ATS Results are in and They are Good Very Good!

[dwightlooi]

As far as cost goes, displacement costs nothing. It is complexity that drives cost. Here's a list of differences...

Unless you are saying that 2 pistons and 2 rods cost more than 8 valves, 8 valve springs, 8 lifters, 2 turbos, 6 ducts, two intercoolers, one electric pump, 3 cam phasers and three camshafts, the V6 TT costs more!

[hyperv6]

We will have to agree to disagree.

At this point you don't know all what GM has going.. few people do.

As for lag I did not say there was none but it is to the point few notice it anymore. More so in the TT engines. That is why they use two. Not only for space but for less lag of one large unit. The fact is with VVT and higher compressions the engines are pretty strong on the bottom end before the boost even hits. Also the new turbo's gain boost much eaiser. With just a crack of my throttle I can see 7 PSI instantly. Yes it may take a little longer for me to see 23 PSI but I can spin the tires on 7 PSI at 30 MPH.

Who changes oil at 15,000 miles let alone 25000? I have 4 GM vehicles with the Oil life Monitor and they all reach change status at or about 7500-10000 mile 6.0 3.6, 3.0 NA or 2.0 turbo. The turbo is no less than any of the other.

Clamps etc are would could or might. A V8 has two more cylinders and related coils and other parts that could fail. It also has a cylinder deactivation system that can fail. I call that a would of could of draw here.

Most of todays engines do not use a run on pump as the turbo's are much better as well as the oils. GM seems to not have any issue putting turbo engines in nearly every 4 cylinder car they build now including cheap ones like the Sonic. There has been little to scare any buyers away. Ford has gotten people to pay more for these engines and wait for them to be build since they are selling fast. We have seen Ford recalls but nothing turbo related.

While you are not new to turbo engines all the ones you named are old and not up to the standard of today. There was a time when 30,000 miles was the life of a turbo unit and not much more. Today auto makers know they would need them and have stepped up with better quality units. Today even the oldest 2.0 LNF are running over 100,000 with no issues. Yes there are a few that had issues but I can show you as many LS engines with issues too. The coming V8 is a very complex unit and has many many more things that can and will go wrong. It is not cheap to fix and while they call it a small block it is anything but. Like I have stated the new GM V8 is given a injustice by not being given a new name to set it appart. It is the best V8 they have ever done and shares only a few measuments. It deserves to be it's own engine.

I too am not new to turbo engines. In years past I would not have touched one with a 50 foot pole. But things have changes and these units will be very very common in most non performance applications. Your V8 will be around but it will be in less and less vehicles and will cost more and more to control volume. The fact is smaller engines get better MPG just as lighter cars get more MPG. If the LS was the magic bullet that would get all the MPG they need for the future they would be sticking it in everything. The fact is pure and simple physics of volume are in play and the key to the future is to take the smallest engine and get the most out of it. Turbo's are here and will only grow more and more common.

Who would have ever thought Ford would pretty much drop the V8 accept for the Mustang and trucks. I am sorry I am not going to say you are wrong but the industry as a whole does not agree with you. I like your thinking but it is counter to all that is going on. I wish there would be more and more 30+ MPG engines but it is not going to happen. I don't preach what I want I just voice what I see coming. There is a difference.

The fact is other than the Trucks, Vette, Camaro, CTS and LTS I really see little in V8 engines for GM. Everything else will be 4-6 in NA and Turbo from. This is not what I want to see but what I expect. We are not far from that now so it does not take a Nostrodamas to see this coming.

[hyperv6]

As far as cost goes, displacement costs nothing. It is complexity that drives cost. Here's a list of differences...

Unless you are saying that 2 pistons and 2 rods cost more than 8 valves, 8 valve springs, 8 lifters, 2 turbos, 6 ducts, two intercoolers, one electric pump, 3 cam phasers and three camshafts, the V6 TT costs more!

And yet people are willing to pay a premium for the Ecoboost V6.

The fact remains the V8 will not be in wide use when we hit 53 MPG Cafe times unless someone can over turn it. Even now the companies have stopped fighting it.

You also have to factor in the technology aspect. Many younger people today never grew up with a V8 and really could care less. They want technology in their engines and their electronics. They stopped counting cyllnders. Today most kids have a WRX poster on the wall and not a Camaro. Sad but true.

Edited August 8, 2012 by hyperv6

[smk4565]

Even if the ATS-V and CTS-V had the same engine (not that I think they will) the CTS should still be able to justify the additional price with additional luxury. BMW puts the same engine in the 335i as the 535i and each have a lot of buyers. Granted the M3 and M5 have different engines, but the M5 is way heavier than an M3. If the CTS-V is 600 lbs more than the ATS-V then it will need more power so they are close in acceleration. But if weights are closer, the CTS-V doesn't need as much power, a 420 hp Audi S6 is quicker than a 556 hp CTS-V so it isn't all about the engine.

If you're quoting the 0-60 in 3.7 seconds that C&D got in the S6, that has turned out to be false. It is actually 4.7 seconds to 62 mph.... so just about a full second behind the 3.9 the CTS-V does.

Did they post a retraction on that? They also clocked the S6 at 1.2 seconds to 30 mph, quicker than the M5 can do it. I thought the S6 was faster than it should have been, but with AWD and that transmission it does launch quickly. But the S6 isn't the quickest Audi either, the RS6 is going to have 570-600 hp, with that AWD system we could be seeing 0-60 closer to 3 seconds flat. Because a Panamera Turbo S can do it in 3.5 or better, the RS6 is a bit smaller, and will have more power, same transmission.

[Drew Dowdell]

No, it was an error in conversion... I don't know if they ever published a retraction.

[dwightlooi]

And yet people are willing to pay a premium for the Ecoboost V6.

The fact remains the V8 will not be in wide use when we hit 53 MPG Cafe times unless someone can over turn it. Even now the companies have stopped fighting it.

You also have to factor in the technology aspect. Many younger people today never grew up with a V8 and really could care less. They want technology in their engines and their electronics. They stopped counting cyllnders. Today most kids have a WRX poster on the wall and not a Camaro. Sad but true.

The problem with your assertions is that it centers around the notion that a Bi-turbo V6 gets notably better mileage than a V8 of equivalent output. The facts is that this simply isn't the case in many cases and even when there is an advantage, it seldom amounts to more than a 1 mpg difference. It is important when making comparisons to make comparisons between engines of similar output and between vehicles of similar weight and with similar transmission efficiency.

