Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Rumorpile: Cadillac Ponders An ATS-based Roadster

    William Maley

    Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

    January 25, 2012

    Inside Line reports that Cadillac is looking at building a two-seat roadster to compete with the likes of the BMW Z4 and Mercedes-Benz SLK. Sources inside Cadillac say the vehicle will use the Alpha platform, like in the new ATS.. It will likely share powertrain options with the ATS as well.

    No other details have been released and its unknown if this will see the light of day.

    Source: Inside Line

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Very interesting...well, we know GM is going to want use the Alpha platform for more than 1 model. I wonder if there is a business case for a Buick Alpha. It's nice to imagine a future where GM invests in more RWD models and not just an endless flow of FWD models...

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

    Very interesting...well, we know GM is going to want use the Alpha platform for more than 1 model. I wonder if there is a business case for a Buick Alpha. It's nice to imagine a future where GM invests in more RWD models and not just an endless flow of FWD models...

    No need to imagine. The next two platforms coming out are RWD.

    • Agree 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Very interesting...well, we know GM is going to want use the Alpha platform for more than 1 model. I wonder if there is a business case for a Buick Alpha. It's nice to imagine a future where GM invests in more RWD models and not just an endless flow of FWD models...

    No need to imagine. The next two platforms coming out are RWD.

    I'll believe it when I see new RWD models on dealers' lots.. Great news if it happens...

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    uhm... the ATS will be out in Summer?

    Yes, but I meant further models...

    Camaro, a Buick (Riviera on Alpha), Buick (something big on Omega), the Cadillac ZTS (as we are calling it around these parts) on Omega, the 130R is still in the realm of possibility.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What took so long for this story to show up here?

    They pointed out when this came out that this is where the ATS Convertible went. I really thing that this car will do more for GM and Cadillac vs the Convertible. The fact they got it away from the Corvette is the best part. It will have it's own area vs just being seen as a over priced Corvette.

    I saw the Covertible sales limited at best so the Roadster is not going to hurt that in my eyes. I can only imagine the weight on this one. 3300 on a sedan a smaller roadster should come in under that.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What I like is that we already know the Alpha will be a sedan, coupe, wagon and now a possible roadster. It makes one wonder what else could they do with it. A small unibody SUV kind of like the GMC they showed on the Zeta based Denali Show car. How about a El Camino for Camino? Who knows where this will go. GM has changed things as they go and may cook up new ideas on top of the ideas we have already not seen. This is only the begining for this car so a lot could happen in the coming years.

    We also know Cadillac and Chevy will be sharing so it only goes to reason Buick would have a posible interest.

    The extra money they had to develope this car will pay off in the long run for any divsion that uses this car. Cadillac did six different suspension before they settled on what they will use for the ATS. I would expect with that much work they would have learned a lot that could be used in many different kinds of models.

    It will be exciting to see what comes of all this.

    Edited by hyperv6
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    PCS did say that the Alpha was going to be the Epsilon II of RWD. Only... it looks like it is even more flexible size wise.

    Hopefully..Epsilon II so far has only 2 wheelbase variations..107.x and 111.x, both pretty short.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    PCS did say that the Alpha was going to be the Epsilon II of RWD. Only... it looks like it is even more flexible size wise.

    Hopefully..Epsilon II so far has only 2 wheelbase variations..107.x and 111.x, both pretty short.

    Not just wheelbase variations, but also body styles. Epsilon has been a sedan, coupe, wagon, 5-door hatch, soft top convertible and hard top convertible and been sold in every division except GMC. I think that widespread use is what PCS was referring to.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If it can fit the DOHC 3.6, it can fit the LS-series.

    and there is no way Chevy will build a Camaro that doesn't have a V8 available.... not yet.... not with Ford and Hyundai upping the V8 war in their sport ccupes.

    Could there be a Camaro with a turbo 4? Sure, and I think there should be one made.

    Also remember, Alpha is where the next CTS goes. So that means it needs to be able to handle being built into a CTS-V

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've thought about all of that.

    What I'm thinking is that we will see a major exchange of the hard parts for something beefier along with some augmented structure for any V8 cars - thus the magic weight loss may disappear.

    Needless to say, I'm quite curious about all of that.

    I need to see just how Alpha's structure goes together. I suspect that it resembles Zeta with the capability to exchange subframes etc.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    To extrapolate a bit more, maybe what I'm talking about is one of Alpha's secrets (and Omega's too?).

