MM Full-Review: 2013 Cadillac ATS.
07-06-13, 06:04 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
MM Full-Review: 2013 Cadillac ATS.
A Review of the Cadillac ATS.
http://www.cadillac.com/ats-luxury-sport-sedan.html
IN A NUTSHELL: This is DEFINTELY not your Grandfather's Cadillac.
CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: BMW 3-Series, Lexus IS250/350, Infiniti G-series, Audi A3/A4, Mercedes C-class, Lincoln MKZ, Jaguar XF
.JPG/640px-Cadillac_ATS_(rear_quarter).JPG)
OVERVIEW:
As a number of you here at CAR CHAT probably already know, the world of small-to-medium-size Cadillacs has not always been a rosy one. The division's first significant attempt, though, at downsizing, with the mid-sized 1976 Seville, in response to the gas crisis of 1973-74 and the growing popularity of the rival Mercedes E-Class, actually turned out pretty well, and the Seville was basically a success. But the next-generation 1980-81 model, with the notoriously unreliable 350 (5.7L) V8 diesel engine (developed by Oldsmobile) and the awkward, sharply-drooping wedge-shaped trunk-lid, was a disaster. Later Sevilles grew into full-size (or near full-size) Cadillacs, recovered at least some of the quality and prestige lost by the second-generation model, and ended up being marketed primarily to a slightly different group of buyers than with the senior-citizen DeVille/DTS.....those who wanted a big comfortable Caddy with somewhat less-conservative looks and better handling than the DeVille.
As if the second-generation Seville wasn't bad enough, Cadillac, in 1981, also introduced what was arguably (along with the later Allante convertible) the worst disaster in the company's history....the Cimarrron, which was based on the J-body Chevrolet Cavalier subcompact platform. The Cimarron had a rough-running and unrefined 1.8L four that barely made 80 HP, hauled around substantially more weight than the cheaper and lower-equipped Chevy, and a poorly-designed wide-ratio 4-speed manual transmission that, like on GM's larger X-Body compacts, either lugged the engine or gave you more RPMs than necessary. From what I can remember test-driving a Cimarron, I could probably have walked back to the dealership quicker.....even in light traffic. This car ended up being a major embarassment to a auto company that was once considered the "Standard of the World"...and Cadillac did not recover from it for years. Of course, with Roger Smith running GM in the 1980s and his famous emphasis on profits and little else, the Cimarron was not the only embarassment from GM during that period. A whole line of unreliable and disappointing Chevys, Buicks, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, and Cadillacs in the 1980s forced a lot of former GM loyalists into competing brands, contributed to the rise of Japanese brands, and ultimately to Lexus/Infiniti luxury-cars in 1990.
Later on, in the mid-late 1990s, Cadillac tried again with the mid-size Catera sedan, derived from a European Opel platform (like some of today's Buicks), that was also shared with the Saturn L-series and Saab 9-5. The Catera was a far better attempt, overall, than the ill-fated Cimarron, and actually, for the period, had a pretty nice chassis for those who wanted handling and moderate sport-orientation. But the Catera suffered from a rather loose assembly (I remember my first Catera test-drive with some creaks/rattles in the structure). Lower-than-average reliability also plagued it for several years, and, in 2001, Cadillac decided to introduce a whole new model to replace it....the CTS. The first-generation CTS, also done on a shared Opel/Saturn/Saab platform, introduced new controversial chisel-edged body styling (which remains with many Cadillac models to this day). The CTS, IMO, had a number of design flaws and shortcuts....some of which I pointed out to Cadillac marketers when they invited me to be part of a CTS focus-group just before the car was introduced. Fit/finish was poor, the interior and paint-job were clearly not up to Cadillac standards, a number of cheap parts were used, and reliability was questionable.......yet the car still found a lot of buyers, and, in buisness terms, could be considered at least a marginal success.
When Cadillac introduced the second-generation CTS some 5-6 years ago, IMO, they FINALLY got a small/medium-size model right. Many of the flaws I had pointed out on the original model were gone.....including the knee-bashing lower-dashboard. The new CTS was light-years ahead of the original model, particularly in paint, interior, fit/finish, and drivetrain smoothness. Reliability also improved...but not to the level of its Japanese-designed competitors. A sleek 2-door CTS coupe was later added. But, nice as the new CTS actually was in so many areas, it still had one significant flaw in the eyes of GM marketers.....its size and weight just didn't allow it to truly compete against the BMW 3-series, whose sales and reputation were in almost complete domination of the small/medium-size sport-sedan market. Cadillac wanted to directly go up against the 3-series....and the second-generation CTS, nice as it was, just wasn't quite the machine to do it, even though a new 3rd-generation CTS will debut this fall.
So, of course, that brings us to the subject of this review...the all-new ATS. The ATS undercuts the CTS in physical size, with almost exactly the same dimensions as the latest 3-series model. The CTS sedan/coupe of course, remains as before (although the sharp-looking CTS Sportwagon, sadly, will be gone for 2014) Cadillac engineers carefully evaluated the 3-series, particularly its excellent chassis/steering system, and resolved to equal or better it. Did they succeed?.....I'll get to that myself later in the review, though, of course, there are many other reviews and opinions already published on-line and in magazines about that. The ATS not only undercuts the CTS in size but also in price...the 33K base-model ATS is not considered the entry-level Cadillac for the American market. I got a chance to examine and do a short test-drive of a new ATS at the Washington, D.C. Auto Show last February, around some of the local rutted/potholed city streets (where the car, as expected, had a markedly stiff ride). But it was not enough for a full-review back then, which I saved for now from a more thorough test-drive.
For the American market, the ATS trim and powertrain levels are rather complex.....actually more in line with the way many manufacturers market their European-spec versions, although, sadly, no diesels are (yet available here). Nevertheless, IMO, it appears that Cadillac is serious about making the ATS a truly worldwide product....not just a car for those who want the wreath-and-crest emblem on the grille (or for Grandpa/Grandma trading in a big DTS for something smaller and easier to park) and care little for what is actually behind the grille. Three engines are available on the American-market ATS.....a normally-aspirated 2.5L in-line four with 202 HP and 190 ft-lbs. of torque, a 2.0L Turbo four with 272 HP and 260 ft-lbs. of torque, and (what would probably be my choice)....a 3.6L V6 with 321 HP and 274 ft-lbs. of torque, though I would probably choose the V6 more for smoothness/refinement than the power. 2.5L models come in Standard and Luxury versions. 2.0L Turbo models come in Turbo Standard, Turbo Luxury, Turbo Performance, and Turbo Premium versions. 3.6L V6 models come in Luxury, Performance, and Premium versions. All 2.0 Turbo models get a choice of a 6-speed Sport-Shift automatic r 6-speed Tremec manual transmission. All others get only the automatic...a marketing error, IMO, considering that some of the V6 buyers might (?) also want the manual for a sports-sedan experience with a smoother-revving engine than the 2.0T. All 2.5L versions have only RWD......the others all offer a choice of RWD or AWD (although, unless there is a hardware-attachment problem, I don't see why AWD can't be offered with the base model either.....plenty of potential 2.5L buyers likely live in bad-weather areas. List prices range from $33,095 to $46,695* ...interesting, considering that prices are determined by the trim-level (Standard/Luxury/Premium/Performance), not by the actual powertrain in the car. Several versions with either the 2.0T or the 3.6L V6 under the hood actually have the same list price....so you essentially pay the same and get a choice of engines.
*The ATS base-prices on Cadillac's the web site don't quite match the car I reviewed today...they may have just posted the new 2014 ones, and I reviewed a 2013.
