As if flagship land yachts weren’t enough, Cadillac has gone and announced that the ATS-V sedan will make its world debut at the 2014 Los Angeles Auto Show.
The Detroit News reports the sedan’s target is the BMW M3, and is expected to receive its firepower from the CTS V-Sport’s twin-turbo 3.6-liter V6, capable of 420 horsepower and 430 lb-ft. of torque in the V-Sport. The engine is mated to a standard eight-speed automatic that may also see duty with the ATS-V.
In addition, Cadillac will unveil the coupe variant of the ATS-V in 2015, as well as bring the CTS-V sedan to the 2015 Detroit Auto Show. The latter will likely have a 600-horsepower version of the Corvette Stingray Z06’s supercharged V8.
Both ATS-Vs and the new CTS-V will arrive in showrooms sometime later in 2015.
Cadillac… its (ahem) styling, its image, its low sales, its perpetual flagships with subsequent failures, the heavily discounts, the revolving door of executives, the failure of success outside of the U.S., …
GM: What really is your plan here?
“GM: What really is your plan here?”
The Joker: Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just… *do* things.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/quotes
The new CTS is the 3rd best selling sedan in the midsize luxury segment and has the 3rd highest ATP next to the E Class and 5 Series.
With the XTS, Cadillac is well ahead of the others (aside from MB and BMW) when it comes to the no. of sedans sold in the mid-price segment.
The problem is with the ATS with its tightest in class rear passenger room.
And while an ATS-V is nice, it would have been more beneficial to Cadillac to speed up additions to its CUV lineup – which has nothing but the aging, tweener SRX.
GM can’t keep up with demand for the aging Equinox (or for the new Escalade for that matter) – it really hurts Cadillac in not having a fuller CUV lineup.
All-new SRX will be out next year. They really need a compact crossover too, and it’s coming, but not until 2017-ish.
Is that 420 horsepower on the same front-wheel-drive platform as the Chevy Cruze? I wonder if GM will be sponsoring a “Festival of Torque Steer” at Monterey next August.
It’s on the Alpha platform, so no.
The Cruze has a larger rear seat and better ride quality.
The ride depends on the trim chosen. The Luxury trim has a great suspension, the Performance is too firm unless you ditch the run-flats and the Premium’s magnetic ride is whatever you want it to be but also stupidly expensive.
GM would do well to separate the sports suspension from the rest of the equipment in the Performance trim.
Ummm, ATS is RWD or AWD and built on the Alpha platform.
Rod, is that ignorance or snark masking as ignorance? I can’t quite tell. Too bad you haven’t been keeping up with Cadillac over the past decade.
Cadillac will have it’s most interesting and exciting product lineup ever with the introduction of these latest two cars in LA. Success as a brand aside, these are really nice products and kudos to them for putting the investment in.
It’s too bad their lineup isn’t at all aligned with what the market wants.
I should have typed InB4. Probably wouldn’t have mattered.
Danio, given your experience, do you have any insight on the engine weight and packaging issues I detail below?
Nope… truth is truth.
Well, not exactly. You just took yet another gratuitous turn at the Cadillac punching bag. As bd2 points out, Cadillac does actually move a fair amount of cars the market supposedly doesn’t want.
Again, the CTS is the 3rd best selling midsize RWD sedan with the 3rd highest ATP.
The problem with the ATS is the tightest in class rear space.
Evidently, based on RLX sales (or lack thereof), an upmarket Accord is really not what the market wants.
Psyching myself up to read all the comments focused on Cadillac’s decision to use the “wrong” number of cylinders.
@VoGo, you’ll hear that complaint from me up down and all over re: the ATS 2.0T. I have no issue with a turbo six in this level of car. They offer the refinement and (potential for) excitement that is to be expected. My only concern is that this car, like the CTS V sport, will get the electronically amplified engine noise. It’s a shame. A well tuned six sings a sweet song, and Cadillac should to try to help this engine find its voice. That being said, If an LT1 powered Corvette can get almost 30 mpg highway, I don’t see why that engine couldn’t have also worked here. It certainly would help Cadillac differentiate itself from the Germans
tjh8402, whats the issue with the 2.0T as the base model ATS powerplant? (The 2.5 ATS doesn’t exist as far as I am concerned)
GM makes a really decent 2.0T.
