2016 Cadillac ATS sedan 2.0t 8AT AWD Luxury

[regfootball]

TESTED:2016 Cadillac ATS sedan 2.0t 8AT AWD Luxury, MSRP 45,000 and change

 

Note: offered this test drive as an alternate / move up to the used Volt i went in to test drive.  Offered as a sample due to a service loaner demo with a 'great lease deal'!!
 

Disclaimer: i don't drive many luxury cars so my proper frame of reference is not great.  I typically review vehicles as daily drivers.

 

Prior similar test drive:  http://www.cheersandgears.com/topic/81073-2013-cadillac-ats-25l-rwd/?hl=%2Bcadillac+%2Bats

 

Since i am not really in the luxury car market, than this test drive may seem a little odd.  But I am a GM fan and since i hadn't driven the AWD turbo ATS, I said 'sure'.  My comments may not necessarily match what a prospective luxury buyer may think.  So i may not dwell on the right things and by all means I would enjoy others comments.

 

HIGHS

 

ATS is an attractive car on the outside.

2.0t engine has --some-- grunt, but (see below)

I may be one of the few people who like the gauges and displays.  

I do like the view to the outside (rear maybe has a bit of a blind spot)

Radio sounded good.  Love XM!

 

LOWS

 

3 years later, the ATS seems dated, particularly the interior, which has its moments of cheapness

This time, the front seats felt cheap and unsupportive

GM / Cadillac has plenty of work to do on gaps and seams on the interior, and plastics.

Cadillac needs a gut and redo of the dash and center stack controls....at least the CUE has some updating.  Looks very 2009 or something.

Less space in the car than my last review.  So I got bigger or the car got smaller.  Or, I didn't really judge the tight interior very well last time.

---and i don't like the huge tranny and drive tunnel and intrusive consoles very much these days either.

Rear seat and trunk space in particular a joke.  Actual usability of this car as a functional device is likely a huge part of why the sales of this car suck.

2.0t power doesn't come on until you really juice the throttle and there is a delay.  It is NOT turbo lag.  It's a purposeful programming of the throttle working and it hinders sportiness and the feeling of torque taking off from the stop light.  Takes a long time for the shifting to come too.

Turbo four also while well muted in cruising, gets coarse and noisy quickly in mid to upper rpm's and is more comparable to the turbo motors in economy cars as far as refinement.

Overall, the powertrain is not purpose built for a more expensive brand.  The engine and tranny feel like they were 'just bolted together' ......

AWD added to this chassis, which is already heavy for the space you actually get inside, makes the car feel all around heavy for its minuscule size.

---yes I understand this chassis is really purpose built to be a uterus for the V-series performance cars.

Steering neither felt sporting or 'easy and light' and had a lot of dead spot.

---I imagine driving this car at 4/10th does not genuinely expose the real feel or capabilities of this car and chassis.  But it didn't feel like even a potential track monster either.

Car is neither a cushmobile nor does it give the notion of being a BMW competitor.

Overall construction of the car felt old GM sloppy.....

A base Camaro 4 has more benefit, is nicer inside, and costs MUCH LESS.

Jaguar's new XE comes out very soon.

A well optioned Mazda6 has a nicer interior.  I think it would even be quite a gratifying alternative.

 

SUMMARY

 

Am I a little hard on this car?  I don't believe i can totally say yes.  Have i changed my tune vs the last review...?  Yes, perhaps.  

 

I should probably go drive a CLA Mercedes or a Volvo V40 or something to compare.  This time, with the heft of the all wheel drive and relative half assedness of the powertrain tuning, this just did not do it for me.

 

I'm getting old perhaps.  I just recall leaving the dealership and gazing at the XTS and thinking, "I bet many more people would rather like to take this thing for a spin" than the ATS.  XTS telegraphs soft ride and quiet interior.  Cadillac's performance engineering the last few years has given it well deserved accolades.  But now i have to ask, has it translated to sales?

 

I think the CTS would also, or could also be more of my car.  At least there is more room and more function.  With the same powertrain though, i can't envision a much different result when the car is used for general daily driving.  

 

Maybe the new v6 is more my style.  So i should without judgement on the ATS as a whole until then.  I just remember how nice the base 2.5 ATS with RWD drove, it felt lighter and there was no lag in the throttle control and powertrain.  And it rode better.

 

Is this why they are saying the CT6 4 cyl RWD might be the most fun?

 

It only took a few short years but i think time has passed the ATS and GM by (at least in the US).  If Cadillac is truly developing a 'compact' or 'subcompact' "below the ATS", with a FWD chassis, then maybe that makes sense.  I don't think too many A3 or CLA drivers are as obsessed with performance as much as style.  Cadillac needs a style upgrade and needs to be more efficient in the package.  A good FWD chassis may be the way to do it.

 

And perhaps they need to put electrification / voltec in every new model.  Tesla has changed the game and Cadillac may need to rethink exactly how they are building cars because chasing BMW hasn't worked out real well for them, has it.  (side note, everyone in the showroom was looking at the SRX's).

 

I can't really give this car a bad grade because many would love to have a car like this.  But i think we are on the dawn of something new and Cadillac is now stuck in an old paradigm.  If they intend to have high performing 9/10 RWD chassis, they need to at least package and tune the vehicle so they can be sold as luxury cars too.  ATS might have been cool in 2013 but the world moves quickly.  

