C & D test drives the 3.6 ATS!

[MonsterM]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ed-test-review

"But let’s not quibble. The ATS won us over with its performance. We can’t wait to drive the manual-transmission turbo version, and we’re eager to find out if the smallest, lightest Cadillac in ages can smite the giants in a comparo"

[dmorrow]

Interesting review, also look forward to the 2.0T and comparison tests.

[Kandiru]

6MT delete mandatory with AWD as usual with lazy engineering departments of automakers ran by profiteers.

Sticking with my 4.4s 0-60 AWD 6MT VAG-mobile for now.

[koko12]

Those are pretty good numbers, but the price gets up there quickly when you check a few options. Also it will be interesting to see what Infiniti and Lexus will bring to the market with their new models just around the corner.

[Zyoid]

Saw 3 of those driving in between Detroit and Flint last week. Not a bad looking car.

[Nourdmrolnmt]

6MT delete mandatory with AWD as usual with lazy engineering departments of automakers ran by profiteers.

Sticking with my 4.4s 0-60 AWD 6MT VAG-mobile for now.

so wait, VAG isn't a for-profit company?

and the SAAB you have wasn't built and engineered by the same company you are now saying is lazy?

[emkaytree]

Weak figures. Overly complex looking. Stopped reading at .88g's. Really?

[Chris Stack]

I heard the gauges suck.






This might be my next car. Looks hot. And I like the ads. Something about Caddys and good ads, remember the Kate Walsh CTS spots?

[CP1]

Funny how there are so many people not willing to give the ATS credit simply b/c it's a GM product.

[SuperFly_Mofo]

Weak figures. Overly complex looking. Stopped reading at .88g's. Really?

It's "figures" are nearly identical to this:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...an-test-review

If the "gold standard" of this class pulls .89g's, than a .88g performance doesn't seem so unreasonable.

[deftonesfan867]

Weak figures. Overly complex looking. Stopped reading at .88g's. Really?

Numbers aren't everything and even so they said the ATS does have great grip.

[Aonarch]

I would totally get one.

[dmorrow]

6MT delete mandatory with AWD as usual with lazy engineering departments of automakers ran by profiteers.

Sticking with my 4.4s 0-60 AWD 6MT VAG-mobile for now.

Yes you're right, GM shouldn't worry about profits.

[cryption]

I love the way the ATS looks, but am saddened byu the lack of a V6, AWD, Manual combo

[invisiblewar]

How many companies offer a V6 AWD MT combo?

[2.0T_Convert]

Those are pretty good numbers, but the price gets up there quickly when you check a few options. Also it will be interesting to see what Infiniti and Lexus will bring to the market with their new models just around the corner.

Price seems very reasonable if the lease specials are in line with the rest of the segment.

Looking at just sticker price.
Comparable S-line A4 with summer tires cost me $51,795 on the Audi website.
Comparable BMW 328xi... I just stopped when clicking 2/3 the packages brought to to $52,000....

The ATS is a better value. The S4 is only a comparable value if you are only interested in the starting trim without navigation, Audi suspension, or other options and 6MT.

[FissionMailed]

Those are pretty good numbers, but the price gets up there quickly when you check a few options.

Wow, and that certainly isn't the case with any of the ATS' competitors.

[Minority5]

This thread is awesome.

[jepva]

With or without traction control enabled, the ATS bolts from rest with a growl. The 3.6-liter, DOHC V-6 makes 321 horsepower (21 more than a 335i) and 267 pound-feet of torque (33 less than the BMW’s turbocharged 3.0-liter six). The Hydra-Matic transmission upshifts crisply at the engine’s 7000-rpm redline, pushing the ATS to 60 mph in 5.4 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 14 flat with a trap speed of 102 mph. Those figures are dead even with the Infiniti G37 Sport’s and within a couple of tenths of the aforementioned 335i’s, though well behind the performance of the torque-and-traction-rich Audi S4.

The article is trying to make the ATS look better here. Since when are the G37's only getting 14 flat and 102 in the 1/4? It's usually mid 13's and 104-105. 3mph is a decent difference in power. The 335i typically puts up better numbers still than the G37, so no idea why they're making these statements.

I was really looking forward to the ATS as a potential new car after the G37, but performance wise it looks to leave a bit desired..especially considering the upcoming 2014 G. I think Cadillac fell behind the curve a bit here. I like the styling a lot but since I lean more towards performance, I want my next car to be an upgrade not a downgrade.

[MonsterM]

The article is trying to make the ATS look better here. Since when are the G37's only getting 14 flat and 102 in the 1/4? It's usually mid 13's and 104-105. 3mph is a decent difference in power. The 335i typically puts up better numbers still than the G37, so no idea why they're making these statements.

I was really looking forward to the ATS as a potential new car after the G37, but performance wise it looks to leave a bit desired..especially considering the upcoming 2014 G. I think Cadillac fell behind the curve a bit here. I like the styling a lot but since I lean more towards performance, I want my next car to be an upgrade not a downgrade.

Ummm they test the car and they post the numbers, whats so hard to understand. The 3.6 ATS is on pair with the 335i and the G37 when it comes to straight line acceleration, it does not fall behind any curve here. Who says you can't get better numbers from the 3.6?

