Cadillac ATS Sports Sedan Revealed!
01-10-2012, 07:46 PM
#21
TECH Fanatic
The 6.2 that's been rumored at 470 hp is "about 480hp."
A TT3.6L with the same hp-to-displacement ratio as the new 2.0L turbo would also be about 470 hp, plus is would weigh less. If the Gen II CTS-V meets the "fast" criteria, then an ATS-V powered by one of these powerplants should also.
We've got two or three years to speculate before the motor is revealed for the 2016 MY. Personally, speculating is almost as much fun as finding out what it's actually going to be.
A TT3.6L with the same hp-to-displacement ratio as the new 2.0L turbo would also be about 470 hp, plus is would weigh less. If the Gen II CTS-V meets the "fast" criteria, then an ATS-V powered by one of these powerplants should also.
We've got two or three years to speculate before the motor is revealed for the 2016 MY. Personally, speculating is almost as much fun as finding out what it's actually going to be.
01-10-2012, 08:17 PM
#22
I don't mean any offense to any Ecoboost fans, but if Cadillac comes out with an ATS-V for ~2014, and with mods it only runs mid/low 13's, I would not be impressed.
Sure that's fast compared to the gen 1 V, but it isn't generally thought of as a fast 1/4 mile car. Maybe in 2004, but we're talking 10 years later. And the SHO is likely slower than the 1/4 numbers suggest, since it has AWD. Vs the V which is more a 2nd half car. Looking at some other videos, the "worlds fastest" SHO is only turning in ~110mph trap speeds. Not to knock it, but that isn't my definition of "fast".
If they make an ATS-V, I would expect it to be close to the current CTS-V in acceleration. At likely 500lbs less, an ATS-V would need about 480hp to match the power/weight ratio.
Sure that's fast compared to the gen 1 V, but it isn't generally thought of as a fast 1/4 mile car. Maybe in 2004, but we're talking 10 years later. And the SHO is likely slower than the 1/4 numbers suggest, since it has AWD. Vs the V which is more a 2nd half car. Looking at some other videos, the "worlds fastest" SHO is only turning in ~110mph trap speeds. Not to knock it, but that isn't my definition of "fast".
If they make an ATS-V, I would expect it to be close to the current CTS-V in acceleration. At likely 500lbs less, an ATS-V would need about 480hp to match the power/weight ratio.
The ATS-V has to be able compete with the m3, s4, isf, etc and do so while making Gm money. It just needs to be faster then the rest of its class.
01-10-2012, 10:04 PM
#23
I don't mean any offense to any Ecoboost fans, but if Cadillac comes out with an ATS-V for ~2014, and with mods it only runs mid/low 13's, I would not be impressed.
Sure that's fast compared to the gen 1 V, but it isn't generally thought of as a fast 1/4 mile car. Maybe in 2004, but we're talking 10 years later. And the SHO is likely slower than the 1/4 numbers suggest, since it has AWD. Vs the V which is more a 2nd half car. Looking at some other videos, the "worlds fastest" SHO is only turning in ~110mph trap speeds. Not to knock it, but that isn't my definition of "fast".
If they make an ATS-V, I would expect it to be close to the current CTS-V in acceleration. At likely 500lbs less, an ATS-V would need about 480hp to match the power/weight ratio.
Sure that's fast compared to the gen 1 V, but it isn't generally thought of as a fast 1/4 mile car. Maybe in 2004, but we're talking 10 years later. And the SHO is likely slower than the 1/4 numbers suggest, since it has AWD. Vs the V which is more a 2nd half car. Looking at some other videos, the "worlds fastest" SHO is only turning in ~110mph trap speeds. Not to knock it, but that isn't my definition of "fast".
If they make an ATS-V, I would expect it to be close to the current CTS-V in acceleration. At likely 500lbs less, an ATS-V would need about 480hp to match the power/weight ratio.
01-11-2012, 07:12 AM
#24
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current V is not what the ATS-V would be looking to use as a bench mark. The current CTS-V was trying to bring m5 performance for a m3 price.
The ATS-V has to be able compete with the m3, s4, isf, etc and do so while making Gm money. It just needs to be faster then the rest of its class.
The ATS-V has to be able compete with the m3, s4, isf, etc and do so while making Gm money. It just needs to be faster then the rest of its class.
I don't see them coming out with a 400+hp turbo V6, mainly because they've always gone to a V8 at that point (and why not, the 8 is small, light, cheap, and reliable). And if the ATS-V has under 400hp, especially if it is weighed down with AWD, I personally think they will miss the mark big time.
01-11-2012, 07:35 AM
#25
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep in mind the 2011-2012 Taurus Sho has a curb weight of a light 4,368lbs. So Drop 1000 lbs off of that and youll have a car that traps 120mph+ with just a tune and intake. Throw a 6 speed in the mix and you have a car that will be faster then the cts-v with less power, more fuel economy, and less money.
