• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ATS-V: 450 hp, 3600 lbs...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I wonder how this drives. From what I've heard, the ATS platform drives like crap. I would think to think this would drive different from the normal ATS, but I can't help but fear it won't.

Come to think of it, I haven't driven a CTS on that Alpha platform either. Only a CTS-V and the older CTS models on Sigma.

Anyone have any experience?
 
smackababy said:
I wonder how this drives. From what I've heard, the ATS platform drives like crap. I would think to think this would drive different from the normal ATS, but I can't help but fear it won't.

Come to think of it, I haven't driven a CTS on that Alpha platform either. Only a CTS-V and the older CTS models on Sigma.

Anyone have any experience?
Click to expand...

Really? Motortrend gave it 1st place over the 335, c350 specifically for its handling.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
Unless they're trying to hold the LT1 for Chevy and the Vette and Camaro in specific. Either way it just seems weird to have two engines which fit about the same use (performance oriented, powerful but efficient). I'm skeptical that there's some major packaging disparity between them too (the LT1 is quite compact) and the places where this twin turbo V6 are going the LT1 would make just as much sense. I wouldn't be surprised if the LT1 is actually more efficient and maybe even lighter too.
Click to expand...

the new camaro is ATS based, guessing it's some part keeping cannbalization to a minimum and also some part luxury "technology" buyers vs. just gimmee performance buyers
 
Midwayman said:
Really? Motortrend gave it 1st place over the 335, c350 specifically for its handling.
Click to expand...

I am only going by people who have driven them. I've only driven the Sigma platform CTS and CTS-V (which are still Sigma platform; IIRC, only the normal CTS moved off it), so I can't comment with first hand experience. In one case, they actually went from a c350 to a rental ATS for like a week and hated how it drove. I'm sure options and it being a rental didn't lend to the experience, though.
 
smackababy said:
I am only going by people who have driven them. I've only driven the Sigma platform CTS and CTS-V (which are still Sigma platform; IIRC, only the normal CTS moved off it), so I can't comment with first hand experience. In one case, they actually went from a c350 to a rental ATS for like a week and hated how it drove. I'm sure options and it being a rental didn't lend to the experience, though.
Click to expand...


My only guess is that the ride is not as "supple" as they may have desired. I've driven one and honestly it reminded me of a E46 with more structural rigidity (which in my mind was very good). I also have only driven a V6...don't know what the T4 is like.
 
smackababy said:
In one case, they actually went from a c350 to a rental ATS for like a week and hated how it drove. I'm sure options and it being a rental didn't lend to the experience, though.
Click to expand...

Wonder what model they got? The 3.6 is the one usually reviewed. I have a c350 and test drove the turbo model ATS when I was looking at cars. Didn't care for the power delivery on the turbo. They didn't have the 3.6 in RWD for me to try.
 
Midwayman said:
Wonder what model they got? The 3.6 is the one usually reviewed. I have a c350 and test drove the turbo model ATS when I was looking at cars. Didn't care for the power delivery on the turbo. They didn't have the 3.6 in RWD for me to try.
Click to expand...

The 2.0T is getting a torque boost from 260 to 295lb ft.
 
When GM was introducing the ATS and new CTS, the comment was that luxury consumers wanted a smoother engine. The LS6/2 and LSA are somewhat of a blacksheep in what Cadillac has been trying to do with various Northstar and other DOHC engines. I would not be surprised if the new CTS-V did not have the LT4, but something that potentially goes into the rumored Corvette Zora.

As far as looks, the front starts out good, but the back slowly descends into a Solara/Civic look. The rear of the car is ok and I'm glad they do something different with tail lights than other manufacturers.
 
Last edited:
KentState said:
When GM was introducing the ATS and new CTS, the comment was that luxury consumers wanted a smoother engine. The LS6/2 and LSA are somewhat of a blacksheep in what Cadillac has been trying to do with various Northstar and other DOHC engines. I would not be surprised if the new CTS-V did not have the LT4, but something that potentially goes into the rumored Corvette Zora.

As far as looks, the front starts out good, but the back slowly descends into a Solara/Civic look. The rear of the car is ok and I'm glad they do something different with tail lights than other manufacturers.
Click to expand...

This is true, if there really is a twin turbo v8 close to being ready it would be a great choice for the CTS-V. I would still love to see a CTS-V+ with a LT4 (or better) tho.
 
I don't think the cts-v will get the lt4 either. I think you'll see a twin turbo dohc v8 in that.... Maybe 5.5l or so... If the plan truly is to make the next vette mid engine... You can almost guarentee they will be ohv instead of cam in block as they won't have the same packaging height restrictions. Given that it is going to be really hard to top the new z06 with a front midship rear drive setup in a street car... Well... The rear midship engine arrangement does make sense for a Zora (proof of concept /engineering cost subsidizing) and future c8. A v8 with dohc would also benifit their whole truck line as it should be more efficient than the cam in block design.
 
smackababy said:
From what I've heard, the ATS platform drives like crap.
Click to expand...

