Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    2019 Cadillac ATS To Only Be Offered As Coupe, CT6 to Drop 2.0T

      More fun with General Motors' VIN Decoder

    We know that Cadillac is planning to shrink down the car lineup with the ATS, CTS, and XTS being replaced by the CT5 in 2019. But there are some other changes afoot for Cadillac's car lineup for 2019 according to GM's VIN Decoder document. 

    The Truth About Cars reports that the ATS and ATS-V Coupe will be sticking around for the 2019 model year. Powertrains and the choice of rear- or all-wheel drive will carry over. It is unclear what transmissions will be offered. Meanwhile, the 2.0L turbo engine for the CT6 will be dropped. The 3.6L will now become the base engine. All models except the for CT6 Plug-In Hybrid will have AWD as standard equipment.

    Cadillac declined to comment when asked about the changes by TTAC.

    Source: The Truth About Cars
    Pic Credit: William Maley for Cheers and Gears

    2019 Cadillac ATS VIN Document.jpg

    2019 Cadillac CT6 VIN Document.jpg

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    I'm reading this slightly different.

    Yes, the ATS sedan will be dropped, but that's because the CT4 will replace it and likely won't be a sedan but rather a hatchback in keeping with JDN's very qualified statement about Cadillac sedans.

    What this sounds like to me is that there won't be a CT4 coupe, at least at first, and the ATS Coupe will stick around for that role until a replacement is ready to go.   

    I'm guessing the CT4 will be a more direct competitor to the CLA/A3... meaning FWD and 4-cylinder turbo only. It will be some sort of sport hatchback coupe crossover with 4 doors.

    The CT5 will be only slightly smaller externally than the current CTS, but will have better packaging and ride on the Omega platform with the CT6.

    Here is where the giant question mark comes up..... If ATS and CTS are going away, what happens to Camaro when its platform mates are dead?  The only possibility I see is if GM has some sort of Alpha 2.0 in the works for CT4/CT5/Camaro to ride on that has the weight savings enhancements that come with Omega.

    • Agree 4
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    but that's because the CT4 will replace it and likely won't be a sedan but rather a hatchback in keeping with JDN's very qualified statement about Cadillac sedans.

    Cadillac. Hatchback. ? 

    INTEREST PIQUED! :drool:

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Cadillac. Hatchback. ? 

    INTEREST PIQUED! :drool:

    Yeah... it's sort of a process of elimination.  They've said that the ATS sedan is going away and that Cadillac is cutting down on the number of sedans.  But there will be a CT4 that replaces the ATS in the lineup, so what will that car be?  We know they won't do coupe only, it doesn't make economic sense to. We know that a CT4 won't be a crossover, that's what XT4 will be.  So that leaves hatchback and wagon as possibilities.

    Given that there is technically no longer a Regal sedan,  I'm guessing the correct answer here is "hatchback" or "sportback" if you want to use Buick's terms.

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I'm guessing the CT4 will be a more direct competitor to the CLA/A3... meaning FWD and 4-cylinder turbo only.

    That's insane if that happens. RIght now the ATS as configured has numerous advantages over the CLA, primairly much better interior room and RWD / RWD proportions.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Like the  CTS2 being simultaneously offered as a COUPE only along with the current gen CTS3.. I expect what they are saying is that the ATS Coupe will be offered as a stand alone option while the CT3/4 will be the Sedan/Hatch car

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    That's insane if that happens. RIght now the ATS as configured has numerous advantages over the CLA, primairly much better interior room and RWD / RWD proportions.

    Well it's just my own guess.  They could keep it on Alpha and have it RWD/AWD.... but the CLA and A3 have proven that RWD is not needed for sales success.  Mercedes is selling as many 98-Taurus-Shrunk-In-The-Wash as they can while the superior chassis of the ATS doesn't move that well.   If  Cadillac can sell 1.8T/2.0T powered rebadge Cruzes for $30k, I totally see them going for it if the sales are there.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Well it's just my own guess.  They could keep it on Alpha and have it RWD/AWD.... but the CLA and A3 have proven that RWD is not needed for sales success.  Mercedes is selling as many 98-Taurus-Shrunk-In-The-Wash as they can while the superior chassis of the ATS doesn't move that well.   If  Cadillac can sell 1.8T/2.0T powered rebadge Cruzes for $30k, I totally see them going for it if the sales are there.

    Mercedes could sell flaming bags of dog poo as long as they have a 3-point star on them.   The ATS isn't that good of a car, and more importantly Cadillac is a damaged brand that they haven't been able to fix 30 years of damage to.

    C-class, 3-series and Q50 are the top sellers of their brand and Lexus IS is #2 seller at theirs, I think the A4 is the #2 selling Audi.  ATS is in the biggest segment of the luxury market and can't move metal.

    Keeping the ATS Coupe around a model year makes sense, they can probably build a model year's worth of them in about 2 months and have them so there is a 2 door option until something else comes along.

