination of all the plumbing for the intercoolers and turbos.

[Lamar]

The GT-R as a twin turbo V6 and beats the ZR1 around the Nurburgring. I'm sure a turbo V6 can make the ATS-V powerful enough. The real important thing is handling, braking and steering.

The GT-R is a computer with AWD. That's why it can beat most other cars around the 'Ring.

For analogy's sake, if the ZR1 is Ken Jennings, the GT-R is Watson.

[smk4565]

The GT-R as a twin turbo V6 and beats the ZR1 around the Nurburgring. I'm sure a turbo V6 can make the ATS-V powerful enough. The real important thing is handling, braking and steering.

The GT-R is a computer with AWD. That's why it can beat most other cars around the 'Ring.

For analogy's sake, if the ZR1 is Ken Jennings, the GT-R is Watson.

Good analogy, I like it. That is the Corvette's problem, it is the same formula they have used for 30-40 years. The ATS-V should not be like the Corvette, Camaro or any other American sports car that just crams in a big V8 from a pick up. The ATS-V needs to be Watson.

[smk4565]

That's assuming all other things being equal, but if the competition is willing to spend more on lightweight alloys and greater refinement to boost overall performance (chassis-wise), extra power alone wouldn't be enough to make the difference, particularly since GM has been shown to be reluctant to spend for the same level of refined quality.

Of course, light weight alloys and chassis refinement matters a lot. But, how does going for a heavier, more expensive and less powerful engine help?

So the Regal should lose the 2.0T in favor of a 3.1 liter pushrod 4-cylinder? The Malibu and Lacrosse should get that also? How about the 4.8 liter pushrod V8 with 275 hp for the CTS rather than the 3.6 DOHC V6.

Cadillac in the early 90s gained credibility with the Northstar engine. The 4.5 and 4.9 liter pushrod V8s were no match for Lexus or the Germans. The Northstar in the 90s was just as good as anything the imports could offer (aside from the German V12s) it was just too bad that Cadillac didn't have a rear driver or something smaller than the Eldorado, Seville, and Deville which were pretty much large and extra large.

[Lamar]

Good analogy, I like it. That is the Corvette's problem, it is the same formula they have used for 30-40 years. The ATS-V should not be like the Corvette, Camaro or any other American sports car that just crams in a big V8 from a pick up. The ATS-V needs to be Watson.

Way to miss my point.

The GT-R isn't faster because of any mechanical superiority, but rather the extensive computer programming that allows it to (seemingly) break the rules of physics.

For the ATS-V to gain any credibility among the M3/C63/RS4 crowd, it has to be a driver's car in all aspects. Not a car that's programmed to allow any Joe Blow off the street to be able to snap off respectable 'Ring times (should they ever travel to Germany in the first place...).

[dwightlooi]

So the Regal should lose the 2.0T in favor of a 3.1 liter pushrod 4-cylinder? The Malibu and Lacrosse should get that also? How about the 4.8 liter pushrod V8 with 275 hp for the CTS rather than the 3.6 DOHC V6.

Cadillac in the early 90s gained credibility with the Northstar engine. The 4.5 and 4.9 liter pushrod V8s were no match for Lexus or the Germans. The Northstar in the 90s was just as good as anything the imports could offer (aside from the German V12s) it was just too bad that Cadillac didn't have a rear driver or something smaller than the Eldorado, Seville, and Deville which were pretty much large and extra large.

Well, there are a few problems with your reasoning. First of all, the 2.0T is actually lighter and more powerful than the old 3.1 V6. There is no advantage to be had from pushrod packaging except in Vee type arrangements. Secondly, for 220~275hp class engines destined for powering mainstream family sedans, a smaller displacement engine has the added advantage of getting under a lower displacement tax bracket in some markets (albeit not the USA). Strictly from a refinement standpoint though, a pushrod V6 is probably better than a DOHC Turbo-I4 and a 4.8 V8 can be better than a 3.6 V6 -- more cylinders, closer firing impulses, you get the picture. However, when you are talking about cars like the ATS-V, C63 or M3, the customer profile does not really make trying to save a few bucks on taxes a top priority. People who buy C63s or M3s are NOT frugality minded individuals, if they are they would have bought a 320 or C180.

As far as the Northstar is concerned, it was not a bad engine for its time. But it wasn't necessarily better than the pushrod engines of its time. The 1992 5.7 liter LT1 making (300 hp / 340 lb-ft) was more than competitive with the 275hp Northstar. Fuel Economy with the Pushrod 5.7 is actually better than the Northstar, with the Camaro Z28 hitting 17/24 EPA rated MPG despite being mated to a 4-speed automatic. The Deville was 15/24 mpg with the Northstar, again with a 4A and despite the arguably more efficient FWD transaxle. And, if you have driven a F-body Camaro or C4 Vette, you'll probably note that these were NOT rough, unrefined engines. The problem was that the LT1 was heavy from its cast Iron Block whereas the Northstar was an all Aluminum Engine. This however was a materials choice and cost decision, with no relationship whatsoever to the valvetrain configuration. A Pushrod V8 could have been Aluminum and in fact beginning with the LS1 (circa 1997) it took on an aluminum block and heads. With the LS1, the 5.7 liter Pushrod V8's output climbed to 350hp / 365 lb-ft, completely eclipsing the Northstar.

