2013 Cadillac ATS GM Takes Aim at BMW. No, Seriously.

Have to say that specs, features and options all look pretty interesting. If the handling is close to bmw, two things would make me consider it:

2k or more savings over f30

more flexibility to configure the way I want as compared to current BMW lines.

Originally Posted by tturedraider

Interesting. I find it a little hard to believe Cadillac is bringing their specifically designed 3 Series fighter to market with some significant short comings from the get go. Of course, if, as was posted here, they used the E46 as their benchmark, I guess it's not surprising. I feel find it virtually unbelievable that they chose a benchmark that is now two generations old.

Your own signature actually points to the reason for this; the E46 is as you say "sorely missed".

I had an E46 as well and while I liked the E90, I never really connected with it in the way I did the E46. That's why I never actually bought one (though came within a squeak of having an E92 M3) and ended up in my wonderful little 135i. Honestly my 1'er is more like the E46 than anything BMW has built for years.

The truth is, the E46 was a fabulous car for its time, and even by today's standards I would put the E46 up against just about anything on the road. It struck that balance of performance, comfort, affordability (relatively) and practicality that few cars have managed since. The E90; while it was close, (in my opinion) it was also a smidge too heavy to be as sporty as the E46, too expensive to be attainable, and lost some practical value I felt the E46 had in that it was a cinch to work on and had a really usable interior. The E90 was more comfortable than the E46 (mostly, run-flats notwithstanding) but that's the only area in which it actually improved on it; in just about every other aspect it was a step backward.

I waffled for over a year on my choice of car and finally chose the 2012 1'er because it was to my eye a brand new E46. It drives a hell of a lot like it with the 2011+ suspension (the prior suspension wasn't great) but still manages to feel like a more modern car.

On-topic, if Cadillac want to target the E46 then I say power to them. I have said even earlier in this thread that if BMW sold a brand new E46 today, I would be putting my deposit down this afternoon. Currently the closest thing BMW sell to the E46 is still the 1'er, though I haven't actually driven an F30 yet (waiting for the coupe, personally) and if Cadillac can produce something that drives and feels like the E46 then I for one am going to find the comparison between the F30 and ATS VERY interesting.

Originally Posted by thumper_330

On-topic, if Cadillac want to target the E46 then I say power to them. I have said even earlier in this thread that if BMW sold a brand new E46 today, I would be putting my deposit down this afternoon. Currently the closest thing BMW sell to the E46 is still the 1'er, though I haven't actually driven an F30 yet (waiting for the coupe, personally) and if Cadillac can produce something that drives and feels like the E46 then I for one am going to find the comparison between the F30 and ATS VERY interesting.

Amen.

And no the F30 is nothing like an e46. Driven several. Not enjoyable.

Originally Posted by blueguydotcom

Amen.

And no the F30 is nothing like an e46. Driven several. Not enjoyable.

Well, I like the F30 much more than my old e46. The F30 is much faster, gets better fuel mileage, has a better transmission (8 vs 5 speed auto or 6 vs 5 speed manual), has more features, bigger rims, the list goes on and on. The only "issues" that people seem to have is with the sound/roughness of the 4 vs the 6 (which I gladly give up for more power/economy) ,the steering (which doesn't bother me) and the ride (which is softer but the car handles better so I'm ok with that too).

I wonder what it's 0-60 will be because the cts-v is 3.9, so wouldn't they want to keep it about a second slower so it doesn't hurt their cts-v sales?

Originally Posted by VirtuousWolf

I wonder what it's 0-60 will be because the cts-v is 3.9, so wouldn't they want to keep it about a second slower so it doesn't hurt their cts-v sales?

Which ATS model do you mean? I'm guessing the V6. Let's estimate the weight at 3450 pounds and hp at 318 with torque at 237. Just under 5 seconds is a good guess.

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

Which ATS model do you mean? I'm guessing the V6. Let's estimate the weight at 3450 pounds and hp at 318 with torque at 237. Just under 5 seconds is a good guess.

I guess you missed the link, 321/274.

Btw, had an almost new 335i as a loaner for a day, drove my usual routes. Other than the nice exhaust note, the extra power just does not cure my lust over the linear power delivery of the N/A I6.

I am afraid the ATS will not do it for me either.

i have an e90 328 and the lack of toruqe on it is pathetic. Yea its smooth but i dont feel like driving above 4000K all day

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

Which ATS model do you mean? I'm guessing the V6. Let's estimate the weight at 3450 pounds and hp at 318 with torque at 237. Just under 5 seconds is a good guess.

Forgot to add, other than the ATS V6's latest 321/274 power stats, in an earlier link it said 0-60 at 4.7s, and 1/4 mile 13.0s, although the latter are unconfirmed.

im not concerned about str8 line speed, its all about handling and feel for me.

I agree handling and feel are very important, but a sub 5 0-60, will hurt bmw sales if the car is even have way decent

Originally Posted by dtc100

I guess you missed the link, 321/274.