I'm not aware of too many cars (other than the GT-R or a Turbo/GT2) that are fast stock with a boosted 6-cylinder. And of course for those cars, fuel economy is not a selling point.
I also don't really see the fuel economy argument playing out for Ford.
An SHO with 350hp and AWD gets 17/25 MPG. A CTS AWD with 320hp gets 18/27 MPG. I can't think of too many other full size cars to compare to. An Impala is pretty big and somewhat Taurus comparable (not a SHO though), but for some reason it only makes 300hp from the same 3.6L.
The SHO has better economy than the '09 G8 GT, which came in at 15/24. Not a huge difference, but it's something. Though I think a stock G8 GT would walk a stock SHO. And modded, no question. I don't know what it is, but I would bet the "worlds fastest" G8 GT is a hell of a lot quicker than 12.2.
So it seems hard to find an apples-apples comparison of a boosted 6 vs a V8 to definitively show fuel economy improvements.
The F-150 sort of does, but a 5.0L gets 15/21 vs 16/22 for the EcoBoost. I guess that's as apples-apples as it gets. Except these are truck motors. The 5.0L in a car makes 50+hp more than an EcoBoost.
01-11-2012, 07:42 AM
#26
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, looking at the EPA numbers, plus the engine specs, the EcoBoost is impressing me more with the economy. The SHO's numbers are pretty decent for such a heavy car, though I still don't think they are fast enough to be interesting.
In the truck, it's really pretty impressive. The economy numbers are good, but so is the output. 360hp and 420 lb-ft. That sounds like a sweet truck engine for sure.
It's not making like 50% better economy, but better is better. If my V got 1mpg better economy on average, I wouldn't dismiss it. I wouldn't be telling people how frugal my car is, but it's something.
In the truck, it's really pretty impressive. The economy numbers are good, but so is the output. 360hp and 420 lb-ft. That sounds like a sweet truck engine for sure.
It's not making like 50% better economy, but better is better. If my V got 1mpg better economy on average, I wouldn't dismiss it. I wouldn't be telling people how frugal my car is, but it's something.
01-11-2012, 08:06 AM
#27
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Maryland, but home in Detroit alot!
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we missing the topic here...lol. If some of the big Ford tuners really but some time into it the SHO could be something nice... I know of two at home in Detroit with about 500hp but the guys who did them came from the Nissan TT world. If they make a V version of the ATS a AWD TT6 is the best way to go in my opinion. Turbochargers are way more effiecent than any supercharger. Alot of tuners i know love turbo cars over blowers. Superchargers are great for instant boost but when you make big power on a blower it normally sucks on the street side of the house as you have to baby the car til you hit the sweet spot and can step on it from there. I can dump the clutch in my STi at 6k on the street and it wont be anything near me except for another AWD turbo car. but back to what Caddi is gonna do with the ATS...lol
01-11-2012, 10:11 PM
#28
Close, not the same. When the V8 M3 came out, CandD tested it at 12.9 in the 1/4 vs the V10 M5 at 12.5. Something running 13's with mods won't be faster than the cars you just listed.
I don't see them coming out with a 400+hp turbo V6, mainly because they've always gone to a V8 at that point (and why not, the 8 is small, light, cheap, and reliable). And if the ATS-V has under 400hp, especially if it is weighed down with AWD, I personally think they will miss the mark big time.
I don't see them coming out with a 400+hp turbo V6, mainly because they've always gone to a V8 at that point (and why not, the 8 is small, light, cheap, and reliable). And if the ATS-V has under 400hp, especially if it is weighed down with AWD, I personally think they will miss the mark big time.
Why would the ATS-V be AWD?
Where are you getting any of this from?
01-11-2012, 11:33 PM
#30
Yeah, the SHO is a total porker. No doubt. That's why I asked if any "fast" cars used the EcoBoost. Maybe the EcoBoost brings with it a lot of weight. Or maybe Ford doesn't like building fast cars. I dunno. But 350hp in a 3,600 lbs car is unlikely to run 120mph in anything resembling streetable trim.
.
.
For comparisons sake, i went 112 on motor with my cam and long tubes, a c5z with the EXACT same cam and long tubes went 122mph. Thats 10mph and about a 700lb weight difference.
01-11-2012, 11:41 PM
#31
If a tune/intake 4350lb sho can go 111mph, i dont see any reason why a 3400lb car would have any problem going damnc lose to 120.
For comparisons sake, i went 112 on motor with my cam and long tubes, a c5z with the EXACT same cam and long tubes went 122mph. Thats 10mph and about a 700lb weight difference.
For comparisons sake, i went 112 on motor with my cam and long tubes, a c5z with the EXACT same cam and long tubes went 122mph. Thats 10mph and about a 700lb weight difference.
And as for the LS3, while I would think it would be a great move... for a global vehicle it doesnt make sense. More so if the next gen vette is going to evolution of the small block v8 which is to be different then what we know today. A v6tt that could find its way into various vehicles in GM's lineup isnt a bad idea. More so if it competes.
