regfootball

are the cobalt sedan taillights the same as the G5's? As for the front clip, is it just a grille insert or the whole bumper? The satin nickel trim and seat cloth aren't really a big deal. Getting the arrowhead on the steering wheel might be fun. Obviously the trunk badging needs to be different. Primarily I'd be interested in getting rid of the dorky front grille of the cobalt for some twin kidneys.

the CTS is a pig in terms of weight and size for the 3 series class. it also is space inefficient, length and size and weight and not much room inside. that's why it was supposed to be gaining size to go more against the 5 series. the STS was undersized, look where that got them, they lengthened it for China to compensate. Never did that here. Cadillac is confused and is trying to outthink itself. What they need to do is identify which car is competing in which segment, and identify the segments that can bring the most sales. As you even admit the smaller cars are not selling here. The A3, the 1 series. Therefore if US sales are a priority, it they want the model to be a success, then the 3 series class needs to be addressed. The current CTS is a tweener and only competes with the 3 series price wise. That might be exactly why the current version of CTS is having fits and stops of sputtering in the market. It'd be one thing if you were saying the ATS is dead aimed to succeed in Europe but the flaw there is Caddy needs to make a foothold of any kind there. This version of ATS will do nothing more than re-introduce Caddy there and hope it doesn't embarass itself. Which only outlines even more why Caddy's entries should not vary from the current winning formulas in the classes they are in. No 'tweeners'. A4 is a usable car now that its decent sized. It brings more value. No one could say they want LESS room in a 3 series. If you do, you pay the same for a just as heavy 1 series. Even Car and Driver said, the one series is a nice car, but there is no point to it when the 3 is better all around for pretty much the same money. Caddy is not going to make waves by trying to be outside the box. They have no cred to try that. The 3 series size class sells far better than the 1 series size class. It is imperative that Cadillac have a marketable car in the showroom or the expenditure on the platform is a waste. If the engineers are incompetent and can't meet the performance and weight targets for a car of the given size with the budget given then maybe there should be no engineering. Caddy's principal market is still the US and consumers are size sensitive and sales data suggests the smallest lux cars struggle here. Really the best course of action is the ATS is the 3 series / C class / A4 clone and it follows the formula. The CTS evolves and builds on its name recognition to in a few years pick up the 5 series / e class segment where the STS really should have been. THe XTS becomes caddy's barge. Same way it could work just resizing the CTS, and bringing in a right sized STS. If one thought Caddy could actually attract large sales in Europe vs the 1 series then i would say the ATS could go that route but then you are pretty much designing a car to sell 5-10,000 units a year in the US and no exec is going to want to hear that. The ATS in 3 series size can reach the sales level success of the last CTS. The CTS can move up a bit and grow the mid size market that the STS lost by taking on the 'now its a pig too' 5 series. The XTS is merely the all you can eat buffet cadillac. If a non tweener / 5 series sized CTS is great, it could even grow some volume by enticing XTS intenders to bite as well. Someday Caddy should have a true S class competitor but its hard to justify a business case for it instead of the higher volume the XTS will claim, mostly from cadillacs traditional barge loving buyers. Caddy will always have blue haired folks that will buy the largest Cadillac. If Caddy was really tyring to become a bigger force in Europe than the US, then i would say making the car a tweener size may hold merit if they could pull it off and live with low sales volume. But Caddy will not get cred for 2-3 more generations of the car/platforms no matter what they do. So in the meantime its prudent to make the car most marketable vs the main competition in the largest market they can. i think some of the confusion and discussion relates to you may be thinking coupes more. I tend to think sedans more, mainly because they sell way better. I actually liked the C230 a lot. It was a nice coupe but sedan wise 2-3 more inches of length would be nice. I am not suggesting these cars need to get too much wider, its usually back seat leg room where cars like the 3 series have suffered in the past. The 1 series is pretty snug all around. I even think the current C class is snug. The Lexus IS is pretty much unusable in the back seat.

what is involved to debadge the cobalt and turn it into a pontiac? steering wheel cover, front clip obviously. I wouldnt mess with the gauges. I really love the G5 taillights.

