Spying: Cadillac ATS-V, Now With No Camo!

First impression was H'mmm nice but something is just not right. Then I figured it out. I do not like the front top grill with what looks to me to be an after thought of Chrome around the grill. It looks cheap and does not scream performance but Chromed mid tear car. I am sadly not impressed. This car should have just stayed monochromatic and if they wanted Chrome, left it to the rims, Door Handles at most.

It's getting there.  But it is not as impressive in the photos as the new M4 I saw in-person at the grocery store parking lot today.

Let's see how that match-up stacks up in a Car & Driver comparison.

I would hold on before judging on these photos.

1. It is taken at 300 mm at f5.6, which possibly means at that super-telephoto level, the image will look compressed.

2. The angle from top is possibly not the best one to shoot a car as the plan view dominates the profile and sides.

3. Lighting creates an illusion - Bright sunlight and white do not go well.

I would hold on before judging on these photos.

 

1. It is taken at 300 mm at f5.6, which possibly means at that super-telephoto level, the image will look compressed.

2. The angle from top is possibly not the best one to shoot a car as the plan view dominates the profile and sides.

3. Lighting creates an illusion - Bright sunlight and white do not go well.

If they are a pro photographer, then their 300mm lens should be an APO lens so there is minimal distortion and this should be pretty accurate.

Cadillac needs to realize that not every car needs to be blinged out with Chrome. Performance auto's are better looking monochromatic IMHO.

 

I would hold on before judging on these photos.

 

1. It is taken at 300 mm at f5.6, which possibly means at that super-telephoto level, the image will look compressed.

2. The angle from top is possibly not the best one to shoot a car as the plan view dominates the profile and sides.

3. Lighting creates an illusion - Bright sunlight and white do not go well.

If they are a pro photographer, then their 300mm lens should be an APO lens so there is minimal distortion and this should be pretty accurate.

 

Cadillac needs to realize that not every car needs to be blinged out with Chrome. Performance auto's are better looking monochromatic IMHO.

 

It is not the distortion from optics but it is the illusion (compression) from physics. A telephoto lens will compress objects closer than a normal range lens would.

Oh please tell me where is distortion here?

I like all three.

Some guy on another site said "forte Koup, is that you"? Lmao. And sort of true.

I sat in a new ATS coupe last weekend. I fit like a glove. And it's so much easier to get in and out of. The car has no useful backseat to speak of, however, and it is bland and safe. 25 Cadillacs in a row and they all blend into each other now.

New CTS AWD for 40g, wish I could! But here is the deal, between the dead looks, too high prices, and lack of space and room in nearly all Cadillacs, this is why Caddy is trending down.

They need to sex up the whole model lineup fast. Add crossovers. Manage pricing better and give us some room ! I would bring the ATSL to the states and make that the sedan offering and use it to lure people back to the brand. I would clean up the CTS and make sure the CT6 launch is not botched.

Love the new logo without the wreath BTW. A bit large but whatever.

Again with the 'back seat room' fallacy? Over @ BMW & MB, the critics are more worried about 'back seat in handling with less overall legroom'… hmmm; which the better spot to be in?

ATS-V spy pic is clearly distorted, not going to go by that one.

On another forum a number of the wags are laughably calling the sides of the ATS 'bland/ boring' meanwhile holding up the BMW4 as 'the way to do it', when a simple glance shows they both have the same elements & conceptual approach to the sides respectively. IE; front fender edge becomes belt line, declining character line going forward thru the doorhandles, 'flat' wheel well lips, and two lower, more dramatic flares at the rocker.  

Isn't Cadillac up 20% over the last 2 years? That's 'up', not "down".

Here's to hoping the new logo goes the way to New Coke, but much faster.

Only thing I don't like is the rear spoiler, but guess the extra downforce is a necessity...

 

 

I would hold on before judging on these photos.

 

1. It is taken at 300 mm at f5.6, which possibly means at that super-telephoto level, the image will look compressed.

2. The angle from top is possibly not the best one to shoot a car as the plan view dominates the profile and sides.

3. Lighting creates an illusion - Bright sunlight and white do not go well.

If they are a pro photographer, then their 300mm lens should be an APO lens so there is minimal distortion and this should be pretty accurate.

 

Cadillac needs to realize that not every car needs to be blinged out with Chrome. Performance auto's are better looking monochromatic IMHO.

 

 

It is not the distortion from optics but it is the illusion (compression) from physics. A telephoto lens will compress objects closer than a normal range lens would.

 

 

Oh please tell me where is distortion here?

 

Yes your right compression not distortion, course home sick now so my mind sure is not working, but thanks for posting the comparison for all of us.

Are we talking about the car or the girl?

Depends on what you want to compress and make not as impressive.

JUST DO IT CADILLAC.  COuld be part of renaming it from ATS to CT3 or CT4.  It looks better too.

There's a bit of awkwardness at the top of the window of the rear door, the curve was flattened a bit too much, but otherwise this would benefit Caddy huge.

What I don't like is the top grille looks too small, and the lower air intake under the bumper is huge.  Other cars use that styling cue also, it looks bad on all them.  Why make your grille tiny, when that is a focal point, and make the air intake huge.

