Buy or Sell?

[ccap41]

Cadillac ATS

 

Alright guys.. First it isn't a buy or sell really.. but more the idea. I've got the itch again for another vehicle but I'm not really sure why. I've been throwing around the idea of a used(40k and under miles) Cadillac ATS but it would have to have the 2.0T or 3.6. But after looking it seems the 3.6 are a little more than I'd like to spend and it isn't that perfect of a vehicle to overspend. 

 

So I was thinking.. First, as anybody driven one? What are your personal feelings about the car? 

 

Second, are there any known issues with the 2.0T that I should avoid or not? Is that the same 2.0 that was in the HHR SS and Cobalt SS?

 

Third, what are all of your opinions on the car in general? For me to get it it would also have to have the LED/HID head light setup that makes a Caddy distinguishable from a mile away. I've found a couple that meet my criteria of sub 40k miles, black/white/silver/grey, and had the headlights that I want(which at that package level it also includes CUE that I need to fiddle with as well) 

 

Opinions, GO! 

[hyperv6]

I have driven the 6 and 4 and loved them both. 

 

I have not seen any major issues with the 2.0 turbo. The new engine is an improved version of the LNF i have in my HHR SS. They made some improvements and made it lighter. The only issue I have had on my HHR is the Turbo upgrade Map is pointed the wrong direction and it needed to be clearance. Some early cars had hoses blow off with the upgrade but just needed tightened down. There were some Turbo control valve issues on early models but most have been resolved. 

 

I have considered one for my next purchase. Either engine is good. The V6 needs RPM to move but it goes and the Turbo has a ton of low end torque with very little lag. A tuner can easily add 55 HP with a change of maps and a tune. 

 

I have 5 co workers who have purchased these models recently they are all 55 and younger. They are all non Cadillac guys too. To this point they are very happy customers. 

 

Note two bought low mile lease turn in models and got one hell of a deal on them. Low miles one had only 19K. 

 

There is little risk on these models other than what you like. Also if you buy new expect to take a hit resale  unless you keep it 8 years. That is the biggest issue. 

I would drive them and really get to know the car and decide if you really like it. Then if you do then work the best deal you can. Sales are down so they should be dealing. Work em hard and you will be rewarded. 

The more options the better trade value later. 

Note a revamped model is due around 2018 so the deals may get even better next year. 

[smk4565]

I think you have to buy what you want.  If an Acura TL with the Honda V6 was said to be more reliable than the 2.0T, would that make you want an Acura instead?  I am guessing not, so you have to buy the car you like driving, any used car can have repair costs, or maybe the brakes and tires are 4-5 months away from being replaced, etc.  There could be cost in any used car.  You have to pick the car you want and just go with it.

[ccap41]

I think you have to buy what you want.  If an Acura TL with the Honda V6 was said to be more reliable than the 2.0T, would that make you want an Acura instead?  I am guessing not, so you have to buy the car you like driving, any used car can have repair costs, or maybe the brakes and tires are 4-5 months away from being replaced, etc.  There could be cost in any used car.  You have to pick the car you want and just go with it.

Yes..and no.. I mean the reliability of an engine/drivetrain isn't going to sell me but if it is known for expensive issues it will turn me off of the vehicle. 

 

Not all used cars have the same operating costs though and while you won't admit it MB/BMW/Audi run on the high side of that. Also, tires and brakes are easily observable and I would never buy a car that would need tires by the end of the next season.

[smk4565]

Tire wear is going to be fairly similar, brake wear as well I'd image.  Most Cadillacs I think use Mobil 1 oil now, same as a Mercedes does, so all that routine stuff is similar cost.  

[ccap41]

Tire wear varies GREATLY if you know anything about tires(make/model/compound/wear rating/driver's style/most OEMs have tires designed for their specific cars so buying an ATS with X tire will be different than buying a 3 Series with the same brand name and model tire). Unless you know information about both ATS and 3/C Class tires there is no way one can honestly say they are similar without at the very least knowing the wear ratings of each tire. 

 

Yes the only thing that is "similar cost" is oil. But that is what I'm curious about in this thread...

 

is Cadillac as expensive to own and maintain as a Benz/BMW/Audi? 

 

I do my own oil changes so that doesn't matter to me. I also doubt the 2.0T usues 8.5 qts of oil(like the large majority of Benz/BMW use - in the ball park of 7.0-8.5qts is normal for them) and still has intervals of around 10k miles...so again..cheaper.. 

[cp-the-nerd]

I have not seen any major issues with the 2.0 turbo. The new engine is an improved version of the LNF i have in my HHR SS. They made some improvements and made it lighter. The only issue I have had on my HHR is the Turbo upgrade Map is pointed the wrong direction and it needed to be clearance. Some early cars had hoses blow off with the upgrade but just needed tightened down. There were some Turbo control valve issues on early models but most have been resolved.

 

The 2.0T in the Cadillac ATS and Chevy Malibu is not an improved LNF, it's a brand new engine. In the same sense that the 3.6L LGX in the Camaro and various Cadillacs is not a revised 3.6L LFX. It's rebuilt from the ground up.

 

As far as the OP's question, I would avoid any 2013 models. The new 2.0T had some teething issues, so you have a much higher probability of finding a lemon with the first model year. Dealers that encounter the problem generally wind up dicking around for weeks or attempting to make cheap band-aid repairs that fail instead of just replacing the engine.

[hyperv6]

I have not seen any major issues with the 2.0 turbo. The new engine is an improved version of the LNF i have in my HHR SS. They made some improvements and made it lighter. The only issue I have had on my HHR is the Turbo upgrade Map is pointed the wrong direction and it needed to be clearance. Some early cars had hoses blow off with the upgrade but just needed tightened down. There were some Turbo control valve issues on early models but most have been resolved.

 

The 2.0T in the Cadillac ATS and Chevy Malibu is not an improved LNF, it's a brand new engine. In the same sense that the 3.6L LGX in the Camaro and various Cadillacs is not a revised 3.6L LFX. It's rebuilt from the ground up.