We know that a 426hp / 420 lb-ft 6.2 Pushrod V8 w/o DI in a 6-spd 3850 lbs Camaro SS is capable of 16 / 24 mpg. Can you name a V6 Bi-turbo powered vehicle between with 400~450hp that does better than that? The Ecoboost powered Taurus SHO gets 17 / 25 mpg. Yes, it's 250 lbs heavier and is hampered by AWD, but it is also making only 365 hp / 350 lb-ft. What will happen to the mpg numbers if you decrease compression, raise boost and switch out the turbos for slightly larger ones to get to 420~430 hp? No clear advantage there.

With Ford's F150, the Ecoboost 3.5 V6 gets 16 / 22 mpg. Ford's own 5.0 V8 gets 15 / 21 mpg -- a mere 1 mpg deficit. Despite the fact that the Ford Coyote 5.0 V8 is a DOHC 32-valve design that more complex and costly than GM's it is $750 cheaper than the Ecoboost 3.5. Not widely recognized is the fact that being a DOHC engine is is also likely slightly less efficient than a pushrod design. Customers didn't pay a premium for the Ecoboost engine because they fell in love with the "high tech" nature or the Twin turbos, they bought it by and large because truckers care about towing capacity and the Ecoboost had 11,300 lbs to the 5.0 V8's 10,000 lbs. So in a way you are right, buyer's didn't care much about the cylinder count; they didn't favor less cylinders or lower displacement. They saw a 1300 lbs tow capacity advantage and a 1 mpg advantage and decided that $750 is an OK premium to pay.

In GM's case, there will be a direct injected, pushrod operated, probably AFM equipped V8 that has better mpg number that Ford's, also the price difference is greater because the pushrod design is simply cheaper than the DOHC V8. This is not to mention better torque output because of larger displacement than Ford's 5.0 liters. In the end it might be a wash in terms of economy and towing capacity. Why then will buyers pay in excess of $1000 more for the Bi-turbo six?

Edited August 9, 2012 by dwightlooi

[hyperv6]

You only keep looking at this in one dimention. It is more than about output numbers.

Factor in what the costomer are looking for and what the market wants. Also while in some cases the MPG advantage is only one MPG it will not be long before companies will sell their soul for 1 MPG or pay Honda for a MPG credit they have extra. Add in the added profit and sales that come what many precieve as a more advance drivetrain.

Again why are all the MFG are going to turbo 4 and TT V6 and not your V8? None of the MFG are looking to grow the V8 as they want to retain the buyers they have and move what they can to the smaller engine. I am sorry but the martket and MFG's are counter to your claims. Are they all wrong and only you are correct. This line of discussion is not with me it is with the market and the path it is on.

[smk4565]

Porsche's turbo flat six makes 530 hp and gets 17/25 mpg. I can't think of another 500 hp engine that gets 25 mpg.

I don't really care if the ATS-V has a six or an eight, there are advantages to both. But, being that the 3-series is going with a six, I'd be inclined to follow the leader on this one. As far as cost goes, who cares what the engine costs, it's a Cadillac. Some AMG engines are upwards of $15,000, they just charge more for the car, and people it because it is special. A V-series Cadillac, or any Cadillac for that matter, should be special. And if you don't want to pay big bucks for special, then that is why Chevy and Buick are around.

[A Horse With No Name]

I have friends with c6 Z06 that get 25 driven gently....

And if you drive the Porsche as its meant to be driven, you ain't gettin twenty five, sir.

[dwightlooi]

You only keep looking at this in one dimention. It is more than about output numbers.

Factor in what the costomer are looking for and what the market wants. Also while in some cases the MPG advantage is only one MPG it will not be long before companies will sell their soul for 1 MPG or pay Honda for a MPG credit they have extra. Add in the added profit and sales that come what many precieve as a more advance drivetrain.

Again why are all the MFG are going to turbo 4 and TT V6 and not your V8? None of the MFG are looking to grow the V8 as they want to retain the buyers they have and move what they can to the smaller engine. I am sorry but the martket and MFG's are counter to your claims. Are they all wrong and only you are correct. This line of discussion is not with me it is with the market and the path it is on.

Perhaps we have to agree to disagree here, but your assumptions are:-

• Buyers today have a preference for smaller displacement and fewer cylinders rather than actual Fuel Economy numbers
  
• Buyers have a predisposition towards Turbocharged engines and perceive them as more advanced and more desirable
  
• Buyers place a great importance on a 1 mpg difference over most other factors when making a buying decision
  
• Manufacturers deem the CAFE penalty for an additional 1 mpg of non-compliance as actually significant and worthy of significant engineering or manufacturing costs to overcome.
  

All of the above happens to be either flat out untrue or at least unproven.

Really... how many buyers bought a Focus over a Cruze because it is 28/38 mpg vs 26/38 mpg? Conversely, how many bought a Cruze because it has a "smaller displacement 1.4L" and "turbocharged"? The truth is that neither are overriding factors in the average consumer's buying decision. The color of the instrument cluster or the shape of the tailights probably have a similar degree of importance!

Speaking of CAFE, you make it sound like it is the be all and end all of the "new era" when the penalties are insignificant. Part of the reason Automakers didn't really fight it is because the penalties are inconsequential and if it applies to everyone it doesn't really create an unfair advantage for anyone. Do you know what the penalty is for every 1 mpg of non compliance? It's $55 per vehicle. Do you really believe that it makes business sense to spend $1500 in additional hardware (say a pair of turbos, their intercoolers and their pipings) to try to avoid $55 in cost which they can simply pass on to the consumer? In fact the CAFE penalties are structured in such a way that I have always advocated for automakers to simple build cars that they believe their customers want to buy and completely disregard CAFE. Meeting it is great, not meeting it is no problem at all either.

Or put it another way. Will the majority of buyers spend $1500 extra instead of $55 extra to have let say a 17/28 mpg car vs say a 16/27 mpg car? If this is true, most buyers will also pay $5000 in upfront premiums a Hybrid drive train which will save enough gas at $4 a gallon to pay back that investment in 9 years, and Hybrids will have a 90% market share today rather than 3.7%.

Edited August 10, 2012 by dwightlooi

[smk4565]

I have friends with c6 Z06 that get 25 driven gently....

And if you drive the Porsche as its meant to be driven, you ain't gettin twenty five, sir.

Well if you drive a Z06 hard you are probably getting 13 mpg. I was just going off EPA ratings because it is the fairest way to compare cars. If you drive a 911 around in 7th gear all day at 55 mph I am sure you can get 25 or better and edge out gently driving Z06 drivers. Obviously driving style and weather conditions are going to affect mpg.

[smk4565]

V8 sales are at an all time low though, and 4-cylinder engines are now making up about 55% of new car sales. So it seems to be what the majority of the public wants, or can afford.

