ATS Results are in and They are Good Very Good!

[A Horse With No Name]

Again no disagreement there. GM is building much better cars, but it is the failure to convey that perception is missing from GM. And when GM misses that opportunity it just sickens me that all those executives have not learned their lessons.

Agreed. GM is building better, but everyone in the market is building better. GM convincing the naysayers will be their biggest challenge. And on luxury cars the badge matters, sometimes more than the car behind it.

Nope, if that was the case Lexus would not have had foothold and now stronghold in USA. Perceptions, Perceptions, Perceptions.

Agreed on that!

[smk4565]

Again no disagreement there. GM is building much better cars, but it is the failure to convey that perception is missing from GM. And when GM misses that opportunity it just sickens me that all those executives have not learned their lessons.

Agreed. GM is building better, but everyone in the market is building better. GM convincing the naysayers will be their biggest challenge. And on luxury cars the badge matters, sometimes more than the car behind it.

Nope, if that was the case Lexus would not have had foothold and now stronghold in USA. Perceptions, Perceptions, Perceptions.

Lexus did go from nothing to top selling luxury car in the USA in about 10 years, and hold that spot for 8 years or so. They are still number 3 with weak product, just because they have a badge. Lexus's problem is Mercedes and BMW have a better badge on the hood.

[A Horse With No Name]

Again, perceptions...

[Z-06]

We have just seen the start of the real improved GM cars with the ATS. This is the first complete new car post Chapter 11. The rest of the better cars were just improved old cars or platforms. I was encouraged by what they did with the old stuff and have held great expectations for all the new stuff.

On paper the new Camaro should be stunning. The only question I hold on it is how much power will the new V8 will have and what will it look like.

Complete agreement there. A real solid effort and impressive effort from GM for the ATS. GM used to get 80% right before, in this car it got 95% right that 5% improvement can put GM on top; something that is not hard to do given GM's capability. Given all the how people were talking about how HEAVY ATS platform was going to be and how GM is having features creep for the platform, GM surprised many.

I guarantee you GM will not win comparo against BMW because of nitpicking about bezels diameter and Gotta Have it Factor, but the car has done it right.

[Z-06]

Again no disagreement there. GM is building much better cars, but it is the failure to convey that perception is missing from GM. And when GM misses that opportunity it just sickens me that all those executives have not learned their lessons.

Agreed. GM is building better, but everyone in the market is building better. GM convincing the naysayers will be their biggest challenge. And on luxury cars the badge matters, sometimes more than the car behind it.

Nope, if that was the case Lexus would not have had foothold and now stronghold in USA. Perceptions, Perceptions, Perceptions.

Lexus did go from nothing to top selling luxury car in the USA in about 10 years, and hold that spot for 8 years or so. They are still number 3 with weak product, just because they have a badge. Lexus's problem is Mercedes and BMW have a better badge on the hood.

So Lexus convinced people to buy its cars in droves in only ten years (compared to 110 years Mercedes had). It ensured that it kept those people to buy cars on its badge rather than the car behind it and you call it a failure? You say from time to time people buy Lexus because of its badge.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

[smk4565]

The ATS gives me hope for the next CTS, on a midsize car they can do more, bring more power, bolder, more dramatic styling, better interior, etc. The next CTS could be a very exciting car. But I can't afford a car that expensive and wouldn't buy a new car anyway because used ones are such greater value. When I car shop I will probably be looking at 2008-2010 era luxury car, Genesis or Jag XF or something like that. This ATS or the next CTS probably won't hit the used car market by the time I buy a car.

[smk4565]

I am not saying Lexus was a failure, it was brilliant marketing on the part of Toyota and they attacked a market that was ripe. Cadillac and Lincoln in the 90s were mostly garbage, Toyota was rising through the 80s and 90s and had buyers looking to trade up, and loads of baby boomers were nearing age 50 (luxury car buying age) around 2000 and it was a perfect storm. Lexus did the first luxury crossover SUV and they dressed up a Camry and those 2 alone were selling about 175,000 vehicles a year in their prime. Lexus really captured the baby boomer market and left Cadillac and Lincoln with the baby boomers parents, which really hurt them in terms of sales and perception.

Lexus has a mediocre line up, with a strong perception, so kudos to them for Jedi-mind tricking people into buying their cars. Mercedes and BMW have stronger product and stronger perception though.