 

As far as the OP's question, I would avoid any 2013 models. The new 2.0T had some teething issues, so you have a much higher probability of finding a lemon with the first model year. Dealers that encounter the problem generally wind up dicking around for weeks or attempting to make cheap band-aid repairs that fail instead of just replacing the engine.

Well it has much in common with the older engine. Yes it is not but it is not a totally different engine as the basics are still the same.

Even the 3.6 while different still has much in common with the original 3.6 too.

It is fair to call it an improved version of the original. To call it a totally new engine is really misleading.

[rougeriver]

I own an ATS Premium 2.0 liter turbo RWD with 12,000 miles. When I made my purchase, the dealer let me drive a 3.6 liter V6 for a couple of days till my car was ready. IMO, the 2.0 hunts for gears less and is more tractable in the lower rpm band whereas the 3.6 loves to spool up to higher rpms. I live in an area of MD where traffic is tightly controlled, thus allowing for few chances to air things out. So the 2.0 liter was a good option for me. In more wide open spaces, I probably would rather have that extra high end power that the V6 provides. The 2.0 liter acts somewhat like a large displacement OHV engine - low end grunt, but muted at the top end. The "rough" note cited by some reviews is more akin to a growl and does not have the nasty harmonics one associates with resonating ancillaries or point sources on the ICE. I have not found it unpleasant. For example, my Fusion with the 3.0 duratec had a mechanical ringing noise due to the chain that was interpreted as "rough". I though it was music to my ear. Anyhow, make sure you wind up that 2.0 liter and decide for yourself. At idle and low rpms, the ATS is silent.

 

Problems?

 

None.

 

In fact, this car has one the best unit bodies with respect to torsional rigidity and weight I have ever driven. Being an engineer  and knowing how bonding and laser seam welding improve integrated structures, this was not much of a surprise. I suspect that this car could take a whole lot more reactive torque before any modifications would be required. I contrast that with my 1989 Mustang GT that could bend to the point of breaking things. Which leads to brakes. The ATS stops like a dream. That car required a shock tower brace along with better brakes before any power modifications could be considered. Just like in athletics, a great core is the foundation for great performance - a side benefit being that less degrees of flexure in response to torsional load subjects components connected to the unit body lattice to less severe cycling. And as any engineer should know - metal or plastic has only so many work cycles before it says "that's all matey".

 

 

Steering?

 

Feel and feedback are good. 

 

Snow and ice?

 

Its the tires. As an old timer, I learned how to drift a rear wheel drive car and the summer run flats are the weak point in my car. So AWD is a consideration, if you do not want to swap to the correct rubber because initial acceleration from a stop is bad with this rubber, if one is on snow or ice.  

 

Recalls?

 

I had one to reprogram the code controlling the rear window defogger that was done in about ten minutes during my oil change.

 

CUE?

 

I have an Edge with MTF Ford. CUE is much better and I have not used a knob to control volumes since owning a Ford Fusion that had that control on the steering wheel. The HUD on ATS can be set to tell you what tune is playing on a station you are set at . So I can go on and off, based on not wanting to hear a crap song. 

 

Climate controls?

 

I tend to leave a car on automatic climate control and, on rare occasion, might set the temperature. So the hullabaloo about knobs is mute, for me. 

 

Seats?

 

Very comfortable for me, the driver. Size was not an issue because I have the Edge to haul my wife and two daughters. And my wife wants a Mercedes C class in the future which I believe has more room. 

 

Because of its "reputation", you should be able to get a decent price on an ATS and I think you will be happy you did.

 

Anyhow, I have to go.

 

I am happy to answer any questions.

 

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

I have not seen any major issues with the 2.0 turbo. The new engine is an improved version of the LNF i have in my HHR SS. They made some improvements and made it lighter. The only issue I have had on my HHR is the Turbo upgrade Map is pointed the wrong direction and it needed to be clearance. Some early cars had hoses blow off with the upgrade but just needed tightened down. There were some Turbo control valve issues on early models but most have been resolved.

 

The 2.0T in the Cadillac ATS and Chevy Malibu is not an improved LNF, it's a brand new engine. In the same sense that the 3.6L LGX in the Camaro and various Cadillacs is not a revised 3.6L LFX. It's rebuilt from the ground up.

 

As far as the OP's question, I would avoid any 2013 models. The new 2.0T had some teething issues, so you have a much higher probability of finding a lemon with the first model year. Dealers that encounter the problem generally wind up dicking around for weeks or attempting to make cheap band-aid repairs that fail instead of just replacing the engine.

 

Well it has much in common with the older engine. Yes it is not but it is not a totally different engine as the basics are still the same.

Even the 3.6 while different still has much in common with the original 3.6 too.

It is fair to call it an improved version of the original. To call it a totally new engine is really misleading.

 

It's not misleading to call them new engines. They ARE new engines, they are not revisions.

[Frisky Dingo]

My thoughts, as objective as possible-

 

The 2.0T car is better suited for daily duties. More low-end power that makes traffic, merging, passing easier to deal with. Plus, you have the tuning potential. I agree with whoever said it does less gear hunting, as well. I also think if you have a little restraint, it will get better mileage. Turbo lag is minor, and engine NVH could be a bit better. You can get it with a stick, which is cool.

 

The V6 has the advantages of sounding great, and having a more linear power delivery. I think it feels quicker than it's numbers suggest, especially when stretching it's legs. You have an engine that is more or less at it's potential from the factory, though.

 

As for the car itself, it's a mixed bag. I'm not one of those who think the ATS is the end-all of the segment. That is definitely not the case. But I'm also not one of those to dismiss it solely for the badge.

 

On the upside, the car easily has the best handling in the class. The chassis is stiff, sharp, and solid, and it's coupled to good steering- precise, nicely weighted, decent feel. The exterior design I'm a pretty big fan of. It's sharp looking. The interior looks good too, though some materials are a bit low-rent. It's also a good value, due to the steep depreciation they suffer.

