Detroit 2012: The 3 Engines Of ATS: Comments

[Intrepidation]

If they wanted to be like Mercedes they would buy up a successful company under the pretense of "merger of equals", strip the company for all its worth, then sell it to some private equity douches.

After which point they would then start building increasingly ugly cars. It's a German thing (except Audis they all just look the same).

I have a compelling thought: lets wait and see until the car is actually unveiled and reviewed before passing final judgement on it.

[smk4565]

Daimler has a lot of brands and builds a lot of trucks, buses, vans, cars, etc. Mercedes-Benz car division though is very successful and I'm sure any other luxury car maker would want their success. Sure Mercedes has made mistakes, but right now they are the strongest they have been in 125 years and sitting in a really good position. Cadillac has some work to do to get to that level.

But Mercedes trucks are the best too, the Actros just won international truck of the year for the 4th time!

[balthazar]

"Mercedes-Benz" as a car division is 85 years old (formed in 1926).

[Drew Dowdell]

You can't make the claim that Cadillac should have the sales volume of Mercedes and then refuse to acknowledge that Mercedes has gained almost all of that sales volume by moving down market. Do you really want a Cadillac version of the Spark and Granite? Because that is what it will take to get Cadillac's volume to match Benz's.

[Intrepidation]

Be still my heart.

[ocnblu]

[Robert Hall]

"Mercedes-Benz" as a car division is 85 years old (formed in 1926).

Wow..you actually spelled Mercedes correctly for once. Quite the achievement. And the 125 years is in reference to the company as a whole.

You can't make the claim that Cadillac should have the sales volume of Mercedes and then refuse to acknowledge that Mercedes has gained almost all of that sales volume by moving down market. Do you really want a Cadillac version of the Spark and Granite? Because that is what it will take to get Cadillac's volume to match Benz's.

A Spark-based Cadillac is inevitable...remember the luxury city car concept that was shown last year?

Edited December 19, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[smk4565]

You can't make the claim that Cadillac should have the sales volume of Mercedes and then refuse to acknowledge that Mercedes has gained almost all of that sales volume by moving down market. Do you really want a Cadillac version of the Spark and Granite? Because that is what it will take to get Cadillac's volume to match Benz's.

I don't think Cadillac should have Mercedes' sales volume, and Mercedes hasn't really "moved down market." Mercedes vehicles are usually the most expensive in the segment. C-class was their top seller in 2010 at 310,000 units, but they sold 302,000 E-classes. A-class and B-class combined were 222,000. That is their only down market car, but their competitors in Europe and China offer cars in the same class.

I want Cadillac to emulate the C, E, and S-class, build a convertible/sports car, and a rear drive crossover. And to have profit margins close to those of Mercedes. Then I want to see Cadillac sell globally; Europe, Australia, China, Russia, South America, Middle East, South Africa, etc. with enough volume to keep them in business in those markets. Cadillac has to be global, if not they risk becoming Lincoln or Acura.

[Drew Dowdell]

How many of those C and E classes were Taxis?

[Robert Hall]

I want Cadillac to emulate the C, E, and S-class, build a convertible/sports car, and a rear drive crossover. And to have profit margins close to those of Mercedes. Then I want to see Cadillac sell globally; Europe, Australia, China, Russia, South America, Middle East, South Africa, etc. with enough volume to keep them in business in those markets. Cadillac has to be global, if not they risk becoming Lincoln or Acura.

not.going.to.happen. Cadillac needs to be itself and not try and emulate M-B in every detail. Unfortunately, being part of GM means there will be FWD volume models because GM is a mass-market FWD car maker. So Cadillac's product mix is going to be closer to Lexus in the near term than BMW or M-B...

Edited December 19, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

How many of those C and E classes were Taxis?

Zero in the US, I would think.

He's quoting global numbers, so the U.S. is relatively irrelevant.