    Who knows on CT4, Cadillac seems to be giving up on cars, and just rebadging Chevy/Buick SUVs.   Dropping the CTS makes 100% sense, there should have never been a 2.0T CT6 just like there never should have been a 2.5 ATS.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Why not? There is a 4 cylinder turbo E class and the CT6 weighs less. 

     

    The ATS is a substantially superior vehicle to the CLA in every objective measure... But brand whores prefer the fake pleather Gucci bag over and actual entry luxury performance sedan.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

    Mercedes sell flaming bags of dog poo as they have a 3-point star on them.  

    Good to know you finally admit what MB really is, a badge on dog poo! :roflmao:

    • Haha 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Whoa!

    The ATS is EXACTLY what enthusiasts were asking for from a performance  "entry level"  luxury compact car.

    It would be the first of its kind to actually give a BMW 3 Series run for its money.

    Mercedes all through the 1980s, all through the 1990s, all through the 2000s tried and failed BIG TIME and decided to quit on that formula. 

    Cadillac FINALLY got it right! 

    Problem is:

    1. That type of car is no longer in vogue. CUVs from lux brands are what is in vogue.

    2. That type of car was needed for Cadillac in the 1990s. After 2010, many wanting to return to Cadillac seem to want Cadillac to go back to their own true roots. Cadillac seems to not only miss the boat in 1990 in ignoring that segment and half-assing it, but they seem to be ignoring the cry from their own Cadillac following from the 2010s that to be relevant going forward, Cadillac needs to be Cadillac...

    So...although its a sales flop, the ATS is....its NOT because its a bad car. Its just the wrong car for the brand! 

     

    Edited by oldshurst442
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

    Whoa!

    The ATS is EXACTLY what enthusiasts were asking for from a performance  "entry level"  luxury compact car.

    It would be the first of its kind to actually give a BMW 3 Series run for its money.

    Mercedes all through the 1980s, all through the 1990s, all through the 2000s tried and failed BIG TIME and decided to quit on that formula. 

    Cadillac FINALLY got it right! 

    Problem is:

    1. That type of car was is longer in vogue. CUVs from lux brands are what is in vogue.

    2. That type of car was needed for Cadillac in the 1990s. After 2010, many wanting to return to Cadillac seem to want Cadillac to go back to their own true roots. Cadillac seems to not only miss the boat in 1990 in ignoring that segment and half-assing it, but they seem to be ignoring the cry from their own Cadillac following from the 2010s that to be relevant going forward, Cadillac needs to be Cadillac...

    So...although its a sales flop, the ATS is....its NOT because its a bad car. Its just the wrong car for the brand! 

     

    It was a victim of timing, and Cadillac's image.  Infiniti and Lexus have found some success w/ their compact luxury sports sedans and coupes in part because of their 'newness' as brands and their Japanese quality reputation.  Cadillac, for better or for worse, has a lot of history and a lot of baggage.  

    So many people my age and younger still today seem to only think of Cadillac as grandpa cars or bling trucks  (Escalade).

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I will also point out that these VIN cards are not set in stone.  GM can add to them at any time. 

    Correct, NHTSA's rules say an automaker can submit information until 60 days before production.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Why not? There is a 4 cylinder turbo E class and the CT6 weighs less. 

     

    The ATS is a substantially superior vehicle to the CLA in every objective measure... But brand whores prefer the fake pleather Gucci bag over and actual entry luxury performance sedan.

    Because the CT6 is Cadillac's flagship full size car and the $10,000 cheaper XTS has a V6.   The CT6 should have had the 3.0TT V6 standard because that is what you find in a base model A8 or Lexus LS, and they should have had a V8 option.  At very least the 3.6 V6 could have been the rental/livery spec engine if they needed a value leader at $55k.  

    This is the problem with Cadillac and has been for years, they undershoot the competition and they always make this play as the value choice and water down the car with cheap door handles, cheap trim pieces, Chevrolet engines, etc.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    12 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    So many people my age and younger still today seem to only think of Cadillac or bling trucks  (Escalade).

    The funny thing is, the Escalade is no more 'blingy' than the top MB or Range Rover, or most other lux SUVs. It's what sells these top shelf beasts.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    48 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    The funny thing is, the Escalade is no more 'blingy' than the top MB or Range Rover, or most other lux SUVs. It's what sells these top shelf beasts.

    No waaaaaay none of those offer chrome wheels from the factory, chrome door handles, chrome mirror covers... 

    The Escalade is definitely blingy. 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, daves87rs said:

    It's time they just benchmark themselves.....

    Couldn't agree more. 

    I'm glad Lincoln finally realized this and they're just doing themselves now. 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    24 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Couldn't agree more. 

    I'm glad Lincoln finally realized this and they're just doing themselves now. 

    Yep, and naming the cars again too....

    And in honesty, Caddy is never going to be able to beat the Gucci crowd because the other two simply win on image.

    I know GM can do a bang up job when they want to.....but bringing back some hertiage might be a good idea....