    In the past, a car that was to have an optional V8 was built to that spec which rendered it stronger and heavier than it needed to be for a lesser drivetrain. Perhaps Alpha is not like that at all, but built in different configurations with each accomodating a different drivetrain to maximize weight reduction for the smaller, lighter, engines and drivelines. If that is so, a V8 Alpha bodyshell and structure could be very different from one destined for a 4-banger.

    This might be a very good answer for overall efficiency, and perhaps even cost - though I could see that aspect go the other way as well.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've thought about all of that.

    What I'm thinking is that we will see a major exchange of the hard parts for something beefier along with some augmented structure for any V8 cars - thus the magic weight loss may disappear.

    Needless to say, I'm quite curious about all of that.

    I need to see just how Alpha's structure goes together. I suspect that it resembles Zeta with the capability to exchange subframes etc.

    I do not think structurally there will be too much to add for the diference between the V6 and LS V8. The weight difference between an LS3 engine and 3.6 DI is about 25-30 lbs, not enough to justify strengthening of materials to bolster the engine. As an engineer, I would design for the V8 anyways and GM has designed the Alpha for the same.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think Camino is talking more about the stress the power of a V8 could put on a frame. To that I would reply that GM had to design the thing to meet ever increasing crash standards in the first place, so the frame has to be pretty strong already to meet that standard. Probably more so than what the V8 requirement would be.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've thought about all of that.

    What I'm thinking is that we will see a major exchange of the hard parts for something beefier along with some augmented structure for any V8 cars - thus the magic weight loss may disappear.

    Needless to say, I'm quite curious about all of that.

    I need to see just how Alpha's structure goes together. I suspect that it resembles Zeta with the capability to exchange subframes etc.

    I do not think structurally there will be too much to add for the diference between the V6 and LS V8. The weight difference between an LS3 engine and 3.6 DI is about 25-30 lbs, not enough to justify strengthening of materials to bolster the engine. As an engineer, I would design for the V8 anyways and GM has designed the Alpha for the same.

    I wouldn't be so sure of that.

    A V8 introduces a great deal more stress on a given chassis with its power as much as its weight and that of other components it requires.

    If GM has taken the concept of modular design to a new high...

    I think Camino is talking more about the stress the power of a V8 could put on a frame. To that I would reply that GM had to design the thing to meet ever increasing crash standards in the first place, so the frame has to be pretty strong already to meet that standard. Probably more so than what the V8 requirement would be.

    Yes.

    And you make a valid point.

    However, crash stress and power stress are not the same...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well aware, but they are often solved in similar ways. Things that shouldn't collapse in a crash are the same things that shouldn't flex under high torque loads. GM used a lot of very high strength lightweight material in the car. My guess is that a Camaro built on this frame will go down in weight from the sedan. As it is now, the sedan is already the same weight as a V6 Mustang and only 100lbs heavier than the 4-cylinder Genesis Coupe, and 200lbs lighter than the Infiniti G-Coupe... all vehicles that I'm sure are being bench marked against. In my mind, that give GM a fantastic amount of wiggle room.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well aware, but they are often solved in similar ways. Things that shouldn't collapse in a crash are the same things that shouldn't flex under high torque loads. GM used a lot of very high strength lightweight material in the car. My guess is that a Camaro built on this frame will go down in weight from the sedan. As it is now, the sedan is already the same weight as a V6 Mustang and only 100lbs heavier than the 4-cylinder Genesis Coupe, and 200lbs lighter than the Infiniti G-Coupe... all vehicles that I'm sure are being bench marked against. In my mind, that give GM a fantastic amount of wiggle room.

    Agreed.

    But the concept could be carried to great extremes - an ATS and an ATS-V could be very different under the skin...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    All of the engineering I'm talking about would be extremely expensive and seem to be double work at first glance.

    But think of it this way: If it allowed the same range of possible models/configurations as two or three separate architectures normally would, it should become quite cost-effective.

    Which brings me to Omega. If Alpha is so extremely flexible, then what makes Omega necessary? How big is too big for Alpha?

    And, would Omega need to be flexible as well? Or would it be purpose-built to a specific size?

    I don't know now which architecture to place my own automotive hopes in just yet, but the possibilities are very interesting.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    All of the engineering I'm talking about would be extremely expensive and seem to be double work at first glance.

    But think of it this way: If it allowed the same range of possible models/configurations as two or three separate architectures normally would, it should become quite cost-effective.

