Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 108

    Thread: My First Drive of 2013 Cadillac ATS

    1. Member
      Join Date
      May 15th, 2007
      Location
      Wilmington, DE
      Posts
      13,826
      Vehicles
      2012 Jeep Wrangler
      09-22-2012 07:47 PM #1
      My local Cadillac dealership just got about 5 new ATSes this week, so I stopped in today to check them out. Here is my disclaimer. I have been driving a relatively unrefined, noisy, and kind of slow and heavy SUV for the last 4 years. The last sedan that I owned as a daily driver was a 2001 Jetta VR6. So, I might be out of touch with what is considered state of the art or world class in sedan performance and styling.

      The dealership only had the non-turbo 2.0 auto, and the 3.6 V6 versions on-hand. I will return at a later date, when they get the turbo fours in. The lone V6 they had was out on a test drive, so I drove the base 2.0. I have to say that the 2.0 was NOT slow at all. I was expecting it to feel lethargic, but it kept pulling like a freight train. I think your average ATS customer will be more than happy with this motor. In a mix of city and open road driving, the 2.0 never failed to accelerate willingly. In the cabin, the 2.0 was normally quiet. It only made itself known when I mashed the throttle, but once the trans upshifted the engine quieted right down. It never sounded unrefined, in fact it sounded aggressively furious!

      The styling speaks for itself in photos, so I won't go into too much detail here. It is definitely a small car and plays baby brother to the CTS and XTS quite nicely. It was quite a sight to see a full Cadillac line-up in front of the dealership. I remember in the spring all they had were CTSes, SRXes, and Escalades. It is good to see the pond is getting restocked!

      The interior is very well assembled out of top notch materials. The CUE system works pretty darn good, but the screen was full of finger smudges by the end of my drive. The CUE has cool physical "buttons" that you interact with for the more frequently used functions (volume, etc...). These fixed buttons are touch sensitive just like the screen, but it allows you to find functions without taking your eyes off the road. The vibrating feedback from the CUE is very aggressive. It almost feels like something is tapping on your fingers from the inside of the dash.

      The much discussed "cheap looking" gauge cluster actually looks great in person. Admittedly, when the car is off, it does look pretty lackluster. When the car starts, the cluster illuminates in a pretty colorful display, and there is also a redundant screen in the cluster that echoes what is going on with the larger CUE screen. It was far from being cheap or boring, in actual operation.

      I look forward to going back to try out the turbocharged version. Those additional 70 HP will be amazing in this car, because the standard 202 HP was certainly a very fun drive.

      Last edited by whitejeep1989; 09-22-2012 at 07:50 PM.

    2. Member mike02467's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 17th, 2010
      Location
      I95 Northbound
      Posts
      3,234
      Vehicles
      2013 Civic Type-H
      09-22-2012 07:57 PM #2
      It's a 2.5l 4cylinder, not a 2.0. 2.0 is for the turbo. The 2.5 makes 202 hp and 190 ft lb so it's still a pretty powerful engine.

      On contrary, I have personally driven the new Acura ILX with the base 2.0 engine and was appalled at how slow the thing was, it was frighteningly slow.

    3. Member
      Join Date
      May 15th, 2007
      Location
      Wilmington, DE
      Posts
      13,826
      Vehicles
      2012 Jeep Wrangler
      09-22-2012 08:01 PM #3
      Quote Originally Posted by mike02467 View Post
      It's a 2.5l 4cylinder, not a 2.0. 2.0 is for the turbo. The 2.5 makes 202 hp and 190 ft lb so it's still a pretty powerful engine.

      On contrary, I have personally driven the new Acura ILX with the base 2.0 engine and was appalled at how slow the thing was, it was frighteningly slow.
      I guess it is all about perspective. My Jeep has a 205 HP V6. I have been reasonably happy with it's acceleration. Driving a smaller and lighter vehicle, with about the same horsepower felt like a night and day difference! I guess people who are used to something more powerful or equal to the base ATS might not find it as thrilling as I did.

    4. Member lip's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 28th, 2000
      Location
      Mid-Pen
      Posts
      7,890
      09-22-2012 08:22 PM #4
      Checked on out today as well. Same exact setup you described, though we didn't drive it.
      The interior is tight in the back for sure. However, very impressive materials, switchgear and electronics. They might have nailed this one.
      Good to hear the 2.5 liter felt decent. How was the Noise/Vibration ?

