February sales numbers

Originally Posted by tsoc88

Check you numbers BJ - A4 sales up 14% in Feb 2013 vs Feb 2012

But that is with the Allroad. I wonder how the numbers break down just for the A4. But is worth noting that Audi tracks the A5 separately, whereas BMW is still counting coupes and sedans together (will change with the intro of the 4).

Originally Posted by dtc100

If you drive a manual, there is more reason to consider an ATS because LSD is standard on the manual, but unfortunately manual is only available on 2.0T.

Currently ATS has some of the best lease deals out there in this segment.

Yes. It's annoying that BMW does not offer an LSD until you step into an M-car.

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

I built a basic 2.0t 6mt which comes standard with a an LSD for under $35k.

A 6-speed A4 quattro has an MSRP of $34,295. But unlike the ATS, that price includes leather seats, a sunroof, more adjustable seats, etc. In turn, I am sure the ATS has some minor things the A4 does not. Also, the optional paint colors cost nearly $1000 for the ATS versus $475 for Audi. My point is not that the ATS is expensive. It's just that price-wise it doesn't have an edge over its competitors.

As a side note, the 2.0T ATS surprisingly shows EPA fuel numbers of 19/30mpg compared to 22/32mpg for the A4, despite having two fewer driving wheels and being lighter.

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

A 6-speed A4 quattro has an MSRP of $34,295. But unlike the ATS, that price includes leather seats, a sunroof, more adjustable seats, etc. In turn, I am sure the ATS has some minor things the A4 does not. Also, the optional paint colors cost nearly $1000 for the ATS versus $475 for Audi. My point is not that the ATS is expensive. It's just that price-wise it doesn't have an edge over its competitors.

As a side note, the 2.0T ATS surprisingly shows EPA fuel numbers of 19/30mpg compared to 22/32mpg for the A4, despite having two fewer driving wheels and being lighter.

transmission...

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

A 6-speed A4 quattro has an MSRP of $34,295. But unlike the ATS, that price includes leather seats, a sunroof, more adjustable seats, etc. In turn, I am sure the ATS has some minor things the A4 does not. Also, the optional paint colors cost nearly $1000 for the ATS versus $475 for Audi. My point is not that the ATS is expensive. It's just that price-wise it doesn't have an edge over its competitors.

As a side note, the 2.0T ATS surprisingly shows EPA fuel numbers of 19/30mpg compared to 22/32mpg for the A4, despite having two fewer driving wheels and being lighter.

The CTS and the ATS I do not think planned to position themselves as a less expensive German alternative, rather a competent alternative regardless of price.

I could get away with a $35k ATS but would not want to be in a 3 series without certain options that bring it to $40k+.

Different priorities for different people in how they setup their builds. I know you can do a performance model ATS 2.0T 6mt and get close to $46k easily. But I find it less appealing when it mirrors the cost of an M-Sport 328 even if it has Brembos and an LSD. So to me, a bare bones 6mt 2.0T ATS for under $35k is a nice alternative.

Originally Posted by justinnum1

transmission...

This is manual against manual. The ATS auto is actually better than the manual: 21/31mpg. It is also better than the auto A4 quattro (20/30mpg).

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

This is manual against manual. The ATS auto is actually better than the manual: 21/31mpg. It is also better than the auto A4 quattro (20/30mpg).

I have so far not heard anything good about the ATS manual, reports of gearing being one of the culprits. I know they did a last minute fix job on bushings and what not don't know if anyone has driven a revamped manual yet.

Added Volvo S60.

I test drove the 2.0T and 3.6 ATS. I was underwhelmed by the steering feel (it was sloppy) and found the turbo to be full of lag and the 3.6 boring and quiet. Most reviewers have praised the steering but I find BMW's to be much better.

Bigger issue for me on the ATS are the wheels. Look at a profile shot of the car. Even with 18s the wheels look tiny and there is huge amount of gap showing. It may be nit picky but I wouldn't buy the car simply because of this. It looks under tired and there were no bigger wheels available.

As long as Caddy prices it comparably to the 3 it will pile up on lots. With aggressive lease deals, it will move. Typical Obama Motors. Without giveaways the cars sit.

Originally Posted by everettpa1

I test drove the 2.0T and 3.6 ATS. I was underwhelmed by the steering feel (it was sloppy) and found the turbo to be full of lag and the 3.6 boring and quiet. Most reviewers have praised the steering but I find BMW's to be much better.

Bigger issue for me on the ATS are the wheels. Look at a profile shot of the car. Even with 18s the wheels look tiny and there is huge amount of gap showing. It may be nit picky but I wouldn't buy the car simply because of this. It looks under tired and there were no bigger wheels available.

As long as Caddy prices it comparably to the 3 it will pile up on lots. With aggressive lease deals, it will move. Typical Obama Motors. Without giveaways the cars sit.

