ATS = Less Mass

[hyperv6]

Here is a nice short video on the ATS. Note where he says less mass. I wonder how much less. This would be nice as it would also help the Camaro.

[smk4565]

Low mass is definitely key, especially since the 3-series just dropped 80 lbs, and GM cars tend not to pay any attention at all to weight reduction. If this car fully loaded V6 model (rwd) comes in under 3600 lbs that would be pretty good, under 3500 would be even better.

What surprised me is he said 2 weeks at the Nurburgring, I hope that is just one trip, and not the total time they spent. BMW practically lives there.

[PONTIAC06]

What surprised me is he said 2 weeks at the Nurburgring, I hope that is just one trip, and not the total time they spent. BMW practically lives there.

Ummm...BMW DOES live there...

[Drew Dowdell]

Low mass is definitely key, especially since the 3-series just dropped 80 lbs, and GM cars tend not to pay any attention at all to weight reduction. If this car fully loaded V6 model (rwd) comes in under 3600 lbs that would be pretty good, under 3500 would be even better.

What surprised me is he said 2 weeks at the Nurburgring, I hope that is just one trip, and not the total time they spent. BMW practically lives there.

With computer modeling, most of the tuning to get it to 9/10ths can be done back home in Michigan. Getting that final 10th is what takes the 2 weeks.

Sometimes I think BMW lives there just to make a name for themselves instead of actually doing anything very productive. We aren't seeing yearly advances in 3-series handling performance.

[Z-06]

Cadillac does not have to spend entire eternity at the Ring as GM's proving grounds are not made from marshmallow straights.

[balthazar]

There's 132 miles of roadways/terrain/tracks @ Milford. Nurburgring is 3 miles long.

I'd say 9/10ths could easily be accomplished via Milford and computer modeling.

[hyperv6]

Yes they have the cars pretty dialed in before they leave and when they go for 2 weeks it is 14 days of work. There they just tweek and refine what they already set up with the computer and at the Lutz ring. I read a while back a GM engineer gave the drill on how they use Germany and how prepared they are before they even go.

The new loop at Milford has been one of the greatest additions GM has done to improve the cars for the real world. Anyone remember the 1984 Z51? It was all done on the test track and it was a great performer there but once the cars started to hit the streets with the press for the first time they nearly lost ever filling. Dave Mc Donald said in his book that they wanted to keep the cars seceret and at the test tracks and never figured the real roads would have been an issue. A change in shocks he said for 85 fixed most of the issues but little things like this can get by even the best engineers.

At this point I am almost getting high expectations for this car. So far the press has been shocked with the new small Buick and how much better than they ever expected it to be. They feel it really is a Luxury car and I have yet to see one of the reviews even mention hint of the Cimmaron. So if they can do that with a Cruze imagine what a clean sheet of paper ATS could bring now with proper funds to build it right for once.

[Northstar]

I don't know how long Nurburing is, but I know it is much longer than 3 miles.

[CanadianBacon94]

In Forza it is 12 ish miles

"The Nürburgring (Nordschleife) in Germany, with its remaining 20.8 km (12.9 mi) long old section dating from 1927, is used by various motoring media outlets and vehicle manufacturers for testing."

[hyperv6]

I don't know how long Nurburing is, but I know it is much longer than 3 miles.

It is 11-12 miles long. GM took the most dynamic corners and sections and put them into their 3 miles. You have to remember the real track has some high speed long straights and GM already has plenty of them.

[Carguy]

I am looking so forward to this car! If they can keep the weight down and offer an all turbo/DI engine lineup starting with the 270HP 2.0L I4 as the base engine they could have a world beater here!--Please GM do the right thing power train wise here!

[smk4565]

The Nurburgring is 12.9 miles long, has I think 149 corners and 1,000 ft of elevation change. There is a big difference in the cars tuned there and the ones that aren't.

[SAmadei]

I like sporty as well as the next guy, but I want a car tuned to drive a lap around Manhattan, not the Nurburgring.

[Drew Dowdell]

Low mass is definitely key, especially since the 3-series just dropped 80 lbs, and GM cars tend not to pay any attention at all to weight reduction. If this car fully loaded V6 model (rwd) comes in under 3600 lbs that would be pretty good, under 3500 would be even better.

