Find Reviews by Make:
In addition to the Cadillac ATS-V Coupe that you already saw, Cadillac is launching a sedan version of the ATS-V.
The 3.6L twin-turbo V6 will make 455 horsepower and 450 lb-ft of torque, backed by either a Tremec 6060 6-speed manual or GM’s new 8-speed automatic. Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires, magnetic shock absorbers and a limited slip differential are all standard, as well as Recaro seats. A carbon fiber hood is optional.
56 Comments on “Los Angeles 2014: Cadillac ATS-V Sedan Revealed...”
Read all comments
“Hey, DeadWeight, Cadillac ATS!”
For the young businessman who does not want to be too subtle on his way to work.
For the well-educated woman who does not care about panel gaps.
For the old people who want the “most loaded” one!
The ATS-V sedan. 4-doors, $49,000, 455hp, 4sale. Pontiac gauges from 2005 as standard.
For the buyer who wishes to pony up Cadillac money for a Pontiac.
I’d pay Cadillac money for this Pontiac. Looks to be an awesome package.
Ditto here, Danio. Screw the haters – they can get a nice view of my tail lights.
Me too, this looks like it can cut the mustard!
GM had plans to create a Pontiac using the ATS platform, which illustrates the plans they had for an upscale, performance-based Pontiac. I don’t know why people here insist that this vehicle was created to be a Pontiac, other than scoffing for whatever reason gives them some sort of a man-rush.
Sorry to break this to you. I know how much you like to bring it up. But the V gets it own digital instrument panel. No analog on this one.
You seem to know stuff, do you know when Cadillac is going to jack it up, add a AWD option, call it an SRX-V and go after the Q5-RS, Macan and X6?
Well, let’s see…what else does $49,000 get you?
A mid-spec 3-Series.
A base M-Class.
A C400 with one or two options.
I say this is a pretty good deal.
It’s hard to believe that Cadillac’s going to price it at $49K — even $49K out the door. C&D’s estimating $55K, but I’d expect them to price it much closer to the M3.
I agree. I’m thinking closer to $55K as well. I was just using the figure that someone else stated.
I made up 49k to go along with my 4’s sentence.
And that little V6 runs out of breath before 4000 RPM.
Why bother with an M235 when you can have this for the same money?
An the gauges are a welcome feature – uncluttered, easy to read and color matched to the rest of displays.
Call me when the new CTS-V has a newer supercharged V8.
But don’t call me until you’re ready to put it next to a Hellcat and have them do a Quarter-Mile run.
Every “professional car reviewer” needs to simply either start or end their video review with that level of information.
I don’t need to see “burnouts”. I need to see stock performance vs. other vehicles.
The Hellcat has other cars to worry about.
At this week’s SEMA show, drifting luminary Vaughn Gittin Jr. and Ford unveiled the Mustang RTR package which, along with the platform it’s applied to, is all-new for 2015. Along with the requisite visual upgrades, the top-tier Mustang GT RTR gets a big dose of additional grunt – to the tune of 725 horsepower.
Preview: 2015 Ford Mustang RTR> http://www.windingroad.com/articles/reviews/preview-2015-ford-mustang-rtr/?utm_source=Winding+Road+Weekly+Email+List&utm_campaign=141ca99bc0-WR_17111_19_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f40212f51a-141ca99bc0-57115501&mc_cid=141ca99bc0&mc_eid=93db693a90
Seats look like they were designed for an alien from some movie I can’t remember.
This thing better at least get 30HWY for such a small engine, else this was a complete waste of turbochargers.
And honestly the above photo looks like it was from the previous generation CTS.
The non-turbo 3.6 doesn’t get 30 hwy, so this one won’t either. You’ll need to spec one of the two 4’s to get >30 mpg hwy.
I’d expect since the 6.2l has more HP N/A than a 3.6 TT, that the V6 could out gun the MPG, why else would you use a smaller engine?
6.2 in something this small would have no problem doing 27-28 highway, why shouldn’t the TT3.6 be able to beat it?
If the camaro can do 24 HWY with the Old LS style V8, 6 speed, and being heavy, and the corvette with the 8 speed, light and LT engine can do 29/30HWY, why can’t a 8 speed ATS with LT 6.2 do 27-28Hwy?
It may do 27-28, which is what the non-turbo 3.6 gets. We’ll see, although I doubt that 1 or 2 MPG would make a difference to this car’s audience.
The Corvette is a low and aerodynamic, so it’s no surprise that it gets decent highway mileage.