 

Since the V- cars are obviously more purpose built, the evaluation of those would be much much different.

 

Thanks for the test ride, and the lease payment is a great deal, but i think I'll pass.  An Impala, Malibu, Cruze or new LaCrosse, perhaps.....can't wait for the Jaguar XE's arrive

 

maybe i need to do a second take on this one, maybe i just couldn't stretch its legs enough

Edited May 22, 2016 by regfootball

[regfootball]

3671 pounds, what a joke.......

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ats-sedan-20t-awd-test-review

[Drew Dowdell]

3671 pounds, what a joke.......

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ats-sedan-20t-awd-test-review

 

That's the same weight as a 328xDrive..... what's your point?

[balthazar]

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

[smk4565]

If you think it is heavy now, what do you think it would weigh with a Voltec system?  It would be over 4200 lbs.

 

I do think the center stack is really cheap in this car, I am not a fan of the slider bars or swath of black plastic that is supposed to be touch sensitive for buttons.  It reminds me of a last generation Ford Edge.  Cadillac should put real buttons and knobs in cars, things that have a tactile touch and make a click when you turn or push it.

[smk4565]

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

[surreal1272]

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

 

So how does the CLA get away with it since, in lower to mid level trims, it suffers from a lot of the same issues?

[balthazar]

CLA has 3 inches less wheelbase, but a whopping NINE inches less leg room. Rear CLA sedan leg room is only 27" !! The body style is completely irrelevant; just build the coupe or better yet, make the 4-dr with compartments/shelves in the back because no one over the age of 6 is going to fit back there. 

[regfootball]

3671 pounds, what a joke.......

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ats-sedan-20t-awd-test-review

That's the same weight weas a 328xDrive..... what's your point?

Smk and Balthazasr already repeated a lot of what I was thinking. I can just add again with emphasis.....useless back seat ....joke of a trunk....and still weighs 3700 pounds. That's hardly packaging efficiency. Coupled with an interior that is lacking, and a power train that needs help to feel all of one piece, no wonder they don't sell.

CLa at least has style and a nice interior. The c class which was the actual mission of Cadillac to compete with, is in a whole nother league.

If the car /power train felt more refined and had a better interior, the shortcomings would be greatly masked.

Edited May 23, 2016 by regfootball

[regfootball]

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

Right. ATs Doesn't qualify as a tin can but it just lacks in interior and utility. If they were to put a new engine in it, program the throttle and engine computer for linear feel and much faster response instead of this crap CAFE placating crap, and had all he parts of the driveline feeling tight and working together, then We are onto something that they don't have make v models for.

[smk4565]

 

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

 

So how does the CLA get away with it since, in lower to mid level trims, it suffers from a lot of the same issues?

 

The CLA 2.0T is $3,000 cheaper starting price than an ATS 2.0.  At $40k the CLA is pretty well optioned and it gets 38 mpg highway in fwd models.  It also has a sporty look to it, so I think styling and the fuel efficiency help it sell, and no doubt the 3-spoint star on the front is a big factor.  I never drove a CLA, so I can't speak to how it drives, from sitting in them, they don't feel luxurious, but they feel well put together, sort of how I see a VW Passat.  It isn't luxury, but you get a sense that is made solid.

[smk4565]

Way to fix the ATS is take the CT6 dash board and center stack, put it in the next ATS or CT 3 or 4 or whatever it will be called.  Make the 2.0T base, the 3.0TT the mid-level engine.  That will get them more on par with the C-class.  Cadillac's problem is the C-class is as luxurious and better performing than the CT6.  The ATS is hopeless against such competition.  Lexus has enough Toyota kool-aide drinkers that will keep buying the IS, no matter how ugly they make it or how old that 3.5 V6 gets.  And the new Audi A4 seems pretty nice.

 

The Infiniti Q50 is priced better than the ATS and is a little bigger, with I think a better interior.  You can get a 300 hp V6 Q50 for $40k or a 400 hp turbo V6 awd for $49k.  Cadillac is still trying to sell the torqueless wonder that is the 3.6 V6 against the import turbos and it is a lost cause.  

Edited May 23, 2016 by smk4565

[balthazar]

 

 

3671 pounds, what a joke.......

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ats-sedan-20t-awd-test-review

That's the same weight weas a 328xDrive..... what's your point?

Smk and Balthazasr already repeated a lot of what I was thinking. I can just add again with emphasis.....useless back seat ....joke of a trunk....and still weighs 3700 pounds. That's hardly packaging efficiency. Coupled with an interior that is lacking, and a power train that needs help to feel all of one piece, no wonder they don't sell.

With 3 cars of the same overall length, one with 35" rear seat leg room (3-series), one with 33" (ATS) and one with 27" (CLA), it isn't the ATS that has a "useless" back seat.

Talk about poor packaging...

[smk4565]

The CLA is smaller than an ATS or 3-series, also catering to a different buyer.  They are going after singles, coupe buyers, urban buyers, etc, it isn't like it is a family sedan.  It is like saying the Mustang has a small back seat, but Mustang buyers won't use the back seat anyway.

 

The C-class has 35.2 inches of rear leg room, the Q50 35.1, the Audi A4 has 35.7.   This is the ATS competition.