I want Cadillac to emulate the C, E, and S-class, build a convertible/sports car, and a rear drive crossover. And to have profit margins close to those of Mercedes. Then I want to see Cadillac sell globally; Europe, Australia, China, Russia, South America, Middle East, South Africa, etc. with enough volume to keep them in business in those markets. Cadillac has to be global, if not they risk becoming Lincoln or Acura.

not.going.to.happen. Cadillac needs to be itself and not try and emulate M-B. Unfortunately, being part of GM means there will be FWD volume models because GM is a mass-market FWD car maker. So Cadillac's product mix is going to be closer to Lexus in the near term than BMW or M-B...

So MB is going to be emulating Cadillac then by introducing more FWD models?

[Robert Hall]

not.going.to.happen. Cadillac needs to be itself and not try and emulate M-B. Unfortunately, being part of GM means there will be FWD volume models because GM is a mass-market FWD car maker. So Cadillac's product mix is going to be closer to Lexus in the near term than BMW or M-B...

So MB is going to be emulating Cadillac then by introducing more FWD models?

No....MB has already had FWD models for over a decade...but they are only in the subcompact entry-level niches. All their serious cars remain RWD. I don't see that changing...they aren't going to have a FWD SUV, or a FWD S-class, or a FWD SL. They have FWD where it is appropriate--the bottom end city appliances.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

give it time... I can certainly see a FWD small SUV at Benz some time in the future. The SL and S-Class won't go FWD and neither will the Cadillac flagship or any future roadster.

[smk4565]

I don't want Cadillac to copy Mercedes, they obviously have to create their own identity. But I do wish Cadillac would operate globally like Mercedes does and achieve a high brand image that allows them to have pricing and profits like Mercedes has.

E-class fleet sales exist mainly in Germany, and they don't hurt Mercedes there. It isn't like Mercedes is only a volume brand, they make more profit than GM does. If the E-class or the brand image was so flawed, it wouldn't have the success it has, and Mercedes as a whole is growing at a strong rate.

Cadillac's strategy better not be "wait for Mercedes to drop to our level." Cadillac needs to go up after them, because in the process they should be able to crush Lincoln, Acura, Lexus and the middle of the road luxury brands.

[balthazar]

"Mercedes-Benz" as a car division is 85 years old (formed in 1926).

And the 125 years is in reference to the company as a whole.

Re-read smk's post. He specifically said "Mercedes-Benz car division". Those two were separate & competing companies until the merger. The hyphen is a handy reminder.

Otherwise, it's like saying Fiat-Chrysler is 112 years old.

• • •

E-class fleet sales exist mainly in Germany, and they don't hurt Mercedes there. It isn't like Mercedes is only a volume brand, they make more profit than GM does. If the E-class or the brand image was so flawed, it wouldn't have the success it has, and Mercedes as a whole is growing at a strong rate.

mercedeees fleets far more than just the e-class- even the s-class is a common 'black car', in addition to other more mundane uses such as for police duty.

Where it hurts M-B in germany is that the brand has an very poor private retail rate there, and it enjoys a FAR lower image there than in the U.S..

M-B has relied on tactics there that the American makers are consistently bashed for doing "wrong" here.

You throw a tin box like the sprinter on top of that and it becomes crystal clear. M-B already has a commercial division- the sprinter is a straight-up utilitarian-grade cheap piece that without question belongs there..... except guess what- it has the 2nd highest YTD growth numbers, so it looks good on the sales chart. It's like Olds stated; same deal as sticking a Cadillac emblem on this when GMC is right. there. :

Same thing with the a-class; they should be larger smart models or anything else but 'M-B's, but they are hellbent on putting "a mercedes in every driveway" as their tagline read a few years ago. mercedees is driven to achieve... VOLUME.

Edited December 19, 2011 by balthazar

[Z-06]

Let me ask all of you complainers of the 2.5L engine:

• How many of you are actually going to buy this thing? Moreover, how many of you will actually buy an ATS?
  
