C&D Places ATS-V Last in Comparo... for interior??

[cp-the-nerd]

Car & Driver has posted the first ATS-V comparison up against the M3 and AMG C63.

 

Frankly, if you look at the performance, this car has 100% delivered. If you look at the price, this car has 100% delivered. Somehow in the final tally after scoring an incredible 58 out of 60 points in the chassis chart, and topping fun to drive, and taking top honors for 1/4 mile acceleration and lateral grip--all the tests one would expect to be the most important in this class of car--you'll find the ATS relegated to last place after losing 10+ points for the interior and backseat.

 

As tested, it was ten grand cheaper than the BMW and almost twenty less than the Mercedes.

 

Final scoring:

 

1st: BMW M3 - 207 pts

2nd: AMG C63 S - 205 pts

3rd: ATS-V - 201 pts

 

Link to the scanned issue of C&D:

 

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

[Drew Dowdell]

The spread is so minor as to be almost irrelevant. 

[cp-the-nerd]

I've been in multiple ATS's since they came out, I've NEVER been underwhelmed by anything other than the gauge cluster. This past year, I also sat in an S4, an A5, and a handful of Acuras including a $60k RLX. None of them made the ATS-V interior seem like a deal breaker by comparison. Could the V-series interior be more special? Yes. Does it look like a Chevrolet next to other luxury cars? Hell no.

 

Hopefully GM swaps out the gauge cluster and CUE console for 2017 so journalists can stop with the eye-rolling hyperbole and concentrate on how well it performs.

[smk4565]

The ATS-V beat the M3 in chassis by 7 points.  Powertrain let them down a bit, and the interior and vehicle really killed them, even with getting points for being lowest priced.  The sad thing is they got the hard part right in the chassis, but couldn't execute on the interior of the car.

 

Interestingly enough MotorTrend likes the Jaguar XE more than the 335i, and said it was better in every way.  So I'd imagine the V8 XE is going to be pretty good too.

Edited June 30, 2015 by smk4565

[balthazar]

It may be, but no one buys Jags so the point is moot; no one cares except magazines.

 

- - - - -

The auto rags are invested in an editorial slant; they know for the most part where their readers' preferences lie and - especially in a time where print is slowly sinking - they need to cater to that expectation or set themselves up for reader satisfaction risk.

 

Didn't read the article, but if they for a half sentence dinged the ATS because of the supposed rear seat room issue, they risked & lost the critical thinker right there- these are the highest performance compact luxury cars; rear seat room is about as important as the knurling on the valve stem cap.

 

The incredible take-away is that the ATS-V is SO GOOD on the road they could NOT deny it the #1 ranking against the holy grail of such, the M3. This is a red letter day for Cadillac comparison testing. Let's look at that again; the ATS-V is a better performer than the holy BMW M3. BAM.

[smk4565]

ATS-V gripes were "acres of glossy black plastic, looks cheap and worse, highlights fingerprints, dust and dandruff."  "gauges reek of Chevy thrift.  Don't even get us started on CUE."  And of course "ATS-V also suffers from the most squeezed back seat of the bunch"  They said the engineers did their work, the designers let them down.

 

If you just go on performance, all three were within 0.1 seconds of each other in 0-60 and 1/4 mile acceleration.   C63 had the best braking, ATS-V had best skidpad, M3 had the best slalom.  M3 had the best observed fuel economy, C63 was most quiet.  The performance data was extremely close on all 3 cars, so that puts the decision on the details.  The C63 lost 2 points on price, 1 point for no incentives, it would have won if it was 3-series money.  Which is a complaint I have about the C63, there shouldn't even be a C63 and C63 S, the standard C63 should be the 503 hp engine.  I think whatever they do on the AMG "S" models should just be standard, they already charge a lot.

[Cmicasa the Great]

The ATS-V beat the M3 in chassis by 7 points.  Powertrain let them down a bit, and the interior and vehicle really killed them, even with getting points for being lowest priced.  The sad thing is they got the hard part right in the chassis, but couldn't execute on the interior of the car.

 

Interestingly enough MotorTrend likes the Jaguar XE more than the 335i, and said it was better in every way.  So I'd imagine the V8 XE is going to be pretty good too.

 

 

Its according who U ask. The ATS's only interior issue stems from its gauge cluster.. and only during the day. It looks like something that should have been in a Camaro.. ironically the new Camaro cluster looks like it should have been in a Cadillac ATS. Outside of that.. IMO,the ATS beats the 3Series in luxurious feel internally.

 

The XE.. from what I saw was boring as $h!, inside and out. I kno what Lieberman said at MT.. but anyone calling the ATS design as bland and then this Jag special is Special themselves.. in a Short Bus kinda way.

[Cmicasa the Great]

ATS-V gripes were "acres of glossy black plastic, looks cheap and worse, highlights fingerprints, dust and dandruff."  "gauges reek of Chevy thrift.  Don't even get us started on CUE."  And of course "ATS-V also suffers from the most squeezed back seat of the bunch"  They said the engineers did their work, the designers let them down.

