ATS-L for China, why is legroom in the ATS only for China

[regfootball]

http://www.carnewschina.com/2014/08/18/cadillac-ats-l-hits-the-china-car-market/

 

You can bet part of the ATS struggles in this market is because there is a very tough and small backseat.  This is the solution.  Most folks can't spot the diff.....

 

 

Edited August 23, 2014 by regfootball

[balthazar]

You can bet part of the ATS struggles in this market is because there is a very tough and small backseat.

I'll take that bet.

[Cmicasa the Great]

I'd say that GM should certainly make it available.. but to answer the question.. what then is the point of the CTS? I understand an L version of your largest vehicle... but your smallest?

[balthazar]

As it is, generally speaking, the size gaps in many brands is too small, plus adding maybe 2 inches (and the millions required) seems totally pointless to me. If the manufacturers package things well, there'd be no call for 'splitters' in between 2 lines. At the top is another matter, but IMO the size increases there are still pointless; add a foot or more.

 

The prime issue is not interior length, but WIDTH.

[Robert Hall]

I'd say that GM should certainly make it available.. but to answer the question.. what then is the point of the CTS? I understand an L version of your largest vehicle... but your smallest?

This is standard practice for the Chinese market..BMW has a LWB 3 series for there, MB has a LWB C-class.  In China, luxury cars--even the small ones--tend to have drivers, so maximum rear seat space is important there.  Probably tax advantages also.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[balthazar]

BMW 3-series WB : 110.6", RR leg room : 35.1"

5-series : 116.9", RR leg room : 35.3"

3-series L : 114.9"

 

Is this some of the worst packaging in the industry?

 

Couldn't quickly find the RR legroom of the 328iL, but if 6.3" of WB is only good for 0.2" legroom, the 328iL must only provide 0.1" more legroom.

[Robert Hall]

BMW 3-series WB : 110.6", RR leg room : 35.1"

5-series : 116.9", RR leg room : 35.3"

3-series L : 114.9"

 

Is this some of the worst packaging in the industry?

 

Couldn't quickly find the RR legroom of the 328iL, but if 6.3" of WB is only good for 0.2" legroom, the 328iL must only provide 0.1" more legroom.

Well, they aren't FWD family sedans... buyers of these cars are often single or DINKs, so they don't need a lot of rear seat space.

[balthazar]

It still belays the ideal that you are getting something for the increased MSRP, it's not design, it's not powertrains, now I see its not interior legroom, either. And that just a 3 vs 5 commentary, nevermind the 3 vs 3L (answering the O/P point). Why are these commonly held up as the segment 'way to do it' again?

[smk4565]

There is about a foot of length difference between an ATS/3-series and the CTS/5-series.  I could see how if you added 6 inches and put it solely on rear seat legroom you make a bigger backseat, and that could have appeal in China.   But then why doesn't a Hyundai Genesis or Toyota Avalon or some roomy car sell there that already has passenger room.  But I suppose they just want the badge on some level.  Mercedes makes a long wheel base E-class for China also, I guess if the luxury market really wants chauffuer driven cars that is what car makers have to do there.

[regfootball]

As it is, generally speaking, the size gaps in many brands is too small, plus adding maybe 2 inches (and the millions required) seems totally pointless to me. If the manufacturers package things well, there'd be no call for 'splitters' in between 2 lines. At the top is another matter, but IMO the size increases there are still pointless; add a foot or more.

 

The prime issue is not interior length, but WIDTH.

yup

 

BMW 3-series WB : 110.6", RR leg room : 35.1"

5-series : 116.9", RR leg room : 35.3"

3-series L : 114.9"

 

Is this some of the worst packaging in the industry?

 

Couldn't quickly find the RR legroom of the 328iL, but if 6.3" of WB is only good for 0.2" legroom, the 328iL must only provide 0.1" more legroom.

Well, they aren't FWD family sedans... buyers of these cars are often single or DINKs, so they don't need a lot of rear seat space.

 

bad call, everybody likes room.  why shut out part of the buyers?

 

ATS could very well be a daily driver choice for me, except the rear legroom is 99% deal breaker.

 

Starving the ATS of legroom here hasn't helped CTS sales and the ATS prices are ridiculous low and still don't sell.  The fact that Caddy would even consider a smaller model is insane.

Edited August 25, 2014 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Do it GM!

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/201407/2015-cadillac-ats-l_1600x0w.jpg

[Z-06]

The car feels more purposeful than small wheelwheel base ATS. GM should have built this one.

[regfootball]

If the looks had been compromised that's one thing. But this looks just as good. Maybe even a bit more balanced looking.

[SAmadei]

Personally, I think the L versions are not sold here as they would look bad in side impact or roof crush tests.

[smk4565]

A lot of GM cars aren't space efficient on the inside, why don't they just make better use of the space they have.

[David]

I wonder if they think this would eat into their SUV/CUV and Full size sedan sales?

[balthazar]

what full size sedans??

[David]

XTS is what I consider to be Cadillacs only full size sedan. So if you have the ATS-L that puts it in the size of XTS from a length stand point especially since there is only 3 inches difference between wheel bases.

[regfootball]

A lot of GM cars aren't space efficient on the inside, why don't they just make better use of the space they have.

thank you.  GM hasn't had spacious cars for many years now.......with a tiny few exceptions.

[balthazar]

neither does anyone else, IMO.

 

-- -- --

Back to the ATS....

 

One wonders how mercedes turns away so many buyers from it's c-class; it has the worst of the 3 (ATS, 3, C) front legroom. It also has LLEESSSS rear legroom than the ATS, wonder the F how THAT escaped so many rag journalists? Why exclude "so many" potential buyers?????????????????

 

BMW 3 : 42.0 / 35.1 = 77.1

Audi A3 : 41.2 / 35.1 = 76.3

ATS : 42.5 / 33.5 = 76.0 <---------- best in class front legroom

MB c-class : 41.7 / 33.4 = 75.1 <---------- worst in class overall legroom.

 

Yeah, let's all moan & groan over JUST the ATS rear legroom again- feels so go-oooood to vent those fact-supported frustrations.

Edited September 3, 2014 by balthazar

[smk4565]

2015 C-class has 35.2 inches of rear legroom, so a worst to first swing for Mercedes there.  But the old car sold because it gave Mercedes build quality at a low price and it had good looks.  The old C-class was actually somewhat sporty to drive, I don't think it was a great car, but it was good enough to outsell the A4 and Lexus IS.  The 2015 C-class I think is a great car, Mercedes brought their A game on that one and that is something they didn't do the last time around.

 

Rear seat legroom isn't why the ATS doesn't sell, the car looks boring, the powertrains aren't as refined or not as many engine and body style choices as the Germans.  What amazes me is how the Lexus IS which is flat out ugly and also has an engine/transmission combo circa 2008 outsells the ATS.  The CUE system probably is turning away more people than it attracts.  And Cadillac isn't the hot brand either, the young up and comers seem to be flocking to Audi, and the ATS needs to take on that market. 

[ZL-1]

Chinese Cadillacs retain the old logo while the US/Euro ones get the Whiskas-cat-face-like new logo?