I also have no issue with a V6T for the ATS-V. I do wonder though; what is the weight comparison for a fully dressed 3.6TT vs a 5.3 smallblock, a 6.0 small block? What is the dimensions of a 3.6TT vs a smallblock? My gut instinct is always “A V8 wouldn’t fit in the ATS!” but then I remember, the GM smallblock is a compact engine, especially when you consider the V6 is an OHC motor, with all the extra plumbing for a TT setup… The V8 might just be the better choice!
The weight difference between the 3.6L TT and an aluminum LT isn’t very much from what I understand. The V6TT is shorter allowing for a smaller engine compartment, shorter hood and better weight distribution which was an important consideration with this car. I have no doubt the LT V8 could be made to fit the ATS without too much trouble if one wanted to.
Part of the consideration to use a TT V6 instead of the V8 would have been CAFE requirements as well.
The Alpha platform is going to underpin the next Camaro. It can handle a LT V8.
@Davefromcalgary – I don’t believe 4 cylinders should be in $40k luxury sedans as they fall far behind a six in NVH. I’ve ridden in a Cadillac ATS 2.0t and found the NVH particularly bad, even for a 4 cylinder. The N20 is a much smoother and quieter powerplant (I’ve driven a F10 528), but I still don’t think it should be in the 3 series. BMW should’ve done like Ford and offered the NA six alongside the turbo 4. Cadillac offers the NA 6, but not with a manual. You have to get the 2.0t to get the stick.
The luxo German car snobs could more easily be lured away with a High Country Silverado. Cadillac needs to let go of the dream and establish its own identity and following. Then let the snobs come to them.
They’ve already got the right look. Dump the 2 liter and give it a base 5.3 V8, around 380 hp. And the TTV6 as the upgrade engine.
Would Tony Soprano drive 2.0 wheezer???
Would Tony Soprano fit in an ATS?
And, even if he did, wold he be able to fit a similar sized Italian in the trunk?
I agree, though. Ditch the turbos. Outside of the loonitopioa called Euroland, trying to make gas engines behave like diesel ones, is not a recipe for driving excitement.
Tony Soprano’s wife or kids might.
Subprime speedsters rejoice!
The Catera would be proud of what it spawned.
The Catera spawned the CTS. This is a descendant of the Cimarron.
This is in no way a descendant of the Cimarron.
How so….
Ooohhhhh, this B&B discussion is worthy of popcorn already
So what Chevy is this a thinly badge-engineered version of? Not that the ATS doesn’t have its faults. The chassis is brilliant, but the back seat is too small and the execution is lacking in the fine details that matter when you’re trying to be a luxury make producing a luxury car, nevermind the wildly optimistic pricing, but to compare the ATS/CTS to the catastrophes of the 80s and 90s isn’t particularly fair or accurate.
I don’t know how many times someone has to point out that this is on the Alpha platform, and that it is not a “thinly badge engineered version” of any Chevy.
Do some reading before jumping on the “cool to be negative” bus.
No kidding
Lets see. Cruze is FWD Delta II.
ATS is RWD/AWD Alpha.
They don’t share engines. (Cruze is 1.8, 1.4T, or 2.0 diesel)
They don’t share transmissions (hello FWD vs RWD/AWD).
They don’t share sheet metal – zilch
They don’t share interior bits (admittedly that God awful instrument cluster in the ATS would be more at home in the Cruze)
They don’t share Infotainment, center stack, seats, glass.
They don’t share design.
They don’t share dimensions.
The platforms weren’t designed by the same team – the Delta II comes from Korea.
The ATS is the first vehicle built on Alpha – nothing offered by Chevrolet is built on Alpha. Chevrolet uses Gamma II (Spark, Sonic), Delta II (Cruze, Volt), Theta (Equinox, Captiva), Lambda (Taverse), GMT900 (Silverado, Tahoe, Suburban), C7 (Corvette), Zeta (SS, Camaro), Epsilon II (Malibu, new Impala), and ye-old W-body (fleet only old Impala).
The, “hey it’s cool to be snarky even though I don’t have a clue on what I’m talking about,” set is rather amusing.
@APaGttH
Camaro will be built on Alpha when the new model debuts, so Cadillac will share something with Chevrolet other than GMTKXX and Epsilon II.