 

If you just go on performance, all three were within 0.1 seconds of each other in 0-60 and 1/4 mile acceleration.   C63 had the best braking, ATS-V had best skidpad, M3 had the best slalom.  M3 had the best observed fuel economy, C63 was most quiet.  The performance data was extremely close on all 3 cars, so that puts the decision on the details.  The C63 lost 2 points on price, 1 point for no incentives, it would have won if it was 3-series money.  Which is a complaint I have about the C63, there shouldn't even be a C63 and C63 S, the standard C63 should be the 503 hp engine.  I think whatever they do on the AMG "S" models should just be standard, they already charge a lot.

 

 

 

U are one of those people who probably read the ATS performance triumph and went straight in looking for demerits on the interior. That's lame. The Piano Black is slick.. Fingerprints?? Really??? And we are back on this back-seat thing. THEY ALL SUCK IN THE BACKSEAT.. because they are ALL compacts. 

1.02g.. in a Cadillac!!! Those are Z51 numbers.. no.. almost Z06 numbers.. and 12.1 at 122mph??? GET THE EFF OUTTA HERE with yo negative BS.

[balthazar]

"ATS-V steers better than the M3, has better brake feel than the M3, digests a road with more verve than the M3…" ~ Munich is not only sitting up, they are likely tearing out their hair.

 

ATS-V has 0.1 sec on the MB in the 1/4, but a huge 6 MPH- that's pulling a bunch harder than the C63.

MB is still putting a governor on their cars, but at least they upped it from the long-standing 155 MPH.

Heavy weight in the C63 is showing in the slalom time- car needs a diet. They also charge you $8000 for 34 HP - LOL.

[cp-the-nerd]

I actually think there's a typo somewhere in the 1/4 mile specs because the ATS-V is ahead .4 seconds to 100 mph, and a massive 3.5 seconds ahead to 150 mph. The engine is showing significant power over the two competitors once you reach triple digits.

 

It's not necessarily what they say about the interior, it's how they go into the final scoring and somehow a bland gauge cluster and cramped back seat steal the win in a top tier performance comparo. That's RIDICULOUS. They say right in the pages that the ATS-V is the best driver's car, but they fudge the subjective scores to keep the ATS-V on the bottom.

 

I mean if there was a single demerit in their notebook, they found a way to subtract for it twice.

 

Seriously, look at the points:

-The ATS-V loses 4 points for the back seat ALONE for two separate catagories.

-1 to 2 more points lost for "features/amenities", not sure how that's even calculated.

-Fit and finish loses 2 pts to the BMW and 3 pts to the AMG, really? Glossy plastic means that much? Apparently, because...

-ANOTHER 4 points are lost to the AMG and 3 pts to the Bimmer for interior design.

 

We're talking 10 total points lost to the M3 and 13 lost to the AMG just on the interior nitpicks.

[Suaviloquent]

Terrible allocation of points in regards to interior sub-categories. However, I think they do price scores as a ratio of how much worse as a percentage is the higher and highest MSRP competitor.

 

However; I'm not much of a fan of the ATS interior. I much prefer the CTS and Escalade. Those interiors are done exceptionally well; much in part due to the better gauges. But again; enthusiasts can look past the nuances of gauges - as long as they are clear, legible and accurate.

[Cmicasa the Great]

I actually think there's a typo somewhere in the 1/4 mile specs because the ATS-V is ahead .4 seconds to 100 mph, and a massive 3.5 seconds ahead to 150 mph. The engine is showing significant power over the two competitors once you reach triple digits.

 

It's not necessarily what they say about the interior, it's how they go into the final scoring and somehow a bland gauge cluster and cramped back seat steal the win in a top tier performance comparo. That's RIDICULOUS. They say right in the pages that the ATS-V is the best driver's car, but they fudge the subjective scores to keep the ATS-V on the bottom.

 

I mean if there was a single demerit in their notebook, they found a way to subtract for it twice.

 

Seriously, look at the points:

-The ATS-V loses 4 points for the back seat ALONE for two separate catagories.

-1 to 2 more points lost for "features/amenities", not sure how that's even calculated.

-Fit and finish loses 2 pts to the BMW and 3 pts to the AMG, really? Glossy plastic means that much? Apparently, because...

-ANOTHER 4 points are lost to the AMG and 3 pts to the Bimmer for interior design.

 

We're talking 10 total points lost to the M3 and 13 lost to the AMG just on the interior nitpicks.

There is an innate need for American magazines to show bias in the direction of the foreign competitor especially when the competitor is BMW, Benz, or... Honda. Car and Driver even once created a bullcrap category called Gotta Have just to normally give the more "exotic " vehicle an edge. I expect negativity when the first CTSv tests arrive.