 

I also don't think the back seat is why the ATS doesn't sell.  The interior is worse than the Q50, IS and the Germans, the imports for the most part beat the ATS on powertrains too.  I don't think the Lexus IS is a better car, but it says Lexus on it, and as I said, Toyota has a fan base, and the Lexus reliability ratings.

[balthazar]

CLA overall length : 182"

ATS overall length : 182"

It's only (vastly) smaller on the inside.

 

And no; the CLA sedan is not going after CLA coupe buyers, but what a fascinatingly disjointed theory.

 

MB has priced the CLA a lot closer to the ATS than the c-class.

[smk4565]

That is GM's fault for making the ATS too small.  But they were trying to copy an 06 3-series.  The C-class and A4 are 184-185 inches long.  It makes no sense that the CTS is 196 inches long, the biggest mid-size luxury sedan, and the ATS is the smallest in it's class.  Then the CT6 is 7-series size at 5-series pricing.  XTS priced exactly the same as CTS.  The whole sedan line up doesn't make sense.  They have no plan, they just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

[Cmicasa the Great]

CLA has 3 inches less wheelbase, but a whopping NINE inches less leg room. Rear CLA sedan leg room is only 27" !! The body style is completely irrelevant; just build the coupe or better yet, make the 4-dr with compartments/shelves in the back because no one over the age of 6 is going to fit back there. 

 

 

What's interesting is the pull back from C&D after all these years of complaining about the rear seat room. What changed. Did Cadillac make a change.. or did reviewers finally get back there and not just copy and paste from some pro-BMW reviewers article?

 

 

Contrary to that first impression, rear accommodations are reasonably suitable for two adults, with ample room for all body parts. There’s a handy fold-down armrest with cupholders, a storage bin, and a porthole to the cargo hold. The rear backrest splits and folds to help the small, 10-cubic-foot trunk swallow extra booty.

Given our laundry list of ATS strengths, this thought may have entered your mind: If this Cadillac is so good, why does the BMW 3- and 4-series team outsell the ATS five to one? Forty years of compact-sports-sedan practice have made BMW a tough nut to crack.

 

 

and the last point about sales.. and how IDIOTIC it is for people to have believed that Cadillac's first real effort in the ACTUAL segment would topple the 3 Series. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

LOok.. the fact that the ATS is still getting kudos for SOMETHING 4 years after the intro is admirable.. but I will agree that its ready for a follow up. I think this time.. after seeing the things that GM listened to in relation to the.. yup.. Malibu.. they are more than up to the task of supplying the market with a vehicle that is not only a 3series beater in terms of handling and weight, but packaging WITHOUT losing those advantages.  

 

I don't kno how many times it has to be said.. or whether or not this small community of so-called enthusiasts remember a SIMPLE.. FACT.. but the CADILLAC ATS.. was designed in 2006-2007 and was supposed to launch around the second year of the Gen II CTS. In fact.. if memory serves me correct.. the original idea was to simply downsize the Sigma platform.. which was a rework of ZETA.. and make the ATS out of that.. but that was deemed too heavy. Either way.. we all kno what happened in 2007-2009 and the plans were killed. ATS didn't come out til late '12 and here we are.

 

What's the hell is the issue now? CT3 will be out for 2018. New car.. new packaging.. new dash.. new engines. 

 

Personally.. I think instead of sitting here sparring with SMK about how much better   a effin CLA is over the (actually 8 year old) ATS we should be looking towards the future. The CLA is one of the weakest cars I've ever had the displeasure of driving. I did so on a bet.. that I lost. Fact is that the Buick Verano Turbo.. no.. the Chevy Cruze... NO.. the Sonic.. is a better car. I could see more people turned off from Benz after the CLA experience.

 

 

ATS (CT3) will have be, most likely, the same size in exterior dimensions but magically have lighter weight, and a bigger interior. Styling will take on the more fluid design of El Miraj and Ciel mixed. BET!!! The engines.. considering Cadillac is seemingly going forced induction.. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2.0L and 3.0L are the main engines, but the 3.6L may still be a middle man. I would expect the 3.0L may actually get a detune to take its place tho.. say about 360HP and the continued use of the LF4 for the VSeries but obviously more power.

[Cmicasa the Great]

That is GM's fault for making the ATS too small.  But they were trying to copy an 06 3-series.  The C-class and A4 are 184-185 inches long.  It makes no sense that the CTS is 196 inches long, the biggest mid-size luxury sedan, and the ATS is the smallest in it's class.  Then the CT6 is 7-series size at 5-series pricing.  XTS priced exactly the same as CTS.  The whole sedan line up doesn't make sense.  They have no plan, they just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

 

 

Thing is that Cadillac certainly has its issues but at least they are trying.. and the efforts they are putting out 90% of the time are absolutely excellent. Their issue is truly gauging a market segment that they have never tried in their 100+ history. Engineering-wise they are spot on.. marketing is the issue. Having the new blood like UWE and JDN is a boost, but the current products out were in the works when Wagoner was running things. Either way.. POS haters like U better hope that Cadillac doesn't get its marketing act together like Chevy has.. 

