surreal1272

So the more than $100K BMW i8 is a "sub brand"? Whatever you say.

Unrelated and zero correlation except in that fanboy mind of yours. The long term plan was to make the CTS closer to the STS size, hence one of the reasons why the STS was scratched.And why you left out the 640HP CTS-V (while including the 469 HP from the STS-V) I have not a clue except to prove that you love cherry picking. Oh and let's not forget one key thing here. They are two completely different platforms. Why is this blatant kind of misinformation allowed here?

I normally don't say this but you have to be the blindest fanboy in the world or a special kind of retarded to think the current CTS resembles the STS in any way other than length. "Carbon copy"?? You cannot be serious here. Now show me the STS with a 640 HP V8. Don't worry. I'll wait. Good grief fanboy. Stop. Just stop.

No one is buying their sedans, and they only have 1 crossover. I would say that the ATS and CTS are competitive, but the BMW and Mercedes counterparts are better the Audi A6 is always gets strong reviews, the Infiniti Q50 is better than an ATS at qual money. I hate Lexus styling, and the dated engines, Cadillac is probably making a better vehicle than the IS or GS or ES trio of sedans, but Lexus does a better job of branding and marketing. Cadillac builds a better product than Lincoln and Acura for sure, better than the Infiniti Q70. Overall that puts Cadillac middle of the pack I'd say. Riiiight. The Q50 is better. Riiiiiiight. That recycled G is not equal, much less better than, a comparably equipped ATS. In fact, in just about every review involving the two, the ATS comes out ahead.

Again, this ^^. Could not have said it better myself. Sales have jack squat to do with how good a car is. Perceptions kill sales faster than how good or bad a car actually is.

^^THIS!!^^

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?"

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. I AGREE TO THIS REG 100% These quotes here is what MANY GM die hards will ignore and/or cover up and make excuses for: For the last quote, Casa has a solution....he gives no phoques for what others think of the back seat area and they could all walk home for all he cares.... To me...that is just trying to save face as he knows Cadillac flubbed the ATS in that area. The ATS is still a 4 door sedan, meant to carry....passengers. I was ALWAYS hard on the Bimmer 3 Series and the Audi A4 for them being claustrophobic compacts selling at such high prices because sheep bought them....I aint about to go soft just because Cadillac copy and pasted that formula for the ATS... For the Malibu it was worse, because the Malibu is a FAMILY hauler with not much family space hauling aspects.... Sorry but I said the same thing to folks if they wanted to be that way and my car never had any complaints (from any publication) about the back seat (and that was my '06 Magnum). It's rather presumptuous for you to assume why Casa said that and is, quite frankly, quite ignorant as well. Not everyone follows along the line of thinking you are suggesting here so maybe you should actually ASK Casa why he really feels that way instead of assuming just because of your own personal bias towards the situation.

It is European in design, as has already been pointed out here and the interior does not resemble anything from Korea. Perhaps a Benz emblem on the front would change your opinion.

So what's your opinion on the problem factors plaguing the Audi A4?Is it marketing / image problems there also? It was in the final year of it's model cycle last year. They sold 34,000 of them in 2014 and 37,000 of them in 2013. When it was fresher it sold better, but that car was under powered the past few years, the base car now has a 252 hp turbo. Better interior and more power always help. I think Audi reliability issues hurt that car also, and Audi styling looks a bit too like a VW and hasn't changed much recently, I think it is a bit boring. I didn't include the A5, but they sell about 15,000 of those per year, which is about what the Lexus RC sells. If you tack 15,000 units to the A5 and IS for their coupe counterparts, their numbers look pretty good. I think A4 loses sales to A3 also, because they are more similar than a CLA and C-class are for example. So the A4 is going through a similar pattern as the ATS, seeing as how the ATS is going on four years old? Interesting.

The CLA DOES NOT COMPETE WITH THE ATS. And now you're moving the bar on volume. What a damn joke. Pick an argument and stick with it for once.