• How do you guys not know that 2.5L is temporary and that as ATS expands in to EU, there will be smaller mills substituting the 2.5L?
  
• How many of you would complain if ATS does not get volume because over 65% of C class is sold in the measly 4 cylinder form?
  
• How many of you know that in EU where you quote numbers from has an Audi, a BMW, or a C class that make sub 150 hp engines and sell them in vast majority?
  
• Do you guys work inside GM and are making claims after everything is set in stone? If such is the case your inside knowledge will really really really help us create volume on this website so you guys can keep complaining.
  

There is one thing called constructive criticism and then there is other thing about Bitching Moaning and Whining of everything that GM is making. I personally do not like the 2.5L, nor the 3.6L for the ATS. The car should be set apart with Turbos only. But then again, I will possibly buy a ATS-V not vanilla car when I am in market. That does not mean I will B M W about the rest of the line up.

[Robert Hall]

As far as the 2.5 goes, I just don't see the point of offering 2 different 4 cylinder engines in the ATS. As far as the EU market,a diesel is what is needed.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Z-06]

As far as the 2.5 goes, I just don't see the point of offering 2 different 4 cylinder engines in the ATS. As far as the EU market,a diesel is what is needed.

Why not? If it is successful it helps bringing cash, if it is not then at least GM tried. And how do you know diesel is not coming? If rumors stand true, the 2.2L diesel will already be on its way.

In a bid to return to the ‘standard of the world’, General Motors’ Cadillac division is considering launching a new range of diesel engines for markets outside of the United States. However, the luxury automaker is also considering oil burners for these shores.

In a recent interview on the sidelines of the Los Angeles Auto Show, Don Butler, Cadillac’s marketing vice president, revealed that the automaker was seriously considering diesel engines for markets outside the United States. The move would put Cadillac on better ground to compete with marques like BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi.

And although diesels aren’t as popular in the United States as they are in Europe, Butler added a diesel “could be a potential hedge in the U.S. because of diesel’s great torque, great performance with great efficiency.”

“We absolutely mean it when we say we aim to compete with the best of the best without compromises,” Butler said. “And if that means making the right powertrain choices, then those are the choices we will have to make.”

Butler didn’t reveal what models were under consideration for diesel power, but Cadillac’s globally-sold CTS seems like the most likely candidate.

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't want Cadillac to copy Mercedes, they obviously have to create their own identity. But I do wish Cadillac would operate globally like Mercedes does and achieve a high brand image that allows them to have pricing and profits like Mercedes has.

E-class fleet sales exist mainly in Germany, and they don't hurt Mercedes there. It isn't like Mercedes is only a volume brand, they make more profit than GM does. If the E-class or the brand image was so flawed, it wouldn't have the success it has, and Mercedes as a whole is growing at a strong rate.

Cadillac's strategy better not be "wait for Mercedes to drop to our level." Cadillac needs to go up after them, because in the process they should be able to crush Lincoln, Acura, Lexus and the middle of the road luxury brands.

C/E/S-class fleet sales exist across Europe. The C-Class is the "Chevy Impala" of the rental car business over there with the E-class being the "Buick Lucerne". The C-Class/E-Class/S-Class image over there is flawed. They are not aspirational cars. If you personally drive a black C-Class sedan or Wagon, the common assumption is that it is a corporate lease that you get with your middle management job at the bank. The SL and CLS and other niche vehicles do have a good image, but they are not sold in any volume like the executive saloons and taxis are.

Mercedes makes its volume the good old fashioned way.... by fleeting to fleety fleets with fleets of fleet cars.

[Drew Dowdell]

As far as the 2.5 goes, I just don't see the point of offering 2 different 4 cylinder engines in the ATS. As far as the EU market,a diesel is what is needed.

Because not everyone needs or wants a race car. Why is Mercedes offering a 200hp 1.8 Turbo?