Here a 6 speed manual G37 is on pair with the 3.6 AUTO. And it actually lost a comparison to a 328i in this particular test. Seems to me like it is the Infiniti that fell behind the curve a bit here.
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...powertrain.pdf

Here is a link to a 6 speed 335i, again minimal difference:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...an-test-review

[jepva]

Ummm they test the car and they post the numbers, whats so hard to understand. The 3.6 ATS is on pair with the 335i and the G37 when it comes to straight line acceleration, it does not fall behind any curve here. Who says you can't get better numbers from the 3.6?

LOL. Because their previous tests of the G37's and 335i's are not at all on par with 14 flats and only 102 in the 1/4. Look up R&T or previous C&D test results of either of those cars..the Caddy is not as quick either way you cut it. 0-60 is fine but the trap speed tells me it won't feel nearly as quick on the highway or passing.

[MonsterM]

LOL. Because their previous tests of the G37's and 335i's are not at all on par with 14 flats and only 102 in the 1/4. Look up R&T or previous C&D test results of either of those cars..the Caddy is not as quick either way you cut it. 0-60 is fine but the trap speed tells me it won't feel nearly as quick on the highway or passing.

LOL because they tested the Caddy once and that would be the final result. Its is just as fast in every way. Umm the G37 trap speed was 102 and 335i was 103.

[jepva]

LOL because they tested the Caddy once and that would be the final result. Its is just as fast in every way. Umm the G37 trap speed was 102 and 335i was 103.

Ok buddy. If there was a 6MT I could agree with you - but numbers will not vary much between auto's and C&D is normally the fastest of any publication when it comes to testing.

Also, the thing that really gets me is because of its lighter weight (shy of 3600lbs) it should really be faster than its numbers would suggest.

Here's some links for you:
R&T, G37 trapped 105.6 - http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...Sport_data.pdf

Car and Driver test in '09, trapped 104 -
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take-road-test

[Lwize]

The manual is only offered for magazines and forums to fap over.
In realty, they'll sell 99.3% with the slushbox.

[Calcvictim]

I am a big fan, looks gorgeous.

[MonsterM]

Ok buddy. If there was a 6MT I could agree with you - but numbers will not vary much between auto's and C&D is normally the fastest of any publication when it comes to testing.

Also, the thing that really gets me is because of its lighter weight (shy of 3600lbs) it should really be faster than its numbers would suggest.

Numbers don't lie, it is what it is. I am sorry if they offended you.

[Jrod511]

One wonders when magazines in the US will start posting the far more pertinent in gear acceleration and passing times.

[jepva]

One wonders when magazines in the US will start posting the far more pertinent in gear acceleration and passing times.

Its 5-60 is 5.7s, which is pretty good. But its mostly its shorter lower gears in the auto that account for this, I just have a feeling it doesn't feel as fast up top. Cadillac probably tuned the top two gears for economy.

[MonsterM]

Ok buddy. If there was a 6MT I could agree with you - but numbers will not vary much between auto's and C&D is normally the fastest of any publication when it comes to testing.

Also, the thing that really gets me is because of its lighter weight (shy of 3600lbs) it should really be faster than its numbers would suggest.

Here's some links for you:
R&T, G37 trapped 105.6 - http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...Sport_data.pdf

Car and Driver test in '09, trapped 104 -
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take-road-test

Different magazines. Will wait for a head to head comparison, same day and conditions. Caddy will be just as fast without a doubt.

[MonsterM]

Its 5-60 is 5.7s, which is pretty good. But its mostly its shorter lower gears in the auto that account for this, I just have a feeling it doesn't feel as fast up top. Cadillac probably tuned the top two gears for economy.

What makes you think it doesn't feel as fast up top?

[2.0T_Convert]

LOL. Because their previous tests of the G37's and 335i's are not at all on par with 14 flats and only 102 in the 1/4. Look up R&T or previous C&D test results of either of those cars..the Caddy is not as quick either way you cut it. 0-60 is fine but the trap speed tells me it won't feel nearly as quick on the highway or passing.

So search out and compare the best test results for a vehicle that has been around for years vs the first test for a new model. Brilliant.

[MonsterM]

One wonders when magazines in the US will start posting the far more pertinent in gear acceleration and passing times.

It is actually faster than the others in those categories.

[Jrod511]

Its 5-60 is 5.7s, which is pretty good. But its mostly its shorter lower gears in the auto that account for this, I just have a feeling it doesn't feel as fast up top. Cadillac probably tuned the top two gears for economy.

I don't drive balls out from 0-60 or 5-60; on MOST public roads that's dangerous. Other publications offer, say, 4th, 5th, and 6th gear acceleration times for 10-40, 20-50, 30-60, 30-70, 40-80; etc...things along those lines.

[locobaz23]

LOL because they tested the Caddy once and that would be the final result. Its is just as fast in every way. Umm the G37 trap speed was 102 and 335i was 103.

In fairness, the 6 speed manual is significantly slower than the auto in the BMW. So shouldn't we compare the auto 335 to the auto ATS 3.6?

[MonsterM]

In fairness, the 6 speed manual is significantly slower than the auto in the BMW. So shouldn't we compare the auto 335 to the auto ATS 3.6?

How so? There is less than .2 difference between the two. Please don't post MT times, we will have to wait for a direct comparison. Do you have the official 0-60 times posted by BMW, that would give us an idea of the difference between the auto and manual.