Bet you are not talking about those back seats (which what everyone is talking about here) because I'm 5'10" and the back seats of all those luxury compacts, including the C Class, are too snug for anything more than a run up the street. Again, your bar moving is on full display here.

Except you skipped the logic completely with you made the ATS to CT6 comparo when it would be more accurate to jump from the ATS to the CTS, which is the 5 series competitor (not the CT6).The rest of your "logic" can be applied to any car this exposing the fallacy of your argument. The CT6 is priced closely to the 5-series and E-class. The base prices with destination charge are: CT6 2.0: $54,490 CT6 3.6: $56,490 528i: $51,195 535i: $56,845 E350: $54,025 CTS is $46,555 with destination charge, $7,500 less than an E350, the E350 and CT6 are $465 apart. That is why I compared the price jump as going to a CT6. That doesn't make it any less of asinine comparison.

And then you skewed and moved the bar on it. You point out the $20K jump for BMW while ignoring the fact that the gap is not near as big from the ATS to the CTS. You see the problem yet?

Except you skipped the logic completely with you made the ATS to CT6 comparo when it would be more accurate to jump from the ATS to the CTS, which is the 5 series competitor (not the CT6).The rest of your "logic" can be applied to any car this exposing the fallacy of your argument. The CT6 is priced closely to the 5-series and E-class. The base prices with destination charge are: CT6 2.0: $54,490 CT6 3.6: $56,490 528i: $51,195 535i: $56,845 E350: $54,025 CTS is $46,555 with destination charge, $7,500 less than an E350, the E350 and CT6 are $465 apart. That is why I compared the price jump as going to a CT6. No. You (once again) created an imaginary scenario that meant nothing to no one else but yourself in order to take Cadillac down another peg.

Except you skipped the logic completely with you made the ATS to CT6 comparo when it would be more accurate to jump from the ATS to the CTS, which is the 5 series competitor (not the CT6).The rest of your "logic" can be applied to any car this exposing the fallacy of your argument.

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.

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.

That's the same weight weas a 328xDrive..... what's your point? Smk and Balthazasr already repeated a lot of what I was thinking. I can just add again with emphasis.....useless back seat ....joke of a trunk....and still weighs 3700 pounds. That's hardly packaging efficiency. Coupled with an interior that is lacking, and a power train that needs help to feel all of one piece, no wonder they don't sell. CLa at least has style and a nice interior. The c class which was the actual mission of Cadillac to compete with, is in a whole nother league. If the car /power train felt more refined and had a better interior, the shortcomings would be greatly masked. Sorry but the CLA has a $h! interior if you go with anything less than top of the line. The style is certainly subjective too as I think it looks like it got hit in the front and the back at the same time.

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?

I noticed the same thing but this is going to happen after several weeks of very intense discussions across multiple threads. There is always the "letdown" period before it seems to start back up again. It also happens when the repeating trolls get set aside for their actions. That does tend to pare the posts down because no one has to deal with the trolling BS afterwards until it all starts anew on the next "My Ford is better than your Chevy" (and vice versa obviously) or "Cadillac sucks because they can't blah blah blah" thread. The other factor is that those kind of threads can get a little tiring to see the EXACT same "arguments" made time and time again.

Depends. My magic can be a little "erratic".

This is actually not a bad looking truck in person but that heft is going to kill sales for it when most of the competition has gone on a diet.

Is this a serious question? Buick all the way. In fact, this is literally the only domestic from the 80's I would have (a close second to the Monte Carlo SS). Is this a serious question? Buick all the way. In fact, this is literally the only domestic from the 80's I would have (a close second to the Monte Carlo SS).

No. This morning at a press conference, Mitsubishi Motors chairman Osamu Masuko said a takeover was going to happen sooner or later. Plus, Mitsubishi already had a connection with Nissan concerning kei cars in Japan and they were in talks about extending this partnership. Whether they intended to sell or not is not my issue. I understand that completely. However, hat doesn't mean that Nissan wasn't looking to get a better deal. Letting the fuel controversy slip out prior to the buyout seems to lend some credence to it but maybe I'm just wearing my tinfoil hat a little too tight in regards to this.