[Robert Hall]

As far as the 2.5 goes, I just don't see the point of offering 2 different 4 cylinder engines in the ATS. As far as the EU market,a diesel is what is needed.

Because not everyone needs or wants a race car. Why is Mercedes offering a 200hp 1.8 Turbo?

Well, the 2.0 T hardly makes the ATS a 'race car'..it's still just a 4cyl.

[Drew Dowdell]

As far as the 2.5 goes, I just don't see the point of offering 2 different 4 cylinder engines in the ATS. As far as the EU market,a diesel is what is needed.

Because not everyone needs or wants a race car. Why is Mercedes offering a 200hp 1.8 Turbo?

Well, the 2.0 T hardly makes the ATS a 'race car'..it's still just a 4cyl.

and? there is another engine above that. How hard is it to understand Small/Medium/Large and eventually XXL?

[Robert Hall]

As far as the 2.5 goes, I just don't see the point of offering 2 different 4 cylinder engines in the ATS. As far as the EU market,a diesel is what is needed.

Because not everyone needs or wants a race car. Why is Mercedes offering a 200hp 1.8 Turbo?

Well, the 2.0 T hardly makes the ATS a 'race car'..it's still just a 4cyl.

and? there is another engine above that. How hard is it to understand Small/Medium/Large and eventually XXL?

It will be interesting to see the sales #s for the engine choices in a couple years.

[Drew Dowdell]

There are 3 flavors of 4-cylinder in the Regal as well. Why no outrage there?

[Z-06]

As far as the 2.5 goes, I just don't see the point of offering 2 different 4 cylinder engines in the ATS. As far as the EU market,a diesel is what is needed.

Because not everyone needs or wants a race car. Why is Mercedes offering a 200hp 1.8 Turbo?

Well, the 2.0 T hardly makes the ATS a 'race car'..it's still just a 4cyl.

Is the new 328 a race car? That engine "only" has 240 hp from a 2 L. GM should say to BMW, "Welcome to 2006 and no you are still not there yet, as we had 260 hp from the 2 L." The 2L ecotec will be in its third iteration with the new ATS. Can BMW claim that many iterations in 6 years time frame?

[Z-06]

There are 3 flavors of 4-cylinder in the Regal as well. Why no outrage there?

That is the non-precise, uninformed, prejudiced hypocrisy that is ruining the website. All comes out is outrage on whatever GM does even if it means more choices to the customer.

[Blake Noble]

It's threads like these that scare away new members.

Although Hyundai has already begun working on a 10-speed transmission so the Book of Genesis may be rewritten to "in the beginning, there was a V8 and RWD and then God said "let their 10 forward gears" and there were 10 forward gears.

... And with that said, I picked up this piece of irritating gravel in my shoe on the first page of the thread. smk, to be frank, your Clarkson impression sucks. Stick to your day job before you start using the word "torques" in all of your sentences.

#lol@doublestandards

Edited December 19, 2011 by black-knight

[hyperv6]

Ok just a question here.

Who has driven the new 2.5?

How much HP and torque will it have in the Cadillac?

How much refinement will it show with the major investment GM is putting into it.

How much more power or different will the RWD version be from say a FWD Buick?

My point is we here know little to nothing on this engine or the plans Cadillac has for this drivetrain. It might help to see the whole plan before we start the sky falling.

At one time having 4 cylinders as the kiss of death for even a Chevy. It ment you had a bottom feeder car with 110 HP if you were lucky and most time you only got 90 HP. Today that has changed. 4 cylinders now are starting over 200 HP NA and more will be over 300 HP with a turbo. THey will be found in high line cars and most of the public will not have an issue with them. We are now entering a second generation of buyers that most grew up with only 4 cylinders and many of them yet today have only driven 4 cylinders. Lets face it they have sold a hell of a lot of Nissans, Hondas and Toyotas and very few if any had a V8. Today people look to power and economy not cylinder count. If Cadillac has repsectable performance it will matter little what is under the hood.