CTS already gets ripped for being a tweener car. the CTS is supposed to grow in size. AMericans don't like small cars, the 3 series is as small passenger wise a luxury car should go in this country and be considered marketable. If a Hyundai Elantra and Chevy Cruze can achieve midsize status in interior space, there is no reason an ATS can't at least match a current 3 in passenger accomodations. Note how badly the 1 series sells, and how it really doesn't offer any other market advantages to the 3. You don't want to handicap the ATS with those some sellability problems. Even the Lexus IS gets and takes digs for having a small interior. If the ATS has a smaller interior than the IS, then Cadillac is in real trouble. Your exec dad whose wife 'lets' him get the ATS as the second family car will still poo poo the decision if they can't get the kids in the back in a pinch. The press who needs to be your biggest advocate for this car won't be comparing it to the 1 series because the 1 series is a non factor in the market. The 1 series is sold here to add some global 1 series sales. They will be comparing it to the 3 series, which is the meat of the market. 'DeFacto differentiation' = messing with the formula. I sure hope Cadillac is not trying to outthink itself here. Also the ATS platform is to serve for other cars as well, none of which can afford to be too small either. I think the turbo 4 is the best standard mill. It's better than the 328's mill. It brings more value to the customer than the 3.0v6, while beating its principal competition. So it has the base 3 series mill beat. Then the 3.6v6 would compare favorably to the 335 mill. Then whatever ends up being the ATS-v motor, when its prudent to bring that into the equation, it probably could either be the v8 or TTv6. The turbo may have more plumbing and stuff than the 3.0, but it also has a smaller and less complex block. It only has one set of cyl heads. It has 2 less cylinders. Overall, the turbo 4 vs v6 is a wash in terms of complexity. Caddy's concern should be warranting the turbo in the even a car is sold CPO. In that case, the new SRX already has a turbo so it looks like GM is perfectly fine rolling out the turbo where they see fit.

The v6 as the only mill has no chance of giving Caddy all the FE it needs for this car and the CAFE so right there alone you've blown the 'v6 only' argument out of the water. The ATS would get no better FE than the CTS so what would even be the point of the ATS then? That, and Europe will demand a four pot gas mill anyways....for that reason alone if any the four enters the discussion. Also, principal competitors do well in the segment with a turbo 4. The turbo 4 outperforms the 3.0 in this car and gets better gas mileage. So you'd actually prefer to offer the customer who is scrutinizing every spec sheet detail vs an 800 dollar a month car payment, that a weak v6 with poor gas mileage and is outperformed by principal competition is justified? You have to immediately strike the 3.0, at least from the US market because there will be those US buyers who no matter what will want a six because of Cadillac's American history and all of that. Cadillac has a traditional customer base that will not want a four, so you will have at least one six cylinder mill on the spec sheet too. So in this case the 3.6 automatically wins because it brings more to the aforementioned customer, and to the mainstream enhanced performance customer who feels that 300+ hp is the minimum expectation in a luxury car (note the MKs has 365 hp). More power, no loss of FE, same weight, same cost to build, same reliability all that. The engineers should be able to figure out how to deal with the refinement and vibration aspects adequately in a luxury vehicle. We know the diesel is there because they want to sell this in Europe and Europe requires it. diesel would need a business case here in the US. I don't feel they have that. You must be insinuating with your 12 years comment that GM doesn't have the engineering capability to make a trustworthy turbo. I'll just say the current climate of the auto biz is requiring them to and leave it at that. I know turbos go bad a lot, so I assume its not GM's problem or failure only. SInce there will be half a million Cruzes around at some point with turbos on them, i hope for GM's sake they didn't cheap out on them. You say GM could save 200 bucks to put leather on the dash if they remove another attribute. Well, when GM typically decontents like that, or doesn't provide the market requirements in these cases, its usually been to line their own pockets more, not to return that value to the customer. You know GM still won't have the best interior because they haven't proven in the past that they will do that. If anything they take that 200 bucks saved to give the marketers more slush to play with incentives and such. The proper thing to do is address the expectation of the buyer, in this case 200 bucks on a nicer interior should not be at the cost of something else, and they can get the extra 200 bucks on the showfloor for it if they make the investment, instead of having to add another 1000 bucks of incentives to move the car because it has a cheap interior. For the record, the SRX interior is pretty good, its not top in class for details and material quality but it actually is rather competitive so we know Cadillac is moving in that direction. I realize you have knowledge that says 300hp out of a 3.0 is not possible, however I would say, yes but by 2015 will it be the expectation and will other auto companies have done it? Nissan is at what 340hp with their 3.7 v6....... lots of new technologies keep evolving at breakneck speed........ Summary, the 3.0 is suicide for the US market. Your v6 needs to be the 3.6. You have the 4 by default already due to Europe and FE reasons. In 2013 a loss leader 24k ford taurus will have a 3.6 v6, and a 40k Cadillac won't? SRX v6 should be the 3.6 too. Caddy can't deliver product attributes it needs to with only 3 litres of v6. Caddy needs to bring the goods. It has to look better than the 3 series. It has to have the best interior in the segment. It has to be lighter than its competition. Its weight distribution on the spec sheet has to be 50-51% on the RWD version (remember AWD as an option is required). The interior has to be larger and more commodious and more comfortable than the 3 and others in the segment. The engines across the board have to out spec and out muscle the Audis and Mercs and BMW's. It has to outdrive, outhandle the best. It has to exceed them all in tactile feel in steering and braking and all the touch points. It has to be quieter and feel more refined. Every attribute must be able to be proven on the spec sheet to get people to even think of breaking rank with the establishment to consider the new one. Take the lesson from Hyundai like they use on the Sonata, cheaper price, less bulk, more hp, better FE, more warranty, more styling, more interior room, more trunk space. They addressed each metric that the customer can quantify quickly vs a competitor and they determined themselves to be at or near the top with virtually everything. ATS has no rep to rely on so they must use a similar approach. Boils down to, how do you sell a car vs the 3 series, C class, G, and A4? After the BLS, Caddy will receive no mercy from the press or consumers in their attempt at this segment next time. Here is a relevant question I think. When the ATS arrives, do you offer a stick and if you do, do you remove that option from the CTS? I think you do.

