Quick Drive: 2017 Cadillac ATS Coupe 2.0T Luxury

Didn't it have magnetic ride control?

Nice ride, just too small for me. Perfect for most others though.  

Still like the look of it

I wonder if Cadillac will address the issues listed here with the 2018 model, if not with the successor of the ATS.

8 hours ago, riviera74 said:

I wonder if Cadillac will address the issues listed here with the 2018 model, if not with the successor of the ATS.

I think at this point they are investing all their money into the coupe only and the new CT version since that is what they seem to imply will be the future.

On 12/22/2017 at 8:22 PM, dfelt said:

Nice ride, just too small for me. Perfect for most others though.  

i think the ATS series is too small for a lot of people.  

Every car in the ATS's class is 'too small for a lot of people'. Just like full-size trucks are "too large for a lot of people".

ATS total legroom is within 1/2-in of the C-class, meanwhile having 3 more cubic feet interior room than the MB.
How often have you read how the C-class is too small for a lot of people?? This is a segment of small cars for those that they AREN'T 'too small' for!

Personally, I'm the type that an S-class is too small for me.

12 hours ago, balthazar said:

Every car in the ATS's class is 'too small for a lot of people'. Just like full-size trucks are "too large for a lot of people".

ATS total legroom is within 1/2-in of the C-class, meanwhile having 3 more cubic feet interior room than the MB.
How often have you read how the C-class is too small for a lot of people?? This is a segment of small cars for those that they AREN'T 'too small' for!

Personally, I'm the type that an S-class is too small for me.

Sounds like they just don't know how to use the interior space that's available. 

The 3 Series and MB don't have the small car feel to them like the ATS does. Whatever it is, the ATS feels smaller. 

Some people may well feel the interior is smaller, but it's not. Thusly, it seems Cadillac is using the interior space/packaging better if it's providing more dimensions in the same size package.

Look, I'd have to see these side-by-side for myself, but it certainly seems to be a ridiculous sticking point for many. If one feels the car, somehow, is 'tight'.... that's the reason OEMs build multiple size sedans, right?

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Sounds like they just don't know how to use the interior space that's available. 

The 3 Series and MB don't have the small car feel to them like the ATS does. Whatever it is, the ATS feels smaller. 

Have to disagree with you. The ATS is small yet I can actually fit into the driver's seat while no one can sit behind me. The 3 series and MB C-Class I actually cannot fit into to drive safely as my knees are on the dash. Yes that is getting 6'6" tall me with 40" inseam so long legs into the auto, but my knees do not push on the dash in the ATS compared to the BMW or MB products.

So much for my Heritage land building something that can actually fit me.

These are nice cars, but size wise for people and cargo, just consider it a 2+2 sports car and your expectations will be met.  Don't expect miracles from the small back seat or the tiny trunk.

12 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Have to disagree with you. The ATS is small yet I can actually fit into the driver's seat while no one can sit behind me. The 3 series and MB C-Class I actually cannot fit into to drive safely as my knees are on the dash. Yes that is getting 6'6" tall me with 40" inseam so long legs into the auto, but my knees do not push on the dash in the ATS compared to the BMW or MB products.

So much for my Heritage land building something that can actually fit me.

I wouldn't expect you to have agreed. Nothing fits you unless it's what you like. Everything else just so happens to be itty bitty and cramped.

Yet you fit into an ATS... 

The drivers' seats are basically a wash, dimensionally. The rear seats is the only place there is sigificant differences. Oh and the headroom in the BMW is 3 inches more than the ATS/C63.

From left to right: Giulia, M3, ATS-V, C63

13 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I wouldn't expect you to have agreed. Nothing fits you unless it's what you like. Everything else just so happens to be itty bitty and cramped.

Yet you fit into an ATS... 

The drivers' seats are basically a wash, dimensionally. The rear seats is the only place there is sigificant differences. Oh and the headroom in the BMW is 3 inches more than the ATS/C63.