    5. Member
      Join Date
      May 15th, 2007
      Location
      Wilmington, DE
      Posts
      13,826
      Vehicles
      2012 Jeep Wrangler
      09-24-2012 07:20 AM #5
      Quote Originally Posted by lip View Post
      Checked on out today as well. Same exact setup you described, though we didn't drive it.
      The interior is tight in the back for sure. However, very impressive materials, switchgear and electronics. They might have nailed this one.
      Good to hear the 2.5 liter felt decent. How was the Noise/Vibration ?
      The N/V/H were all very well contained. The engine had none of the characteristics that you would associate with an entry-level 4 cylinder.

    6. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 28th, 2007
      Location
      Northern VA
      Posts
      399
      09-24-2012 08:13 AM #6
      I was at Cadillac dealer and had a demo of the V6 ATS. It was not the top model yet the sticker was $49k. Very sharp looking car, but the options list is as long as BMW. Everything is extra cost....even the black paint was an extra $995. And at $49k it lacked ventilated seats....I am 5'11" and felt the interior and trunk were cramped. There is NO spare tire nor is there a jack (ala BMW).

      Just for kicks I stopped at the Honda dealer and looked at the new Accord V6 Touring. On paper the Honda puts the Cadi (and many other cars) to shame. Everything from LED Headlamps, 4 exterior cameras, crash mitigation, and a 278 hp V6 that runs on regular and is rated at 34mpg all standard (no cooled seats either on the Accord....one oversight). It may not out handle the Cad, but damn the Accord is an engineering tour de force for $34k.

      I am afraid GM may need another bailout!

    7. Member MonsterM's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 9th, 2005
      Posts
      1,699
      Vehicles
      '15 WRX Premium
      09-24-2012 08:26 AM #7
      Quote Originally Posted by CadiGTi View Post
      I was at Cadillac dealer and had a demo of the V6 ATS. It was not the top model yet the sticker was $49k. Very sharp looking car, but the options list is as long as BMW. Everything is extra cost....even the black paint was an extra $995. And at $49k it lacked ventilated seats....I am 5'11" and felt the interior and trunk were cramped. There is NO spare tire nor is there a jack (ala BMW).

      Just for kicks I stopped at the Honda dealer and looked at the new Accord V6 Touring. On paper the Honda puts the Cadi (and many other cars) to shame. Everything from LED Headlamps, 4 exterior cameras, crash mitigation, and a 278 hp V6 that runs on regular and is rated at 34mpg all standard (no cooled seats either on the Accord....one oversight). It may not out handle the Cad, but damn the Accord is an engineering tour de force for $34k.

      I am afraid GM may need another bailout!
      You do realize they are two different vehicles. 34K for an Accord is A LOT of money. I think the V6 is rated a 27 mpg hwy not 34.
      Last edited by MonsterM; 09-24-2012 at 08:32 AM.

    8. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 28th, 2007
      Location
      Northern VA
      Posts
      399
      09-24-2012 08:36 AM #8
      Quote Originally Posted by MonsterM View Post
      You do realize they are two different vehicles. 34K for an Accord is A LOT of money. I think the V6 is rated a 27 mpg hwy not 34.
      Accord V6 is rated at 34 mph HWY (city I believe is 22....27 is probably the combined MPG rating).

      Look at the std features on the 2013 Accord Touring.....it is a lot of car for the $. Cadillac appears to be building in a lot of $ margin to their stickers.

    9. Member MonsterM's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 9th, 2005
      Posts
      1,699
      Vehicles
      '15 WRX Premium
      09-24-2012 09:17 AM #9
      Quote Originally Posted by CadiGTi View Post
      Accord V6 is rated at 34 mph HWY (city I believe is 22....27 is probably the combined MPG rating).

      Look at the std features on the 2013 Accord Touring.....it is a lot of car for the $. Cadillac appears to be building in a lot of $ margin to their stickers.
      I would rather buy a TSX for much less than the V6 Accord. Its a good car but so is the new Altima, Camry and Sonata. You cannot compare the Accord to the ATS, they are two different vehicles.

