Repair-It

http://www.motortrend.com/news/tested-2 ... 960C78A215

Alright! Finally we can see how this stacks up to the excellent ATS-V.

And then I read the article.

In the past, we tested a 2015 Mercedes-Benz C63 S AMG, producing 503 hp from a 4.0-liter V-8, at 4.0 seconds. A 2016 BMW M3 Competition Pack managed to reach 60 mph in 4.3 seconds, with help from a 3.0-liter inline-six making 444 hp.

Basically Alfa has somehow convinced the press not to make comparisons to Cadillac.

But from the numbers, I think the ATS-V is totally and completely competitive.

Second comment in:

Is the ATS-V too slow and non-competitve?

Good question. I feel like those numbers would be relevant.

I'm obviously not alone.

I will also say that early press on this somehow had me convinced that it was going to be way better, way cheaper, bigger, and way lighter than something like an ATS-V. Now I can see it is competitive. Weight is the same, price is the same if even $10k more expensive. I am not sure how much bigger it really is than the ATS-V. Probably a little bit but nowhere near the CTS-V.

Nice car. Impressive performance numbers. Numbers that the ATS V can match or surpass. I say this because in a comparison with the M4 and the C63S -CONDUCTED BY MOTORTREND- The ATS came out in second place even though it tied the C63S on the track which packs more power. It tied the AMG because it handled better than the German. It came out in second place because of the interior of the AMG and the exhaust note of the V8. I do concede on the former.

So MOTORTREND, why do you keep shunning Cadillac? All I ask is to at least mention a valid contender in the conversation.

Good question.

Car and Driver did this same comparo, and the ATS-V came in last. Maybe Motortrend didn't have enough pages...

(Link here when available)

I never get my C/D on time. What issue is it?

billgiacheri wrote:Car and Driver did this same comparo, and the ATS-V came in last. Maybe Motortrend didn't have enough pages...

(Link here when available)

I read it. Not too surprising actually. The ATS-V stood up well and honestly is probably the one to own used (cheapest and likely the most reliable). The Alfa actually set a check engine light.

I do not expect a cut down Ferrari V8 with no balance shafts to be reliable.

A few more thoughts.

The comment about the LT1 really rang true with me in the article (they speculated what an LT1-powered ATS-V would be like). That is exactly what the car needs. First I think it would actually perform better overall, or at least not worse. It would sound 1000x better. And it would actually have its own identity like the other cars (ok the M3 is also in a crisis with the very loud fake engine noise). And even MORE critically (in some ways), it would have been the only N/A car, and with a pushrod V8 no less! Now that is an interesting story. Only the douchiest of Eurosnobs would turn their noses up at it, and they were never a potential buyer in the first place.

One thing that's sad is if they came out with the LT1 ATS-V, and it didn't sell. They'd be like, we like that the magazines like it, but we need to shift to turbo stuff to appease the market for these cars. Well the ATS-V isn't selling that well with the twin turbo V6, though I should confirm with numbers and comparisons to its market peers. I think Bill made this argument a while back and I agree.

The last M3 to really be an M3 was the E92, just throwing that in there. They attempted to stiffen up the version that C/D got but that just made it bad. It doesn't help them that the competition has really picked up the pace. On paper the engine is great - seems responsive, and also got the best fuel economy of the group.

The C63 is still playing second fiddle in the chassis department in this group though it is good in an absolute sense. The engine still retains V8 characteristics and noises despite the turbo.

With the Quadrifoglio, it kind of seems like they benchmarked the ATS-V in the chassis and steering department (hell it is only 17 pounds lighter) as comparing the words written about each car seems like they lay on top of each other. On "cheater" tires. I mean the other three wore standard Pilot Super Sports which are pretty much the best street tire, and the one you'd reach for at tire change time even if it didn't ship with them (balancing performance, price and treadwear). So it would have been nice for the Quadrifoglio to run them, as well.

The ATS-V really rips out of the hole. Lowest trap speed and tied for best 0-30 with the Alfa (second highest trap speed). They really sorted the launch and I don't know why I think this, but I think it wouldn't have been as good with an LT1. Who knows.

The M3 does impress in space to weight ratio, being fairly roomy reportedly, but the lightest. That's an accomplishment. But you don't take that stuff in a vacuum because it is not the best car to drive here. Or even second best.

Each car offers something, though I am going to count the M3 out at least as tested in this case. The C63 is pricey but offers the best luxury experience and a really good engine experience (highest trap speed, too), while still putting up good chassis numbers. The Quadrifoglio seems like it has a lot of personality. And the ATS-V may lack interior appointments and accommodations but is right in the conversation with performance numbers and still top rung to drive.

If someone else was paying, I'd love to try out the Alfa. If I am paying (and not buying new) there is really only 1 option among this group of 4 in my opinion, and that is the ATS-V. Then again, maybe the Alfa will have bad resale and maybe a CPO one would be an option. Except you'd take a bath again on the resale depending on how much warranty was left when you sold it. You are going to pay one way or the other with that car, I think.

M/T video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WGAU7aFMFwQ

This was pretty good. The ATS-V did well.

From BMW blog:

I love how when McLaren putted Trofeo Rs (which are an option anyway) on the P1 for the test vs the 918, they spent half the video explaining how much of a difference tyres can make, but when it's Alfa Romeo that puts R Compound on their car while everyone is on Michelin PSS, suddenly there is not one single mention of how they affect the performance.

Gotta love little details like that