What surprised me is he said 2 weeks at the Nurburgring, I hope that is just one trip, and not the total time they spent. BMW practically lives there.

The 2004 CTS V6 Automatic was 3,568, so under 3600lbs for a smaller car that was built from the ground up to be lightweight should be doable.

[hyperv6]

Generally any car tuned at the Ring is much better suited for all real world conditions vs a car done on the Black Lake.

GM engineers have said they have learned from the ring that you can better tune a car that will live much happier on all types of road and conditions.

GM Performance learned that you can use less spring play with the bars and work more with the dampers. This is why most of the GMPD tuned cars not only perform but they also give a ride unlike any of GM's past performance cars.

GM did the right thing and took many of these engineers and put them into the new programs a the start to tune all levels of these cars. In the past they were handed a older platform and told to fix it, today they do it right from the start. Cars like the Cruze while not a performance car already handles well and has about the best ride in class or the size of car it is. Same with the new Sonic as it's road mannors are appealing to most reviewers.

GM in the past had a bad habit of tossing stiff springs on big bars and heavy shocks. While this was great on a smooth road it was hell every where else. Also they used to spring non performance cars so soft they had so much body lean you wondered if the car was going to end up on it's side. GM today has a much better group to tune cars. The advantage at the ring is it show almost all kinds of non perfect conditions and is a good place to tune anything from a BMW to a Chevy Van. It in the way is the ultimate surface test track and GM has used what they learned to good effect. While not every car goes to Germany what they learn is applied to all models today.

[smk4565]

I think we are almost to the point where manufacturer's start posting Nurburgring lap times next to 0-60 times. And really, the lap times are more telling of a car's abilities.

[Z-06]

Generally any car tuned at the Ring is much better suited for all real world conditions vs a car done on the Black Lake.

GM engineers have said they have learned from the ring that you can better tune a car that will live much happier on all types of road and conditions.

GM Performance learned that you can use less spring play with the bars and work more with the dampers. This is why most of the GMPD tuned cars not only perform but they also give a ride unlike any of GM's past performance cars.

GM did the right thing and took many of these engineers and put them into the new programs a the start to tune all levels of these cars. In the past they were handed a older platform and told to fix it, today they do it right from the start. Cars like the Cruze while not a performance car already handles well and has about the best ride in class or the size of car it is. Same with the new Sonic as it's road mannors are appealing to most reviewers.

GM in the past had a bad habit of tossing stiff springs on big bars and heavy shocks. While this was great on a smooth road it was hell every where else. Also they used to spring non performance cars so soft they had so much body lean you wondered if the car was going to end up on it's side. GM today has a much better group to tune cars. The advantage at the ring is it show almost all kinds of non perfect conditions and is a good place to tune anything from a BMW to a Chevy Van. It in the way is the ultimate surface test track and GM has used what they learned to good effect. While not every car goes to Germany what they learn is applied to all models today.

Are you forgetting the Lutz-ring? That has most of the difficult turns/corners from the Nurn mimicked.

[balthazar]

I stand corrected on the length of Nürburgring; I quickly glanced at the sidebar here and saw the '2002-present' course length of 3.1 miles.

The Nordschleife ('83-present) is 12.9 miles.

[hyperv6]

Generally any car tuned at the Ring is much better suited for all real world conditions vs a car done on the Black Lake.

GM engineers have said they have learned from the ring that you can better tune a car that will live much happier on all types of road and conditions.

GM Performance learned that you can use less spring play with the bars and work more with the dampers. This is why most of the GMPD tuned cars not only perform but they also give a ride unlike any of GM's past performance cars.

GM did the right thing and took many of these engineers and put them into the new programs a the start to tune all levels of these cars. In the past they were handed a older platform and told to fix it, today they do it right from the start. Cars like the Cruze while not a performance car already handles well and has about the best ride in class or the size of car it is. Same with the new Sonic as it's road mannors are appealing to most reviewers.

