2016 Cadillac ATS sedan 2.0t 8AT AWD Luxury

[smk4565]

Cadillac has 3 halo products. Escalade, CTS-V, and ATS-V.

ATS-V is relatively unknown to the masses, and imagine Mercedes if the C63 and E63 were there only AMG products, and there was no S-class, no SL, no G-wagen, no CLS, no AMG GT, no SLS Gullwing, etc.  Putting a big V8 in a poor selling mid-size sedan like CTS doesn't really make it a halo for the brand.  Same as the Charger Hellcat is not going to save Dodge and let them sell more Darts.  They are in fact cancelling more products than they are introducing.

 

I still think Cadillac needs an alpha crossover and an Omega crossover with V-series variants.  The Alpha can be ATS size to compete with Porsche Macan, the Omega a 3 row to compete with Q7, X7, GLS, and in a way it would make the Escalade obsolete, with a 400 hp V6 base, 500 hp and 640 hp V8s optional in a chassis that is 1,000 lbs lighter than an Escalade. 

[smk4565]

Although, there is another path to success for Cadillac.  Instead of trying to beat the Europeans in performance, which for the most part they have tried since the late 80s, and it hasn't worked.  They could go the Lexus route and focus on quality and reliability.  Buyers love peace or mind and worry free driving.  Cadillac could offer an 8 year, unlimited mileage, bumper to bumper warranty on all cars.  If the cars are well built and cheap to maintain, that shouldn't cost them that much.  No other luxury maker offers that kind of warranty coverage.  That is one way to steal sales from the Acura/Lexus buyer that believes their Honda or Toyota is the most reliable, never a repair cost type of vehicle.  Those buyers are badge snobs too, but could be won over with a mega warranty.

[regfootball]

The current 3-series is smaller than a 2003 CTS.  Pretty much every segment of car has size creep, look at a 90s Accord and a 2016 Accord for example.

 

I think what is interesting is Cadillac got rid of the STS, because it wasn't selling, people said it was too big, too soft, or didn't have the performance to match the Germans.  And now the CTS is the exact same length as the 2005-2010 STS, the turbo 4 makes comparable power to the STS V6, and the 3.6 V6 comparable power to the old Northstar V8.  They turned the CTS into a carbon copy of a car GM itself deemed a failure.

the original CTS IMO had interior packaging perfect.  Front and rear seats had perfect space for the class of car and the car rode and handled great and had great styling.

 

If the ATS = CTS today, why they can't match that level of accommodations is a head scratcher.  Take all the cabin dimensions stand pat, and remove 2 inches of width from the car (reduce the front seat center to center dims an inch and take the other inch out of the thickness of the doors) and then take an inch or two out of dash to axle, and take 2-4 inches off each overhang.  Keep the roof at the same height....maybe drop it one inch.  Not hard.

 

ATS has a severe wedge shape bottom to top, if you examine it from the back view, the width of the car where the window glass meets the roof is several inches narrower than the car at the wheels.    From the rear view, the rear door handles are inset from the side of the car practically far enough to be on the track dimension (or the center of the tires).  The whole of the fender and the greenhouse keeps severely tapering up to the roof and reduces usable width inside the car so that even if it has a equal width and track to the competition, the greenhouse and space between the door finishes is much much less than it could be.

 

Long dash to axle reduces greenhouse depth in side view, and there is still a fairly long trunk so the rear slope starts fairly early and that is what cuts into your head room.

 

Car looks nice, but I would argue that all those tricks don't sex it up as much as you would think.  That paring away at the envelope of the car is done more for aerodynamics at the expense of the interior, than it is to sex up the car.

[smk4565]

The 2003 CTS was about 6 or 7 inches longer than the current ATS.  Put 5 inches of wheel base in an ATS and your leg room issues are solved, but then it is also going to be near the size of a Lexus GS.

[surreal1272]

The current 3-series is smaller than a 2003 CTS.  Pretty much every segment of car has size creep, look at a 90s Accord and a 2016 Accord for example.

 

I think what is interesting is Cadillac got rid of the STS, because it wasn't selling, people said it was too big, too soft, or didn't have the performance to match the Germans.  And now the CTS is the exact same length as the 2005-2010 STS, the turbo 4 makes comparable power to the STS V6, and the 3.6 V6 comparable power to the old Northstar V8.  They turned the CTS into a carbon copy of a car GM itself deemed a failure.

I normally don't say this but you have to be the blindest fanboy in the world or a special kind of retarded to think the current CTS resembles the STS in any way other than length.

"Carbon copy"?? You cannot be serious here.

Now show me the STS with a 640 HP V8. Don't worry. I'll wait.

Good grief fanboy.

The 2003 CTS was about 6 or 7 inches longer than the current ATS.  Put 5 inches of wheel base in an ATS and your leg room issues are solved, but then it is also going to be near the size of a Lexus GS.

Stop. Just stop.

[smk4565]

2006 STS base price $41,020  ($48,682 in 2016 dollars)        2016 CTS  $46,555

 

Wheelbase:  116.4                                                                    Wheelbase:  114.6

Length:        196.3                                                                     Length:        195.5

Width:           72.6                                                                     Width:            72.2

Height:          57.6                                                                     Height:           57.2

 

Engines:                                                                                   Engines:

255 hp/252 lb-ft V6                                                                  268 hp/295 lb-ft I-4

320 hp/315 lb-ft V8                                                                  335 hp/285 lb-ft V6

469 hp/439 lb-ft V8                                                                  420 hp/430 lb-ft V6

 

It is awfully close for 2 different model cars from the same manufacturer, 10 years apart.

[surreal1272]

2006 STS base price $41,020 ($48,682 in 2016 dollars) 2016 CTS $46,555

Wheelbase: 116.4 Wheelbase: 114.6

Length: 196.3 Length: 195.5

Width: 72.6 Width: 72.2

Height: 57.6 Height: 57.2

Engines: Engines:

255 hp/252 lb-ft V6 268 hp/295 lb-ft I-4

320 hp/315 lb-ft V8 335 hp/285 lb-ft V6

469 hp/439 lb-ft V8 420 hp/430 lb-ft V6

It is awfully close for 2 different model cars from the same manufacturer, 10 years apart.