    10. Member PlatinumGLS's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2nd, 2003
      Location
      Shelby Township, MI
      Posts
      15,718
      Vehicles
      7.4, 5.7 & 5.3
      09-24-2012 09:24 AM #10
      Quote Originally Posted by CadiGTi View Post
      I was at Cadillac dealer and had a demo of the V6 ATS. It was not the top model yet the sticker was $49k. Very sharp looking car, but the options list is as long as BMW. Everything is extra cost....even the black paint was an extra $995. And at $49k it lacked ventilated seats....I am 5'11" and felt the interior and trunk were cramped. There is NO spare tire nor is there a jack (ala BMW).

      Just for kicks I stopped at the Honda dealer and looked at the new Accord V6 Touring. On paper the Honda puts the Cadi (and many other cars) to shame. Everything from LED Headlamps, 4 exterior cameras, crash mitigation, and a 278 hp V6 that runs on regular and is rated at 34mpg all standard (no cooled seats either on the Accord....one oversight). It may not out handle the Cad, but damn the Accord is an engineering tour de force for $34k.

      I am afraid GM may need another bailout!
      The Accord is not in the same category as an ATS just like it is not comparable to a BMW 3-series.

    11. 09-24-2012 09:55 AM #11
      The Accord is Honda's flagship car....Cadillac isn't making the ATS full of the same stuff the CTS has...

    12. Member
      Join Date
      May 15th, 2007
      Location
      Wilmington, DE
      Posts
      13,826
      Vehicles
      2012 Jeep Wrangler
      09-24-2012 09:57 AM #12
      Quote Originally Posted by CadiGTi View Post
      I was at Cadillac dealer and had a demo of the V6 ATS. It was not the top model yet the sticker was $49k. Very sharp looking car, but the options list is as long as BMW. Everything is extra cost....even the black paint was an extra $995. And at $49k it lacked ventilated seats....I am 5'11" and felt the interior and trunk were cramped. There is NO spare tire nor is there a jack (ala BMW).

      Just for kicks I stopped at the Honda dealer and looked at the new Accord V6 Touring. On paper the Honda puts the Cadi (and many other cars) to shame. Everything from LED Headlamps, 4 exterior cameras, crash mitigation, and a 278 hp V6 that runs on regular and is rated at 34mpg all standard (no cooled seats either on the Accord....one oversight). It may not out handle the Cad, but damn the Accord is an engineering tour de force for $34k.

      I am afraid GM may need another bailout!
      Why are you comparing the ATS to an Accord? It would make more sense to compare the Acura TSX or TL to the ATS as they are all luxury/premium cars.

      As a luxury model, GM does not rely on the ATS to be there volume selling sedan. I'm sure they want the ATS to sell well and be profitable, but GM's business case is not built around the ATS outselling the Honda Accord.

    13. Member PlatinumGLS's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2nd, 2003
      Location
      Shelby Township, MI
      Posts
      15,718
      Vehicles
      7.4, 5.7 & 5.3
      09-24-2012 10:02 AM #13
      Nice review. I cannot wait to drive a 2.0T and/or 3.6 ATS

      Again, comparing the ATS to an Accord is a complete

    14. Member gti5dr06's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 28th, 2006
      Posts
      1,942
      Vehicles
      2014 Cappuccino shawty, 2008 silver family thing
      09-24-2012 10:26 AM #14
      Quote Originally Posted by CadiGTi View Post
      I was at Cadillac dealer and had a demo of the V6 ATS. It was not the top model yet the sticker was $49k. Very sharp looking car, but the options list is as long as BMW. Everything is extra cost....even the black paint was an extra $995. And at $49k it lacked ventilated seats....I am 5'11" and felt the interior and trunk were cramped. There is NO spare tire nor is there a jack (ala BMW).

      Just for kicks I stopped at the Honda dealer and looked at the new Accord V6 Touring. On paper the Honda puts the Cadi (and many other cars) to shame. Everything from LED Headlamps, 4 exterior cameras, crash mitigation, and a 278 hp V6 that runs on regular and is rated at 34mpg all standard (no cooled seats either on the Accord....one oversight). It may not out handle the Cad, but damn the Accord is an engineering tour de force for $34k.