 

That said, there are drawbacks. The rear seat is small. It's really equivalent to a smaller compact economy sedan back there. The ride is on the stiff side. It's not unbearable by any means, but it's not the most comfortable in the class, either. The automatic leaves a bit to be desired, imo. The 6AT just doesn't have the smoothness, the quickness, or the logic of other autos in competitors. Lastly, I have to say it- CUE. It has gotten better over the years, but in it's early iterations, it'd be a deal breaker for me, I think. I haven't been in one newer than a 15 MY. I also don;t know if earlier cars can be updated to perform as well as the current system.

 

Honestly, if you can just live with CUE, it's not a bad buy. I personally, wouldn't really care what engine it had. I'd be a shopper for options and color. The only thing that'd really sway me was if it were a 6MT car. I'd also steer clear of the AWD, personally.

 

 

 

I have not seen any major issues with the 2.0 turbo. The new engine is an improved version of the LNF i have in my HHR SS. They made some improvements and made it lighter. The only issue I have had on my HHR is the Turbo upgrade Map is pointed the wrong direction and it needed to be clearance. Some early cars had hoses blow off with the upgrade but just needed tightened down. There were some Turbo control valve issues on early models but most have been resolved.

 
The 2.0T in the Cadillac ATS and Chevy Malibu is not an improved LNF, it's a brand new engine. In the same sense that the 3.6L LGX in the Camaro and various Cadillacs is not a revised 3.6L LFX. It's rebuilt from the ground up.
 
As far as the OP's question, I would avoid any 2013 models. The new 2.0T had some teething issues, so you have a much higher probability of finding a lemon with the first model year. Dealers that encounter the problem generally wind up dicking around for weeks or attempting to make cheap band-aid repairs that fail instead of just replacing the engine.

 

Well it has much in common with the older engine. Yes it is not but it is not a totally different engine as the basics are still the same.

Even the 3.6 while different still has much in common with the original 3.6 too.

It is fair to call it an improved version of the original. To call it a totally new engine is really misleading.

 

It's not misleading to call them new engines. They ARE new engines, they are not revisions.

 

 

 

I have found nothing of convincing evidence indicating that they are clean sheet designs. Unless conclusive proof was shown, I do not believe they share nothing with earlier variants.

[cp-the-nerd]

LGX V6 - "The 3.6 liter V6 LGX engine is GM’s new high-feature V6 engine. It is a clean-sheet design and shares little with the 3.6L six-cylinder LFX engine it replaces."

 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/lgx/

 

LTG 2.0T - "The LTG is not related to the outgoing 2.0 liter turbo Ecotec LHU, with even the blocks being different. Compared to the LHU, the LTG reduces overall engine friction by 16 percent."

 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/ltg/

Edited May 5, 2016 by cp-the-nerd

[Frisky Dingo]

Well, right in the links to the articles you posted, it shows the new LGX using the block from the LFX. That's pretty related, lol.

 

As for the LTG, even with the block being different, it could still share a lot of design elements and components. It's not like it's in a mfr's best interests to say, "This engine is revised variant to it's predecessor."

[Suaviloquent]

I just think the ATS is missing that half-step, the so called "curve-ball" that BMW did with the overall vehicle inside space...And then the new C-Class, and Audi A4.....

 

It's a great used car.

 

I like it. The new ATS was the first car on alpha. And there were some compromises. I still think it's a fantastic. I would say go for it...

 

But I would say be prepared to feel that the car feels really old in some areas that you deal with all the time - the interior packaging, some of the trim choices, the tech options...

 

In a lot of ways the ATS is the CT6 of its class, except not as much lighter than the competition. It's the same size others. Probably the best handling. Won't be the cushiest, if thats what you're after. The interior is okay. The inside is more cramped.... the engines are good. But I think the N20 from BMW is better...but not as reliable perhaps.

 

It's like buying an iPhone SE really, I think. You get great goodness baked in...but what you interact with will feel much older than it needs to be.

 

ME....I maddeningly prefer how the pre-facelift car looked, but arguably it does not get any of the engine upgrades or the new CUE processing.

 

I want to say I love the ATS, buy it no matter what...but I know how you think Ccap. If you want a fun car for under $40k, that is somewhat practical...maybe consider a Focus ST. You new car, new warranty....Manual transmission only, so perhaps YOU get to drive it ALL the Time. 

[hyperv6]

 

 

 

I have not seen any major issues with the 2.0 turbo. The new engine is an improved version of the LNF i have in my HHR SS. They made some improvements and made it lighter. The only issue I have had on my HHR is the Turbo upgrade Map is pointed the wrong direction and it needed to be clearance. Some early cars had hoses blow off with the upgrade but just needed tightened down. There were some Turbo control valve issues on early models but most have been resolved.

 

The 2.0T in the Cadillac ATS and Chevy Malibu is not an improved LNF, it's a brand new engine. In the same sense that the 3.6L LGX in the Camaro and various Cadillacs is not a revised 3.6L LFX. It's rebuilt from the ground up.

 

As far as the OP's question, I would avoid any 2013 models. The new 2.0T had some teething issues, so you have a much higher probability of finding a lemon with the first model year. Dealers that encounter the problem generally wind up dicking around for weeks or attempting to make cheap band-aid repairs that fail instead of just replacing the engine.

 

Well it has much in common with the older engine. Yes it is not but it is not a totally different engine as the basics are still the same.

Even the 3.6 while different still has much in common with the original 3.6 too.

It is fair to call it an improved version of the original. To call it a totally new engine is really misleading.

 

It's not misleading to call them new engines. They ARE new engines, they are not revisions.

 

 

It is still a 2.0 eco based on the same technology using much of the same design. They just cleaned it up to be lighter and quieter. It is not that radically different. 

 

Better to term it as  a more updated advanced version. 