Unrelated and zero correlation except in that fanboy mind of yours. The long term plan was to make the CTS closer to the STS size, hence one of the reasons why the STS was scratched.

And why you left out the 640HP CTS-V (while including the 469 HP from the STS-V) I have not a clue except to prove that you love cherry picking.

Oh and let's not forget one key thing here. They are two completely different platforms.

Why is this blatant kind of misinformation allowed here?

Edited May 25, 2016 by surreal1272

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

I have also said probably 100 times, I don't think the ATS back seat hurts sales.  Even the smallest trunk in the class probably isn't hurting sales.  The car has other problems that hurt it, and the badge and marketing are bigger issues than the back seat.  

 

Case in point, the CLA has an even more useless back seat than the ATS, and the CLA outsold it last year.

i think the rear seat hurts the sales with traditional Cadillac base.  You still have a lot of those people you need to sell to.  Those who grew up believing luxury meant a basic minimum amount of comfort / space.  I hear people take pot shots at how small the ATS is when i go to the auto shows.  We all tried to hide how much the rear seat problem hurt the outgoing Malibu and now look at the awesome press its getting for correcting a primary flaw.. interior SAE measurements always mislead.  The ATS is plagued by many of the same typical GM rear seat packaging problems where the front seat is too low, the hardware is intrusive, and the floorpan (probably due to where the bracing is) has pitifully small actual footwell areas.  Couple that with narrower greenhouses, fighter plane diving rooflines, ridiculously small and narrow door openings, and tank humps that stick out forward of the actual seat itself, even for the smaller, wedging yourself into an ATS backseat requires gymnastics training and inspires claustrophobia that an MRI tube could match.

 

The ATS is the classe of car that one buys and has to show off to coworkers.....where you bring coworkers to lunch here and again.  You're going to have the occasional 6 footer back there.  I can't believe the high level execs at GM let that pass and go to production.....grounds for firing IMO when they should have demanded all of that be reengineered for more space.

 

GM can't punt on these packaging issues very much more.  If anything it shows piss poor engineering, can't meet structural demands and preserve ample space at the same time.  They make a sturdy frame for the car to ring the 'Ring......but then its so overbuilt and bulky that there's no back seat space to indulge co workers in a chauffeur drive.

 

 

 

Hold up.. Show off to co-workers?? There is nothing aspiring about owning one.

 

Furthermore the idea that piss poor engineering is present due to an INCH less legroom in the rear sounds ridiculous. In fact.. the legroom of the ATS is only an issue NOW.. because the segment leader decided to go bigger. The 3Series is suddenly a family car.. which means that anything not sized exactly like in interior dimensions is lacking in engineering kno-how? Preposterous!!! Even worse is that people are supposedly buying these cars so they can "indulge Co-workers in a chauffeur drive"   Its a non-issue because again.. the boys at Cadillac , like the boys at Chevy heard your whining and are making the change to mimic the size difference of the 3series. I fully believe that they will be capable of doing it while retaining the weight and handling superiority. 

 

Shouldn't it be though?

It's a 35-70k Cadillac. I know if I bought a Cadillac, regardless of model, it should be show-off worthy to the majority of people who buy the mainstream chevy, ford, toyota, honda, etc. So it should be aspiring to own. You don't spend that kind of coin on something that you don't aspire to own. 

 

 

 

U kno what.. I should have thought from that perspective and not my own.. I personally see nothing aspirational about owning a entry level Sport Compact outside of the M3, ATS-V, or C63AMG. Maybe I should have said that

[oldshurst442]

M3, ATS-V, C63 AMG...

 

Yeah....HUUUUUGE difference when talking about compact luxury personal coupes/sedans....be

 

Maybe U should have said that...as THAT is the ONLY way I could accept U not giving a shyte what your passengers say when they ride in your M3/ATS-V/C63 AMG...

 

Because THOSE versions are all about THE driver....

The more plebeian versions....well, they are designed to haul...people..."in luxury"....in "ENTRY LEVEL LUXURY"....

 

Thanx for acknowledging where I was getting at when I quoted you with my rants afterwards...even though it took CCAP to get the gist  of things and while U decided to quote him and ignore me....

 

Ill take that anyway U present it....Victory is all mine!

 

U know....clown suit and all....

[smk4565]

 

2006 STS base price $41,020 ($48,682 in 2016 dollars) 2016 CTS $46,555

Wheelbase: 116.4 Wheelbase: 114.6

Length: 196.3 Length: 195.5

Width: 72.6 Width: 72.2

Height: 57.6 Height: 57.2

Engines: Engines:

255 hp/252 lb-ft V6 268 hp/295 lb-ft I-4

320 hp/315 lb-ft V8 335 hp/285 lb-ft V6

469 hp/439 lb-ft V8 420 hp/430 lb-ft V6

It is awfully close for 2 different model cars from the same manufacturer, 10 years apart.

Unrelated and zero correlation except in that fanboy mind of yours. The long term plan was to make the CTS closer to the STS size, hence one of the reasons why the STS was scratched.

And why you left out the 640HP CTS-V (while including the 469 HP from the STS-V) I have not a clue except to prove that you love cherry picking.

Oh and let's not forget one key thing here. They are two completely different platforms.

Why is this blatant kind of misinformation allowed here?

 

The STS-V at the time was nearly as powerful as a Corvette Z06, it was the 2nd most powerful car GM had ever made at the time.  Hard to compare power from 10 years ago to today, when everyone went up.  On size and base level price and power the 2 cars are similar.

 

Also cancelling your mid-size (and top end at the time) name plate, in order to replace it with your entry level name plate makes no sense.  Imagine BMW cancelling the 5-series, then making the 3-series a foot longer and $15,000 more expensive an saying the 3-series is now a $50,000 mid-size car.  Would have been the stupidest move ever.    Maybe the Cruze can replace the Malibu next and they can cancel the Malibu.

[ccap41]

I have also said probably 100 times, I don't think the ATS back seat hurts sales.  Even the smallest trunk in the class probably isn't hurting sales.  The car has other problems that hurt it, and the badge and marketing are bigger issues than the back seat.  

