We just got one for my mom a few months ago. She loves it. It replaced her 2008 CTS with the 3.6DI. I was concerned she would miss the power of the 3.6 but so far we are impressed with the 2.0T. She has 4200 miles so far. Hers is Black and even has Brembo brakes. If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
2017 Cadillac ATS 2.0T AWD... just picked it up
- Thread starter webfors
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
LOL … looks like you did pull over and then get right back cruising …
Distinctive look among the vanilla wafers these days …
Distinctive look among the vanilla wafers these days …
Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
The 2.0 drops off after 5500 rpm, the 3.6 pulls right up to the redline.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
The 2.0 drops off after 5500 rpm, the 3.6 pulls right up to the redline.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Very nice. My Malibu has the same engine down about 15 hp, but it is good little engine. We are 37,000ish and not issues. Never needs make up oil. Still really new, but it motivates the Malibu pretty well.
Enjoy the Caddy!
Enjoy the Caddy!
If you think you'll own it long enough to worry about DI deposits, here is what I settled on (for my first turbo and DI car)
Renewable Lubricants Inc BioPlus - for every fill-up. Maintenance dose is ~1oz/15gal.
LC20 regimen, also.
Both are economical to use, and more of a hassle than a cost. They're also pretty well-regarded companies/products, and sure as heck won't hurt. I won't be doing any Techron/Regane or other treatments. Just the above and M1 0w40 at 10k intervals, per VW. (the LC20 helps me be okay with 10k mile OCI on a DI turbo)
my .02
Otherwise, enjoy the car and do some Italian tune-up to burn off the carbon also!
Renewable Lubricants Inc BioPlus - for every fill-up. Maintenance dose is ~1oz/15gal.
LC20 regimen, also.
Both are economical to use, and more of a hassle than a cost. They're also pretty well-regarded companies/products, and sure as heck won't hurt. I won't be doing any Techron/Regane or other treatments. Just the above and M1 0w40 at 10k intervals, per VW. (the LC20 helps me be okay with 10k mile OCI on a DI turbo)
my .02
Otherwise, enjoy the car and do some Italian tune-up to burn off the carbon also!
Very nice. Congrats!!
Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
Yes.
I own a 3.6 CTS and while Mom's ATS 2.0T is very peppy, it does not run as hard as a 3.6. The 3.6 is also much smoother, sounds better and doesn't work as hard or have funny exhaust sounds. Balls to the wall I realize the difference between a 2.0t and 3.6 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are within a few tenths of each other - it's just 2 different way to do it. I love turbos (have an 87 Buick GN) but I prefer smoothness.
Still a great car! Congrats on it and that 2.0T will serve you well. Just don't drive a 3.6 version
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
Yes.
I own a 3.6 CTS and while Mom's ATS 2.0T is very peppy, it does not run as hard as a 3.6. The 3.6 is also much smoother, sounds better and doesn't work as hard or have funny exhaust sounds. Balls to the wall I realize the difference between a 2.0t and 3.6 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are within a few tenths of each other - it's just 2 different way to do it. I love turbos (have an 87 Buick GN) but I prefer smoothness.
Still a great car! Congrats on it and that 2.0T will serve you well. Just don't drive a 3.6 version
Last edited:
That car looks great. If I’m not mistaken the front wheels get 35% of the torque full time & then adjusts from there based on traction. Keep those diffs and t-case running smooth. Sometimes GM doesn’t offer enough fluid capacity in these units and it’s beneficial to change the fluid more frequently.
I drove an ATS before getting my BMW. It quickly becomes apparent that the ATS has a better chassis than the 3 series does, it was almost a revelation to drive (it reminded me of my S2000 but with 4 doors and more refinement). Comparing 2.0T to 2.0T the BMW did have a noticeable advantage in terms of lag. In the end my wife convinced me to step up to the 340i with the 3.0T and it was no contest at that point. However, powertrain comparisons aside, the ATS is an absolutely fantastic driving experience. Congrats. and enjoy it!