If we are talking Cadillac V-series engines, CAFE shouldn't be a concern, nor should cost to produce it. They should make the best engine they can and it has to be special, if it is the same thing you get in a Chevy, why pay V-series money for it. AMG cars cost a ton because they give you something special that you can't get elsewhere.

[dwightlooi]

V8 sales are at an all time low though, and 4-cylinder engines are now making up about 55% of new car sales. So it seems to be what the majority of the public wants, or can afford.

If we are talking Cadillac V-series engines, CAFE shouldn't be a concern, nor should cost to produce it. They should make the best engine they can and it has to be special, if it is the same thing you get in a Chevy, why pay V-series money for it. AMG cars cost a ton because they give you something special that you can't get elsewhere.

The problem is that a 6-cylinder Bi-turbo is not in any way special. It is in many cars and is not unique to Cadillac. The LF3 engine -- if it is used -- will also be found in various other GM vehicles most likely including SUVs and trucks. If you look at the Luxury RWD Compact market by itself, a big displacement V8 is actually more "unique" especially after BMW ditches the 4.0 V8 and Audi has already switched to a Supercharged 3.0 V6. The C63 will most likely switch to 5.5 Bi-turbo after the W204 platform sunsets in 2014. This leaves the ATS-V with the opportunity to be the only game in town if you want a small, light, luxurious car powered by a V8 with the immediate throttle response of a NA engine.

You are right, they should put in the best engine and the Pushrod V8 is an extraordinary engine unique to GM. On technical merits alone it is better than a Bi-turbo V6 by being lighter, less complex, probably more powerful and lag free, while being equally efficient or within 1 mpg of the V6. It also happens to be more cost effective and does not need additional R&D commitment because it is already being developed for the C7. As far as the type of buyer the ATS-V is going to get, I honestly don't believe either a DOHC V6 TT or Pushrod V8 NA is going to matter to them as much as the performance numbers. Enthusiasts are smart enough to not want a more expensive, no more efficient, lower performance engine just because it has Turbochargers. In fact, when Audi went from the 2.7 Bi-turbo to the 4.2 V8 with the S4 nobody complained about it being less desirable because it is missing two turbos. This segment may not be as price sensitive as the Cruze's, but to say that adding a few grand to the price tag helps sell more cars is also nonsensical. Even if that's true -- that somehow there is a reverse demand curve because expense buys prestige and prestige overrides other considerations -- all Cadillac has to do is raise the price! It doesn't have to make an engineering decision.

To put it in one sentence... BMW has to go I6 Turbo and Audi has to go a Supercharged V6 because they do not have a state of the art Pushrod V8. If they did, they could have achieved the same fuel economy and/or performance goals without downsizing to six cylinders and adding forced induction. It is also lack the time, technological know how, patent portfolio and experience to start from scratch and develop a line of pushrod engines.

Edited August 11, 2012 by dwightlooi

[balthazar]

They should make the best engine they can and it has to be special, if it is the same thing you get in a Chevy, why pay V-series money for it.

They DO pay V-Series money for it in the Corvette.

[smk4565]

The problem is that a 6-cylinder Bi-turbo is not in any way special. It is in many cars and is not unique to Cadillac. The LF3 engine -- if it is used -- will also be found in various other GM vehicles most likely including SUVs and trucks. If you look at the Luxury RWD Compact market by itself, a big displacement V8 is actually more "unique" especially after BMW ditches the 4.0 V8 and Audi has already switched to a Supercharged 3.0 V6.

To put it in one sentence... BMW has to go I6 Turbo and Audi has to go a Supercharged V6 because they do not have a state of the art Pushrod V8. If they did, they could have achieved the same fuel economy and/or performance goals without downsizing to six cylinders and adding forced induction. It is also lack the time, technological know how, patent portfolio and experience to start from scratch and develop a line of pushrod engines.

A Twin turbo V6 is unique because GM doesn't even make a single turbo V6 right now, let alone a twin turbo. Using the engine from a Camaro may make the ATS different than BMW, but it makes it too much like a Camaro. Why pay $65,000 for an ATS-V when a $36,000 Camaro has the same engine. The ATS's interior isn't lined with silk and cashmere to justify that big a price gap. And a loaded ATS 3.6 is near $50k, the V-series will be over $60k. And I don't care if they use a V8, but it shouldn't be the engine out of a Camaro or Silverado.

BMW and Audi also sell in countries where gas is $7 a gallon or taxes on displacement exist, etc. And they both are selling over 1 million cars a year, what they do seems to work.

[hyperv6]

• Buyers today have a preference for smaller displacement and fewer cylinders rather than actual Fuel Economy numbers
  

They do want better MPG but they generally precieve that the smaller engines give the best MPG. For the most part most 4 and V6 engines do give better MPG.

• Buyers have a predisposition towards Turbocharged engines and perceive them as more advanced and more desirable
  

It is true that many buyers look at the new Turbo engines as being efficent but with power. nearly half of todays market grew up in 4 cylinder Honda's and Toyota's so they have no real love for a V8 even if it has the same MPG.

• Buyers place a great importance on a 1 mpg difference over most other factors when making a buying decision
  

They seem to with the extra money many are putting down on the F150 Ecoboost over the V8. Many seem to be willing to pay for the 1 MPG, technology etc. They are also paying over $1000 for it.

• Manufacturers deem the CAFE penalty for an additional 1 mpg of non-compliance as actually significant and worthy of significant engineering or manufacturing costs to overcome.
  

Bud you ain't seen nothing yet. By 2025 [unless someone steps in to change CAFE] You will see some major investment into many far reaching technologies from here forward. The V8 has been and can be inproved but it is going to lose more and more market share becasue it still can not overcome the simple physics of volume. I would not be suprised to see a much smaller V8 with some kind of pressureized induction at some point as there is a limit to the gains to be had. But no matter what things will be smaller on many levels unless someone can figure out how to sell the Chevy Spark in numbers greater than the Pick up trucks.

The fact is most MFG are looking to try to find a way to retain at least a V8 for use but it will be used in more limited vehicles as time goes on. It also will climb in cost so it will only be found in cars like the top V series or a Vette.

The fact is they have done well with the V8 but smaller engines will rule the future. To be honest the 4 cylinder already owns the market now with a percentage of V6 and V8 engines filling an even smaller share of the market. If fuel prices continue to climb the public will revolt from most larger engines. That would hit V8 sales and even any V6 sales turbo and non turbo.

The Verano Turbo is very telling where the market and most buyers are going. Note it is not a performance car. GM is looking to give a big car feel in comfort and power to a small car. A car like this a few years back would have never sold but today the public is looking for them.