[smk4565]

The interior is a pretty big part of the car, I mean that is where the driver and occupants sit. A normal driver on a normal road will never get close to finding the difference between 1.02 g and .97 g. So I think the interior execution and design does matter a lot.

I don't like piano black on any car, it looks like shiny plastic that should be in a Scion, even if it is expensive, they should find something else. Use carbon fiber or wood.

The $8,000 up charge for 34 horsepower on the C63 is nuts. They already have margins built in there, just make the base C63 503 HP to make it stand out, and forget these S models on all trims. I am fine with a more hardcore black series that is more track geared.

[ccap41]

Damn, I just got my magazine a few days ago.. I'll be reading it tonight whilst doing some cardio at the gym.. I did sneak a peak at the results though and price tags.

[ccap41]

These aren't coupes, correct?

 

So 8cubic feet less in the rear and 2cubic feet less in the trunk (than the smallest competitor) is a fair amount and reason to gripe. If these were coupes, clearly they would be even more driver oriented but if the buyer is buying one of these in sedan guise then they intend to use the rear seats and trunk and the lack of space for a vehicle within an inch or two in all exterior measurments of the BMW and Merc isn't acceptable and it should be knocked for those qualities, or lack of qualities, in my opinion.

 

I absolutely love this class of car. It is right up my ally and hopefully one day I will be deciding on one of these three. The one thing that I think would sway me from the ATS-V is the V8 in the Merc. The ATS looks freakin' awesome in its V Series costume but if there is a 500+hp V8 as a competitor..It'd be hard to pass up one of the few V8s left around..

[Cmicasa the Great]

^^^^ If U can't get the 464HP 3.6L TT up to 500+HP with just a few mods then I seriously think U need to trade in your Enthusiast Card.  

[El Kabong]

If C/D wants to score the comparo that way for those reasons then by all means let them. If the beefs are legit they will be addressed.

[ccap41]

^^^^ If U can't get the 464HP 3.6L TT up to 500+HP with just a few mods then I seriously think U need to trade in your Enthusiast Card.  

No no no 464 is plenty. It was the v8 part that I'm more partial to.. Strictly for its noises. All of these cars perform so close to each other it's awesome for us car guys.

[ZL-1]

1st of all, a 6 points difference in scoring is basically immaterial. However, I think this shows where Cadillac needs to invest next now they nailed the engineering side of things

[Cmicasa the Great]

1st of all, a 6 points difference in scoring is basically immaterial. However, I think this shows where Cadillac needs to invest next now they nailed the engineering side of things

 

 

They will. Again.. the ATS is a product of the OLD GM. The actual car was designed in 2006 and was set for release in '09 before $h! hit fan.

 

I actually am starting to think that due to the impending changeover of names.. and the fact that the model is ready for a full makeover, in what will be now, the next model year, 2017.. GM is not investing to much more money in the the ATS because the CT2(?) is already in the design booth. I think what they are gonna show up with is a car that is literally all the great points of the current ATS in its award winning chassis and dynamics.. but a slight bump up in size, probably the same size of the ATS-L over in China or a a split right down the middle to give it the same extra 1.3 inch bump of the 3series in WB to shut up the sudden jump in buyers who chauffeur their friends in this segment

 

This is the seat room from the Chinese ATS-L

 

[ZL-1]

I think the L version will stay a China-only model.

[Cmicasa the Great]

I think the L version will stay a China-only model.

 

 

 

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm sayin that the dimensions, or rather a partial uptick of those dimensions, will likely make there way here. In other words the ATS-L is 3.3 inches longer than the ATS. I could see the next ATS getting a 1.7 inch bump in size kinda the way the new Malibu is larger than the last to shut people up about the interior space... unless GM keeps the same packaging and figured a way to still get more interior room out as the 3series has. 

[ZL-1]

They'll keep a hold on the size, I think. The way I see it the only segment where they'll be sized between segments is at the upper range where Cadillac seems to have favoured a 2-car approach: CT6 versus SWB flagships and CT7 or CT8 against the LWB variants (and the S-Class specifically).

[smk4565]

What Cadillac should do is make the ATS, 5-series sized so it is roomy inside, but still charge 3-series money.  Oh wait, nevermind.

[Cmicasa the Great]

What Cadillac should do is make the ATS, 5-series sized so it is roomy inside, but still charge 3-series money.  Oh wait, nevermind.

 

 

No they shouldn't. What they should do is simply leave the size alone.. but scallop the insides in a way to accommodate more room in the rear so that people who seem to be buying in this segment suddenly will have room for their sudden new found chauffeuring duties. 

 

In the area of sales.. the ATS will be vastly helped when Cadillac gets on the ball and starts offering more variations of the car. Of course THAT.. has to apply to the entire line-up.. a convertible, a diesel, all the niches they can get into simply to cover all the bases possible. Having the Camaro convertible proves that the Alpha platform is capable of convertible.. despite the fact that U.. U SMK.. said that Alpha was not able to accommodate a convertible a few months back.