The XF is about 500 lbs heavier than the ATS though, which I would expect to manifest itself in handling. Being smaller and lighter has its pros. All depends on what one is looking for.
New 420hp V6 Twin Turbo from GM
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
All depends on what one is looking for.
Sadly, I've passed the small and nimble part of my life and arrived at the "like it roomy but still want some decent handling qualities" era.
Next thing I know, I'll be looking at Buicks. Well, not until they make RWD Buicks, again.
All depends on what one is looking for.
Sadly, I've passed the small and nimble part of my life and arrived at the "like it roomy but still want some decent handling qualities" era.
Next thing I know, I'll be looking at Buicks. Well, not until they make RWD Buicks, again.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
The XF is about 500 lbs heavier than the ATS though, which I would expect to manifest itself in handling. Being smaller and lighter has its pros. All depends on what one is looking for.
Per most mag opinions the ATS literally defines the segment in several categories. Of special note are the suspension and the brakes. They are pretty much the BEST out there. With some real horsepressure it could be one of the best small cars out there for someone looking for a real performer
Jag is using a mechanically supercharged V-6 and is seriously lacking in refinement of the drivetrain and suspension when compared to an ATS.
I agree the packaging is small for many of us, but what a great drivers car this will be!
The XF is about 500 lbs heavier than the ATS though, which I would expect to manifest itself in handling. Being smaller and lighter has its pros. All depends on what one is looking for.
Per most mag opinions the ATS literally defines the segment in several categories. Of special note are the suspension and the brakes. They are pretty much the BEST out there. With some real horsepressure it could be one of the best small cars out there for someone looking for a real performer
Jag is using a mechanically supercharged V-6 and is seriously lacking in refinement of the drivetrain and suspension when compared to an ATS.
I agree the packaging is small for many of us, but what a great drivers car this will be!
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
All depends on what one is looking for.
Sadly, I've passed the small and nimble part of my life and arrived at the "like it roomy but still want some decent handling qualities" era.
Next thing I know, I'll be looking at Buicks. Well, not until they make RWD Buicks, again.
Exactly why I bought my executive supercar!
They are going to make them! C&D was mentioned above, great things in the pipeline and more HP than ever before by far...
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
All depends on what one is looking for.
Sadly, I've passed the small and nimble part of my life and arrived at the "like it roomy but still want some decent handling qualities" era.
Next thing I know, I'll be looking at Buicks. Well, not until they make RWD Buicks, again.
Exactly why I bought my executive supercar!
They are going to make them! C&D was mentioned above, great things in the pipeline and more HP than ever before by far...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
The XF is about 500 lbs heavier than the ATS though, ....
And it's a mystery why it would be so porky. It's aluminum like our Xj8, but our Xj8 curbs at 3766, I think, with a V8, which is only 150 lbs or so more than the comparatively dinky, AWD ATS. Even the turbo four XF is a whopping 3660.
The XF is about 500 lbs heavier than the ATS though, ....
And it's a mystery why it would be so porky. It's aluminum like our Xj8, but our Xj8 curbs at 3766, I think, with a V8, which is only 150 lbs or so more than the comparatively dinky, AWD ATS. Even the turbo four XF is a whopping 3660.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Looks like chev has been reading fords play book and took a lesson. Dohc,twin turbo.
And Ford lifted the idea from the Audis of 10 years ago. Granted, the 2.7t in 1999 was only putting out 250hp, but it can be easily tuned to push that to 315hp.
I wonder if GM is using Borg-Warner turbos like Audi does. If so, any tuner can reliably push them up to 18psi or so and easily hit the 500hp mark. I just hope they have an auto transmission behind it that can handle all of the power.
Looks like chev has been reading fords play book and took a lesson. Dohc,twin turbo.
And Ford lifted the idea from the Audis of 10 years ago. Granted, the 2.7t in 1999 was only putting out 250hp, but it can be easily tuned to push that to 315hp.
