Spied: 2015 Cadillac ATS-V

[buckeyemike]

Originally Posted by Rapid Runner

ughh.. don't really like Forced Induced engines, even in my Audi TT

Why can't they just shoved the LT1 in, I rather them mimic the C63 AMG

Because fuel economy. This is going to be the future, so I'd suggest accepting it.

[BloodRain]

Hopefully it has an 8, tt v6 should be the standard engine.

Originally Posted by buckeyemike

Because fuel economy. This is going to be the future, so I'd suggest accepting it.

No it isn't. Its a convoluted system of people who shouldn't have jobs trying to find a way to make money so they don't get their asses canned and realize how useless their positions really are at contributing anything but vitriol into the industry. The only reason that things are the way they are is because automotive/oil companies are patent whores, and are not allowing to proper efficient technology (COUGH HYDROGEN) to be incorporated into the a-b fleets... Instead we get to *****foot around with weak ass electric cars that are neutered for the a-b driver. Electric cars won't sell well until they can develop a better battery, not just recycle cell phone and laptop technology for a bigger lithium storage device.

And we are idiots for believing them.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by buckeyemike

Because fuel economy. This is going to be the future, so I'd suggest accepting it.

The LT1 would get roughly the same mileage as a TTV6. The V8 might even get better efficiency if they up the boost on the 6 so that it matches the LT1. Not that it really matters anyway because a difference of 1 mpg (between the TTV6 and V8) on a sub-model that will represent something between 0.1% and 0.2% of GM's annual US sales isn't going to move the needle very much on GM's overall CAFE score.

You put a TTV6 in a car like that for cost/simplicity purposes. The fewer engine families a car has, the simpler it is to build. The simpler a car is to build, the cheaper you can build it. This is the same reason that turbo 4 cylinders are replacing V6s in midsize cars.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by BloodRain

Hopefully it has an 8, tt v6 should be the standard engine.



No it isn't. Its a convoluted system of people who shouldn't have jobs trying to find a way to make money so they don't get their asses canned and realize how useless their positions really are at contributing anything but vitriol into the industry. The only reason that things are the way they are is because automotive/oil companies are patent whores, and are not allowing to proper efficient technology (COUGH HYDROGEN) to be incorporated into the a-b fleets... Instead we get to *****foot around with weak ass electric cars that are neutered for the a-b driver. Electric cars won't sell well until they can develop a better battery, not just recycle cell phone and laptop technology for a bigger lithium storage device.

And we are idiots for believing them.

Hydrogen isn't being held back by patents that are stashed away being un-used. There are a few really big reasons why you can't buy a hydrogen fueled car: there are essentially no places to fill the car up at, and its next to impossible to store a large volume of the stuff safely & cheaply. On top of that, gasoline has 4x the energy density per gallon that liquid hydrogen has. So even if a hydrogen car were to be twice as efficient as a gas engine, you would still need a tank twice the size to go just as far. Thats for liquid hydrogen -something that would be impossible to maintain in an automobile. Gasseous hydrogen is going to be bulkier than the liquid stuff to get the same energy, and at 'reasonable' temperatures & pressures its only going to be half as dense as the liquid. And even if you do manage to get sufficiently large capacity hydrogen tank, between fill ups a fairly high percentage of the fuel will escape through whatever vessel you're holding it in.

Lastly, hydrogen isn't a fuel. Its merely a means to store energy -it has to be processed from some other source, for a net loss in energy. At the level of the end user, this doesn't mean much. But at the infrastructure level, this poses massive problems, especially if you want to replace gasoline & diesel fuel (I don't think you do, but it is the logical conclusion to the claim that hydrogen is better than gasoline for cars). To switch to hydrogen en-mass would require some other energy source greater than the amount we get from oil. For the US to replace petroleum fuels with hydrogen for cars & trucks, it would probably take more energy then is currently produced by coal, nuclear, and hydro-electric combined. It wouldn't require a doubling of your electric power output, as there are non-electric means to produce hydrogen, but the take-home message is that there would need to be an insane amount of resources required in order to produce enough hydrogen to fuel America's vehicle fleet. And by resources, I don't mean just lumps of coal or pellets of uranium. I also mean money, to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't see anyone footing the bill for the hydrogen revolution any time soon

Also, something is wrong with your logic. Why would a 'patent whore' automotive company simply sit on a patent for a revolutionary technology that allows people to have all the performance they want with 0 carbon emissions (which I'm sure they'd get a CAFE score well into the triple digits for), and instead accept that they'll lose hundreds of millions of dollars on hybrid and EV programs? And if its the oil companies that are squirreling it away ... if the technology is viable in the market one of the large automakers would have licensed it to solve their CAFE worries. It would probably be worth at least a billion per year to GM or Ford or Toyota or VW or any other major automaker.