the lacrosse 4 pot should have more hp/displacement or it should be the turbo.

if the third engine choice is the problem at the start, then the ATS-V has to sit on the bench for the first model year or two. It's a boutique model and should not be a priority that relegates the other 90% of ATS volume to being compromised. then you have your turbo 4 (shared with Europe) and one v6 (the 3.6). Europe would get the turbo 4 and the diesel. Lexus IS-F = ATSv = cobra and shelby mustangs, svt, etc......those special cars are not going to impact whether the ATS is in caddy's lineup. you never plan for those vehicles, they are added primarily for the extreme enthusiast and publicity and they need to make a complete business case for themselves apart from the main models of the lineup.

Dwight, no one wants the 3.0 in this car in the US. It has ZERO advantage in a car like this over the 3.6. No cost advantage, no fuel economy advantage, its a performance detriment. the turbo4 is needed for europe anyways, and in the US, the ATS principal competition will have the same engines. if you are going to match your principal competition tit for tat, why not go to war with the A4's of the world? This is a new model for GM so it needs to bring the best v6 it can for the 'mainstream uplevel' option choice. BMW has no problem offering the discriminating luxury buyer a few engines. The V is a specialty model for enthusiasts only so technically it is not the 'step up' car. it is a boutique car. there are many that will want a GOOD six cylinder mill in the mainstream step up model to match the 335i. So a 3.6l 320-340 hp engine is meant to address that bunch, and is meant also to match up to the REQUIRED ALL WHEEL DRIVE option choice on the spec sheet. If Cadillac does not bring the ATS to market with AWD as an option then they might as well not bother making the car. BMW, Merc, Infiniti, Audi, all have AWD. The v6 RWD and v6 AWD models will address about 35-40% of ATS volume. THis is the model GM will make the most money on. A 3.0 won't please the CONSUMER. It sure is nice if GM saves the couple hundred of bucks to put back in their pocket to make up for the 50B they got from the government, but someone buying a 40k car wants what they want, and if GM shortcuts that, they are merely repeating the sins of the past. ATS-v is a boutique car. It will sell 5k units if they are lucky. It will account for MAYBE 10% of the ATS volume. The 4 turbo could easily account for 50% of ATS volume, keeping the weight down, and keeping the fuel economy number higher and completely satisfying the lux car buyer in this class much the way an A4 turbo does. Think of Buffy's college graduation present. Look at the LaCrosse. they had the 3.0 and the 3.6. Look at where that got them. It's be a different story if the 3.0 didn't have a weakness in power for this particular market. There is no point to the 3.0 if the fuel economy sucks. If they want to put the 3.0 in the ATS, then get the hp up to 300, and get the torque up to 280+.

