Last edited by 2.0T_Convert; 09-25-2012 at 11:44 PM.
Sent from my tablet while sipping weak drinks over fancy brunch with a view
So remind me again why Cadillac should be competing by being a budget luxury brand?
Sent from my tablet while sipping weak drinks over fancy brunch with a view
I knew you would use that, and never realize that 3.6% is the difference.
The only brands not within 5% of Cadillac that is above it is Porsche and Jaguar, and they currently do not have dreams to overtake Porsche nor Jaguar.
let's not mention the HUGE difference in the VDS and the larger difference in IQS
As for the XTS, early sales are showing it to be very competitive with the 5-Series, and E-Class (in the USD market). If you consider how the average mid-size/large luxury sedan owner uses his or her vehicle, what makes you think that the XTS does not measure up well to the Germans? I see a lot of wealthy or socially climbing-types going out to dinner, commuting to work, and dropping the kids off at school in the this class of vehicle. Is the XTS somehow deficient in performing these mundane tasks in reasonable luxury and style? The XTS certainly is'nt going to be anyone's weekend trackday toy, but I doubt if the standard E-Class or 5-Series are spending a lot of time on a track.
I was able to drive an ATS 2.5 yesterday -- wow! I really liked the 2.5. It did not seem like a hold-over model. The motor spins up quickly, and seems unstressed. It actually suits the ATS well because the car feels so light and agile. It's not fast, but its plenty for highway and traffic. It reminded me a lot of an E46 330i. The automatic was very good, and the manual mode was quick and precise. I'm not picky about interiors, so I had nothing to complain about. The seats were good and the touch interface didn't bother me. The car was very well put together.
After driving the 2.5, it might just be the car I'd pick out of the ATS lineup. It seemed like a great package for a commute -- good MPG, quick, agile, and very high quality. The 2.0T would be considerably quicker, but I didn't feel like I was missing any power in the 2.5. -- This coming after just having stepped out of my CTS-V.
Overall very impressed. This is a GREAT sport sedan.
edit: Just to toss out some comparisons, the ATS seemed lighter and more agile than the 135i as I remember it, which was then more agile feeling than the E90 335i. Compared to an A4 2.0T as I remember it, the 2.5 is not as fast in a straight line (duh), but everything feels more precise and responsive, including the throttle.
The ATS' cabin reminded me a lot of my Cruze's in dimensions. It's narrow and tall. The back seats are just big enough for adults, also similar to the Cruze's in dimensions.
Last edited by curvedinfinity; 10-03-2012 at 11:25 AM.
This might be an odd question, but has anyone cross-shopped this car with the IS250? (ATS 2.5)
They both appear to have similar power, though the ATS losses 2 cylinder but gains some MPGs.
$5K seems to be very steep just to get the CUE, rft + 17" alloys and powered seats for the premium package.
The ATS feels really light on its feet. Lighter than my Cruze. Lighter than the 911s I've driven. The closest car I've driven to it in recent memory in terms of "lightness" and front-end response is a Cayman S. Not to say the overall dynamics are on par because I didn't drive it hard, but it's worth saying the controls are precise and effortless.
It amazes me how fast dependability/reliability of new cars is improving, especially given their ever-increasing complexity/feature content. Chrysler's rating in 2012 is slightly better than Toyota's rating from 2005, yet most people only see them at the bottom and think "what a piece of crap". Just something to chew on.
2005 JD Power Dependability Ranking of 2002 automobiles
Problems per 100 Vehicles
Industry Average 237
Land Rover 395
2015 Subaru WRX Limited (World Rally Blue Pearl)
2015 Kia Soul + (Caribbean Blue Special Edition)
Originally Posted by Racinger
Thanks whitejeep and curved!
My mom is looking to replace her 10 year old Legacy GT wagon. We're hoping to get her a small premium car. I think she would prefer the softer ride on the Lexus, but I don't think the ATS is widely available in Canada yet (it's not even on the Canadian website) so I have absolutely nothing to base it on.