 

 

De Nysschen is right. 100% right. The thing that has actually held Cadillac back is that it allowed the brand to be dictated by the traditional buyers instead of dictating the direction of the traditional buyers. There simply is no growth in playing to the same buyers who once enjoyed driving sofas down the road. Buick example of growth without having to continue to be the "Retirement Home" chariot. They shed their traditional buyers and sought new demographics. They have seen year over year growth as a result. Cadillac must do the same. Once the forefront leader in all things luxury, they are without a doubt the one brand sides Mercedes that actually have the heritage to pull it off. If losing the bargain luxury shopper is the way of bringing in even more affluent buyers. why would they balk at that? Truth is GM has quite frankly the best opportunity in the market to truly offer a real luxury brand. Mercedes, BMW and Lexus have fundamentally blurred lines between what is a what isn't luxury. For example, at some point S-Class buyers will be sitting in the same service bay as CLA buyers. Those are the same CLA buyers that bought the car because it was a luxury name put on a basic "Nissan Sentra" with a Sentra price. The executives will be essentially sharing their aspirational car with, not even their management teams.. or even their factory workers.. but the cleaning crew. Cadillac can, and has the luxury, excuse the pun, to be autonomous from the lower ranks because it has not just Chevy to bridge the gap with upper LTZ models, but Buick and GMC. Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus can not do that and stay the course of luxury. As more and more "bottom feeders" buy the CLA, more and more sales of the real luxo makes will fall off the charts. This will also effect the ML once the GLA is introed. Mark my words. At BMW a similar thing will happen..

 

I can admit that Cadillac DEFINITELY still has work to do in expanding it's line-up but lets not get it twisted... the ATS, XTS and new CTS are not the MODERN Cadillac's first vehicles to bridge the gap.. Cadillac is not purpose but it does have existing tech and platforms that can do the job in getting it into a solid position in Tier 1.

[balthazar]

That is GM's fault for making the ATS too small.  But they were trying to copy an 06 3-series.  The C-class and A4 are 184-185 inches long.  It makes no sense that the CTS is 196 inches long, the biggest mid-size luxury sedan, and the ATS is the smallest in it's class.  Then the CT6 is 7-series size at 5-series pricing.  XTS priced exactly the same as CTS.  The whole sedan line up doesn't make sense.  They have no plan, they just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

ATS is not "too small"- as you point out, it's within an inch of the c-class. MB made the cut-rate & cut-priced CLA too large- it's only 2 inches shorter than the c-class, but the rear seat in uninhabitable. Should have only been a coupe.

[G. David Felt]

Interesting but you can bing or google and find a ton of editorials and past customers of BMW and Mercedes Benz who feel these companies are overrated. Many feel Cadillac is one of the best values, yet because of being an american car company, people are passing and moving to asian brands for perceived value with quality.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

That is GM's fault for making the ATS too small.  But they were trying to copy an 06 3-series.  The C-class and A4 are 184-185 inches long.  It makes no sense that the CTS is 196 inches long, the biggest mid-size luxury sedan, and the ATS is the smallest in it's class.  Then the CT6 is 7-series size at 5-series pricing.  XTS priced exactly the same as CTS.  The whole sedan line up doesn't make sense.  They have no plan, they just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

ATS is not "too small"- as you point out, it's within an inch of the c-class. MB made the cut-rate & cut-priced CLA too large- it's only 2 inches shorter than the c-class, but the rear seat in uninhabitable. Should have only been a coupe.

 

 

 

Its a foregone conclusion that it should have been a coupe.. or rather a four-door coupe like the vehicle tried to emulate, the CLS. Try getting in to the rear of the CLA or CLS.. and I guarantee U get out wit a f@#ked up neck.. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

Interesting but you can bing or google and find a ton of editorials and past customers of BMW and Mercedes Benz who feel these companies are overrated. Many feel Cadillac is one of the best values, yet because of being an american car company, people are passing and moving to asian brands for perceived value with quality.

 

 

Which sucks.. Its like passing on your wife who's ambitious.. great worker.. for the neighbor's wife.. who is mediocre at best... for a job at your business. The money leaves your household, while the neighbor gets to use the new found income to make his house more valuable than yours. America!!! WAKE UP!!!

[ccap41]

 

 

That is GM's fault for making the ATS too small.  But they were trying to copy an 06 3-series.  The C-class and A4 are 184-185 inches long.  It makes no sense that the CTS is 196 inches long, the biggest mid-size luxury sedan, and the ATS is the smallest in it's class.  Then the CT6 is 7-series size at 5-series pricing.  XTS priced exactly the same as CTS.  The whole sedan line up doesn't make sense.  They have no plan, they just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

ATS is not "too small"- as you point out, it's within an inch of the c-class. MB made the cut-rate & cut-priced CLA too large- it's only 2 inches shorter than the c-class, but the rear seat in uninhabitable. Should have only been a coupe.

 

 

 

Its a foregone conclusion that it should have been a coupe.. or rather a four-door coupe like the vehicle tried to emulate, the CLS. Try getting in to the rear of the CLA or CLS.. and I guarantee U get out wit a f@#ked up neck.. 

