Dead: Cadillac ATS Sedan

[KrisZ]

Diesel in a V version,

There is a reason why nobody listens to automotive enthusiasts, they don't buy cars they say they would. Performance wagons with manual gearbox, yup ask on any forum and the overwhelming majority will say "heck yes, just make it and I'll write a check for it tomorrow". Yes, and then when wagons from Cadillac or BMW show up, heck even a Mazda 6 with a V6 and a manual counted for something, nobody bought them. The loudest ones probably ended up buying a CUV of some sort with paddle shifters LOL!

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
The reason I think a 2.8L Duramax would work well in an ATS-V is in part to my daughter test driving a Diesel Colorado 2 months ago. We were climbing a 7% grade and I told her to get this thing moving. "I'm going 140 (km)". Diesel Canyon/Colorado owners report fuel economy in the 8-9 liters per 100km range.

From tuning MX motorcycles, to make a bike fast; suspension, tires & rider trumps horsepower.
With 4 wheels on a twisty road at legal speeds, I'll take torque over horsepower.
At higher speeds, horsepower rules.

Last but not least, Diesel is 25% cheaper than premium gasoline. What good is a ride if you can't afford to drive it?

Santa are you listening? An ATS-V with a manual transmission, chipped 'n deleted, sans EGR & DPF.


I was getting ready to get all over you about the cost of modern diesel engines until I read the last line in your post, where you totally undercut your own argument. The only way a diesel ATS would ever reach the market would be for GM to engineer the DPF and SCR systems in the car in the first place. And then you would come along and commit a federal crime by removing those systems to make the car into something that you desire. GM went through almost that exact exercise with the Cruze 2.0L diesel a few years ago (though it didn't have a manual trans), and it made no impact on the market. Now they've gone and done the same thing again with the 1.6L Cruze diesel, and we'll just have to wait and see if it does any better.

If you're going to build a V-spec Cadillac, Horsepower matters. Don't tell me about 369 ft*lbs of torque at 2000 rpm; the twin turbo LF4 V6 in the ATS-V makes 375 ft*lbs at 2000 rpm, and 445 ft*lbs at 3500.

In my hometown yesterday, diesel was $3.20/gal, and premium gasoline was $3.60, so the price advantage of diesel for me is more like 11%. And the additional initial cost of buying the diesel option in modern vehicles will not be offset by the fuel economy advantage until you get over 200,000 miles, and most people don't keep their cars that long.

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Diesel in a V version,

There is a reason why nobody listens to automotive enthusiasts, they don't buy cars they say they would. Performance wagons with manual gearbox, yup ask on any forum and the overwhelming majority will say "heck yes, just make it and I'll write a check for it tomorrow". Yes, and then when wagons from Cadillac or BMW show up, heck even a Mazda 6 with a V6 and a manual counted for something, nobody bought them. The loudest ones probably ended up buying a CUV of some sort with paddle shifters LOL!



Yup, talk is cheap. Never gauge interest off of internet or polling data. When it comes to actually putting your money were your mouth is, 90% of people flake.

 

[jeepman3071]

Makes sense, it didn't sell very well. I don't see many Caddy's around and when I do they are Escalades.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
If you're going to build a V-spec Cadillac, Horsepower matters. Don't tell me about 369 ft*lbs of torque at 2000 rpm; the twin turbo LF4 V6 in the ATS-V makes 375 ft*lbs at 2000 rpm, and 445 ft*lbs at 3500.
The V6 is good, no doubt, but you've got to understand why HP really doesn't matter to a Cadillac buyer: They would value that big diesel 369 ft-lb kick of torque, WHILE ALSO getting incredibly good MPG (bragging rights, Cadillac territory!). Torque is what counts, not ultimate horsepower, unless you're racing competitively (rare) or towing up 8% grades (rare in a Caddy).

Remember a Cadillac buyer wants something interesting & special, and if they didn't care about that they would just buy a Corolla or some cheap boring car. People buy Cadillacs to impress others AND amuse themselves, with comfort and bragging rights to justify the extra cost over a Chevy.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Ha. A festival of misinformation. It was hugely entertaining to hear how a V-6 diesel should weigh in like a gas V-6!

Your misinformation stands out. Since when is the current 2.8L GM turbo-diesel a V6? Its a 4. It hasn't grown.
That engine would feel pretty good in an ATS. Peak torque of 369 ft-lbs at 2000 RPM would work.


Even if it is a 4 banger it weighs 520 pounds! I suppose that seems light to you?

The V6 in the caddy is an all aluminum masterpiece that weighs 370 without turbos, almost guaranteed to be lighter than your diesel even fully dressed for work.

And it sports a diesel-like power curve that gets real fat from 2 grand up. Far more enthusiast oriented, glad you're not deciding what GM sells. This engine is a fantastic little V6 that stands up with anything similarly sized. Especially diesels!