Due to the abundence of powertrain/trim/price-levels offered, I had a tough time deciding which version of the ATS to do the formal review on....partly determined, of course, by what models were readily in stock. I ended up at one of the largest Cadillac dealers on the East Coast, though (you have to see the size of this place to believe it), so stock was generally not an issue. As I wanted to check out the V6, and since winters here have gotten mild enough in recent years that you usually don't need the AWD, I chose a beautiful White Diamond Tricoat model (yes, an extra-cost color...just like on other GM cars) with the V6 engine, Performance trim level, and light Beige Leather interior with wood trim. It listed for just under 48K...a little on the high side for an ATS, but it had a lot of equipment. Based on what I've already read about this car in enthusiast-magazines, I was more or less expecting a stiff-riding ultra-sport sedan with Mazda Miata handling. Some of that is true.....but the car is also generally more comfortable on the road than I expected. Still, you're probably not going to see many DTS models traded in for one.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2013 Cadillac ATS RWD V6 Performance
BASE PRICE: $43,695
OPTIONS:
Power Sunroof: $1050
White Diamond Tricoat Paint: $995
Navigation System: $795
Cold Weather Package: $600
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $895
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $48,030
DRIVETRAIN: RWD, Longitudinally-mounted 3.6L V6, 321 HP @ 6800 RPM, Torque 275 Ft-lbs. @ 4800 RPM, 6-speed Sport-shift automatic, Limited-slip rear differential.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 19 City, 28 Highway, 22 Combined
EXTERIOR COLOR: White Diamond Tricoat
INTERIOR: Beige Leather
PLUSSES:
Smooth, refined, fairly powerful V6 engine.
V6 engine uses regular gas.
Smooth, flexible 6-speed automatic transmission.
Slick-feeling transmission shift-lever.
Excellent wind-noise control.
Excellent steering response.
Flat cornering with little body-lean.
Firm ride somewhat more comfortable than expected.
(but that may have just been the hot weather temporarily softening up the tire-compound)
Excellent German-feel brakes.
Excellent paint jobs.
Fairly nice exterior color paint choice.
Side mirrors include turn-signals.
Fairly good underhood layout for a luxury/upmarket car.
Underhood gas-struts instead of a manual prop-rod.
Superb interior fit/finish.
Good interior hardware.
Generally comfortable front seats with nice-feeling leather.
Excellent stereo sound quality.
Trunk/Cargo area plush-carpeted.
Variable, programmable central gauge cluster.
Nice fore/aft transmission shifter-motion instead of zig-zags.
4-year free factory-maintenance included in the list price.
MINUSES:
Some road/tire noise on various road surfaces.
Inefficiently-shaped trunk/cargo area.
Extra-cost paint colors.
No body side mouldings for parking-lot protection.
Cheap-looking (IMO) aluminum/chrome exterior trim.
Manual steering-column tilt/telescope instead of power.
CUE video-screen system complex and time-consuming to learn.
Marginal headroom up front for tall persons.
Munchkin-sized rear seats.
Front seat headrests uncomfortable for some tall persons.
Thin, cheap-feeling glove box lid.
Overly-personal butt-massagers for the lane-Change warning system.
No (apparant) First Aid kit in trunk common to upmarket/luxury cars.
Run-Flat tires carry no spare.
Lacks electronic parking brake common to even some less-expensive cars.
Annoying (IMO) Lincoln MKZ-like finger touch/slide climate-controls in center-dash.
EXTERIOR:
The exterior of the ATS, despite its fairly small size (the smallest American-market Cadillac since the ill-fated Cimarron), is easily recognizable as a Cadillac. It is not as quite chisel-like or angularly-styled as the CTS and some other Cadillacs (but then, the new CTS, coming this fall, wont be either). Yet there is no mistaking the grille, headlights, tailights, and general body treatment. The body sheet metal was not tank-like by any means, but reasonably solid, though some panels had a rather light feeling. The doors did not seem to close with a very solid sound outside, but once seated inside, seemed to have more of a thunk. Several nice (IMO) paint colors are available, besides the usual mortuary shades. The quality of the paint job on most of the colors is typical Cadillac.....meaning excellent, though the company continues the annoying GM (and European) trend of charging extra for some paint colors. The beautiful White Diamond, for example, on my test car, cost almost $1000 extra, but I think it is probably more from simple profiteering and demand for that color rather than on any true added expense in paint-costs at the factory. Unfortunately, one of the ATS models there on the lot, in the nice Crystal Red Tintcoat (another extra-cost color, and the same paint job I have on my Buick Verano), had a number of large scratches on the hood/front-fenders, and looked like it had maybe been damaged en route to the dealership on the transporter (yes, it sometimes happens, which is why transporter-companies have their own insurance). Like on many upmarket vehicles, the twin side mirrors had integrated turn-signal indicators, and they snap/swivwed and locked in place crisply and cleanly. I wasn't particulary impressed with the semi-gloss aluminum-look of the outside chrome trim. I thought it looked somewhat cheap, especially compared to what I've seen on some much less-expensive Buicks and even on some other Cadillacs.
UNDERHOOD:
Raise the somewhat light-feeling hood, and a nice pair of gas-struts (as should be at this price) holds it up for you instead of a cheap manual prop-rod. There is a wide, thick, solid-feeling insulation pad on the underside of the hood itself. The actual underhood layout seems pretty good for an upmarket/premium-grade vehicle, which are sometimes almost a nightmare to get to some components. The north/south (transversely) mounted 3.6L V6 engine (an ubiquitous powerplant also used in a number of other GM products) fits into the ATS's engine-compartment pretty well. Although the typical (and unnecessary) big plastic engine cover does block top-access to the engine, there is enough room in front and around both sides of the block that a number of components can be reached without too much trouble. The battery seems well-hidden, but the dipsticks/fluid-reservoirs/filler-caps are generally easily-reachable.
INTERIOR:
Aside from a few annoyances, which I'll get to in a minute, the interior of the new ATS is quite a nice place, with superb fit/finish, (mostly) excellent materials, and a nice choice of colors and leather/leatherette materials. Overhead, the sun visors and headliner have nice pleasant surfaces, though the headroom for tall people in the front seats is adequate only if you lower the seat cushions all the way and add a small amount of seatback-rake. All of the trim (including the wood and metallics) seems of high-quality and well-fitted. The shifter for the transmission is a nice fore/aft motion instead of (IMO) annoying zig-zags. The front seats are fairly comfortable, and have nice-feeling leather, though the side-bolsters don't seem designed for really hard cornering. The seat-cushions actually have some give to them, which, IMO, gives them a little more comfort than the rock-hard seats found in many of today's cars. The stering wheel seems well-designed and comfortable to hold, and the central gauge panel, behind the wheel, is electronically-adjustable to show any of several different displays/functions. I'd prefer a circular (or near-circular)-shaped speedometer, though, to the semi-circle/arc one provided. Cadillac, like Buick did with the Regal and Verano, really sweated the interior fit/finish on this car.......most of the interior seems fitted and polished to almost jewelry-standards. The stereo sound quality is about what you'd expect in car of this price, though not quite to Lexus Mark-Levinson standards......I tuned in just in time to hear some newscaster tell me just how hot and humid it was outside. Most of of the hardware inside, including the *****/switches, felt well-made and well-attached.
But there are some flaws inside. The rear seat is almost worthless for adults, especially taller ones. The thin-plastic glove box lid feels almost like a piece of cardboard. The video-screen CUE system, with its endless icon-shifting, is almost as frustrating as some BMW I-Drive and Audi MMI systems I've tried to decipher. I recently complained about the electronic finger-touch/slide bars on the Lincoln MKZ's upper-console that I thought were awkward to operate....the ATS, more or less, repeats the (IMO) same error. An increasing number of cars in this class (and even including the less-expensive Subaru Legacy/Outback and Buick Verano) now have an electronic parking brake...but the ATS makes do with a left-foot pedal under the dash, which large, heavy, long legs like mine find somewhat awkward to operate. Overall, though, a good job on the interior. This is the kind of attention to detail and assembly that GM cars used to have decades ago, back in the 60s (yes, the ones I grew up with, when GM's motto was "Mark of Excellence"), and then lost through penny-pinching and product-indifference.
CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:
Open the trunk lid (it has a remote release, like most vehicles these days), and you are treated to a well-finished/carpeted but somewhat awkwardly-shaped cargo area. The rear-roofline, like with many sedans these days, cuts into the size of the trunk-lid/opening itself, and the center part of the trunk has a deeply recessed narrow box-section in the center between two higher shelf on each side. I couldn't find a First-Aid kit back there, which is often included even on some entry-level luxury vehicles. But Cadillac didn't cut a single dime on the quality of the plush-feeling carpet all over the floors and walls of the trunk or on the floor's chrome pull-ring. That same nice carpet is even on the underside of the trunk-lid itself. The luggage/packages in the back, riding on that nice furry plushness, will probably be more comforable than actual (tall) humans riding in the rear seat. There is a nice compartment on the trunk's right-shelf for carrying small things. ATS Performance-Trim models, like my test-car, come with run-flat tires, so, of course, there is no spare....nor a bottle of Fix-a-Flat Compressed-air for the tire. Just the hope (and prayer) that the tire, without any air in it, can still get you out of the city at 2 AM before the gangs find you. Both rear seats on my particular test-car fold down to extend the available cargo-area.....but that feature is not available on all ATS models, just the more upmarket ones.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 3.6L V6 with your foot on the brake and by pressing an odd triangular-shaped engine START/STOP button. The V6 comes to life and idles with the smoothness of.....well, a Cadillac. As mentoned above, this engine is used in a number of GM products and is well-honed. It's what I'd call a drag-strip engine (the 90 degrees and humidity of a typical D.C.-area summer day, of course, helps sap some of the engine's power, as typical with normally-aspiated engines), but there's still enough spunk, at half-throttle or more in the lower gears, to significantly push you back in your seat. The engine is smooth and quiet at lower RPM's, but once nearing 4000 and above, some noise does make its way into the cabin. The 6-speed GM Sport-shift transmission was a delight to use, with smooth shifts, a crisp-but-slick-feeling shift lever, low transmission noise, and solid-feeling shift-paddles on the column which were nicely done in a metallic material....not the loose, cheap-feeling matte-black plastic paddles used in the Lincoln MKZ competitor. The only glitch with the ATS's shift-paddles, IMO, is that you have to remember that (as marked) the left one is for downshifts and the right one for upshifts....not the more common forward/back motion with either lever for up/downshifts found on some other cars.
The performance-trim ATS versions have GM's Magna-Ride suspension system (also used on some Corvettes) which passes magnetic iron particles through the shock-fluid for variable damping. I've read a number of reviews and magazine-comparisons of the ATS with its competitors which remark on how well the ATS handles and how stiff the ride is.....I myself don't care for a stiff ride, and I generally don't like a noisy car either. The performance trim level, of course, also comes with rubber-band-like low-profile 40-series tires, which also usually don't do much for ride-comfort. But, given the car's excellent level of handling, I did not find the ride that objectionable at all, though you know in a instant that you aren't inside of Grandpa's DTS. yes, it was a little stiffer than I'd like, but bumps generally didn't jar the suspension as much as I was expecting. Once again (maybe) chalk that up to the hot summer day amd the fact that the car had been sitting in the sun, heating up the tires and shock-fluid, making both softer and more complaint. It will be interesting to see if the car rides that smoothly in the wintertime (the ATS I drove at the D.C. Auto show, in February, on the pockmarked city streets, definitely seemed stiffer). Steering response was pretty much what the auto-mags have bragged about...very quick, though without some of the tactile road-feel that could be found, for example, on hydraulic-steer BMWs. Cornering exibited very little body-lean, and the RWD layout helped make for good balance and a neutral attitude in the corners. Some magazines have said that they think the ATS is the (now) one of the best-handling sedans in the world. I won't go that far, especially considering that I'm not a test-driving professonal, and don't drive as many different cars as the tyical magazines do, but I will definitely say that this is a classic sport-sedan chassis. Wind-noise control was definitely up to Cadillac standards, but some road/tire noise from the performance-oriented tires seemed to come through no matter what the road surface. There is a three-position switch on the console that programs the driving mode for TOURING, SPORT, and SNOW/ICE. The Snow/Ice mode, of course, starts the engine off in second gear and limits torque to prevent wheel-spin on slick surfaces. But, other than that, I couldn't notice much difference between the three modes. In fact, oddly (don't ask me why), the steering-response, to my senses, actually felt slightly quicker in the Touring mode than in Sport, which is opposite from what you would normally expect. The ATS, of course, like most cars in this class, has many electronic safety and warning features, but I would question the way one of them (the Lane-Change Warning) operates. When the system detects lane-wandering in either direction, the electronics in the drivers'seat cushion tickles and massages the left or right cheek of your butt like a pervert in a crowded subway. When backing up, and the system detects something behind the car (even a low curb), it massages BOTH cheeks. Come on, Cadillac......there are better ways to design nanny-systems than this. For example, what would a nice lady think if she were driving, you are sitting next to her in the front seat, and the system decides to tickle her fancy? You might get slapped, even if you didn't do anything wrong.
The big Brembo multi-piston brakes performed pretty much as you would expect, with a nice firm German-pedal feel (this car was partially developed in Germany), quick response without free-play/sponginess, and a reasonably good pedal-location which allowed my big size 15 circus-clown shoes to move around without getting hung up on the pedal itself.
THE VERDICT:
No, this is defnitely not Grandpa's Cadillac.......never mind the fact that TRUE Grandpa Cadillacs and Lincolns aren't even built any more, now that the DTS and Town Car are history. Nor are you likely to find an ATS, in wagon-form, parked outside a funeral home as a hearse (a subject that Grandpa would probably rather not think about). Nor are you likely to find one at a limo-firm (heck, THEY are also mouring the loss of the DTS and Town Car with Grandpa). Nor would Elvis Presley, if he were still alive today, probably think much of this car after the enormous shocking-pink 1959 Cadillac convertible he owned.....back then, full-sized Caddys were cool and not considered just for Gray-Hairs.
But, conversely, who WILL like this car.....or want one?. I think the answer is obvious.....those who are looking for a SERIOUS American-badged alterative to worshiping at the altar of BMW's 3-series. The ATS combines a trim, compact exterior size (almost identical to the new 3-series) with superb handling, superb interior fit/finish that is better than a 3-series, a reasonable choice of engines/drivetrains (though there is no V6/manual-transmission or ATS-V version to compete directly with the M3), effective Brembo brakes, a reasonably quiet and comfortable ride (though some of that ride-comfort, as I stated above, may simply be hot weather on the tires), and a thoroughly German-feel chassis. Room in the back seat? Forget it.....but that's also the case with some other ATS competitors like the Lexus IS250/350. Complex instrumentation/dash? Yes, like many upmarket cars today, that's certainly the case, but, again, the younger demographics today looking at this car, compared to traditional Cadillac buyers, are more at ease with a Boeing 747-complex dash than many of us older Baby Boomers.
So, basically, it comes down to this: Finally, after decades of waiting, there IS a credible American-badged alternative to the hallowed BMW 3-series. Add to that the fact that newer BMWs, for a number of reasons, (electric power steering, active steering/chassis, electronic shifters, Bangle-styling, declining build-quality, and others) have lost some of the (literal) magic touch they once had with sport-sedan enthusiasts, even falling out of favor with some auto-enthusiast magazines. So, while the ATS is not the car for me, it probably WILL be for a number of (potential) sport-sedan buyers.........if they will just get past their old stereotypic fear of a Cadillac dealership and actually go LOOK at one.
And, as always......Happy car-shopping.
MM
http://www.cadillac.com/ats-luxury-sport-sedan.html
IN A NUTSHELL: This is DEFINTELY not your Grandfather's Cadillac.
CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: BMW 3-Series, Lexus IS250/350, Infiniti G-series, Audi A3/A4, Mercedes C-class, Lincoln MKZ, Jaguar XF
OVERVIEW:
As a number of you here at CAR CHAT probably already know, the world of small-to-medium-size Cadillacs has not always been a rosy one. The division's first significant attempt, though, at downsizing, with the mid-sized 1976 Seville, in response to the gas crisis of 1973-74 and the growing popularity of the rival Mercedes E-Class, actually turned out pretty well, and the Seville was basically a success. But the next-generation 1980-81 model, with the notoriously unreliable 350 (5.7L) V8 diesel engine (developed by Oldsmobile) and the awkward, sharply-drooping wedge-shaped trunk-lid, was a disaster. Later Sevilles grew into full-size (or near full-size) Cadillacs, recovered at least some of the quality and prestige lost by the second-generation model, and ended up being marketed primarily to a slightly different group of buyers than with the senior-citizen DeVille/DTS.....those who wanted a big comfortable Caddy with somewhat less-conservative looks and better handling than the DeVille.
As if the second-generation Seville wasn't bad enough, Cadillac, in 1981, also introduced what was arguably (along with the later Allante convertible) the worst disaster in the company's history....the Cimarrron, which was based on the J-body Chevrolet Cavalier subcompact platform. The Cimarron had a rough-running and unrefined 1.8L four that barely made 80 HP, hauled around substantially more weight than the cheaper and lower-equipped Chevy, and a poorly-designed wide-ratio 4-speed manual transmission that, like on GM's larger X-Body compacts, either lugged the engine or gave you more RPMs than necessary. From what I can remember test-driving a Cimarron, I could probably have walked back to the dealership quicker.....even in light traffic. This car ended up being a major embarassment to a auto company that was once considered the "Standard of the World"...and Cadillac did not recover from it for years. Of course, with Roger Smith running GM in the 1980s and his famous emphasis on profits and little else, the Cimarron was not the only embarassment from GM during that period. A whole line of unreliable and disappointing Chevys, Buicks, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, and Cadillacs in the 1980s forced a lot of former GM loyalists into competing brands, contributed to the rise of Japanese brands, and ultimately to Lexus/Infiniti luxury-cars in 1990.
Later on, in the mid-late 1990s, Cadillac tried again with the mid-size Catera sedan, derived from a European Opel platform (like some of today's Buicks), that was also shared with the Saturn L-series and Saab 9-5. The Catera was a far better attempt, overall, than the ill-fated Cimarron, and actually, for the period, had a pretty nice chassis for those who wanted handling and moderate sport-orientation. But the Catera suffered from a rather loose assembly (I remember my first Catera test-drive with some creaks/rattles in the structure). Lower-than-average reliability also plagued it for several years, and, in 2001, Cadillac decided to introduce a whole new model to replace it....the CTS. The first-generation CTS, also done on a shared Opel/Saturn/Saab platform, introduced new controversial chisel-edged body styling (which remains with many Cadillac models to this day). The CTS, IMO, had a number of design flaws and shortcuts....some of which I pointed out to Cadillac marketers when they invited me to be part of a CTS focus-group just before the car was introduced. Fit/finish was poor, the interior and paint-job were clearly not up to Cadillac standards, a number of cheap parts were used, and reliability was questionable.......yet the car still found a lot of buyers, and, in buisness terms, could be considered at least a marginal success.
When Cadillac introduced the second-generation CTS some 5-6 years ago, IMO, they FINALLY got a small/medium-size model right. Many of the flaws I had pointed out on the original model were gone.....including the knee-bashing lower-dashboard. The new CTS was light-years ahead of the original model, particularly in paint, interior, fit/finish, and drivetrain smoothness. Reliability also improved...but not to the level of its Japanese-designed competitors. A sleek 2-door CTS coupe was later added. But, nice as the new CTS actually was in so many areas, it still had one significant flaw in the eyes of GM marketers.....its size and weight just didn't allow it to truly compete against the BMW 3-series, whose sales and reputation were in almost complete domination of the small/medium-size sport-sedan market. Cadillac wanted to directly go up against the 3-series....and the second-generation CTS, nice as it was, just wasn't quite the machine to do it, even though a new 3rd-generation CTS will debut this fall.
So, of course, that brings us to the subject of this review...the all-new ATS. The ATS undercuts the CTS in physical size, with almost exactly the same dimensions as the latest 3-series model. The CTS sedan/coupe of course, remains as before (although the sharp-looking CTS Sportwagon, sadly, will be gone for 2014) Cadillac engineers carefully evaluated the 3-series, particularly its excellent chassis/steering system, and resolved to equal or better it. Did they succeed?.....I'll get to that myself later in the review, though, of course, there are many other reviews and opinions already published on-line and in magazines about that. The ATS not only undercuts the CTS in size but also in price...the 33K base-model ATS is not considered the entry-level Cadillac for the American market. I got a chance to examine and do a short test-drive of a new ATS at the Washington, D.C. Auto Show last February, around some of the local rutted/potholed city streets (where the car, as expected, had a markedly stiff ride). But it was not enough for a full-review back then, which I saved for now from a more thorough test-drive.
For the American market, the ATS trim and powertrain levels are rather complex.....actually more in line with the way many manufacturers market their European-spec versions, although, sadly, no diesels are (yet available here). Nevertheless, IMO, it appears that Cadillac is serious about making the ATS a truly worldwide product....not just a car for those who want the wreath-and-crest emblem on the grille (or for Grandpa/Grandma trading in a big DTS for something smaller and easier to park) and care little for what is actually behind the grille. Three engines are available on the American-market ATS.....a normally-aspirated 2.5L in-line four with 202 HP and 190 ft-lbs. of torque, a 2.0L Turbo four with 272 HP and 260 ft-lbs. of torque, and (what would probably be my choice)....a 3.6L V6 with 321 HP and 274 ft-lbs. of torque, though I would probably choose the V6 more for smoothness/refinement than the power. 2.5L models come in Standard and Luxury versions. 2.0L Turbo models come in Turbo Standard, Turbo Luxury, Turbo Performance, and Turbo Premium versions. 3.6L V6 models come in Luxury, Performance, and Premium versions. All 2.0 Turbo models get a choice of a 6-speed Sport-Shift automatic r 6-speed Tremec manual transmission. All others get only the automatic...a marketing error, IMO, considering that some of the V6 buyers might (?) also want the manual for a sports-sedan experience with a smoother-revving engine than the 2.0T. All 2.5L versions have only RWD......the others all offer a choice of RWD or AWD (although, unless there is a hardware-attachment problem, I don't see why AWD can't be offered with the base model either.....plenty of potential 2.5L buyers likely live in bad-weather areas. List prices range from $33,095 to $46,695* ...interesting, considering that prices are determined by the trim-level (Standard/Luxury/Premium/Performance), not by the actual powertrain in the car. Several versions with either the 2.0T or the 3.6L V6 under the hood actually have the same list price....so you essentially pay the same and get a choice of engines.
*The ATS base-prices on Cadillac's the web site don't quite match the car I reviewed today...they may have just posted the new 2014 ones, and I reviewed a 2013.