[A Horse With No Name]

The ATS gives me hope for the next CTS, on a midsize car they can do more, bring more power, bolder, more dramatic styling, better interior, etc. The next CTS could be a very exciting car. But I can't afford a car that expensive and wouldn't buy a new car anyway because used ones are such greater value. When I car shop I will probably be looking at 2008-2010 era luxury car, Genesis or Jag XF or something like that. This ATS or the next CTS probably won't hit the used car market by the time I buy a car.

Genesis should have very astonishingly serious depreciation, which should allow you enough extra cash to vacation in the Bahamas....

So Lexus convinced people to buy its cars in droves in only ten years (compared to 110 years Mercedes had). It ensured that it kept those people to buy cars on its badge rather than the car behind it and you call it a failure? You say from time to time people buy Lexus because of its badge.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Seems to be the case....

[Drew Dowdell]

Interestingly enough, at this price point, I'd probably take a Genesis 5.0 over the ATS or any of the German compacts, because of the 429 hp DOHC V8. That engine with an 8-speed transmission produces more fun factor to me than these V6 cars do, and it is a much roomier car.

You're not convinced that GM can build a car that can last, yet you run straight to the manufacturer with the absolute shortest testimony on build quality (of which the jury is still out on) just because of a 429hp V8........

You make no sense dude... not that you ever have.

[smk4565]

Interestingly enough, at this price point, I'd probably take a Genesis 5.0 over the ATS or any of the German compacts, because of the 429 hp DOHC V8. That engine with an 8-speed transmission produces more fun factor to me than these V6 cars do, and it is a much roomier car.

You're not convinced that GM can build a car that can last, yet you run straight to the manufacturer with the absolute shortest testimony on build quality (of which the jury is still out on) just because of a 429hp V8........

You make no sense dude... not that you ever have.

Valid point, but the Genesis has a bigger warranty than anyone else, so if something does go wrong it is covered. And as mentioned, they depreciate so they don't cost that much on the used market. The Genesis gives a lot for the money. I'm not saying I'd buy one, but I'd consider one. I'd rather have a Jag, but they cost a lot.

[Robert Hall]

Interestingly enough, at this price point, I'd probably take a Genesis 5.0 over the ATS or any of the German compacts, because of the 429 hp DOHC V8. That engine with an 8-speed transmission produces more fun factor to me than these V6 cars do, and it is a much roomier car.

You're not convinced that GM can build a car that can last, yet you run straight to the manufacturer with the absolute shortest testimony on build quality (of which the jury is still out on) just because of a 429hp V8........

You make no sense dude... not that you ever have.

Valid point, but the Genesis has a bigger warranty than anyone else, so if something does go wrong it is covered. And as mentioned, they depreciate so they don't cost that much on the used market. The Genesis gives a lot for the money. I'm not saying I'd buy one, but I'd consider one. I'd rather have a Jag, but they cost a lot.

I still couldn't see myself buying a Hyundai..seems like too much of a low-end brand like LG or Samsung is in consumer electronics.

[balthazar]

Jag values should plummet like a stone, they only have a 16% customer return rate.

[hyperv6]

The Lexus issue is they dropped the ball. They become just a large expensive Toytoa since all the decisions were made at Toyota. Mr Toyoda stated so in the press and has made the changes where Lexus make the choices for Lexus. It is kind of like what Lutz did with the engineers and designers.

Toyota micro managed Lexus into the ground. That will change in the future as they are just now rebuilding their line. No perception issues here they just dropped the ball on product.

[A Horse With No Name]

Jag values should plummet like a stone, they only have a 16% customer return rate.

They also have hugely worse build quality than GM...again, smk contradicts himself.

[smk4565]

Jaguar leather and wood is excellent, the carpets are good, the interiors are just top notch. Plus Jaguar styling is so good, the XK has been around 6 or 7 years now and still looks amazing. Jaguar in 2009 was #1 JD Power in vehicle dependability, snapping the 14 year streak Lexus had. They were below average in 2010, but #3 in 2011. So they aren't the disaster they used to be.

The ATS I'd consider, it is the most appealing Cadillac to me in years. From the photos I think they did get interior build quality up to where it needs to be, but I need to sit in on to see. The 3.6 with RWD should be good, because I thought the CTS felt burdened by the weight, the ATS should solve that problem.

[Drew Dowdell]

Just like with Land Rover, the Jaguar interior better be amazing because you'll spend all that time sitting in it waiting for Road Side Assistance to show up.