I just get the feeling the 2.5 whole not a perfomance motor will be more than acceptable to many buyers. Also I get the feeling the 2.0 Turbo may get more than 270 HP. GM has often anounced on HP only to up it more by release time.

The Turbo 2.0 should present a fine performance car with a V model still coming.

I will be the first to say the 2.5 could be a turd but at this point we have no reason to praise or condem it as we don't even know what it is yet.

[smk4565]

I don't see the 2.5 liter getting better mileage than the 2.0T, so that is why I think it is pointless to offer a weaker and possibly less fuel efficient engine. The 2.0T should be able to be 33-34 mpg highway. If there was to be a 3rd engine choice, then it should be diesel or hybrid that pushes MPG into the 40s. Then maybe you sacrifice performance, but have over 40 mpg to compete with the other eco luxury cars.

And if we are doing small/medium/large for engines, why not 270 hp, 318 hp V6, 375 hp turbo V6, then the V-series. Let's bring out the big guns.

[smk4565]

mercedeees fleets far more than just the e-class- even the s-class is a common 'black car', in addition to other more mundane uses such as for police duty.

Where it hurts M-B in germany is that the brand has an very poor private retail rate there, and it enjoys a FAR lower image there than in the U.S..

M-B has relied on tactics there that the American makers are consistently bashed for doing "wrong" here.

So why hasn't Cadillac been able to sell cars in Germany (or any part of Europe)?

[smk4565]

I've actually never complained about Cadillac fleet sales, and obviously they have always had "black car" and limo/hearse sales and sales to rental companies. My complaint about fleets was on cars like the G6 and Impala that were out-dated and just dumped. And they produced super low end models especially for fleets. It is the low power engine, plastic wheel covers, no content models that hurt resale values of a model.

[Lamar]

So why hasn't Cadillac been able to sell cars in Germany (or any part of Europe)?

You know the answer to that full well.

[z28luvr01]

Lots of flak over an engine that isnt even in production yet. From what I understand, the 2.5 is a ground up redo, not just a punched out 2.4. If it is reasonably powerful and gets good mileage,and it has good NVH characteristics, does it not deserve to be in a Cadillac just because GM offers it in other cars? You could spin it anyway you like: "The 2.5L in the 2013 Malibu is the same engine used in the Cadillac ATS"

Oh, and F Mercedes, BMW, Audi, VW, Jaguar, and any other brand that can do no wrong in the eyes of some of the posters in this thread. This is the Cadillac forum, and it's getting tiring having every Cadillac (and Buick) thread become a bitchfest over some perceived, subjective, nebulous metric that somehow proves that GM will never, ever compete with the big European brands, not in eleventybillion years. If you can't offer constructive criticism, feel free to show yourself the door and take your double standards with you.

[smk4565]

Part of making the ATS a desirable car though is putting good parts in it. From the 3rd chapter of their Facebook videos it will have Magnetic Ride control, obviously a lot of Nurburgring work has gone in, so it is a purpose built sports sedan. Therefore I think it should have the best engines GM has to offer, I'd like to see an 8-speed too, but I know we won't. I also hope for good wheels and interior content. My fear for the 2.5 is that it will be paired with crappy wheels and a stripped down interior.

[dwightlooi]

Ok just a question here.

How much refinement will it show with the major investment GM is putting into it.

I can help answer that to some degree.

• The 2.5 will have about 40% lower radiated noise compared to the 2.4 liter Ecotec
  
• The 2.5's refinement tuning focuses particularly on low frequency noise below 2 KHz, giving the engine a more refined, more metallic note.
  
