Jump to content
El Kabong

Autoextremist Drives CTS. Autoextremist Likes CTS.

Recommended Posts

I really want to see performance tests of the new ATS/CTS drivetrain lineup. The RWD 3.6L/8-speed needs to be down in the mid-upper 5 second range to 60 mph and low 14s in the 1/4 mile. GM put a lot of engineering into the all-new V6, and it needs to outshine the cheaper 2.0T/8-speed auto in a way that the LFX V6 couldn't do. I'm also curious what the fuel economy ratings will be for the '16s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevermind, I found the updated EPA estimates on fueleconomy.gov. I was hoping for a bit better to be honest. 1 mpg bumps across the board.

 

ATS RWD

 

2.0T/6M - 20/29/23 mpg **Carry-over powertrain, unchanged.

2.0T/8A - 22/31/26 mpg

3.6L/8A - 20/30/24 mpg

 

ATS AWD

 

2.0T/8A - 22/30/25 mpg

3.6L/8A - 19/28/22 mpg

 

CTS RWD

 

2.0T/8A - 21/31/25 mpg

3.6L/8A - 20/30/24 mpg

 

CTS AWD

 

2.0T/8A - 21/29/24 mpg

3.6L/8A - 19/28/22 mpg

Edited by cp-the-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record this is what the one gent actually said about it's weight and "substantial feeling". He didn't say it felt "more substantial-feeling than the Benz E-Class"

 

"all with an inch or three of the E. It is more than 350 pounds lighter than the Benz, which is interesting, because the CTS feels decidedly heavier (and yes, I thought this before I compared the specs, honest). So the CTS feels big and solid, but in a good way. Substantial is the word, which made it a real pleasure on the highway..."

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

However, there were many positive things said about the car. I'll highlight some of them.

 

"I could not fine one fault with this car in terms of performance. Not one. Aggressively tuned - and impressively so, I might add - everything about the CTS rings true, especially for people who know and understand the difference. The steering and braking feel, the tautly-tuned suspension, the overall accuracy of the dynamic execution, everything about the actual driving of the CTS is first rate, second to none, in fact."

 

"Gone are the bad "beige-on-beiger" combos that GM seemed to crank out in their sleep. Instead, our CTS tester featured a black and red interior treatment that was truly first rate. Very elegant, very tasteful, very refined. "

 

"As for the rest of it, I concur with WordGirl because the interior of the CTS is simply stunning, with a quality of materials and level of workmanship that again, are second to none in the segment."

 

Couple "lows" as well..

 

" Is it awesome? No, but then the E-Class isn't really "awesome" either. It just a well-engineered, well-equipped luxury car that still manages to embody more than a modicum of the prestige and exclusivity that the Mercedes-Benz brand used to be all about. And the CTS? It's a well-engineered, well-equipped luxury car that's trying to convince us that it has prestige and exclusivity equal to its rivals."

 

" But there's the rub: If the CTS and E-Class are essentially cost equals, would I choose the Cadillac? No. Intellectually, I understand that the Cadillac is every bit as good as the Mercedes (and all of its luxury rivals, for that matter). But emotionally, I can't make the leap to the brand yet. -WG"


Nevermind, I found the updated EPA estimates on fueleconomy.gov. I was hoping for a bit better to be honest. 1 mpg bumps across the board.

 

ATS RWD

 

2.0T/6M - 20/29/23 mpg **Carry-over powertrain, unchanged.

2.0T/8A - 22/31/26 mpg

3.6L/8A - 20/30/24 mpg

 

ATS AWD

 

2.0T/8A - 22/30/25 mpg

3.6L/8A - 19/28/22 mpg

 

CTS RWD

 

2.0T/8A - 21/31/25 mpg

3.6L/8A - 20/30/24 mpg

 

CTS AWD

 

2.0T/8A - 21/29/24 mpg

3.6L/8A - 19/28/22 mpg

Odd to me that both ATS AWD and CTS AWD get the same mileage with the 3.6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised by the similarities between the ATS and CTS ratings. There's only 200 lbs separating the two models. The ratings probably go .5 mpg in the ATS's favor and this is just how the numbers rounded out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ccap: So... yes.

It's objectively lighter than the Benz.

It FEELS heavier than the Benz according to the reviewer, which they interpret as "substantial."