[smk4565]

Smk, you don't know how much in agreement we are right now, but you will on Wednesday.

Why is that?

[Drew Dowdell]

well, I pushed the Malibu review out another week, I want to get a different car in ahead of it.

[smk4565]

well, I pushed the Malibu review out another week, I want to get a different car in ahead of it.

Oh ok. The Malibu seems like a refresh of the current, even if they did change a lot under the skin. And I like many other cars in that segment more. The Impala having only to deal with the Avalon, Taurus and perhaps Dodge/Chrysler rear drivers should have more success. The ATS I think will hit the right spot also, as long as the inside isn't too small. The German trio pretty much own that segment, the ATS can rocket right past Lexus, Acura, Volvo, Infiniti, etc.

[A Horse With No Name]

smk....here is a word of brotherly advice...

If your interested in something non GM and a little bit exotic, none of us will look down on you if you buy it.

However, and this is a BIG however...set aside extra for repairs and maintenance. It's what we did when we bought our MINI. If I were worried about the most reliable car, God is my witness I would have bought a Cobalt SS. Actually, we still may buy a Cobalt SS Turbocharged, as I would like to put another American car in the stable to go with the Asian and Euro car.

But seriously, if you want a Jag that bad, just go buy the damned thing. Just be ready to spend when it needs $$$$

well, I pushed the Malibu review out another week, I want to get a different car in ahead of it.

Oh ok. The Malibu seems like a refresh of the current, even if they did change a lot under the skin. And I like many other cars in that segment more. The Impala having only to deal with the Avalon, Taurus and perhaps Dodge/Chrysler rear drivers should have more success. The ATS I think will hit the right spot also, as long as the inside isn't too small. The German trio pretty much own that segment, the ATS can rocket right past Lexus, Acura, Volvo, Infiniti, etc.

Again, I respectfully disagree. Volvo is wildly under rated as a car maker, and they have improved their quality and design. I would buy a Volvo before I'd buy a BMW.

[regfootball]

well, I pushed the Malibu review out another week, I want to get a different car in ahead of it.

why not just jump all over it and be done, like the other press has.........

re:Cobalt. Turbo or not, I would never wish a cobalt on anyone (says thus who has chosen to be stuck driving one). Don't be romantic about the US of A if it means cobalt, SS or otherwise.....

[A Horse With No Name]

Okay then, maybe I'll just build that Factory Five roadster....

[smk4565]

But seriously, if you want a Jag that bad, just go buy the damned thing. Just be ready to spend when it needs $$$$

Again, I respectfully disagree. Volvo is wildly under rated as a car maker, and they have improved their quality and design. I would buy a Volvo before I'd buy a BMW.

A used Jag XF is still a bit pricey for me, but I figure I will be car shopping in about 1 years time and see what I can afford. Reliability could come into question there, but I do love how they look, although the 2012 update corrected the dumb headlights and now they really have it nailed. My mom has a 124,000 mile Audi and she has spent under $500 in repairs on it (not counting oil changes and tires) and the interior and body are like new still. To quote the Sham-wow ad "it's made in Germany, and you know the Germans make good stuff." I don't much care for Audi or BMW, but would look at a used Mercedes. The STS V8 is a bit floaty, I didn't like driving that car, CTS is better, but I don't like the current CTS. I liked the original car more, it had better proportions and the console angled toward the driver, the interior materials came up short though.

The ATS does a lot to get Cadillac back in the right direction, the current CTS I feel like they made it to compete with the Germans, but also the Lexus ES, Acura TL and Lincoln MKZ as well, they are trying to have the CTS wear too many hats, and it looks chunky and blocky. It needs to get streamlined like it used to be, and more of a driver's car.

Volvo is mediocre FWD with dated engines, and their interiors don't impress me at all. I see them as a weak automaker, and Lincoln and Acura are teetering also, Cadillac should be able to clean up if they could get their act together.

[A Horse With No Name]

The new Volvo's have been rated very well in reviews, but we will have to agree to disagree.

A new Jag will be a pricey option if you choose it.

And I really like the new CTS better than the old one....different strokes for different folks. I am not a luxury car kind of a guy, I prefer performance and handling myself. Good luck to you sir.

[G. David Felt]

Sweet to see auto journalist that say they like the ATS over the BMW.

http://cars.about.com/od/cadillac/fr/2013-Cadillac-Ats-Review.htm

Great review on the ATS.