• The 2.5 features an isolated fuel injection system and an acoustic absorbing cover to mute the Direct Injection clatter
  
• The 2.5 uses a structural valve cover, oil pan and front cover to increase engine stiffness and reduce lower frequency acoustics
  
• The 2.5 uses a new silent chain drive featuring an inverted toothed chain
  

The new 2.0T basically uses the 2.5 liter block, but has bore reduced from 88 to 86 mm for strength, and stroke reduced from 101 to 86 mm giving a 2.0 liter displacement. It also features a head integrated exhaust collector instead of 4 exhaust ports designed specifically to accommodate the turbocharger. In otherwords, the "new" 2.0T is basically the 2.5 in terms of the designed in refinement enhancing features -- apart from the natural benefits of having a shorter stroke which reduces vibrations exponentially.

[Robert Hall]

Interesting... sounds like they are putting a lot of effort into the NVH of their new 4 cyl engines. I have driven a few recent cars w/ 4cyls that seemed pretty smooth and quiet (Malibu, Fusion, Mazda6 in the last year or so) so I know it's possible...I still can't reconcile 4cyl and a smooth, quiet luxury car in my head, though....

Edited December 20, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Intrepidation]

Well I guess you can't stand the 3-Series then, or the S-Class.

[Robert Hall]

Well I guess you can't stand the 3-Series then, or the S-Class.

No, but I if had a 3-series I'd want a 6 or V8, and an S-class a V8. I wouldn't want a 4cyl in either model.

[Blake Noble]

I don't know if someone has already raised this point, but the 2.5L could also be there for buyers who might actually understand that a turbocharged engine requires extra maintenance. Sure, ATS buyers will have money, but sometimes people who have money still like to be sensible about how they spend it (especially misers). Extra maintenance means more money they'll have to spend.

[ocnblu]

To those who are accusing ppl of imposing a "double standard" on Cadillac, remember... it was GM who planted this idea in the public's head many, many decades ago, regarding engines, and the "myth" of the Cadillac V8 not shared with any other make made Cadillac The Standard of the World. GM made us believe it, now they are asking us to forget it as if it never mattered.

[ZL-1]

Ok just a question here.

Who has driven the new 2.5?

How much HP and torque will it have in the Cadillac?

How much refinement will it show with the major investment GM is putting into it.

How much more power or different will the RWD version be from say a FWD Buick?

My point is we here know little to nothing on this engine or the plans Cadillac has for this drivetrain. It might help to see the whole plan before we start the sky falling.

At one time having 4 cylinders as the kiss of death for even a Chevy. It ment you had a bottom feeder car with 110 HP if you were lucky and most time you only got 90 HP. Today that has changed. 4 cylinders now are starting over 200 HP NA and more will be over 300 HP with a turbo. THey will be found in high line cars and most of the public will not have an issue with them. We are now entering a second generation of buyers that most grew up with only 4 cylinders and many of them yet today have only driven 4 cylinders. Lets face it they have sold a hell of a lot of Nissans, Hondas and Toyotas and very few if any had a V8. Today people look to power and economy not cylinder count. If Cadillac has repsectable performance it will matter little what is under the hood.

I just get the feeling the 2.5 whole not a perfomance motor will be more than acceptable to many buyers. Also I get the feeling the 2.0 Turbo may get more than 270 HP. GM has often anounced on HP only to up it more by release time.

The Turbo 2.0 should present a fine performance car with a V model still coming.

I will be the first to say the 2.5 could be a turd but at this point we have no reason to praise or condem it as we don't even know what it is yet.

Although I agree with your post in general terms, perhaps a detuned 2.0L turbo could do the base engine job? Lose a little margin on that base model's sales for some gain in brand image? Just a thought...

Edited December 20, 2011 by ZL-1

[Z-06]

Ok just a question here.

Who has driven the new 2.5?

How much HP and torque will it have in the Cadillac?

How much refinement will it show with the major investment GM is putting into it.

How much more power or different will the RWD version be from say a FWD Buick?

My point is we here know little to nothing on this engine or the plans Cadillac has for this drivetrain. It might help to see the whole plan before we start the sky falling.

