ATS = Less Mass

[hyperv6]

Fact is in the all too near future few will have V8's even if they want them.

Most of the companies are purging V8 engines fast in cars you never would have considered without one. We will have a v8 engine offered but it will be limited and expensive all too soon.

I do not expect a V8 in the ATS and I expect the next CTS V will be the smallest car to get it and I would not be shocked if there were arguments by some at GM to remove it too.

When Benz and BMW are moving hard back to 4 and Inline 6 engines it is telling of where the market is going. We also have to remember GM will have to move Cadillac to the world market at some point and the V8 is not all that important to Europe and China. Also the Green Movement is very strong in the EU. Green Image may not count much here but it does there.

The hand writing is on the wall and smaller lighter cars with smaller engines will be the norm even in most Luxury classes.

A Toyota IQ /Aston Martin is a hail mary from a scared company why else would they make such a move? Once the novalty wears off what will they do?

While Benz and BMW are not showing it, they are also concerned. Cadillac should also be working now to be where they need to be in 10 year not wait till then.

We have yet to see all the bizarre moves by those in Luxury class.

Edited October 29, 2011 by hyperv6

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't think BMW and Mercedes are that concerned about offering 4-cylinders here. All they have to do is click "Send" and get the engines certified for sale in the U.S. It's not like they have to go out and develop an all new engine.

[smk4565]

Everyone copies the 3-series, or at least they try to and come up short. I like V8s but the 3-series reputation is so strong whatever they do will be thought of as the best.

[balthazar]

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.

Same goes for the mainstream (mercedes/BMW/etc) lux. category- most drivers have no idea how to open the hood.

[Drew Dowdell]

BMW has even gone so far as to remove the oil dipstick haven't they? Now the only dipstick in a BMW is behind the wheel.

[SAmadei]

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

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

Toro can hit 100mph, since my worn out 307 in the '86 Estate did... barely, took forever, but did. Had to use GPS to determine the speed, as the speedo stops at 85.

[smk4565]

I think the BMW/Mercedes buyer and those in the luxury segment are more knowledgeable and discerning than many of you think they are. If they were so clueless the imitators that sell at a lower price would have more sales. But instead more people would rather spend $55-60k for a mid-size BMW or Benz compared to $35-45k for a mid-size Lincoln/Acura/Lexus.

Globally I think BMW and Mercedes are as strong as ever, they have growth all over the place. In the USA they are the top 2 in the luxury game, Lexus is fading, and the rest haven't mounted much of a challenge. It is possible for Cadillac (or someone else) to take them on head to head and make dent, but it will take A+ effort and execution to do so. And I think if a 3rd company rises to their level, it will just further hurt the weak brands like Lincoln. I see the strong surviving and the weak going down, not the strong falling back to the pack.

[Drew Dowdell]

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

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

Toro can hit 100mph, since my worn out 307 in the '86 Estate did... barely, took forever, but did. Had to use GPS to determine the speed, as the speedo stops at 85.

You would have a 4-speed in that. I only have a 3 speed.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think the BMW/Mercedes buyer and those in the luxury segment are more knowledgeable and discerning than many of you think they are. If they were so clueless the imitators that sell at a lower price would have more sales. But instead more people would rather spend $55-60k for a mid-size BMW or Benz compared to $35-45k for a mid-size Lincoln/Acura/Lexus.

it's all about the badge. Typical BMW and Mercedes Benz drivers are just as clueless about their cars as a typical Camry buyer, they just have more money to spend and want to be able to say "I drive a Mercedes". The latest C-Class interior has nothing on the CTS in either build quality or materials and certainly not in styling.... but people still buy it because it's got the 3-pointed star.

[67impss]

At WOT that's all he has also as the tranny won't go to overdrive

[SAmadei]

At WOT that's all he has also as the tranny won't go to overdrive

Exactly. Was in D... OD stopped accelerating about 95.

[dwightlooi]

Fact is in the all too near future few will have V8's even if they want them.

Most of the companies are purging V8 engines fast in cars you never would have considered without one. We will have a v8 engine offered but it will be limited and expensive all too soon.

I do not expect a V8 in the ATS and I expect the next CTS V will be the smallest car to get it and I would not be shocked if there were arguments by some at GM to remove it too.