Srogers, I’m well aware of that, hence the snarky request to name the lower-end car this is a thin veneer over (there isn’t one). Overall the ATS and new CTS are big steps in the right direction, although I think they’ve missed enough of the details to not fully compete at their price point (in particular the ATS is way too small). I think a -V model has the potential to be brilliant, but given current ATS pricing it’s going to cost as much as an M3/M4/C63 AMG, and I’m skeptical that it’s going to be good enough to do that on an even playing field (ie equal MSRP).
Even with those misses, however, it’s still nothing remotely comparable to the catastrophes of the Cimarron or Catera.
@28 cars
…Camaro will be built on Alpha when the new model debuts, so Cadillac will share something with Chevrolet other than GMTKXX and Epsilon II…
And…so what exactly? As pointed out, and factual, Alpha is only used for the ATS today.
If GM were to build just the ATS on Alpha that would be pretty stupid.
Again, if I followed the implied logic, only an idiot would by an Audi S5 because a VW Polo is the exact same car.
I was just adding facts as currently Alpha is a Cadillac exclusive as you point out but that will change in the near future.
I have a feeling more than a few people misunderstood. I meant in no way that the ATS is a descendant of the Cimarron in that it’s a lousy rebadge of a half-decent Chevy platform. I meant that it’s Cadillac’s first compact in a really long time. And that’s all I meant.
That’s funny, because when I said the Catera would be proud of what it spawned I meant a new era of Cadillac cars that actually handled, AKA “The Caddy That Zigs”. Before the Catera Cadillac had mainly luxobarges that appealed to the geriatric crowd. The Catera was one of Cadillac’s first cars to appeal to a younger sportier demographic, or to traditional European car buyers. Before the Catera GM had mostly bogus badge engineered cars with “Eurosport” names and bogus body panels tacked onto them to make them sporty, or to try and compare them with a BMW.
I would not go and pay them too many complements. The Catera was a quick Opel Omega rebadge done as an act of desperation, and it ended up being complete junk. Cadillac once commanded three percent of the whole US auto market, now its barely above one percent and half of that is SRX sales.
The ATS is definitely not a rebadged Chevrolet. It’s a good solid effort at a small RWD Cadillac sport sedan that’s a little short on rear seat legroom. My guess is that the ATS will be considerably cheaper to maintain than a BMW 328i in the 5 to 10 year age range.
420 HP in a car that small will be formidable, no matter what. I wish I had the financial means to afford something like that, but I will have to admire from afar…
ATS isn’t *that* small, about the same as the first CTS. Power output will be about the same as the diff-munching CTS-V of that era as well.
As long as they don’t ask 45-50k for it, it should do fine.
The 3.6L liter already starts at 42K so I would expect it to start at 50K minimum
Well that kinda tells me why ATS sales are in the drain…
For 50k, I could get a lot of vehicles with better engines.
SS
Duramax
Used vette
Used CTS-V SC6.2
That’s just with GM
And all of them are bigger and roomier.
And that 3.6 can be had for a little over 23k before discounts on the Camaro, and it gets better MPG in the Camaro.
Good car, but won’t be anything more than an interesting note in history at that price.
10k more gets you a better riding, more useful, larger, 707 horsepower torque monster.
Cadillac has so deeply screwed the pooch on pricing and interior utility/size that it’s just sad.
It is interesting how many people are thinking of the Hellcats and the V Series as comparables, and how few (outside of Cadillac’s marketing team) are thinking of the V Series and BMW Ms, MB AMG, etc, as comparables. That right there is Cadillac’s biggest problem.
Yep.
For all the greenwashing in the press, even GM understands that 8>6>4. Which is why, in every single vehicle that they sell with the option, 8 is priced higher than 6 is priced higher than 4. Even though the OHV 2 valve V8s are certainly cheaper for GM to build than a 4 cam V6 even without a turbo, probably even cheaper than a boosted 4.
But taking that to the next step, that their most expensive and premium products ought to have what buyers recognize as premium engines isn’t blatantly obvious enough for them. Even at Cadillac, economy car engines it is, and we’ll just sit around scratching our heads as to why nobody buys them.
Starts at $42K? That’s Lexus IS-350 money, and that’s a very nice car. Given the extra snob appeal and great resale value that Lexus has, it would be hard to select an ATS over an IS.
That new Lexus grille design ruins the look of the IS for me.