I don't want to see thing go the way they are but I am not going to sit here and pretend we will have V8 engines getting 50 MPG in 10 years from now. The telling thing to watch is the next gen of Pickups after the coming one. There will be some major changes in them and it will be telling. Automakers are hoping that electric vehicles will shoulder some of the burden but as of yet the response is luke warm and it will force them into changes they are not really keen on making.

Again I ask you why do you think the automakers are not agreeing with what you are saying and are moving more and more to smaller engines and turbo engines if they can do all you say they can with a V8. Tell me why you are right and why they are all spending billions doing what you say is wrong?

The bottom line is that they are prolonging the V8 for the trucks as long as they can. They need the sales. The problem is when they do not meet the numbers they need the Truck will be faced with down size. As it is now you only have 3 car in North America in the GM line with the V8. Next year they will be adding a limited number of SS sedans and the LTS in a year or two later. The fact the new Impala is coming with only a 4 and non Turbo V6 is telling.

I also expect GM to into a Turbo 3 cylinder soon.

I am not trying to be the forteller of doom all I am doing is watching what the industry is doing and they do not look to me to be adding much in V8 market share. Unless they can sell more propane.

[dwightlooi]

The problem is that a 6-cylinder Bi-turbo is not in any way special. It is in many cars and is not unique to Cadillac. The LF3 engine -- if it is used -- will also be found in various other GM vehicles most likely including SUVs and trucks. If you look at the Luxury RWD Compact market by itself, a big displacement V8 is actually more "unique" especially after BMW ditches the 4.0 V8 and Audi has already switched to a Supercharged 3.0 V6.

To put it in one sentence... BMW has to go I6 Turbo and Audi has to go a Supercharged V6 because they do not have a state of the art Pushrod V8. If they did, they could have achieved the same fuel economy and/or performance goals without downsizing to six cylinders and adding forced induction. It is also lack the time, technological know how, patent portfolio and experience to start from scratch and develop a line of pushrod engines.

A Twin turbo V6 is unique because GM doesn't even make a single turbo V6 right now, let alone a twin turbo. Using the engine from a Camaro may make the ATS different than BMW, but it makes it too much like a Camaro. Why pay $65,000 for an ATS-V when a $36,000 Camaro has the same engine. The ATS's interior isn't lined with silk and cashmere to justify that big a price gap. And a loaded ATS 3.6 is near $50k, the V-series will be over $60k. And I don't care if they use a V8, but it shouldn't be the engine out of a Camaro or Silverado.

BMW and Audi also sell in countries where gas is $7 a gallon or taxes on displacement exist, etc. And they both are selling over 1 million cars a year, what they do seems to work.

Based on that same logic, why would anyone pay $60K for an ATS when it uses the same Bi-turbo V6 that will be found in an Impala SS, Acadia Denali or Silverado? The one thing you are missing is that the Bi-turbo V6 was not conceived for the ATS-V and there will never be exclusivity associated with it. The LF3 was conceived as an upgrade engine (above the 3.6 LFX) for large cars, SUVs and trucks -- very much like the Ford 3.5 Ecoboost except that with the LF3 at least GM choose the 3.0 liter displacement. GM would have been unable to justify the development costs and/or produce enough to have reasonable economies of scale if it did an "exclusivity engine" of any kind for the ATS-V. If the ATS-V uses the Bi-turbo V6 it will be on the backs of these other applications not the other way around.

By the way, your price estimates are a little excessive. The ATS-V cannot be $60K without completely encroaching on the CTS-V and Cadillac is in no position to dramatically rachet up their pricing of the CTS-V. The ATS-V will be closer to $50K than to $60K.

[dwightlooi]

They do want better MPG but they generally precieve that the smaller engines give the best MPG. For the most part most 4 and V6 engines do give better MPG.

It is true that many buyers look at the new Turbo engines as being efficent but with power. nearly half of todays market grew up in 4 cylinder Honda's and Toyota's so they have no real love for a V8 even if it has the same MPG.

They seem to with the extra money many are putting down on the F150 Ecoboost over the V8. Many seem to be willing to pay for the 1 MPG, technology etc. They are also paying over $1000 for it.

Bud you ain't seen nothing yet. By 2025 [unless someone steps in to change CAFE] You will see some major investment into many far reaching technologies from here forward. The V8 has been and can be inproved but it is going to lose more and more market share becasue it still can not overcome the simple physics of volume. I would not be suprised to see a much smaller V8 with some kind of pressureized induction at some point as there is a limit to the gains to be had. But no matter what things will be smaller on many levels unless someone can figure out how to sell the Chevy Spark in numbers greater than the Pick up trucks.

I also expect GM to into a Turbo 3 cylinder soon.

I think buyers are smart enough to look at the window sticker and read the MPG numbers even if they are pretty dumb otherwise. And those too stupid to do that are probably too stupid to know what displacement and/or cylinders are.

As I mentioned earlier, all the surveys surrounding the Ecoboost F150 point to the fact that buyers paid extra for the towing capacity not the presence of turbos or smaller displacement. The 1 mpg advantage came as a nice little bonus but it was the $750 difference in pricing and the towing capacity that convince most.

No, nearly 65% of the car market is comprised of 4-cylinder vehicles not just half. But, no, they are not full of turbo fours. These in fact are fewer than V6es by a large margin. These cars are mostly NA fours with pedestrian power output, low price and good economy. They cater to the majority of car buyers who, BTW, are not particularly interested in performance. Buyers of I4 Accords, Camrys and Altimas bought them because they didn't care if the V6 had more power, the I4 is cheaper and it has better fuel economy. A Turbo four is not cheaper and it does not have better fuel economy compared to a lower powered NA four. Once you get into the buyer category where performance matters and cost take a back seat, fuel economy also to a greater or lesser extent take a back seat.

You keep saying that automakers WILL invest in far reaching technologies to comply with CAFE without logically or factually supporting that claim. Businesses are just that, businesses. And a business case has to be made for investment decisions. $1500 in additional hardware to avoid $55 in penalties does not compute in any business case because consumers don't want to pay for it. As I have said, if consumers are all on board with the current regime's "green agenda" Hybrids won't be 3.7% of the market despite generous rebates and other nonsense they hand out. Let me tell you when a $5000 delta in vehicle cost for a Hybrid makes sense -- when gasoline is $20 a gallon or if the regime makes it mandatory (as in illegal to sell unless in compliance). The regime does probably have that kind of twisted idea of a command economy, but unless it has a the congress the senate and the white house nothing but gridlock will result.

Edited August 11, 2012 by dwightlooi

[A Horse With No Name]

I have friends with c6 Z06 that get 25 driven gently....