 

Case in point, the CLA has an even more useless back seat than the ATS, and the CLA outsold it last year.

i think the rear seat hurts the sales with traditional Cadillac base.  You still have a lot of those people you need to sell to.  Those who grew up believing luxury meant a basic minimum amount of comfort / space.  I hear people take pot shots at how small the ATS is when i go to the auto shows.  We all tried to hide how much the rear seat problem hurt the outgoing Malibu and now look at the awesome press its getting for correcting a primary flaw.. interior SAE measurements always mislead.  The ATS is plagued by many of the same typical GM rear seat packaging problems where the front seat is too low, the hardware is intrusive, and the floorpan (probably due to where the bracing is) has pitifully small actual footwell areas.  Couple that with narrower greenhouses, fighter plane diving rooflines, ridiculously small and narrow door openings, and tank humps that stick out forward of the actual seat itself, even for the smaller, wedging yourself into an ATS backseat requires gymnastics training and inspires claustrophobia that an MRI tube could match.

 

The ATS is the classe of car that one buys and has to show off to coworkers.....where you bring coworkers to lunch here and again.  You're going to have the occasional 6 footer back there.  I can't believe the high level execs at GM let that pass and go to production.....grounds for firing IMO when they should have demanded all of that be reengineered for more space.

 

GM can't punt on these packaging issues very much more.  If anything it shows piss poor engineering, can't meet structural demands and preserve ample space at the same time.  They make a sturdy frame for the car to ring the 'Ring......but then its so overbuilt and bulky that there's no back seat space to indulge co workers in a chauffeur drive.

 

 

Hold up.. Show off to co-workers?? There is nothing aspiring about owning one.

 

Furthermore the idea that piss poor engineering is present due to an INCH less legroom in the rear sounds ridiculous. In fact.. the legroom of the ATS is only an issue NOW.. because the segment leader decided to go bigger. The 3Series is suddenly a family car.. which means that anything not sized exactly like in interior dimensions is lacking in engineering kno-how? Preposterous!!! Even worse is that people are supposedly buying these cars so they can "indulge Co-workers in a chauffeur drive"   Its a non-issue because again.. the boys at Cadillac , like the boys at Chevy heard your whining and are making the change to mimic the size difference of the 3series. I fully believe that they will be capable of doing it while retaining the weight and handling superiority.

Shouldn't it be though?

It's a 35-70k Cadillac. I know if I bought a Cadillac, regardless of model, it should be show-off worthy to the majority of people who buy the mainstream chevy, ford, toyota, honda, etc. So it should be aspiring to own. You don't spend that kind of coin on something that you don't aspire to own.

 

 

U kno what.. I should have thought from that perspective and not my own.. I personally see nothing aspirational about owning a entry level Sport Compact outside of the M3, ATS-V, or C63AMG. Maybe I should have said that

That makes more sense, understandable then.

Personally, I'm younger and working full time and going to school and Cadillac in general is aspirational at this point of my life.

[regfootball]

The 2003 CTS was about 6 or 7 inches longer than the current ATS.  Put 5 inches of wheel base in an ATS and your leg room issues are solved, but then it is also going to be near the size of a Lexus GS.

 

 

"take an inch or two out of dash to axle, and take 2-4 inches off each overhang.  Keep the roof at the same height....maybe drop it one inch.  Not hard"

 

the original CTS had lines and shape that preserved a decent interior cabin.  it would not at all be difficult to take the six inches out of the rest of the length of the car besides the cabin.  1" dash to axle, 2 inch front overhang, 3 inches rear overhang....done.

 

I would love to get one of these brought over from Europe to here...

 

http://www.carenthusiast.com/reviews/article/1815/-/2006-Cadillac-BLS/2.0T+175+hp+5+Man.+SE.html

 

this (the bLS)  is the spirit of the ATS mission today

CTS goes back to the size it was

STS goes back to the size it was

DTS goes back to what it was

 

to be honest if Cadillac did this with their sedans they may just fix it.

Edited May 25, 2016 by regfootball

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

That is all cool and all..YOU are THE quintessential  Cadillac customer that Cadillac NEEDS to cater too...

Remember this commercial?

 

OK then....U know what is phoqued up?

Cadillac trying to sell COMPACT CARS!!!!

What are U smoking to tell ME that U dont give a shyte about anything and anyone yet U want to own a toy car like an ATS???!!!

Cadillacs are big, brash....

 

 

And THAT is how people want them!!!!

 

Hell, even the XTS outsold the ATS and the CTS...

I KNOW the CT6 will do fine, just because its a BIG Cadillac...but it could have used more brashness...

 

As far as the competition goes...

 

Dont U think that when the 2nd generation CTS hit the streets, and was quite successful, did BMW decide to enlarge the 3 Series?

Cadillac, I believe, started a trend with a BIGGER back seat....

Yet you too Casa, are too BLIND to see that a small back seat was NEVER ideal...

'Twas Cadillac that started THAT trend, only for Cadillac to take 2 steps back, because Cadillac marketers FOLLOW instead of LEAD...

Cadillac was too STUPID to realize that THEY are the ones to START a BIGGER back seat in COMPACT LUXURY cars....

 

Also....SPACE is a LUXURY that EVERYONE COVETS and EVERYONE has the SAME definition for...

Many may not like wood, or chrome....

However, SPACE is a LUXURY that EVERYONE WANTS EQUALLY....

 

And...ironically...CADILLAC is the ONLY top tier LUXURY MAKER that has built a REPUTATION on...SPACE...

 

Starting with Cadillac V16s of the 1930s to El Dorados in the 1950s and 1960s to the 60 Specials that started the bigger is better trend of American Luxury to the Escalade ESV of today....

 

So...please, dont try to justify a toy car ATS...

Yes....Cadillacs are cars to be chauffered in...

 

En Espagnole....but pictures say a 1000 words...

 

 

 

 

Yes I remember that commercial.. I should not only am I THAT COMMERCIAL.. but we ran that commercial at the start of every sales meeting at my company for about month after it came out. 

 

1) Problem is that despite that commercial.. All Americans are not the same as they were in the GO GO 80s and 90s.. some are sensitive lil bitches that get offended when U tell that they are.. AMERICAN... which translates to me as "Better." 

