Domestic Hater Jalopnik Reviews '15 Cadillac ATS Coupe

[Cmicasa the Great]

  Ok, calm down, stop breakin $h! in your parent's basement, it's going to be ok. I'm not comparing the two cars, I'm simply curious as to what this first generation's legacy will be. I went into the day expecting to love the 3.6 and like the 2.0T simply because it exists. Much to my surprise, when the day was over I found myself wanting more highway pulls in the 2.0T, more chances to heel toe in the twisties, more, more more! The turbocharged 4 cylinder puts out 275hp/296 lb-ft of torque that is seemingly available at all times. I dropped the thing into 5th on an uphill left hand sweeper, put my foot in it and even at 2000rpm's I felt a substantial shove before reaching peak between 3000-4600rpm. That constant "go baby go" feeling may have something to do with the ATS Coupe being the lightest in it's segment, weighing in at just 3,418 lbs compared to the 4 series' 3,470. Maybe it's the lack of b.s. engine noise that makes the Caddy lighter, who knows.

 

The 2.0 was also equipped with Cadillac's award winning MRC suspension which comes standard as part of the Premium Collection. The ZF rack-mounted electric steering is light but not too light in Touring mode and weights up nicely when in Sport mode. I know this because after finishing one of my favorite canyon roads I happened to look down at the dashboard and notice that there was no little green S there. What this meant was that I'd just flogged the car through some of the tightest curves in Southern California in Touring mode.

As surprised as I was, my passenger and Cadillac representative was even more so. I'd gotten so caught up in talking to him that I'd forgotten to put the car in Sport mode before heading up the canyon. I swear this is true, it's not fluff or a marketing gimmick. Though I was thoroughly impressed I was a little bummed because this meant I didn't drive the car to it's full potential and there was no time to go for another lap. You can be damn sure that when I get one for a full review, I'll be going back to that same road and pushing it to the limit(LIMITTTTTT!) and walking along the razors edge.

 

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/2015-cadillac-ats-coupe-3-6-awd-2-0t-manual-1625987514

[Cmicasa the Great]

Only thing I didn't get was his hate for the Gen 2 CTS Coupe's styling. It is what sold me on my V. Looks are, as always, in the eye of the beholder.. so I can't dog him out for the commentary. I do agree with a great deal of his points in relation to the internals of all Cadillacs, the driving capabilities of the 2.0L Turbo and the revision of CUE. Glowing review.. and I can't wait to get my ass in the seat of an ATS Coupe for testing. 

 

Cadillac.. please for the love of GOD.. when U release the ATS-V, please bring out the sedan and coupe at the same damn time

[A Horse With No Name]

ATS is an Amazing car. Of all GM's issues right now, product is not one of them!

[Blake Noble]

Hmmmmm. Okay, a few things...

 

1. That review was posted to Oppositelock. Oppositelock is Jalopnik's community run sub-blog; the opinions expressed there are not explictly of the Jalopnik staff.
2. And on that note, say what you want about Jalopnik, they're not exactly "pro-import, anti-domestic" (like some other blogs, publications, etc. these days).
3. That review is actually from another site posted to Oppositelock. Again, a Jalopnik staffer did not write that review. Actually, Jalopnik doesn't really focus on reviews.
4. I thought the review was fairly positive and mostly balanced. So what if you didn't like the writer's opinion on the CTS coupe's design? Its styling certainly wasn't for everyone.

[Cmicasa the Great]

^^^^ Hence me saying that the looks comment was subjective.. and to each his own. The Styling was "different," but it also was one of those things that convinced a lotta people to buy the car. 

 

 

Either way the review was stellar.. and the reviewer is singing the same praises as many others are about this coupe. One aspect I have long found to overblown by the press reviewing the ATS was the rear seat.  Whether it be sedan or coupe.. the car is small and if one wants a larger rear seat.. move up to the two sedan selection Cadillac has already in the Mid-Size CTS or the Full-Size LTS. The reviewer points out that the rear seat is a non-issue for all intents. I agree.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Cmicasa the Great

[A Horse With No Name]

CTS is indeed a better upscale family car. However, the ATS nails it as well.