[hyperv6]

LGX V6 - "The 3.6 liter V6 LGX engine is GM’s new high-feature V6 engine. It is a clean-sheet design and shares little with the 3.6L six-cylinder LFX engine it replaces."

 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/lgx/

 

LTG 2.0T - "The LTG is not related to the outgoing 2.0 liter turbo Ecotec LHU, with even the blocks being different. Compared to the LHU, the LTG reduces overall engine friction by 16 percent."

 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/ltg/

 

They took the old design and cleaned it up. Small details like cast in exhaust manifolds to make it more quiet and lighter are some of the details. The architecture is pretty much similar. 

 

Engineering details on these engines are just to clean up the present designs to make them lighter, more efficient and quiet but they did not blow up the entire design. It is still based on the work that was started on the LNF by GM, Saab and Lotus. 

 

It was no different than the 2.2 vs the 2.0. While there was a slew of changed to the 2.0 it was still based on the 2.2. 

 

You can argue the glass half full and half empty all you like but the heritage of these engines show a direct path. 

[smk4565]

Good review from rogueriver and welcome to a new poster.

[ccap41]

I own an ATS Premium 2.0 liter turbo RWD with 12,000 miles. When I made my purchase, the dealer let me drive a 3.6 liter V6 for a couple of days till my car was ready. IMO, the 2.0 hunts for gears less and is more tractable in the lower rpm band whereas the 3.6 loves to spool up to higher rpms. I live in an area of MD where traffic is tightly controlled, thus allowing for few chances to air things out. So the 2.0 liter was a good option for me. In more wide open spaces, I probably would rather have that extra high end power that the V6 provides. The 2.0 liter acts somewhat like a large displacement OHV engine - low end grunt, but muted at the top end. The "rough" note cited by some reviews is more akin to a growl and does not have the nasty harmonics one associates with resonating ancillaries or point sources on the ICE. I have not found it unpleasant. For example, my Fusion with the 3.0 duratec had a mechanical ringing noise due to the chain that was interpreted as "rough". I though it was music to my ear. Anyhow, make sure you wind up that 2.0 liter and decide for yourself. At idle and low rpms, the ATS is silent.

 

Problems?

 

None.

 

In fact, this car has one the best unit bodies with respect to torsional rigidity and weight I have ever driven. Being an engineer  and knowing how bonding and laser seam welding improve integrated structures, this was not much of a surprise. I suspect that this car could take a whole lot more reactive torque before any modifications would be required. I contrast that with my 1989 Mustang GT that could bend to the point of breaking things. Which leads to brakes. The ATS stops like a dream. That car required a shock tower brace along with better brakes before any power modifications could be considered. Just like in athletics, a great core is the foundation for great performance - a side benefit being that less degrees of flexure in response to torsional load subjects components connected to the unit body lattice to less severe cycling. And as any engineer should know - metal or plastic has only so many work cycles before it says "that's all matey".

 

 

Steering?

 

Feel and feedback are good. 

 

Snow and ice?

 

Its the tires. As an old timer, I learned how to drift a rear wheel drive car and the summer run flats are the weak point in my car. So AWD is a consideration, if you do not want to swap to the correct rubber because initial acceleration from a stop is bad with this rubber, if one is on snow or ice.  

 

Recalls?

 

I had one to reprogram the code controlling the rear window defogger that was done in about ten minutes during my oil change.

 

CUE?

 

I have an Edge with MTF Ford. CUE is much better and I have not used a knob to control volumes since owning a Ford Fusion that had that control on the steering wheel. The HUD on ATS can be set to tell you what tune is playing on a station you are set at . So I can go on and off, based on not wanting to hear a crap song. 

 

Climate controls?

 

I tend to leave a car on automatic climate control and, on rare occasion, might set the temperature. So the hullabaloo about knobs is mute, for me. 

 

Seats?

 

Very comfortable for me, the driver. Size was not an issue because I have the Edge to haul my wife and two daughters. And my wife wants a Mercedes C class in the future which I believe has more room. 

 

Because of its "reputation", you should be able to get a decent price on an ATS and I think you will be happy you did.

 

Anyhow, I have to go.

 

I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very VERY much for your personal insight! I'm really glad somebody here owns basically exactly what I'm looking at for their point of view on the car.  The biggest issue I have is as much as I want a RWD sporty/athletic car I'm afraid I will be screwed come winter again like I was with my Mach 1. I don't have a place to store a second set of winter tires so a good all-season would have to do.

 

How many miles do you have on yours so far? 

[ccap41]

My thoughts, as objective as possible-

 

The 2.0T car is better suited for daily duties. More low-end power that makes traffic, merging, passing easier to deal with. Plus, you have the tuning potential. I agree with whoever said it does less gear hunting, as well. I also think if you have a little restraint, it will get better mileage. Turbo lag is minor, and engine NVH could be a bit better. You can get it with a stick, which is cool.

 

The V6 has the advantages of sounding great, and having a more linear power delivery. I think it feels quicker than it's numbers suggest, especially when stretching it's legs. You have an engine that is more or less at it's potential from the factory, though.

 

As for the car itself, it's a mixed bag. I'm not one of those who think the ATS is the end-all of the segment. That is definitely not the case. But I'm also not one of those to dismiss it solely for the badge.

 

On the upside, the car easily has the best handling in the class. The chassis is stiff, sharp, and solid, and it's coupled to good steering- precise, nicely weighted, decent feel. The exterior design I'm a pretty big fan of. It's sharp looking. The interior looks good too, though some materials are a bit low-rent. It's also a good value, due to the steep depreciation they suffer.

 

That said, there are drawbacks. The rear seat is small. It's really equivalent to a smaller compact economy sedan back there. The ride is on the stiff side. It's not unbearable by any means, but it's not the most comfortable in the class, either. The automatic leaves a bit to be desired, imo. The 6AT just doesn't have the smoothness, the quickness, or the logic of other autos in competitors. Lastly, I have to say it- CUE. It has gotten better over the years, but in it's early iterations, it'd be a deal breaker for me, I think. I haven't been in one newer than a 15 MY. I also don;t know if earlier cars can be updated to perform as well as the current system.