I just happen to remember that the IS is extremely cramped inside. I'm led to believe that a MK4 Jetta is more roomy on the inside.
It would be cool if they can offer magnetic ride + HIDs as standalone options on the base 2.5. 3.6V6 is a little overkill for her. LOL
I'm surprised by all these glowing reviews on the 2.5. I didn't expect a 200hp na 4-banger to be so impressive.
As for the IS250, the IS line as a whole is due for replacement next year. It was a small, cramped car when it came out (2006 as a 2007 model, IIRC), with bad ergonomics for tall people like me. I know the ATS isn't a particularly roomy car either, but if the E90 was the benchmark, it should be roomier than the IS at least.
EPA interior volume: 101.1 cu.f
Width: 71.1 in.
Height: 55.9 in.
Length: 182.8 in.
Front track: 59.5 in.
Rear track: 60.9 in.
Wheel base: 109.3 in.
Cargo capacity, all seats in place: 10.2 cu.ft.
Maximum cargo capacity: 10.2 cu.ft.
Front head room: 38.6 in.
Front hip room: 53.0 in.
Front leg room: 42.5 in.
Front shoulder room: 55.2 in.
Rear hip Room: 52.3 in.
Rear head room: 36.8 in.
Rear leg room: 33.5 in.
Rear shoulder room: 53.9 in.
EPA interior volume: 98.7 cu.ft.
Width: 70.9 in.
Height: 55.7 in.
Length: 180.3 in.
Ground clearance: 5.7 in.
Front track: 60.4 in.
Rear track: 60.4 in.
Wheel base: 107.5 in.
Cargo capacity, all seats in place: 13.0 cu.ft.
Maximum cargo capacity: 13.0 cu.ft.
Front head room: 37.2 in.
Front hip room: 54.1 in.
Front leg room: 43.9 in.
Front shoulder room: 54.4 in.
Rear hip Room: 53.7 in.
Rear head room: 36.7 in.
Rear leg room: 30.6 in.
Rear shoulder room: 52.7 in.
The measurements are somewhat ambiguous as to whether the ATS has a room advantage. Can anyone 6' or taller who's sat in an ATS chime in?
Looking at the configurator, who am I kidding, the 2.0T is just a bit more money with the MT.
The 2.5 was just fine though IMO. Kind of makes me wonder what if the 2.5 came in at a lower price point.
Perhaps the next Camaro will be poverty-spec enough to replace my Cruze. The ATS 2.5 with a Cruze's level of features -- a modern day Nova -- I'd totally be all over that.
Today's compact is well beyond what compacts were a decade ago so IMHO... I don't want ANY of them to grow any more. Obviously one's opinion of comfort/fitment in a cabin is subjective to a degree and while it might seem tight to you... it is more than adequate for my 5'7" 142lb frame. And there's more than enough in the rear for my girls.
I highly doubt a 6' footer would have issues in the front since they even make cars like the Spark have plenty of room these days for you folks on the other side of the spectrum. But the reality has always been that if you want more space... you buy the next size up. Otherwise... there would be no such thing as vehicle size classes.
Today's 7 Series and S Class and A8 are so damn HUGE, because they are being pushed from the bottom end. When a car like that starts pushing over 2 tons... you have to wonder what is going on.
Regarding the Buick - don't like the look and especially don't like the size. When did something big enough to eclipse the sun become mid-size?
2013 4 Door R - CSG
People lease poverty spec 3 series and Mini Coopers here because they are cheaper to lease than a Civic / Accord V6. Not to mention, the 3 year scheduled maintenance (they should just call it 3 free oil changes during the 3 year lease term..) is included with a new lease. Most people do not know that their 323i is RWD either (Saintor, did you know that?)
I don't want the next size class up. I want interior ergonomics that are designed to accommodate me. The current IS just doesn't work for me and many tall people.
It is a very cool concept, though, and it would be neat if they actually did produce it.