Originally Posted By: oilpsi2high
Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
The 2.0 drops off after 5500 rpm, the 3.6 pulls right up to the redline.
Who needs redline when all your power is earlier in the rpm band. Just shift early and stay in full boost.
Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
The 2.0 drops off after 5500 rpm, the 3.6 pulls right up to the redline.
Who needs redline when all your power is earlier in the rpm band. Just shift early and stay in full boost.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Very nice. My Malibu has the same engine down about 15 hp, but it is good little engine. We are 37,000ish and not issues. Never needs make up oil. Still really new, but it motivates the Malibu pretty well.
Enjoy the Caddy!
That's great to hear! I have heard a lot of good things about this engine, minus the early pre-ignition issues early on.
Very nice. My Malibu has the same engine down about 15 hp, but it is good little engine. We are 37,000ish and not issues. Never needs make up oil. Still really new, but it motivates the Malibu pretty well.
Enjoy the Caddy!
That's great to hear! I have heard a lot of good things about this engine, minus the early pre-ignition issues early on.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
If you think you'll own it long enough to worry about DI deposits, here is what I settled on (for my first turbo and DI car)
Renewable Lubricants Inc BioPlus - for every fill-up. Maintenance dose is ~1oz/15gal.
LC20 regimen, also.
Otherwise, enjoy the car and do some Italian tune-up to burn off the carbon also!
What does the BioPlus and LC20 do?
RE: Italian tune ups, absolutely. No worries there
If you think you'll own it long enough to worry about DI deposits, here is what I settled on (for my first turbo and DI car)
Renewable Lubricants Inc BioPlus - for every fill-up. Maintenance dose is ~1oz/15gal.
LC20 regimen, also.
Otherwise, enjoy the car and do some Italian tune-up to burn off the carbon also!
What does the BioPlus and LC20 do?
RE: Italian tune ups, absolutely. No worries there
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
Yes.
I own a 3.6 CTS and while Mom's ATS 2.0T is very peppy, it does not run as hard as a 3.6. The 3.6 is also much smoother, sounds better and doesn't work as hard or have funny exhaust sounds. Balls to the wall I realize the difference between a 2.0t and 3.6 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are within a few tenths of each other - it's just 2 different way to do it. I love turbos (have an 87 Buick GN) but I prefer smoothness.
Still a great car! Congrats on it and that 2.0T will serve you well. Just don't drive a 3.6 version
drool.... Buick GN. My first turbo dream car...
Chassis balance, weight and fuel economy are benefits of the 2.0T also.
But I agree, I will not drive the 3.6 for fear of wanting it
Keep in mind, if you don't care about warranty, a tune will wake this little 4 banger up big time.
Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
Yes.
I own a 3.6 CTS and while Mom's ATS 2.0T is very peppy, it does not run as hard as a 3.6. The 3.6 is also much smoother, sounds better and doesn't work as hard or have funny exhaust sounds. Balls to the wall I realize the difference between a 2.0t and 3.6 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are within a few tenths of each other - it's just 2 different way to do it. I love turbos (have an 87 Buick GN) but I prefer smoothness.
Still a great car! Congrats on it and that 2.0T will serve you well. Just don't drive a 3.6 version
drool.... Buick GN. My first turbo dream car...
Chassis balance, weight and fuel economy are benefits of the 2.0T also.
But I agree, I will not drive the 3.6 for fear of wanting it
Keep in mind, if you don't care about warranty, a tune will wake this little 4 banger up big time.
Originally Posted By: Ammofirst
That car looks great. If I’m not mistaken the front wheels get 35% of the torque full time & then adjusts from there based on traction. Keep those diffs and t-case running smooth. Sometimes GM doesn’t offer enough fluid capacity in these units and it’s beneficial to change the fluid more frequently.