 

2) It is not f@#kED (can't believe U go thru the time to come up with another word) up to sell a compact car when that compact car is a necessity and is a quite competent car.. Point blank.. the ATS beats the 3Series in almost every way I can think except .. Back seat room and instrument gauges. The latter is actually being updated for the '17 model year BTW.. and the old ones were technically not worse than the 3series.. but simply lack a simple bit of PIZZAZZ that could have been simply remedied with a chrome accent:

 

 

 

 

 

 

In truth the only thing that gives the two Germans an edge over the ATS's gauges is the accents.. and only because they distract from the thriftiness of it all . THOSE GAUGES ARE NO BETTER THAN THE CADILLACS.. Just spruced up a bit more. In fact.. one could easily argue that the ATS has better ACTUAL gauges.

 

3) Yes the XTS outsold the ATS.. but the ATS is a new segment.. .attempting to convince new buyers (ATS conquest rate was like 70%) to try something completely new to Cadillac. The previous CTS were tweeners.. a bridge of gap to move traditional buyers over. In truth I have always said that the 1st and 2nd gens were mistakes in size.. as they were entry level, larger.. and going up against smaller competition and consistently losing. It was not until the 2nd gen VSeries that Cadillac (Bob Lutz) kill that and put it up against the M5 and M6.. and it started winning. Imagine that.. same size.. similar weight.. 

 

 

4) When the 2nd Gen CTS hit the streets it was an established name and in its first full year without bankruptcy messing with sales in 2009.. and added first gen sales in 2008.. it sold 46K (2010) and 55K (2011) with added coupe. I will add that even in that.. it had a Coupe and Wagon, + VSeries on all..  that were 30% of its sales. In the ATS's first year on the market, with no added sales (2013) it sold 38K .. no wagon.. no coupe.. no VSeries. Sales dropped in '14 and '15 for various reasons.. but I guarantee that backseat room had 90% less to do with it than no variants beyond a coupe and the rise of CUVs as the go to

 

U live in a weird vacuum. U say Cadillac was stupid in creating a larger backseat in the older CTSs.. yet fail to realize, even when told to death.. and have "google" at your disposal.. that the 3series and the rest are really not more than a smidge larger than the ATS's backseat. The current CTS vs say a 5series is in reality.. not in your crazy world.. almost spot on in interior volume.. but with a few differences:

[Cmicasa the Great]

You don't buy an ATS or 3-series or A4 to be your friends' free Uber driver.  If you plan on taking bunches of friends out regularly on long trips, either pony up for a mid-size luxury or step down to a "family" car/SUV.

 

These are personal luxury cars. 

 

 

^^^ This.. and I don;t see why I'm labeled as being a FANBOI for saying the same thing. In fact.. it is a strong reason why U usually don't see compacts as taxis. 

 

Am I the only one who realizes that a COROLLA and a 3SERIES(ATS) are in the same SIZE category?

 

If I didn't tell U.. which one is the BMW and which is the Corolla?? Based on OLD's idea of what luxo is.. I'd say the one with the ability to allow my legs to stretch out

 

  

[Cmicasa the Great]

The current 3-series is smaller than a 2003 CTS.  Pretty much every segment of car has size creep, look at a 90s Accord and a 2016 Accord for example.

 

I think what is interesting is Cadillac got rid of the STS, because it wasn't selling, people said it was too big, too soft, or didn't have the performance to match the Germans.  And now the CTS is the exact same length as the 2005-2010 STS, the turbo 4 makes comparable power to the STS V6, and the 3.6 V6 comparable power to the old Northstar V8.  They turned the CTS into a carbon copy of a car GM itself deemed a failure.

 

 

 

As a previous owner of an '05 STS and a current owner of a '16 CTS.. U are wrong on a few points. The major one being the carbon copy issue. The size is very much where they end. The CTS.. in all forms is a better car than the STS while only mimicking its size. I will also point out that the current CTS has a top engine that the old STS didn't. I speak of the VSport. The 3.6L is a NA compliance engine, which in my opinion really isn' even needed since the LF3 could be simply detuned about 60 hp.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

The 2003 CTS was about 6 or 7 inches longer than the current ATS.  Put 5 inches of wheel base in an ATS and your leg room issues are solved, but then it is also going to be near the size of a Lexus GS.

 

 

"take an inch or two out of dash to axle, and take 2-4 inches off each overhang.  Keep the roof at the same height....maybe drop it one inch.  Not hard"

 

the original CTS had lines and shape that preserved a decent interior cabin.  it would not at all be difficult to take the six inches out of the rest of the length of the car besides the cabin.  1" dash to axle, 2 inch front overhang, 3 inches rear overhang....done.

 

I would love to get one of these brought over from Europe to here...

 

http://www.carenthusiast.com/reviews/article/1815/-/2006-Cadillac-BLS/2.0T+175+hp+5+Man.+SE.html

 

this (the bLS)  is the spirit of the ATS mission today

CTS goes back to the size it was

STS goes back to the size it was

DTS goes back to what it was

 

to be honest if Cadillac did this with their sedans they may just fix it.

 

 

 

Cadillac is doing this.. by rebooting it all and trying to clear up the confusion with new names.. ironically. I think at this point it is acceptable... altho I would have simply left the names as is.. and called the ATS the CTS, the CTS the STS, the XTS the DTS and the CT6.. the XTS (as it was originally planned for the once ZETA based flagship to be called "XLS."

 

The size thing tho.. really can be fixed with using OMEGA in the CTS going forward and leaving ALPHA for the smaller offerings. Also.. we should remember what JDN said a few months ago about the next "CTS" and next "ATS" we should be seeing a simple change of size formula for the sake of these issues that critics have brought up about the legroom etc. I'm thinking for the most part the Alpha based ATS replacement will essentially get the Chinese ATS-L Wheelbase of 112.6 inch vs what it has right now of 109.3. This would dwarf the current 3series' 110.6 in WB by a few inches. I think that the ATS replacement will be, along with the Sub-ATS, the only Cadillacs on the Alpha platform, with the Camaro helping out with the numbers a bit more. 