When Benz and BMW are moving hard back to 4 and Inline 6 engines it is telling of where the market is going. We also have to remember GM will have to move Cadillac to the world market at some point and the V8 is not all that important to Europe and China. Also the Green Movement is very strong in the EU. Green Image may not count much here but it does there.

The hand writing is on the wall and smaller lighter cars with smaller engines will be the norm even in most Luxury classes.

A Toyota IQ /Aston Martin is a hail mary from a scared company why else would they make such a move? Once the novalty wears off what will they do?

While Benz and BMW are not showing it, they are also concerned. Cadillac should also be working now to be where they need to be in 10 year not wait till then.

We have yet to see all the bizarre moves by those in Luxury class.

Two things...

(1) Nobody is saying don't offer a 4-cylinder or not to make cars more fuel efficient. The "Green" crowd, the Europeans and whoever else values small displacement for all the right or wrong reasons can buy a 4-pot ATS or a 6-pot one. They can buy it with all the amenities and luxurious trim offered. However, I'll tell you that the C63 buyer and the M3 buyer in general is NOT particularly interested in greeness or fuel economy. If they were, they won't buy these type of car to begin with! Therefore, BMW and M-B's retreat from the V8 powered luxury-sport-compact market is a good thing. It allows Cadillac the opportunity to have it to themselves. Having a V8 ATS-V has no detrimental effect on sales to the green or displacement conscious ATS shopper who won't even look at the ATS-V.

(2) Small displacement does not equal better fuel economy. A reduced total parasitic loss equals better fuel economy. Reduced torque output from reduced displacement often forces higher average revolutions and increasing specific output by piling on the number of valvetrain elements also increase frictional losses. Adding a turbocharger reduces the thermal efficiency of the engine from reducing the static compression ratio. If you are not careful, you can easily end up with inferior fuel economy by going to a smaller displacement engine while at the same time adding cost, complexity and failure points. There are multiple examples I can give you on this...

• BMW M3 (4.0 DOHC V8) -- 414 hp / 295 lb-ft / 3708 lbs = 14 / 20 MPG
  
• Ford Taurus SHO (3.5 DOHC V6 Turbo) -- 365 hp / 350 b-ft / 4368 lbs = 17 / 25 MPG
  
• Camaro SS (6.2 Pushrod V8) -- 426 hp / 420 lb-ft / 3849 lbs = 16 / 24 MPG
  
• Ford Focus Automatic (2.0 DOHC I4) -- 160 hp / 145 lb-ft / 2907 lbs = 28 / 38 MPG
  
• Chevrolet Cruze Automatic (1.4 DOHC I4 Turbo) -- 138 hp / 148 lb-ft / 3102 lbs = 26 / 38 MPG
  

The point is that we can expect a large displacement, pushrod V8 to be competitive if not superior in fuel economy compared to a smaller displacement bi-turbo V6 of a similar output. That the competition cannot or will not bring themselves to recognize and adopt the superiority of the pushrod engine is a choice they make to their own detriment.

Edited October 30, 2011 by dwightlooi

[hyperv6]

Fact is in the all too near future few will have V8's even if they want them.

Most of the companies are purging V8 engines fast in cars you never would have considered without one. We will have a v8 engine offered but it will be limited and expensive all too soon.

I do not expect a V8 in the ATS and I expect the next CTS V will be the smallest car to get it and I would not be shocked if there were arguments by some at GM to remove it too.

When Benz and BMW are moving hard back to 4 and Inline 6 engines it is telling of where the market is going. We also have to remember GM will have to move Cadillac to the world market at some point and the V8 is not all that important to Europe and China. Also the Green Movement is very strong in the EU. Green Image may not count much here but it does there.

The hand writing is on the wall and smaller lighter cars with smaller engines will be the norm even in most Luxury classes.

A Toyota IQ /Aston Martin is a hail mary from a scared company why else would they make such a move? Once the novalty wears off what will they do?

While Benz and BMW are not showing it, they are also concerned. Cadillac should also be working now to be where they need to be in 10 year not wait till then.

We have yet to see all the bizarre moves by those in Luxury class.

Two things...