Interesting... I was OCD when I got my Soobs in the past... wasn't planning on worrying about these things with the Caddy. Probably a good idea.
I was also surprised to see that the same engine in AWD takes 5.7 liters of oil!
That car looks great. If I’m not mistaken the front wheels get 35% of the torque full time & then adjusts from there based on traction. Keep those diffs and t-case running smooth. Sometimes GM doesn’t offer enough fluid capacity in these units and it’s beneficial to change the fluid more frequently.
Interesting... I was OCD when I got my Soobs in the past... wasn't planning on worrying about these things with the Caddy. Probably a good idea.
I was also surprised to see that the same engine in AWD takes 5.7 liters of oil!
Another interesting bit in the manual (yes, I'm one of those that read the manual) is that 93 Octane is "Highly Recommended" and there is language that states using lower octane gas can be used but may result in engine damage. IMO, if lower octane gas can result in engine damage 93 octane should be mandated.
We have 94 octane everywhere here with Petro Canada. That's what she'll get.
We have 94 octane everywhere here with Petro Canada. That's what she'll get.
Nice car.
Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
Yes.
I own a 3.6 CTS and while Mom's ATS 2.0T is very peppy, it does not run as hard as a 3.6. The 3.6 is also much smoother, sounds better and doesn't work as hard or have funny exhaust sounds. Balls to the wall I realize the difference between a 2.0t and 3.6 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are within a few tenths of each other - it's just 2 different way to do it. I love turbos (have an 87 Buick GN) but I prefer smoothness.
Still a great car! Congrats on it and that 2.0T will serve you well. Just don't drive a 3.6 version
drool.... Buick GN. My first turbo dream car...
Chassis balance, weight and fuel economy are benefits of the 2.0T also.
But I agree, I will not drive the 3.6 for fear of wanting it
Keep in mind, if you don't care about warranty, a tune will wake this little 4 banger up big time.
You know you are really right about the balance of the 2.0T and the way it is tuneable. The 2.0T has the better weight advantage and just a mild tune with boost added and fuel to match is putting over 300hp so yes - that is the better choice over the 3.6 in that respect. Also - I hope I didn't come across wrong in my earlier post. I really like the car and Cadillac did it wonderful job on the dynamics of the car. It handles so well and the little 2.0 does pull hard right around 3000rpm. Feels bigger than it is.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
If I were to get one, I would go 3.6 however for the power bump and more smoothness.
And give up 20 foot pounds of torque, which come on 1800 RPM sooner?
That feeling of full boost at 3000 rpm is irreplaceable.
Outside of boost the car purrs like a kitten, can barely hear the engine.
Yes.
I own a 3.6 CTS and while Mom's ATS 2.0T is very peppy, it does not run as hard as a 3.6. The 3.6 is also much smoother, sounds better and doesn't work as hard or have funny exhaust sounds. Balls to the wall I realize the difference between a 2.0t and 3.6 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are within a few tenths of each other - it's just 2 different way to do it. I love turbos (have an 87 Buick GN) but I prefer smoothness.
Still a great car! Congrats on it and that 2.0T will serve you well. Just don't drive a 3.6 version
drool.... Buick GN. My first turbo dream car...
Chassis balance, weight and fuel economy are benefits of the 2.0T also.
But I agree, I will not drive the 3.6 for fear of wanting it
Keep in mind, if you don't care about warranty, a tune will wake this little 4 banger up big time.
You know you are really right about the balance of the 2.0T and the way it is tuneable. The 2.0T has the better weight advantage and just a mild tune with boost added and fuel to match is putting over 300hp so yes - that is the better choice over the 3.6 in that respect. Also - I hope I didn't come across wrong in my earlier post. I really like the car and Cadillac did it wonderful job on the dynamics of the car. It handles so well and the little 2.0 does pull hard right around 3000rpm. Feels bigger than it is.
- Status
Similar threads