 

[fdcg27]

You mean kinda like VW and Audi or Toyota and Lexus?
Platform and powertrain sharing is neither new nor evil in the world of cars.
Image is everything and Audis that are really VWs and Lexus cars that are really Toyotas have a distinctly different image from the more plebian platforms on which they're built.
On topic, I like the ATS. It is a unique car in appearance in a world of jelly beans.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Even if it is a 4 banger it weighs 520 pounds! I suppose that seems light to you?
No "if", its a 4 cylinder engine indeed, not the v6 you claimed it was. Mass is a relative measure, that's all. It does weigh "too much" to be a track car. Not a racing vehicle there. The diesel would work in the CT6 a little better, for somebody who wanted 369 ft-lbs of torque at 2k rpm while averaging 30 MPG in mixed driving.

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
The V6 in the caddy is an all aluminum masterpiece that weighs 370 without turbos, almost guaranteed to be lighter than your diesel even fully dressed for work.
OK, that's 410 lbs with all the dual turbo hardware, still not bad but still "heavy". Thanks for correctly identifying it as a "V6", I see you're making progress anyway.

A better compromise with power, mass, and efficiency is the 2.0L turbo 4 in the ATS. That one makes a great compromise. The dual-turbo V6 is way to complex and not an elegant way to achieve power.

Actually a normally aspirated Chevy V8 would be the best solution:
"A key to engine building is how many ponies you can pump out per pound, and that is exactly why Chevy went to such great length to minimize the engine’s weight. In fact, this 6.2-liter engine weighs just 465 lbs and is 25.3 inches tall. To put that into perspective, the ultra-powerful BMW 4.4-liter V-8 is mammoth when compared to the LT1, measuring 29.6 inches tall and weighing 503 lbs. To boot, the 4.4-liter powerplant falls 50 horsepower short of GM’s new LT1 engine. This gives the LT1 6.2-liter a 1.033-pound-per-horsepower to 1.257-pound-per-horsepower victory over the fame Bimmer engine."
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/c...e-ar136830.html

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
There is a reason why nobody listens to automotive enthusiasts, they don't buy cars they say they would.

And when they do, they're not a large enough demographic to make a difference. The thought process I put into buying a vehicle would make little practical sense to many people out there, but works for me, given my circumstances. Not many people are desperate to drive a cramped two door coupe, with RWD, and make sure they do so as a full time winter drive, too.

 

[userfriendly]

Couldn't find an ATS Diesel, so bought a 2018 High Country 6.6L instead. My 2011 still has the DPF intact.

In Saskatchewan removing & deleting is not unlawful.

 

[oilpsi2high]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
If you're going to build a V-spec Cadillac, Horsepower matters. Don't tell me about 369 ft*lbs of torque at 2000 rpm; the twin turbo LF4 V6 in the ATS-V makes 375 ft*lbs at 2000 rpm, and 445 ft*lbs at 3500.
The V6 is good, no doubt, but you've got to understand why HP really doesn't matter to a Cadillac buyer: They would value that big diesel 369 ft-lb kick of torque, WHILE ALSO getting incredibly good MPG (bragging rights, Cadillac territory!). Torque is what counts, not ultimate horsepower, unless you're racing competitively (rare) or towing up 8% grades (rare in a Caddy).

Remember a Cadillac buyer wants something interesting & special, and if they didn't care about that they would just buy a Corolla or some cheap boring car. People buy Cadillacs to impress others AND amuse themselves, with comfort and bragging rights to justify the extra cost over a Chevy.


LOL.

Yeah lets make an ATS-V that goes 0-60 in 8 seconds and runs 17s in the quarter.

Just look at the diesel 3 series. Theres a reason they sold so horribly here.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
If you're going to build a V-spec Cadillac, Horsepower matters. Don't tell me about 369 ft*lbs of torque at 2000 rpm; the twin turbo LF4 V6 in the ATS-V makes 375 ft*lbs at 2000 rpm, and 445 ft*lbs at 3500.
The V6 is good, no doubt, but you've got to understand why HP really doesn't matter to a Cadillac buyer: They would value that big diesel 369 ft-lb kick of torque, WHILE ALSO getting incredibly good MPG (bragging rights, Cadillac territory!). Torque is what counts, not ultimate horsepower, unless you're racing competitively (rare) or towing up 8% grades (rare in a Caddy).

Remember a Cadillac buyer wants something interesting & special, and if they didn't care about that they would just buy a Corolla or some cheap boring car. People buy Cadillacs to impress others AND amuse themselves, with comfort and bragging rights to justify the extra cost over a Chevy.

This is best statement in all this discussion.
Little bit of special with A LOT of Opel Insignia in it.