 

In all fairness, I'm only 5'8" and when I sat in the back of an ATS my head was within an inch of the roof(which has a cut out for head space). My back seat space issue with the ATS wasn't knee/leg room(probably because of the 5'8"-ness) it was actually head room. For me, it was "okay", but I know I'm on the shorter/average end of the spectrum and not all of my friends and family that would possibly ride in the back are the same or shorter.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

That is GM's fault for making the ATS too small.  But they were trying to copy an 06 3-series.  The C-class and A4 are 184-185 inches long.  It makes no sense that the CTS is 196 inches long, the biggest mid-size luxury sedan, and the ATS is the smallest in it's class.  Then the CT6 is 7-series size at 5-series pricing.  XTS priced exactly the same as CTS.  The whole sedan line up doesn't make sense.  They have no plan, they just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

ATS is not "too small"- as you point out, it's within an inch of the c-class. MB made the cut-rate & cut-priced CLA too large- it's only 2 inches shorter than the c-class, but the rear seat in uninhabitable. Should have only been a coupe.

 

 

 

Its a foregone conclusion that it should have been a coupe.. or rather a four-door coupe like the vehicle tried to emulate, the CLS. Try getting in to the rear of the CLA or CLS.. and I guarantee U get out wit a f@#ked up neck.. 

 

In all fairness, I'm only 5'8" and when I sat in the back of an ATS my head was within an inch of the roof(which has a cut out for head space). My back seat space issue with the ATS wasn't knee/leg room(probably because of the 5'8"-ness) it was actually head room. For me, it was "okay", but I know I'm on the shorter/average end of the spectrum and not all of my friends and family that would possibly ride in the back are the same or shorter.

 

 

 

In all fairness I was talking about the CLA.. AND the CLS.. the larger vehicle too. Again.. I could care less how the ride if for passengers outside of my kids.. but if someone is gonna use rear seat room as a demerit for CAddy.. they damn sure better be ready for it to be used against their POS favorite Kraut brand

[ccap41]

 

 

 

 

That is GM's fault for making the ATS too small.  But they were trying to copy an 06 3-series.  The C-class and A4 are 184-185 inches long.  It makes no sense that the CTS is 196 inches long, the biggest mid-size luxury sedan, and the ATS is the smallest in it's class.  Then the CT6 is 7-series size at 5-series pricing.  XTS priced exactly the same as CTS.  The whole sedan line up doesn't make sense.  They have no plan, they just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

ATS is not "too small"- as you point out, it's within an inch of the c-class. MB made the cut-rate & cut-priced CLA too large- it's only 2 inches shorter than the c-class, but the rear seat in uninhabitable. Should have only been a coupe.

 

 

 

Its a foregone conclusion that it should have been a coupe.. or rather a four-door coupe like the vehicle tried to emulate, the CLS. Try getting in to the rear of the CLA or CLS.. and I guarantee U get out wit a f@#ked up neck.. 

 

In all fairness, I'm only 5'8" and when I sat in the back of an ATS my head was within an inch of the roof(which has a cut out for head space). My back seat space issue with the ATS wasn't knee/leg room(probably because of the 5'8"-ness) it was actually head room. For me, it was "okay", but I know I'm on the shorter/average end of the spectrum and not all of my friends and family that would possibly ride in the back are the same or shorter.

 

 

 

In all fairness I was talking about the CLA.. AND the CLS.. the larger vehicle too. Again.. I could care less how the ride if for passengers outside of my kids.. but if someone is gonna use rear seat room as a demerit for CAddy.. they damn sure better be ready for it to be used against their POS favorite Kraut brand

 

Oh I agree. For sure, and I'm somewhat in the same boat, something like that wouldn't stop me from buying the car that is better everywhere else. Or at least where I want it to be better. Is the back of a CLS really that low also? That sucks because I really like the CLS. 

[surreal1272]

3671 pounds, what a joke.......http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ats-sedan-20t-awd-test-review

That's the same weight weas a 328xDrive..... what's your point?

Smk and Balthazasr already repeated a lot of what I was thinking. I can just add again with emphasis.....useless back seat ....joke of a trunk....and still weighs 3700 pounds. That's hardly packaging efficiency. Coupled with an interior that is lacking, and a power train that needs help to feel all of one piece, no wonder they don't sell.

CLa at least has style and a nice interior. The c class which was the actual mission of Cadillac to compete with, is in a whole nother league.

If the car /power train felt more refined and had a better interior, the shortcomings would be greatly masked.

Sorry but the CLA has a $h! interior if you go with anything less than top of the line. The style is certainly subjective too as I think it looks like it got hit in the front and the back at the same time.

[Cmicasa the Great]

@ CCAP   ^^^ Yes.. the Dimensions:

 

CLS Rear Headroom:  36.1 inches

CLA Rear Headroom:  35.4

ATS Rear Headroom:  36.8

[G. David Felt]

Anyone here long enough knows at 6'6" I am not going to be owning or riding in a ATS. Yet quality is there along with ride and space and if someone wants to complain about rear seat room on the ATS, first better look at their own favorite house first as throwing a stone in a glass house is not a good thing. German, Asian or American, they all suck for head and rear seat room in compact luxury cars.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

 

 

The ATS was the first car to go through weight reductions, they've been continuing with weight reductions since then.  That's why a CT6 4-cylinder can weigh less than the ATS 2.0 AWD. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

Anyone here long enough knows at 6'6" I am not going to be owning or riding in a ATS. Yet quality is there along with ride and space and if someone wants to complain about rear seat room on the ATS, first better look at their own favorite house first as throwing a stone in a glass house is not a good thing. German, Asian or American, they all suck for head and rear seat room in compact luxury cars.