[dwightlooi]

Honestly, I don't think the ATS's powertrai choices ake sense.

• There is no reason for the 2.0T and the 3.6 NA to co-exist on the line up (especially with the up boosted 2.0T now making 295 lb-ft)
• What it should be is 4 engines...
• 2.0XFE (Enhanced Economy / Turbo Miller Cycle) -- 200 bhp @ 5600 rpm, 220 lb-ft @ 3600~4600 rpm, 25 City / 37 Hwy MPG
• 2.0T (Standard Version) -- 272 bhp @ 5000 rpm, 295 lb-ft @ 3000~4800 rpm, 21 City / 31 Hwy MPG
• 3.6TT (Low pressure version) -- 360 bhp @ 5300 rpm, 360 lb-ft @ 1600~5200 rpm,
• 6.2NA (Corvette powerplant for the ATS-V) -- 460 bhp @ 6000 rpm, 465 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm
• The 2.5 shouldn't exist and the 3.6 NA V6 really is unnecessary.
• The 2.0XFE and 2.0T are the same price. Buyers get to decide if they favor economy or perfromance.
• The 3.6TT is high refinement upgrade engine modeled after the BMW 3.0 I6 Turbos. Low boost, High compression, Immediate response.
• The LT1 engine from the Vette is a shoo in. Nothing makes 460 hp with less weight or better fuel economy or better price or V8 creds.

That Cue and haptic touch center dash is a disaster. It's OK to say we are wrong and do the right thing by reverting the the previous gen style of physical buttons or try something new. Being stubborn doesn't fix the problem.

 

Also the new Emblem is worse the the old one... Looks like some transformer logo that is neither recognizable as cadillac nor elegant.

[G. David Felt]

Having long term drove the CTS with the 2.0T engine, I would say dump the Turbo crap 4 banger and use the NA V6. MPG was lousy and the turbo lag even in sport mode was very noticable. Not luxury expectation at all.

 

So My engine List would be as Follows:

 

2.0L Fuel Economy engine

3.6 NA V6

3.6 TT V6

LT1 V8

[smk4565]

I'd agree with Dwight on the CUE system and the new logo, the old way was better.

 

I see valid arguments to both you guys on engines.  I think we can agree the 2.5 liter base engine doesn't belong at all.  Leave that for the Malibu and base Colorado.  I think all would agree a diesel should be optional on the ATS and CTS.

 

The Germans and Jaguar are using a turbo 4 and turbo/supercharged 6 set up in their cars, so that would make me agree with Dwight on having the 2.0T and a light pressure turbo V6.  Personally I'd rather take a NA V6 over a turbo 4 even given similar power and fuel economy.  If they can improve fuel economy in the 2.0T, even if it means losing some power, I would be in favor of keeping it for the base, and at a light turbo V6 to it.  If they don't improve that 2.0T, then it really doesn't belong in a Cadillac either.  Bottom line is the ATS and CTS both got engines that were already on the shelf, so either plan could work better.

 

I don't think the ATS-V will get a V8, but if the LT1 can meet the refinement levels needed for a luxury car then I'd say go for it because the C63 AMG is going to have an all new 500 hp twin turbo V8.  I question whether the LT1 will meet the NVH standards though.  And BMW and Mercedes can get away with little flaws, the press will overlook them, but when one of the challengers have a flaw they will jump on it to protect the status quo.

[balthazar]

a LOT of folk overlook flaws to protect the status quo…………………… . . .. .. . ..  . . ..   . ..   .  . ..    . .     .              .