(1) Nobody is saying don't offer a 4-cylinder or not to make cars more fuel efficient. The "Green" crowd, the Europeans and whoever else values small displacement for all the right or wrong reasons can buy a 4-pot ATS or a 6-pot one. They can buy it with all the amenities and luxurious trim offered. However, I'll tell you that the C63 buyer and the M3 buyer in general is NOT particularly interested in greeness or fuel economy. If they were, they won't buy these type of car to begin with! Therefore, BMW and M-B's retreat from the V8 powered luxury-sport-compact market is a good thing. It allows Cadillac the opportunity to have it to themselves. Having a V8 ATS-V has no detrimental effect on sales to the green or displacement conscious ATS shopper who won't even look at the ATS-V.

(2) Small displacement does not equal better fuel economy. A reduced total parasitic loss equals better fuel economy. Reduced torque output from reduced displacement often forces higher average revolutions and increasing specific output by piling on the number of valvetrain elements also increase frictional losses. Adding a turbocharger reduces the thermal efficiency of the engine from reducing the static compression ratio. If you are not careful, you can easily end up with inferior fuel economy by going to a smaller displacement engine while at the same time adding cost, complexity and failure points. There are multiple examples I can give you on this...

• BMW M3 (4.0 DOHC V8) -- 414 hp / 295 lb-ft / 3708 lbs = 14 / 20 MPG
  
• Ford Taurus SHO (3.5 DOHC V6 Turbo) -- 365 hp / 350 b-ft / 4368 lbs = 17 / 25 MPG
  
• Camaro SS (6.2 Pushrod V8) -- 426 hp / 420 lb-ft / 3849 lbs = 16 / 24 MPG
  
• Ford Focus Automatic (2.0 DOHC I4) -- 160 hp / 145 lb-ft / 2907 lbs = 28 / 38 MPG
  
• Chevrolet Cruze Automatic (1.4 DOHC I4 Turbo) -- 138 hp / 148 lb-ft / 3102 lbs = 26 / 38 MPG
  

The point is that we can expect a large displacement, pushrod V8 to be competitive if not superior in fuel economy compared to a smaller displacement bi-turbo V6 of a similar output. That the competition cannot or will not bring themselves to recognize and adopt the superiority of the pushrod engine is a choice they make to their own detriment.

My point is they are going to offer the 4 cylinder regardless of what anyone says here. It is coming across the segment and no one is going to be left out accept for Rolls. But then again you never know. THey already are dressing up Mini's.

The numbers you have posted here for MPG are great for now but in the near future they are all in trouble with these numbers. THis is why GM is investing so much into the Eco engines and even looking to 3 cylinder cars like the Spark. Many of these will go overseas at first but in time they will come here I am affraid. Who ever though GM would really try to sell a Spark here?

As for all your info and numbers they are informitive and interesting but they are counter to where the industry is going and what most are doing. I don't dispute anything you say but I look and see the entire industry doing other wise. I really don't see it changing. The fact remains that until or if someone changes the regulations for mileage cars and engines will get smaller than many even imagine. Yes we will have some large engines and a few large cars but they will be limited and cost enough to pay the penalties they will be saddled with.

While GM's Pushrod V8 is a marvel no one else in the industry is moving to it. They have chosen to do counter to what you advise. If you facts are accurate I wish they would follow your path but I really don't see them going that way. With heavy investment in small Tubo 4 engines and various 6 cylinders inline and V I expect these are the cards that we will be left with.

When it is all said and done ten years from now I see GM only offering a V8 in the Camaro [only in a top level trim similar to the ZL1], Vette [as a option over a base V6 Turbo], Pick ups [less sold in half tons as they will start a push on V6's like Ford] and Cadillac but only in a CTS V, Flagship Omega [if It ever gets here] and what ever SUV they offer. At Ford they already have pretty much purged the V8 except for the trucks and Mustang.

So please don't think I disagree with all you say I only am looking at the market and doing my own prediction on what I expect. Note this is not what I want just what I expect. The days of where the V8 was 80% of the market are already over and will never return. It is sad to say I do not expect my son to ever own a new V8 car unless he buys a top time Vette or Camaro when he is older. But you have to play the cards you are dealt and while the engines are smaller at least today I have as much or more power than even my 9 MPG BBC in just 2.0 Liters.

As for your last sentence. I suspect while you have a lot of good info I suspect they just might have a little more, just call it a hunch. It may be due to the fac they are looking farther down the road than you are? I am not going to say you are wrong but I will have to give the nod to the companies spending 100's of millions of dollars/ I just have a hunch they have this figured out pretty good before they would commite to spending large amounts of capital to this. If it were just one company yes they could be wrong but can they all really be wrong and only you be correct?

