smk4565

Mercedes and Audi (and BMW) have a turbo 4 standard. Cadillac should have a Turbo 4 standard. Mercedes put a weak engine in the C-class (it does have 229 lb-ft though) , doesn't mean Cadillac has to put a weak engine with even less torque in the ATS. The A4 has 258 lb-ft of torque, the 2.5 liter NA 4-banger isn't going to have that. I don't have a double standard, the 3 cars Cadillac is attempting to go after all use a turbo 4 for the base model, 2 of them have approximately 260 lb-ft of torque. GM has a turbo 4 with approximately 260 lb-ft of torque, why not make it the base engine. Also Mercedes and BMW have their customer base and Mercedes has high owner loyalty. The ATS is the new entrant, it needs to offer something better than what all the others have to stand out from the pack. This is a problem the Lexus IS has, it is boring, does nothing that the rest of the class didn't already do, and it is easy to forget about it.

The TSX may get discontinued though, and Cadillac shouldn't be competing with entry level Acuras anyway. The IS250 and G25 at least have a V6, so the engine would likely be more refined than an inline 4. So the power may be the same, but the delivery and smoothness may favor the IS250 and G25. And I would hope a Cadillac does have substantially more power than a Malibu, it is Cadillac! Not too long ago a Malibu had 150 hp and a Cadillac had 300 hp. Now we are down to 190 hp vs 200 hp, and the scary thing is we are comparing the ATS to a Malibu. That thought shouldn't even enter one's thought process. The Cadillac should be so much better than the Chevy no one even thinks about it. To me, a 2.0T is the engine for fuel efficient minded buyers that don't care about power. The V6 I'd like to see supercharged, especially for use in the CTS. And 300 hp might be fun, but 350 hp is more fun. Everyone likes more fun.

Tuned differently, and the Sprinter is more expensive than an ATS, CTS, or SRX. So it isn't like Mercedes is taking a low end engine, it is the engine out of a $40k+ commercial vehicle. And Jaguar doesn't make the 4.2 V8 anymore.

Agreed, and not just "perceived better" but Cadillac needs engines that actually are better.

But then a Chevy would have a better standard engine than a more expensive Cadillac ATS. And if the 2.5 liter four has adequate power for a Cadillac sports sedan, it must have enough for a Chevy comfort sedan. And a more expensive LaCrosse has a 4-cylinder without a turbo too. But I agree with you, I think the 2.0T is a better option, because that engine should get the same fuel economy as a 2.5L and Ford may put the 2.0 Ecoboost in everything they make and the Passat has a 2.0T. I also like the optional V6, this is a full size car and appeals to some older buyers who are comfortable with a V6. This is also why I don't like the XTS, it will have the same powertrain as an Impala.

The 335iS has even more, and I think it has an over boost to temporarily raise torque during passing maneuvers as well. But BMW's do tend to put up acceleration times better than one might think from the advertised horsepower and torque ratings. Knowing that though, Cadillac better watch their acceleration times.

Hmm, better make a 2.5 liter 4 banger the standard engine, because Impala owners don't are about acceleration. Who cares how slow it is, Economies of Scale! Wooohooo!

2.5 liter four is what the Camry and Altima have standard. Those are $22k cars, a Cadillac should have a lot better than that. Cadillac isn't another GM brand on the level of Chevy and Buick, it should be well above them and above Acura, Volvo, and Lincoln. The bar has to be set high. Secondly, BMW can sell 3-series on reputation alone. Cadillac does not have that luxury (no pun intended) with the ATS. They have to convince buyers who by default go to the BMW dealer to give the ATS a look. The ATS needs strong attributes, not cheap engine, cheap price if they want it to stand up to the Germans.

Diesel for power and economy. If it was a diesel 4 then more economy. But a diesel v6 could be very nice for both.

Why not put eAssist on the V6? Porsche has start-stop and cylinder deactivation on their V8, other Euro luxury brands are doing similar, the S-class has a hybrid, the 3-series and 5-series will both have hybrid sixes. An Eco model doesn't have to be super slow. This is a Cadillac sports sedan, not a Chevy economy car. I would support a diesel, because that would provide the fuel economy and solid acceleration that a Cadillac should have, and they need it for Europe and probably China, or else the ATS is a North American car, not a global car. And their top 3 competitors are global cars with diesels.

Fair enough. What would you say, then, if that engine came standard with eAssist? (no one's really discussed it, but it is a possibility) Still no, make eAssist optional on the 2.0T and V6. Sports sedan: performance first, fuel economy second.