And if you drive the Porsche as its meant to be driven, you ain't gettin twenty five, sir.

Well if you drive a Z06 hard you are probably getting 13 mpg. I was just going off EPA ratings because it is the fairest way to compare cars. If you drive a 911 around in 7th gear all day at 55 mph I am sure you can get 25 or better and edge out gently driving Z06 drivers. Obviously driving style and weather conditions are going to affect mpg.

One other thing to think about that would support Dwight's position.

Lots of people swap LS series motor into Porsche's... people never seem to swap Porsche motors into GM cars. I wonder why?

[A Horse With No Name]

Linky...

http://renegadehybrids.com/

Is your Porsche fast enough for you? Is the maintenance affordable? Is it reliable? Do you enjoy getting beaten by the kid down the street because you are afraid to drive it hard? If you answered "no" to any of these questions, you might be VERY interested in our unique approach to "Making Germany's Fastest, Faster!"

Since 1983, Renegade Hybrids has sold thousands of custom parts that have allowed Porsche owners to install stronger, faster, cheaper, and more reliable motors in their cars. A favorite choice for many years was the Small Block Chevy V-8 due to accessibility, affordability, and the immense selection of aftermarket parts.

More recently, two more motor choices have made a mark in our product line with the addition of the EJ series Subaru motors for the 914's, and the GM LS series, all aluminum, fuel injected V-8's in the 944s, 928’s, 914’s, and ALL 911s. With ‘late-model’ technology, light weight design, fantastic economy, enormous power, and terrific availability, the LS series conversion kits are now our best-sellers!

Edited August 11, 2012 by A Horse With No Name

[smk4565]

Based on that same logic, why would anyone pay $60K for an ATS when it uses the same Bi-turbo V6 that will be found in an Impala SS, Acadia Denali or Silverado? The one thing you are missing is that the Bi-turbo V6 was not conceived for the ATS-V and there will never be exclusivity associated with it. The LF3 was conceived as an upgrade engine (above the 3.6 LFX) for large cars, SUVs and trucks -- very much like the Ford 3.5 Ecoboost except that with the LF3 at least GM choose the 3.0 liter displacement. GM would have been unable to justify the development costs and/or produce enough to have reasonable economies of scale if it did an "exclusivity engine" of any kind for the ATS-V. If the ATS-V uses the Bi-turbo V6 it will be on the backs of these other applications not the other way around.

By the way, your price estimates are a little excessive. The ATS-V cannot be $60K without completely encroaching on the CTS-V and Cadillac is in no position to dramatically rachet up their pricing of the CTS-V. The ATS-V will be closer to $50K than to $60K.

Who's to say what the Acadia, Silverado, etc get, if they get a 3.0 bi-turbo with 350 hp, the ATS could get a 3.6 liter bi-turbo with 450 hp. Then they are different and the ATS already has the 3.6 in it, they just have to add turbos. At least then the ATS has something unique. and a 3.6 twin turbo could be used in other Cadillacs. Cadillac can't truly compete with the Germans with the Chevy/Buick parts bin, they have to develop some exclusive things to set themselves apart from GM and get into the game with the Germans.

On the ATS-V price, Car and Driver just drove an ATS 3.6 that cost $48,190. I just priced out an ATS 3.6 Premium RWD, added the optional wheels, cold weather package, sunroof and driver assist package and it came out to $53,705. An ATS-V can't be $50k when the ATS 3.6 is $50k, the V-series will add at least $10 grand, it not 15. CTS-V will see a big price spike, so it better be fantastic or the 5-series and E-class will crush it like they did the M37, GS350, STS, and even the A6 in this country.

[smk4565]

As far as manufacturers not investing in fuel efficiency, Mercedes last year said half of their $5.6 billion R&D budget on alternative powertrains and fuel efficiency. $2.8 billion dollars for a company that sold 1-1.5 million cars seems like a pretty large amount of money.

[hyperv6]

I have friends with c6 Z06 that get 25 driven gently....

And if you drive the Porsche as its meant to be driven, you ain't gettin twenty five, sir.

Well if you drive a Z06 hard you are probably getting 13 mpg. I was just going off EPA ratings because it is the fairest way to compare cars. If you drive a 911 around in 7th gear all day at 55 mph I am sure you can get 25 or better and edge out gently driving Z06 drivers. Obviously driving style and weather conditions are going to affect mpg.

One other thing to think about that would support Dwight's position.

Lots of people swap LS series motor into Porsche's... people never seem to swap Porsche motors into GM cars. I wonder why?

The reason they swap in LS engines are because they are small, powerful and the key Cheap to buy since there so many in the junk yards.

My buddys father bought a V12 Jag sedan with a dopped valve seat. This was years ago and the head casting was $1200 bare. He then said he wondered why so many Jags had Chevys and once he was done rebuilding the V12 he knew why the cost.

Since then the other head dropped a valve seat so as he is a ex Pontiac racer we dropped in a 428 HO Pontiac engine that was laying around. The car has had no failures since in the last 25 years.

Also had a buddy buy a 928 before I could talk him out of it. Once the fuel pump went out and he saw the cost the car was up for sale. He found that nearly all the parts for the 928 are almost as much as the value of the car. We had talked a Chevy transplant but he just wanted the car out of his sight.

So generally like most expensive euro cars built in any real volume they are more to repair than they are worth.

You would be suprised at how many Ferraris go to salvage because they are more expensive to replace timing belts or a clutch vs the value of the car.

I have been seeing more and more 308's with 2.8 and 3.8 V6 engines to keep them running. Just Think a Fiero engine in a Ferrari. LOL!

The sad fact is even American cars are getting this way as once they get to a point they are not worth the repair vs value. The time of the disposible car is not far off.

[dwightlooi]

Who's to say what the Acadia, Silverado, etc get, if they get a 3.0 bi-turbo with 350 hp, the ATS could get a 3.6 liter bi-turbo with 450 hp. Then they are different and the ATS already has the 3.6 in it, they just have to add turbos. At least then the ATS has something unique. and a 3.6 twin turbo could be used in other Cadillacs. Cadillac can't truly compete with the Germans with the Chevy/Buick parts bin, they have to develop some exclusive things to set themselves apart from GM and get into the game with the Germans.

On the ATS-V price, Car and Driver just drove an ATS 3.6 that cost $48,190. I just priced out an ATS 3.6 Premium RWD, added the optional wheels, cold weather package, sunroof and driver assist package and it came out to $53,705. An ATS-V can't be $50k when the ATS 3.6 is $50k, the V-series will add at least $10 grand, it not 15. CTS-V will see a big price spike, so it better be fantastic or the 5-series and E-class will crush it like they did the M37, GS350, STS, and even the A6 in this country.

