M/T Ignition: Cadillac ATS-V

[kevm14]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZAZOiUZWOU

Great car. Looks good, drives good, fun, rewarding, approachable, great on the street and track. Another great way to describe the car was when he said you don't ever get the impression that you really need the stability control to push the car. Obviously I enjoy the fact that my CTS-V has the same characteristics.

However, they found the engine a little underwhelming in the "experience" department. Not that it's down on power or something, but GM does small blocks and this car should have a small block. It would give it that interesting spin, that differentiating element.

[bill25]

Spoiler Alert...

Guess who lost to the BMW and Mercedes...

[kevm14]

Need a little more info than that. And I'll go out on the limb and say the only possible way the ATS-V loses to anything in its class would be in the category of "not enough doodads" or rear seat accommodations. Unless people can't fall in love with the 3.6 TT. Which I could understand.

[bill25]

Car and Driver - ATS-V vs. C63 vs. M3. August 2015.

[Adam]

Need a little more info than that. And I'll go out on the limb and say the only possible way the ATS-V loses to anything in its class would be in the category of "not enough doodads" or rear seat accommodations. Unless people can't fall in love with the 3.6 TT. Which I could understand.

Don't forget not enough overpriced maintenance.

[kevm14]

Need a little more info than that. And I'll go out on the limb and say the only possible way the ATS-V loses to anything in its class would be in the category of "not enough doodads" or rear seat accommodations. Unless people can't fall in love with the 3.6 TT. Which I could understand.

I just cracked this mag open.

Pros: Drives the best, supple chassis, comfy seats, American-made
Cons: Dull engine (check above), many interior offenses (check above), eensy back seat (check above)

A picture caption: If you prioritize driving dynamics over everything else, the Cadillac is, somewhat improbably, the segment's best choice.

I win.

[kevm14]

And holy shit. 12.1 @ 122????

I honestly don't even buy that.

But at least all cars get factory Michelin Pilot Super Sports. Kinda the best tire going for general enthusiast use.

[bill25]

Here is the problem:

A picture caption: If you prioritize driving dynamics over everything else

Cadillac is trying to compete with Mercedes and BMW. They can't get away with this and that is exactly why they don't sell.
None of these are acceptable if you are going after these luxury brands:

Dull engine (check above), many interior offenses (check above), eensy back seat (check above)

If you were describing a performance Chevy, it would be fine. (except the engine part) I would even say if you were describing the new GN/GNX this would also be acceptable except the engine comment, but Cadillac can't skimp on the luxury and compete in the performance luxury segment.

[kevm14]

That's fair. However, C/D gave them the benefit of the doubt and said this is easy stuff to fix. The nailed all of the hard engineering already.

Although, here's my own personal preference: maintain the discount for those demerits and let my buy the engineering. I know this class doesn't always think like that.

Another problem with mags vs buyers: This 3.6TT probably was the right choice for sales and market perception, even if the car would be "better" with some kind of small block.

[bill25]

I agree if they are giving a price discount, but they aren't really. And I also agree that the buyer looking at the BMW or Benz is not looking for the price discount. That segment really wants the performance and luxury.

The interesting thing to me is they talk to the great GM engineering - chassis specifically, but have no complaints with the turbo 6 in the BMW. Does that mean that the engineering on the TT 3.6 was poor on GM's part?