 

The CTS replacement will probably go to Omega. I could see it staying at 196 inchs.. and getting a bump in Wheelbase (currently at 114.6 inches) too coming in at around 117 in N.Amer, like the 5Series. It has been said that the CT6 handles as well as the current CTS.. so certainly I would think that an Omega based... smaller than CT6... CTS would handle as well or better, not losing any of its agility, and losing a few hundred lbs in the change over. This would be beneficial in amortizing the Omega platform even quicker.. (altho I would still push it out to an Impala at Chevy and a Park Ave or Avenir at Buick) along with the CT7 and CT8

[Suaviloquent]

I think the only issue with Cadillac interiors is now is fine details. People like the gimmicky low gloss chrome accents on their gauges, window switches, that kind of deal.

 

I did some surfing yesterday, looked at the Cadillac Fleetwood interior versus Lexus LS400 (way back when).

 

At that time, it was the Lexus that was fresher, better engineered but everyone (Motorweek) said the interior lacked quality in some parts and details - but was screwed together as tight as it can be. The Fleetwood, Lincoln Conti at the time had metal stalks, metal switches and tufted velour or leather, and vinyl roof options. 

 

The Lexus was kind of like today's Genesis G90. But since the Lexus was the first derivative one to come out, it lives on today with pedigree.

 

Also, C&D did a test on the Jag XJL blown V6. It weighed like 23 pounds more than the CT6 3.0T. Not bad, not bad at all for what is a 8 year old design now.

[ccap41]

 

Yes I remember that commercial.. I should not only am I THAT COMMERCIAL.. but we ran that commercial at the start of every sales meeting at my company for about month after it came out. 

 

1) Problem is that despite that commercial.. All Americans are not the same as they were in the GO GO 80s and 90s.. some are sensitive lil bitches that get offended when U tell that they are.. AMERICAN... which translates to me as "Better." 

 

2) It is not f@#kED (can't believe U go thru the time to come up with another word) up to sell a compact car when that compact car is a necessity and is a quite competent car.. Point blank.. the ATS beats the 3Series in almost every way I can think except .. Back seat room and instrument gauges. The latter is actually being updated for the '17 model year BTW.. and the old ones were technically not worse than the 3series.. but simply lack a simple bit of PIZZAZZ that could have been simply remedied with a chrome accent:

 

 

 

 

 

 

In truth the only thing that gives the two Germans an edge over the ATS's gauges is the accents.. and only because they distract from the thriftiness of it all . THOSE GAUGES ARE NO BETTER THAN THE CADILLACS.. Just spruced up a bit more. In fact.. one could easily argue that the ATS has better ACTUAL gauges.

 

 

 

The gauges in the ATS look WAAAAAY better when lit up and in person. They look terrible when the vehicle is off and you're right, all they're really missing is a little chrome accent. 

 

I really like how you can manipulate what information you want and where you want it on that LCD display too. Really cool. It looks like you cannot do the same(it's at least less customizable) on the Mercedes and probably can on that BMW instrument cluster. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by ccap41

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

Yes I remember that commercial.. I should not only am I THAT COMMERCIAL.. but we ran that commercial at the start of every sales meeting at my company for about month after it came out. 

 

1) Problem is that despite that commercial.. All Americans are not the same as they were in the GO GO 80s and 90s.. some are sensitive lil bitches that get offended when U tell that they are.. AMERICAN... which translates to me as "Better." 

 

2) It is not f@#kED (can't believe U go thru the time to come up with another word) up to sell a compact car when that compact car is a necessity and is a quite competent car.. Point blank.. the ATS beats the 3Series in almost every way I can think except .. Back seat room and instrument gauges. The latter is actually being updated for the '17 model year BTW.. and the old ones were technically not worse than the 3series.. but simply lack a simple bit of PIZZAZZ that could have been simply remedied with a chrome accent:

 

 

 

 

 

 

In truth the only thing that gives the two Germans an edge over the ATS's gauges is the accents.. and only because they distract from the thriftiness of it all . THOSE GAUGES ARE NO BETTER THAN THE CADILLACS.. Just spruced up a bit more. In fact.. one could easily argue that the ATS has better ACTUAL gauges.

 

 

 

The gauges in the ATS look WAAAAAY better when lit up and in person. They look terrible when the vehicle is off and you're right, all they're really missing is a little chrome accent. 

 

I really like how you can manipulate what information you want and where you want it on that LCD display too. Really cool. It looks like you cannot do the same(it's at least less customizable) on the Mercedes and probably can on that BMW instrument cluster. 

 

 

 

 

Well. Its my belief that may very well be the big change for the instruments gauge on the '17.. that it pretty much gets a 8inch  configurable layout like on the Camaro.. which simply makes sense

 

[oldshurst442]

Casa

 

1. I know you are that commercial. God bless you that U are still a proud American. I LOVE Americans such as yourself....Ive told you that MANY times that I RESPECT the shyte out of you!!!! And one reason being that YOU TELL IT HOW YOU SEES IT. You shoot straight!

So....what the hell happened to the Americans that I LOVED between  the 1940s-1980s and today?

 

This is what Im talking about:

Men who mean just what they say
The brave men of the Green Beret

Silver wings upon their chest
These are men, America's best

 

What happened to the pride?

Why is it gone?

 

2. I understand why the compact car for Cadillac...

    I just dont feel that segment is worthy for Cadillac to be in....

    I have pride for Cadillac. And I KNOW that this aint the 1950s anymore and I understand that gasoline prices and displacement taxes are high in many parts

    of the world where Cadillac needs to compete in and sell...and I also understand that many countries dont have football field wide roads for huge American 

    Land Yachts to roam around in...yet I still think this segment cheapens Cadillac Prestige...

    You dont see Rolls Royce and Bentley compact cars do you?

    We saw 1 Aston Martin compact....it did not do well, did it?

  

 

I dont care where that compact car came from...

Reality is, Aston Martin DOES sell small cars

 

But Aston Martin's small cars are no where NEAR in the same league as a BMW 3 Series...with the sole exception of a M2 or M4...and that is only in performance measures...in quality and in luxury...the Bimmers leave a lot to be desired as compared to the Aston Martins...

And THAT LEAGUE is where I want Cadillac to be in...the Aston Martin league...

If Cadillac needs to become more Euro flavoured....I reckon they need to be more of this Euro flavour...rather than chase German econobox compact crap....

 

I really dont look at gauges and judge them for "quality"...