Due to the abundence of powertrain/trim/price-levels offered, I had a tough time deciding which version of the ATS to do the formal review on....partly determined, of course, by what models were readily in stock. I ended up at one of the largest Cadillac dealers on the East Coast, though (you have to see the size of this place to believe it), so stock was generally not an issue. As I wanted to check out the V6, and since winters here have gotten mild enough in recent years that you usually don't need the AWD, I chose a beautiful White Diamond Tricoat model (yes, an extra-cost color...just like on other GM cars) with the V6 engine, Performance trim level, and light Beige Leather interior with wood trim. It listed for just under 48K...a little on the high side for an ATS, but it had a lot of equipment. Based on what I've already read about this car in enthusiast-magazines, I was more or less expecting a stiff-riding ultra-sport sedan with Mazda Miata handling. Some of that is true.....but the car is also generally more comfortable on the road than I expected. Still, you're probably not going to see many DTS models traded in for one.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2013 Cadillac ATS RWD V6 Performance
BASE PRICE: $43,695
OPTIONS:
Power Sunroof: $1050
White Diamond Tricoat Paint: $995
Navigation System: $795
Cold Weather Package: $600
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $895
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $48,030
DRIVETRAIN: RWD, Longitudinally-mounted 3.6L V6, 321 HP @ 6800 RPM, Torque 275 Ft-lbs. @ 4800 RPM, 6-speed Sport-shift automatic, Limited-slip rear differential.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 19 City, 28 Highway, 22 Combined
EXTERIOR COLOR: White Diamond Tricoat
INTERIOR: Beige Leather
PLUSSES:
Smooth, refined, fairly powerful V6 engine.
V6 engine uses regular gas.
Smooth, flexible 6-speed automatic transmission.
Slick-feeling transmission shift-lever.
Excellent wind-noise control.
Excellent steering response.
Flat cornering with little body-lean.
Firm ride somewhat more comfortable than expected.
(but that may have just been the hot weather temporarily softening up the tire-compound)
Excellent German-feel brakes.
Excellent paint jobs.
Fairly nice exterior color paint choice.
Side mirrors include turn-signals.
Fairly good underhood layout for a luxury/upmarket car.
Underhood gas-struts instead of a manual prop-rod.
Superb interior fit/finish.
Good interior hardware.
Generally comfortable front seats with nice-feeling leather.
Excellent stereo sound quality.
Trunk/Cargo area plush-carpeted.
Variable, programmable central gauge cluster.
Nice fore/aft transmission shifter-motion instead of zig-zags.
4-year free factory-maintenance included in the list price.
MINUSES:
Some road/tire noise on various road surfaces.
Inefficiently-shaped trunk/cargo area.
Extra-cost paint colors.
No body side mouldings for parking-lot protection.
Cheap-looking (IMO) aluminum/chrome exterior trim.
Manual steering-column tilt/telescope instead of power.
CUE video-screen system complex and time-consuming to learn.
Marginal headroom up front for tall persons.
Munchkin-sized rear seats.
Front seat headrests uncomfortable for some tall persons.
Thin, cheap-feeling glove box lid.
Overly-personal butt-massagers for the lane-Change warning system.
No (apparant) First Aid kit in trunk common to upmarket/luxury cars.
Run-Flat tires carry no spare.
Lacks electronic parking brake common to even some less-expensive cars.
Annoying (IMO) Lincoln MKZ-like finger touch/slide climate-controls in center-dash.
EXTERIOR:
The exterior of the ATS, despite its fairly small size (the smallest American-market Cadillac since the ill-fated Cimarron), is easily recognizable as a Cadillac. It is not as quite chisel-like or angularly-styled as the CTS and some other Cadillacs (but then, the new CTS, coming this fall, wont be either). Yet there is no mistaking the grille, headlights, tailights, and general body treatment. The body sheet metal was not tank-like by any means, but reasonably solid, though some panels had a rather light feeling. The doors did not seem to close with a very solid sound outside, but once seated inside, seemed to have more of a thunk. Several nice (IMO) paint colors are available, besides the usual mortuary shades. The quality of the paint job on most of the colors is typical Cadillac.....meaning excellent, though the company continues the annoying GM (and European) trend of charging extra for some paint colors. The beautiful White Diamond, for example, on my test car, cost almost $1000 extra, but I think it is probably more from simple profiteering and demand for that color rather than on any true added expense in paint-costs at the factory. Unfortunately, one of the ATS models there on the lot, in the nice Crystal Red Tintcoat (another extra-cost color, and the same paint job I have on my Buick Verano), had a number of large scratches on the hood/front-fenders, and looked like it had maybe been damaged en route to the dealership on the transporter (yes, it sometimes happens, which is why transporter-companies have their own insurance). Like on many upmarket vehicles, the twin side mirrors had integrated turn-signal indicators, and they snap/swivwed and locked in place crisply and cleanly. I wasn't particulary impressed with the semi-gloss aluminum-look of the outside chrome trim. I thought it looked somewhat cheap, especially compared to what I've seen on some much less-expensive Buicks and even on some other Cadillacs.
UNDERHOOD:
Raise the somewhat light-feeling hood, and a nice pair of gas-struts (as should be at this price) holds it up for you instead of a cheap manual prop-rod. There is a wide, thick, solid-feeling insulation pad on the underside of the hood itself. The actual underhood layout seems pretty good for an upmarket/premium-grade vehicle, which are sometimes almost a nightmare to get to some components. The north/south (transversely) mounted 3.6L V6 engine (an ubiquitous powerplant also used in a number of other GM products) fits into the ATS's engine-compartment pretty well. Although the typical (and unnecessary) big plastic engine cover does block top-access to the engine, there is enough room in front and around both sides of the block that a number of components can be reached without too much trouble. The battery seems well-hidden, but the dipsticks/fluid-reservoirs/filler-caps are generally easily-reachable.
INTERIOR:
Aside from a few annoyances, which I'll get to in a minute, the interior of the new ATS is quite a nice place, with superb fit/finish, (mostly) excellent materials, and a nice choice of colors and leather/leatherette materials. Overhead, the sun visors and headliner have nice pleasant surfaces, though the headroom for tall people in the front seats is adequate only if you lower the seat cushions all the way and add a small amount of seatback-rake. All of the trim (including the wood and metallics) seems of high-quality and well-fitted. The shifter for the transmission is a nice fore/aft motion instead of (IMO) annoying zig-zags. The front seats are fairly comfortable, and have nice-feeling leather, though the side-bolsters don't seem designed for really hard cornering. The seat-cushions actually have some give to them, which, IMO, gives them a little more comfort than the rock-hard seats found in many of today's cars. The stering wheel seems well-designed and comfortable to hold, and the central gauge panel, behind the wheel, is electronically-adjustable to show any of several different displays/functions. I'd prefer a circular (or near-circular)-shaped speedometer, though, to the semi-circle/arc one provided. Cadillac, like Buick did with the Regal and Verano, really sweated the interior fit/finish on this car.......most of the interior seems fitted and polished to almost jewelry-standards. The stereo sound quality is about what you'd expect in car of this price, though not quite to Lexus Mark-Levinson standards......I tuned in just in time to hear some newscaster tell me just how hot and humid it was outside. Most of of the hardware inside, including the *****/switches, felt well-made and well-attached.
But there are some flaws inside. The rear seat is almost worthless for adults, especially taller ones. The thin-plastic glove box lid feels almost like a piece of cardboard. The video-screen CUE system, with its endless icon-shifting, is almost as frustrating as some BMW I-Drive and Audi MMI systems I've tried to decipher. I recently complained about the electronic finger-touch/slide bars on the Lincoln MKZ's upper-console that I thought were awkward to operate....the ATS, more or less, repeats the (IMO) same error. An increasing number of cars in this class (and even including the less-expensive Subaru Legacy/Outback and Buick Verano) now have an electronic parking brake...but the ATS makes do with a left-foot pedal under the dash, which large, heavy, long legs like mine find somewhat awkward to operate. Overall, though, a good job on the interior. This is the kind of attention to detail and assembly that GM cars used to have decades ago, back in the 60s (yes, the ones I grew up with, when GM's motto was "Mark of Excellence"), and then lost through penny-pinching and product-indifference.
CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:
Open the trunk lid (it has a remote release, like most vehicles these days), and you are treated to a well-finished/carpeted but somewhat awkwardly-shaped cargo area. The rear-roofline, like with many sedans these days, cuts into the size of the trunk-lid/opening itself, and the center part of the trunk has a deeply recessed narrow box-section in the center between two higher shelf on each side. I couldn't find a First-Aid kit back there, which is often included even on some entry-level luxury vehicles. But Cadillac didn't cut a single dime on the quality of the plush-feeling carpet all over the floors and walls of the trunk or on the floor's chrome pull-ring. That same nice carpet is even on the underside of the trunk-lid itself. The luggage/packages in the back, riding on that nice furry plushness, will probably be more comforable than actual (tall) humans riding in the rear seat. There is a nice compartment on the trunk's right-shelf for carrying small things. ATS Performance-Trim models, like my test-car, come with run-flat tires, so, of course, there is no spare....nor a bottle of Fix-a-Flat Compressed-air for the tire. Just the hope (and prayer) that the tire, without any air in it, can still get you out of the city at 2 AM before the gangs find you. Both rear seats on my particular test-car fold down to extend the available cargo-area.....but that feature is not available on all ATS models, just the more upmarket ones.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 3.6L V6 with your foot on the brake and by pressing an odd triangular-shaped engine START/STOP button. The V6 comes to life and idles with the smoothness of.....well, a Cadillac. As mentoned above, this engine is used in a number of GM products and is well-honed. It's what I'd call a drag-strip engine (the 90 degrees and humidity of a typical D.C.-area summer day, of course, helps sap some of the engine's power, as typical with normally-aspiated engines), but there's still enough spunk, at half-throttle or more in the lower gears, to significantly push you back in your seat. The engine is smooth and quiet at lower RPM's, but once nearing 4000 and above, some noise does make its way into the cabin. The 6-speed GM Sport-shift transmission was a delight to use, with smooth shifts, a crisp-but-slick-feeling shift lever, low transmission noise, and solid-feeling shift-paddles on the column which were nicely done in a metallic material....not the loose, cheap-feeling matte-black plastic paddles used in the Lincoln MKZ competitor. The only glitch with the ATS's shift-paddles, IMO, is that you have to remember that (as marked) the left one is for downshifts and the right one for upshifts....not the more common forward/back motion with either lever for up/downshifts found on some other cars.
The performance-trim ATS versions have GM's Magna-Ride suspension system (also used on some Corvettes) which passes magnetic iron particles through the shock-fluid for variable damping. I've read a number of reviews and magazine-comparisons of the ATS with its competitors which remark on how well the ATS handles and how stiff the ride is.....I myself don't care for a stiff ride, and I generally don't like a noisy car either. The performance trim level, of course, also comes with rubber-band-like low-profile 40-series tires, which also usually don't do much for ride-comfort. But, given the car's excellent level of handling, I did not find the ride that objectionable at all, though you know in a instant that you aren't inside of Grandpa's DTS. yes, it was a little stiffer than I'd like, but bumps generally didn't jar the suspension as much as I was expecting. Once again (maybe) chalk that up to the hot summer day amd the fact that the car had been sitting in the sun, heating up the tires and shock-fluid, making both softer and more complaint. It will be interesting to see if the car rides that smoothly in the wintertime (the ATS I drove at the D.C. Auto show, in February, on the pockmarked city streets, definitely seemed stiffer). Steering response was pretty much what the auto-mags have bragged about...very quick, though without some of the tactile road-feel that could be found, for example, on hydraulic-steer BMWs. Cornering exibited very little body-lean, and the RWD layout helped make for good balance and a neutral attitude in the corners. Some magazines have said that they think the ATS is the (now) one of the best-handling sedans in the world. I won't go that far, especially considering that I'm not a test-driving professonal, and don't drive as many different cars as the tyical magazines do, but I will definitely say that this is a classic sport-sedan chassis. Wind-noise control was definitely up to Cadillac standards, but some road/tire noise from the performance-oriented tires seemed to come through no matter what the road surface. There is a three-position switch on the console that programs the driving mode for TOURING, SPORT, and SNOW/ICE. The Snow/Ice mode, of course, starts the engine off in second gear and limits torque to prevent wheel-spin on slick surfaces. But, other than that, I couldn't notice much difference between the three modes. In fact, oddly (don't ask me why), the steering-response, to my senses, actually felt slightly quicker in the Touring mode than in Sport, which is opposite from what you would normally expect. The ATS, of course, like most cars in this class, has many electronic safety and warning features, but I would question the way one of them (the Lane-Change Warning) operates. When the system detects lane-wandering in either direction, the electronics in the drivers'seat cushion tickles and massages the left or right cheek of your butt like a pervert in a crowded subway. When backing up, and the system detects something behind the car (even a low curb), it massages BOTH cheeks. Come on, Cadillac......there are better ways to design nanny-systems than this. For example, what would a nice lady think if she were driving, you are sitting next to her in the front seat, and the system decides to tickle her fancy? You might get slapped, even if you didn't do anything wrong.
The big Brembo multi-piston brakes performed pretty much as you would expect, with a nice firm German-pedal feel (this car was partially developed in Germany), quick response without free-play/sponginess, and a reasonably good pedal-location which allowed my big size 15 circus-clown shoes to move around without getting hung up on the pedal itself.
THE VERDICT:
No, this is defnitely not Grandpa's Cadillac.......never mind the fact that TRUE Grandpa Cadillacs and Lincolns aren't even built any more, now that the DTS and Town Car are history. Nor are you likely to find an ATS, in wagon-form, parked outside a funeral home as a hearse (a subject that Grandpa would probably rather not think about). Nor are you likely to find one at a limo-firm (heck, THEY are also mouring the loss of the DTS and Town Car with Grandpa). Nor would Elvis Presley, if he were still alive today, probably think much of this car after the enormous shocking-pink 1959 Cadillac convertible he owned.....back then, full-sized Caddys were cool and not considered just for Gray-Hairs.
But, conversely, who WILL like this car.....or want one?. I think the answer is obvious.....those who are looking for a SERIOUS American-badged alterative to worshiping at the altar of BMW's 3-series. The ATS combines a trim, compact exterior size (almost identical to the new 3-series) with superb handling, superb interior fit/finish that is better than a 3-series, a reasonable choice of engines/drivetrains (though there is no V6/manual-transmission or ATS-V version to compete directly with the M3), effective Brembo brakes, a reasonably quiet and comfortable ride (though some of that ride-comfort, as I stated above, may simply be hot weather on the tires), and a thoroughly German-feel chassis. Room in the back seat? Forget it.....but that's also the case with some other ATS competitors like the Lexus IS250/350. Complex instrumentation/dash? Yes, like many upmarket cars today, that's certainly the case, but, again, the younger demographics today looking at this car, compared to traditional Cadillac buyers, are more at ease with a Boeing 747-complex dash than many of us older Baby Boomers.
So, basically, it comes down to this: Finally, after decades of waiting, there IS a credible American-badged alternative to the hallowed BMW 3-series. Add to that the fact that newer BMWs, for a number of reasons, (electric power steering, active steering/chassis, electronic shifters, Bangle-styling, declining build-quality, and others) have lost some of the (literal) magic touch they once had with sport-sedan enthusiasts, even falling out of favor with some auto-enthusiast magazines. So, while the ATS is not the car for me, it probably WILL be for a number of (potential) sport-sedan buyers.........if they will just get past their old stereotypic fear of a Cadillac dealership and actually go LOOK at one.
And, as always......Happy car-shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-06-13 at 09:03 PM.
07-06-13, 08:51 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Glad you enjoyed it. 
This car, in general, was a hoot to drive, though it was not without flaws.