    Which brings me to Omega. If Alpha is so extremely flexible, then what makes Omega necessary? How big is too big for Alpha?

    And, would Omega need to be flexible as well? Or would it be purpose-built to a specific size?

    I don't know now which architecture to place my own automotive hopes in just yet, but the possibilities are very interesting.

    Based on what I and Olds talked with the GM person at the time of ATS release was Alpha can fit CTS having similar size of a 5er.

    If GM wants to make money off Omega then it has to be flexible.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've thought about all of that.

    What I'm thinking is that we will see a major exchange of the hard parts for something beefier along with some augmented structure for any V8 cars - thus the magic weight loss may disappear.

    Needless to say, I'm quite curious about all of that.

    I need to see just how Alpha's structure goes together. I suspect that it resembles Zeta with the capability to exchange subframes etc.

    I do not think structurally there will be too much to add for the diference between the V6 and LS V8. The weight difference between an LS3 engine and 3.6 DI is about 25-30 lbs, not enough to justify strengthening of materials to bolster the engine. As an engineer, I would design for the V8 anyways and GM has designed the Alpha for the same.

    I wouldn't be so sure of that.

    A V8 introduces a great deal more stress on a given chassis with its power as much as its weight and that of other components it requires.

    If GM has taken the concept of modular design to a new high...

    I think Camino is talking more about the stress the power of a V8 could put on a frame. To that I would reply that GM had to design the thing to meet ever increasing crash standards in the first place, so the frame has to be pretty strong already to meet that standard. Probably more so than what the V8 requirement would be.

    Yes.

    And you make a valid point.

    However, crash stress and power stress are not the same...

    No, weight was just one factor. Other factors such as torsional rigidity and bending moments caused by a V8 would be indirectly function of weight. As far as harmonics are concerned a V8 is more stable than a V6, so preventing structural resonance for a V8 is an easier task. Another example, a E92 BMW 335i coupe with twin turbo engine weighs 3,572 lbs, an M3 coupe with non carbon fiber roof weighs 3,552 lbs. Granted the twin turbos add about 20 lb each to the weight of the 335is.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    From what little we know so far, my guess is that I'd want something built on the largest Alpha or the smallest Omega.

    I do have a hard time seeing much flexibility in size as being very useful on Omega - it would start at a size that is just about as large as cars get these days, wouldn't it?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    From what little we know so far, my guess is that I'd want something built on the largest Alpha or the smallest Omega.

    I do have a hard time seeing much flexibility in size as being very useful on Omega - it would start at a size that is just about as large as cars get these days, wouldn't it?

    Well you can have a two wheel base version of a S class fighter. A big coupe, and if GM wants to spread more money, may be a RWD uni-body SUV. It depends totally on how creative GM wants to be and where it wants to take the Omega.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What Omega buys you that would be difficult to do with Alpha is width. We know very little about Omega at this point, but it wouldn't need to be as flexible as Alpha (not a huge draw for Roadmaster Wagons these days), thus less expensive to build. It would just need to be amortized across multiple brands.

    I can see:

    Cadillac ZTS

    Buick Park Ave (at least in size) also sold in China

    Holden/Chevy Statesman/Caprice

    Opel Omega (limited possibility here, that market is dead in Europe)

    There is even a case to be made that Omega is an outgrowth of Alpha in the first place, but different enough to warrant its own platform name. That would reduce the costs of the platform and allow the relatively low volume vehicles listed above.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yes, width.

    Been wondering about that with Alpha - I don't like a cramped cockpit.

    My current impression from what we know is that something with Zeta dimensions falls right in the middle of these two new platforms.

    That's what I want, so I'll just have to stay tuned for more details.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It was made clear in the media that this platform was being considered to replace the CTS. THey were reporting that long before it was reported here. So we do know they had been working to make this car a larger car than the ATS. The only thing was would GM change their mind later. That remains to be seen but I suspect the CTS will see the Alpha under it.

    We also know already that the Tubo 4 and DOHC V6 will find its way in. With the work on the Camaro being done it is a given a V8 will be fitted.

    Now just because a V8 is able to fit don't assume there will be multi offerings of this package. I suspect with the timing of the Camaro and loss of weight in this package the Turbo 4 and some kind of Turbo V6 will be set to play a large part of the Camaro. They will offer the V8 but look for it in a ZL1 or Z28 Package that will be a large jump in price. In other words if you want A V8 Camaro you can get one but you will have to pay a lot more for it.