Especially in econobox cars....whether its a Focus or Cruize or BMW 3 Series and ATS..

OOOPS.....sorry....that last two cars are supposed to be "entry level luxury"....

God, I HATE THIS SEGMENT MORE THAN I DO CUVs!!!

Partly because I KNOW how pathetic this segment is and how its just a marketers bullshyte way of selling dreams to idiot poseurs that probably dont have 2 cents to rub together because they buy everything on credit and everything is on lease and NOTHING belongs to them while owning their sole to the banks while trying to tell someone that they are somebody....with lies and deceit...with fake Michael Korrs watches that are made in sweat shops and entry level econobox luxury!!!

True luxury costs money!!!

ANY Chevrolet should NEVER cost more than ANY Cadillac....with the SOLE exception maybe...MAYBE...the Corvette....MAYBE the Corvette....even then...Cadillac cars should cost MORE!!!

Im on YOUR side Casa with this and with Cadillac...I just choose to argue it differently than you....from a different angle...

Edited May 27, 2016 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

Hey Reg...

 

Instead of giving me a -1...when that post wasnt even directed towards you....

Edited May 27, 2016 by Drew Dowdell
Edited out most of the ranting because you got the "who" wrong in the first place.

[Drew Dowdell]

You can't see who gave out reputation... so don't assume it is who you think it is.  In this case, you got it wrong.

[surreal1272]

Hey Reg...

Instead of giving me a -1...when that post wasnt even directed towards you....

That's the problem with assumptions. It wasn't Reg. I did it because I felt it was way off base in places. Edited May 27, 2016 by surreal1272

[regfootball]

Hey Reg...

 

Instead of giving me a -1...when that post wasnt even directed towards you....

I didn't even read ur post yet bro

[regfootball]

Just a quick note. Trolled the gm lot in my moms town today. They had 2 new XT5's. Gotta give em a big thumbs up. Interiors look great and the packaging looks good too. The styling is a bit safe and bland but clearly it's nice such that it will sell. There was already a guy and his wife looking at them. He was driving a newer vette. I told him he could be the first one to have the xt5. He said not yet. They already have an SRX. they did not look at any sedans. The XT5 will sell like hot cakes and it's actually really stupid to even talk about the sedan lineup anymore probably. So maybe this dissection of the ATS and the rest of the sedans isn't even worth the time. Lol

Sad tho. Cadillac could stand to add about 3 more crossovers pronto. I don't think performance sedans matter as much as halo products anymore.

Edited May 29, 2016 by regfootball

[balthazar]

Cadillac doesn't need 5 CUV/SUVs, for crap's sake. Tiny, Encore-sized CUVs should not be made into Cadillacs. Ceed the sales to Buick / elsewhere. Just because something CAN be done, doesn;t mean it SHOULD.

[smk4565]

Cadillac does need 5 CUV/SUV sadly.  That is where the market is going.  They can easily fit a crossover below XT5 that is Envision size, and they need a 3 row crossover.  Escalade is the 4th, and they could find room for another one somewhere.  I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters cut Cadillac down to a 2 sedan line up either, like they are doing with Buick.  

[surreal1272]

Cadillac does need 5 CUV/SUV sadly.  That is where the market is going.  They can easily fit a crossover below XT5 that is Envision size, and they need a 3 row crossover.  Escalade is the 4th, and they could find room for another one somewhere.  I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters cut Cadillac down to a 2 sedan line up either, like they are doing with Buick.  

One day you will understand how ignorant your post truly was.

 

BTW, this was bean counting, as well going after the bottom feeder market.

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by surreal1272

[David]

 

Cadillac does need 5 CUV/SUV sadly.  That is where the market is going.  They can easily fit a crossover below XT5 that is Envision size, and they need a 3 row crossover.  Escalade is the 4th, and they could find room for another one somewhere.  I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters cut Cadillac down to a 2 sedan line up either, like they are doing with Buick.  

One day you will understand how ignorant your post truly was.

 

BTW, this was bean counting, as well going after the bottom feeder market.

mercedes-benz-cla-breakthroughs-large-10.jpg

 

WOW

 

If that does not show MB has joined the rank n file of the Ford, Dodge, Toyota and Chevy buyers, I have no Idea what does.

 

Clearly MB is NOT the Luxury Auto Maker any longer but a mass market machine living off their legacy of past desire to be different than everyone else. Now they are just a Mass Produced Jelly Bean Company of Auto's.

[smk4565]

Except the CLA is probably the worst profit margin on any Mercedes.  A-class and B-class level Mercedes exist partly for compliance reasons, whether it be CAFE or Euro-emissions or whatever.  The other reason is for entry level product, as the C-class is a pretty nice car, it isn't an entry level car.

 

GM just canned the Verano that outsells the ATS and CTS with ease, and is also based off a mass market car with not a lot of engineering work needed to create it.  If the Verano wasn't making enough money for GM to keep it, or because they want Buick to be 70% crossover, what is to say they won't do the same to Cadillac, and make them a 70% crossover brand and cut sedans. 

 

I think Cadillac will always have 3 sedans, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cadillac goes 70% crossover/SUV.

[smk4565]

 

 

Cadillac does need 5 CUV/SUV sadly.  That is where the market is going.  They can easily fit a crossover below XT5 that is Envision size, and they need a 3 row crossover.  Escalade is the 4th, and they could find room for another one somewhere.  I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters cut Cadillac down to a 2 sedan line up either, like they are doing with Buick.  

One day you will understand how ignorant your post truly was.

 

BTW, this was bean counting, as well going after the bottom feeder market.

mercedes-benz-cla-breakthroughs-large-10.jpg

 

WOW

 

If that does not show MB has joined the rank n file of the Ford, Dodge, Toyota and Chevy buyers, I have no Idea what does.

 

Clearly MB is NOT the Luxury Auto Maker any longer but a mass market machine living off their legacy of past desire to be different than everyone else. Now they are just a Mass Produced Jelly Bean Company of Auto's.

 

Yeah, since they don't make full size V12 luxury sedans, coupes, or luxury convertibles, such as these.