Though the latest 3-series, in the opinion of some reviewers, is generally not considered the equal of older ones, I sure can't bad-mouth or pan last-generation 335s like yours that are a few years old (except maybe for some unreliable fuel-pumps) 
The 335, especially in xi AWD trim, has long been my favorite of the American-market 3-series....for several reasons, more-so than the M3, which is too hard-edged and uncomfortable in the chassis-department for me. But the newest 3-series models have gone to electric power steering, which, though not bad by electric-steering standards, clearly doesn't have the same magic tactile-feel of past hydraulic units. Interiors, in the opinion of several reviewers, have also lost some material-quality. Still, the comparison of the ATS to the 3-series is not so much a matter that the new 3-series have slipped back as much as it is fact that Cadillac is (now) producing something that is quite competitive with them, which is something that has not happened before, despite the success of the 2Gen Cadllac CTS.
This car, in general, was a hoot to drive, though it was not without flaws.
Just about a year left on my 335i lease now. All options on table. Have seen an ATS or two on the road now and they look pretty good!
The 335, especially in xi AWD trim, has long been my favorite of the American-market 3-series....for several reasons, more-so than the M3, which is too hard-edged and uncomfortable in the chassis-department for me. But the newest 3-series models have gone to electric power steering, which, though not bad by electric-steering standards, clearly doesn't have the same magic tactile-feel of past hydraulic units. Interiors, in the opinion of several reviewers, have also lost some material-quality. Still, the comparison of the ATS to the 3-series is not so much a matter that the new 3-series have slipped back as much as it is fact that Cadillac is (now) producing something that is quite competitive with them, which is something that has not happened before, despite the success of the 2Gen Cadllac CTS.
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-06-13 at 08:58 PM.
07-06-13, 11:52 PM
#4
Thanks for the review Mike. Cadillac is really on to something. I love the introduction of the ATS. Allowing the CTS to become bigger, more plush, and more powerful. Also forcing GM's hand in furthering it's line-up with a true RWD flagship down the line. That said the ATS like the new IS (and probably the Q50) is aimed squarely at the 3-Series and some comparo's have crowned both the ATS and IS as winners. ATS beat a C350 and 335i in one of it's comparisons. The ATS though vs the IS, really took on the 3-Series in size and weight which in this category is 
, one of the lightest in class. RWD and AWD configurations as well as auto and manual, three engines with a ATS-V on the horizon. This is great. CUE could use a little work, but I agree that the cabin materials are top notch for it's segment. I can't say the same of the 3IS which I find Lexus is losing its luxury touch (but that's for another discussion). Definitely agree on the odd trunk space. I was on the freeway the other day, cruising from work when a black ATS leisurely came up on the left lane. I couldn't stop looking at it - and I'm a huge Blue Oval guy - makes me sad Lincoln doesn't offer anything like this.
I agree with all but the MKZ and XF. The rest are direct competitors, but the MKZ and XF are in a class above especially in size vs the ATS. If you're comparing based on their entry level status sure, but we're talking apples and oranges still. For the record the Jaguar XS (3-Series fighter) will be unveiled in the coming months representing another direct competitor for the segment.
, one of the lightest in class. RWD and AWD configurations as well as auto and manual, three engines with a ATS-V on the horizon. This is great. CUE could use a little work, but I agree that the cabin materials are top notch for it's segment. I can't say the same of the 3IS which I find Lexus is losing its luxury touch (but that's for another discussion). Definitely agree on the odd trunk space. I was on the freeway the other day, cruising from work when a black ATS leisurely came up on the left lane. I couldn't stop looking at it - and I'm a huge Blue Oval guy - makes me sad Lincoln doesn't offer anything like this.
CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: BMW 3-Series, Lexus IS250/350, Infiniti G-series, Audi A3/A4, Mercedes C-class, Lincoln MKZ, Jaguar XF
07-07-13, 01:05 AM
#5
Lexus Test Driver
Superb write-up. I like the ATS because it's the first Cadillac to come along without all the squares and rectangles up front. So tired of that decades-old stying. This is a step in the right direction and finally brings Cadillac somewhat into the modern era (still have a ways to go with that pointy tail).
I too have issues with the guages. The 90's Pontiac/Chevy half circles are dated and incomplete. They also don't line up with each other, which doesn't help.
Some questions...
The center armrest looks extremely uncomfortable with it's narrow, pointy tips. Can you comment? And does the main gear shifter allow for manual shifting or is it only done via the paddles? I don't know anyone who cruises all day long with both hands high up on the steering wheel (This goes for many new cars omitting the manual auto-shifter option).
I too have issues with the guages. The 90's Pontiac/Chevy half circles are dated and incomplete. They also don't line up with each other, which doesn't help.
Some questions...
The center armrest looks extremely uncomfortable with it's narrow, pointy tips. Can you comment? And does the main gear shifter allow for manual shifting or is it only done via the paddles? I don't know anyone who cruises all day long with both hands high up on the steering wheel (This goes for many new cars omitting the manual auto-shifter option).
07-07-13, 08:06 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: BMW 3-Series, Lexus IS250/350, Infiniti G-series, Audi A3/A4, Mercedes C-class, Lincoln MKZ, Jaguar XF
I agree with all but the MKZ and XF. The rest are direct competitors, but the MKZ and XF are in a class above especially in size vs the ATS. If you're comparing based on their entry level status sure, but we're talking apples and oranges still. For the record the Jaguar XS (3-Series fighter) will be unveiled in the coming months representing another direct competitor for the segment.
In a way, the. MKZ compares with with the Avalon and ES350, but like Buick, I am not sure Lincoln is a true bonafind luxury brand. I would lump the MXZ in with a Lacross.
Back to the ATS, I love the overall design of the exterior and interior, from the ground up, the ATS was designed to be a true luxury car.
I also like Cadillac CUE, its a refreshing alternative to all the controllers inside luxury cars that appear today.
Last edited by Toys4RJill; 07-07-13 at 08:30 AM.
07-07-13, 08:32 AM
#7
The ATS does not compete with the MKZ or the XF at all, the ATS is direct competitor with the A3/IS/C class and 3 series.
In a way, the. MKZ compares with with the Avalon and ES350, but like Buick, I am not sure Lincoln is a true bonafind luxury brand. I would lump the MXZ in with a Lacross.
Back to the ATS, I love the overall design of the exterior and interior, from the ground up, the ATS was designed to be a true luxury car.
I also like Cadillac CUE, its a refreshing alternative to all the controllers inside luxury cars that appear today.
In a way, the. MKZ compares with with the Avalon and ES350, but like Buick, I am not sure Lincoln is a true bonafind luxury brand. I would lump the MXZ in with a Lacross.
Back to the ATS, I love the overall design of the exterior and interior, from the ground up, the ATS was designed to be a true luxury car.
I also like Cadillac CUE, its a refreshing alternative to all the controllers inside luxury cars that appear today.
Lincoln is not a bonafide luxury brand. They are an upscale/premium just like Buick, Acura, Volvo. MKZ's main competition is the TL and Lacrosse. Also upscale, FWD rides. The Lexus ES is also competition, which angered me much during the ES launch event. The MKZ, TL and Lacrosse were not, repeat not, around. Rather Lexus brought a Mercedes C350 and Cadillac CTS. Apparently and according to Lexus, those two are actual competitors
Trending Topics
07-07-13, 09:48 AM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Basically reiterating what I said, key words "class above".
Lincoln is not a bonafide luxury brand. They are an upscale/premium just like Buick, Acura, Volvo. MKZ's main competition is the TL and Lacrosse. Also upscale, FWD rides. The Lexus ES is also competition, which angered me much during the ES launch event. The MKZ, TL and Lacrosse were not, repeat not, around. Rather Lexus brought a Mercedes C350 and Cadillac CTS. Apparently and according to Lexus, those two are actual competitors
Lincoln is not a bonafide luxury brand. They are an upscale/premium just like Buick, Acura, Volvo. MKZ's main competition is the TL and Lacrosse. Also upscale, FWD rides. The Lexus ES is also competition, which angered me much during the ES launch event. The MKZ, TL and Lacrosse were not, repeat not, around. Rather Lexus brought a Mercedes C350 and Cadillac CTS. Apparently and according to Lexus, those two are actual competitors
Motor Trend is probably the worst for comparing Hyundai with Lexus, again it the wrong comaparison.