[A Horse With No Name]

Sweet to see auto journalist that say they like the ATS over the BMW.

http://cars.about.co...-Ats-Review.htm

Great review on the ATS.

Sweet to see auto journalist that say they like the ATS over the BMW.

http://cars.about.co...-Ats-Review.htm

Great review on the ATS.

I really do think that GM is building better cars than BMW right now...

[dwightlooi]

[Quoting the Autoweek Article] Is there an ATS coupe or V-spec in the future? "It's a fair assumption that those are two directions we'd like to take," Butler says with a smile. The more pressing question might be what would power the ATS-V. It almost certainly won't be a small-block.

Read more: http://www.autoweek....2#ixzz22FZuG7Fk

I won't put too much weight on that statement. It is not Butler's response, it is the journalist's opinion. And, it is backed up by absolutely nothing in the article or any official release. Fact is, a NA V8 will slot well into the ATS -- given that the CTS-V has a Supercharged V8. It'll be similar in positioning between say a C55 and an E55 with the latter getting a forced induced M113 5.4L V8, while the former gets the NA version. A 6.2 Small Block weighs less than a bi-turbo 3.0, cost less and will be 50~70 hp more powerful. The engine will also be essentially a parts bin item from the C7 Corvette so development costs are sunken whether it is utilized or not. Fuel Economy arguments in favor of a Turbo V6 is shaky at best and any CAFE concern makes as much sense as a trying to measure the rise in the water level of an Olympic size swimming pool when you empty a mug of coffee into it. The technical case is in favor of the Gen V V8. If GM opts for the LF3 (Bi-turbo 3.0) engine it won't be because of the technical or performance merit. It will be because of a desire to differentiate the ATS from the legacy performance vehicles from GM such as the Vette, the Camaro and the CTS-V.

In anycase, the Gen V is out of the bag... at least the truck version is. Here is a photo of a bonafide Gen V Small Block V8 at GM's factory. No specs, no details, nothing. And, I'll leave it to everyone to draw their own speculations regarding the features on it.

Edited August 1, 2012 by dwightlooi

[G. David Felt]

SWEET That rocks and would Rock in an ATS-V

[A Horse With No Name]

Thanks Dwight!

[smk4565]

Since the M3 will have a straight six, my guess is the ATS goes with a turbo V6. They want to be like BMW in the worst way it seems.

[balthazar]

with an inline engine in the 21st Century, BMW wants to be like pre-war Chevy in the worst way.

Edited August 1, 2012 by balthazar

[dwightlooi]

The 4.2 had so much potential and was such a smooth engine -- more so than the V8s -- it was hard to see it go. A big displacement six would be an interesting alternative to a V8 in luxury cars although the length of the engine will be problematic. The thing about an I6 is that it is naturally balanced. So, while V6s and V8s get progressively less refined as they grow larger in displacement, Inline-6s don't. The same thing can be said of H6s and V12s but those are even more problematic from a packaging standpoint. The downside of course is that Inline sixes are heavy and excessively long, this led to the dorminant majority of automakers going to harmonically imperfect but more compact V6 and V8 configurations.

Inline 6s scale very well with displacement. You can have a completely smooth running 11 liters Inline 6, you can't say the same of V6es and to a lesser degree V8s. A 4.2 liter or 5 liter Inline-6 will actually be smoother than a V8 of a similar displacement. Plus, because it doesn't need the heavy counter weights of the 90 deg X-plane V8 it is more responsive to throttle inputs.

[hyperv6]

The fact is the comment by the writer is bassed on comments from Cadillac. He is far from the only one who has hinted at this.

The issue at hand is if you put a Supercharged V8 in the ATS then what would the point of a Supercharged CTSV be? They will not make two different Supercharged engines and they can't let the lighter and smaller ATS be faster.

We will just have to wait and see but most clues Cadillac has given were that the V8 will be for the CTS and they had other plans for the ATS. The TTV6 will arrive around the same time as the new V8. It also will be around or just over 400 HP when the SC V8 will remain or gain HP from the mid 500 HP range with a flatter torque curve.

In other words stay tuned as there is a lot more to come and GM has only hinted not talked. While I would not completely rule out the V8 the odds are long. We will just have to wait and see. The new larger CTS is already testing the TT V6 now and has been photo'd.

The Key with the ATS is balance and it will be interesting to see how they will keep balance with either engine it used. They already are using the cast iron rear diff to keep balance 50/50 in the standard car in a V I do not see them changing the balance.

