[FriskyDingo]

The LS7 is awesome.

The 3.6, not so much. It's not terrible, but it's a little harsh, and needs to be revved for power. Decent reliability and mileage. Overall, however, it doesn't hold a candle the boosted 6 cylinder offerings found elsewhere in the class.

[CirrusSR22]

Originally Posted by FriskyDingo

The LS7 is awesome.

The 3.6, not so much. It's not terrible, but it's a little harsh, and needs to be revved for power. Decent reliability and mileage. Overall, however, it doesn't hold a candle the boosted 6 cylinder offerings found elsewhere in the class.

I hadn't heard that it's harsh. Any links? The old one was, but the all-new V6 found in the 2016 cars has been getting spectacular reviews. One of Ward's 10 Best Engines, for example.

Sounds great too:

[David70]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

What they should do with the ATS is drop the NA V6. The 2.0 is a terrific powertrain and has more torque (at least than the outgoing V6). Having more torque makes it faster down low, which is what most people want, as the situations where you get to 100mph and are thinking "wow, I wish I had a lot more torque to go way faster quicker" are pretty rare, so I'd be totally fine with that. Then, they should have a 350hp turbo V6 "v-sport" edition with the ATS-V widebody kit and suspension. That would be an awesome 335/340 killer. As nice as these NA V6s are, having to wring them up to 4+K to make any torque simply takes all the fun out of it IMO.

They sell the V6 in all types of cars (Camaro, SRX, ATS, CTS), your idea of dropping it would only lower sales and give customers less choices and I can't see any good reason they should.

I bought the V6 ATS and picked it because I thought the 2.0T was far less smooth, has a poor sound, and lower redline (not sure why it bothers people to drop a gear and go to redline when you want the power - then the new engine has more). Then with the new V6 the hp, torque, and mpg have all gone up. I am not willing to spend what a turbo V6 would cost for my daily driver and think this car would get too close to the V to have decent sales.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by David70

They sell the V6 in all types of cars (Camaro, SRX, ATS, CTS), your idea of dropping it would only lower sales and give customers less choices and I can't see any good reason they should.

I bought the V6 ATS and picked it because I thought the 2.0T was far less smooth, has a poor sound, and lower redline (not sure why it bothers people to drop a gear and go to redline when you want the power - then the new engine has more). Then with the new V6 the hp, torque, and mpg have all gone up. I am not willing to spend what a turbo V6 would cost for my daily driver and think this car would get too close to the V to have decent sales.

Yeah, but those 2.0 turbo engines are able to put out full torque at 1200-1700rpm or so, that way trumps NA V6s IMO. For every day driveability and acceleration, that's the way to go IMO. What advantage does a NA V6 have over a turbo 4 like used in the ATS, 3-series, A4, etc? I think there's something to be said for NA engines, but NA V6s are in an odd place IMO, where turbo 4s are usually "torquier" powertrains and the HP of the V6 isn't exactly needed. In other words, would rather have 300lb/ft and 260hp than 300hp and 260lb/ft.

[David70]

Originally Posted by David70

I bought the V6 ATS and picked it because I thought the 2.0T was far less smooth, has a poor sound, and lower redline

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Yeah, but those 2.0 turbo engines are able to put out full torque at 1200-1700rpm or so, that way trumps NA V6s IMO. For every day driveability and acceleration, that's the way to go IMO. What advantage does a NA V6 have over a turbo 4 like used in the ATS, 3-series, A4, etc? I think there's something to be said for NA engines, but NA V6s are in an odd place IMO, where turbo 4s are usually "torquier" powertrains and the HP of the V6 isn't exactly needed. In other words, would rather have 300lb/ft and 260hp than 300hp and 260lb/ft.

I already said why I bought the V6, in addition V-6 is 87 octane, 2.0T is 91, gas mileage with new V6 is close to the same. With new V-6 hp is 63 higher than 2.0T and torque is only 10 less (you are swapping the hp/torque numbers like they are even between torque and hp and the opposite for the other but they aren't even close) . All it takes it a quick click on the paddles and for much of the same reason I like my "fun" cars 8000 redline I prefer high end hp and reasonable torque to higher low end torque and lower hp at lower rpm's. Same reason I never thought diesels were fun to drive, great low end torque but they die really early.