    I see the SS going to a Turbo V6 and it will be over 400 HP. Ford has already shown they will be putting a lot of focus on the Ecoboost Mustang in the future and GM is not letting this go un noticed.

    GM wants to sell more smaller engined Camaro's and the way to do it is charge more for the V8. They win no matter what they do with this. They get the small engine sales or they get the V8 money.

    As for Stress I don't see it as a great problem. The small engines are putting out torque that is not all that far off from the V8 already and I am sure what ever needs they may have to address will not add much weight as much of the support is designed into the car as a package. Todays cars work as a package supporting much. Even the windshields anymore work as a supporting structure to stiffen the car.

    The Omega will fill the needs of a larger sedan and police packages. No need for coupes and other odd applications unless they want to adapt it for some kind of unibody SUV work etc like the Denali Show car. The time is coming where unibody trucks are going to start poping up. Dodge has already said this may be where the Dakota is going. I could see a large sedan platform being adapted to some kind of new crossover or SUV work of some kind too. It would not be the first car based Crossover and as long as it looks like a truck the car platform is forgotten by most buyers.

    Edited by hyperv6
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I also wonder about the torque load the Alpha chassis can handle, many cars now are designed for smaller engines. And if the 400 hp and torque level is the peak for Alpha then a turbo V6 could get them there. But if they can modify the platform or if it can handle power and torque in the 500 range then I see V8s.

    Genesis coupe is V6 only, if the Camaro were downsized they could go that route, but I have a hard time believing there won't be a V8 Camaro. Of course who thought we'd see a full size Cadillac without a V8. My guess is they find a way to make V8 Alpha cars, there are still customers that want V8s.

    On wheel bases, the Omega will be needed for bigger cars for sure. The S-class has a 126 inch wheelbase, Epsilon and Alpha can't fight that, and I don't think Sigma or Zeta can, plus they are old and/or heavy.

    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    With many small engines already at or over 300 HP and 300 ft-lbs and only gaining more in the the near future I suspect GM already considered this. I would bet the present car is more able than some suspect.

    Lets face it the power, torque and weight are not all that much appart anymore. The smaller enginer have much more power and the V8 is no where as heavy as it used to be.

    The Kappa with the Turbo upgrade was 340 HP and 315 FT LBS and many of the V8 converstions to little in the way of mods to make them work.

    Edited by hyperv6
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Did some checking. The new ATS has an Aluminum sub frame similar to the one used in the GXP GP.

    The ATS was designed around the 18 inch wheels to keep weight down and still look good. Larger wheels would have added weight themselves and to the car because it would have had to been larger in areas to deal with them.

    The ATS has much lightened suspension parts. They cut weight even going with smaller bolts and fasteners where they found they could without hurting the car,

    GM has stated the car can fit a V8 but many still expect a TT V6 in the coming V series. The V8 I expect will be held for the Camaro and the CTS coming to this platform.

    Also I suspect the Convertible if done will be a Camaro and CTS. I see the Camaro as a better home for a cheaper convertible and the CTS as a better home for the more expensive convertible. A small roaster would not cross lines for either.

    The Turbo 4 will have a 50/50 balance but the Manual if I read it correctly will have a 51/49.

    GM engineers love to point out that many of the past GM rules of development were broken building this car. The size of suspension parts, the fitment of engine items in much smaller areas and other key things that GM would force the engineers to follow till Lutz let them toss out much of the rule book and let them build the car the way they wanted it.

    One writer declared the ATS as a rulebreaker and it is the most radical car GM has built since the Volt.

    I would expect much more to come with more news at the first test drive and the coming model. I get the feeling that those who expected a 7/8 scale CTS will be shocked that this car will prove to be much more.

    We also need to keep in mnd this was one of the few programs that was never stopped under the Chapter 11. This will be one of the first cars to show the new GM and empowered engineer and what they can do.

    GM aways could build the cars they needed but someone had to set them free of the old rules.

    Edited by hyperv6
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    So GM will put in a heavier TTV6 that will make less HP than a Gen V V8 all the while using the smallest bolts to save the least little bit of weight :wacko: . That sure is progress :rolleyes: . Being a mechanic myself I would worry about this car 10 years from build date here in the rust belt though those tiny bolts popping off sure sounds like $$$$ to me for the flat rate guys. Yeah I've seen what the engineers can do if you take the bridal away en it aint purddy!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am sure in this lawsuit happy society that GM took the long term effects to the car into consideration. Just because they are small does not mean they will fail.