The inline engine is no better or worst older technology sin than OHV. It is just a way to be different and set themselves appart.

Edited August 1, 2012 by hyperv6

[G. David Felt]

The fact is the comment by the writer is bassed on comments from Cadillac. He is far from the only one who has hinted at this.

The issue at hand is if you put a Supercharged V8 in the ATS then what would the point of a Supercharged CTSV be? They will not make two different Supercharged engines and they can't let the lighter and smaller ATS be faster.

We will just have to wait and see but most clues Cadillac has given were that the V8 will be for the CTS and they had other plans for the ATS. The TTV6 will arrive around the same time as the new V8. It also will be around or just over 400 HP when the SC V8 will remain or gain HP from the mid 500 HP range with a flatter torque curve.

In other words stay tuned as there is a lot more to come and GM has only hinted not talked. While I would not completely rule out the V8 the odds are long. We will just have to wait and see. The new larger CTS is already testing the TT V6 now and has been photo'd.

The Key with the ATS is balance and it will be interesting to see how they will keep balance with either engine it used. They already are using the cast iron rear diff to keep balance 50/50 in the standard car in a V I do not see them changing the balance.

The inline engine is no better or worst older technology sin than OHV. It is just a way to be different and set themselves appart.

I agree with you HyperV6 about the balance, but just as we have seen BMW move batteries to the rear of the car and other components, I suspect if the ATS goes with a V8 or the TTV6 they will find things they do not need up front and move it to the back under the rear seat or somewhere in the trunk area to keep the 50/50 balance. This way they can truly build a M3 Crusher!

[hyperv6]

The fact is the comment by the writer is bassed on comments from Cadillac. He is far from the only one who has hinted at this.

The issue at hand is if you put a Supercharged V8 in the ATS then what would the point of a Supercharged CTSV be? They will not make two different Supercharged engines and they can't let the lighter and smaller ATS be faster.

We will just have to wait and see but most clues Cadillac has given were that the V8 will be for the CTS and they had other plans for the ATS. The TTV6 will arrive around the same time as the new V8. It also will be around or just over 400 HP when the SC V8 will remain or gain HP from the mid 500 HP range with a flatter torque curve.

In other words stay tuned as there is a lot more to come and GM has only hinted not talked. While I would not completely rule out the V8 the odds are long. We will just have to wait and see. The new larger CTS is already testing the TT V6 now and has been photo'd.

The Key with the ATS is balance and it will be interesting to see how they will keep balance with either engine it used. They already are using the cast iron rear diff to keep balance 50/50 in the standard car in a V I do not see them changing the balance.

The inline engine is no better or worst older technology sin than OHV. It is just a way to be different and set themselves appart.

I agree with you HyperV6 about the balance, but just as we have seen BMW move batteries to the rear of the car and other components, I suspect if the ATS goes with a V8 or the TTV6 they will find things they do not need up front and move it to the back under the rear seat or somewhere in the trunk area to keep the 50/50 balance. This way they can truly build a M3 Crusher!

BMW has gone as far as a carbon roof to lower the center of gravity while Benz just puts a big engine in and a large sunroof and weight be damned.

I expect Cadlllac to use lighter more expensive parts in the front end of the ATS V. The price point will let this happen easier vs the lower cost models.

[dwightlooi]

The issue at hand is if you put a Supercharged V8 in the ATS then what would the point of a Supercharged CTSV be? They will not make two different Supercharged engines and they can't let the lighter and smaller ATS be faster

No... you put the Naturally Aspirated V8 in the ATS-V and the Supercharged V8 in the CTS-V. The ATS-V gets a "regular" Corvette derivative engine whereas the CTS-V gets the Corvette ZR1 derivative engine.

Simply mapping a 7.5% improvement in output due to direct injection, this pegs the ATS-V at 470hp and the CTS-V at 600 hp even assuming a displacement of 6.2 liters. Fuel economy will be around 17/26 for the ATS-V assuming a 6% improvement in fuel economy from DI and AFM -- which is a little conservative considering that the heavier and less aerodynamic Camaro SS is already at 16/25 with the 6-spd Auto. This compares favorably with any other alternative powerplant configuration that produces 450~500 hp.

As far as balance goes, a pushrod V8 has the advantage of being lighter than a bi-turbo V6, so it puts less weight up front. It is also easier to fit in the engine bay because it is roughly as long as the 2.5 I4 and no wider than the 3.6 V6. An LF3 (3.0 TTV6) on the other hand requires a complex arrangement of ducting to the turbos, from the turbos to one or two intercooler(s) ahead of the radiator and more ducting from the intercooler(s) to the intake plenum.