GM in the past had a bad habit of tossing stiff springs on big bars and heavy shocks. While this was great on a smooth road it was hell every where else. Also they used to spring non performance cars so soft they had so much body lean you wondered if the car was going to end up on it's side. GM today has a much better group to tune cars. The advantage at the ring is it show almost all kinds of non perfect conditions and is a good place to tune anything from a BMW to a Chevy Van. It in the way is the ultimate surface test track and GM has used what they learned to good effect. While not every car goes to Germany what they learn is applied to all models today.

Are you forgetting the Lutz-ring? That has most of the difficult turns/corners from the Nurn mimicked.

No i state about it 12 post ago. The Lutz Ring came about only because of what the engineers learned in Germany and so they can set up the cars prior to going over or test things quick here without the long plane trip. It too is a very important part.

I guess they also like to watch some of the press guys spin out on the Lutz Ring who get in over their head.

[Robert Hall]

Note that he said less mass, not less weight. Interesting distinction..

[SAmadei]

Note that he said less mass, not less weight. Interesting distinction..

Well, since W=mg, where g=Earth's gravitational field strength, its only a interesting distinction _IF_ the ATS is leaving Earth's gravitational well.

First Cadillac on Mars?

[Drew Dowdell]

lol!

[dwightlooi]

Note that he said less mass, not less weight. Interesting distinction..

Weight = Mass x Gravity

Unless we plan on driving the ATS on Mars, I fail to see the distinction.

[Robert Hall]

Given that formula, maybe the problem for overweight people isn't so much the mass, but too much gravity.

[dwightlooi]

The biggest thing I don't like with from all these new info is the digital LCD instrument cluster. I am not sure a digital LCD display is better. I mean, I'll keep it simple, sharp needles and clear text, while I focus on the important stuff. Gimmicks are not important stuff.

[Robert Hall]

Interesting...I wonder if they will be digital instruments that look like real instruments...not just numbers... Mercedes and Lexus have done digital instrument clusters, I think..

[Drew Dowdell]

I think it is reconfigurable.

I find on the GM's that do this partially now, I set the display to digital speed readout and use that instead of the needle.

[dwightlooi]

Given that formula, maybe the problem for overweight people isn't so much the mass, but too much gravity.

Actually you will be right in the sense that if you transport a fat man to the Moon or Mars, his obesity will have significantly less impact on his ability to run fast, jump high or wear and tear on his joints.

[Justin Bimmer]

I'm with olds on speed readout. This day in age with spedos going to 150, there is barely any space between 10mph increments. I usually pop up the digital spedo and use that instead.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm with olds on speed readout. This day in age with spedos going to 150, there is barely any space between 10mph increments. I usually pop up the digital spedo and use that instead.

My Toronado's speedometer goes to 100......

..... well it's good to have goals I suppose.

[Robert Hall]

My Mustang's only goes to 85..been faster than that...but my Jeep's goes to 120. Wouldn't try that. I've noticed even in 6 cyl base models of some cars today the speedos go to 160..optimistic.

[hyperv6]

In the HHR SS it goes to 140 MPH and is so small it is hard to read in the 20 MPG jumps. I installed a Aerofroce gauge that has 28 options on it. I keep the boost and speedo up most times as they are digital and kind of work as the poormans heads up.

I also have the limit lights set to come on at 20 PSI boost so I know when I am hitting the sweet spot and never have to take my eyes off the road.

The Stock HHR Speedo is useless at anything over 85 MPH.

The way I look at it the digital displays work well in high speed aircraft it should be fine in a car. I just wish GM would offer heads up as an option in more of their cars. After having it for near 15 years in several cars it has become a useful tool. To me it is a much better safety item for keeping your eyes on the road than most other gimicks being offered.

Edited October 27, 2011 by hyperv6

[dwightlooi]

One thing worth watching out for is whether GM will change their turbocharging recipe...

Currently, the LNF and LHU are relatively boost and torque heavy. With these engines you see an equal or greater amount of torque than horsepower. The Regal GS for instance makes 270 hp / 295 lb-ft and even the regular turbo regal makes 220 hp / 258 lb-ft. Regardless of how you feel about a torque heavy in a FWD application, the fact is that this is NOT the most fuel economical recipe. It does not maximize MPGs because you run up 16~21 psi of boost and that requires a compression ratio of about 9.0~9.2:1 -- low compression is bad for engine efficiency when you are cruising down the freeway with the engine making very little boost or hanging out in vacuum territory. The desire to make such numbers and yet be low on turbolag means that the turbo is typically undersized to reduce inertial and improve response. However, such turbos also run out of steam sooner and the engines tend to struggle for breathe past about 5000 rpm or thereabouts.