At one time having 4 cylinders as the kiss of death for even a Chevy. It ment you had a bottom feeder car with 110 HP if you were lucky and most time you only got 90 HP. Today that has changed. 4 cylinders now are starting over 200 HP NA and more will be over 300 HP with a turbo. THey will be found in high line cars and most of the public will not have an issue with them. We are now entering a second generation of buyers that most grew up with only 4 cylinders and many of them yet today have only driven 4 cylinders. Lets face it they have sold a hell of a lot of Nissans, Hondas and Toyotas and very few if any had a V8. Today people look to power and economy not cylinder count. If Cadillac has repsectable performance it will matter little what is under the hood.

I just get the feeling the 2.5 whole not a perfomance motor will be more than acceptable to many buyers. Also I get the feeling the 2.0 Turbo may get more than 270 HP. GM has often anounced on HP only to up it more by release time.

The Turbo 2.0 should present a fine performance car with a V model still coming.

I will be the first to say the 2.5 could be a turd but at this point we have no reason to praise or condem it as we don't even know what it is yet.

Although I agree with your post in general terms, perhaps a detuned 2.0L turbo could do the base engine job? Lose a little margin on that base model's sales for some gain in brand image? Just a thought...

Yes or the 1.6T from Opel producing ~210 hp would do the trick to keep three "different" engines.

[hyperv6]

Ok just a question here.

How much refinement will it show with the major investment GM is putting into it.

I can help answer that to some degree.

• The 2.5 will have about 40% lower radiated noise compared to the 2.4 liter Ecotec
  
• The 2.5's refinement tuning focuses particularly on low frequency noise below 2 KHz, giving the engine a more refined, more metallic note.
  
• The 2.5 features an isolated fuel injection system and an acoustic absorbing cover to mute the Direct Injection clatter
  
• The 2.5 uses a structural valve cover, oil pan and front cover to increase engine stiffness and reduce lower frequency acoustics
  
• The 2.5 uses a new silent chain drive featuring an inverted toothed chain
  

The new 2.0T basically uses the 2.5 liter block, but has bore reduced from 88 to 86 mm for strength, and stroke reduced from 101 to 86 mm giving a 2.0 liter displacement. It also features a head integrated exhaust collector instead of 4 exhaust ports designed specifically to accommodate the turbocharger. In otherwords, the "new" 2.0T is basically the 2.5 in terms of the designed in refinement enhancing features -- apart from the natural benefits of having a shorter stroke which reduces vibrations exponentially.

I know I have read all this before. My point is that many here are making unfounded claims on an engine they have not driven yet.

But thanks for the back up. This shows this is not just a simple rehash of an engine and we should expect a large improvment on a already good engine.

[hyperv6]

Ok just a question here.

Who has driven the new 2.5?

How much HP and torque will it have in the Cadillac?

How much refinement will it show with the major investment GM is putting into it.

How much more power or different will the RWD version be from say a FWD Buick?

My point is we here know little to nothing on this engine or the plans Cadillac has for this drivetrain. It might help to see the whole plan before we start the sky falling.

At one time having 4 cylinders as the kiss of death for even a Chevy. It ment you had a bottom feeder car with 110 HP if you were lucky and most time you only got 90 HP. Today that has changed. 4 cylinders now are starting over 200 HP NA and more will be over 300 HP with a turbo. THey will be found in high line cars and most of the public will not have an issue with them. We are now entering a second generation of buyers that most grew up with only 4 cylinders and many of them yet today have only driven 4 cylinders. Lets face it they have sold a hell of a lot of Nissans, Hondas and Toyotas and very few if any had a V8. Today people look to power and economy not cylinder count. If Cadillac has repsectable performance it will matter little what is under the hood.

I just get the feeling the 2.5 whole not a perfomance motor will be more than acceptable to many buyers. Also I get the feeling the 2.0 Turbo may get more than 270 HP. GM has often anounced on HP only to up it more by release time.