the 3.0 should NEVER see duty in this car in the US. sounds typical for GM. turbo 4 base, 3.6v6 premium, v8 for the ATS-V is what it oughtta be.

all cars i have been in with the hofmeister kink, really makes it a lot easier to get in and out of the back. even on our new cobalt, i don't curse trying to get my kid in and out of the car seat. the rear door getting wider towards the top is very functional. in the CTS wagon the door opening is brutally small bordering on unusable so i know what you mean about this and cadillac.

didn't mazzeddah sell a 1.5 litre v6 here for awhile?

SHO would make the most sense for me. or an EcoBoost Flex. Regal and LaCrosse too. Will never be able to afford it. oh well. Next car will still have to be something affordable like a basic Sonata or Tucson, or a new Elantra. Or a three year old Taurus. Maybe a Cruze or a new Focus. first fill was 27.3 mpg, but i stuffed the tank with about 3/4 of a gallon extra gas, so i think that skewed it a bit. The number should even out to the better after the next fill. I think 30 mpg primary city driving is possible once it breaks in, and i am not hauling 500 pounds all the time. Taking a trip with it next weekend. I am expecting 35 mpg although i notice the mpg drops off at about 65 mph. Only deterrent on the trip will be the aforementioned 500 pounds of stuff.

I chose A, but didn't like the choices I got. I do endorse a turbo 4 as the primary motor as long as it gets AT LEAST the power specs noted above. What bugs me is why we never get a 2.4 turbo. It's always 2.0. I assume that is a European thing. The extra .4 of displacement would help I assume. I would offer that as the main / base engine in the ATS, and offer it with a manual six speed and an automatic 6 or 8 speed. Where I differ is I would offer the 3.6 v6 of 320hp as an uplevel option, and with any of the all wheel drive models. GM and Cadillac might as well not bother unless they can put AWD on the spec sheet as an option. The V series would be limited displacement. I would rather wait to determine driving characteristics to see which I prefer. I probably would actually choose the twin turbo 6 if I drove them, but why I chose A, I would mandate that the NA v8 is the V series standard engine, but a supercharger kit would be an accessory option to make big power and big bucks on for those boy racers and autocrossers. You've already maxxed the 3.6 v6 with those specs, the v8 still has room to amp it up. I think the weight as quoted above needs to lose 100 pounds on the base and at least 150 on the V series. If I am an exec, that is a mandate on my part. If the engineers tell me that's not doable, then i simply say, 'well apparently you are not doing your job then'....and if its a finance related issue, then I turn the screws up on the finance people. Weight distribution is crucial too. The ATS is DOA if it doesn't come out of the chute with 51/49 at worst weight distribution. I would even call the ATS-V a failure if its a 52/48 car. Interior, the car IMO must exceed the interior room and space of the current 3 series slightly. This car in non salable in north America if some traditional cadillac fans and GM fans who are used to bigger cars and hate small euro cars don't fit inside....bottom line is that maybe it doesn't need to have exactly the room as the current CTS but it had better be more than a 3 series and be somewhat within range of the current CTS. The Catera was an incredibly commodious car. Of course, it was not developed in North AMerica. FOr some reason the GM cars developed in North America never demostrate great space efficiency. If the ATS is cramped, it rots on the lot. Plain and simple. For reference, the 3 series is what i call a cramped car. The only way the ATS sells is to remove each and every barrier that one can knock against the car compared to the competition. What is the redline on the V engines?