With the current obsession with MPGs and with the upcoming redesign of the Ecotec Family (Gen III) it'll be interesting to see if GM will change their recipe to one using lower boost, higher compression and higher rpms. With boost dropped to 10~12 psi, compression will go up to 10.5~11:1 (almost as high as naturally aspirated DI engines). Such an engine will make considerably less torque, but will be more responsive and more importantly more misery on gas. To make the same amount of horsepower, the engine will have to rev higher. Such an engine for instance may make 270 hp @ 6200 rpm, but with only around 229 lb-ft @ 2200~6200 rpm.

Edited October 27, 2011 by dwightlooi

[smk4565]

The turbo 4 should be more focused on MPG since some buyers don't care about straight line power, and there are some other 32-40 mpg entry level luxury cars.

There has to be a good V6 though for the people that do care about performance. More engine options equals more appeal.

[dwightlooi]

The turbo 4 should be more focused on MPG since some buyers don't care about straight line power, and there are some other 32-40 mpg entry level luxury cars.

There has to be a good V6 though for the people that do care about performance. More engine options equals more appeal.

Actually, A turbo-4 will match or exceed a 3.0 or 3.6 V6 in performance for people who care about that. In fact, if you go the low boost, high compression route, the engine will pretty much drive like a 3.0 V6 in both power, torque and overall responsiveness. If you go the high boost route, there will be more lag and a little slower response but the engine will actually make as much power and more torque than a 3.6V6 -- especially in the lower mid-range.

A better way to look at the viability of a V6 is that there are and will continue to be people who prefer the refinement of a V6 even if an I4 Turbo is equivalent in performance and superior in fuel economy. If there is a market for it, then a car manufacturer should fill it. That is more important than appearing green or chasing the latest environmental target set by the ticks in Washington DC. This is why I always say that GM should build cars its customers want to buy and let CAFE fall where it may.

In that vein, I'll say that GM was correct in building and selling SUVs in the 90s and early 2000s. That was what the market wanted! The mistake they made was having very weak product lines outside of that such that when consumer behaviors and priorities change, they got caught with nothing competitive to sell outside of SUVs and Pickup trucks.

Edited October 28, 2011 by dwightlooi

[hyperv6]

4 cylinders today make up 3/4 of the market and this will only increase in the future. All variations of the 4 cylinder will be needed as not every one will want max miles and will still expect enough performance for some inspired driving.

I too am waiting to see what changes the future performance Turbo 4's will carry. The one thing is the present engines are not the best in MPG but they are far from bad. I do expect one thing of them and that will be they will remain Premium Recomended rated in most all Chevys and Buicks. This is something very important to the marketing guys and with todays engine management systems they can adjust faily well. They do leave a little extra power on the table but it is a lot easier to sell a car that gives you an option vs making you use premium. I know and most here know the cost is little but to many it will turn them away from buying a car without this option.

The future as it look I see the V8 being a very limited option on only a few models and trucks. We are nearly there already. I expect the prices to climb if you want to buy one to try to force people into the V6 or smaller engines. The V6 to my suprise is declining in the plans of many companies. It is taking the place of the V8 in the larger FWD cars and will not be seen in most mid size and smaller cars. The 4 is going to be the main deal and the new Eco and it's future updates will be very important.

I find the the LNF I have with the GM upgrade to be a very appealing power plant. It in daily driving returns approx 25 MPG in town and if I take a trip near 32 MPG. This is in a 3200 pound 295 HP 315 FT LB vehicle not driven it for MPG. On ramps are taken with boost over 20 psi as are back roads.