Even worse is the citizen auto journalism which is pathetic as too many try and link the wrong brands.
I am kinda glad Lexus stood their ground and would refuse to bring a Lincoln/Acura or a Buick to the launch event.
07-07-13, 10:09 AM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Glad you enjoyed it.
I agree that the Jag XF is not as close a competitor as some of the others (which is why I listed it last, behind the others). The MKZ, though, is somewhat closer as a competitor, despite the fact that it has a FWD/AWD platform whle the ATS is RWD/AWD. That's because Cadillac essentially has three levels of sedans (ATS, CTS, XTS), whie Lincoln, currently, has to compete against all three with just two sedans (MKZ and MKS). The MKZ is in the unenviable position where it is forced to, simply by the realities of each company's marketing, to actually compete with two Cadillacs, the CTS and CTS, though the MKZ is likely to appeal to a somewhat older driver than either the ATS or CTS, which are more sport-oriented.
Probably closer to the ES350. But, granted much has been written (and posted) on the decline of the latest ES and the many improvements (except for the ride-quality) in the new Avalon.
Buick, today (with one exception), is basically succeeding where Ford's equivalent (Mercury) failed...being different enough from Chevys that, in the mind of many buyers, they are worth the extra money. The one exception is the Buick Regal, because both the Verano and Lacrosse are perceived by buyers as being better values. The Verano offers much of the same equipment for less money, and the Lacrosse is larger and more comfortable for the same money (or not much more). However, (and this is just my personal opinion), I'm not as impressed with the LaCrosse's build-quality as much as either the Verano or Regal.
Lincoln's basic problem today is that, without having Mercury around (or any more foreign-upmarket brands like Volvo or Jaguar) in the corporation, Ford is more or less forced to keep Lincoln as an upmarket-nameplate, at least on paper, but doesn't seem willing to invest the kind of money or attention to it that rival Cadillac is doing. Worse, IMO, even when Lincoln DOES spend money on a redesign, it seems to be done in some dumb ways. Case in point........they replaced the very-popular Town Car with the unimpressive, mediocre MKS that is nowhere near the Town Car's equal (its slow-selling numbers prove it). Even the AWD availability on the MKS (something that the Town Car lacked) hasn't helped its sales much. I also have not been very impressed with either the new MKZ or the existing MKT.
Originally Posted by Hoovey2411
I agree with all but the MKZ and XF. The rest are direct competitors, but the MKZ and XF are in a class above especially in size vs the ATS. If you're comparing based on their entry level status sure, but we're talking apples and oranges still. For the record the Jaguar XS (3-Series fighter) will be unveiled in the coming months representing another direct competitor for the segment.
Originally Posted by LexsCTJill
The ATS does not compete with the MKZ or the XF at all, the ATS is direct competitor with the A3/IS/C class and 3 series.
Originally Posted by LexsCTJill
In a way, the. MKZ compares with with the Avalon and ES350,
but like Buick, I am not sure Lincoln is a true bonafind luxury brand.
Lincoln's basic problem today is that, without having Mercury around (or any more foreign-upmarket brands like Volvo or Jaguar) in the corporation, Ford is more or less forced to keep Lincoln as an upmarket-nameplate, at least on paper, but doesn't seem willing to invest the kind of money or attention to it that rival Cadillac is doing. Worse, IMO, even when Lincoln DOES spend money on a redesign, it seems to be done in some dumb ways. Case in point........they replaced the very-popular Town Car with the unimpressive, mediocre MKS that is nowhere near the Town Car's equal (its slow-selling numbers prove it). Even the AWD availability on the MKS (something that the Town Car lacked) hasn't helped its sales much. I also have not been very impressed with either the new MKZ or the existing MKT.
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-07-13 at 10:17 AM.
07-07-13, 10:31 AM
#10
When I was selling Lincolns most people were shopping it against the ES. Lincoln lost tons of sales to Lexus with the MKZ delays. Still quite a few people were shopping against the ATS as well.
07-07-13, 10:41 AM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks. I put a lot of time and attention into them.
Don't forget, though, that Cadillac introduced those angular, chiseled looks for a reason...so that those lines themselves would be a refreshing change from the world of aero/jelly-bean styling.
The panel itself can be reconfigured somewhat, with the dash-electronics, to show some different functions/readouts, but the same basic semicircle speedometer look remains.
I don't recall having any significant comfort-problems with it, but two things. First, I usually don't drive with my right arm actually resting on things like that very often, and, Second, those two points you speak of point in a forward direction rather than up, which would lessen (but not eliminate) the tendency for them to dig into your arm.
Manual shifting , if desired, can be done solely with the paddles even if the lever itself is not specifically in the manual mode. Of course, the lever can also be bumped to the left to formally engage the manual-shift mode. The difference is that, if you don't use the lever to keep the tranny in manual mode, once you're done shifting with the paddles, the tranny immediately reverts back to full-auto mode.
I wasn't impressed, BTW, with some of the electronic digital-readouts for the manual-mode.....they tended to change size/shape somewhat as you moved the lever into different positions. But, to be fair, I didn't take the time to completely program the dash readout into one specific design and leave it that way.....I sort of experimented with the system (for safety reasons) when I was stopped or driving at low speed.
I like the ATS because it's the first Cadillac to come along without all the squares and rectangles up front. So tired of that decades-old stying. This is a step in the right direction and finally brings Cadillac somewhat into the modern era (still have a ways to go with that pointy tail).
I too have issues with the guages. The 90's Pontiac/Chevy half circles are dated and incomplete. They also don't line up with each other, which doesn't help.
Some questions...
The center armrest looks extremely uncomfortable with it's narrow, pointy tips. Can you comment?
The center armrest looks extremely uncomfortable with it's narrow, pointy tips. Can you comment?
And does the main gear shifter allow for manual shifting or is it only done via the paddles? I don't know anyone who cruises all day long with both hands high up on the steering wheel (This goes for many new cars omitting the manual auto-shifter option).
I wasn't impressed, BTW, with some of the electronic digital-readouts for the manual-mode.....they tended to change size/shape somewhat as you moved the lever into different positions. But, to be fair, I didn't take the time to completely program the dash readout into one specific design and leave it that way.....I sort of experimented with the system (for safety reasons) when I was stopped or driving at low speed.
07-07-13, 10:59 AM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Back to the ATS, I find it wrong to mention Buick, Verano and Regal when an ATS is being reviewed.
07-07-13, 11:09 AM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by LexsCTJill
I am kinda glad Lexus stood their ground and would refuse to bring a Lincoln/Acura or a Buick to the launch event.
The proof, of course, is in the pudding. But you have to taste the pudding first to determine that....and sometimes different puddings.
there are too many people who make the false thinking that a Acura, Volvo, Lincoln or a Buick are luxury brands, and that is where the issue is
Motor Trend is probably the worst for comparing Hyundai with Lexus, again it the wrong comaparison.
Even worse is the citizen auto journalism which is pathetic as too many try and link the wrong brands.
Even worse is the citizen auto journalism which is pathetic as too many try and link the wrong brands.
Even the reviewer in this thread made a mention of Buick, Regal and Verano when talking/reviewing an ATS inteior.
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-07-13 at 11:15 AM.
07-07-13, 12:24 PM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
Well to me, it is poor citizen auto reviewing. The Verano or Regal are not relevant in the segment that the ATS was designed in.
The reason there is no push button parking release is because the ATS, IS and 3 series are drivers cars. They all having manual parking brakes including the 2014 IS. You want the experience to be similar for drivers cross shopping the correct luxury sport entry level sedans.
The reason there is no push button parking release is because the ATS, IS and 3 series are drivers cars. They all having manual parking brakes including the 2014 IS. You want the experience to be similar for drivers cross shopping the correct luxury sport entry level sedans.