ATS-V

[SVT666]

Not sure what the is for. Any weight savings is good savings,

For how much carbon fiber costs, you damn well better get more than 80 lbs savings.

[Cookie Monster]

For how much carbon fiber costs, you damn well better get more than 80 lbs savings.

The point is that BMW is finding ways to make it cheaper and more economical to build with.

[SVT666]

Is it worth it for such small gains?  It's the same thing with Ford's aluminum experiment, but at least that ended up with much larger gains and most likely cost less.

[12,000 RPM]

For how much carbon fiber costs, you damn well better get more than 80 lbs savings.

We are not talking a full carbon chassis, just use in certain points. Again BMW just made a $40K carbon EV, old notions of carbon costs are irrelevant. BMW has every intention of making carbon mainstream and I will bet soup to nuts they will make it happen. They made the i3/i8 happen.

[MrH]

Is it worth it for such small gains?  It's the same thing with Ford's aluminum experiment, but at least that ended up with much larger gains and most likely cost less.

Pretty much every OEM has a lb/$ ratio they work to. For example, for BMW, last I heard was it was 1 euro/lb. They'll pay one euro for every lb saved. Some OEMs also take into account distance from the CG into the formula (ie saving weight far from the CG is worth more than saving weight near the CG). As fuel economy and emission standards change, the formula changes to go with it.

Trust me, they have a much much better grasp on whether it's worth it or not than your gut instinct.

[SVT666]

Pretty much every OEM has a lb/$ ratio they work to. For example, for BMW, last I heard was it was 1 euro/lb. They'll pay one euro for every lb saved. Some OEMs also take into account distance from the CG into the formula (ie saving weight far from the CG is worth more than saving weight near the CG). As fuel economy and emission standards change, the formula changes to go with it.

That's interesting.

[Cookie Monster]

That's interesting.

Yeah, that's pretty cool actually. I wonder if it's more worth it for sports car development (I'd assume so).

[MrH]

Yeah, that's pretty cool actually. I wonder if it's more worth it for sports car development (I'd assume so).

Yeah, things change for each car. The one euro per lb rule for BMW was just a rough estimate I used when quoting them. When looking into weight savings proposals, I checked against that every time. I know ford had a similar rule, but BMW paid a little more for weight savings (at the time, one euro was about $1.25. Ford was paying around $1 per lb I think).

I know Audi and Tesla also have a multiplier factor depending on how far it is from the CG. Tesla is all about getting that weight as low as possible to keep that skateboard like platform. That's why that car handles so wacky for being so heavy. Huge amount of the weight is in the floor. You can go relatively soft on roll bars and springs and still not have much body roll when you can get the CG so low.

[12,000 RPM]

Lel @ Audi having any kind of concern for CG with their default engine placement. Nothing could be worse than a 400lb paperweight hanging in front of the front axle. Interesting stuff nonetheless

[SJ_GTI]

lol @ Audi having any kind of concern for CG with their default engine placement. Nothing could be worse than a 400lb paperweight hanging in front of the front axle. Interesting stuff nonetheless

I mean, if this was like 2006 that comment might make sense. But Audi spent development dollars moving the engine in their last platform, are you surprised they might keep going in that direction...?

[MX793]

lol @ Audi having any kind of concern for CG with their default engine placement. Nothing could be worse than a 400lb paperweight hanging in front of the front axle. Interesting stuff nonetheless

I think he's talking CG height, not fore-aft location.

[12,000 RPM]

Im talking fore-aft

All the big current Audis are on like 10 yr old platforms and have the engine way out in front of the front axle

Just weird that they would care about that at all given that huge design flaw. Even the old Acura Legend/Vigor had the engine more set back and those were FWD only with longitudinal engines.

[GoCougs]

IMO carbon fiber is DOA beyond where it's being used today - knick-knack add-ons like a rear deck lid or w/e in fairly expensive cars or extensive use in very/extremely expensive cars. It will always be very labor intensive to manufacture, apply and increasingly more important, recycle. There will have to be revolution in the material (such as some sort of injection molding process) for it to be used extensively in mainstream cars.

As to materials in general, cars have to be a certain stiffness and weight to achieve a given level of safety, performance and NVH - as an extreme example a 2,000 lb all-carbon Camry would be an absolutely awful and unsafe car. For cars to get hugely lighter there will have to be profound changes elsewhere - from tire/safety/NVH mitigation tech to perhaps even more restrictive traffic laws.

[SVT666]

Just read a review of the ATS-V in the new Automobile, and the reviewer prefers it to the M3.  Says it's more mature and much more predictable and the engine is far more tractable.  Has much better ride while matching the M3 in performance, making it more comfortable to live with.

[Raza]

U are talking to a guy who still recommends the TT as a sports car, move along

I've never once called the TT a sports car.

[Raza]

S4 I get but A4? Its prob my least favorite in the class at this point (which is understandable considering its age)

For AWD, who does it better? In reality, I'd probably get a WRX, but sticking to this class, the A4 would be my choice over a BMW 3er xDrive. Chip the 2.0T, 6 speed manual, optioned right, I bet it'd be a fun car.

[12,000 RPM]

When u chip a car u have to wear a backwards cap 24/7

[MexicoCityM3]

This is coming from BMW or something along that line. i5

[SVT666]

Meh.  I hope the real thing looks better.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I don't think I've ever even seen a Chevy SS on the road, unless I just blanked them out and assumed they were impala's.

I finally saw one today! It was white and had a Holden badge on the grill.

[Submariner]

When u chip a car u have to wear a backwards cap 24/7

[MexicoCityM3]

Comparo vs M3 and C63S is out on C&D.

ATS-V came in third, but was praised as the best driving of the 3 (chassis wise). Powertrain is a step behind the other 2. Performance is a total wash between the 3.

M3 first, C63S second.

[12,000 RPM]

Heres the scan

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1143937

[SVT666]

After reading a head to head, it's clear where the ATS-V comes up short, and fortunately it has nothing to do with how it drives. It is the best in it's class at what I deem most important...but as always, GM finds some way to fuck it all up.  I would still consider one and I would definitely take it for a spin to make up my own mind and see if I can live with CUE or not.

[12,000 RPM]

I would take one for a spin as well, that is the responsible way to shop. It's possible its issues aren't that bad, but I'm a stickler for space efficiency and logical interface design, among other things, and the ATS fails on both counts

[68_427]

I still can't believe the acceleration on the top end of the ATS.  150mph in under 20 seconds.

We'll see how it does in the MT comparison WRT acceleration.

[GoCougs]

Pretty stout - basically C7 performance.

As to top end performance, it's smaller than the other two plus it has more advantageous gearing - 150 mph comes at the top of 6th gear whereas it comes at the top of 5th for the M3 and bottom of 5th for the C63S.