GM did find with the increase in torque in the Turbo upgrade that the car gets to speed faster and lets the driver have more off gas time. In the DI cars this means no gas is going into the engine off gas. Bill Duncan GM driveline engineer verified what I saw with the increase of 1-2 MPG as the same GM saw. He said it was a unintended increase for them while adding 55 HP

I expect they will refine the engine more for noise and they will increase the performance and efficiency of the Turbo with upgrades and new technology.

The engines they have now are very good engines and I only expect they will get better. It is amazing what this little engine can do and GM is very lucky to have such a good power plant. Now if only other knew how good it is and will be. If GM had the money to market this like the Ecoboost a few years back they would be all the rage.

[smk4565]

A better way to look at the viability of a V6 is that there are and will continue to be people who prefer the refinement of a V6 even if an I4 Turbo is equivalent in performance and superior in fuel economy. If there is a market for it, then a car manufacturer should fill it. That is more important than appearing green or chasing the latest environmental target set by the ticks in Washington DC. This is why I always say that GM should build cars its customers want to buy and let CAFE fall where it may.

I agree with this because I for one won't buy a 4-cylinder car. Even the good ones still lack refinement, they vibrate, don't sound that great when pushed hard etc. And I feel that way about current Ecotec's, Saab turbo 4's and Audi's turbo 4. Surprisingly I thought the Sonata had pretty good refinement for a 4-banger, but I'd never buy one of those either. For me I want a 6 or 8 cylinder, even just for the sound of it.

And I don't see a turbo 4 competing with the 335i, so there better be 6-cylinders in the ATS.

[Robert Hall]

I wouldn't buy a car at the 3 series price point w/ a 4cyl. 4s are fine for mainstream economy cars but innapropriate for a luxury or performance car, IMO (with the exception of certain light 4cyl sports cars). I'd rather have a 6 or a V8.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[dwightlooi]

I wouldn't buy a car at the 3 series price point w/ a 4cyl. 4s are fine for mainstream economy cars but innapropriate for a luxury or performance car, IMO (with the exception of certain light 4cyl sports cars). I'd rather have a 6 or a V8.

That some individuals WILL NOT buy a 4-cylinder vehicle in a certain segment is not necessary to make a business case for 6-cylinder, less economical, CAFE busting models. That some individuals WILL PREFER a 6-cylinder is enough justification. Why? Because in this well populated field, even if GM goes all 4-cylinders on a Malibu, Regal or ATS it doesn't mean that every car maker will. This means that if you do not have a six you are losing business to competitors that do. For a model like the Malibu, this may represent a 10~25% loss of volume, for the ATS it may be half. But, when Gm has to fight hard for that 3.4% growth achieved, even 10~25% is not something they can afford to casually walk away from.

[Robert Hall]

I wouldn't buy a car at the 3 series price point w/ a 4cyl. 4s are fine for mainstream economy cars but innapropriate for a luxury or performance car, IMO (with the exception of certain light 4cyl sports cars). I'd rather have a 6 or a V8.

That some individuals WILL NOT buy a 4-cylinder vehicle in a certain segment is not necessary to make a business case for 6-cylinder, less economical, CAFE busting models. That some individuals WILL PREFER a 6-cylinder is enough justification. Why? Because in this well populated field, even if GM goes all 4-cylinders on a Malibu, Regal or ATS it doesn't mean that every car maker will. This means that if you do not have a six you are losing business to competitors that do. For a model like the Malibu, this may represent a 10~25% loss of volume, for the ATS it may be half. But, when Gm has to fight hard for that 3.4% growth achieved, even 10~25% is not something they can afford to casually walk away from.

For an appliance like the Malibu, I doubt if most buyers would notice or care about the engine. Agreed that for something like the ATS the choice of a 6 is definitely critical...until recently, the ATS' main competitors (3 series and C-class) didn't even offer a 4cyl in the US (though they did in the past and have always done so outside the US). So a 4cyl base model for the ATS makes sense going forward.

[regfootball]

The biggest thing I don't like with from all these new info is the digital LCD instrument cluster. I am not sure a digital LCD display is better. I mean, I'll keep it simple, sharp needles and clear text, while I focus on the important stuff. Gimmicks are not important stuff.