[FenwickHockey65]

We were supposed to get a hydrogen-powered bus for testing purposes in our fleet free from the manufacturer and ended up turning down their offer simply because there was literally only one route short enough to run the bus on without running out of fuel before the end of the day. And even that would be pushing it.

Hydrogen just isn't practical enough yet to replace gasoline.

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The LT1 would get roughly the same mileage as a TTV6. The V8 might even get better efficiency if they up the boost on the 6 so that it matches the LT1. Not that it really matters anyway because a difference of 1 mpg (between the TTV6 and V8) on a sub-model that will represent something between 0.1% and 0.2% of GM's annual US sales isn't going to move the needle very much on GM's overall CAFE score.

You put a TTV6 in a car like that for cost/simplicity purposes. The fewer engine families a car has, the simpler it is to build. The simpler a car is to build, the cheaper you can build it. This is the same reason that turbo 4 cylinders are replacing V6s in midsize cars.

I never got to reply to this argument in the last ATS-V thread that we bumped heads in. The TTV6 might as well be a different engine family because the engine bay needs to be designed around the engine in the sense of packaging, cooling, etc - Three engine choices is three engine choices, packaging wise - having a modified subframe (if you even need to move the engine mounting points) would probably be easier than packaging a twin turbo.

Once again I will clarify - I don't care if it is LT1 or LF3 (or w/e the TT is) but I'm going to guess it would be over 425hp. Why? The Camaro weighs ~400 lbs more with equivalent power and has 4 piston calipers. Maybe this isn't the case but we all know how well GM...."budgets" so why throw 6 piston calipers on a car that doesn't "need" them?

[BloodRain]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

We were supposed to get a hydrogen-powered bus for testing purposes in our fleet free from the manufacturer and ended up turning down their offer simply because there was literally only one route short enough to run the bus on without running out of fuel before the end of the day. And even that would be pushing it.

Hydrogen just isn't practical enough yet to replace gasoline.

Fen, thats in your city alone. Sometime the system needs to be modified. Why not two buses on the same route? Sure its twice as expensive however if you could produce your own fuel, time may negate the incurred costs depending on what/if they decide to use to produce the hydrogen.

It is practical if the government would stop bending over for the oil industry lobbyists and subsidize some refueling stations and a bit of the technology. But instead we let them monopolize everything and line the politics pockets. Just take a look at who owns what, and who associates with who. Legal crime empire there for sure.

We had tested hydrogen buses here in Vancouver successfully over 7 years ago. And we use them today as well up in Whistler. They worked great. Bio fuel, unless it is produced by hemp, is going to always waste product that could have been used for other things. That and it still pollutes. I hate being behind a bio fuel bus, fumes are nasty.

A hydro electric dam set up to produce only hydrogen with its energy would be interesting. Especially if they used small spillway capture systems.

Anyways, I have hope for the ATS-V. Should be a nippy little car.

[buckeyemike]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The LT1 would get roughly the same mileage as a TTV6. The V8 might even get better efficiency if they up the boost on the 6 so that it matches the LT1. Not that it really matters anyway because a difference of 1 mpg (between the TTV6 and V8) on a sub-model that will represent something between 0.1% and 0.2% of GM's annual US sales isn't going to move the needle very much on GM's overall CAFE score.

You put a TTV6 in a car like that for cost/simplicity purposes. The fewer engine families a car has, the simpler it is to build. The simpler a car is to build, the cheaper you can build it. This is the same reason that turbo 4 cylinders are replacing V6s in midsize cars.

So you're telling me a TTV6 off the powerband gets the same MPG as a V8? Have you ever driven a turbo car before?

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by BloodRain

Fen, thats in your city alone. Sometime the system needs to be modified. Why not two buses on the same route? Sure its twice as expensive however if you could produce your own fuel, time may negate the incurred costs depending on what/if they decide to use to produce the hydrogen.

It is practical if the government would stop bending over for the oil industry lobbyists and subsidize some refueling stations and a bit of the technology. But instead we let them monopolize everything and line the politics pockets. Just take a look at who owns what, and who associates with who. Legal crime empire there for sure.

We had tested hydrogen buses here in Vancouver successfully over 7 years ago. And we use them today as well up in Whistler. They worked great. Bio fuel, unless it is produced by hemp, is going to always waste product that could have been used for other things. That and it still pollutes. I hate being behind a bio fuel bus, fumes are nasty.

A hydro electric dam set up to produce only hydrogen with its energy would be interesting. Especially if they used small spillway capture systems.

Anyways, I have hope for the ATS-V. Should be a nippy little car.

Because they only offered us one bus and like I said, it would've run low or out of fuel by the end of the day. It's just not practical.