I wonder if GM is using Borg-Warner turbos like Audi does. If so, any tuner can reliably push them up to 18psi or so and easily hit the 500hp mark. I just hope they have an auto transmission behind it that can handle all of the power.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
And as sciphi mentioned, aftermarket tuners will get 500hp and gobs of torque out of it easily.
Yes, and that is BEFORE upgraded turbos/meth injection/intercoolers/ancillaries/etc.!!
And as sciphi mentioned, aftermarket tuners will get 500hp and gobs of torque out of it easily.
Yes, and that is BEFORE upgraded turbos/meth injection/intercoolers/ancillaries/etc.!!
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: WishIhadatruck
Not sure it is quite enough for a ATS-V however.
There is probably not enough room under the hood of an ATS to fit in a V8, hence a blown V6 is the next best thing. And as sciphi mentioned, aftermarket tuners will get 500hp and gobs of torque out of it easily.
Actually it was designed to be able to house the 6.2L. The mounts are even placed in the same locations V6 to V8.
Originally Posted By: WishIhadatruck
Not sure it is quite enough for a ATS-V however.
There is probably not enough room under the hood of an ATS to fit in a V8, hence a blown V6 is the next best thing. And as sciphi mentioned, aftermarket tuners will get 500hp and gobs of torque out of it easily.
Actually it was designed to be able to house the 6.2L. The mounts are even placed in the same locations V6 to V8.
Originally Posted By: threeputtpar
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Looks like chev has been reading fords play book and took a lesson. Dohc,twin turbo.
And Ford lifted the idea from the Audis of 10 years ago. Granted, the 2.7t in 1999 was only putting out 250hp, but it can be easily tuned to push that to 315hp.
I wonder if GM is using Borg-Warner turbos like Audi does. If so, any tuner can reliably push them up to 18psi or so and easily hit the 500hp mark. I just hope they have an auto transmission behind it that can handle all of the power.
I dunno about their other engines, but the cruze uses a honeywell turbo.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Looks like chev has been reading fords play book and took a lesson. Dohc,twin turbo.
And Ford lifted the idea from the Audis of 10 years ago. Granted, the 2.7t in 1999 was only putting out 250hp, but it can be easily tuned to push that to 315hp.
I wonder if GM is using Borg-Warner turbos like Audi does. If so, any tuner can reliably push them up to 18psi or so and easily hit the 500hp mark. I just hope they have an auto transmission behind it that can handle all of the power.
I dunno about their other engines, but the cruze uses a honeywell turbo.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: WishIhadatruck
Not sure it is quite enough for a ATS-V however.
There is probably not enough room under the hood of an ATS to fit in a V8, hence a blown V6 is the next best thing. And as sciphi mentioned, aftermarket tuners will get 500hp and gobs of torque out of it easily.
Actually it was designed to be able to house the 6.2L. The mounts are even placed in the same locations V6 to V8.
Is a V8 heavier than a turbo V6? Maybe too heavy of an engine would throw off the weight distribution too much - something that they've worked really hard on keeping as close to 50:50 as possible.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: WishIhadatruck
Not sure it is quite enough for a ATS-V however.
There is probably not enough room under the hood of an ATS to fit in a V8, hence a blown V6 is the next best thing. And as sciphi mentioned, aftermarket tuners will get 500hp and gobs of torque out of it easily.
Actually it was designed to be able to house the 6.2L. The mounts are even placed in the same locations V6 to V8.
Is a V8 heavier than a turbo V6? Maybe too heavy of an engine would throw off the weight distribution too much - something that they've worked really hard on keeping as close to 50:50 as possible.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: WishIhadatruck
Not sure it is quite enough for a ATS-V however.
There is probably not enough room under the hood of an ATS to fit in a V8, hence a blown V6 is the next best thing. And as sciphi mentioned, aftermarket tuners will get 500hp and gobs of torque out of it easily.
Actually it was designed to be able to house the 6.2L. The mounts are even placed in the same locations V6 to V8.