I'll prob do the first fill soon. this weekend was extended in town and rural driving will all four of us on board = weight. that really exposes the liability of a small underpowered car. the computer was saying 29.5 avg. keep in mind that is mostly city, and about half that with 400-500 pounds of stuff in the car. the room in the car is not an issue when it's just me. Trying to fit four of us and gear in the car really exposes how fairly useless and uncomfortable small cars are for family transport. As a commuter, this car would be great. i test drove an automatic HHR this weekend. I am pretty glad now I did not get an HHR, especially an automatic. Driving a Cobalt for awhile will make me aspire to work harder to escape automotive purgatory.

Commodore= Impala LS / LT. 3.6 300hp v6 Impala SS. 430hp v8 Caprice/Statesman= Caprice LT. 3.6 300hp v6 Caprice LTZ. 380hp v8 don't even bring them here unless AWD is on the option sheet.

Caddy has made enough ground with their letter names, to go back to cronie names like deville or seville would be bad. ATS - jury will be out. probably makes sense since it will be the smallest caddy. CTS - obviously has name recognition and success STS - being retired but i think could be revived down the road XLR - hope they save that one too SRX - another good one, just that maybe the new platform is questionable to the name for some DTS - i still like it. i even liked DHS. XTS - i actually think the X moniker is good and even may remind folks of all wheel drive. I approve of XTS. the biggest fo paw to me is the CTS coupe. i know 'ctc' don't make sense probably, neither does 'ctw'. So i can see why we have 'CTS' but many body styles. I just wish the coupe had its own name. ETC never bothered me but aside from the obvious et cetera joke E still means Eldorado to many and Eldorado = old geezer car so again, it doesn't fit the new coupe. Escalade is a brand by itself. Maybe it becomes ESC if they really wanted to mess with it.

i may have to go rummage saling. i love fans. that's a great tip.

depends on the packaging. ford has the huge panel roof. what i am under the impression for 2011 that part of the Edge redo involves cutting some weight out of the vehicle. In addition, the 4 cyl ecoboost engine is available and should lighten it up too. so if you had a fwd 2011 ecoboost edge it would probably feel a lot lighter. it didn't seem as though the steering was bad on the one I drove, just that the whole thing didn't feel nimble. Like if they quickened the steering and tightened the suspension, and shed 400 pounds, it might actually seem like a decent handler. generally these days you are getting about 5-6k immediately off the sticker on an Edge....so what's more ridiculous, a Malibu LTZ with a 31k sticker or an Edge? You need to tell us if the vehicle is AWD. 18.6 mpg....that is why i bought a Taurus X originally vs the Edge. I figured acceleration, mileage etc. would be the same....the Edge lacks a third row... really your Lambda thoughts are entirely valid because essentially the Lambda is an Edge with a big third row and a lot more space....although the Lambda prices keep going nuts. But if you want a heavy fuel sucker, why not just get the third row? (see CX-9). That's why I think Ford will be refocusing the Edge to sell more fwd and more 4 cyl....the Escape is getting long in the tooth and the explorer is coming in soon. The way I see it, Ford won't be able to move the same volume they used to on the Edge, regardless of the new updates unless they move the ones they ship to the lot down in price and get the ones out there with more mpg. then they CAN move the MKX up and sell more loaded AWD v6 MKX. Oddly enough I have read user reviews on the Edge where some people get really good highway mpg with them. What is an even bigger tragedy though is the last Saturn Vue despite being smaller than the Edge got worse gas mileage and I assume the Equinox probably doesn't net much better real world than the Edge either. Real truth is the Edge is not at all far off from being THE perfect road trip vehicle for a couple, a single, or even a couple and a kid. Two kids can be done in the Edge but then I think you are taxing the cargo space. The Edge is a nice wide vehicle, you can do 5 easy in the Edge. Don't go sit in a Tucson after an Edge though, the Tucson damn near has the same amount of seating room! And its about what 800 pounds lighter in the process? The center console, do you think its too big / invasive and too high? But you can put a laptop in there.......