      I am afraid GM may need another bailout!
      acceleration wise the V6 essentially matches the Type-S TCL favorite but with +6mpg overall. Plus for the people who thought the previous gen had too many buttons that was also toned down and its outward size shrunk while increasing interior space and cargo room. For the average buyer who doesn't care about fingertip precision (even the F30 is number than last gen and the one before, etc.), acceleration, mpg, and interior/safety comforts are more important.

      Back to the caddy it is trying to compete with the 3...which means it competes on the ridiculous pricing of the options. That's really all is there to say about that.
      Quote Originally Posted by konigwheels View Post
      Wow, it amazes me that we have children in here that can't read a couple paragraphs. No wonder America's doing so well in education! Can't take the time to read, but sure can find the time to post. Self indulgence at it's finest.

      TL;DR should be banned and changed to ID;CR or I'm dumb, can't read.

    15. Member Live-Wire's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 9th, 2005
      Location
      Guelph Ontario
      Posts
      11,035
      Vehicles
      2015 Mazda CX-5 GT
      09-24-2012 10:41 AM #15
      First Cadillac to make me really stare and take notice. I can't wait to try driving one! I tried the CTS and it felt a little heavy/big.

      Didn't think the CUE system was in the base model tho.

      Quote Originally Posted by mike02467 View Post
      It's a 2.5l 4cylinder, not a 2.0. 2.0 is for the turbo. The 2.5 makes 202 hp and 190 ft lb so it's still a pretty powerful engine.

      On contrary, I have personally driven the new Acura ILX with the base 2.0 engine and was appalled at how slow the thing was, it was frighteningly slow.
      It's not fast... but it's not frighteningly slow either. It's the same as 90% of the economy cars on the road. It's based on a Civic, so it's about the same speed as a normal Civic. Won't win races obviously... but 0-60 in around mid 8's to 9 seconds is liveable.

    16. Member compy222's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 7th, 2005
      Location
      Pothole, MI
      Posts
      15,110
      Vehicles
      2003 Miata SE, 2003 Honda S2000, 2007 Honda Fit Sport
      09-24-2012 11:24 AM #16
      the 2.0T is a phenomenal little motor. it was fast in the Cobalt SS/TC, it was fast in the Sky Redline and Solstice GXP, and it will be faster still in the ATS. adding E85 capabilities to it just opens the door for huge power gains with engine tuning...god knows those things can take impressive boost numbers.

      i see quite a few on the road (they build them pretty close to where I work). they always create an impression while rolling down the highway, so much so that i find myself staring at one passing in the other direction. it's about time they got a smaller car right...
      Quote Originally Posted by capsaicin View Post
      AP1 S2000? I can not in good conscience talk you out of that. May your slip angle be great and your bed not be the couch!

    17. Member PlatinumGLS's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2nd, 2003
      Location
      Shelby Township, MI
      Posts
      15,718
      Vehicles
      7.4, 5.7 & 5.3
      09-24-2012 11:35 AM #17
      Quote Originally Posted by Crob View Post
      Still doesn't make up for the crap they still put out like the Buick Encore.
      Have you driven the Encore?

    18. Member PlatinumGLS's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2nd, 2003
      Location
      Shelby Township, MI
      Posts
      15,718
      Vehicles
      7.4, 5.7 & 5.3
      09-24-2012 11:38 AM #18
      Quote Originally Posted by Crob View Post
      Why would I? It's ****ing ugly.
      Ever hear this one: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Also, there are plenty of cars I do not think the exterior design is appealing but that does not make them "crap".

    19. Member PlatinumGLS's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2nd, 2003
      Location
      Shelby Township, MI
      Posts
      15,718
      Vehicles
      7.4, 5.7 & 5.3
      09-24-2012 11:51 AM #19
      Quote Originally Posted by Crob View Post
      I'll vote for Romney if you find me one person that thinks the Encore has any beauty.
      Put that way, I will not be finding anyone

    20. Member mike02467's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 17th, 2010
      Location
      I95 Northbound
      Posts
      3,234
      Vehicles
      2013 Civic Type-H
      09-24-2012 11:58 AM #20
      Quote Originally Posted by Live-Wire View Post
      First Cadillac to make me really stare and take notice. I can't wait to try driving one! I tried the CTS and it felt a little heavy/big.