After checking out the LCD on one of the new F150's I had to move on the lot yesterday, I am convinced they will be able to make a stunning impression with it. Only thing will be needle response time. It's crisp and bright and clear. Daytime may be an issue. (note: the part i saw was the multi display between the gauges)

[Drew Dowdell]

I wouldn't buy a car at the 3 series price point w/ a 4cyl. 4s are fine for mainstream economy cars but innapropriate for a luxury or performance car, IMO (with the exception of certain light 4cyl sports cars). I'd rather have a 6 or a V8.

It's only a matter of time before a 4-cylinder (turbo or not) becomes the base engine for the 3-Series. It's already sold that way in the EU.

[Drew Dowdell]

I wouldn't buy a car at the 3 series price point w/ a 4cyl. 4s are fine for mainstream economy cars but innapropriate for a luxury or performance car, IMO (with the exception of certain light 4cyl sports cars). I'd rather have a 6 or a V8.

That some individuals WILL NOT buy a 4-cylinder vehicle in a certain segment is not necessary to make a business case for 6-cylinder, less economical, CAFE busting models. That some individuals WILL PREFER a 6-cylinder is enough justification. Why? Because in this well populated field, even if GM goes all 4-cylinders on a Malibu, Regal or ATS it doesn't mean that every car maker will. This means that if you do not have a six you are losing business to competitors that do. For a model like the Malibu, this may represent a 10~25% loss of volume, for the ATS it may be half. But, when Gm has to fight hard for that 3.4% growth achieved, even 10~25% is not something they can afford to casually walk away from.

The Sonata and Optima would like to have a word with you about their supposed falling sales volume. Having a V6 doesn't appear to be saving the Camry or Accord from the Korean onslaught.

[smk4565]

The 2012 3-series has a 4 cylinder and 0-60 time is 5.7 seconds which is quite good for a base model entry luxury car. Most will find that plenty quick. But someone like me would opt for the straight six just for how smooth it sounds. CamCord market doesn't have to worry about enthusiast buyers who spend dollars for intangibles.

[67impss]

Note that he said less mass, not less weight. Interesting distinction..

Well, since W=mg, where g=Earth's gravitational field strength, its only a interesting distinction _IF_ the ATS is leaving Earth's gravitational well.

First Cadillac on Mars?

Well GM did help build the Lunar Rover

[hyperv6]

It will not be a matter of what people want it be a matter of what is offered and what they can get.

The auto indutry will change as much in the next 10 years as it did when it changed in the early 80's. Cars like the Verano are here now as they will become some of the larger cars in the future. If you will want anything larger and more powerful you will have to pay dearly for it.

With the market already mostly 4 cylinder the car companies are still worried about finding the needed MPG for the future. Untill DC wakes up and learns there are no magic carbs and no deals with oil companies to repress that seceret technology that will give us 100 MPG the companies will be hard pressed to meet the standards without any major changes.

I am sorry to say the Spark and 3 cylinders are not here because they want them.

A lot of risk will be happening like when GM did the major FWD line change in the 80's I just hope this time GM chooses smart and make the right choices that will not take them 25 years to fix because they will not have enough money to fix them this time.

Note that he said less mass, not less weight. Interesting distinction..

Well, since W=mg, where g=Earth's gravitational field strength, its only a interesting distinction _IF_ the ATS is leaving Earth's gravitational well.

First Cadillac on Mars?

Well GM did help build the Lunar Rover

With the way things are going that may be the new Impala in 2030.

[dwightlooi]

The 2012 3-series has a 4 cylinder and 0-60 time is 5.7 seconds which is quite good for a base model entry luxury car. Most will find that plenty quick. But someone like me would opt for the straight six just for how smooth it sounds. CamCord market doesn't have to worry about enthusiast buyers who spend dollars for intangibles.

Well, If its me, I'll shoot for a middle ground between low-boost/high-compression and high-boost/low-compression. A 2.0 liter DI Turbo rated at approximately 270 bhp @ 5800~6300 rpm, 250 lb-ft @ 1600~5600 rpm, redline at 6500 rpm will push a 3,400~3,500 lbs car, if the transmission is competent, to 60 in 6 seconds flat. The engine will have a compression ratio of about 9.8:1 and slightly better fuel economy and throttle response than the current LHU while losing not much torque. This serves as a 3.0 V6 replacement and the base engine.

The 3.6 V6 tuned to about 320~330hp / 270~280 lb-ft will serve as the upgrade engine. It is not necessarily that much faster and it will drink more gas. But it should be a refinement improvement -- unless they really screw it up.

For the ATS-V, I will urge sticking to the Pushrod, big displacement V8. It is gives you more performance at less cost, less weight and less complexity than a Bi-Turbo V6. It gives Caddillac Vs a unique identity and it is probably no worse in fuel economy than a heavily boosted six in the same power class. An estimated 470bhp / 440 lb-ft should be available from the Gen V Small block. That is... for the lack of a better phase... enough for a compact luxury sports sedan. Roughly C63 class in performance and quite attractive if priced at $45K or so.

Edited October 28, 2011 by dwightlooi

[smk4565]

M3 is going back to 6 cylinders, so it will be interesting to see how many of the competitors follow. Rumor is Mercedes is working on a straight-six engine. I am torn on the 6 vs 8 cylinder decision, because on one hand performance hounds like V8s, but on the other hand, the gold standard of sport sedans will have a six. And the BMW six will likely be a lot more fuel efficient than any V8, and fuel efficiency is hot right now.

I think they should aim for $55k (or more) for an ATS-V, at some point Cadillac has to climb the price ladder.

[dwightlooi]

M3 is going back to 6 cylinders, so it will be interesting to see how many of the competitors follow. Rumor is Mercedes is working on a straight-six engine. I am torn on the 6 vs 8 cylinder decision, because on one hand performance hounds like V8s, but on the other hand, the gold standard of sport sedans will have a six. And the BMW six will likely be a lot more fuel efficient than any V8, and fuel efficiency is hot right now.

I think they should aim for $55k (or more) for an ATS-V, at some point Cadillac has to climb the price ladder.

(1) If BMW and M-B wants to go to a six, all the better! The ATS will have the V8 Sport Sedan market to itself! It means that at least some of the E90 M3 and W204 C63 customers will give Cadillac a look when they normally won't.

(2) Actually, a Bi-turbo DOHC V6 six is usually not substantially, if at all, more economical than a naturally aspirated Pushrod V8. Part of it is because of the reduced compression of the turbocharged engine, part of it is because of the less friction efficient DOHC valve train

(3) Fuel Economy may be hot with the family mid-size buyers... at least more people pay attention to it now than before, but it is probably the last thing on the minds of that customer who walked past that 4-cylinder ATS and the V6 ATS to pluck down twice as much money for the ATS-V! The same thing can be said of M3 and C63 buyers -- none of them, bought these cars to save on gas!

(4) Actually, I think 45K is about right for an ATS-V if they plan to have the entry ATS start in the high-20s and have the ATS-V sit along side the 60K CTS-V. The ATS-V can have the naturally aspirated version of the Gen V V8 while the CTS-V gets the force fed rendition with about a third more power.

Edited October 29, 2011 by dwightlooi

[Robert Hall]

I wouldn't buy a car at the 3 series price point w/ a 4cyl. 4s are fine for mainstream economy cars but innapropriate for a luxury or performance car, IMO (with the exception of certain light 4cyl sports cars). I'd rather have a 6 or a V8.

That some individuals WILL NOT buy a 4-cylinder vehicle in a certain segment is not necessary to make a business case for 6-cylinder, less economical, CAFE busting models. That some individuals WILL PREFER a 6-cylinder is enough justification. Why? Because in this well populated field, even if GM goes all 4-cylinders on a Malibu, Regal or ATS it doesn't mean that every car maker will. This means that if you do not have a six you are losing business to competitors that do. For a model like the Malibu, this may represent a 10~25% loss of volume, for the ATS it may be half. But, when Gm has to fight hard for that 3.4% growth achieved, even 10~25% is not something they can afford to casually walk away from.

The Sonata and Optima would like to have a word with you about their supposed falling sales volume. Having a V6 doesn't appear to be saving the Camry or Accord from the Korean onslaught.

In the mainstream appliance category, I don't think the cylinder c#### matters..many of the consumers of these products have no idea how to open the hood.