i love that fan! i would collect fans if i could afford to. i don't go to the art museum much but was there recently. they had part of the exhibit as things from those time periods, industrial and consumer products. they had a cool radio, a bunch of other stuff. the craftsmanship was amazing, yet you could tell it wasn't built to these insane tolerances they build stuff to today. you had a sense of both industrialization and craft. it would be cool if GM could adopt that in their cars. Buick and Cadillac at least.

strap in, or strap on? wait, strap in, the strap on will be doing the punishing.

i had an Edge rental once. Nice, but felt really heavy. Can you comment on that and the gas mileage? The accomodations are good. Big wide seats, comfy. Sits up a bit high, interested in knowing if you like that. Also, comment on whether the cargo area is big enough.

yeah but i shredded my left knee in high school and never got it properly fixed.......damn thing hurts in traffic....... i was reveling in how quiet the cobalt is again today. 70 mph on asphalt.....super quiet for a small car. too bad the speakers are so so...... the leather wrap steering wheel is perfect........except for that ugly airbag cover.......

agree on the 8 speed for the front drivers.

LOL, why do you think all the lux makers sell more crossovers than their upper tier sedans? why do pigs like the Q7 exist? Because the wives pick the car. ATS-V would be a perfect go to work car for a 40+ well to do exec whose wife spends 60k on the Q7. I will just mention one thing here, i think 3500 pounds is a bit much for a tiny car like the ATS-V. could you knock 100 pounds off it? Perhaps just leaving it normally aspirated and leaving off all the heavy supercharger stuff would help weight and distribution. One more thing I will throw out there. I think this car could distinguish itself with an 8 speed automatic. Before you poopoo this, the 8 speeds are emerging, and GM will need to develop them at some point. Yes the v8 is a torque monster, but an 8 speed may be required down the pike anyways. My guess is GM won't rear mount the tranny on a chassis they intend to proliferate to lots of cars, including lower priced ones. I would only buy this with the expectation that power sunshades should be on it because eurolux cars have them. Moonroof is an option. I think GM would need to offer magnetic adjust real time suspension on this model too.

Cobalt is quiet and cruises nicely at 65-75 mph. its about 2500-2700 rpm in 5th. A 6th gear would be ok I can see how the Cruze will benefit from that. But it's not needed in the Cobalt really. Very quiet at road speeds for a compact. Any 'booming' noise in the engine stops early on. Cobalt would be a good road car. The Focus is fairly quiet too, I recall from having a couple of 08 Focus as repair loaners back a bit ago. But the Cobalt's engine is more gutsy pretty much through the whole range. I'd pick the Cobalt's interior too, with a couple reservations. The Focus has more storage and some better cupholders. The radio display on the focus is more convenient too. But I love the CObalts gauges, and the leather wrap steering wheel is DE-LISH. The Focus' steering wheel is yuck. The cobalt's is the perfect size. Overall, the Cobalt has ergonomic issues, stuff doesn't always quite fall to hand, or stuff like the radio and climate control are low. I wish I could get the seat higher and the armrest up a bit too. The cupholders and storage are a disaster but for an econocar you can make do. The Cruze had better be vastly improved in the little niceties. So far I haven't found anything to nit pick on the seats. They seem ok firm, and nice American wide. They are shaped generically. I get wind noise at the windshield, I think you notice it more because other parts of the car are quiet. I suppose if it had thicker glass and stuff less of that wind noise would be apparent. On asphalt, the Hankook Optimo tires are pretty silent. Not very loud on concrete either. The biggest interior flaw is just the cheap plastic. THe actual door panels the design is pretty nice. Its 00 Passat era door panels, which just need good materials. Had trunk issues yesterday. The seat release handles in the trunk kept me from snaking the stroller into the trunk. The trunk consumes the whole stroller but i can't get it in there because of the small and inconvenient trunk opening. A trip to Sears and 40 bucks bought me a closeout stroller that's not so bulky and folds down a bit easier so that should slide in there ok. The bluetooth works well. It's not sophisticated, but answering calls is a breeze. I have to see if it will store my phone book so i don't have to tell it what number to dial. Debating if i should upgrade the speakers. Crutchfield is closing out some Eclipse speakers for 50/pr that would fit. Front panel comes off ok from what i can tell but the rear speakers are a bit hairy to get at. Not sure if I want to deal with that.