Also, my previous daily was a 2.0T Audi A3 and this engine in the ATS and I would have bought it. ATS's 2.0T was nowhere close when it came to things other than the numbers (sound, smooth, running through the rpm's), then the new V6 improves on this where the turbo hasn't changed.

I am also surprised when people say high end hp isn't needed. No, higher hp, higher rpms, sport/luxury cars, none of it is needed.

Yes you can tune the turbo but close to no one is actually buying/leasing ATS's and actually doing it.

My older V-6
321hp V-6 @6800
275 lb-ft @ 4800

New V-6 - cylinder deactivation, smoother, better mpg than previous V6.
335 hp @ 6800 rpm
285 lb-ft @ 5300 rpm

2.0T
272 hp @ 5500 rpm
295 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm

[quagmire]

Another advantage of NA is lower maintenance costs. Sure for those who lease, who cares about that if you are just going to dump the car after the lease, but those who buy them and will put miles on them, the simpler design of the 3.6 V6 is more appealing. Why my dad went with the 3.6 in his ATS to replace the 335xi.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by David70

I already said why I bought the V6, in addition V-6 is 87 octane, 2.0T is 91, gas mileage with new V6 is close to the same. With new V-6 hp is 63 higher than 2.0T and torque is only 10 less

True, but where is that tq? Every review to date of the 2.0t vs. 3.6 has said over and over again that the 2.0 feels significantly quicker down low. 295lb of tq coming on a lot earlier is going to make for a quick car, especially compared to 285 that comes on a lot later.

[FriskyDingo]

I'd much rather the 3.6 over the 2.0T, everything else being equal. The blown I4 may look good on paper, but it's a rather dull and uninspiring powerplant.

[Golden Arrow]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Actually, I don't imagine that because I don't care. Leaf springs are an absolute deal breaker for me.

IOW: I don't care how fast, composed, nimble, mind- or crotch-blowing, etc. a car is if it has leaf springs, because I don't want to own a car with an inherently limited and inferior suspension design that only suits non-driven hubs and (barely) live axle applications and dates to the 19th century -- and that is now commonly used almost exclusively for heavy-load applications (trucks, trailers ... locomotives!!!).

There's a reason for that last part -- actually, two reasons: It's all but maintenance free for the life of the vehicle no matter what its intent, and it's comparatively cheap to produce.

You're a prime example of why I love Corvette. You'll immediately write it off as a 19th century horse drawn cart. Even when I smoke you on the track, you'll continue to talk about how I have the inferior suspension set up.

Bye.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by 5ilver-5amurai

Well made and reliable is subjective, relative to what a person is used to driving. Their cars are cheaper and will get the job done, that's for sure. The price you pay is that often you get a car with cheaper grade metal, plastics, and paint.

LOL. You have no idea how cars are actually manufactured.

[MPerformance211]

That thing looks like shit. I've driven the '15 SS and was not impressed in the least. The interior is still utter garbage with hard plastic everywhere. Cheap ass buttons, piss poor grades of leather and terrible visibility.

I'd hate to see what this thing looks and sounds like in 4-5 years. No more GM shit for me.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

They sell the V6 in all types of cars (Camaro, SRX, ATS, CTS), your idea of dropping it would only lower sales and give customers less choices and I can't see any good reason they should.

I bought the V6 ATS and picked it because I thought the 2.0T was far less smooth, has a poor sound, and lower redline (not sure why it bothers people to drop a gear and go to redline when you want the power - then the new engine has more). Then with the new V6 the hp, torque, and mpg have all gone up. I am not willing to spend what a turbo V6 would cost for my daily driver and think this car would get too close to the V to have decent sales.

I just thought of this. Since the ATS is I think 2 years away from Gen2 release, maybe Cadillac will convince itself to put the new Camaro's new V6 and 6-sp manual in the ATS for the last 2 production years. I'd replace my E90 with it.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I just thought of this. Since the ATS is I think 2 years away from Gen2 release, maybe Cadillac will convince itself to put the new Camaro's new V6 and 6-sp manual in the ATS for the last 2 production years. I'd replace my E90 with it.