 

Honestly, if you can just live with CUE, it's not a bad buy. I personally, wouldn't really care what engine it had. I'd be a shopper for options and color. The only thing that'd really sway me was if it were a 6MT car. I'd also steer clear of the AWD, personally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you Frisky!! Your personal opinion is exactly what I was looking for. I'm glad a few here have gotten to drive exactly what I'm thinking about(and owned as rougeriver does)

 

Well in my price range I am definitely looking at the 2.0T. It seems like everything with the 3.6 is more than I would like to spend at this time. 

 

How small are the rear seats? Is it much smaller than my Escape because that's relatively small as well.

 

Ps. I don't know why it won't let me un-bold the font..oh well.. 

[ccap41]

I guess I should have clarified at some point that I am looking used. So I am NOT looking to spend 35-40k on this car but I'm looking in the 20-24k range with 30-40k miles(you'd be surprised how much they've depreciated). That was one reason I want to know about the maintenance compared to the Germans because I've owned a Mercedes and $h! is expensive. For example, they made a certain wiper blade clip that you can only get from like 2 companies and they were $40 a pair no matter what. Is that the end-all be-all? expensive wiper blades? No. But it's just another thing that is expensive on the damn car that doesn't need to be. I don't want to run into things like that.

Good review from rogueriver and welcome to a new poster.

+1

 

Thanks again rogueriver! 

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

I own an ATS Premium 2.0 liter turbo RWD with 12,000 miles. When I made my purchase, the dealer let me drive a 3.6 liter V6 for a couple of days till my car was ready. IMO, the 2.0 hunts for gears less and is more tractable in the lower rpm band whereas the 3.6 loves to spool up to higher rpms. I live in an area of MD where traffic is tightly controlled, thus allowing for few chances to air things out. So the 2.0 liter was a good option for me. In more wide open spaces, I probably would rather have that extra high end power that the V6 provides. The 2.0 liter acts somewhat like a large displacement OHV engine - low end grunt, but muted at the top end. The "rough" note cited by some reviews is more akin to a growl and does not have the nasty harmonics one associates with resonating ancillaries or point sources on the ICE. I have not found it unpleasant. For example, my Fusion with the 3.0 duratec had a mechanical ringing noise due to the chain that was interpreted as "rough". I though it was music to my ear. Anyhow, make sure you wind up that 2.0 liter and decide for yourself. At idle and low rpms, the ATS is silent.

 

Problems?

 

None.

 

In fact, this car has one the best unit bodies with respect to torsional rigidity and weight I have ever driven. Being an engineer  and knowing how bonding and laser seam welding improve integrated structures, this was not much of a surprise. I suspect that this car could take a whole lot more reactive torque before any modifications would be required. I contrast that with my 1989 Mustang GT that could bend to the point of breaking things. Which leads to brakes. The ATS stops like a dream. That car required a shock tower brace along with better brakes before any power modifications could be considered. Just like in athletics, a great core is the foundation for great performance - a side benefit being that less degrees of flexure in response to torsional load subjects components connected to the unit body lattice to less severe cycling. And as any engineer should know - metal or plastic has only so many work cycles before it says "that's all matey".

 

 

Steering?

 

Feel and feedback are good. 

 

Snow and ice?

 

Its the tires. As an old timer, I learned how to drift a rear wheel drive car and the summer run flats are the weak point in my car. So AWD is a consideration, if you do not want to swap to the correct rubber because initial acceleration from a stop is bad with this rubber, if one is on snow or ice.  

 

Recalls?

 

I had one to reprogram the code controlling the rear window defogger that was done in about ten minutes during my oil change.

 

CUE?

 

I have an Edge with MTF Ford. CUE is much better and I have not used a knob to control volumes since owning a Ford Fusion that had that control on the steering wheel. The HUD on ATS can be set to tell you what tune is playing on a station you are set at . So I can go on and off, based on not wanting to hear a crap song. 

 

Climate controls?

 

I tend to leave a car on automatic climate control and, on rare occasion, might set the temperature. So the hullabaloo about knobs is mute, for me. 

 

Seats?

 

Very comfortable for me, the driver. Size was not an issue because I have the Edge to haul my wife and two daughters. And my wife wants a Mercedes C class in the future which I believe has more room. 

 

Because of its "reputation", you should be able to get a decent price on an ATS and I think you will be happy you did.

 

Anyhow, I have to go.

 

I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very VERY much for your personal insight! I'm really glad somebody here owns basically exactly what I'm looking at for their point of view on the car.  The biggest issue I have is as much as I want a RWD sporty/athletic car I'm afraid I will be screwed come winter again like I was with my Mach 1. I don't have a place to store a second set of winter tires so a good all-season would have to do.

 

How many miles do you have on yours so far? 

 

 

 

 

I was about to say FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.. listen to this guy as he is one of the most honest mofos I have ever come across in my 13 years on these forums. Me an him go back to AWCC and the REAL MT Forums 

 

In my testing of the ATSs I would agree that while the 3.6L is up on HP, the 2.0L is a better all around vehicle and can be tuned to exceed the HP of the 3.6L inexpensively. Where as the 3.6L, like most DOHC non Turbos, gets its power up in the band.. the 2.0L has torque and juice almost thru-out. 

 

Best advice.. go test both.

[ccap41]

Honestly, I kind of don't even want to test a 3.6 because they are more than I am willing to spend so if I like it more then I just won't buy the car at all.. It'll either be a "like" or "don't like" of the 2.0 and I won't even consider the 2.5 as I don't really think it belongs in any Cadillac or Buick/GMC.. 180hp/171tq.. GM is better than that to put that motor in these premium brands. I think there should be something below the 2.0 I just don't think the gap should be that large, ~90hp/120tq. I think a 200/200 base engine would be a little more appropriate. 