Which brings us back to the point that a 3.6 450hp Bi-turbo does not exist and will be a new engine that has to be developed solely for Cadillac while the Gen V V8 in a sports car configuration already exists in form of the engine that is already being developed for the C7 with or without its application in the ATS-V. Not should, not if, not perhaps, not whether it can be -- it is already there with the development funds already spent.

Also, when you talk about an engine for a car whose primary role is as a performance flagship for the series, the priority is always performance. Not particular valvetrain choices, not the presence or absence of any particular technology or component. Performance, period. The Gen V V8 has the 3.6 TT V6 beat in terms of power-to-weight, torque-to-weight, power-to-size, torque-to-size, cost, simplicity and responsiveness. It also promises to be just as good or at the minimum pretty darn close to the 3.6TT V6 in terms of fuel economy -- based on the fact that even the current generation of Pushrod V8 equal or exceed the the fuel economy of its generation of Bi-turbo V6es of equivalent output. So why will you want to invest additional funds (which you otherwise don't have to invest) and incur higher production costs to install an engine which is inferior or equivalent in every regard? If Cadillac cannot compete based on a superior engine, what makes you think they can on an inferior one? Because the DOHC Bi-turbo label will make buyers disregard everything else? I think you underestimate the intelligence of performance car consumers.

The BMW 335xi tops out at $56K fully optioned, that doesn't stop the M3 from having a base price of $61K -- a $5K difference. Fact is that they are different cars. You don't get AWD with the M3, you don't get some of the options on the fully optioned 335xi unless you also check the option boxes which can then take the M3 to almost $70K.

The ATS 3.6 stops at $48K, but it starts at $42K. When making comparisons you have to compare base price to base price! The ATS-V should start at ~$52K -- $49.99K if they want to price it aggressively. Yes, you can pay just as much for a 3.6. But, that is a loaded 3.6 into which you added $6K worth of options magnetic ride control, Brembo Brakes, polished wheels, premium package and AWD. In fact, you would have added most of the performance parts in an ATS-V -- the brakes, the Magnetorologic shocks -- and more (AWD). The only thing you would have not added is the powerplant and a $4K difference is about right in that regard. At 52K, the ATS-V does not have AWD and it probably does not even have a moonroof (which is a plus for some buyers who don't want sun on their head but can use an additional inch of headroom). There's nothing wrong with that.

As far as manufacturers not investing in fuel efficiency, Mercedes last year said half of their $5.6 billion R&D budget on alternative powertrains and fuel efficiency. $2.8 billion dollars for a company that sold 1-1.5 million cars seems like a pretty large amount of money.

Half of the budget going to alternatives and fuel efficiency. How much is that is simply evolutionary development of their diesel lineup?

Edited August 11, 2012 by dwightlooi

[balthazar]

WRT diesels, don't forget mercedes has a LARGE contingency of HD trucks, garbage scows, buses, etc - not by a LONG shot does all that money go towards their mainstream sedans.

[smk4565]

Daimler's total R&D budget is usually in the $6-7 Billion range, Mercedes-Benz cars usually gets $4-5 billion of that. Mercedes has far more money at their disposal than Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti or Lincoln.

And to Dwight's point about a 3.6 liter twin turbo not existing and having to be solely developed just for Cadillac, exactly, they should do it. They can add a Cadillac only bi-turbo V8 while they are at it. If they plan to go after the S-class in the near future, they better get some big guns ready. And it goes beyond the engine, it is the whole package, and if they parts bin something as big as the powertrain, they will parts bin elsewhere. The bean counters will love it, car buyers won't.

[dwightlooi]

Daimler's total R&D budget is usually in the $6-7 Billion range, Mercedes-Benz cars usually gets $4-5 billion of that. Mercedes has far more money at their disposal than Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti or Lincoln.

And to Dwight's point about a 3.6 liter twin turbo not existing and having to be solely developed just for Cadillac, exactly, they should do it. They can add a Cadillac only bi-turbo V8 while they are at it. If they plan to go after the S-class in the near future, they better get some big guns ready. And it goes beyond the engine, it is the whole package, and if they parts bin something as big as the powertrain, they will parts bin elsewhere. The bean counters will love it, car buyers won't.

But before they do that, they need to ask a simple question. Why is a 3.6 Bi-turbo V6 better than a 6.2 Gen V DI V8?

[hyperv6]

Shhh!!!!!! I have just been to Hanger 18 at Wright Patterson AFB and look what I found.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/photos/cadillac-cts-2014-picture-9.html

Note this was a 3.0 TT V6 in a new CTS non V. According to people that really know what is going on there is a 3.6 TT V6 too in development too. Unless something changed the ATS V will get the 3.6 TT. The new CTS will get a 3.6 NA, 3.0 TT and the New V8 for the CTS V. It is also expected the XTS will get the 3.0 TT V6 at some point.

As for the 3.6 TT it could be a base engine in the LTS but it is way too soon to really even debate that one as we know way too little on this car yet.

I would also expect one of the TT V6 to end up in one of the Alpha Camaro's too and some claim a 1/2 ton truck. That would make a nice GMC option.

The TT V6 has been around for a good while but it has been one of those still born projects that was put on the shelf before and during the Chapter 11. The basic work was done but it was never completed. They pulled it off the shelf and are updating it and completing it now that they have the funding.

I would also expect Holden to see at least one of the engines for their use too.

[hyperv6]

Daimler's total R&D budget is usually in the $6-7 Billion range, Mercedes-Benz cars usually gets $4-5 billion of that. Mercedes has far more money at their disposal than Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti or Lincoln.

And to Dwight's point about a 3.6 liter twin turbo not existing and having to be solely developed just for Cadillac, exactly, they should do it. They can add a Cadillac only bi-turbo V8 while they are at it. If they plan to go after the S-class in the near future, they better get some big guns ready. And it goes beyond the engine, it is the whole package, and if they parts bin something as big as the powertrain, they will parts bin elsewhere. The bean counters will love it, car buyers won't.

But before they do that, they need to ask a simple question. Why is a 3.6 Bi-turbo V6 better than a 6.2 Gen V DI V8?

We could argue this for weeks but the fact remains they see something you don't as they would not be spending the kind of money they are unless they had a good damn reason. No matter if it is marketing reports or the fact they have the real data on these engines vs what you post may give them an advantage on knowing why they think it is a good idea.

Either way they are coming and will be used well to market the cars. If GM could do a N star mostly for Cadillac before they can do a TT V6 for mostly Cadillac too.