    The V8 will find its way into the CTSV so why dupe it in the ATS. Not everyone wants a V8 anymore. The fact is the HP they will put in this car would be the same V6 or V8 as it is not going to get a supercharged 600 HP engine.

    The issue for you as the mechanic will be that these cars will become as difficult to work on.

    Dave Masch stated that all thge components wukk be very tightly packaged more tightly than GM rules previously allowed. In other words this car will be as much of a Pain to work on as most BMW's,

    But with todays cars major issues are not as common and warranties are much longer so it will become GM's issue to deal with more than mine.

    But then again I had to do some really stupid things on some recent GM cars. Taking a engine mount off and supporting an engine just to change a fan belt was not one of their better ideas.

    The first thing I would do is wait till you see what they have done first before you get too crazy on how really bad it will be. Much of the things they listed were already applied to the W body. Lighter control arms, aluminum sub frames, hollow bars and yes even smaller bolts are all found on my 04 GTP and none of them are pulling though are are hard to remove if needed. I live in the center of the rust belt.

    I can say it has held up better than many of the older cars I have worked on over the years. the old big bolts wopuld strip just like the small ones.

    Edited by hyperv6
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It will be interesting to see how the ATS drives, hopefully better than the CTS. The CTS isn't bad, but it just doesn't feel nimble to me, and handling and steering are just not as precise as a 5-series (E60 generation, havn't driven the new one). I hope the ATS is sporty, as in 335i sporty, not Pontiac Grand Prix sporty, but the exterior of the ATS looks a bit soft and wimpy. The CTS looks too blocky and chunky. I don't get why Cadillac can't make a car sleek and streamlined and agressive looking, the orginal CTS pulled that off much better than the STS, 08 CTS and ATS have.

    On the roadster front, they need a convertible, but the Allante and XLR were failures, so I wonder if 3rd time is the charm or if they still haven't figured it out.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Cadillac claims the ATS feels as light and agile and fun to drive as a E46 3 series. They targeted the E46 3 series for size by 1/2 in most dims. They also targeted the weight of a 135i.

    The real focus of the car was drivability and they put most of the effort into that. The power, styling and interior were not things that GM was far off on. The rules in GM did limit the suspensions and they addressed it by tossing the rules out and doing it the way the engineers wanted it vs what GM corp wanted. This car was designed from the wheels up.

    As of now I would not even bring a GP into this concept. The GP while sporty is not even in the ball park of where the ATS is working to be.

    GM claims that they have met or surpassed BMW in all areas they targeted.

    The idea is here that if they can take a heavy Zeta Camaro and make it handle with super car like feel and ability think what they can do with a new lighter platform designed to use the Magnetic ride from the start. We have already see the reaction to the ZL1 and I get the feeling with this ligher and mor nimble car this one will just flat shock many people.

    As for the Roadsters they had to work with what they were given. FWD on the Allante was the major issue and the XLR was just an expensive Vette in the eyes of many buyers.This time they have their own rwd ligher platform to work with and I expect if the ATS is as good as it is the roadster will only be more amazing.

    The first road test should be this spring and we will know soon enough. The ATS will signal what to expect with the many cars we will see on this platform. THe others will have more power some will be lighter. All things that add up to even more excitement even for Chevy and possibly Buick at some point.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hyper my point was they lightened up on mounting bolts which is miniscule in scope of things then penalize the car with an engine that is larger and heavier. That makes no sense to me.

    As far as me working on one myself my days are short for wrenching so I'm not worried but I feel for the kids and experienced techs trying to get to some tiny rotted machine screw at some later date. I can see the end of even retired auto techs being able to work on their own cars that they've worked so long & hard to save for.

    As an example of engineers pushing the envelope can you remember those rear wheel cylinders on A body Malibu cop cars. I can and it wasn't pretty many other problems but that one should drive home the point. We lost a couple cars to fixable accidents before GM gave us new backing plate out brake assemblies.

    As far as lightened cars go I understand the whole scope of the process in that part A allows part B ect... so that those bolts can be so small without a safety issue arising. I applaud the effort but as a Gear Head I just see my favorite maker being turned into White - Westinghouse. Not sure that I like that I guess that is just the way of the "throw it away and buy a new one" America but at least we are getting smarter and recycling now. I can't help but think that we pollute far more and use more resources this business model.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    GM claims that they have met or surpassed BMW in all areas they targeted.