Is a V8 heavier than a turbo V6? Maybe too heavy of an engine would throw off the weight distribution too much - something that they've worked really hard on keeping as close to 50:50 as possible.
I was reading today that they actually designed the ATS to be able to house up to a 7.0L engine or something in motortrend. And I would wager that the Twin Turbo DOHC V6 weighs more than the all-aluminum small block OHV V8. And is a heck of a lot bigger.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: WishIhadatruck
Not sure it is quite enough for a ATS-V however.
There is probably not enough room under the hood of an ATS to fit in a V8, hence a blown V6 is the next best thing. And as sciphi mentioned, aftermarket tuners will get 500hp and gobs of torque out of it easily.
Actually it was designed to be able to house the 6.2L. The mounts are even placed in the same locations V6 to V8.
Is a V8 heavier than a turbo V6? Maybe too heavy of an engine would throw off the weight distribution too much - something that they've worked really hard on keeping as close to 50:50 as possible.
I was reading today that they actually designed the ATS to be able to house up to a 7.0L engine or something in motortrend. And I would wager that the Twin Turbo DOHC V6 weighs more than the all-aluminum small block OHV V8. And is a heck of a lot bigger.
^^^Agree, at the end it all comes down to power to weight. I would like to see more lightweight materials used than complicated engine designs no one can work on. Makes me glad I have a 4.3 in my truck and the 3.5 in my car. I like simplicity.
I would suspect the 6.2L as in the Corvette is lighter than a DOHC V6 with the addition of a turbo/intercooler/etc but I am open to re-education. Although in this day and age why you would put a 420 hp V8 in a car rather than a 420 hp V6 is beyond me.
Originally Posted By: cchase
I would suspect the 6.2L as in the Corvette is lighter than a DOHC V6 with the addition of a turbo/intercooler/etc but I am open to re-education. Although in this day and age why you would put a 420 hp V8 in a car rather than a 420 hp V6 is beyond me.
# of cylinders doesn't mean squat. Displacement + 1000 other factors is why manufactures dont.
I would suspect the 6.2L as in the Corvette is lighter than a DOHC V6 with the addition of a turbo/intercooler/etc but I am open to re-education. Although in this day and age why you would put a 420 hp V8 in a car rather than a 420 hp V6 is beyond me.
# of cylinders doesn't mean squat. Displacement + 1000 other factors is why manufactures dont.
Originally Posted By: dja4260
Originally Posted By: cchase
I would suspect the 6.2L as in the Corvette is lighter than a DOHC V6 with the addition of a turbo/intercooler/etc but I am open to re-education. Although in this day and age why you would put a 420 hp V8 in a car rather than a 420 hp V6 is beyond me.
# of cylinders doesn't mean squat. Displacement + 1000 other factors is why manufactures dont.
Bottom line is I don't think the target audience of the ATS wants a growling V8.
Originally Posted By: cchase
I would suspect the 6.2L as in the Corvette is lighter than a DOHC V6 with the addition of a turbo/intercooler/etc but I am open to re-education. Although in this day and age why you would put a 420 hp V8 in a car rather than a 420 hp V6 is beyond me.
# of cylinders doesn't mean squat. Displacement + 1000 other factors is why manufactures dont.
Bottom line is I don't think the target audience of the ATS wants a growling V8.
^^^I think so too. Same as Vette buyers.
Offset crank pins. Yuk.
Looks great otherwise.
Looks great otherwise.
All V6s now use offset crank pins. They have to in order to obtain even firing. A V8 is smoother running and power delivering than a V6 or a turbo V6. The LS V8 is a particularly smooth sounding V8 and is already used in the top model CTS. The only reason really for this turbo V6 is to save a few MPGs. It's really the same principle as the Ford Egoboost instead of a V8 in pick ups, MPG.
Don't get me wrong, the LS-series engines sound great. I own an LS2 equipped vehicle, and I love the sound of the engine.
But it's completely out of character in a competitor in the Euro sports sedan segment...
But it's completely out of character in a competitor in the Euro sports sedan segment...
- Status
Similar threads