[rougeriver]

To ccap41:

 

The ATS is pitiful with the summer performance run flats in ice or snow. We had a big blizzard in MD that kept everything closed. After 2 days, I felt the road were ok to drive the ATS. It had very poor initial traction on any kind of grade. IOW, if you get stuck mid-grade by a slug ahead of you, you're f@#ked and have to back down and try again. It is as bad as my Mustang GT. One time, with that car, I had to drive with the steering wheel constantly countered because of the crown of the road surface. That car also had summer performance rubber.

 

Possible solution?

 

Research a different tire.

 

A better tire suited for all kinds of weather might lose you a minimal amount of performance at the limit.

 

I believe there is a tire expert on this forum who could better answer this question. 

 

Because I have 12,000 miles, I am still using the summer run flats and have not researched an alternative. And because my family has two cars, I will just make sure my wife's car is all weather capable. BTW, the research I did revealed that summer run flats are very good on wet surfaces -which is the more common problem in MD. So the few days when the roads are not cleared are not a problem in that I work in my home. 

[rougeriver]

I guess I should have clarified at some point that I am looking used. So I am NOT looking to spend 35-40k on this car but I'm looking in the 20-24k range with 30-40k miles(you'd be surprised how much they've depreciated). That was one reason I want to know about the maintenance compared to the Germans because I've owned a Mercedes and $h! is expensive. For example, they made a certain wiper blade clip that you can only get from like 2 companies and they were $40 a pair no matter what. Is that the end-all be-all? expensive wiper blades? No. But it's just another thing that is expensive on the damn car that doesn't need to be. I don't want to run into things like that.

Good review from rogueriver and welcome to a new poster.

+1

 

Thanks again rogueriver! 

 Darn, I am going to have to ask you about Mercedes because that is the car my wife wants. I figure the best thing to do is lease to leverage the car being under warranty. My ATS gets complimentary service for its first few years so I have not paid a dime in service. Cmicasa the Great would know a lot more about the cost of maintaining a Cadillac. 

[ccap41]

 

I guess I should have clarified at some point that I am looking used. So I am NOT looking to spend 35-40k on this car but I'm looking in the 20-24k range with 30-40k miles(you'd be surprised how much they've depreciated). That was one reason I want to know about the maintenance compared to the Germans because I've owned a Mercedes and $h! is expensive. For example, they made a certain wiper blade clip that you can only get from like 2 companies and they were $40 a pair no matter what. Is that the end-all be-all? expensive wiper blades? No. But it's just another thing that is expensive on the damn car that doesn't need to be. I don't want to run into things like that.

Good review from rogueriver and welcome to a new poster.

+1

 

Thanks again rogueriver! 

 Darn, I am going to have to ask you about Mercedes because that is the car my wife wants. I figure the best thing to do is lease to leverage the car being under warranty. My ATS gets complimentary service for its first few years so I have not paid a dime in service. Cmicasa the Great would know a lot more about the cost of maintaining a Cadillac. 

 

Well, in all fairness mine was an '06 and nothing is the same now as it was then so I would just look for a more reliable resource to the current lineup. But, for what it's worth, it drove and performed GREAT. I really did love how it drove( C350 ). It was smooth, quiet, efficient, actually pretty dang quick(268hp/258tq) but any parts for it were expensive. I would only believe they are the same i not worse at this point so I would only own one under warranty.. but that's me. 

[rougeriver]

@ccap41

 

Thanks, my wife wants a C class. I try to keep her cars under warranty. That way, if there is any problem, I can tell her call the tow truck and have it taken to the dealer. I don't want her guessing any problem and trying to drive on - "honey, there all this fluid coming out, but it drove ok till it caught on fire". I had a GT that did that. The lower radiator hose came off. However, the knocking sound and a temp needle going up faster than a rocket allowed me to correctly turn the engine off, not lock, and coast to the side of the road. 

 

Our Edge has not been all that great. It has made it to 110,000 miles but does not feel nearly as solid as my 2007 Fusion did at that mileage. So I guess leasing a Mercedes and, if it is not a turd, opting to buy it might be a good strategy. I got a year to figure it out.

 

One problem that surfaced on ATS forums is a stinking smell related to the AC. This was in model years 2013 and 2014. 

[cp-the-nerd]

Honestly, I kind of don't even want to test a 3.6 because they are more than I am willing to spend so if I like it more then I just won't buy the car at all.. It'll either be a "like" or "don't like" of the 2.0 and I won't even consider the 2.5 as I don't really think it belongs in any Cadillac or Buick/GMC.. 180hp/171tq.. GM is better than that to put that motor in these premium brands. I think there should be something below the 2.0 I just don't think the gap should be that large, ~90hp/120tq. I think a 200/200 base engine would be a little more appropriate. 

 

Dude, the 2.5L makes 202 horsepower and 191 lb-ft.

[ccap41]

 

Honestly, I kind of don't even want to test a 3.6 because they are more than I am willing to spend so if I like it more then I just won't buy the car at all.. It'll either be a "like" or "don't like" of the 2.0 and I won't even consider the 2.5 as I don't really think it belongs in any Cadillac or Buick/GMC.. 180hp/171tq.. GM is better than that to put that motor in these premium brands. I think there should be something below the 2.0 I just don't think the gap should be that large, ~90hp/120tq. I think a 200/200 base engine would be a little more appropriate. 

 

Dude, the 2.5L makes 202 horsepower and 191 lb-ft.

 

Ya know what.. You are absolutely correct. I have no clue where I read the 180hp.. Maybe I either read it wrong or they typed it wrong but you are correct. 

 

Thanks ya!