 

[David]

 

 

 

Cadillac does need 5 CUV/SUV sadly.  That is where the market is going.  They can easily fit a crossover below XT5 that is Envision size, and they need a 3 row crossover.  Escalade is the 4th, and they could find room for another one somewhere.  I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters cut Cadillac down to a 2 sedan line up either, like they are doing with Buick.  

One day you will understand how ignorant your post truly was.

 

BTW, this was bean counting, as well going after the bottom feeder market.

mercedes-benz-cla-breakthroughs-large-10.jpg

 

WOW

 

If that does not show MB has joined the rank n file of the Ford, Dodge, Toyota and Chevy buyers, I have no Idea what does.

 

Clearly MB is NOT the Luxury Auto Maker any longer but a mass market machine living off their legacy of past desire to be different than everyone else. Now they are just a Mass Produced Jelly Bean Company of Auto's.

 

Yeah, since they don't make full size V12 luxury sedans, coupes, or luxury convertibles, such as these.

 

 

WOW talk about a lack of style, originality or anything else that other than badge snobs would want gives any desire.

 

Sorry SMK, I know you love your beloved MB, but these are the most generic  blah auto's ever!

 

Many other german brands have better style than this allotment. Nothing here that makes me want or desire to have one of them.

 

If I was to choose an MB, then I would have to pass on all their butt ugly CUV/SUVs and look to the AMG line that makes me excited.

 

Just 3 auto's that I could enjoy having:

 

Black Brabus E63 station wagon

 

AMG GT3

 

AMG Gran Turismo

[surreal1272]

 

 

 

Cadillac does need 5 CUV/SUV sadly.  That is where the market is going.  They can easily fit a crossover below XT5 that is Envision size, and they need a 3 row crossover.  Escalade is the 4th, and they could find room for another one somewhere.  I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters cut Cadillac down to a 2 sedan line up either, like they are doing with Buick.  

One day you will understand how ignorant your post truly was.

 

BTW, this was bean counting, as well going after the bottom feeder market.

mercedes-benz-cla-breakthroughs-large-10.jpg

 

WOW

 

If that does not show MB has joined the rank n file of the Ford, Dodge, Toyota and Chevy buyers, I have no Idea what does.

 

Clearly MB is NOT the Luxury Auto Maker any longer but a mass market machine living off their legacy of past desire to be different than everyone else. Now they are just a Mass Produced Jelly Bean Company of Auto's.

 

Yeah, since they don't make full size V12 luxury sedans, coupes, or luxury convertibles, such as these.

 

 

So what? That is what is expected of Benz, not putting out sub-$30K cars to the "wannabe" crowd.

[surreal1272]

Except the CLA is probably the worst profit margin on any Mercedes.  A-class and B-class level Mercedes exist partly for compliance reasons, whether it be CAFE or Euro-emissions or whatever.  The other reason is for entry level product, as the C-class is a pretty nice car, it isn't an entry level car.

 

GM just canned the Verano that outsells the ATS and CTS with ease, and is also based off a mass market car with not a lot of engineering work needed to create it.  If the Verano wasn't making enough money for GM to keep it, or because they want Buick to be 70% crossover, what is to say they won't do the same to Cadillac, and make them a 70% crossover brand and cut sedans. 

 

I think Cadillac will always have 3 sedans, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cadillac goes 70% crossover/SUV.

Go ahead. Compare a Buick to a Mercedes one more time.

 

Oh and it most certainly IS an entry level car, hence being placed in the entry level position once occupied by the C-Class. Got to get that Buick buyer somehow right?

[balthazar]

"Where the market is going" is irrelevant when you keep in mind Cadillac is but 1 out of 4 divisions, not the only one (ignoring the experiment that smart has been).

 

It's not 'Cadillac only has 2 CUV/SUVs'; to be realistic it's 'General Motors has 14 SUV/CUVs'.

[David]

"Where the market is going" is irrelevant when you keep in mind Cadillac is but 1 out of 4 divisions, not the only one (ignoring the experiment that smart has been).

 

It's not 'Cadillac only has 2 CUV/SUVs'; to be realistic it's 'General Motors has 14 SUV/CUVs'.

Point well made, we might as well do what SMK is doing and hence just use GM versus MB in who has the most trucks, the most CUVs/SUVs, who has the most subcompact, compact, mid size, full size auto's, who has the most commercial, etc.

 

Guess since MB is no longer the elite only Luxury auto company we need to truly compare apple to apple!

 

GM Versus MB, Guess we know who truly wins!

[smk4565]

Cadillac being 1 out of 4 divisions means they don't need to worry about CAFE so much or do a sub ATS car.   They do still have to build the body styles that luxury customers want, and unfortunately they want crossovers and not performance cars for the most part.

 

Case in point with the ATS, they release the coupe and V-series and sales go down.   It was suggested earlier that the ATS-V is a halo product, but ATS sales dropped after the V came out, so it isn't making more people want an ATS.  Mark my words, Johan will get pressure to increase sales, the bean counters will see the easy profits by turing a Chevy crossover into a Cadillac, and that is the path they will go down.  

[Suaviloquent]

Cadillac is on the upside though. The ATS is excellent in everything underneath, like the CT6. And they will probably take even more of those tech to the second gen ATS or CT3. 

 

Imagine a featherweight 3200 ish pound Cadillac small sedan. And have the luxo interior of the XT5, and it'll be a COTY. The standard of the world.

[balthazar]

Cadillac being 1 out of 4 divisions means they don't need to worry about CAFE so much...

Cadillac doesn't have to worry about CAFE AT ALL. However, customers will want to see decent MPG, so don't expect Cadillac to offer nearly as many 16 MPG vehicles as MB.

 

They do still have to build the body styles that luxury customers want, and unfortunately they want crossovers and not performance cars for the most part. Case in point with the ATS, they release the coupe and V-series and sales go down. It was suggested earlier that the ATS-V is a halo product, but ATS sales dropped after the V came out, so it isn't making more people want an ATS.

EVERY mercedees car line is DOWN in 2016, some down over 30%. It's NOT anything to do with your suggestion that the ATS-V isn't 'doing what they want it to', it's a market shift that EVERYONE is dealing with. It's probably why mercedees is going to bring their rebadged nissan pick-up here, they are sorely lacking in the truck segments, now well over 50% of the market, and they have NOTHING.