Edited August 12, 2012 by hyperv6

[A Horse With No Name]

Might be a really interesting motor for the car.

I think GM has learned the hard way about bringing out motors that are half baked.

[hyperv6]

Might be a really interesting motor for the car.

I think GM has learned the hard way about bringing out motors that are half baked.

The lack of money left many things half baked.

We were lucky that the people in charge when the Ecotec was developed understood how important it was to get that one right the first time out of the box. The fact is the V6 engine at GM has never really gotten much in the way of proper funding for years. Till the HF V6 came out they mostly had to rely on updates to old engines like the 4.3 or 3800, They were lucky they did a good job on the original that let them get away with this.

But GM also really failed on the early 3.8 turbo engines and the DOHC V6 that came out in the GP and Monte Carlo. that one was a real boat anchor.

GM also half baked cars for years too. Like the 4th gen F body. It had handling and engine but they always ran out of money on the interior Same for the Vette. Settlmire said he was always frustrated that they never had the funds to finish the car the way they really wanted.

Today that has changed and the public is no longer forgiving of GM for cars that fall that far short anymore.

The ATS is the first full new project done under the new funding and it really shows. I can't wait to see the other coming new product.

[smk4565]

Daimler's total R&D budget is usually in the $6-7 Billion range, Mercedes-Benz cars usually gets $4-5 billion of that. Mercedes has far more money at their disposal than Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti or Lincoln.

And to Dwight's point about a 3.6 liter twin turbo not existing and having to be solely developed just for Cadillac, exactly, they should do it. They can add a Cadillac only bi-turbo V8 while they are at it. If they plan to go after the S-class in the near future, they better get some big guns ready. And it goes beyond the engine, it is the whole package, and if they parts bin something as big as the powertrain, they will parts bin elsewhere. The bean counters will love it, car buyers won't.

But before they do that, they need to ask a simple question. Why is a 3.6 Bi-turbo V6 better than a 6.2 Gen V DI V8?

Because a Nissan GT-R lays waste to anything GM has ever made?

[smk4565]

Personally, I'd like to see Cadillac get an exclusive DOHC V8 again, but time, money and CAFE will probably prevent that.

[dwightlooi]

Daimler's total R&D budget is usually in the $6-7 Billion range, Mercedes-Benz cars usually gets $4-5 billion of that. Mercedes has far more money at their disposal than Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti or Lincoln.

And to Dwight's point about a 3.6 liter twin turbo not existing and having to be solely developed just for Cadillac, exactly, they should do it. They can add a Cadillac only bi-turbo V8 while they are at it. If they plan to go after the S-class in the near future, they better get some big guns ready. And it goes beyond the engine, it is the whole package, and if they parts bin something as big as the powertrain, they will parts bin elsewhere. The bean counters will love it, car buyers won't.

But before they do that, they need to ask a simple question. Why is a 3.6 Bi-turbo V6 better than a 6.2 Gen V DI V8?

Because a Nissan GT-R lays waste to anything GM has ever made?

Because of the active torque biasing AWD system and everything else? Or, because of the Bi-turbo 3.8 liter V6?

Just based on the numbers won't a GT-R be faster and better handling if it used the LS7 Pushrod V8 instead of the VR38DETT V6? The LS7 was 505hp / 470 lb-ft vs 480 hp / 434 lb-ft (when introduced). The LS7 was also 32 kg lighter, does need intercoolers, doesn't need a myraid of intake plumbing and has zero turbo lag. Similar power output, better weight distribution, less throttle lag, less spagetti under the hood and, yes, less money. How is that a bad thing?

[A Horse With No Name]

ZR1 was around two or three seconds faster in the C and D lightening lap, and C and D pretty much admitted that the ZR1 had more speed in it but the lacked the proper male reproductive equipment to find it....

And since I know some of our readers, I mean they couldn't get the additional speed out of the car, not that they couldn't find the car.

[A Horse With No Name]

Daimler's total R&D budget is usually in the $6-7 Billion range, Mercedes-Benz cars usually gets $4-5 billion of that. Mercedes has far more money at their disposal than Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti or Lincoln.

And to Dwight's point about a 3.6 liter twin turbo not existing and having to be solely developed just for Cadillac, exactly, they should do it. They can add a Cadillac only bi-turbo V8 while they are at it. If they plan to go after the S-class in the near future, they better get some big guns ready. And it goes beyond the engine, it is the whole package, and if they parts bin something as big as the powertrain, they will parts bin elsewhere. The bean counters will love it, car buyers won't.

But before they do that, they need to ask a simple question. Why is a 3.6 Bi-turbo V6 better than a 6.2 Gen V DI V8?

Because a Nissan GT-R lays waste to anything GM has ever made?

Because of the active torque biasing AWD system and everything else? Or, because of the Bi-turbo 3.8 liter V6?

Just based on the numbers won't a GT-R be faster and better handling if it used the LS7 Pushrod V8 instead of the VR38DETT V6? The LS7 was 505hp / 470 lb-ft vs 480 hp / 434 lb-ft (when introduced). The LS7 was also 32 kg lighter, does need intercoolers, doesn't need a myraid of intake plumbing and has zero turbo lag. Similar power output, better weight distribution, less throttle lag, less spagetti under the hood and, yes, less money. How is that a bad thing?

It's not....

We are really getting off topic here but....

Look at armature racing, it would back up Dwight one hundred percent. Go to an SCCA event and you will see a ton of cars with LS power, including plenty of Z06's, both C5 and C6.

You very rarely see GTR's driven in competition by anything other than professional teams. One big reason is that the Vette (like most current GM products) is really, really tough.

Look at how many old C4's you see still being raced, even though they are way out of date. The old ZF tranny if I recall was a German dump truck transmission adapted to the Corvette, and they hold up forever.

[balthazar]

Daimler's total R&D budget is usually in the $6-7 Billion range, Mercedes-Benz cars usually gets $4-5 billion of that.

Define 'M-B cars'.

Mercedes has far more money at their disposal than Cadillac...

They also have 5-6 times as many models, don't forget.

[dwightlooi]

Without going into paragraphs and paragraphs of technical discussion, the V6 TT vs Pushrod V8 argument comes down to one thing and one thing only.

Why should GM put a heavier, bulkier, more complex and more expensive engine into the ATS-V that happens to have less power, less responsiveness and similar fuel economy?

If it is because they believe that V-car buyers care more about having turbochargers and dual overhead cams than the resulting performance of the vehicle, then they are seriously misguided indeed.

Edited August 13, 2012 by dwightlooi

[A Horse With No Name]

Without going into paragraphs and paragraphs of technical discussion, the V6 TT vs Pushrod V8 argument comes down to one thing and one thing only.