So get the F-Sport! It has a different grill!
/sarc (please, do I have to spell it out?)
If nothing else, GM has a hit with that shade of blue.
as usual GM doesn’t seem to know what market it is going after. subprime mavens or senile old farts. At the prices they are quoting cadillac leases it is an act of desperation. my fiancee says at the quotes that she hears…who would consider cadillac a premium car any more. Rooting with all the swine looking for a pearl. What a bunch of narcissistic idiots.
That picture is not it, is it? The tires are fitting the wheel openings less 3-series and more non-SRT Neon.
Nope – there are no cameo-free pics at this time.
The Acura TSX called. It wants its styling back.
So here is the $64K question:
For what will most certainly be M3/M4 money, who is going to buy this over a bonafide ///M or AMG car? Who will buy this over the significantly faster/more powerful Q50 Eau Rouge? Why o why would they not put a V8 in this? Lot of questions, not a lot of answers.
I’m a GM guy, and want to like Cadillac, but M4 all the way.
Especially in light of CUE. (Note: have actually used it, hate not based on reading)
Last I heard the Eau Rouge was going to cost more than 100k
Good question, I thought the, hair-dryed sixxer stuff would all be called V-Sport and the V8 stuff ( which I’m guessing will feature a variation of the Z06 LT4 or that engine outright unless Cadillac has completely lost its balls ) would be the real V.
I wonder if it’s because BMW dropped the V8 for a boosted six and Cadillac figures a big cube supercharged V8 making gobs of power and torque is a no go?
The CTS will get the real deal V8, but this will most likely just get the turbo V6.
I’m thinking Cadillac is going with the blown V6 under the pipe dream of gaining traction in Europe and succumbing to their draconian emissions laws. I am not sure how NCAP counts fleet emissions, but if Ford can sell the Mustang V8 around the world it seems pretty silly for Cadillac to give up the only positive distinguishing opportunity the ATS-V could have. It’s a real shame
Really Rencen, another V sedan? Doesn’t this already exist, albeit as a Sigma? So now I can have it in an even smaller sedan I can’t use the rear seat in? PUT IT IN A COUPE.
Idiots.
Don’t get your knickers in a twist. Just as the standard coupe is delayed behind the sedan, so too will (I hope, I hope) the ATS-V coupe. Or at least, it will be if GM cares about the (dozens of) buyers it lost with the discontinuation of the CTS-V coupe.
If GM cared they would wait for the coupe and introduce it then. They clearly do not, they want to be able to say it exists to make the rental grade ATS look cool to potential buyers. As as rule I believe if you do something you do it correctly or you don’t do it at all.
They aren’t idiots, at least not for the coupe issue. They know thousands more potential buyers prefer sedans. They know they will sell more doing it this way than waiting for a coupe.
While TTAC hasn’t seen or driven the upcoming big sedan from Cadillac, it’s already been christened a “land yacht”. I wonder how many times the good folks here have so-dubbed an S-class or 7 series?
All F-segment cars are land yachts. I wouldn’t take it personally. It is what it is, that is what they are intended to be. Nobody is buying an S-Class for an engaging, responsive driving experience… it’s not unreasonable to assume the same of any car built to compete with it.
I never assumed the ATS-V would be a V8; I thought it was understood a year ago that it would be V6TT. I do expect Cadillac to up the power to 435 or so to differentiate V from V Sport, but wasn’t this V6 for ATS-V and a V8 for CTS-V the plan all along?
For me, the question is, “How does it drive?” The ATS wasn’t around when I bought my G37S coupe. Otherwise, it would have been a candidate. An ATS-V should be the same only better. Note that I tried and rejected both Audi and BMW.
V should stand for ‘Vette engine….
I kinda like the new Caddys. Magnaride is probably still at least as good as what’s on offer anywhere else. But turbo engines, unless they are designed explicitly to be crazy like a built Evo, just isn’t particularly exciting. Large, NA OHV engines should be religion at GM. It’s one thing they’ve got, that the rest don’t. And it’s an awesome asset to boot. 5 liters at the weight of an OHC 3.5 or less.
I would prefer previous CTS(coupe) V6(with XLA – the best Caddy design) that new ‘design-not wise’ ATS ..
But with proper ‘body-kit\'(to hide blunt design) and with 550bhp is’s got some chance :)