From left to right: Giulia, M3, ATS-V, C63

I understand the measurements, but there seems to be no industry standard on where they are taken at and the ATS seats I know for a fact go lower into the floor than the others so I can get the head room I need.

I really wish there was a set standard for where one measures the interior room at.

It's a 3rd party test... 

There is no way BMW would release numbers of max head room with the seat higher than its lowest point. Same with all of the other measurements. What benefit would there be to that? Lie about their interior dimensions? 

There ARE SAE standards for interior measurement... but I wonder if the methodology is where discrepancies show up.

So when legroom is measured, how is the adjustability of the front seat accounted for? Are the numbers max measurements, whereas in reality everyone is less in normal useage?

I was just looking at that myself, SAE J1100. 

http://standards.sae.org/j1100_200911/

14 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It's a 3rd party test... 

There is no way BMW would release numbers of max head room with the seat higher than its lowest point. Same with all of the other measurements. What benefit would there be to that? Lie about their interior dimensions? 

14 minutes ago, balthazar said:

There ARE SAE standards for interior measurement... but I wonder if the methodology is where discrepancies show up.

So when legroom is measured, how is the adjustability of the front seat accounted for? Are the numbers max measurements, whereas in reality everyone is less in normal useage?

I understand the points your both making and wonder myself also, I assume everyone sets the seat at the lowest point to measure but then where on the seat are they measuring from and is it a consistent point for all auto's in that class. 

One would hope that the SAE Standards would cover this, but from what I have read they do not seem too and in this is where the rub is. I would also think they would move the front seats all the way forward to maximize the rear seat leg room, but then how many people really drive that way versus having the seat all the way back and then measuring rear seat room. So much wiggle room on how one measures interior space.

Very crazy I think. 

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I was just looking at that myself, SAE J1100. 

http://standards.sae.org/j1100_200911/

Weird the inconsistent nature in updates that they have posted on that link. A few years in a row shows updates yearly, then every 3 to 5 years and back to yearly. Really weird on how they update them. 

The SAE standards must be written by lawyers due to all the gobbly gook that is written in them. sad  

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

Have to disagree with you. The ATS is small yet I can actually fit into the driver's seat while no one can sit behind me. The 3 series and MB C-Class I actually cannot fit into to drive safely as my knees are on the dash. Yes that is getting 6'6" tall me with 40" inseam so long legs into the auto, but my knees do not push on the dash in the ATS compared to the BMW or MB products.

So much for my Heritage land building something that can actually fit me.

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Sounds like they just don't know how to use the interior space that's available. 

The 3 Series and MB don't have the small car feel to them like the ATS does. Whatever it is, the ATS feels smaller. 

Dfelt is spot on. Its been my observation and defense of the ATS since it hit the road.  Cadillac gave enthusiasts the exact car they wanted.. problem was.. as I've said since I started posting on forums.. ENTHUSIASTS ARE THE WORST FUCKIN CUSTOMERS because they don't buy cars in the numbers needed to really sustain. Mercedes buyers are not enthusiasts. BMW drivers are quickly moving that direction as well. Point of fact.. look at the performance tests and comparos and tell me how the ATS, a car that is now 6 MYs old.. is second only to the Brand new Alfa Romeo in performance and handling? That's even with a new C-Class, Jag XE, upgrades to the 3series and IS.. and new A4.

Furthermore the ATS was built for DRIVERS, not passengers. As always I say fuck the passenger.. they get what they get. BMW 3series owners apparently wanted a more family oriented car... the the current 3Series is more liken to Lexus than BMW. Go get in a 3series or new C-Class and U will see that the space for the driver is compromised for the sake of backseat occupants without seat adjustments, not be just the fore and aft.. but the ergonomic ups and downs as well. Measurements be damned.. the ATS is more comfy in the front.. than both the 3 and C. In the rear.. they have an edge. 