There are a plethora of reasons as to why hydrogen isn't feasible yet. Everyone seems to think it's a quick fix to the energy crisis when it's much more complicated than that.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Hydrogen isn't being held back by patents that are stashed away being un-used. There are a few really big reasons why you can't buy a hydrogen fueled car: there are essentially no places to fill the car up at, and its next to impossible to store a large volume of the stuff safely & cheaply. On top of that, gasoline has 4x the energy density per gallon that liquid hydrogen has. So even if a hydrogen car were to be twice as efficient as a gas engine, you would still need a tank twice the size to go just as far. Thats for liquid hydrogen -something that would be impossible to maintain in an automobile. Gasseous hydrogen is going to be bulkier than the liquid stuff to get the same energy, and at 'reasonable' temperatures & pressures its only going to be half as dense as the liquid. And even if you do manage to get sufficiently large capacity hydrogen tank, between fill ups a fairly high percentage of the fuel will escape through whatever vessel you're holding it in.

Lastly, hydrogen isn't a fuel. Its merely a means to store energy -it has to be processed from some other source, for a net loss in energy. At the level of the end user, this doesn't mean much. But at the infrastructure level, this poses massive problems, especially if you want to replace gasoline & diesel fuel (I don't think you do, but it is the logical conclusion to the claim that hydrogen is better than gasoline for cars). To switch to hydrogen en-mass would require some other energy source greater than the amount we get from oil. For the US to replace petroleum fuels with hydrogen for cars & trucks, it would probably take more energy then is currently produced by coal, nuclear, and hydro-electric combined. It wouldn't require a doubling of your electric power output, as there are non-electric means to produce hydrogen, but the take-home message is that there would need to be an insane amount of resources required in order to produce enough hydrogen to fuel America's vehicle fleet. And by resources, I don't mean just lumps of coal or pellets of uranium. I also mean money, to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't see anyone footing the bill for the hydrogen revolution any time soon

Also, something is wrong with your logic. Why would a 'patent whore' automotive company simply sit on a patent for a revolutionary technology that allows people to have all the performance they want with 0 carbon emissions (which I'm sure they'd get a CAFE score well into the triple digits for), and instead accept that they'll lose hundreds of millions of dollars on hybrid and EV programs? And if its the oil companies that are squirreling it away ... if the technology is viable in the market one of the large automakers would have licensed it to solve their CAFE worries. It would probably be worth at least a billion per year to GM or Ford or Toyota or VW or any other major automaker.

That!

That has always been the 2nd level of conspiracy. It't not the oil companies, it's the OEMs, it's already been invented they are a) in cahoots with the oil companies b) been paid off by the oil companies or c) they are waiting for some unknown reason.

GM has had the "In your driveway" program for some years now. If you read up on that you will see the difficulties of fueling and driving a vehicle with 10,000 psi (that's a lot, look it up) tanks to give you a 250 mile range.

Honda too has had a small fleet of fuel cell vehicles and BMW has had a fleet of liquid hydrogen powered cars running around.

It isn't being hidden, they are all over the place. But it remains either a science experiment or simply a more expensive way to propel a vehicle.

Here is the rule, when profit can be made on it without government subsidies, it will happen on it's own. Until then gas is still cheap and any other alternative is far more expensive or simply has infrastructure problems or simply less usable range.

Gas is tough nut to crack. It transports easy, stores easy and burns the best.

Now about those spy shots...............................

[BloodRain]

All this worry about emissions and pollution, then we get the people who consider it 'just a more expensive way of travel'

Riiiiggghhhhttttt. Which one is it guys? better fuel economy out of gasoline is just a bandaid fix.

[FenwickHockey65]

Hydrogen isn't a viable source of energy for automobiles yet. End of story. And no, there aren't any conspiracies against it or whatever.

[CamaroSkooter]

The leftlanenews site sucks. Whenever I go there, it takes forever for a page to load the overwhelming number of advertisements, and each picture is on a separate page, requiring time to load the ads every time I want to check out a new photo...

[/rant]

[knowitman]

Originally Posted by buckeyemike

So you're telling me a TTV6 off the powerband gets the same MPG as a V8? Have you ever driven a turbo car before?

Depending on how much the engine is boosted, I could see it getting the same MPG as a V8. Higher boosted engines generally have lower compression ratios which leads to a drop in efficiency. It becomes a balance of enough boost to feel the difference while still somewhat maintaining the gas mileage of the smaller displacement if you are trying to turbo for efficiency. The 2.0L ATS only gets 1 mpg better than the 3.6L ATS according to EPA estimates. My friend with a relatively new STI manages roughly the same gas mileage as a Camaro SS, yet he is running a 4 cylinder engine with nearly 400 hp.