I understand where you are coming from and I just explained my way of thinking. I am not going to argue this point as we each are ok to think what we think. While you say what they should do I am only saying what I expect them to do and not that I think it is right or wrong. To be honest I wish they would think like you do!!!!!!

[dwightlooi]

Well, at this point, my prediction is that the Caddy V cars will follow an engine strategy quite similar to that of M-B's last generation AMG cars. By that I mean that the ATS-V will receive a naturally aspirated version of the Gen V Small Block V8, whereas the CTS-V receives the supercharged version. I also expected the MPG numbers to be 1~2 mpg better than the current generation thanks to direct injection, variable timing and advancements on the transmission front. The reason I believe this to be more likely than a bi-turbo V6 is that the Gen V engine is already happening with or without the ATS-V, whereas a 450~500 hp class bi-turbo V6 is not happening unless they deliberately kick off such a project just for the ATS. Besides, this is also consistent with the current Caddy V-car image and philosophies.

What this means is an ATS-V with ~ 470hp and ~ 17 / 26 MPG. The next CTS-V should then get a ~600 hp Supercharged version of this engine with ~ 14 / 22 mpg. That is something the competition will have a hard time beating.

[smk4565]

The Nissan GT-R has a V6, it doesn't have any problems crushing V8 and even V12 super cars in straight lines or around the Nurburgring.

There are obviously people that like V8s and would prefer that. If the ATS-V uses a V8 that could cause for some appeal. My belief though is the M3 will still best in class anyway. Lexus has a V8 in the IS-F and that car sucks. The BMW inline six is an awesome engine, I think it can match up to whatever anyone else has, and the M3 wins on chassis, suspension, and steering anyway. Many think the older M3 was better because it was lighter and more agile, and the V8 car has gotten a bit too big and muscle car like.

[hyperv6]

Well, at this point, my prediction is that the Caddy V cars will follow an engine strategy quite similar to that of M-B's last generation AMG cars. By that I mean that the ATS-V will receive a naturally aspirated version of the Gen V Small Block V8, whereas the CTS-V receives the supercharged version. I also expected the MPG numbers to be 1~2 mpg better than the current generation thanks to direct injection, variable timing and advancements on the transmission front. The reason I believe this to be more likely than a bi-turbo V6 is that the Gen V engine is already happening with or without the ATS-V, whereas a 450~500 hp class bi-turbo V6 is not happening unless they deliberately kick off such a project just for the ATS. Besides, this is also consistent with the current Caddy V-car image and philosophies.

What this means is an ATS-V with ~ 470hp and ~ 17 / 26 MPG. The next CTS-V should then get a ~600 hp Supercharged version of this engine with ~ 14 / 22 mpg. That is something the competition will have a hard time beating.

My gut right now is no V8 in the ATS. I just don't feel it will happen, as limited at the CTS has been with the V8 as it is. The next CTS I still expect a V6 to be the main player but I could see a NA V8 option and then a Supercharged V.

The Flag ship I feel will be something special. Either V8 supplied by an jointly supplied to GM or GM takes the new V8 and gets creative with Turbo's or something special. I really don't see them using an engine that is similar used in any other GM car.

These are just gut calls here based on what little we have heard. With GM gone dark on info

No matter what I do know for a fact we will see some suprises as GM has really been mixing things up and will be more proactive in bring new things to the table. It will be fun to see and debate.

[dwightlooi]

The Nissan GT-R has a V6, it doesn't have any problems crushing V8 and even V12 super cars in straight lines or around the Nurburgring.

There are obviously people that like V8s and would prefer that. If the ATS-V uses a V8 that could cause for some appeal. My belief though is the M3 will still best in class anyway. Lexus has a V8 in the IS-F and that car sucks. The BMW inline six is an awesome engine, I think it can match up to whatever anyone else has, and the M3 wins on chassis, suspension, and steering anyway. Many think the older M3 was better because it was lighter and more agile, and the V8 car has gotten a bit too big and muscle car like.

Well, the VR38DETT is 480hp at 240 kg, the LS7 is 505hp @ 204kg. The 7.0 liter V8 not only weighs less but also require less room under the hood and turn in 15 / 24 MPG (3 mpg better than the GT-R on he freeway). If the GT-R is powered by the LS7 V8, while retaining its AWD system and chassis, it'll actually be a faster and better handling car.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Nissan GT-R has a V6, it doesn't have any problems crushing V8 and even V12 super cars in straight lines or around the Nurburgring.