 

..I still don't want it though.. haha

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

Honestly, I kind of don't even want to test a 3.6 because they are more than I am willing to spend so if I like it more then I just won't buy the car at all.. It'll either be a "like" or "don't like" of the 2.0 and I won't even consider the 2.5 as I don't really think it belongs in any Cadillac or Buick/GMC.. 180hp/171tq.. GM is better than that to put that motor in these premium brands. I think there should be something below the 2.0 I just don't think the gap should be that large, ~90hp/120tq. I think a 200/200 base engine would be a little more appropriate. 

 

Dude, the 2.5L makes 202 horsepower and 191 lb-ft.

 

Ya know what.. You are absolutely correct. I have no clue where I read the 180hp.. Maybe I either read it wrong or they typed it wrong but you are correct. 

 

Thanks ya!

 

..I still don't want it though.. haha

 

 

180 hp/171 tq is the rating for GM's 2.4L DI from the Verano and Equinox. It's possible you saw a misprint.

 

I was actually surprised to learn the 2.5L in the ATS was upgraded to the 8-speed automatic so it's probably nice and peppy. I know it's not winning many races, but Acura seems to get away with ~200 horsepower base engines in their ILX and TLX.

Edited May 7, 2016 by cp-the-nerd

[ccap41]

Well, I drove an ATS and I sat in a CT6(and fiddled with the infotainment stuffs).

 

ATS drove awesome. I loved how tight and nimble it felt. The trans felt a little snappy from gear to gear but not in a bad way, just in a way that I'm not used to in autos. But I've also never driven a sporty auto..well I guess my C350 was in a similar category just 7 years older. Just about everything about how it drove I really really liked. I immediately felt comfortable behind the wheel and I think some of that is I'm just more at home in smaller vehicles where I can feel the proportions much better than larger, "airier" vehicles. What I mean by that is, for instance, The space in the cabin from driver to the bottom of the windshield and pillars..just feels wait more "airy" in my Escape. The ATS, not so much. But I liked it. I felt more connected to the car right off the bat. Back seats were fine for me but I know I'm on the average side of people so anybody larger might have issues. Luckily for me I don't have many friends over 6' anyway. Plus, I've dealt with Mustangs in the past so having 4 doors is a plus already. I did find it odd that sitting in the back seat the roof was very low. Low to the point that the back 6 inches of the roof-line actually have a cut out for taller riders, but my head was already occupying that space(not to the ceiling but awfully close for being 5'8")  so I really am not sure IF a 6' passenger could sit in the back.

 

The one thing that might actually be a deal breaker is the damn fake buttons for radio/HVAC. I honestly don't know how that was "okay'd". I didn't think the ones for the HVAC were really that bad. They were in good locations and responded 95% of the time I touched it. It was the ones by the radio( vehicle did NOT have CUE) that I just turned the volume knob and twice my pinky brushed the "radio" "button" and went to AM and then had to fiddle with it to get it back to FM. But that was really the only thing I didn't like, but I didn't like it a lot. I'd like to get some seat time w/ CUE and see how that is. I also realize that once I familiarize myself with the car I would probably just be using the steering wheel controls anyway but just the fact that it would take waaaay more getting used to that it should is kind of gear grinding.

 

CT6. F, that car is sexy in person. The dealer had one on the lot(2 pre-ordered and sold already) and this was their first to just be as regular inventory. This was a "lowly" version ringing in at only 61k so I couldn't imagine bringing that up to 90k+ w/ more bells and whistles(other than the TT3.0 and AWD which this did not have - obviously). I freakin' LOVED how the infotainment system navigated and looked and worked and everything, lol. The touch pad that works like a mouse..and you can feel through it where you're moving the "mouse". You place your finger on it and when moving left, right, up, or down it as tiny pulses recognizing which way you're moving your finger so you can probably navigate the screen with less effort while driving. It's just awesome. either touch the screen or use the touch pad which how I placed my thumb on it, fit ergonomically perfect to me from where I set the seat up to. No stretching or too cramped and bending my arm. The car was a little big for me but honestly, from the driver's seat it didn't feel too bad. I felt like I knew the proportions fairly well from the driver's seat and that's a very comforting feeling to me which I don't get in many vehicles but the outward visibility was superb as it was in the ATS. 

[G. David Felt]

Very cool feedback, nice to know the CT6 is that impressive.

[cp-the-nerd]

I've always liked the driver-centered cockpit feel of the ATS. I have the same reaction as you every time I sit in one, everything feels just right. The size keeps it intimate without being claustrophobic, and the driver's seat feels like buckling in as a pilot, not a passenger that happens to be driving.

[ccap41]

I've always liked the driver-centered cockpit feel of the ATS. I have the same reaction as you every time I sit in one, everything feels just right. The size keeps it intimate without being claustrophobic, and the driver's seat feels like buckling in as a pilot, not a passenger that happens to be driving.

That was definitely my favorite part of the car, just how it immediately felt..right..

 

My Escape is more like the last little bit there.. passenger that happens to be driving. 

[Drew Dowdell]

Tire wear varies GREATLY if you know anything about tires(make/model/compound/wear rating/driver's style/most OEMs have tires designed for their specific cars so buying an ATS with X tire will be different than buying a 3 Series with the same brand name and model tire). Unless you know information about both ATS and 3/C Class tires there is no way one can honestly say they are similar without at the very least knowing the wear ratings of each tire. 

 

Yes the only thing that is "similar cost" is oil. But that is what I'm curious about in this thread...

 

is Cadillac as expensive to own and maintain as a Benz/BMW/Audi? 

 

I do my own oil changes so that doesn't matter to me. I also doubt the 2.0T usues 8.5 qts of oil(like the large majority of Benz/BMW use - in the ball park of 7.0-8.5qts is normal for them) and still has intervals of around 10k miles...so again..cheaper.. 

 

Cadillacs are cheaper to own and maintain than anything from Germany.... not just the premium brands.... keeping my ex's high mileage Passat in operating condition was expensive.  

 

The ATS 2.0t takes 5 quarts for RWD and 6 quarts for AWD. 