Btw, had an almost new 335i as a loaner for a day, drove my usual routes. Other than the nice exhaust note, the extra power just does not cure my lust over the linear power delivery of the N/A I6.

I am afraid the ATS will not do it for me either.

I saw the link and did research. I mistyped the torque numbers.

Originally Posted by VirtuousWolf

I agree handling and feel are very important, but a sub 5 0-60, will hurt bmw sales if the car is even have way decent

I can't imagine that the majority of BMW drivers make purchasing decisions based on 0-60 times.

Lets hold on till the ATS actually comes out. Pre-production models often look nicer than what is sold to the public, especially performance wise. One of my friends at GM said that the interior in the production ATS was a little disappointing. He was also disappointed in the base engine and the fact that for now, the car will only be in sedan form. maybe they are doing this because they are unsure as to how it will be received. That should tell you something right there. We'll just have to wait and see.

Originally Posted by micknugget

Lets hold on till the ATS actually comes out. Pre-production models often look nicer than what is sold to the public, especially performance wise. One of my friends at GM said that the interior in the production ATS was a little disappointing. He was also disappointed in the base engine and the fact that for now, the car will only be in sedan form. maybe they are doing this because they are unsure as to how it will be received. That should tell you something right there. We'll just have to wait and see.

Coupes' popularity is very low right now, not that they had been so great in the past. People these days want practicality to go with the look and performance, manufactures are giving them just that, in the form of a sedan.

Unless GM is just blowing hot air, if they want to make a good entry, the ATS better perform well.

The new Regal GS actually performed very well in specific performance tests, but lacked in 0-60 time. But 0-60 is all most people care about. Buick also carries a lot of stigma. Cadillac has the same image issue, but it stands a much better chance to prove itself than Buick.

Originally Posted by dtc100

Coupes' popularity is very low right now, not that they had been so great in the past. People these days want practicality to go with the look and performance, manufactures are giving them just that, in the form of a sedan.

Unless GM is just blowing hot air, if they want to make a good entry, the ATS better perform well.

The new Regal GS actually performed very well in specific performance tests, but lacked in 0-60 time. But 0-60 is all most people care about. Buick also carries a lot of stigma. Cadillac has the same image issue, but it stands a much better chance to prove itself than Buick.

I test drove the Regal GS and though overall it was quite nice. It just wasn't very sporty. The acceleration was disappointing but not bad. The handling was ok but it is a FWD car and had 20" wheels. It wasn't very tossable. The brakes however were phenomenal. It had a lost of value for hte price but just didn't fit me. Now the ATS is going to compete against it.

Originally Posted by thumper_330

Your own signature actually points to the reason for this; the E46 is as you say "sorely missed".

I had an E46 as well and while I liked the E90, I never really connected with it in the way I did the E46. That's why I never actually bought one (though came within a squeak of having an E92 M3) and ended up in my wonderful little 135i. Honestly my 1'er is more like the E46 than anything BMW has built for years.

The truth is, the E46 was a fabulous car for its time, and even by today's standards I would put the E46 up against just about anything on the road. It struck that balance of performance, comfort, affordability (relatively) and practicality that few cars have managed since. The E90; while it was close, (in my opinion) it was also a smidge too heavy to be as sporty as the E46, too expensive to be attainable, and lost some practical value I felt the E46 had in that it was a cinch to work on and had a really usable interior. The E90 was more comfortable than the E46 (mostly, run-flats notwithstanding) but that's the only area in which it actually improved on it; in just about every other aspect it was a step backward.

I said my ZHP is sorely missed. The ZHP is a very special iteration of the E46. The car was much more thanthe sum of its parts. My car was Imola Red with Natural Brown interior. It was gorgeous. My 2000 328i E46 was a real joy. I loved its 2.8 liter motor. But, the E90 is a better car in every way, imo. The motor is great. The handling is significantly more well controlled, stable and planted. Which certainly makes it great, because the E46 had set the standard. The only thing I wish my '06, n/a inline six, E90 330i had is an M Sport package. Mostly for the wonderful steering wheel and the anthracite headliner.

That the E90 went way up in price is a myth. Equivalently equipped, an E90 and an E46 were on par when adjusted for inflation. Which is even more significant, because economic conditions were less favorable to BMWAG during the E90's production. side note - the same is true for the F30. And the technological improvements that were standard on the E90, without a higher real cost, that weren't even available on the E46 were considerable. The thing that made the E90 appear to have had a big price increase was that more options were made available that either weren't offered on the E46 or weren't even in existence.

Originally Posted by dtc100

I guess you missed the link, 321/274.

Btw, had an almost new 335i as a loaner for a day, drove my usual routes. Other than the nice exhaust note, the extra power just does not cure my lust over the linear power delivery of the N/A I6.

I am afraid the ATS will not do it for me either.

Amen!! A BMW with an inline six, even turbo charged, added to their superior handling/driving is just about as close to automotive perfection as it gets. Which is why I think BMWAG really gave away their signature.advantage by not developing a smaller, turbo inline six in favor of the turbo four. I drove a wonderful four cylinder car for ten and a half years that had great BMW handling characteristics. Whether turbo charged or not, no four cylinder will ever be what an inline six is.