The Turbo 2.0 should present a fine performance car with a V model still coming.

I will be the first to say the 2.5 could be a turd but at this point we have no reason to praise or condem it as we don't even know what it is yet.

Although I agree with your post in general terms, perhaps a detuned 2.0L turbo could do the base engine job? Lose a little margin on that base model's sales for some gain in brand image? Just a thought...

We have a detuned version in the 220 already and the present engine is not even close to the max of what it could do yet. This engine is safe to 400 HP with no mods to the internals at this point. That is per GM's Eco performance book. Rods and Pistons can take it even farther up with little issue.

Millen ran a 500 HP Solstice the entire drift season and one the championship with no tear downs. That was even on E85. GM has shown how simple the build on that engine was. While we may not see a 500 HP factory engine I feel a Eco in the 300 plus range is not far off. the day were 200 plus for a base 4 will be the norm and 300 plus will be an option on many cars.

[Drew Dowdell]

Part of making the ATS a desirable car though is putting good parts in it. From the 3rd chapter of their Facebook videos it will have Magnetic Ride control, obviously a lot of Nurburgring work has gone in, so it is a purpose built sports sedan. Therefore I think it should have the best engines GM has to offer, I'd like to see an 8-speed too, but I know we won't. I also hope for good wheels and interior content. My fear for the 2.5 is that it will be paired with crappy wheels and a stripped down interior.

The 8-speed will come later.

[Drew Dowdell]

Interesting... sounds like they are putting a lot of effort into the NVH of their new 4 cyl engines. I have driven a few recent cars w/ 4cyls that seemed pretty smooth and quiet (Malibu, Fusion, Mazda6 in the last year or so) so I know it's possible...I still can't reconcile 4cyl and a smooth, quiet luxury car in my head, though....

Drive a Cruze Eco and your opinion of what they can do for NHV in 4-cylinders should really change.... and there isn't nearly as much effort put into that engine as the new 2.0T and 2.5.

[Robert Hall]

Interesting... sounds like they are putting a lot of effort into the NVH of their new 4 cyl engines. I have driven a few recent cars w/ 4cyls that seemed pretty smooth and quiet (Malibu, Fusion, Mazda6 in the last year or so) so I know it's possible...I still can't reconcile 4cyl and a smooth, quiet luxury car in my head, though....

Drive a Cruze Eco and your opinion of what they can do for NHV in 4-cylinders should really change.... and there isn't nearly as much effort put into that engine as the new 2.0T and 2.5.

Good point...haven't driven a Cruze..last small 4cyl GM products I've driven were a couple of Cobalt rentals in '08-09...very noisy and rough.

[Drew Dowdell]

Not the fastest car out there, but a perfectly pleasant and polite little engine.

[hyperv6]

The Cruze is even in the Eco form is a pleasant car. I can only imagine the extra work and money will have a most positive effect on the new engines. GM has already made Wards to engine list several times with the 2.0 Turbo I can imagine it will only improve it's standing with the improvments on NHV.

[dwightlooi]

The Cruze is even in the Eco form is a pleasant car. I can only imagine the extra work and money will have a most positive effect on the new engines. GM has already made Wards to engine list several times with the 2.0 Turbo I can imagine it will only improve it's standing with the improvments on NHV.

Actually, sometimes technology makes engines less refined. I can easily name two...

Direct Injection -- all else being equal makes an engine significantly noisier and introduces a gritty groan to the acoustic signature. The Port Injected 3.6 V6 is significantly more refined than the DI 3.6 V6 (prior to the LFX revision) specifically because it doesn't have DI

Aluminum blocks -- all else being equal are noisier and less refined than Iron blocks because of Aluminum's lower tensile and higher radiative properties. Two leading contributors to the Cruze's 1.4T perceived refinement is that it has an iron block and doesn't use direct injection!