ccap41

How to do it without hurting the manufacturers? Make dealerships worthy of making people want to go to them. Keep their dealership network but make them good. Don't make them hostile, dirty, crummy employees/salespeople. Beat the competition the way they know how(or should know how), great customer service. The best businesses/corporations out there all have one thing in common, great customer service. McDonald's, while employing idiots at times, know how to make a customer happy at the end of the day. Kiss the customer's ass and give them the free crap they feel entitled to(right or wrong) and boom customer leaves happy. Treat a potential 15-100k spending customer like they are about to spend 15-100k not like they're(the salesperson) about to receive a $200 commission check.

Maybe the dealership network should sell itself to the public and just make going to a dealership a good experience rather than one that people dread. Just be the best they can be as opposed to forcing their system on other companies.

See that argument falls apart as Tesla can do like everyone else was forced to do and sell dealer franchises like everyone else. Just because it is the old way of doing things doesn't mean it is the right way or fair way of doing things.

That is very good to know. Although I would still appreciate a switch to be able to turn it off. And if the system is as seamless as they make it sound, then I'll never turn it off.

I'd just like to try any start-stop system. I've never been in anything with one.

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.

Yes he is a GM fan. However, he has also been very upfront about their shortcomings so I maintain my stance on this. I do agree with you about the passenger perspective. Most don't care or just won't say anything but I've met a few over the years that were silly enough to say things like that. My response has always been "so, how long will it take you walk there?" Fair enough, I don't disagree, just don't 100% agree either.. Kind of neutral on that part of it. lol yeah I guess I have heard that before and responded very similarly, come to think of it. But none were in cars that had doors for the rear passengers. That would have had to have been in either mustang. Nobody complained once in though. It was just about getting in and out from a damn coupe which just plain sucks.

Agreed.

For me personally, I could care less about a "an available front crash prevention system" so that would never deter me from buying something. Radar cruise control..? Possibly.

^ while I agree that it is pretty ignorant to assume at the same time it is pretty obvious that he will make anything GM look great even with their shortcomings on vehicles, because nothing is perfect... but anything GM is the best.. I think that is what Olds was getting at, but again, that'd be me assuming..lol I've been in the back of an ATS and the head room is tight but if somebody was giving me a ride somewhere I would never complain(and nobody's ever complained about mine. Even when people have had to get in the back of my Mustangs) about somebody else's car so I'd suck it up regardless so I don't know if the "friends and family" not complaining about something is always the best. Most people are just nice enough to not criticize other people's vehicles. That is one reason we rely on the professionals to review and dissect cars for us.

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.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about. But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes. Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers. If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs. And in 2013 A comparable C300(middle engine out of 3 before jumping to AMG and V levels) weighed 3803lbs. 132lbs lighter than A C Class in 2013 and that C Class didn't change until 2016 so it wasn't like it was the last year of an era. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mercedes-benz-c300-4matic-sedan-test-review

LOVE that Black Cherry color!

I will agree that just because you do'nt fit doesn't mean you have no option at X price range. That's a sticky place for auto makers because they literally just can't make one car fit everybody's needs as well as their own. It sucks that a 3/C/ATS buyer at 6'5" literally just can't buy the car, but that doesn't mean they make enough money(or make it but don't want to spend it on a larger car) to be able to afford a 5/E/CTS just because they are a taller person. That's just a crappy situation, imo.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about. But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes. Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers. If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs. Show us ONE publication that says that the ATS drIves like a tin can. It also has basically the same dimensions as the competition, i.e. they are all too damn small in the back. Yeah the whole front engine, rwd layout doesn't work too favorably in these size cars. The front seating areas are just fine but they have small back seats. Which, to me, is fine because they aren't supposed to be big cars. Big cars don't drive like these smaller sportier cars. Once a 3 Series(and the competition) gets too big it will have completely lost everything that made it such a great sport sedan..years ago. Keep them small-ish, sporty, with great dynamics and drivers' cars. Also, hasn't the ATS only been complimented on it's Alpha chassis? Does not drive like a "tin can" at all. If one wants to criticize the ATS the driving characteristics are the one place to stay away from as it is great in that department.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about. But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes. Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers. If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs. So how does the CLA get away with it since, in lower to mid level trims, it suffers from a lot of the same issues?The CLA 2.0T is $3,000 cheaper starting price than an ATS 2.0. At $40k the CLA is pretty well optioned and it gets 38 mpg highway in fwd models. It also has a sporty look to it, so I think styling and the fuel efficiency help it sell, and no doubt the 3-spoint star on the front is a big factor. I never drove a CLA, so I can't speak to how it drives, from sitting in them, they don't feel luxurious, but they feel well put together, sort of how I see a VW Passat. It isn't luxury, but you get a sense that is made solid. And again he misses the point completely. How utterly NOT shocking. Weird how this is so wrong in every other thread but comparing the bargain FWD Mercedes to a RWD dynamic ATS it's about the mpg's... sheesh... "Cadillac HAS to have EVERYTHING RWD to compete with the Germans ..But the FWD Mercedes gets good gas mileage.." - Anonymous