[regfootball]

ATS will need over the upcoming years

New dash / interior and new CUE

Something diesel

AWD with MT, this would help the MT take rate immensely

2.0 base turbo and an improved 2.0 +/- optional forced induction motor

8 sp tranny

3.0 tt v6 to replace the 3.6

3.6 tt in a higher level sport model

I wouldn't put a v8 in the car.

Make the ATS-L mods to the sedan so people who like the car but want leg room in back have a choice and don't have to buy elsewhere.

Focus more on sporting models and less on decking out with lux options, leave this to C T S

Edited August 29, 2014 by regfootball

[Cmicasa the Great]

a LOT of folk overlook flaws to protect the status quo…………………… . . .. .. . ..  . . ..   . ..   .  . ..    . .     .              .

 

 

I think I see what U did there

[Cmicasa the Great]

ATS will need over the upcoming years

New dash / interior and new CUE

Something diesel

AWD with MT, this would help the MT take rate immensely

2.0 base turbo and an improved 2.0 +/- optional forced induction motor

8 sp tranny

3.0 tt v6 to replace the 3.6

3.6 tt in a higher level sport model

I wouldn't put a v8 in the car.

Make the ATS-L mods to the sedan so people who like the car but want leg room in back have a choice and don't have to buy elsewhere.

Focus more on sporting models and less on decking out with lux options, leave this to C T S

 

 

 

I agree a great deal with the last statement U made. Problem is that Cadillac still has some of the traditional buyers that are simply not wanting a all out sports sedan. They want a BIG CADILLAC in a smaller body. The ATS gives them this, but with handling that seems to make the car corner like it was railed to the road. That being said:

 

The diesel 151-horsepower and 264 lb.-ft. of torque  2.0L from the Cruze could be employed and tuned up to beat the 328d's 180-horsepower and 280 lb.-ft of torque

 

base engine should be a light version of the 2.0L Turbo with about 200hp/220. The issue with the 2.5L is not an issue of unrefined. Sorry to the haters.. the engine is actually quite smooth. The issue with it is that it was not designed with luxury/sport in mind. It is a Chevy/Buick necessity, but CAdillac needs the TORQUE numbers to be higher than the HP. 

 

mid engine should be the 2.0L Turbo with 300hp/340lbs. I personally think the Turbo is the most fun to drive if it is a manual, the 3.6L if it is a Auto. The 3.6L is the real issue as it is long in the tooth despite the 2012 upgrade (LFX). 321HP is nice but not great anymore, although again.. the real issue is the torque being stuck at the 274 number. I have heard the new V6 is gonna kill those concerns, but for now I would say to Cadillac a 380HP/400lbs 3.6LTT would be awesome.. and like a LUXURY maker should provide by way of choices to anyone with the cash.. offer both, the V6TT obviously a very profitable upgrade. The VSeries would be the LT1 all the way, unless the TTV6 is gonna be a Cadillac exclusive (maybe a one time loaner to Buick for their GNX) 470HP/500lbs would be a perfect Vseries. D3 tuning is already tuning the VSport to 475HP and over 500lbs of torque, so we know there is room.

 

In summary:

 

ATS:

2.0L Diesel 180HP/280lbs

 

2.0L 300HP/340lbs.

 

TT3.6L 380HP/400lbs

 

TT3.6L 470HP/500lbs

[ZL-1]

 

2.0L Diesel 180HP/280lbs

That engine already exists in the form of the Astra/Insignia 2.0 twin turbo diesel (195PS), with the single turbo diesels rated at 130PS (older CDTi engine), and 140PS/163PS (new CDTI engines). Why GM doesn't invest into making the necessary modifications to fit those to RWD/AWD applications is beyond me as those engines are the PERFECT fit for Cadillac.

 

EDIT - Agreed re the 4-cyl gasoline engines: they should offer 2 or 3 power levels (220HP; 280 HP, 320HP?) and I think the top offering should perhaps be a TT version. Re the FE issues I am starting to think that those are mostly due to gearing and not the engines themselves?...

Edited August 29, 2014 by ZL-1