rottnrog

Sounds good !!!


http://www.autoguide.com/manufacture...c-ats-v-review

GTman

Should get very interesting when guys start to mod them.

It'llrun

I just started another thread on it in Auto News Media & Press. Didn't see this (didn't look here) till after. That thread shows a bit more, like performance results. It REALLY GOES!

If ya wanna see it, https://ls1tech.com/forums/automotiv...-v-tested.html

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Did in the one video the GM Engineer say the ATS-V is quicker at the track than the previous model CTS-V?

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Yes I watched it again and the GM Engineer said its 4 seconds faster on the GM test track than the outgoing CTS-V. That's a HUGE difference. I hope the 2016 CTS-V can out do the ATS-V on the same track.

GTman

That is going to be a real interesting comparison with the ATS-V weighing right around 3600-3700 lbs. with its 464 HP versus the new CTS-V 's weight of approx. 4150-4200 lbs. and 640 HP.

rand49er

Road & Track complained about the engine being derived from the 3.6 passenger-car engine. They couldn't stop mentioning it. Seems to me it's got the same displacement but not much else. They also couldn't quite bring themselves to say it was better than the M3/M4 in any little way.

But then, what would you expect from an anti-domestic car rag like R&T?

Goosecaddy05

Becker

iTrader: (4)

looks pretty sweet...ya road and track is pretty biased but I think the ATS-V should put up quite the fight against the M class.

BudRacing

iTrader: (3)

Overall a pretty positive review. I would tend to agree that it lacks that guttural V8 sound, but the numbers are certainly there.

Goosecaddy05

The ATS-V sounds better than the M3, but just how well they stack up performance wise only time will tell. Motor Trend has the curb weight estimated at 3750 so that's still a pretty hefty old girl considering the new C63 merc is 100lbs lighter than that and has more power and tq. And then there is the styling. Out of the 3 cars the ATS-V's lines are my least favorite. M3 is 2nd and C63 1st by a huge margin. The C63 looks the best, has the best power to weight, nicest interior, and the most mod potential. Couple that with a price within 10k of the ATS-V and most people are going to choose the Merc. I know i will be.

NIKDSC5

iTrader: (10)

I love this fact. Because the V2 can be powerful and straight line fast, but has trouble in the turns.

Goosecaddy05

Yeah cars have just gotten way too heavy to be really happy on any king of curvy back road as of late. That's what makes cars like the GTR so praiseworthy even if they leave things to be desired in other areas. The ATS-V is the car the new CTS-V should have been IMO. That weight with 640 hp would be a huge selling point against its rivals. What does the new cts-v cost ? The ATS-V is 73k so I'm guessing the new CTS-V is in the high 80-90k range at least right?

Goosecaddy05

i see many lt4 swapped ATS-V's in the future

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Have you guys been in a ATS? They are pretty tight. As for the weight I don't see the rationale for all the weight on the CTS-Vs. Remember guys this is a CTS-V forum and the ATS will get its own at some point. The shocker IMO is why the lack of support the CTS-V sport got as far as performance.

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

As far as the ATS-V doing well against the BMW M3/M4 my MT from August 2014 reports the M4 running 12.1 at 119mph. That's with 425hp/406tq.

rand49er

When guys buy this car, I wonder what just a tune will do.

GTman

A tune done to a stock CTS V sport twin turbo 3.6 model produced an increase of 74 rwhp and 81 ft.lbs torque.

Goosecaddy05

The vid i posted earlier in this thread where Motor Trend is testing the ATS-V has it doing the 1/4 mile in 12.3 at 114.6. But they mention it was on a slight incline so it may get closer to the M4's et, but i doubt it will match the trap speed. The M4 actually has around 470hp crank. I doubt the ATS-V is underrated like the M4. The M4 sounds like literal bowel movements though. So I'd still take the ATS-V even if it is slower

88BlackZ-51

I have seen other vids of 0-60 in 3.8 seconds!