Cadillac unveils the ATS-V - SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY

[Jesda]

Its strange, Cadillac is coming on strong as BMW is fading off.

I want to say Cadillac benchmarked an old BMW for the ATS, stating that the older model was superior to the new one... but I could be wrong.

C&D did an instrumented test to find out whether their subjective impressions of the newer, softer 3-series matched reality.


The measurements confirmed everything. BMW turned the 3-series into more of a cruiser.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Is this a sign of neo nazism coming back?
Only time will tell I suppose.

[Bubba1]

Is this a sign of neo nazism coming back?
Only time will tell I suppose.

or a sign of Catera II? It got hyped almost as much as this model.

[lne937s]

And, for a dose of extra perspective: by Jag standards (as established, the only valid benchmark for this combination) Cadillac sells a LOT. They might not sell 3-shifts-at-a-GM-factory numbers, but that's probably part of the perception problem right there. More importantly, they sure sell well enough to run a company from. And very mild exclusivity is kind of the sweet spot: sales volume PLUS pastiche. Win/win. For crying out loud, Cadillac averaged about half as many "rare" V-series models as Jag did XFs of all trim levels over the last several years. That's not bad. That's not low sales. It's just not full-tilt all-out factory capacity, which isn't what one would expect from an upscale luxury brand anyway. And they manage this despite pricing that matches Jaguar's almost exactly. They sell a lot more. They charge the same. I can guarantee an ATS doesn't cost as much to manufacture as an XE nor a CTS as much as an XF. Cadillac wins.

Now, the number has dropped off (to somewhere around 1/2 to 2/3 the historical average) for CTS alone, and other models generally reflect that. But they're still selling over 30,000 CTSs a year. That's a bucketload. One month of Camrys, sure, but only about 1/3 off a year of 5-series, which has spent many decades building reputation and buyer desire where the CTS has only been at work for one.

The problem is that GM made product plans to have the vehicle profitable at a certain sales volume that they are not meeting. Only having one shift in a plant intended to run 3 means massively underused production capacity, economies of scale not being met and capital expenditures not being recouped. It means they are likely losing money on the car, which will impact future product plans. This isn't like a smaller volume manufacturer fully utilizing their capacity and selling at a relatively small number of cars a higher price point. And a 150+ day supply of cars on dealer lots does not breed exclusivity.

Maybe if we didn't have to go upscale to get the right drivetrain with a decent amount of power, interior quality wouldn't be an issue.
GM's own SS is a great example of this. Feature creep and cost creep push what should be a modern musclecar--a family sedan with big power and low pricing--into the luxury car pricing bracket because...honestly I'm not even sure what the thinking is there, other than broken.

It makes a little sense when you think about product pricing. A base car is very low margin. Options are typically very high margin. If you cannot get a vehicle that is not loaded up with options, it means that the underlying car is too expensive to sell in a base form. The Australian dollar and Australian production costs are not favorable, which is why many companies are shutting down plants in Australia. They are using options (which cost relatively little but have perceived value) to try to justify a price point where they are not losing significant money on the car. Realistically, even with the price elevated by options and the people who were enthusiastic about the G8, I think GM could have made better product decisions.

[lne937s]

Its strange, Cadillac is coming on strong as BMW is fading off.

I want to say Cadillac benchmarked an old BMW for the ATS, stating that the older model was superior to the new one... but I could be wrong.

C&D did an instrumented test to find out whether their subjective impressions of the newer, softer 3-series matched reality.


The measurements confirmed everything. BMW turned the 3-series into more of a cruiser.

Although Cadillac wants people to think of the ATS as a 3-series competitor, it is really more of a 2-series competitor. While the footprint is a bit larger, the 4-door ATS's interior is only 1 cubic foot larger than the 2-door 2 series. If you compare the 2 series to the ATS, and 3 series to the CTS (also within 1 cubic foot), the comparison is more realistic. And the BMW's interiors are more useable due to the rear roofline.

The 2-series easily outperforms the ATS at similar spec levels. GM's packaging inefficiency and BMW's increasing in size shifts the competitive set.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do? ... 1&id=35436

[Jesda]

The Alpha platform is expected to underpin a lot of future GM products including the Camaro. Even if the ATS alone can't turn a profit, GM has a way of spreading out a significant portion of the development costs.
I'm hoping for a RWD Buick Regal.

[elwesso]

Is this a sign of neo nazism coming back?
Only time will tell I suppose.

or a sign of Catera II? It got hyped almost as much as this model.

In all fairness, the catera was a pretty nice car overall.. It was nicely sized and shaped for it's year, the interior was very nice, it's a shame that it really just sucked as a car in general. Never drove one, but I bet they handled reasonably well?

Jesda I'm surprised the ATS as much as you did. I'm really thinking part of the reason that I didn't like it as much is because I hate electronic gizmos, and I didn't shut off all that garbage before I drove it.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The Catera's problems were multifold, and none of them were really that it was a BAD car. It was the WRONG car, though.