      Didn't think the CUE system was in the base model tho.



      It's not fast... but it's not frighteningly slow either. It's the same as 90% of the economy cars on the road. It's based on a Civic, so it's about the same speed as a normal Civic. Won't win races obviously... but 0-60 in around mid 8's to 9 seconds is liveable.
      Well, the salesman made me drive on this really low speed windy road, and I got basically locked into 2nd around 25mph trying to accelerate and it was off the powerband the whole time and refused to kick down into first. I just kept thinking COME ON to myself as the damn thing just like hung at 3500rpm while my foot was to the floor.

    21. Member compy222's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 7th, 2005
      Location
      Pothole, MI
      Posts
      15,110
      Vehicles
      2003 Miata SE, 2003 Honda S2000, 2007 Honda Fit Sport
      09-24-2012 12:03 PM #21
      Quote Originally Posted by Crob View Post
      Still doesn't make up for the crap they still put out like the Buick Encore.
      we shouldn't instantly judge a car based upon the subjective opinion of its appearance. plenty of cars i consider unattractive are actually very capable and rewarding to drive...plus do well in their market segment. consider a car like the GT-R, Honda Fit, and Mini Cooper...all of which were never particularly loved on for some of their styling. i do find the encore a bit "tall," but otherwise has fine lines for a tiny SUV/city utility car...very few cars in that segment are particularly pretty to look at.

      Quote Originally Posted by capsaicin View Post
      AP1 S2000? I can not in good conscience talk you out of that. May your slip angle be great and your bed not be the couch!

    22. Member PlatinumGLS's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2nd, 2003
      Location
      Shelby Township, MI
      Posts
      15,718
      Vehicles
      7.4, 5.7 & 5.3
      09-24-2012 12:05 PM #22
      Quote Originally Posted by compy222 View Post
      we shouldn't instantly judge a car based upon the subjective opinion of its appearance. plenty of cars i consider unattractive are actually very capable and rewarding to drive...plus do well in their market segment. consider a car like the GT-R, Honda Fit, and Mini Cooper...all of which were never particularly loved on for some of their styling. i do find the encore a bit "tall," but otherwise has fine lines for a tiny SUV/city utility car...very few cars in that segment are particularly pretty to look at.

      Well said

    23. Member Mike!'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 17th, 2002
      Location
      Ontario & Ohio
      Posts
      14,575
      Vehicles
      2010 Mazda6 GT-I4
      09-24-2012 12:10 PM #23
      MINI sells 2000+ Countrymans every month at the same or higher price point as the Encore, and most of TCL thought they were ugly as well. I think with what we know at the moment, the Encore is being unfairly ragged on.

      That said, let's shift back to the ATS. I'm glad to hear even an automatic, 2.5l model has a great driving experience!

    24. 09-24-2012 12:11 PM #24
      Quote Originally Posted by PlatinumGLS View Post
      Ever hear this one: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Also, there are plenty of cars I do not think the exterior design is appealing but that does not make them "crap".
      I agree, but the Encore is just ugly, when it comes to me and my cars the way they look counts.

    25. Member compy222's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 7th, 2005
      Location
      Pothole, MI
      Posts
      15,110
      Vehicles
      2003 Miata SE, 2003 Honda S2000, 2007 Honda Fit Sport
      09-24-2012 12:20 PM #25
      Quote Originally Posted by Crob View Post
      I can judge all I want, because this is the stupidest looking thing Detroit has the balls to even try to sell to the American public, it might do okay or even well in China, but this is just stupid looking.

      the definition of small SUV is changing dramatically. with the increasing size of cars like the Escape and Rav4, the small SUV segment is changing from what used to be b-sized pickup framed mini-trucks to FWD unibody vehicles that resemble a taller station wagon. NONE of these cars are particularly good looking. NONE, the only one to me that could look good is the Kia Soul.

      lets look at what else is in that class/type of vehicle.







      OP, sorry for derailing your thread...to make up for it, here is a nice ATS video.
      Quote Originally Posted by capsaicin View Post
      AP1 S2000? I can not in good conscience talk you out of that. May your slip angle be great and your bed not be the couch!

    Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •