Drew Dowdell

that shared an engine with plymouth... I mean.... imagine if it was an Imperial....!

any word in there on where they're going to build the vehicle? It still looks like it would make an interesting mid-size family sedan.

Well, it's not 1975 anymore...in 2011, GM can't afford to have exclusive engines for Cadillac...unfortunate, but that's just the way it is. At least the ATS will have an exclusive platform for some window of time, and Cadillac still has an exclusive platform in the Sigma. And the Chevy 250 6 was not a 'stovebolt', the Stovebolt was a nickname for the Chevy 6 from a much earlier era.. Still hard for me wrap my head around the idea of a 4cyl Cadillac, but such it is in today's market. I doubt if many potential ATS buyers will remember the FWD/4cyl $h!box Cimmaron. Is it hard to wrap your head around a 1.8T 4-cylinder C-class? Or a BMW Z4 4-cylinder? In fact, it is Toyota and Nissan getting left behind by using 2.5 liter V6es instead of moving to Turbo-4s

No, I'm not pre judging it. I'm specifically NOT judging it. 1. I'm saying your guesstimate of the power output of the 2.5 is wrong. 2. Excluding the 3-series, the average base horsepower of the competition is 204 hp. To rail on GM about a base Cadillac with the same horsepower is a double standard. 3. GM can easily get more than 10hp more out of the 2.5.

The 2.5 will have more power than in the Malibu, most likely over 210, which puts it in the same starting class as the IS250 (204 hp), G25 (201 hp), A4 (210 hp), TSX (don't care enough to look it up), and C250 (201 hp from a stressed out turbo charged 1.8T). Only the 3-series will have substantially more HP, but the base price of the 3-series puts you into 2.0T or even 3.6 territory, so if you were actually cross shopping the two, the 2.5 isn't even going to be on the radar. There are a lot of double standards going on around here lately, and I really don't like it.

No, I'm mad because you (and a few others here) are pre-judging something that you don't know about on top of having a double standard against GM.

So Audi gets a pass for turning the engine 90 degrees? Cadillac is turning the 2.5 90 degrees as well. double standard yet again.

You know why I don't like it? Because it shares its engine with a Plymouth..... pshh.....

Nouveau Riche

The Avalon has a better engine than the IS and the same engine as the ES. The Maxima has a better engine than the base G. Even the Altima can be optioned with a better engine than the base G. The 4.2 Liter currently in the Jaguar XF is just a variant of of 3.9 the Ford Thunderbird from years ago. The Audi A4 uses the same 2.0T as the Beetle I was just driving. All Audi did was turn the boost up a bit. All of Mercedes' work vehicles use one or other of Benz's engines from a taxi Premium German Luxury Sedan. Bentley uses the W engine from the People's Car Volkswagen Phaeton. Can we drop the double standard for Cadillac please?

So I guess it'd be cool if the ATS gets the 4.3 from the Savanna..... just saying.

The V6 in the E-Class and S-class is the same V6 in the Sprinter.

But then a Chevy would have a better standard engine than a more expensive Cadillac ATS. And if the 2.5 liter four has adequate power for a Cadillac sports sedan, it must have enough for a Chevy comfort sedan. And a more expensive LaCrosse has a 4-cylinder without a turbo too. But I agree with you, I think the 2.0T is a better option, because that engine should get the same fuel economy as a 2.5L and Ford may put the 2.0 Ecoboost in everything they make and the Passat has a 2.0T. I also like the optional V6, this is a full size car and appeals to some older buyers who are comfortable with a V6. This is also why I don't like the XTS, it will have the same powertrain as an Impala. The Camaro comes with the 3.6 standard... by your reasoning that is a better car than a Cadillac then.

but yoi... the fuel economy on them....

You don't know what the spec of the 2.5 in the ATS will be. So how can you say that it isn't appropriate? Don't pre-judge. Edit: The 2.5 has something over a 7,000 rpm red line. I think there is more to this engine than we already know.

I take issue with the Cutlass Supreme Convertible being on this list. It was as structurally solid as any other convertible of its day and more so than the later Sebring convertible (I have never driven a Lebaron convertible to compare), one could buy it with one of the most powerful V6es offered by anyone at the time, and it had something that no other attainable convertible has been equipped with then or since: Rear leg room and ample trunk space. When the top was up, you had every bit amount of trunk space that any other Cutlass coupe had. The rear seats, especially when equipped as a 2x2, were often complimented on by friends saying "they were the most comfortable back seat they've ever sat in"

As tested its an expeensive commuter car, but a nice one. Albert really enjoyed it. Ill put more in the full review.

Yay for 2 - 4 million more unemployed, which is what you'd prefer.

Stress is relative to the way the engine is built. See the oldsmobile diesel for example. No turbo yet way too much stress for the head bolts *as built*. The designers of this 2.0t walked into the room knowing this was going to be a turbo charged engine and designed accordingly. Or do you really think that all of those million mile turbo diesel big rigs only survived the stress of the turbo because of xanax....

The press release says "The 2.0T has a wide torque curve, delivering 90 percent of its peak 260 lb-ft. of torque (353 Nm) from 1,500 rpm to 5,800 rpm" Doesn't that mean it has at least 260 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm?

You clearly haven't driven each one back to back. The 3.6 is shift happy because it often has less torque than the 2.0T and the torque always is at a much higher, stressful, RPM than the 2.0T no matter which version of the 3.6 we're talking.

Did they benchmark the S/C 3800 for that engine? Maybe GM should bring it back.

I guess you'd prefer to see GM liquidated Loki..... and Chrysler... and probably Ford too. No they wouldn't have been bought by another car company. Fiat couldn't have done the deal they did without the financing. No other car company, not VW, not Toyota, not Honda, not Nissan/Renault, not Benz could have swallowed GM with special financing much less on their own. I have no qualms with the Government giving GM and Chrysler money when they fell on hard times. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been getting government handouts from Japan and local governments in the US for YEARS now. The payout back to the government in income tax will more than make up for what we've lost on the deal. Incomes that wouldn't be there had GM succumbed and taken Chrysler and Ford with them while severely damaging Toyota and Honda in the process.

Saw this while I was in NY this week

ghastly.