01-12-2012, 06:51 AM
#32
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you read the quoted part of my post, they were in response to people who suggested those things. I don't think it's been particularly hard to follow?
01-12-2012, 06:59 AM
#33
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a tune/intake 4350lb sho can go 111mph, i dont see any reason why a 3400lb car would have any problem going damnc lose to 120.
For comparisons sake, i went 112 on motor with my cam and long tubes, a c5z with the EXACT same cam and long tubes went 122mph. Thats 10mph and about a 700lb weight difference.
For comparisons sake, i went 112 on motor with my cam and long tubes, a c5z with the EXACT same cam and long tubes went 122mph. Thats 10mph and about a 700lb weight difference.
Also, is a tune/intake all that's done to that fastest SHO? I don't know anything about the car, but assumed there must be something more than the basic modding done to other cars in that video that were not running 12's.
01-12-2012, 07:03 AM
#34
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they made a car almost exactly like mine, but with like 2-3mpg better economy, a little more horsepower to a little less weight, no ropey/clunky driveline, no nervous diff, and with HUD, that's all I'd want to see. Anything else on top of that is icing to me. i definitely don't care about the CUE stuff, and magnaride I could take or leave.
01-12-2012, 09:02 AM
#35
Well if the base 4-banger ATS weighs 3400, I doubt a V model will come in under 3500. But also, if they put an engine similar to an EcoBoost in it, I guess it might mean the "worlds fastest" ATS-V could run 120mph. But it would also mean the stock one would have < 400 hp. I doubt stock it would be too exciting.
Also, is a tune/intake all that's done to that fastest SHO? I don't know anything about the car, but assumed there must be something more than the basic modding done to other cars in that video that were not running 12's.
Also, is a tune/intake all that's done to that fastest SHO? I don't know anything about the car, but assumed there must be something more than the basic modding done to other cars in that video that were not running 12's.
there and other articles they mention it being the size of a e46 and weigh under 3400 lbs. this link mentions it weighing near what a 1 series weighs. if the v version of this car is basically a better 1 m coupe we are in for a treat.
01-12-2012, 06:09 PM
#36
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dearborn Hts MI
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to see how GM handles ATS-V. Turbo 6 or V8, I wonder if there will be powertrain cooling issues...not a lot of frontal area on this car.
Also, the weight comes back into play. Either the turbo 6 or V8 will put ATS around 3600lbs +/- 100 (likely +) which just undercuts the V1 and also makes sense since ATS seems to be just a bit smaller than the 1st Gen CTS.
Also, the weight comes back into play. Either the turbo 6 or V8 will put ATS around 3600lbs +/- 100 (likely +) which just undercuts the V1 and also makes sense since ATS seems to be just a bit smaller than the 1st Gen CTS.
01-12-2012, 11:31 PM
#38
Well if the base 4-banger ATS weighs 3400, I doubt a V model will come in under 3500. But also, if they put an engine similar to an EcoBoost in it, I guess it might mean the "worlds fastest" ATS-V could run 120mph. But it would also mean the stock one would have < 400 hp. I doubt stock it would be too exciting.
Also, is a tune/intake all that's done to that fastest SHO? I don't know anything about the car, but assumed there must be something more than the basic modding done to other cars in that video that were not running 12's.
Also, is a tune/intake all that's done to that fastest SHO? I don't know anything about the car, but assumed there must be something more than the basic modding done to other cars in that video that were not running 12's.
01-13-2012, 02:08 AM
#39
On The Tree
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Currently El Paso, TX
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to jump on the wishing bandwagon here and hope for a ATS-V with a LS3. It could be built NOW, and as long as it doesn't get obese it will be very competitive with the suspension tuned to handle the extra weight. Since it's basically a mass market engine(meaning not hand-built in Wixom, MI) the price can be kept down. A whiz-bang TT V6 would be cool, but a V8 could be had right now with minimal work. The alpha platform is supposed to underpin both the next CTS and Camaro, so I'm sure it can be configured to house a V8. I just hope that GM would put a reliable drivetrain behind it, especially with how mod friendly the LS3 is. Really the LS3 is the solid business case here in terms of cost to produce vs performance.
01-13-2012, 02:50 AM
#40
I'm going to jump on the wishing bandwagon here and hope for a ATS-V with a LS3. It could be built NOW, and as long as it doesn't get obese it will be very competitive with the suspension tuned to handle the extra weight. Since it's basically a mass market engine(meaning not hand-built in Wixom, MI) the price can be kept down. A whiz-bang TT V6 would be cool, but a V8 could be had right now with minimal work. The alpha platform is supposed to underpin both the next CTS and Camaro, so I'm sure it can be configured to house a V8. I just hope that GM would put a reliable drivetrain behind it, especially with how mod friendly the LS3 is. Really the LS3 is the solid business case here in terms of cost to produce vs performance.