There are obviously people that like V8s and would prefer that. If the ATS-V uses a V8 that could cause for some appeal. My belief though is the M3 will still best in class anyway. Lexus has a V8 in the IS-F and that car sucks. The BMW inline six is an awesome engine, I think it can match up to whatever anyone else has, and the M3 wins on chassis, suspension, and steering anyway. Many think the older M3 was better because it was lighter and more agile, and the V8 car has gotten a bit too big and muscle car like.

Well, the VR38DETT is 480hp at 240 kg, the LS7 is 505hp @ 204kg. The 7.0 liter V8 not only weighs less but also require less room under the hood and turn in 15 / 24 MPG (3 mpg better than the GT-R on he freeway). If the GT-R is powered by the LS7 V8, while retaining its AWD system and chassis, it'll actually be a faster and better handling car.

this.

[smk4565]

GT-R now makes 530 horsepower. And I'm not saying that everyone has to copy the GT-R, just that with a V6 you can still have a really fast car. The M3 with a six cylinder will still be the best sport sedan in the class, and they'll do it off technology and agility. GM tends to think performance = big V8 in a standard car, but it isn't 1968 anymore.

I for a while have thought they should make V-series cars lighter, because weight is what kills performance. V-series, AMG, M, cars all get more powerful, but all add weight. Although Mercedes may change that with a 2,860 lb carbon fiber E-class. That is what the ATS-V should be, a 2900 lb car that really does handle like it is on rails.

[dwightlooi]

GT-R now makes 530 horsepower. And I'm not saying that everyone has to copy the GT-R, just that with a V6 you can still have a really fast car. The M3 with a six cylinder will still be the best sport sedan in the class, and they'll do it off technology and agility. GM tends to think performance = big V8 in a standard car, but it isn't 1968 anymore.

I for a while have thought they should make V-series cars lighter, because weight is what kills performance. V-series, AMG, M, cars all get more powerful, but all add weight. Although Mercedes may change that with a 2,860 lb carbon fiber E-class. That is what the ATS-V should be, a 2900 lb car that really does handle like it is on rails.

Actually, I think you are mistaken...

(1) Performance means the highest power in the smallest, lightest engine. That happens to be a pushrod V8 motor as opposed to a DOHC V6 with two turbochargers, a myraid of plumbing and a big intercooler.

(2) Progress means incorporating advanced technologies to make an engine more powerful, cleaner, more fuel efficient or all of the above. Progress is not a choice of valve train layout or a specific displacement. Technology is not lacking in a big displacement V8 that has direct injection, variable timing, cylinder deactivation, roller cam followers, 32-bit digital engine management and extremely lightweight construction, just because it is big displacement or because the designers chose to put the camshaft in the block or use less valves. Based on that kind of reasoning, one can argue that an engine is lower tech because it has fewer screws on the valve cover or because the cam sprocket is on one side or another.

So, yes, I am in complete agreement that GM should push the technological boundaries with engines, that they should make their cars lighter and more agile, and that they should be competitive if not class leading in fuel economy. However, I also believe that a Pushrod V8 is just as high tech, lighter, smaller and more fuel efficient than other alternatives that make the same amount of power. Even without direct injection, without variable timing and without cylinder deactivation, the Pushrod V8 is delivering 430 horsepower, 424 lb-ft and 16/26 MPG in a Corvette. I don't think anything on the road that makes 430 horsepower is beating those numbers.

Edited November 1, 2011 by dwightlooi

[smk4565]

Corvette automatic gets 15/25 mpg, a Genesis R-spec has 429 hp and gets 16/25 mpg so pretty similar and the Genesis has more weight. The Porsche 911 Turbo S has 530 hp, 17/25 mpg and 0-60 and 0-60 in 3.1 seconds. Or the 911 Carrera S has 400 hp and 18/26 mpg.

But still the American car performance formula is to add power by way of a big engine and then the car gets heavy. It would be interesting to explore a new direction of weight reduction. Perhaps go so far as making all V-series cars with a 100% carbon fiber body.

[dwightlooi]

But still the American car performance formula is to add power by way of a big engine and then the car gets heavy. It would be interesting to explore a new direction of weight reduction. Perhaps go so far as making all V-series cars with a 100% carbon fiber body.