The 2016 ATS( as does the CTS) gains the new LGX 3.6 V6. Not just the manual( still only available with the 2.0T)

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by quagmire

The 2016 ATS( as does the CTS) gains the new LGX 3.6 V6. Not just the manual( still only available with the 2.0T)

That's the point, GM has had a manual trans for the old V6 (the last gen CTS) and the new V6 (Camaro), it wouldn't take much cost to add the manual to the new V6 for the ATS. All the hard point on the ATS chassis is the same as the 2016 Camaro. Trans mounts and a drive shaft I'd guess.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by MPerformance211

That thing looks like shit. I've driven the '15 SS and was not impressed in the least. The interior is still utter garbage with hard plastic everywhere. Cheap ass buttons, piss poor grades of leather and terrible visibility.

So like a 3 series interior.

Perhaps a chevy cruz would be more to your sporty-likings? That is definitely an "upright" car. Ford Fiesta RS is likely to be very upright.

Going in the same direction, perhaps you want an SUV? Excellent visibility usually.

[MrRoboto]

Motor Trend brass must own a hefty amount of GM stock.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by Golden Arrow

You're a prime example of why I love Corvette. You'll immediately write it off as a 19th century horse drawn cart. Even when I smoke you on the track, you'll continue to talk about how I have the inferior suspension set up.

Bye.

Viffer thinks the Camaro has leaf springs. The guy is absolutely clueless.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by MPerformance211

I'd hate to see what this thing looks and sounds like in 4-5 years. No more GM shit for me.

Sounds like an amazing candidate for track car build in a few years. One of the best chassis's built today, award winning LT1 vette engine, cheap running costs. Sign me up.

[CirrusSR22]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Motor Trend brass must own a hefty amount of GM stock.

Or maybe they just made a great car? Better chassis than an M4, better dampers, better traction management system, faster track time, more power, more torque, better MPG, AND a solid $25,000 less. Huge achievement.

[08njSTEP]

I agree that in 5 years the camaro will have rust issues. See it every day. 1 year old Chrysler's with all the fasteners rusted solid, Chevy trucks with substantial frame rust after 3 years. The US brands use unknown recycled metal. BMW and MB use their own metal for recycling.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by 08njSTEP

I agree that in 5 years the camaro will have rust issues. See it every day. 1 year old Chrysler's with all the fasteners rusted solid, Chevy trucks with substantial frame rust after 3 years. The US brands use unknown recycled metal. BMW and MB use their own metal for recycling.

Granted, I only kept my Camaro for 4 years, but it was 5 years old when I sold it, being a 2010, I didn't have any of those problems. You see it "every day"? What fasteners? Where is the rust? I see lots of rusted out vehicles here near the ocean, but it doesn't seem to be a particular brand, most likely I assume it's a combination of environmental factors.

[eric_spt]

Rust?

I haven't seen a car rust that was built in the past 7-8 years, regardless of who built it.

The C7 interior has more soft touch points and materials than the current 335. A big part of buying an S4 over the 335 was the interior was cheap, hard plastic up on the sills and everywhere else.

It may not be great leather but the entire dash, door, etc. is covered in a C7. The leather on the seats is cheap, at least the base leather but my C7 with manual, Magnetic Ride Control, Z51 Package, NPP Exhaust, 2LT package, pretty much everything except for 3LT(Nappa and NAV) was $58,600 and I paid $57,100, a few grand more than a loaded 235.

Nappa was not worth an additional 4K to get the better leather to me. The car is quiet and with MRC rides better than my S4. The powertrain is dead reliable and in 23K not a single issue with it.

I would not take a Cayman or any other car over a C7. Only thing I'd consider is a 911 Turbo to be a true competitor. Mine with a supercharger and meth sits at 645rwhp and 605ft lbs of torque. The stock motor will handle up to 700rwhp without issue and there are tons of them out there at that power level.

The new Camaro is a huge improvement and we had considered a convertible as the wife's summer car. The only issue is there are a lot of 4000-5000 mile '14 and '15 C7's out there at the same price point of a new 6th Gen Convertible 2SS.

To most people the two cars will handle similar. In a straight line they should be about dead even but pushed on the track the C7 is 2X the car the Camaro will be.

A lot has to do with tires and brakes but we just finished a 3 day class at Spring Mountain with C7's, track alignment, and a brake pad change. On 2nd warm up laps we were seeing 1.25g's in sweepers on the stock tires and that was not even pushing it.

Put the same tires on a Camaro and I'm sure it will be closer but stock for stock at the limit the two will be no where near each other.