 

 

It goes even further.. Why the hell would anyone over 6 ft be so inclined to look at an ATS, 3Series, C-Class etc when the CTS, 5Series, E-Class, etc exist. Even at a heavier price point.. one could just buy a used one if money is the issue.. and I won't even get into the fact that if it is.. U really shouldn't be in the luxury segment anyway.. or at the very least.. looking at buying instead of leasing.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

 

 

The ATS was the first car to go through weight reductions, they've been continuing with weight reductions since then.  That's why a CT6 4-cylinder can weigh less than the ATS 2.0 AWD. 

 

 

 

He acts as if Cadillac innovation from years ago now.. should somehow never be beat by new offerings today. Its stupid. plain and simple. Mark my words.. teh CT3 will be lighter and still have a bigger interior. For him to say that "If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs" is insane considering the ATS is in no way like that. The interior?? Yes.. the dash is a bit behind now, but it is not as if Cadillac doesn't kno this.. and IMO.. at this point.. I truly believe that they are not wasting a MCE on this car because it is being replaced for 2018. The instrument cluster was upgraded tho I believe for '17. 

[ccap41]

@ CCAP   ^^^ Yes.. the Dimensions:

 

CLS Rear Headroom:  36.1 inches

CLA Rear Headroom:  35.4

ATS Rear Headroom:  36.8

Holy $h!. I'm not tall but I wouldn't want anything lower than the ATS' 36.8. 

 

Thanks

[G. David Felt]

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

 

And yet you FAIL again with your viewpoint, as the ATS is light for the time of when it was developed, does NOT drive like a tin can and has far better interiors and driving dynamics than BMW and MB auto's.

[surreal1272]

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

So how does the CLA get away with it since, in lower to mid level trims, it suffers from a lot of the same issues?

The CLA 2.0T is $3,000 cheaper starting price than an ATS 2.0.  At $40k the CLA is pretty well optioned and it gets 38 mpg highway in fwd models.  It also has a sporty look to it, so I think styling and the fuel efficiency help it sell, and no doubt the 3-spoint star on the front is a big factor.  I never drove a CLA, so I can't speak to how it drives, from sitting in them, they don't feel luxurious, but they feel well put together, sort of how I see a VW Passat.  It isn't luxury, but you get a sense that is made solid.

And again he misses the point completely. How utterly NOT shocking.

[surreal1272]

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

Show us ONE publication that says that the ATS drIves like a tin can. It also has basically the same dimensions as the competition, i.e. they are all too damn small in the back.

[ccap41]

 

 

 

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

So how does the CLA get away with it since, in lower to mid level trims, it suffers from a lot of the same issues?

The CLA 2.0T is $3,000 cheaper starting price than an ATS 2.0.  At $40k the CLA is pretty well optioned and it gets 38 mpg highway in fwd models.  It also has a sporty look to it, so I think styling and the fuel efficiency help it sell, and no doubt the 3-spoint star on the front is a big factor.  I never drove a CLA, so I can't speak to how it drives, from sitting in them, they don't feel luxurious, but they feel well put together, sort of how I see a VW Passat.  It isn't luxury, but you get a sense that is made solid.

And again he misses the point completely. How utterly NOT shocking.

 

Weird how this is so wrong in every other thread but comparing the bargain FWD Mercedes to a RWD dynamic ATS it's about the mpg's... sheesh...

 

"Cadillac HAS to have EVERYTHING RWD to compete with the Germans

 

..But the FWD Mercedes gets good gas mileage.." - Anonymous  

[ccap41]

 

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

Show us ONE publication that says that the ATS drIves like a tin can. It also has basically the same dimensions as the competition, i.e. they are all too damn small in the back.

 

Yeah the whole front engine, rwd layout doesn't work too favorably in these size cars. The front seating areas are just fine but they have small back seats. Which, to me, is fine because they aren't supposed to be big cars. Big cars don't drive like these smaller sportier cars. Once a 3 Series(and the competition) gets too big it will have completely lost everything that made it such a great sport sedan..years ago.

 

Keep them small-ish, sporty, with great dynamics and drivers' cars. 

 

Also, hasn't the ATS only been complimented on it's Alpha chassis? Does not drive like a "tin can" at all. If one wants to criticize the ATS the driving characteristics are the one place to stay away from as it is great in that department.

Edited May 23, 2016 by ccap41

[cp-the-nerd]

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.  

 

 

That is blatantly wrong. Engine for engine, the ATS is lighter than its competitors. The ATS 2.0T is lighter than the 3 Series 2.0T. Same with the V6. The example is saddled with basically every option plus AWD. The Lexus competition isn't even close and Audis basically need AWD just to compete so they're fat by default.

 

An ATS 2.0T 6M weighs under 3500 lbs–Motor Trend tested one at 3460 lbs, C&D tested one at 3480 lbs–and the ATS V6 RWD weighs around 3550 lbs.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

Show us ONE publication that says that the ATS drIves like a tin can. It also has basically the same dimensions as the competition, i.e. they are all too damn small in the back.