Primarly, Cadillac had not properly set itself up as a brand for which a small, gutless, V6-powered sedan makes sense. There was already the Seville for those wanting a smaller Caddy, and it came with a refined and torquey Northstar under the hood. If you look at the CTS, it faced similar problems, but attacked them with a two-part strategy: First, make the car interesting enough to be worth looking at and Second, back it up with marketing that convinces people this car is really a Caddy. Even then, it took a while to convince people it was the right car to do what Cadillac was trying to do.

The Catera launched with a (failed, goofy, misjudged and misdirected) attempt at the marketing side of that fight, but the Catera itself was about as interesting as a loaf of WonderBread. It was not BAD, but it was thoroughly, outstandingly normal. The bodywork was generic and could easily have been an entry-level Pontiac or Chevy. The interior was actually okay, and the horizontal dash layout even felt almost proper-Cadillac. But as with all GM products of the day, the obsession with plasticy "pods" led to a cheap, toylike feel to most of the dash outside the instrument cluster itself. I certainly like the Catera's interior more than the LS8's. But that gutless V6 and the 4 speed attached to it were about as "Ziggy" as a dead fish, and nobody was fooled by the advertising campaign.

Notably, The Catera and CTS both suffered from some of the same shortcomings, particularly in the drivetrain department--the 54* V6 was a terrible engine, and not remotely suited to a Cadillac. Enlarging it to make less embarrassing horsepower numbers (200hp from 3 liters? Welcome to 1993 in Japan, GM!) merely worsened its behavioral issues--NVH and general coarseness. It was also not reliable.
It wasn't until the HFV6 hit the CTS that it was worth bothering with, and the Catera never escaped the lesser engine. Even the early HFV6 CTSs had significant reliability problems, but the engine's performance when it was working right made up for those more than the mediocrity of the old 2.6/3.0/3.2 managed with regard to their own problems.

I've always found the CTS name a little revealing in this sense (the similar battle the two cars fought). Cadillac claims it means "Compact Touring Sedan" but since the CTS was not remotely compact, and Catera starts with C, while Seville and Deville became STS and DTS, respectively, you kind of have to wonder if the CTS was originally just going to be the 2nd generation Catera all along and a change in name helped it escape a little stigma.

There is one near-unforgivable problem:

It's missing two doors.

I bring to you granted wishes:

It's available in both, according to autoblog this morning.

This thing has officially caught my attention.

This is me smiling:

[Jesda]

Catera was a sharp-handling car built on a nice platform. It even had room for an OHV V8.

Too bad the V6 engine and electrical system had so many issues. Styling was a letdown too. The version of the 3.2 V6 that made it into the 2003 CTS was a fine engine. Not so big on power but it was dependable (the issues were finally ironed out) and reasonably efficient. It matched up well with the manual.

Infiniti stole Cadillac's thunder that year with the G35 which, until recently, cemented itself as the most credible 3-series alternative on the market.

Jesda I'm surprised the ATS as much as you did. I'm really thinking part of the reason that I didn't like it as much is because I hate electronic gizmos, and I didn't shut off all that garbage before I drove it.

I played with CUE for a few seconds, found it to be laggy, and focused my attention on flinging it around. There's an addictive quality to the way it moves.

[Jesda]

I've always found the CTS name a little revealing in this sense (the similar battle the two cars fought). Cadillac claims it means "Compact Touring Sedan" but since the CTS was not remotely compact, and Catera starts with C, while Seville and Deville became STS and DTS, respectively, you kind of have to wonder if the CTS was originally just going to be the 2nd generation Catera all along and a change in name helped it escape a little stigma.

This was confirmed when some CTS owners found "Catera" stamped on some trim pieces.



Now that the entire Cadillac sedan lineup is going to start with "CT", you can sort of conclude that they're all Catera Touring cars.

CT6 = Catera Touring Six
CT8 = Catera Touring Eight

[stm37s]

The new ATS-V is pure excitement, the lines & curves look real good

[Bubba1]

In all fairness, the catera was a pretty nice car overall.. It was nicely sized and shaped for it's year, the interior was very nice, it's a shame that it really just sucked as a car in general. Never drove one, but I bet they handled reasonably well?

Jesda I'm surprised the ATS as much as you did. I'm really thinking part of the reason that I didn't like it as much is because I hate electronic gizmos, and I didn't shut off all that garbage before I drove it.

I test drove a new Catera when they first came out. Yes they looked pretty nice, but they were pretty small. From the drivers seat, it was fairly comfortble but I thought the interior a bit mundane for a Caddy of that era, more like an Opel. I wouldn;t put friends in the rear seats for a long trip as they were a bit cramped. "Reasonably well" is how I'd describe the handling. Steering felt a tad numb but I felt enough that it was predictable. Rode pretty nicely though. I drove a base model, not the sport package, which came with the stiffer shocks. Brakes were nothing special, and I remember the pedal travel was a bit more than I thought it should be. It wasn't an bad car to drive, just not great by any stretch. A huge improvement over the Cimarron, but it was several notches below the BMW 3 series or Audi A4 of it's day. The combination of atrocious reliability and being overpriced for what it was (rebadged Opel with leather seats) pretty much killed it.