And yes, there were criticisms (the heavier feel was NOT one of them). Which is why I said they "liked" it, NOT "thought it was the best thing EVER!"

Such are the realities of citing articles that are not PR fluff. It is a small price to pay for realistic analysis though, and so I will continue.

Edited by El Kabong
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ccap: So... yes.

It's objectively lighter than the Benz.

It FEELS heavier than the Benz according to the reviewer, which they interpret as "substantial."

And yes, there were criticisms (the heavier feel was NOT one of them). Which is why I said they "liked" it, NOT "thought it was the best thing EVER!"

Such are the realities of citing articles that are not PR fluff. It is a small price to pay for realistic analysis though, and so I will continue.

No PR fluff? Well crap Bong! That is just useless!  :thumbsup:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ccap: So... yes.

It's objectively lighter than the Benz.

It FEELS heavier than the Benz according to the reviewer, which they interpret as "substantial."

And yes, there were criticisms (the heavier feel was NOT one of them). Which is why I said they "liked" it, NOT "thought it was the best thing EVER!"

Such are the realities of citing articles that are not PR fluff. It is a small price to pay for realistic analysis though, and so I will continue.

I was just pointing out and summarizing.. That was all.  I expect every review to have highs and lows.

 

I didn't say that the heavier feel was a bad thing, nor did they - that was why I quoted it.

 

The heft makes it feel substantial, but not "more substantial-feeling than the Benz E-Class". They never said it felt more substantial than the E Class, just that it felt substantial in its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ccap: So... yes.

It's objectively lighter than the Benz.

It FEELS heavier than the Benz according to the reviewer, which they interpret as "substantial."

And yes, there were criticisms (the heavier feel was NOT one of them). Which is why I said they "liked" it, NOT "thought it was the best thing EVER!"

Such are the realities of citing articles that are not PR fluff. It is a small price to pay for realistic analysis though, and so I will continue.

No PR fluff? Well crap Bong! That is just useless!  :thumbsup:

The way certain people have been downvoting me you'd think so :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this just shows me that the CTS is on the right track. When writers are left to quibble about purely the subjective stuff, then Cadillac must be doing something right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely written piece, At one time people could not emotionally jump to MB as a luxury maker in comparison to cadillac the brand that all others were measured by. It will take time to overcome this attitude. 

 

I personally think it will eventually change and people will see Cadillac as the luxury car maker they see BMW and MB as. In fact I think BMW and MB are tarnishing their luxury label by having their badges compete in the Chevy / Toyota level as well as the commercial truck level with the vans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think it will eventually change and people will see Cadillac as the luxury car maker they see BMW and MB as. In fact I think BMW and MB are tarnishing their luxury label by having their badges compete in the Chevy / Toyota level as well as the commercial truck level with the vans.

 

But the question is how long. This something that comes up whenever we talk about Cadillac. I've argued and still do that Cadillac still has a long way to go; they got the cars, now they need better experiences at dealers, services, and ownership.

Also, I will agree with Peter on the CTS. I just drove a CTS VSport back in August, and was floored by how good it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what sticks out, is the one reviewer says since the CTS costs E-class money, would he buy it over and E-class and he said he wouldn't.  Probably most consumers think that way.

 

DeLorenzo has always been a CTS fan, he makes a good point about "premium collection" being a bit cheeseball.  Titanium, Platinum, Limited, etc may work for regular cars, in the luxury segment it seems like lame marketing.  Why not has CTS and luxury package 1, 2, 3, and a sport package.

 

I think that 3.6 V6 should become a Chevy/Buick engine and get out of Cadillac.  It is getting non-competitive in a hurry, it has no torque.  Jaguar and Audi have a supercharged V6, BMW and Mercedes a turbo or twin turbo 6, even Lincoln has a twin turbo V6, in fact they have 2 of them.  Cadillac should replace the 3.6 with the 3.0TT V6, even if it is tuned at like 375 hp and torque, that is plenty to stay ahead of the other guys, and not too much that it makes the 420 hp V-sport pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what sticks out, is the one reviewer says since the CTS costs E-class money, would he buy it over and E-class and he said he wouldn't.  Probably most consumers think that way.