The ATS is behind the C and 3/4 Series in performance as well. 

Even V Series. 

It's great but it doesn't dominate anything. It's basically a wash between which car the buyer thinks looks the best because the numbers are all too close and mixed with no clear "this car does everything the best". 

https://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2015-bmw-m3-vs-2015-mercedes-amg-c63-s-2016-cadillac-ats-v-comparison-test-2015-bmw-m3-vs-2015-mercedes-amg-c63-s-2016-cadillac-ats-v-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-5

51 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

The ATS is behind the C and 3/4 Series in performance as well. 

Even V Series. 

It's great but it doesn't dominate anything. It's basically a wash between which car the buyer thinks looks the best because the numbers are all too close and mixed with no clear "this car does everything the best". 

https://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2015-bmw-m3-vs-2015-mercedes-amg-c63-s-2016-cadillac-ats-v-comparison-test-2015-bmw-m3-vs-2015-mercedes-amg-c63-s-2016-cadillac-ats-v-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-5

I agree with you that the numbers are close in a very cramped market segment.

Yet Motor Trend seems to think differently:

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/ats-v/2017/

QUOTE: 

 This was the best handling sedan of the high-performance group, “The results are clear: with tires no more aggressive than the other cars’, the ATS-V slaughters its competitors with 1.03 g of steady-state cornering grip and a staggering 23.7-second figure-eight performance. That’s not only 0.3 second quicker than the next-best Mercedes, but the list of supercars the Caddy beats is embarrassingly long.”

Editors love the ATS-V’s platform and find the powerful brakes, and well-weighted steering extremely capable on the track and through any curvy canyon.

This is what used to be said all the time about BMW M series or MB AMG series.

Digital Trends seems to think inline with Motor Trend:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/car-reviews/2017-cadillac-ats-v-coupe-review/

QUOTE:

The ATS-V feels more like an old-school performance car than the C63 and the M4. It’s not as refined or as luxurious, but it’s rawer, and offers a more visceral driving experience with a devil-may-care attitude. It’s more playful than an RS 5 thanks to its rear-wheel drive layout, though that comes at the obvious expense of traction. There are plenty of alternatives to the Caddy but they’re not necessarily better or worse; they each have their own distinct personality. What matters is the ATS-V holds its own against the competition.

56 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

The ATS is behind the C and 3/4 Series in performance as well. 

It's basically a wash ... because the numbers are all too close and mixed with no clear "this car does everything the best".

So is it "behind" or "a wash"?

50 minutes ago, dfelt said:

This was the best handling sedan of the high-performance group, “The results are clear: with tires no more aggressive than the other cars’, the ATS-V slaughters its competitors with 1.03 g of steady-state cornering grip and a staggering 23.7-second figure-eight performance. That’s not only 0.3 second quicker than the next-best Mercedes, but the list of supercars the Caddy beats is embarrassingly long.”

That's two performance metrics. Like i said, across all of the tests. acceleration, braking, cornering, slalom, etc. 

51 minutes ago, dfelt said:

There are plenty of alternatives to the Caddy but they’re not necessarily better or worse;

Hey look, your quote is about exactly what I said.

It depends which one the buyer thinks looks the best. 

51 minutes ago, balthazar said:

So is it "behind" or "a wash"?

Sorry, isn't** 

It is a wash. 

I have lots of experience with my brother's ATS coupe and it is quite small inside, no doubt smaller than the sedan that is usually tested.  That is one of the drawbacks of that fantastic coupe styling.  The front seats are fine, the rears are basically useless.  The trunk is also quite small.  His is the the Premium performance I believe and it is loaded, including all the safety suites.  It has the magnetic ride which is great, though still a little stiff, I wouldn't deem the ride rough or brittle.  His is a 15 so it has the older 6 speed auto.  Fortunately it is not as slow witted as the new 8 speed seems to be.  His is the V6 of course and I would actually prefer it here.  It also has AWD.