Did a little bit of maintenance on the ole Escape this weekend. Changed the oil, rotated and balanced my wheels/tires at 52,900 miles. Oil/filter dumped: Mobil 1 0w-40 & Purolator PureOne filter New oil/filter: Pennzoil Gold Syn Blend 5w-30 & Motorcraft filter It was a nice and productive day and perfect weather. Mid to upper 70's very little wind.

Holy $h!. I'm not tall but I wouldn't want anything lower than the ATS' 36.8. Thanks

ATS is not "too small"- as you point out, it's within an inch of the c-class. MB made the cut-rate & cut-priced CLA too large- it's only 2 inches shorter than the c-class, but the rear seat in uninhabitable. Should have only been a coupe. Its a foregone conclusion that it should have been a coupe.. or rather a four-door coupe like the vehicle tried to emulate, the CLS. Try getting in to the rear of the CLA or CLS.. and I guarantee U get out wit a f@#ked up neck.. In all fairness, I'm only 5'8" and when I sat in the back of an ATS my head was within an inch of the roof(which has a cut out for head space). My back seat space issue with the ATS wasn't knee/leg room(probably because of the 5'8"-ness) it was actually head room. For me, it was "okay", but I know I'm on the shorter/average end of the spectrum and not all of my friends and family that would possibly ride in the back are the same or shorter. In all fairness I was talking about the CLA.. AND the CLS.. the larger vehicle too. Again.. I could care less how the ride if for passengers outside of my kids.. but if someone is gonna use rear seat room as a demerit for CAddy.. they damn sure better be ready for it to be used against their POS favorite Kraut brand Oh I agree. For sure, and I'm somewhat in the same boat, something like that wouldn't stop me from buying the car that is better everywhere else. Or at least where I want it to be better. Is the back of a CLS really that low also? That sucks because I really like the CLS.

ATS is not "too small"- as you point out, it's within an inch of the c-class. MB made the cut-rate & cut-priced CLA too large- it's only 2 inches shorter than the c-class, but the rear seat in uninhabitable. Should have only been a coupe. Its a foregone conclusion that it should have been a coupe.. or rather a four-door coupe like the vehicle tried to emulate, the CLS. Try getting in to the rear of the CLA or CLS.. and I guarantee U get out wit a f@#ked up neck.. In all fairness, I'm only 5'8" and when I sat in the back of an ATS my head was within an inch of the roof(which has a cut out for head space). My back seat space issue with the ATS wasn't knee/leg room(probably because of the 5'8"-ness) it was actually head room. For me, it was "okay", but I know I'm on the shorter/average end of the spectrum and not all of my friends and family that would possibly ride in the back are the same or shorter.

I would appreciate a video for this post.

Just realized I've been driving on expired plates for a month. $h!.

This might seem like a stupid question and I apologize for it not being in the right thread but why do they even make a middle seat in the back of cars like the CTS-V or CTS/5 Series, E Class, A6? Is that an actual usable seat? I mean I know a teen and younger CAN fit there but even sitting "bitch" in a large Yukon or Traverse sucks and I assume those are at least a little wider than those sporty sedans, right? They should just make the rear seats a little more bucket-like and maybe some form of permanent console-like thing in the middle. Even if it is just a solid arm rest of something I think that would be more useful and look better than a pull-down arm rest that they probably have now. Just an idea/curious.

I understand WHY they would go the class action route but as long as GM knows and is working on a plan I don't understand that. Now... May GM have decided to start throwing a compensation plan after this individual decided to sue or did they decide to sue after GM announced they were working on a compensation plan? Regardless, I'm glad GM is taking care of their customers like they should be.

Hahaha Yeah I thought it was a pretty cool idea and knew others worked out as well(mostly you).