 

[oilpsi2high]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
If you're going to build a V-spec Cadillac, Horsepower matters. Don't tell me about 369 ft*lbs of torque at 2000 rpm; the twin turbo LF4 V6 in the ATS-V makes 375 ft*lbs at 2000 rpm, and 445 ft*lbs at 3500.
The V6 is good, no doubt, but you've got to understand why HP really doesn't matter to a Cadillac buyer: They would value that big diesel 369 ft-lb kick of torque, WHILE ALSO getting incredibly good MPG (bragging rights, Cadillac territory!). Torque is what counts, not ultimate horsepower, unless you're racing competitively (rare) or towing up 8% grades (rare in a Caddy).

Remember a Cadillac buyer wants something interesting & special, and if they didn't care about that they would just buy a Corolla or some cheap boring car. People buy Cadillacs to impress others AND amuse themselves, with comfort and bragging rights to justify the extra cost over a Chevy.

This is best statement in all this discussion.
Little bit of special with A LOT of Opel Insignia in it.


Except the ATS was new from the ground-up and has NOTHING to do with the Opel Insignia.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: oilpsi2high
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
If you're going to build a V-spec Cadillac, Horsepower matters. Don't tell me about 369 ft*lbs of torque at 2000 rpm; the twin turbo LF4 V6 in the ATS-V makes 375 ft*lbs at 2000 rpm, and 445 ft*lbs at 3500.
The V6 is good, no doubt, but you've got to understand why HP really doesn't matter to a Cadillac buyer: They would value that big diesel 369 ft-lb kick of torque, WHILE ALSO getting incredibly good MPG (bragging rights, Cadillac territory!). Torque is what counts, not ultimate horsepower, unless you're racing competitively (rare) or towing up 8% grades (rare in a Caddy).

Remember a Cadillac buyer wants something interesting & special, and if they didn't care about that they would just buy a Corolla or some cheap boring car. People buy Cadillacs to impress others AND amuse themselves, with comfort and bragging rights to justify the extra cost over a Chevy.

This is best statement in all this discussion.
Little bit of special with A LOT of Opel Insignia in it.


Except the ATS was new from the ground-up and has NOTHING to do with the Opel Insignia.

LOL, really. That Cosworth/Opel originated engine in ATS has A LOT to do with Opel.
Though it could serve also as an example how to mess up brilliant engine that once was.

 

[userfriendly]

One car I wouldn't buy is a Camaro with a 2L 4 cylinder engine. A 4.3L V-6 makes more sense to me.
In fact instead, drop 2 cylinders off the 6.2L and call it a 283.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Even if it is a 4 banger it weighs 520 pounds! I suppose that seems light to you?
No "if", its a 4 cylinder engine indeed, not the v6 you claimed it was. Mass is a relative measure, that's all. It does weigh "too much" to be a track car. Not a racing vehicle there. The diesel would work in the CT6 a little better, for somebody who wanted 369 ft-lbs of torque at 2k rpm while averaging 30 MPG in mixed driving.

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
The V6 in the caddy is an all aluminum masterpiece that weighs 370 without turbos, almost guaranteed to be lighter than your diesel even fully dressed for work.
OK, that's 410 lbs with all the dual turbo hardware, still not bad but still "heavy". Thanks for correctly identifying it as a "V6", I see you're making progress anyway.

A better compromise with power, mass, and efficiency is the 2.0L turbo 4 in the ATS. That one makes a great compromise. The dual-turbo V6 is way to complex and not an elegant way to achieve power.

Actually a normally aspirated Chevy V8 would be the best solution:
"A key to engine building is how many ponies you can pump out per pound, and that is exactly why Chevy went to such great length to minimize the engine’s weight. In fact, this 6.2-liter engine weighs just 465 lbs and is 25.3 inches tall. To put that into perspective, the ultra-powerful BMW 4.4-liter V-8 is mammoth when compared to the LT1, measuring 29.6 inches tall and weighing 503 lbs. To boot, the 4.4-liter powerplant falls 50 horsepower short of GM’s new LT1 engine. This gives the LT1 6.2-liter a 1.033-pound-per-horsepower to 1.257-pound-per-horsepower victory over the fame Bimmer engine."
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/c...e-ar136830.html


Hilarious.

All you got is "V6, V6". Never once noted the substance, and your best refutation was in favor of a V8!

Yep, I called it a V6 in error. But you changed the goalposts in mid post! Hahaha, keep trying!

 

[oil_film_movies]

As usual, SteveSRT8 whines and complains, with no valid info.

 

[oilpsi2high]

Quote:
Except the ATS was new from the ground-up and has NOTHING to do with the Opel Insignia.

Quote:
LOL, really. That Cosworth/Opel originated engine in ATS has A LOT to do with Opel.
Though it could serve also as an example how to mess up brilliant engine that once was.


They messed up how, by making an even better 2.0L turbo that's regularly on Ward's 10 best list? Your arguments make zero sense.