 

MB s-class is supposedly the 'best of the best' and was brand new for '14, yet it's down 23% this year. Guess it's not measuring up to customer's wants. MB undoubtedly will be applying pressure to up sales there, they lovelovelove 'best ever' PR releases. I'm expecting incentives more along the lines of the prior generation, $12-15K off sticker soon.

Edited May 30, 2016 by balthazar

[surreal1272]

"Where the market is going" is irrelevant when you keep in mind Cadillac is but 1 out of 4 divisions, not the only one (ignoring the experiment that smart has been).

It's not 'Cadillac only has 2 CUV/SUVs'; to be realistic it's 'General Motors has 14 SUV/CUVs'.

Been telling him this for months but he willfully ignores this everytime, hence his continued path towards trolling ignorance. Edited May 30, 2016 by surreal1272

[smk4565]

But if 50% of luxury buyers (and that number might be 60%) want a crossover, and Cadillac only has one crossover, then they have a problem.  Doesn't matter if Buick and Chevy have 10 crossovers.  They need them in the luxury segment.  

[surreal1272]

But if 50% of luxury buyers (and that number might be 60%) want a crossover, and Cadillac only has one crossover, then they have a problem.  Doesn't matter if Buick and Chevy have 10 crossovers.  They need them in the luxury segment.

Buick does compete on the lower end of the luxury segment. You want me to reference that Buick beating out a Mercedes most recently?

Cadillac needs more CUVs. It does not need five for reasons already explained to certain Mercedes Benz fanboys.

[balthazar]

Numbers have probably crept a bit, but "60%" don't want CUVs.

2014 breakdown was

 

• 47% cars

• 37% SUVs AND CUVs,

• 13% pick up

 

Cadillac has TWO 'non-cars' currently, not one. They have room for 1 more, that's it.

Phuk the volume chasers.

[smk4565]

59.8% of Cadillac sales in 2015 were SUVs, and that was with 2 SUVs and 4 lines of cars.    It would seem that 60% of Cadillac buyers wanted an SUV, and probably would have been higher if they had more SUVs to sell.   It is hard to get consumers into sedans anymore.

[balthazar]

1 more; a total of 3. After that, any brand is splitting hairs and chasing dollars. 

I'll excuse that for volume players (like toyota, Chevrolet, Ford, Nissan and Mercedes), but not Cadillac.

[smk4565]

Without crossovers they are a dead brand.  I think they need performance crossovers to differentiate from Buick and GMC, and Chevy to a lesser degree.

 

If it were me, I would scrap CAFE and put in a plan where a baseline MPG is established, say 30 mpg EPA combined.  And every vehicle pays a $100 per 1 mpg gas guzzler tax that is under the line, every vehicle above gets a $100 credit, max $2,500 credit, and EV's would get the $2,500.   The 30 mpg number can slide up, say to 35 mpg EPA combined in 2020 or 2025.   That puts incentive on buyers to buy more fuel efficient cars and actually puts a tax on the vehicles sucking gas.    Much better than the current CAFE system, and you'd raise more money on the tax end than you have to pay out on the credit end, so it always runs a surplus that can help pay for repaving roads.

 

But since we have stupid fuel efficiency rules and customers that want a crossover because they think it is safer than a sedan, sportier looking than a sedan, and it has awd so they won't get stranded in 1 inch of snow.     Sadly Cadillac could price the CTS-V at $38,950 and the XT5 would hammer it in sales, solely because it is a crossover.   I don't like that crossovers are taking over, but if you don't build them you are screwed.

[surreal1272]

Without crossovers they are a dead brand.  I think they need performance crossovers to differentiate from Buick and GMC, and Chevy to a lesser degree.

 

If it were me, I would scrap CAFE and put in a plan where a baseline MPG is established, say 30 mpg EPA combined.  And every vehicle pays a $100 per 1 mpg gas guzzler tax that is under the line, every vehicle above gets a $100 credit, max $2,500 credit, and EV's would get the $2,500.   The 30 mpg number can slide up, say to 35 mpg EPA combined in 2020 or 2025.   That puts incentive on buyers to buy more fuel efficient cars and actually puts a tax on the vehicles sucking gas.    Much better than the current CAFE system, and you'd raise more money on the tax end than you have to pay out on the credit end, so it always runs a surplus that can help pay for repaving roads.

 

But since we have stupid fuel efficiency rules and customers that want a crossover because they think it is safer than a sedan, sportier looking than a sedan, and it has awd so they won't get stranded in 1 inch of snow.     Sadly Cadillac could price the CTS-V at $38,950 and the XT5 would hammer it in sales, solely because it is a crossover.   I don't like that crossovers are taking over, but if you don't build them you are screwed.

No room to explain all the wrongs in that post. Every bit of what you just said can be applied to just about every auto maker out there, including Benz. Please tell me you are not this blind.

[regfootball]

LOL caddy could price the CTS-v at 38,950 and I agree the XT5 would still hammer it in sales.

 

One of the fastest ways for Cadillac to impact in crossover segments would be with one or more sports crossovers.  No manufacturer has really put out a drop dead sexy sports crossover yet.  Cadillac could really own that if they knew how to do it.  Even the Porsche Cayenne and Macan are still rather BLEH

[balthazar]

A brand is not 'dead' without crossovers, not to mention (again) Cadillac currently has two SUVs/CUVs; therefore it's is 'impossible' for it to be dead/dying.
Another is surely coming, but that's enough to cover the SUV/CUV shopper. Not 5 or 7 SUVs/CUVs; Cadillac only needs to plan for 3. 

 

Cadillac is not a full-line mainstream, mass-production brand like mercedees.

[Drew Dowdell]

Cadillac does need 5 CUV/SUV sadly.  That is where the market is going.  They can easily fit a crossover below XT5 that is Envision size, and they need a 3 row crossover.  Escalade is the 4th, and they could find room for another one somewhere.  I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters cut Cadillac down to a 2 sedan line up either, like they are doing with Buick.  

 

No, Cadillac does not.  Mercedes does because they have to cover the entire market with a single brand, that's why they've been moving into Buick/GMC (and GMC/Chevy Commercial) territory lately. Cadillac can be more exclusive and selective with their vehicle offerings.