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • How did their engineers find a way to offer both with great space? It is a large 'engine bay'.  At this point, even if I said that 2 cu.ft is nonexistent, if the Audi could offer a frunk that size, Cadillac should have done the same.  I have realized that  people associate EVs with frunks and this is why you and I (and I think @David too) might criticize Cadillac for a missed opportunity with the Lyric.    Forget about Silverados and Hummers, they gave the mid-engine Corvette a trunk and frunk when a mid-engined supercar, even as a Corvette, could have forgone a frunk, but they KNEW it would benefit Corvette because people EXPECT storage space in a Corvette.    GM missed the part that people ALSO expect frunks in EVs...  ESPECIALLY in the market that the Lyriq resides in.  yeah......that would be the proper wording. Its not a big deal by ANY means.  Just disappointing. 
    • Thanks for the information. The Model X seems to have an abundance of space, everywhere.  The Lyriq just seems to have such a large "engine bay" that could/should still be able to have at least 2 cubic feet of space available. It isn't like their rear cargo space is THAT much larger than what they chose to compare it to.  It's a perfectly fine vehicle and the lack of a small frunk wouldn't stop me, it's just a little disappointing it doesn't have one when I feel like they could have engineered one in and still had a large boot. 
    • At 2.12 and 0.95 cu.ft for the Audi and Jag's frunk respectfully is a non-issue for the Lyriq not having a frunk. Maximizing the back trunk space as what the GM guys are saying for the Lyriq and the reason why they did it that way by-passing the need for a frunk sounds like marketing BS, until you realize that Audi and Jag's frunk space is nonexistent...   To which GM's words then kinda make sense as the Lyriq does in fact offer more room back there.   Frunk space is kinda expected though, for EVs, so there is that... Tesla Model X for a comparison as Tesla is the benchmark....   https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modelx/en_us/GUID-91E5877F-3CD2-4B3B-B2B8-B5DB4A6C0A05.html     Cargo Volume Table 1. 5-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,410 85.1 Behind second row 1,050 37.1 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,593 91.6 Maximum total cargo volume with 5 passengers 1,233 43.5 Table 2. 6-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row in max cargo position, third row folded flat 2,431 85.8 Behind second row, third row folded flat 935 33 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,614 92.3 Maximum total cargo volume with 6 passengers 608 21.5 Table 3. 7-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,314 81.7 Behind second row, third row folded flat 957 33.8 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,497 88.2 Maximum total cargo volume with 7 passengers 608 21.5       The Lyriq's cargo space is plentiful and it would seem like an engineering choice to favour rear space over the use of a frunk.  Is it a sound engineering choice? Possibly yes as the powertrain bits need not be crammed.   Is it a sound MARKETING choice? Time will tell as many folk really dont understand engineering choices all to well...   Nor do they seem to care.  If they want a frunk, they WANT a phoquing frunk... 
    • Lyriq Chief Engineer, Jamie Brewer, recently explained to GM Authority that the team decided to prioritize rear cargo space over two separate cargo areas. Thus, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq will have a larger traditional rear storage area. In fact, according to Brewer, that enables the Lyriq to boast the “largest cargo volume in its competitive set.” That made us wonder what, exactly, is the Lyriq’s competitive set. According to Cadillac spokesperson, Katie Minter, it consists of the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace. “Lyriq is aimed at customers that are looking for a luxury SUV with outstanding styling, ride and handling and seamlessly integrated technology. In this instance, we’re looking at vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace,” Minter told GM Authority in an emailed statement. So then, Lyriq has a maximum cargo volume of 60.8 cubic feet behind the first row seats and 28.0 cubic feet behind the second row. When compared to the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-Pace, the Lyriq does offer more space in the back. 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Cargo vs. e-tron I-Pace   Cadillac Lyriq Audi e-tron Jaguar I-Pace Rear cargo volume behind second row (cu. ft.) 28.0 28.5 25.3 Rear cargo volume behind first row (cu. ft.) 60.8 56.5 51.0 Frunk cargo volume (cu. ft.) N/A 2.12 0.95 Total front & rear cargo volume (cu. ft.)* 28.0 30.62 26.25 * With second row seats upright However, both the e-tron and the I-Pace feature frunks (2.12 cubic feet in the e-tron, 0.95 cubic feet in the I-Pace respectively), allowing the e-tron to have slightly more total cargo volume (combined frunk and rear cargo area). https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/05/heres-why-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-doesnt-have-a-frunk/  
    • That's probably a better worded way to put it. It's a missed opportunity.  They're all liquid cooled at this point and I can't imagine Ford and Tesla are having battery cooling issues, at least I haven't heard of any yet and I've watched a fair amount on the Mach-E and know somebody with a pair of Teslas in Nevada.  I don't believe lack of cooling has ever been a factor in an EV catching fire. It's always something shorting and sparking with poor connection(s) somewhere.  I'd also like to learn why. They have to have a good justification, I know they're not a bunch of idiots who "didn't think of it".  I just don't want the press release answer of "we needed the space for packaging". 
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bobo
      bobo
      (54 years old)
    2. loki
      loki
      (39 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...