Originally Posted by micknugget

Lets hold on till the ATS actually comes out. Pre-production models often look nicer than what is sold to the public, especially performance wise. One of my friends at GM said that the interior in the production ATS was a little disappointing. He was also disappointed in the base engine and the fact that for now, the car will only be in sedan form. maybe they are doing this because they are unsure as to how it will be received. That should tell you something right there. We'll just have to wait and see.

Interesting. Though not surprising.

Originally Posted by dtc100

Coupes' popularity is very low right now, not that they had been so great in the past. People these days want practicality to go with the look and performance, manufactures are giving them just that, in the form of a sedan.

Unless GM is just blowing hot air, if they want to make a good entry, the ATS better perform well.

The new Regal GS actually performed very well in specific performance tests, but lacked in 0-60 time. But 0-60 is all most people care about. Buick also carries a lot of stigma. Cadillac has the same image issue, but it stands a much better chance to prove itself than Buick.

The CTS coupe's styling is too dramatic and impractical. Those enormous C pillars are a nightmare. The sedan's back seat is like sitting in a dark hole. The coupe is like sitting in a tiny, dark cave.

Originally Posted by micknugget

I test drove the Regal GS and though overall it was quite nice. It just wasn't very sporty. The acceleration was disappointing but not bad. The handling was ok but it is a FWD car and had 20" wheels. It wasn't very tossable. The brakes however were phenomenal. It had a lost of value for hte price but just didn't fit me. Now the ATS is going to compete against it.

I've driven the Regal, too. The styling is very good. Of course, it is European. However, a FWD car will never truly compete with a RWD BMW. The guy who posted the thread wondering if he was missing something about BMW even noted that he really liked the tight turning circle. A driving characteristic not possible with FWD.

http://i.autoblog.com/2012/05/07/gm-...ing-at-33-990/

While the mags only look at the list prices, it will be the real world cost, particularly the lease deals that will measure the cost of driving one of those entry level sporty cars.

Originally Posted by dtc100

http://i.autoblog.com/2012/05/07/gm-...ing-at-33-990/

While the mags only look at the list prices, it will be the real world cost, particularly the lease deals that will measure the cost of driving one of those entry level sporty cars.

Must say the ATS looks outstanding in that picture, a very clean muscular design. I'm impressed and a little bit surprised.

Originally Posted by dtc100

http://i.autoblog.com/2012/05/07/gm-...ing-at-33-990/

While the mags only look at the list prices, it will be the real world cost, particularly the lease deals that will measure the cost of driving one of those entry level sporty cars.

Good information. Thanks.

The 270 hp version with the right options could be the sweet spot in the lineup. We'll see what the lease rates are like. If the 3 series price keeps escalating, the ATS may be a good choice once my lease ends at the end of next year. I think it will be a nice car.

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

Good information. Thanks.

The 270 hp version with the right options could be the sweet spot in the lineup. We'll see what the lease rates are like. If the 3 series price keeps escalating, the ATS may be a good choice once my lease ends at the end of next year. I think it will be a nice car.

Several reported leases for the CTS models have already shown lower payments than the new 328i, all other terms and driveoffs being similar. Granted the CTS is an old model, I still can't imagine Caddy will price the ATS payment above that of CTS regardless of the model-year.

Also Caddy sales has been doing so bad lately, they will have to be aggressive to bring the numbers up, and the ATS seems to be the only thing in their sleeves for now.

Looks like you can get the 6 cyl CTS for the price of the 4 cyl 3 series.

I would wait for final pricing to really gauge if GM is serious about undercutting BMW, Audi, Merc and others with their pricing.... Personally I will be very surprised if these wind up being much less than a new 3-series, especially if you factor resale and included maintenance into the picture... there's no question they will be cheaper, but how much cheaper remains to be seen.

These cars look interesting but I am not a big fan of the wedge front end shape. My wife and I stayed at a resort over the weekend that had two Cadillacs parked there for marketing purposes. One was some kind of sport wagon that had a $60,000 price tag. The other was a hybrid Escalade that stickered at $90,000 (and gets a whopping 20 mpg, yippie!!).... Considering that either one will be worth less than 50% after 3 years they seem like extremely bad value propositions to me.

Originally Posted by The X Men

Looks like you can get the 6 cyl CTS for the price of the 4 cyl 3 series.

Huh? The price of the V6 ATS is close to the price of the 335. The 335 is $42,400 and the V6 ATS $42,090.00. Of course we will have to see how well equipped the ATS will be at that price.

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

Huh? The price of the V6 ATS is close to the price of the 335. The 335 is $42,400 and the V6 ATS $42,090.00. Of course we will have to see how well equipped the ATS will be at that price.

What's interesting is the 3.6L ATS is listed at $5k over the base 3.6L CTS. I would imagine the ATS has to be very well equipped not to limit the 3.6 V6 ATS sales.