[Drew Dowdell]

I've driven probably every powertrain combo that has been available in the ATS..... and unless you're going for an ATS-V, the 2.0T is the one to get, especially if you can hold off a little while longer till some of the 8-speed models get into the used car fleet.   The 6-speed is still good, it's just that the 8-speed is really really good.

 

That said, my reason for picking the 2.0T over the 3.6 is one of balance.  The 3.6 may be a tick faster in a straight line, but I swear you can feel the extra weight up front. The 2.0T's balance around curves is far more sure footed. 

[ccap41]

 

Tire wear varies GREATLY if you know anything about tires(make/model/compound/wear rating/driver's style/most OEMs have tires designed for their specific cars so buying an ATS with X tire will be different than buying a 3 Series with the same brand name and model tire). Unless you know information about both ATS and 3/C Class tires there is no way one can honestly say they are similar without at the very least knowing the wear ratings of each tire. 

 

Yes the only thing that is "similar cost" is oil. But that is what I'm curious about in this thread...

 

is Cadillac as expensive to own and maintain as a Benz/BMW/Audi? 

 

I do my own oil changes so that doesn't matter to me. I also doubt the 2.0T usues 8.5 qts of oil(like the large majority of Benz/BMW use - in the ball park of 7.0-8.5qts is normal for them) and still has intervals of around 10k miles...so again..cheaper.. 

 

Cadillacs are cheaper to own and maintain than anything from Germany.... not just the premium brands.... keeping my ex's high mileage Passat in operating condition was expensive.  

 

The ATS 2.0t takes 5 quarts for RWD and 6 quarts for AWD. 

 

This is great news and pretty much exactly what I was curious about. Thank you!

I've driven probably every powertrain combo that has been available in the ATS..... and unless you're going for an ATS-V, the 2.0T is the one to get, especially if you can hold off a little while longer till some of the 8-speed models get into the used car fleet.   The 6-speed is still good, it's just that the 8-speed is really really good.

 

That said, my reason for picking the 2.0T over the 3.6 is one of balance.  The 3.6 may be a tick faster in a straight line, but I swear you can feel the extra weight up front. The 2.0T's balance around curves is far more sure footed. 

Damn, well with it being dropped into '16s I'd have to assume before it dropped into a price range I was comfortable with it would be another 2 years. I guess I'll have to drive one for myself to see if it is really that much better. I would have to believe it is. 

[Drew Dowdell]

It really depends on how hard you want to beat on it.  If you are looking for the ultimate performance from the 2.0t, then yes, you want the 8-speed.  If it's just for weekend cruising with your honey, then the 6-speed will be more than sufficient. 

[G. David Felt]

Cadillac as with all american auto's for the most part are cheaper to repair and maintain than anything from Germany and upper levels from Japan.

 

My escalade is $78 to do the synthetic oil change at the dealer. I keep going back as they know the SUV best compared to a grease monkey oil change outfit which seems to charge just as much as the dealer now for synthetic.

 

Over all, my maintenance on the Escalade, CTS, SRX, Trailblazer and my GMC Suburban is dirt cheap.

[Drew Dowdell]

Found your car

 

Buy it and I'll drive it up for you. 

[ccap41]

You legitimately know me. 

 

Black, red leather, Performance Package that includes the LED headlight/fog light set up and 18's.. That would be THE one I'd want.

 

Also, I looked at other ATSs in your zipcode for $h!s.. There are more at reasonable prices up that way. Like, quite a few. 

Like this one. Even though I'm not a light tan interior kind of guy.. 

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?endYear=2017&zip=15205&maxPrice=24000&showcaseListingId=411807031&mmt=%5BCAD%5BATS%5B%5D%5D%5B%5D%5D&modelCode1=ATS&sortBy=yearDESC&startYear=1981&makeCode1=CAD&showcaseOwnerId=30795282&firstRecord=0&maxMileage=45000&searchRadius=75&listingId=425778226&Log=0

 

Or even this w/ the 3.6

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?endYear=2017&zip=15205&maxPrice=24000&showcaseListingId=411807031&mmt=%5BCAD%5BATS%5B%5D%5D%5B%5D%5D&modelCode1=ATS&sortBy=yearDESC&startYear=1981&makeCode1=CAD&showcaseOwnerId=30795282&firstRecord=0&maxMileage=45000&searchRadius=75&listingId=428666896&Log=0

[Drew Dowdell]

I love that red interior.  Cadillac calls it Morello Red..... I call it Bordello Red.  That's the one I would buy also.

[G. David Felt]

Found your car

 

Buy it and I'll drive it up for you. 

That is a pretty sweet ride Drew!

[rougeriver]

I've driven probably every powertrain combo that has been available in the ATS..... and unless you're going for an ATS-V, the 2.0T is the one to get, especially if you can hold off a little while longer till some of the 8-speed models get into the used car fleet.   The 6-speed is still good, it's just that the 8-speed is really really good.

 

That said, my reason for picking the 2.0T over the 3.6 is one of balance.  The 3.6 may be a tick faster in a straight line, but I swear you can feel the extra weight up front. The 2.0T's balance around curves is far more sure footed. 

 

I absolutely agree. BTW, have you seen the videos of a Camaro using the 10 speed? This "automatic" was snapping off shifts, when using the paddles, like a computer game. Anyhow, here is the link:

 

 

I am new here and do not know how to post this correctly. However, I feel this is worth its own thread.

[rougeriver]

I also think that the 2.0 liter is more tractable, thus doing stop and go traffic better. The downside, IMO, vs the 3.6 liter is a high end that feels clipped. I suppose and after market tune could fix that.

[ccap41]

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=62249&endYear=2017&modelCode1=ATS&sortBy=distanceASC&showcaseOwnerId=0&makeCode1=CAD&startYear=1981&firstRecord=25&searchRadius=75&maxPrice=24000&showcaseListingId=0&mmt=%5BCAD%5BATS%5B%5D%5D%5B%5D%5D&listingId=423697522&Log=0

 

This one is local to me.