 

 

 

 

That's the thing.. They REALLY AREN'T.. the fools that try to squeeze in them as if larger cars don't exist are just too effin BIG. It's a crazy argument that these reviewer perpetuate about the ATS almost exclusively.. Yes the 3 Series has a tiny bit of extra room but its still too damn small for my 6'3 ass to try to sit back there.. and I kno it going in.  

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

Show us ONE publication that says that the ATS drIves like a tin can. It also has basically the same dimensions as the competition, i.e. they are all too damn small in the back.

 

Yeah the whole front engine, rwd layout doesn't work too favorably in these size cars. The front seating areas are just fine but they have small back seats. Which, to me, is fine because they aren't supposed to be big cars. Big cars don't drive like these smaller sportier cars. Once a 3 Series(and the competition) gets too big it will have completely lost everything that made it such a great sport sedan..years ago.

 

Keep them small-ish, sporty, with great dynamics and drivers' cars. 

 

Also, hasn't the ATS only been complimented on it's Alpha chassis? Does not drive like a "tin can" at all. If one wants to criticize the ATS the driving characteristics are the one place to stay away from as it is great in that department.

 

 

 

The thing is that Cadillac has a larger 3series handling rival that bests its 5 series same size competitor in the CTS. They can give the CTS and ATS more room in the rear if they want tho.. it won;t determine my buying preference in the least as long as they retain their agile, SOLID, driving characteristics. 

[smk4565]

Mercedes lists the CLA and CLS as coupes on their website.  So they aren't trying to make them sedan competitors, they sell other sedans.  CLA vs ATS is a pointless comparison, C-class vs ATS is the better comparison.  No one is comparing a CLA to a 3-series or A4.

 

As far as the drives like a tin can, I meant in general.  Every car maker is now saying how they shed weight, and half the time that is due to engine down sizing or getting rid of the spare tire and jack.  Weight savings are good, but not really a selling point to consumers.

 

More specific to the ATS, is Cadillac touted the weight savings as the big selling feature of the car, just like they did with CTS, just like they are now doing with the CT6.  But none of those 3 cars sell well.  It is like Cadillac thought if they build the lightest, best handling car then it will be a sales winner, and forget to finish the rest of the car.  Meanwhile, the Escalade which has zero weight saving measures or handling abilities outsells the ATS and CTS.  They need to re-examine their forumla for building cars.

 

Also interesting that everyone says marketing is Cadillac's problem, which I think is one of their biggest.  The marketing has been bad for a coupel years.  Probably not a coincidence that Uwe Ellinghaus has been in charge of marketing for the past 2 years.  The marketing when to crap when he got there.

[smk4565]

As far as trading up from ATS/C-class/3-series to the middle size, that could be a big price jump.  A 5-series has a starting price $20,000 above a 3-series for example.   That is a big jump, it would be like telling an ATS prospective buyer to get a CT6, they are going to walk out of the showroom.   The used e-class or 5-series argument makes sense, I'd rather have a lighty used car that was $60k new and $40k used than a new car that is $40k with less power, features, room, and will depreciate anyway.

[surreal1272]

As far as trading up from ATS/C-class/3-series to the middle size, that could be a big price jump. A 5-series has a starting price $20,000 above a 3-series for example. That is a big jump, it would be like telling an ATS prospective buyer to get a CT6, they are going to walk out of the showroom. The used e-class or 5-series argument makes sense, I'd rather have a lighty used car that was $60k new and $40k used than a new car that is $40k with less power, features, room, and will depreciate anyway.

Except you skipped the logic completely with you made the ATS to CT6 comparo when it would be more accurate to jump from the ATS to the CTS, which is the 5 series competitor (not the CT6).

The rest of your "logic" can be applied to any car this exposing the fallacy of your argument.

Edited May 23, 2016 by surreal1272

[ccap41]

As far as trading up from ATS/C-class/3-series to the middle size, that could be a big price jump.  A 5-series has a starting price $20,000 above a 3-series for example.   That is a big jump, it would be like telling an ATS prospective buyer to get a CT6, they are going to walk out of the showroom.   The used e-class or 5-series argument makes sense, I'd rather have a lighty used car that was $60k new and $40k used than a new car that is $40k with less power, features, room, and will depreciate anyway.

I will agree that just because you do'nt fit doesn't mean you have no option at X price range. That's a sticky place for auto makers because they literally just can't make one car fit everybody's needs as well as their own. It sucks that a 3/C/ATS buyer at 6'5" literally just can't buy the car, but that doesn't mean they make enough money(or make it but don't want to spend it on a larger car) to be able to afford a 5/E/CTS just because they are a taller person. That's just a crappy situation, imo. 

[G. David Felt]

Mercedes lists the CLA and CLS as coupes on their website.  So they aren't trying to make them sedan competitors, they sell other sedans.  CLA vs ATS is a pointless comparison, C-class vs ATS is the better comparison.  No one is comparing a CLA to a 3-series or A4.

 

As far as the drives like a tin can, I meant in general.  Every car maker is now saying how they shed weight, and half the time that is due to engine downsizing or getting rid of the spare tire and jack.  Weight savings are good, but not really a selling point to consumers.

 

More specific to the ATS, is Cadillac touted the weight savings as the big selling feature of the car, just like they did with CTS, just like they are now doing with the CT6.  But none of those 3 cars sell well.  It is like Cadillac thought if they build the lightest, best handling car then it will be a sales winner, and forget to finish the rest of the car.  Meanwhile, the Escalade which has zero weight saving measures or handling abilities outsells the ATS and CTS.  They need to re-examine their formula for building cars.