    All things that add up to even more excitement even for Chevy and possibly Buick at some point.

    But GM claimed to have met or surpassed BMW in the past, Lexus claimed the same, ditto for Audi. Yet none of them are BMW, the 3-series and 5-series whoop on the IS, GS, A4 and A6. I want to wait to see reviews on the ATS, especially from European testers, they will be most critical. Car and Driver loves BMW, if the ATS can win them over, then Cadillac is getting somewhere.

    Did you say EXITEMENT!!!! That should be reserved for Pontiac, Buick can't handle it.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I too will wait for the fianl product but in this case it is on a new plarform with money and less restriction that they have never faced. Lets say I have a little more reason to be optimistic. At the very least I expect it to be one of the best cars GM has ever built in the modern era.

    I also expect a few here to hate the Alpha as they have not liked anything GM has done in last 50 years no matter what. Same song different dance for some.

    Buick can handle anything with care, attention to detail and investment. But for a few occations Pontiac could not generate much excitement either. They for the most were Buicks with red dash lights and cladding. In fact in the last so many years the only real excitment they had was with a old revamped Buick heart as they had no heart of their own.

    Pontiac reminded me of a movie set. It was like one of those western towns where it looked good out front but if you walked behind there was nothing there. The Solstice, Fiero, Bird, GTO and G8 were all they really have had to really have any exitement and only the Fiero and Soltice started life first as a Pontiac.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    GM claims that they have met or surpassed BMW in all areas they targeted.

    All things that add up to even more excitement even for Chevy and possibly Buick at some point.

    But GM claimed to have met or surpassed BMW in the past, Lexus claimed the same, ditto for Audi. Yet none of them are BMW, the 3-series and 5-series whoop on the IS, GS, A4 and A6. I want to wait to see reviews on the ATS, especially from European testers, they will be most critical. Car and Driver loves BMW, if the ATS can win them over, then Cadillac is getting somewhere.

    Did you say EXITEMENT!!!! That should be reserved for Pontiac, Buick can't handle it.

    BMW can't even beat old BMW in terms of handling and driving feel.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    GM claims that they have met or surpassed BMW in all areas they targeted.

    All things that add up to even more excitement even for Chevy and possibly Buick at some point.

    But GM claimed to have met or surpassed BMW in the past, Lexus claimed the same, ditto for Audi. Yet none of them are BMW, the 3-series and 5-series whoop on the IS, GS, A4 and A6. I want to wait to see reviews on the ATS, especially from European testers, they will be most critical. Car and Driver loves BMW, if the ATS can win them over, then Cadillac is getting somewhere.

    Did you say EXITEMENT!!!! That should be reserved for Pontiac, Buick can't handle it.

    BMW can't even beat old BMW in terms of handling and driving feel.

    Ya...old BMWs didn't need iDrive or exhaust note soundtracks or other artificiality...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    GM claims that they have met or surpassed BMW in all areas they targeted.

    All things that add up to even more excitement even for Chevy and possibly Buick at some point.

    But GM claimed to have met or surpassed BMW in the past, Lexus claimed the same, ditto for Audi. Yet none of them are BMW, the 3-series and 5-series whoop on the IS, GS, A4 and A6. I want to wait to see reviews on the ATS, especially from European testers, they will be most critical. Car and Driver loves BMW, if the ATS can win them over, then Cadillac is getting somewhere.

    Did you say EXITEMENT!!!! That should be reserved for Pontiac, Buick can't handle it.

    BMW can't even beat old BMW in terms of handling and driving feel.

    This is true as I have seen more and more of the diehard BMW fans speak out and {the ones who care more about performance dynamics vs image] say how they have felt let down with many of the new models. It is not that they are bad but they are getting away from what they used to be and what they liked about the cars. It is something they could get back to. I think they hit it with the limited M1 but they missed it with the other M cars. I saw more people excited witht he M1 than any M3 in a long time.

    Cadillac spent more time on the chassis than any other part of this car. They still have technology but it is not the kind that needs to be fiddled with all the time. I suspect that since the press says the new Malibu has great driving dynamics even in eco trim the ATS should provide great fun.

    Magnetic ride is a trump card here as it works but there is little the driver needs to do accept set the level. THe car does the rest seemlessly.

    Edited by hyperv6
    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.


  • google-news-icon.png



×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search