Edited May 8, 2011 by dwightlooi

[dwightlooi]

Good analogy, I like it. That is the Corvette's problem, it is the same formula they have used for 30-40 years. The ATS-V should not be like the Corvette, Camaro or any other American sports car that just crams in a big V8 from a pick up. The ATS-V needs to be Watson.

Way to miss my point.

The GT-R isn't faster because of any mechanical superiority, but rather the extensive computer programming that allows it to (seemingly) break the rules of physics.

For the ATS-V to gain any credibility among the M3/C63/RS4 crowd, it has to be a driver's car in all aspects. Not a car that's programmed to allow any Joe Blow off the street to be able to snap off respectable 'Ring times (should they ever travel to Germany in the first place...).

Actually, I have no beef about the ATS-V getting Magnetoriological shocks or an active differential. But, they need to keep an eye on the costs. The ATS-V should be about $45~50K, given the $60K price point of the CTS-V. This also puts at a the same price point as the E46 M3, one which the $60K E90 M3 or C63 priced themselves out of.

[Lamar]

Actually, I have no beef about the ATS-V getting Magnetoriological shocks or an active differential. But, they need to keep an eye on the costs. The ATS-V should be about $45~50K, given the $60K price point of the CTS-V. This also puts at a the same price point as the E46 M3, one which the $60K E90 M3 or C63 priced themselves out of.

No problems with those either (heck, make them V-specific if they want). I'm talking about the electronic nannies that correct everything.

The R35 GT-R Crashed the Supercar Party With All The Subtlety of Godzilla in a China Shop

Nuts and Bolts

(...)Purists might balk at the fact that a proper manual isn't available, and that the dual-clutch six speed and the bevy of electronic nannies are the reason the GT-R can boast such impressive numbers. The screen in the center consul screen reports what percentage of throttle is being used, the amount of boost, the lateral g-forces, and probably, what time it is on the moon. This is the car for kids raised on Gran Turismo and who are ready to play for keeps. (...)

(...)Turn Offs: Electronic nannies keep everything safe, MSRP is mostly fictional, Ferrari-level maintenance costs.

—CarDomain Staff

Don't get me wrong, I think the GT-R is a great achievement by Nissan. But I don't pretend that the engine, transmission, drivetrain, and suspension are what make the car faster on a track than any competitors.

Yes, the ATS-V should be blisteringly fast and handle like it's on rails... and do it with sophistication befitting a Cadillac. But, unlike the GT-R, someone who has no business behind its wheel should be allowed to screw up with much less leeway... nor should they be able to match its rated performance numbers if they're not that skilled.

[Z-06]

Good analogy, I like it. That is the Corvette's problem, it is the same formula they have used for 30-40 years. The ATS-V should not be like the Corvette, Camaro or any other American sports car that just crams in a big V8 from a pick up. The ATS-V needs to be Watson.

Way to miss my point.

The GT-R isn't faster because of any mechanical superiority, but rather the extensive computer programming that allows it to (seemingly) break the rules of physics.

For the ATS-V to gain any credibility among the M3/C63/RS4 crowd, it has to be a driver's car in all aspects. Not a car that's programmed to allow any Joe Blow off the street to be able to snap off respectable 'Ring times (should they ever travel to Germany in the first place...).

Actually, I have no beef about the ATS-V getting Magnetoriological shocks or an active differential. But, they need to keep an eye on the costs. The ATS-V should be about $45~50K, given the $60K price point of the CTS-V. This also puts at a the same price point as the E46 M3, one which the $60K E90 M3 or C63 priced themselves out of.

I think getting the Magneto shocks and active differential would not be cost issue as GM is proliferating the former technology into lower cars and increasing its volume. ZL-1 is also getting those shocks and will play in the same price pool.

[Cory Wolfe]

Personally, my preferences are based more on cylinder configuration than OHC vs OHV. I've grown fond of all the odd ball engine configurations out there, despite some of their inherent flaws. The rotary (Wankel/Mazda), flat/horizontally opposed (Porsche/Subaru), staggered design (Volkswagen A.G.), turbine (Chrysler) etc appeal to me in a quirky sort of way. With that said, most of my personal experience with the traditional OHC vs OHV argument has been in favor of OHC. Saying that involves using an asterisk as most of my OHV experience is limited to older, anti-progess engines that were past their prime. Having driven the CTS-V, I know how much of a sweet spot the 6.2L V8 is. There's no engine that could suit it any better.

Besides, Dwight is the only guy in here using facts. To ignore those is simply ignorance.