The BMW 128, though, still has a 230hp 6 cyl in the US...don't know if it will get the 4 cyl for 2013, but the ATS will compete with the 1 series also (sort of, since a 4dr 1 series isn't offered). But why does Cadillac even care about that car, it hardly sells. The new 1-series M is said to be a really fun sports car, but it is more of a true sports car like a 370Z (but more expensive). It is a niche product, not mainstream and the ATS should only be concerned with the 3-series, C-class, and A4. That is where the sales volume is. Cadillac also needs younger buyers in a bad way. 74% of CTS buyers are over age 65, and that is supposed to be the younger person's Cadillac. Time to scare off the old people with sheer performance.

As always the haters are jealous. I think it is a nice evolution of the current car, and it incorporates the SLK, SLS, and CLS styling cues into it. They need to make it more affordable if they want more sales volume. But the Lexus SC and Cadillac XLR are dead, the SL is pretty much stands alone in the roadster class. I'd take a Jaguar XK over the Mercedes any day of the week though. The Jaguar could have an engine from a canal boat and it wouldn't matter, on looks alone it wins.

The 328i until the 2012 model was a 230 hp six cylinder, the new turbo 4 has 240 hp (and 260 lb-ft @ 1250 rpm). And it is the cheapest BMW sedan that is why you see it the most. So if for 2013, the benchmark car has a 2.0 liter turbo with 260 lb-ft, why would Cadillac match up with an engine that belongs in a base model Malibu/Sonta/Camry. This is the sort of thinking that keeps Cadillac chasing the Germans, everything they build has a compromise in it.

I thought it had 260 lb-ft of torque?

If they don't care at all about performance then they aren't looking at, or shouldn't be buying, a Cadillac sports sedan. Why not then put a 2.0T in a Corvette because I am sure there are people that don't care about speed and like how the Corvette looks would buy it. Plus 270 hp in a 3300 lb car is good enough so maybe GM should do that too.

Bentley builds dinosaur cars because that is what most of their owners want. They don't want change, they a Bentley the way it has always been. That is why the Mulsanne and Brooklans type cars will go on for years. And then they have the Continental to try to bring in people under age 70 or that had never driven a Bentley before.

But why even bother? The A4, 328i, and C250 all have turbo 4's standard. The ATS should make the thro 4 standard. Who wants a Cadillac with a base model Malibu engine? Even if it has 210 hp who cares, it won't have the 252 lb-ft an A4 has. The 2.5 will be for the entry level model I assume so they can keep the starting price at 29,995. Again, it is a Cadillac, cheap isn't supposed to be what they are selling. 328i starts at $34,600, the C250 starts at $34,800. I'd say $34,700 would be a nice starting point for the 2.0T and dump the 2.5.

But why even bother? The A4, 328i, and C250 all have turbo 4's standard. The ATS should make the thro 4 standard. Who wants a Cadillac with a base model Malibu engine? Even if it has 210 hp who cares, it won't have the 252 lb-ft an A4 has.

100% agree and this is my favorite post of the year. The engine doesn't belong and l love the idea of upcharging for it.

BMW has 8-speed ZF, Mercedes though makes their own transmission and will have a 9-speed by they time the Dodge Dart does. But kudos to Dodge, it will be the Dart and the S-class ushering in the era of 9 forward gears. Although Hyundai has already begun working on a 10-speed transmission so the Book of Genesis may be rewritten to "in the beginning, there was a V8 and RWD and then God said "let their 10 forward gears" and there were 10 forward gears.

They don't, their brand is folding up and moving down market.

Looks like the current one. If they want to make a splash, make a 30 mpg version. But I expect the evolutionary changes and more of the same. Ford is the only one doing much innovation with pick-ups over the last few years and we'll see if Ford keeps to their promise of taking weight out of the F150.

While I do think Buick needs a small SUV to capture female buyers and those jettisoned by the departure of the Mercury Mariner, this is pretty boring to me. I suppose it will be more of a compact, like CR-V size compared to Equinox/Terrain size to avoid more GM overlap.

That will cannibalize XTS sales then. The product planners got it wrong as usual. Does GM really need an Impala/LaCrosse/XTS. Wasn't the reason of fewer brands to cut down the overlap and not compete with themselves. If the Impala is $28-35k as I always thought it should be, it would line up against the Avalon/Maxima/Taurus/etc. Then put a Buick in the $35-45k range to match up against Lincoln/Acura. Then give Cadillac a RWD car in the upper price range.