Not a fan of black wheels on any car, but I am sure they have silver ones too, so not worried about that.  The engine and performance data will be interesting to see how it compares to the Germans.  The Lexus IS-F sucks, so I guess not much to worry about there, unless Lexus learns how to give a car torque.

I love that added room of the ATS-L that should be here in America.

JUST DO IT CADILLAC.  COuld be part of renaming it from ATS to CT3 or CT4.  It looks better too.

 

There's a bit of awkwardness at the top of the window of the rear door, the curve was flattened a bit too much, but otherwise this would benefit Caddy huge.

 

 

 

 

ATS-L looks good. Its front fascia and grill are different, too, and I like it more than the SWB ATS's front end.

But why get an ATS-L when you can get a CTS for 320i money? The deals on CTS are amazing, and I'm surprised it's not selling any better. I'd seriously consider one if I were in the market for a 5-series sized car:

I would think prospective ATS buyers would find it far more significant that the competition has less FRONT legroom than the ATS. Quick, someone 'shop some lines over a 3-series sedan's front door, and let the incessant harping begin.

That's an unusual price... my area is $10k more than that.

^ Trucar doesn't, seemingly, include the cost of options.
How they 'calculate' a new 'actual transaction price' MSRP without such, I've yet to learn.

^ Trucar doesn't, seemingly, include the cost of options.

How they 'calculate' a new 'actual transaction price' MSRP without such, I've yet to learn.

You configure a vehicle with the options you want, and they give you a quote for that vehicle as-equipped. Click on "Options."

TrueCar provides a useful baseline price for car shopping. I configure cars on TrueCar to match what the dealer has in stock, then email the internet sales department to beat the TrueCar price. On every occasion, it's worked. Makes sense, as TrueCar charges dealers $299 per transaction.

That's an unusual price... my area is $10k more than that.

I guess my area is very competitive. There are 17 Cadillac dealers within 60 miles of here. 

Thanks pow, I wasn't processing their site correctly.

Now I see verification of exactly what I've been stating here. 2014 mercedes s550 RWD with the middle option package they give there to chose from, reveals a car that MSRP's for 119,095, but that car's average transaction price is 108,230, or $11,270 off sticker.

Like I said; MB moves their (retail) s-classes by offering a free smart four two in the deal. In other words; appealing to the value shopper by giving a 5-digit discount. They 'hide' this by only offering 'factory' incentives around a mere 3,000.

I'm sure they make it up in the finance and leasing office.

There are many claims to the effect that the ATS-V will be powered by the 3.6 Bi-Turbo. GM has not disclosed anything to this regard, so that is speculation at this point. Whether it is educated speculation or not, we'll find out soon enough at the LA Autoshow.

Still, it brings back the entire debate on whether the 3.6TT is a better engine than the LT1. And, in this regard, there should be very little argument. If it does indeed use the twin turbo V6, what GM has done is basically chose the heavier, bulkier, laggier, more expensive, lower performance engine in hope that it'll somehow have greater appeal in a performance car.

The LT1 is the superior engine in every respect, I mean EVERY. There are plenty of myths out there such as...

• The 3.6 Bi-Turbo is smaller displacement so it should be lighter or more compact? (False; the 3.6 is heavier and taller)
• The 3.6 Bi-Turbo has better fuel economy? (False, the 3.6 in the CTS-V has similar city MPG and worse Highway MPG)
• The turbos endow the 3.6 with better low end torque? (False, the 3.6 makes less torque at every point torqur curve from 0 rpm to the rev limit)

Here are the cold hard facts.

• Weight: LF3 3.6TT = 485lbs -- LT1 6.2 = 465lbs
• Power: LF3 3.6TT = 420bhp -- LT1 6.2 = 460bhp
• Torque: LF3 3.6TT = 430lb-ft -- LT1 6.2 = 465lb-ft*
• Turbolag LF3 3.6TT = some -- LT1 6.2 = none
• Size: LF3 3.6TT = taller -- LT1 6.2 = lower profile
• MPG: LF3 3.6TT = 17/25 -- LT1 6.2 = 17/30**
• Service: LF3 3.6TT = complex -- LT1 6.2 = simple
• Cost: LF3 3.6TT = expensive -- LT1 6.2 = less so
• Prestige/perception: = Debatable / depends on buyer

* Not just higher maximum torque, but higher torque is EVERY point on the torque curve from 0 rpm to the rev limit.

** Based on the EPA numbers for CTS V-sport and Stingray. Projected numbers for the ATS-V is 18/26 using the LF3 vs 16/28 using the LT1 given that the ATS is a lighter car than the CTS and a heavier car than the Stingray.

Here are the two engine's torque and power curves superimposed for a crystal clear comparison.

Still, it brings back the entire debate on whether the 3.6TT is a better engine than the LT1. And, in this regard, there should be very little argument. If it does indeed use the twin turbo V6, what GM has done is basically chose the heavier, bulkier, laggier, more expensive, lower performance engine in hope that it'll somehow have greater appeal in a performance car.

Evidently, that is what GM has chosen to do.