So it's obamas fault? GM was **** before obama became president too. IN fact isn't gm doing better since obama took office?

While most things are Obama's fault, he didn't create the mess at GM. What he did do, was take over GM when he unprecendently moved junior debt ahead of senior debt and made them take haircuts. Never happened in the history of bankruptcy before. He did this not to improve the finances at GM but as a bone to the unions and to drive his CAFE standards down the car industry's throat.

The federal government is still way underwater on it's "investment" in GM and that is before counting the tax benefit that GM was allowed to take because the tax rules were changed just for this transaction.

All of this could have happened in the private market through a normal bankruptcy and without the company going out of business, despite what the media says.

But Obama did it this way so he owns it and hence the name.

When you consider the tax payer cost, no, GM is not doing better for the dollars invested.

Obama is forcing all car companies to make smaller cars that Americans don't want and certainly don't want to pay for without massive subsidies. It puts massive financial pressure on GM and Chrysler since they only made money on big trucks and suvs and lose money on the small stuff.

Originally Posted by everettpa1

While most things are Obama's fault, he didn't create the mess at GM. What he did do, was take over GM when he unprecendently moved junior debt ahead of senior debt and made them take haircuts. Never happened in the history of bankruptcy before. He did this not to improve the finances at GM but as a bone to the unions and to drive his CAFE standards down the car industry's throat.

The federal government is still way underwater on it's "investment" in GM and that is before counting the tax benefit that GM was allowed to take because the tax rules were changed just for this transaction.

All of this could have happened in the private market through a normal bankruptcy and without the company going out of business, despite what the media says.

But Obama did it this way so he owns it and hence the name.

When you consider the tax payer cost, no, GM is not doing better for the dollars invested.

Obama is forcing all car companies to make smaller cars that Americans don't want and certainly don't want to pay for without massive subsidies. It puts massive financial pressure on GM and Chrysler since they only made money on big trucks and suvs and lose money on the small stuff.

Americans are to stupid to know whats good for them.

Originally Posted by everettpa1

I test drove the 2.0T and 3.6 ATS. I was underwhelmed by the steering feel (it was sloppy) and found the turbo to be full of lag and the 3.6 boring and quiet. Most reviewers have praised the steering but I find BMW's to be much better.

Bigger issue for me on the ATS are the wheels. Look at a profile shot of the car. Even with 18s the wheels look tiny and there is huge amount of gap showing. It may be nit picky but I wouldn't buy the car simply because of this. It looks under tired and there were no bigger wheels available.

As long as Caddy prices it comparably to the 3 it will pile up on lots. With aggressive lease deals, it will move. Typical Obama Motors. Without giveaways the cars sit.

Most reviews I read were from former BMW owners and overall enthusiasts. They all praised the steering feedback and torque of the turbo. Personally I think in real life the ATS looks fantastic and much better proportioned than the F30. The ATS should be priced comparably to the 3 because it is a better car in many aspects.

Originally Posted by justinnum1

Americans are to stupid to know whats good for them.

Originally Posted by LegendsNeverDie

Most reviews I read were from former BMW owners and overall enthusiasts. They all praised the steering feedback and torque of the turbo. Personally I think in real life the ATS looks fantastic and much better proportioned than the F30. The ATS should be priced comparably to the 3 because it is a better car in many aspects.

You dont have to defend the ATS every time someone who has driven one says they don't like it.

Originally Posted by LegendsNeverDie

Most reviews I read were from former BMW owners and overall enthusiasts. They all praised the steering feedback and torque of the turbo. Personally I think in real life the ATS looks fantastic and much better proportioned than the F30. The ATS should be priced comparably to the 3 because it is a better car in many aspects.

I like the bones of the ATS, not so much the drivetrain.

People praising the turbo are funny.

Both don't sound great, but the n20 makes the same or more torque sooner, and revs higher, makes as much or more hp verified by dynos, and gets better mpgs.

There are things to prefer with the ATS, but the 2.0t is not one of them.

Originally Posted by justinnum1

You dont have to defend the ATS every time someone who has driven one says they don't like it.

I know I don't have to defend it. You really don't have to defend the best sports sedan in its class.

Here is soneone from another forum who drove the ATS.

Originally Posted by Staszek

I will confirm that the ATS 2.0 is no where near faster then the 328. We just went through extensive test drives of the 328 and ATS 2.0 back to back with my fiance. She did not like the drivetrain of the ATS at all, neither did I. Although I think it could be the transmission that lets it down more then the engine, its awful where the 328's trans really shines.

The 3.6 was closer in performance to the 328, it was faster but barely considering how much power it has, a 335 will make it look silly though.

Originally Posted by justinnum1

Here is soneone from another forum who drove the ATS.