Why should GM put a heavier, bulkier, more complex and more expensive engine into the ATS-V that happens to have less power, less responsiveness and similar fuel economy?

If it is because they believe that V-car buyers care more about having turbochargers and dual overhead cams than the resulting performance of the vehicle, then they are seriously misguided indeed.

Without going into paragraphs and paragraphs of technical discussion, the V6 TT vs Pushrod V8 argument comes down to one thing and one thing only.

Why should GM put a heavier, bulkier, more complex and more expensive engine into the ATS-V that happens to have less power, less responsiveness and similar fuel economy?

If it is because they believe that V-car buyers care more about having turbochargers and dual overhead cams than the resulting performance of the vehicle, then they are seriously misguided indeed.

Edited August 13, 2012 by A Horse With No Name

[smk4565]

Daimler's total R&D budget is usually in the $6-7 Billion range, Mercedes-Benz cars usually gets $4-5 billion of that.

Define 'M-B cars'.

Mercedes has far more money at their disposal than Cadillac...

They also have 5-6 times as many models, don't forget.

M-B cars would be the A-class up to the S-class, and the GLK up to the G-wagen SUV. Cars/SUVs sold at dealerships. M-B commercial trucks would be Sprinter, semi-trucks, dump drucks, etc. Then they have Freightliner, Thomas Built Buses, and the other product lines. They have a lot of product lines, but they fund them all.

[smk4565]

Without going into paragraphs and paragraphs of technical discussion, the V6 TT vs Pushrod V8 argument comes down to one thing and one thing only.

Why should GM put a heavier, bulkier, more complex and more expensive engine into the ATS-V that happens to have less power, less responsiveness and similar fuel economy?

If it is because they believe that V-car buyers care more about having turbochargers and dual overhead cams than the resulting performance of the vehicle, then they are seriously misguided indeed.

So put a 4.0 liter DOHC twin-supercharged V8 that revs to 10,000 RPM and is hand built for all I care. The V-series Cadillacs should have something better than what any Chevrolet product offers. It is not only Cadillac, it is V-series Cadillac. AMG has engines that cost $18,000 to build, they don't care if an AMG car is expensive, it is rare, people pay for exclusivity.

[Drew Dowdell]

You're in luck SMK, one of the most exclusive new cars on the lots right now is a leftover Cadillac STS...... and it even has DOHC.

[smk4565]

You're in luck SMK, one of the most exclusive new cars on the lots right now is a leftover Cadillac STS...... and it even has DOHC.

I drove one of those a couple years ago, it was rather floaty and poor handling for a RWD car, and sadly they killed the V8 on it a couple years ago.

[regfootball]

Without going into paragraphs and paragraphs of technical discussion, the V6 TT vs Pushrod V8 argument comes down to one thing and one thing only.

Why should GM put a heavier, bulkier, more complex and more expensive engine into the ATS-V that happens to have less power, less responsiveness and similar fuel economy?

If it is because they believe that V-car buyers care more about having turbochargers and dual overhead cams than the resulting performance of the vehicle, then they are seriously misguided indeed.

whatever the buyers with money tell them what they want, is what they would be best to build.

[hyperv6]

Without going into paragraphs and paragraphs of technical discussion, the V6 TT vs Pushrod V8 argument comes down to one thing and one thing only.

Why should GM put a heavier, bulkier, more complex and more expensive engine into the ATS-V that happens to have less power, less responsiveness and similar fuel economy?

If it is because they believe that V-car buyers care more about having turbochargers and dual overhead cams than the resulting performance of the vehicle, then they are seriously misguided indeed.

whatever the buyers with money tell them what they want, is what they would be best to build.

Or it could be BMW, MB, Audi and soon to be Cadillac know something more than just some guy on the internet.

It would be interesting to hear their side of the marketing and engineering. I am sure they have good answers about this other wise they would all not be moving to th 6 cylinder Turbo engines. There has to be Money and MPG there or they would not be doing it.

[ZL-1]

There has to be Money and MPG there or they would not be doing it.

^^This.

Buyers want it and buyers will buy them + doesn't hurt or helps CAFE ratings = The answer. The OHC vs. OHV discussion is fascinating from a technical standpoint, I'm sure, but the fact is that GM has to provide the market with what the market wants; don't do that = no sales => no revenue => no profits. Simple.

[dwightlooi]

So put a 4.0 liter DOHC twin-supercharged V8 that revs to 10,000 RPM and is hand built for all I care. The V-series Cadillacs should have something better than what any Chevrolet product offers. It is not only Cadillac, it is V-series Cadillac. AMG has engines that cost $18,000 to build, they don't care if an AMG car is expensive, it is rare, people pay for exclusivity.

The problem is that the V6 Bi-turbo is not something better. It is something worse than what the Chevy will have.

Hence, you need to amend your line of justfication to "It doesn't matter if it is inferior. It doesn't matter if it is bigger, heavier, more complex, less powerful and guzzle the same amount of gas. It doesn't matter if it makes the car less balanced and somewhat slower. People will buy it as long as it is more expensive and more exclusive."

Edited August 17, 2012 by dwightlooi

[A Horse With No Name]

Answer me this then Dwight, why did Ford go to OHC for their V8's...?

New Ford Ecoboost is getting rave reviews from my racing buddies who use them to tow with and my blue collar buddies who use them to work out of.

Curious to see what GM does!

[hyperv6]

Dwight you still have not answered the question of why are you right and when the top car companies in the world are doing things opposed to what you claim they need to do at great cost? Why are you right and all of them wrong? Are they all that blind or are you not taking all the factors in? I have a hunch with BMW and Benz dropping V8 engines they may know something you are not factoring in.

[A Horse With No Name]

Without veering too far off into politics, peak oil for one....we are not going to run out of fuel tomorrow, but fuel prices will rise.

And if where you live is anything like Ohio, people ain't getting any smaller. there is a reason the local Wal-Mart parking lot is full of Tahoes, Impalas, and Suburbans and not Cruze, Fiesta, and MINI....

Modern people are fat...and they have also started growing taller than people used to. People will be wanting and needing larger cars, and will need to fuel them.

Another demographic issue-I was born in '65, when I was a junior in high school in 1983, V8 cars were king, and people wanted V8's. The younger generation, not so much so. Our local track, Columbus Motor speedway (often called Columbus Monkey Speedway) has a class called crazy compacts, all litle GM J bodies going at each other on a little third mile track. Talking to the younger drivers (late teens to early thirties) they often would RATHER race a smaller motored car because its what are used to and like.