You heard wrong. Go try it out.

I've driven the 2.0t and the 3.6. Buddy traded in a Pontiac G8 for one. I won't say I preferred the Caddy to the Pontiac but it was certainly more comfortable and aesthetically pleasing while not sacrificing much performance. Definitely not "crap".

If the ATS-V is any indication the next gen Camaro is going to be killer.
 
Wuzup101 said:
I don't think the cts-v will get the lt4 either. I think you'll see a twin turbo dohc v8 in that.... Maybe 5.5l or so... If the plan truly is to make the next vette mid engine... You can almost guarentee they will be ohv instead of cam in block as they won't have the same packaging height restrictions. Given that it is going to be really hard to top the new z06 with a front midship rear drive setup in a street car... Well... The rear midship engine arrangement does make sense for a Zora (proof of concept /engineering cost subsidizing) and future c8. A v8 with dohc would also benifit their whole truck line as it should be more efficient than the cam in block design.
Click to expand...

Please god no on putting any new DOHC v8 in the trucks. The LT platform is perfect for trucks.
 
Wuzup101 said:
What specifically would you be worried about? Edit: other than price.
Click to expand...

Reliability, repair cost, cheap LT iron block engines never becoming available for swaps 🙂

The current 5.3 is at least on par with the ecoboost, I don't see any need to replace the OHV small block for truck applications.
 
2015 F150 3.5L Ecoboost was supposed to go to 380hp and 460tq, so the Silverado 5.3L may be a little behind at 355hp and 383tq.
 
I have to agree. The current LT series of truck motors are quite good. Double overhead cam would make a more efficient engine, but at the cost of complexity and more maintenance. Think cam belt replacement, which if not done before it breaks, can wreck the valvetrain and pistons. Turbos, can also fail at the bearings or the blades sometimes break up. If that happens, you can expect a big bill due to internal motor damage.
 
bruceb said:
I have to agree. The current LT series of truck motors are quite good. Double overhead cam would make a more efficient engine, but at the cost of complexity and more maintenance. Think cam belt replacement, which if not done before it breaks, can wreck the valvetrain and pistons. Turbos, can also fail at the bearings or the blades sometimes break up. If that happens, you can expect a big bill due to internal motor damage.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, due to gov regulations, you'll probably end up seeing it sooner or later. I'm not saying that it's going to happen next year or anything - but I would expect it to happen as fuel economy standards imposed by the gov increase.

Assuming that it's a modern engine, it won't have a timing belt (a timing chain will be used). While chains do break, and they can certainly stretch, it's definitely a more robust system.

Modern turbos in stock applications are pretty resilient compared to what was common in the 90s and early 2000s (and before). I've never heard of a turbo compressor "breaking up" that was attributed to wear (I've heard of them breaking after being struck by something that was in the intake system). Bearings do wear, but gone are the days of having to rebuild a turbo every 60k miles. That just simply doesn't exist on passenger vehicles anymore.... they are generally considered lifetime equipment.

Note: not saying that I don't like the LT engines... just saying that eventually they will go to DOHC as mileage regulations increase.
 
Last edited:
Wuzup101 said:
Note: not saying that I don't like the LT engines... just saying that eventually they will go to DOHC as mileage regulations increase.
Click to expand...

How much more efficient would a DOHC engine be over the LT1? Comparing the 2015 Mustang GT and the Camaro SS Edmunds has the following:

Mustang GT
Auto - 16/25
Manual - 15/25

Camaro SS
Auto - 15/24
Manual - 16/24

The Camaro weighs about 75lbs more than the Mustang and has the older LS3 which is also a higher displacement engine than the Coyote. I know there are other factors that go into the comparison (gearing, aero, etc.) but I just can't see GM gaining much efficiency if the Mustang and Camaro are so close in mileage numbers.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
Oh and yeah comparing this to the GT-R is just baffling. It's like the people saying Mercedes ripped off the 911 with the new AMG GT.
Click to expand...
...well...the AMG GT looks MUCH more like the 911 than the GTR/ATS-V comparison.

(Remember when car names didn't look like your cat just walked on the keyboard?)

2015-mercedes-benz-gt-amg-artists-inline2-102-photo-547075-s-original.jpg


porsche911_side-500x260.jpg
 
Elfear said:
How much more efficient would a DOHC engine be over the LT1? Comparing the 2015 Mustang GT and the Camaro SS Edmunds has the following:

Mustang GT
Auto - 16/25
Manual - 15/25

Camaro SS
Auto - 15/24
Manual - 16/24

The Camaro weighs about 75lbs more than the Mustang and has the older LS3 which is also a higher displacement engine than the Coyote. I know there are other factors that go into the comparison (gearing, aero, etc.) but I just can't see GM gaining much efficiency if the Mustang and Camaro are so close in mileage numbers.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect it to be a huge gain, but with the new CAFE regs every little bit will help. Who knows - maybe they will go cam-in-cam with a 4v head. That would be pretty cool.

One thing is for certain... the LT1 sure is fun to drive. Torque everywhere.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top