 

DeLorenzo has always been a CTS fan, he makes a good point about "premium collection" being a bit cheeseball.  Titanium, Platinum, Limited, etc may work for regular cars, in the luxury segment it seems like lame marketing.  Why not has CTS and luxury package 1, 2, 3, and a sport package.

 

I think that 3.6 V6 should become a Chevy/Buick engine and get out of Cadillac.  It is getting non-competitive in a hurry, it has no torque.  Jaguar and Audi have a supercharged V6, BMW and Mercedes a turbo or twin turbo 6, even Lincoln has a twin turbo V6, in fact they have 2 of them.  Cadillac should replace the 3.6 with the 3.0TT V6, even if it is tuned at like 375 hp and torque, that is plenty to stay ahead of the other guys, and not too much that it makes the 420 hp V-sport pointless.

 

The 3.6L is brand new for 2016. It's never been put through a performance test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it would make great brand new engine for Chevrolet and Buick, for the Lambdas, LaCrosse, Impala, Camaro, etc. 

 

Here is the torque of the euro V6's all of which do it around 2,000 rpm.

 

Audi  325 lb-ft (but a new engine next year is going to see a power bump)

Jaguar 332 lb-ft

BMW 330 lb-ft

Mercedes 354-384 lb-ft (depending on the model)

 

I am pretty sure we don't need to see a performance test to know that 285 lb-ft @ 5300 rpm isn't as good as 330-380 @ 2,000 rpm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand how something like 'Premium' trim nomenclature is such a negative.  Autoextremist called it 'cheeseball' like.

 

They did seem to like the premium trim level, claiming it is as good as the MB.  But starting at $63K, one would expect that.

 

The only real negative I saw, was that the CTS weighs in at 350lbs less, but feels heavier than the MB.

 

Overall, a good review, but it's a shame they still would not choose the CTS over the MB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they are comparing to an E-class that came out in summer of 2009 also, the oldest car in the segment, and I who am a Mercedes fan, and not really a fan of the current E-class interior.  But, the 2017 E-class spy photos show S-class level interior, so I am looking forward to seeing the new E-class at the Detroit Auto show, and hoping it doesn't just look the same as the C-class and S-class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised by the similarities between the ATS and CTS ratings. There's only 200 lbs separating the two models. The ratings probably go .5 mpg in the ATS's favor and this is just how the numbers rounded out.

I just figured between weight and physical size(cutting through air) would have yielded 1mpg towards the ATS. At least at cruising highway mpg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I personally think it will eventually change and people will see Cadillac as the luxury car maker they see BMW and MB as. In fact I think BMW and MB are tarnishing their luxury label by having their badges compete in the Chevy / Toyota level as well as the commercial truck level with the vans.

 

But the question is how long. This something that comes up whenever we talk about Cadillac. I've argued and still do that Cadillac still has a long way to go; they got the cars, now they need better experiences at dealers, services, and ownership.

Also, I will agree with Peter on the CTS. I just drove a CTS VSport back in August, and was floored by how good it was.

 

Totally agree with you about the dealership experience. While I get great service from my Cadillac dealership, the building used to be an Oldsmobile, Buick, and Cadillac dealership and was originally built in 1947. The building smells of stale old age and as you look around you still see old name plates from the two brands that are no longer sold here. Plus there is the new badges from when the old owner decided to sell Suzuki along side Cadillac in 2007. Been under new ownership for 3 years now and is way better, but still they need a modern dealership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this just shows me that the CTS is on the right track. When writers are left to quibble about purely the subjective stuff, then Cadillac must be doing something right.

The thing is, those kind of biases require the most work to overcome. Nothing less than sustained excellence can do it. But it IS having an affect. I recently spent some time in Toronto, specifically, Brampton. Lots of well-to-do East Indians live there, second and even third-gen Canadians now. But many of them still held onto Toyota/Lexus because of what their parents drove/aspired to back in the day. These days? Quite a few Benzes, and a nice number of Cadillacs. Rome wasn't built in a day, but progress is being made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised by the similarities between the ATS and CTS ratings. There's only 200 lbs separating the two models. The ratings probably go .5 mpg in the ATS's favor and this is just how the numbers rounded out.

I just figured between weight and physical size(cutting through air) would have yielded 1mpg towards the ATS. At least at cruising highway mpg.