 

Also interesting that everyone says marketing is Cadillac's problem, which I think is one of their biggest.  The marketing has been bad for a couple years.  Probably not a coincidence that Uwe Ellinghaus has been in charge of marketing for the past 2 years.  The marketing when to crap when he got there.

Here you are trying to justify MB moving the goalposts again. ALL MB cars are listed as Coupes or sedans and yet even in the Coupe descriptions from the CLA to the CLS class they call them sporty coupes with frameless 4 doors. Last time I looked up the definition of a coupe it had not changed since it came about in the 1950's.

 

 

Tin can is very much perceived as a noisy, no insulation hear everything world that is very common in your cheapest eco box auto's and even there it is becoming a thing of the past as more and more people demand a quiet interior. So the Tin Can is a failed example of the ATS or any other luxury level subcompact or compact auto.

 

Noiser is a better term but even here, that is a failed term for the ATS.

 

Weight saving is not a selling point? WRONG, weight savings is a selling point as it equates to higher MPG which is a very important thing to the buyers. Not all buyers look at MPG but more often than not in the subcompact and compact class MPG is a very important part of the total package which comes via weight savings.

 

In regards to marketing, he is cloning what BMW and MB has done for years and finally worked for them. It takes time to change perceptions and in 2 years no one can turn a ship around 180 degrees. 

 

I personally am not a fan of the current Cadillac marketing but then MB I think also has terrible marketing. At least BMW has still stuck to their Driving Machine even though the auto's have become bloated pigs.

 

Interesting side note is that if you bing or google MB marketing message you find a ton of studies that pretty much shows MB and BMW have always over the last 30 years mirrored each other and while BMW continues with their Ultimate Driving Machine, the introduction of commercial and low end models does have people wonder about the exclusivity of MB products that they have built up here in the US. There is clear concern that this message is being lost on their current marketing and the introduction of value based products here dilutes the MB Exclusivity message they have built up over the last 30 years.

[smk4565]

 

As far as trading up from ATS/C-class/3-series to the middle size, that could be a big price jump. A 5-series has a starting price $20,000 above a 3-series for example. That is a big jump, it would be like telling an ATS prospective buyer to get a CT6, they are going to walk out of the showroom. The used e-class or 5-series argument makes sense, I'd rather have a lighty used car that was $60k new and $40k used than a new car that is $40k with less power, features, room, and will depreciate anyway.

Except you skipped the logic completely with you made the ATS to CT6 comparo when it would be more accurate to jump from the ATS to the CTS, which is the 5 series competitor (not the CT6).

The rest of your "logic" can be applied to any car this exposing the fallacy of your argument.

 

The  CT6 is priced closely to the 5-series and E-class.

 

The base prices with destination charge are:

 

CT6 2.0:  $54,490

CT6 3.6:  $56,490

 

528i:   $51,195

535i:   $56,845

 

E350:  $54,025

 

CTS is $46,555 with destination charge, $7,500 less than an E350, the E350 and CT6 are $465 apart.  That is why I compared the price jump as going to a CT6.

[ccap41]

 

ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

 

At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about.  But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes.   

 

Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers.  If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs.

 

And in 2013 A comparable C300(middle engine out of 3 before jumping to AMG and V levels) weighed 3803lbs. 132lbs lighter than A C Class in 2013 and that C Class didn't change until 2016 so it wasn't like it was the last year of an era. 

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mercedes-benz-c300-4matic-sedan-test-review

Edited May 23, 2016 by ccap41

[surreal1272]

As far as trading up from ATS/C-class/3-series to the middle size, that could be a big price jump. A 5-series has a starting price $20,000 above a 3-series for example. That is a big jump, it would be like telling an ATS prospective buyer to get a CT6, they are going to walk out of the showroom. The used e-class or 5-series argument makes sense, I'd rather have a lighty used car that was $60k new and $40k used than a new car that is $40k with less power, features, room, and will depreciate anyway.

Except you skipped the logic completely with you made the ATS to CT6 comparo when it would be more accurate to jump from the ATS to the CTS, which is the 5 series competitor (not the CT6).

The rest of your "logic" can be applied to any car this exposing the fallacy of your argument.

The  CT6 is priced closely to the 5-series and E-class.

 

The base prices with destination charge are:

 

CT6 2.0:  $54,490

CT6 3.6:  $56,490

 

528i:   $51,195

535i:   $56,845

 

E350:  $54,025

 

CTS is $46,555 with destination charge, $7,500 less than an E350, the E350 and CT6 are $465 apart.  That is why I compared the price jump as going to a CT6.

No. You (once again) created an imaginary scenario that meant nothing to no one else but yourself in order to take Cadillac down another peg.

[smk4565]

The argument was made, if someone is 6'3" or too big to fit in an ATS/3-series/IS/C-class, just have them go up to the next size car.  But in most cases that is a $15,000 jump in price, going from $40,000 to $55,000 is going to be too big a jump for the majority of buyers.  

 

Buying a used 5-series or E-class for $40k was the other solution presented, which makes sense to the consumer, but to the car company, they lose out on that new car sale.