The problem with that argument is that the 6.2 liter or 7.0 liter V8 used in the Corvette is LIGHTER and SMALLER than the engine in the BMW M3, the GT-R or the 911 Turbo...

Edited November 1, 2011 by dwightlooi

[smk4565]

But if the car was lighter, you wouldn't need a huge engine in the first place. Take the CTS sedan for example. A V6 CTS is 3850 lbs (base trim). A CTS-V is 4222 lbs, nearly 400 pounds is added. What if it was the opposite, and a CTS-V took off 400 lbs and weighed 3450 lbs. Then even with 420 hp it would be plenty fast. And imagine the handling advantage a 3450 lb CTS-V would have over a 4222 lb CTS-V.

[Robert Hall]

But if the car was lighter, you wouldn't need a huge engine in the first place. Take the CTS sedan for example. A V6 CTS is 3850 lbs (base trim). A CTS-V is 4222 lbs, nearly 400 pounds is added. What if it was the opposite, and a CTS-V took off 400 lbs and weighed 3450 lbs. Then even with 420 hp it would be plenty fast. And imagine the handling advantage a 3450 lb CTS-V would have over a 4222 lb CTS-V.

I wonder if the ATS-V will weigh around 3450lbs....

[Drew Dowdell]

But if the car was lighter, you wouldn't need a huge engine in the first place. Take the CTS sedan for example. A V6 CTS is 3850 lbs (base trim). A CTS-V is 4222 lbs, nearly 400 pounds is added. What if it was the opposite, and a CTS-V took off 400 lbs and weighed 3450 lbs. Then even with 420 hp it would be plenty fast. And imagine the handling advantage a 3450 lb CTS-V would have over a 4222 lb CTS-V.

Dude.. nail your arguments down a bit.

Even in a lighter vehicle, the huge engine which is lighter is better than a middling engine that is heavier.

[hyperv6]

But if the car was lighter, you wouldn't need a huge engine in the first place. Take the CTS sedan for example. A V6 CTS is 3850 lbs (base trim). A CTS-V is 4222 lbs, nearly 400 pounds is added. What if it was the opposite, and a CTS-V took off 400 lbs and weighed 3450 lbs. Then even with 420 hp it would be plenty fast. And imagine the handling advantage a 3450 lb CTS-V would have over a 4222 lb CTS-V.

I wonder if the ATS-V will weigh around 3450lbs....

I think that would be a realistic goal reguardless of the engine and will be intersting to see if they get close to it. If they are speaking of less mass then I would expect they have done some major gains if they are hinting at it already.

Lutz had already put them to work to remove weight in the new post Chapter 11 cars, this is the first real new car post Chapter 11. I expect a lot of details that always get left behind due to the lack of funds will not be an issue here.

Edited November 2, 2011 by hyperv6

[dwightlooi]

But if the car was lighter, you wouldn't need a huge engine in the first place. Take the CTS sedan for example. A V6 CTS is 3850 lbs (base trim). A CTS-V is 4222 lbs, nearly 400 pounds is added. What if it was the opposite, and a CTS-V took off 400 lbs and weighed 3450 lbs. Then even with 420 hp it would be plenty fast. And imagine the handling advantage a 3450 lb CTS-V would have over a 4222 lb CTS-V.

The CTS-V is heavier mostly because of various chassis reinforcements, drive line upgrades and a higher level of standard equipment. The engine itself did not add much weight -- about 88 lbs (40kg) . Here are the numbers...

• CTS LLT 3.6 DI DOHC-24v V6 (300hp) = 172 kg
  
• CTS-V LSA 6.2 Supercharged Pushrod-16v V8 (556hp) = 212 kg
  

For reference, the numbers for some other engines are:-

• BMW S65 4.0 DOHC-32v V8 (414hp) = 202 kg
  
• Corvette LS3 6.2 Pushrod-16v V8 (436hp) = 183 kg
  
• Nissan VR38DETT 3.8 Twin-Turbo DOHC-24v V8 (480~530hp) = 240 kg
  
• Honda S2000 F20C 2.0 DOHC-16v I4 (240hp) = 149 kg
  

I don't think you can make a case for the big displacement pushrod V8 being the reason the GM cars are heavy. And, if they are heavy for other reasons, putting in an engine which weighs more or make less power or both doesn't help.

Edited November 2, 2011 by dwightlooi