Surprisingly it is easier to make a longer car more aerodynamic than a smaller car. I think it was an interview with Dave Leon when he was talking about the ATS and what they had to do to get under .30 CD. He had mentioned on long cars it is easier to move the air and get rid of low pressure areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it would make great brand new engine for Chevrolet and Buick, for the Lambdas, LaCrosse, Impala, Camaro, etc. 

 

Here is the torque of the euro V6's all of which do it around 2,000 rpm.

 

Audi  325 lb-ft (but a new engine next year is going to see a power bump)

Jaguar 332 lb-ft

BMW 330 lb-ft

Mercedes 354-384 lb-ft (depending on the model)

 

I am pretty sure we don't need to see a performance test to know that 285 lb-ft @ 5300 rpm isn't as good as 330-380 @ 2,000 rpm.

 

Why are you comparing apples to oranges?  You're comparing a bunch of Turbo V6es to an NA V6.   Cadillac has Turbo V6es also... and the minimum torque rating for them is 400 lb-ft.  Why are the Germans 15lb-ft to 135 lb-ft behind Cadillac? 

 

I notice you leave out the E350 engine from your list because it doesn't fit your Cadillac bashing narrative as it has 273 lb-ft.  While if one selects an E400 with 354 lb-ft for $63k, it gets absolutely destroyed by the CTS V-Sport with 420 lb-ft for $60k. 

 

To get close to Cadillac's 420 lb-ft you have to spend:

$70k at Audi for an S6 and you'll still fall short in the torque department

$65k at BMW for a 550i

 

Even the XTS V-sport has more torque than those.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And it would make great brand new engine for Chevrolet and Buick, for the Lambdas, LaCrosse, Impala, Camaro, etc. 

 

Here is the torque of the euro V6's all of which do it around 2,000 rpm.

 

Audi  325 lb-ft (but a new engine next year is going to see a power bump)

Jaguar 332 lb-ft

BMW 330 lb-ft

Mercedes 354-384 lb-ft (depending on the model)

 

I am pretty sure we don't need to see a performance test to know that 285 lb-ft @ 5300 rpm isn't as good as 330-380 @ 2,000 rpm.

 

Why are you comparing apples to oranges?  You're comparing a bunch of Turbo V6es to an NA V6.   Cadillac has Turbo V6es also... and the minimum torque rating for them is 400 lb-ft.  Why are the Germans 15lb-ft to 135 lb-ft behind Cadillac? 

 

I notice you leave out the E350 engine from your list because it doesn't fit your Cadillac bashing narrative as it has 273 lb-ft.  While if one selects an E400 with 354 lb-ft for $63k, it gets absolutely destroyed by the CTS V-Sport with 420 lb-ft for $60k. 

 

To get close to Cadillac's 420 lb-ft you have to spend:

$70k at Audi for an S6 and you'll still fall short in the torque department

$65k at BMW for a 550i

 

Even the XTS V-sport has more torque than those.

 

 

Well it has to do with cost and positioning. As long as Cadillac uses the 3.6L as an up level engine, it's going to be compared to the 3.0T offered by others. The cost of entry for the GM 3.6T is over $60,000 and presumably the CT6 3.0T will be in that range or higher.

 

I love that GM is sticking with an N/A V6, though I had hoped GM would bore out the new V6 to 3.8L while aiming for 350 hp and 300 lb-ft. The block was designed for a displacement range of 2.8L-4.0L so it would have been feasible. I'll keep an open mind as first drive reviews come out, they put a lot of money into this engine so it better have some payoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The E350 is the oldest car in the segment, but if you look at the C-class there is not N/A V6.  The XE, 3-series and A4 have no N/A V6.  Lexus finally has a turbo 4 in that segment, and their 3.5 V6 is a dinosaur.   The Jaguar XF and 5-series and A6 don't have an N/A engine, all of them are boosted.  Supercharged or turbocharged V6 are pretty common place in luxury cars.  I don't see the need of the 3.6 V6, when you could just go 2.0T and 3.0TT and have a fuel economy option for those that don't care about performance, and power of yesterday's V8 with the turbo V6 that is what a luxury/performance buyer wants.

 

There probably won't even be an E350 next year, I think that engine is being retired at the end of 2016 model year.  A new inline six is replacing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   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.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×