Jump to content
Create New...

smk4565

Members
  • Posts

    13,771
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Posts posted by smk4565

  1.  

     

     

    More specific to the ATS, is Cadillac touted the weight savings as the big selling feature of the car, just like they did with CTS, just like they are now doing with the CT6.  But none of those 3 cars sell well.  It is like Cadillac thought if they build the lightest, best handling car then it will be a sales winner, and forget to finish the rest of the car.  Meanwhile, the Escalade which has zero weight saving measures or handling abilities outsells the ATS and CTS.  They need to re-examine their forumla for building cars.

     

     

     

    What I put in bold is U being FULL OF $h!. Cadillac didn't tout the weight savings as a selling point.. they touted the handling capabilities due to lighter weight and chassis engineering as a selling point.

     

    The Escalade is an established vehicle in a segment that quite frankly it pretty much established. Even tho it was no the first (Nav) it was the one that became the icon way early on. ATS is brand new.. 1st generation. CTS literally segment jumped. Neither have all the variants that the competitors have either. From a sales point of view.. that could.. and I kno it seems crazy.. effect sales. I mean walking into a Cadillac dealership to buy a convertible ATS and not finding one could push that buyer to go over to BMW. People like U need to stop being stupid. My patience is thin

     

    And I have said for years Cadillac needs more models.  Why is there no ATS and CTS convertible?  They got a Camaro convertible out pretty fast, same chassis.   Cadillac is like GM's step child that never gets what it needs, because they are too worried about building more Buicks.  Buick got a convertible, Buick has 3 crossovers.  Cadillac 1 crossover, 0 convertibles.  That is a joke.  Cadillac doesn't have a sports car above Corvette, yet BMW, Mercedes and Audi all have $100k+ sports cars.   And why, some GM unwritten rule that nothing can be faster than a Corvette.   They'll put a supercharged V8 in a Camaro, why not make a 600 hp ATS-V with all wheel drive, 10-speed automatic, awd and launch control.  Where is the V8 full size sedan at Cadillac that was teased back in the Ed Whitacre era, the full size V8 coupe?  We got the 4-banger CT6 instead, and the El Mirage, was in fact, a mirage.

  2.  

    2015 sales volume:

    Audi A4:               29,013

    Cadillac ATS:       26,873

     

    I doubt back seat space or trunk volume led to the numbers on that list.  Other factors are at play there.

    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.

  3. 2015 sales volume:

     

    BMW 3/4-series: 140,609

    M-B C-class:         86,080

    Acura TLX:            47,080

    Lexus IS:              46,430

    Infiniti Q50:           43,874

    Audi A4:               29,013

    Cadillac ATS:       26,873

     

    I doubt back seat space or trunk volume led to the numbers on that list.  Other factors are at play there.

    • Agree 1
  4. I have also said probably 100 times, I don't think the ATS back seat hurts sales.  Even the smallest trunk in the class probably isn't hurting sales.  The car has other problems that hurt it, and the badge and marketing are bigger issues than the back seat.  

     

    Case in point, the CLA has an even more useless back seat than the ATS, and the CLA outsold it last year.

  5.  

    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.

    Then why did you compare the ATS with the c-class, when the c-class starts $6000 higher and the CLA is 2000 lower?

     

     

    Because they are both rear drive and Cadillac stated the mission of the ATS was to compete with the German trio of 3-series, A4, and C-class.

    • Agree 1
  6. Interior looks better, although it looks like a Hyundai/Kia interior, I think Hyundai/Kia do pretty good interiors as of late.  I think the2017 interior is a good improvement, but the exterior looks too angular, and the headlights too squared off and small.  Looks too Asian for me.

  7. Moving from an ATS to a CTS is only about a $10k jump, so that could be an easier move.  But 3-series to 5-series could be $15-20,000.   I think just saying if people can't fit in a small luxury car, go buy a bigger one doesn't make a lot of sense, most can't afford the price jump.  I am 6'2" and I can fit just fine in a C300, there is no reason you can't make a small segment luxury car that is roomy enough for people over 6 feet tall.  

    • Agree 1
  8. The argument was made, if someone is 6'3" or too big to fit in an ATS/3-series/IS/C-class, just have them go up to the next size car.  But in most cases that is a $15,000 jump in price, going from $40,000 to $55,000 is going to be too big a jump for the majority of buyers.  

     

    Buying a used 5-series or E-class for $40k was the other solution presented, which makes sense to the consumer, but to the car company, they lose out on that new car sale.

  9.  

    As far as trading up from ATS/C-class/3-series to the middle size, that could be a big price jump. A 5-series has a starting price $20,000 above a 3-series for example. That is a big jump, it would be like telling an ATS prospective buyer to get a CT6, they are going to walk out of the showroom. The used e-class or 5-series argument makes sense, I'd rather have a lighty used car that was $60k new and $40k used than a new car that is $40k with less power, features, room, and will depreciate anyway.

    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.

    • Agree 1
  10. As far as trading up from ATS/C-class/3-series to the middle size, that could be a big price jump.  A 5-series has a starting price $20,000 above a 3-series for example.   That is a big jump, it would be like telling an ATS prospective buyer to get a CT6, they are going to walk out of the showroom.   The used e-class or 5-series argument makes sense, I'd rather have a lighty used car that was $60k new and $40k used than a new car that is $40k with less power, features, room, and will depreciate anyway.

    • Agree 1
  11. Mercedes lists the CLA and CLS as coupes on their website.  So they aren't trying to make them sedan competitors, they sell other sedans.  CLA vs ATS is a pointless comparison, C-class vs ATS is the better comparison.  No one is comparing a CLA to a 3-series or A4.

     

    As far as the drives like a tin can, I meant in general.  Every car maker is now saying how they shed weight, and half the time that is due to engine down sizing or getting rid of the spare tire and jack.  Weight savings are good, but not really a selling point to consumers.

     

    More specific to the ATS, is Cadillac touted the weight savings as the big selling feature of the car, just like they did with CTS, just like they are now doing with the CT6.  But none of those 3 cars sell well.  It is like Cadillac thought if they build the lightest, best handling car then it will be a sales winner, and forget to finish the rest of the car.  Meanwhile, the Escalade which has zero weight saving measures or handling abilities outsells the ATS and CTS.  They need to re-examine their forumla for building cars.

     

    Also interesting that everyone says marketing is Cadillac's problem, which I think is one of their biggest.  The marketing has been bad for a coupel years.  Probably not a coincidence that Uwe Ellinghaus has been in charge of marketing for the past 2 years.  The marketing when to crap when he got there.

    • Agree 1
  12. That is GM's fault for making the ATS too small.  But they were trying to copy an 06 3-series.  The C-class and A4 are 184-185 inches long.  It makes no sense that the CTS is 196 inches long, the biggest mid-size luxury sedan, and the ATS is the smallest in it's class.  Then the CT6 is 7-series size at 5-series pricing.  XTS priced exactly the same as CTS.  The whole sedan line up doesn't make sense.  They have no plan, they just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

    • Agree 1
  13. I give them credit for putting a 400 hp V6 into the Q50 for $49k, that is good performance per dollar.  But their V8 is dated, that 420 hp was good back in 2010, but all the V8s have turbos on them now, make huge torque, and get better milage than that 5.6 liter engine Infiniti has.  They never made a performance M56 or Q70 car, never made a true sports car, never made a 500 hp car, etc, etc.  Infiniti tried to build themselves as a performance brand with 328 hp sedans.  There just isn't a lot of wow factor in that.   And the other guys have so many performance models now, Infiniti is just so far behind.

  14. The CLA is smaller than an ATS or 3-series, also catering to a different buyer.  They are going after singles, coupe buyers, urban buyers, etc, it isn't like it is a family sedan.  It is like saying the Mustang has a small back seat, but Mustang buyers won't use the back seat anyway.

     

    The C-class has 35.2 inches of rear leg room, the Q50 35.1, the Audi A4 has 35.7.   This is the ATS competition.

     

    I also don't think the back seat is why the ATS doesn't sell.  The interior is worse than the Q50, IS and the Germans, the imports for the most part beat the ATS on powertrains too.  I don't think the Lexus IS is a better car, but it says Lexus on it, and as I said, Toyota has a fan base, and the Lexus reliability ratings.

  15. Way to fix the ATS is take the CT6 dash board and center stack, put it in the next ATS or CT 3 or 4 or whatever it will be called.  Make the 2.0T base, the 3.0TT the mid-level engine.  That will get them more on par with the C-class.  Cadillac's problem is the C-class is as luxurious and better performing than the CT6.  The ATS is hopeless against such competition.  Lexus has enough Toyota kool-aide drinkers that will keep buying the IS, no matter how ugly they make it or how old that 3.5 V6 gets.  And the new Audi A4 seems pretty nice.

     

    The Infiniti Q50 is priced better than the ATS and is a little bigger, with I think a better interior.  You can get a 300 hp V6 Q50 for $40k or a 400 hp turbo V6 awd for $49k.  Cadillac is still trying to sell the torqueless wonder that is the 3.6 V6 against the import turbos and it is a lost cause.  

  16.  

     

    ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

     

    At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

    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.

    • Agree 1
  17. ATS has yet to recieve Cadillac's diet plan, they have started the move to really address weight loss, as everything across the industry is obese. Expect the next generation Cadillac in this slot to be much lighter. 

     

    At this point, compact cars weigh as much as full-size 1960's all steel/iron cars :: '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, overall length: 213", RWD & V8, 3770 lbs.

    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.

    • Disagree 1
  18. If you think it is heavy now, what do you think it would weigh with a Voltec system?  It would be over 4200 lbs.

     

    I do think the center stack is really cheap in this car, I am not a fan of the slider bars or swath of black plastic that is supposed to be touch sensitive for buttons.  It reminds me of a last generation Ford Edge.  Cadillac should put real buttons and knobs in cars, things that have a tactile touch and make a click when you turn or push it.

  19. An obvious result, as one of these companies builds the Best or Nothing, the other two dress up Camrys and Fusions.  

     

    Similar price, but the GLC is a small vehicle, it is sized more like the NX250 and MKC.   I guess that would have been feeding the lambs to the the wolves, so they went with the MKX and RX350. 

     

    What is amazing is the MKX Ecoboost with 380 lb-ft of torque could only manage 6.2 0-60 seconds while a 4-cylinder GLC could do it in 6.3 seconds.   I can't wait to see what the GLC43 does, with an extra 100 hp, it has to be in the low 5's.  Plus they have a V8 on the way, I'd like to see Lexus put a V8 in the RX, but they won't ever do that because they are S-A-W-F-T..... Saaaaaaaaaawft.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

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