[FAPTurbo]

I'm fine with a twin turbo V6, but 380 hp isn't going to get it done against the M3 and C63. And "lightweight" and "GM sedan" usually don't go together, so I guessing they don't plan on undercutting the M3 in weight by significant margin to make up for the lack of power.

Considering a 2008 M3 had 420 hp, I hope a 2014 ATS-V can muster up more than 380. And why is it that Chevy gets V8s, but GM seems to want to take every V8 out of Cadillac, save for the Escalade, which is a Chevy. The report is already out that the XTS will have a 4-cylinder as the base engine, this future engine lineup isn't looking too promising.

Wait a second...

Horsepower to engine weight is not how I would classify an engine as superior. What about noise, vibration, harshness, fuel economy, displacement taxes, CO2 taxes etc. And if the pushrod was the superior valvetrain, why is there no pushrod 4 cylinder and only the Impala/Lucerne have a pushrod V6. GM fans want to say the pushrod V8 is better because it is what they have.

The GT-R as a twin turbo V6 and beats the ZR1 around the Nurburgring. I'm sure a turbo V6 can make the ATS-V powerful enough. The real important thing is handling, braking and steering.

So what is it?

[SAmadei]

Don't get me wrong, I think the GT-R is a great achievement by Nissan. But I don't pretend that the engine, transmission, drivetrain, and suspension are what make the car faster on a track than any competitors.

LOL... thinking about the GT-R... I suppose the next step to improve performance is... to get rid of the driver. ~200 lbs of weigh that is not needed. Put the driver in a remote chair wirelessly controlling it... or not even... as I'm sure the computer will do a better job soon.

[Lamar]

LOL... thinking about the GT-R... I suppose the next step to improve performance is... to get rid of the driver. ~200 lbs of weigh that is not needed. Put the driver in a remote chair wirelessly controlling it... or not even... as I'm sure the computer will do a better job soon.

There's a "car drives you" joke somewhere in there. I'm sure of it.

[smk4565]

Actually, I have no beef about the ATS-V getting Magnetoriological shocks or an active differential. But, they need to keep an eye on the costs. The ATS-V should be about $45~50K, given the $60K price point of the CTS-V. This also puts at a the same price point as the E46 M3, one which the $60K E90 M3 or C63 priced themselves out of.

Why does Cadillac always have to undercut the Germans by $15k? That is what Hyundai does because they are Hyundai and building main stream cars with 2 sedans that try to give you most of what you get on a Lexus or Mercedes at a bargain price. Is Cadillac going after the Germans or does Cadillac want to compete with Hyundai and Lincoln. Although, right now, Hyundai is doing a better job of building a knock off, discount Mercedes than Cadillac is. At least they have a V8 rear driver, Cadillac gets the XTS.

[smk4565]

So what is it?

They do need more than 380 hp if the rest of the class is all well over 400 now, and the ATS-V is 2-3 years away. But what made BMW over the years was not being the most powerful car, it was being the best car in the corners. So I think 380 hp is not enough, but the goal shouldn't be to have the biggest most powerful engine in the class, but the best handling, steering, and braking. That is how BMW racks up so many awards and sells so many 3-series.

[Lamar]

They do need more than 380 hp if the rest of the class is all well over 400 now, and the ATS-V is 2-3 years away. But what made BMW over the years was not being the most powerful car, it was being the best car in the corners. So I think 380 hp is not enough, but the goal shouldn't be to have the biggest most powerful engine in the class, but the best handling, steering, and braking. That is how BMW racks up so many awards and sells so many 3-series.

[Drew Dowdell]

BMW sells so many 3-series because it fleets them like crazy in the EU and because people like you buy a 328i with 230hp for 33k and then tell the guy in the CTS that his 270hp car sucks because it uses a key instead of a button to start the engine.

[dwightlooi]

Why does Cadillac always have to undercut the Germans by $15k? That is what Hyundai does because they are Hyundai and building main stream cars with 2 sedans that try to give you most of what you get on a Lexus or Mercedes at a bargain price. Is Cadillac going after the Germans or does Cadillac want to compete with Hyundai and Lincoln. Although, right now, Hyundai is doing a better job of building a knock off, discount Mercedes than Cadillac is. At least they have a V8 rear driver, Cadillac gets the XTS.

They don't and they shouldn't. The problem is being more expensive or just as expensive is not necessarily a good thing either. For example, cars like the ATS-V, C63 and M3 appeals most to the 30-something young professional. You want to price it so it is painful, but affordable to a guy in his 30s who really wants one. The M3 sold very well to such individuals when it was a $40K car. It does less well as a $60K car. $45K is really the sweet spot. You don't need to have a stripper at $45K, you don't need an el cheapo interior at $45K. You don't need to skimp on the brakes or shocks at $45K. You probably have to forgo an active differential, active steering and/or uber exotic materials like titanium rods in the engine. But you don't need any of that to be a excellent handling car with a nice interior.