Despite the lower output, the ATS might be faster (especially to 60 mph) because it is lighter and the CTS-V's performance is largely traction limited. This is as much of a problem as the fact that the M3 is faster than the M5, and the C63 is faster than the E63 -- which really isn't a problem for either BMW or M-B.

Edited August 1, 2012 by dwightlooi

[hyperv6]

There are seveal factors involved here.

First there is too little info on the TT V6 and V8 to as you say assume much. They each in theory have pluses and minuses.

The way I see it is the ATSv will get a TTV6 that will be available on the new CTS.

The new CTSv will have the new V8 that will lead to the LTS. I see this as a step up as you go. To offer the V8 in the cheapest car would detract from the more expensive cars. Cadillac has few engines to work with and they need to spread them out over the lines carefully and build on their image.

Besides to put the V8 in the ATS would make it no more than a Camaro 4 door once it is on the Alpha.

I hope someday Cadillac may get their own engines but that may be remote or something if it ever could happen would be long down the road.

You and I know the new V8 is advanced but to most it is just another update of an old Chevy engine. I feel GM has done an injustice to this engine buy letting people think it is a small block Chevy all these years when the real small block died long ago. I have a cut away of an LS near my desk and everytime I look at it I think about how different that engine is and how sad so many think it just a update of the old engine.

This engine is more advanced and much better than the original engine and deserves to have it's own image. If anything it would help build a new image Cadillac could really use.

The bottom line is Cadillac needs to sell the hardware under the hood here as precieved technology means more than real technology with this class of owner. If he thinks it is just the same engine that is in his $30,000 truck why pay $70,000 it in his Cadillac.. This is why I plead for special tuned and dressed V8 engines for the Cadillac line. I understand they need to use what they have but that does not mean they can make it look better than just a plastic cover and give it a special tune with more power.

[Drew Dowdell]

Cadillac needs to bring back the name "Northstar" even if has nothing at all in common with the Northstars of old. There is name recognition out there for it. It's just like Chrysler using the Hemi name again.

[dwightlooi]

Besides to put the V8 in the ATS would make it no more than a Camaro 4 door once it is on the Alpha.

Base on that reasoning the CTS-V is no more than a 4-door Camaro ZL1 and the CTS-V Coupe is a Camaro! Oh, actually, its worse because the Camaro actually has more power (580 vs 556), so who will want to buy a CTS-V for $15K more money? Well, it's not the same because the Camaro is a car with a low rent cabin and appeals to the performance affectionados on a budget. The CTS-V is a posh performance sedan which caresses the owner with luxury while it delivers supercar performance. I for one will not consider a Camaro ZL1 because I don't want to live with the cabin.

The ATS-V and the next Camaro SS having the same engine? That's all well and good by me. It's fine even if the Camaro gets a slightly more powerful tune because it has less civility and noise concerns. Avoiding sharing the powerplant with a less prestigious brand's product is a lousy excuse to adopt an inferior engine and accept reduced performance. If you do a TT V6 chances are you will at best reach parity with whatever M3 is on the way. A Pushrod V8 allows you to exceed the power output of an M3 while incurring less mass penalty. This is not an advantage you want to throw away.

The other thing is differentiation. Anyone who is looking for parity with an M3, or subscribe religiously to the DOHC Bi-turbo = desirable view on cars will buy an M3 before he'll buyer an ATS-V. Anyone who is looking for a uniquely American luxury sports sedan with a throbbing V8 and totally lag free power will look past the ATS-V to either the CTS-V or, if they can't afford it, pinch their nose and buy a Camaro whose level of appointments frown upon. You may end up getting neither the mis-informed DOHC worshipper nor fan of American Muscle looking for a luxurious ride.

[dwightlooi]

Cadillac needs to bring back the name "Northstar" even if has nothing at all in common with the Northstars of old. There is name recognition out there for it. It's just like Chrysler using the Hemi name again.

Nah... the Northstar has too much negative baggage associated with it -- a spotty reliability record with earlier renditions and a mediocre performance throughout its life. I am not sure anyone ever revered Northstar or was impressed by its performance. Although it was a decent enough engine it was never truly impressive in any way.