Yeap! They are nowhere close in acceleration;



First is 328, second ATS

ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 1.8 sec 1.8 sec
0-40 3.0 3.0
0-50 4.1 4.3
0-60 5.5 6.0
0-70 7.4 7.7
0-80 9.3 9.8
0-90 11.6 12.5
0-100 14.8 15.4
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.0 3.2
QUARTER MILE 14.1 sec @ 98.2 mph 14.4 sec @ 96.9 mph


Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2MbXn3RVt

Originally Posted by LegendsNeverDie

Yeap! They are nowhere close in acceleration;



First is 328, second ATS

ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 1.8 sec 1.8 sec
0-40 3.0 3.0
0-50 4.1 4.3
0-60 5.5 6.0
0-70 7.4 7.7
0-80 9.3 9.8
0-90 11.6 12.5
0-100 14.8 15.4
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.0 3.2
QUARTER MILE 14.1 sec @ 98.2 mph 14.4 sec @ 96.9 mph


Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2MbXn3RVt

That is someone's personal opinion. We can agree that both the ATS and F30 are clearly better than the E90 328 with it's awful tranny tho .

Now, the E90 335 with N54 is amazing.

Originally Posted by justinnum1

That is someone's personal opinion. We can agree that both the ATS and F30 are clearly better than the E90 328 with it's awful tranny tho .

Now, the E90 335 with N54 is amazing[/B].

Those are FACTUAL results with numbers. The opinion about the chassis comes from someone that test drives car as a profession. You may not like it but it is a lot more valid than yours. You are clearly upset that most reviews stated the E90 was and the ATS is a better sports sedan than the F30. Get over it, times change.

Yeah, but it's a very similar gap that the 335 guys seem to cling to as being so big.

So perspective comes into play.

Fact is, ATS 3.6 numbers are no far off from 328 numbers.

Its hard to line that up, because 3.6 is 6spd auto only, and best I have seen for an 328 8spd is 5.4/13.9 at 99.5mph. That 13.9 is likely the 8spd doing its thing.

Originally Posted by LegendsNeverDie

Yeap! They are nowhere close in acceleration;



First is 328, second ATS

ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 1.8 sec 1.8 sec
0-40 3.0 3.0
0-50 4.1 4.3
0-60 5.5 6.0
0-70 7.4 7.7
0-80 9.3 9.8
0-90 11.6 12.5
0-100 14.8 15.4
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.0 3.2
QUARTER MILE 14.1 sec @ 98.2 mph 14.4 sec @ 96.9 mph


Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2MbXn3RVt

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

Yeah, but it's a very similar gap that the 335 guys seem to cling to as being so big.

So perspective comes into play.

Fact is, ATS 3.6 numbers are no far off from 328 numbers.

Its hard to line that up, because 3.6 is 6spd auto only, and best I have seen for an 328 8spd is 5.4/13.9 at 99.5mph. That 13.9 is likely the 8spd doing its thing.

Fact is none of these cars are really that far off. The 328 and 335 are .5 seconds apart. Yes the ATS is few ticks behind the 328 due to different gearing but they both have the same power to weight ratio. Give the 3.6 the 8 speed transmission and it would be right there with the 335. The numbers also vary on different tests. At the end of the day there are a lot faster cars than the ATS or 3 than costs much less. I don't really think anyone is buying a 3 series or the ATS with straight line acceleration as a priority. A V6 Accord is faster than both the 328 and the ATS 2.0T.

Originally Posted by LegendsNeverDie

Fact is none of these cars are really that far off. The 328 and 335 are .5 seconds apart. Yes the ATS is few ticks behind the 328 due to different gearing but they both have the same power to weight ratio. Give the 3.6 the 8 speed transmission and it would be right there with the 335. The numbers also vary on different tests. At the end of the day there are a lot faster cars than the ATS or 3 than costs much less. I don't really think anyone is buying a 3 series or the ATS with straight line acceleration as a priority. A V6 Accord is faster than both the 328 and the ATS 2.0T.

I think the ATS 3.6 not only needs the 8spd to be as fast as the 335, it's also lacking in torque.

The IS350 has a 6spd auto and it's numbers are faster than the 3.6...not suRe how it compares in torque, the 3.5 vs 3.6.

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

I think the ATS 3.6 not only needs the 8spd to be as fast as the 335, it's also lacking in torque.

The IS350 has a 6spd auto and it's numbers are faster than the 3.6...not suRe how it compares in torque, the 3.5 vs 3.6.

Well the rumor is that the 2014 MY is getting an eight speed auto so I guess we shall see. On the other hand as much as I like the NA mill if they don't offer it with a manual I am out. I don't care if its PDK, DSG, DCT, 8 speed, 9 speed, 10 speed or 11 speed. I don't care if it is a full second faster with the auto. No third pedal no care. I tried to convince myself many, many times that I can live with an auto (and I drove plenty of different ones) but I realized I can't no matter how good it is. Whatever brand, the next car I am buying is a stick.