If they want to name their V8s and stick to the same theme, try Polaris. It means North Star and it is the US's first submarine launched nuclear ballistic missile.

[smk4565]

The BMW straight six is the smoothest engine I've ever driven, those aren't just good engines, they are great engines. But Toyota, GM, Ford, etc all need sixes that can work rwd or fwd, so that is why no one other than BMW will build one (unless Mercedes decides to again). I think M3 loyalists will like the return to the straight six, a lot didn't like the V8 and the car getting heavier.

ATS-V I don't care if they do V6 or V8, but if it is the same V8 from a Silverado or even Camaro SS, why am I paying not just Cadillac price, but V-series price for the engine out of a $30k Chevy. The engine has to be worth the price premium, and I'd probably lean toward 6 cylinders because BMW is doing it, even though V8s are nice to have.

I always liked the Northstar name, but because they let it soldier on for so many years without many updates, it might be a bit damaged now.

[regfootball]

i actually think what will occur.... the ATSv will first get a TTv6 because GM is designing it and needs to spread it around in order to pay for it. The Caddy will have a high transaction price which will fill the coffers faster to amortize that engine.

Then, as the new Camaro is being designed/prepped, the v8 will find its way into the engine bay. There will prob be a supercharger aftermarket kit on the ATS. So someone can buy the 470hp ATSv8 and put their own aftermarket on it and get to 600+. I don't see Camaro moving to alpha for sale until maybe 2018 but the engineering will coincide with when they move a v8 into the ATS. And by then the twin turbo will be in lots of other GM products.

I actually would not be surprised if the TTv6 replaces the 3.6 actually in the ATS lineup.

[dwightlooi]

ATS-V I don't care if they do V6 or V8, but if it is the same V8 from a Silverado or even Camaro SS, why am I paying not just Cadillac price, but V-series price for the engine out of a $30k Chevy. The engine has to be worth the price premium, and I'd probably lean toward 6 cylinders because BMW is doing it, even though V8s are nice to have.

(1) Because you don't want to pay Cadillac price for a car that will be out performed by one powered by the V8 that is architecturally similar to that used in a Silverado. Why would you want to pay Cadillac price for an ATS-V when a Camaro SS is faster, more responsive, better balanced and just as good on mileage?

(2) Because the sports car small block V8 is not the same as the Silverado. The tuning is completely different; whereas the Vortec V8s in the trucks and the LS V8s in the Corvette and CTS both use pushrods and 2-valves per cylinder, the former is tuned for low octane fuel and towing torque, while the latter is tuned for responsiveness and higher rpm horsepower. Saying that they are the same is akinned to saying the the Toyota Tundra DOHC V8 is the same as the IS-F or LS460 DOHC V8 just because they share the same valvetrain configuration. Why would anyone want to buy a Lexus LS460 or IS-F when the Tundra Pickup uses a DOHC V8?

[dwightlooi]

The BMW straight six is the smoothest engine I've ever driven, those aren't just good engines, they are great engines. But Toyota, GM, Ford, etc all need sixes that can work rwd or fwd, so that is why no one other than BMW will build one (unless Mercedes decides to again). I think M3 loyalists will like the return to the straight six, a lot didn't like the V8 and the car getting heavier.

The problem with staying with the Inline-6 was that you have only six cylinders. And, they have already wound the 3.2 I6 to 8300 rpm and 333hp. Getting more power out of a six would require making the displacement bigger, rev it even higher or using forced induction. Making the displacement bigger is problematic because larger combustion chambers are more prone to knocking due to increased spark distance to the walls and because increased piston mass and stroke lengths limits maximum rpms. Reving the 3.2 I6 even higher than 8300 rpm is problematic because they are already at the limits of what can be made durable and reliable at sane prices. Using forced induction was frowned upon because the M3 was known the its razor sharp throttle response with its individual butterflies and going to turbos will result in some lag between throttle input and maximum boost hitting -- this can be minimized but it can never be eliminated. They really needed more than 333hp to be competitive and all the I6 options weren't ideal. So they went to a 4.0 V8 -- small cylinders, similar revability, 412hp, zero lag.

That was then... now they are going back to the six because it can get them better mpg numbers than the DOHC V8 can and BMW feels that that is more a priority now than it was 6~7 years ago. The 3.0 Turbo I6 gets 20/30 mpg on a high compression, low boost regime. With a high boost, low compression regime needed for 400+ hp it won't do quite as well, but 17~18 city / 25~27 highway pretty good. Certainyl better than the 14/20 out of the 4.0 DOHC V8.

The key here is that the 4.0 DOHC V8 really sucks compared to the GM Pushrod V8s in fuel economy despite displacing less than 2/3s the Small Block's displacement. Port injected in both cases, the GM 6.2 LS3 beats the BMW engine 16/24 to 14/20 out of a Camaro that weighs 100 lbs more than the M3. With the addition of direct injection and cylinder deactivation we can only expect slightly better figures with the Gen V version of the Smallblock. This brings us to the same 17~18/25~27 ballpark. GM has a great and efficient V8 architecture mature and ready to go, BMW doesn't. That's the difference.

[A Horse With No Name]

The BMW straight six is the smoothest engine I've ever driven, those aren't just good engines, they are great engines. But Toyota, GM, Ford, etc all need sixes that can work rwd or fwd, so that is why no one other than BMW will build one (unless Mercedes decides to again). I think M3 loyalists will like the return to the straight six, a lot didn't like the V8 and the car getting heavier.

ATS-V I don't care if they do V6 or V8, but if it is the same V8 from a Silverado or even Camaro SS, why am I paying not just Cadillac price, but V-series price for the engine out of a $30k Chevy. The engine has to be worth the price premium, and I'd probably lean toward 6 cylinders because BMW is doing it, even though V8s are nice to have.

I always liked the Northstar name, but because they let it soldier on for so many years without many updates, it might be a bit damaged now.

Actually, I think the three series is nice but is over rated.

...and I'm a current BMW product owner, so you can't really say I have an anti BMW bias....

[A Horse With No Name]

GM has a great and efficient V8 architecture mature and ready to go, BMW doesn't. That's the difference.

I think it really shows up in competition. Having driven both the GM and BMW versions HARD, I can honestly God as my witness say that I like the GM version better.

[hyperv6]

Cadillac needs to bring back the name "Northstar" even if has nothing at all in common with the Northstars of old. There is name recognition out there for it. It's just like Chrysler using the Hemi name again.

Nah... the Northstar has too much negative baggage associated with it -- a spotty reliability record with earlier renditions and a mediocre performance throughout its life. I am not sure anyone ever revered Northstar or was impressed by its performance. Although it was a decent enough engine it was never truly impressive in any way.

If they want to name their V8s and stick to the same theme, try Polaris. It means North Star and it is the US's first submarine launched nuclear ballistic missile.

Polaris is also a snowmobile/snow machine. Not sure they would want to use that one.

Just as the Camaro and ATS having the same identical engines be all good with you. Most people who are buyers in this call like to feel they are getting something special and more even if they are just fooling themselves. While the Camaro engine is fine it does not fool most of them.

Engines are more than just a bunch of assumed numbers in this class people want to look and feel special with the car and what it offers. You want to prevent the detractors from pointing out it's just a Chevy with more chome.

Here is a good example of marketing that GM did get right. The Alpha was designed and built for Cadillac first. It will next be shared with Chevy. On the other hand it would have hurt them to build it as a Chevy and then share it as a Cadillac. While it is still the same damn thing people precieve this as Chevy being based on a better platform vs the Cadillac just being a fancy Chevy. People are idiots and if you play the platform or engine shell game you have to keep the ball moving.

It is not a sin to pass things down from Cadillac but it is a sin to pass Chevy things up to Cadillac. It makes a difference in how it is precieved by the general buyers.

In this day and age it is easier to built a car vs market as marketing today has become even more important since there are so many models so close together.

Edited August 2, 2012 by hyperv6

[A Horse With No Name]

Agree with you on the marketing thing.

[Z-06]

According to SMK, a certain thing is best if it has (1) high volume, (2) lot of years of production, (3) high investment in R&D. GM's small block family satisfies all three criteria. So SMK does have to agree with most of us here do that GM's small blocks are the best in the business.

[smk4565]

Jaguar is working on a 1.6 liter supercharged and turbo charged 4-cylinder with 500 hp and 10,000 rpm redline for the C-X75. Granted they are asking over $1,000,000 for that car but if they can get that much power from a 4, I'm sure Cadillac can get enough from a six to make the ATS-V fast. Nissan and Porsche both have a 6-cylinder car faster than the ZR-1 after all. Who's to say they don't use carbon fiber body panels on the ATS-V, AWD and launch control, and even with 6-cylinders don't end up with a car quicker than a base Corvette, or current CTS-V.