Highway mileage is mostly determined by drag, which is Cx times surface area. A low car will (usually) have less surface area, and the Corvette’s shape is easier to optimize for Cx than a sedan is: long hood, low seats, minimal storage.
I don’t know of any cars with 455hp available that can net 30+ mpg. The Corvette comes close, though. Maybe your request is unreasonable?
And, of course, the car has to be made of pure unobtainium, and come with a Mr. Fusion so it can run on old beer cans, just like Doc Brown’s DeLorean in “Back to the Future”.
Did a Cadillac run over your dog? It seems like every time there is a post about Cadillac or GM you are one of the first to point out some subjective flaw.
Odd too ’cause his name is “Hummer” which means he thinks GM did something right
GM did at least three things right: SBC, 3800, and Corvette (in most years).
I call hits wherever I see flaws in logic, this entire car has made zero sense from day 1.
The overwhelming poor engine choice and high cost are some serious flaws if Cadillac is suppose to compete with German brands.
I don’t dislike Cadillac but the politics make no sense.
Have you ever been in a CTS or XTS with the TT 3.6 V6? By what metrics are you making the statement that it is an “overwhelming[ly] poor engine choice”? I feel like you’re missing the difference between opinions and facts. Anyway, none of the -V models have been logical. It’s not logical to put a supercharged V8 in a station wagon, but their purpose is not to be logical. They serve as halo cars for their respective model ranges, and I’m thankful they are even produced in the first place.
I was talking N/A V8, the naturally aspirated 6.2 has more power than the TT3.6.
Let’s see…the overwhelmingly poor engine choices in an ATS are:
1) Naturally aspirated 4
2) Turbo 4
3) Naturally aspirated six
I’ll grant you the 2.5 in the ATS is a bad choice, but a compact sport sedan with a 2.0 turbo or a naturally aspirated six is pretty much the norm in this segment.
Unless, of course, you think the Mercedes C-class, Audi A4, BMW 328, Lexus IS and Infiniti Q-whatever-it’s-called are all “overwhelmingly poor” too.
Whilst not entirely convinced by the ATS as a whole, this V package does seem to work much better as a saloon.
I’m trying hard to like this thing but it’s a mixed bag. This is meant to compete with the M3/4 but comes across as garish and boy race-ish. Throw it in the pile with the RC-F, interesting but not my cup of tea.
Oh no Derek, don’t you realize the firestorm of anti-ATS bitching you’ve brought upon us once again? Don’t you know you can’t post articles that reference, even in a minor way, the ATS?
I’d rather an ATS article than a small pickup article.
Whoosh! everyone runs for cover
Which would you rather drive, Dave?
We all know what Dave likes and drives, but in his heart he lusts for…
” 3.6L twin-turbo V6 will make 455 horsepower and 450 lb-ft of torque, backed by a Tremec 6060 6-speed manual”
6-speed manual
6-speed manual
6-speed manual
Dave will take his sedative now
Neither the ATS nor the Canyonado interest me, for a number of reasons, but…
I’d have to say the ATS, I like trucks but don’t need one.
The 3.6TT sounds like a fine motor. I could even overlook the gauges but CUE can take a flying leap and never come back.
I have started a business that puts custom aftermarket gauge clusters in their ATS sedans and coupes.
Check them out at http://www.VinnyAsksYouFlexinUpOnMeBrah?.com
Great, you’ll be able to retire at 90 now
Well, if you can’t come with length, 455 horsepower will do nicely as a substitute.
For the money, it should be coming with length. I doubt 3 inches of leg room changes the driving dynamic much.
Maybe they’re banking on girth instead?
Length vs girth, the eternal debate.
Length and girth are great, but skill trumps all. For this, I am eternally grateful.
Agreed, 28, that needs to be fixed. But for my needs, an ATS would do nicely. I’m old and don’t need to cart around kids anymore.
And unless I’m way off, I don’t think you’d mistake the back seat in ANY car in this segment for a Maybach. That’s an unfortunate side effect of RWD platforms – less interior room.
I agree, 28, they should fix the back seat in the ATS, but otherwise it sounds like a fine-driving car, and honestly, I’m old now and don’t cart kids around in back anymore.
And unless I’m way off, I’d say none of the back seats in this segment will remind anyone of a Maybach.
“come with length” lol
As the owner of a ’00 Bonneville SSEi, the hell with you all.
The Church of 3800 passes on it’s blessings on you, my son.
I also have an Aurora, so I’ve been taking communnion on coolant sealant tab wafers.
We’re not worthy, We’re not worthy…
Johan, if you’re going to spew, spew into this *points at the Cadillac crest*.
I wonder if I could swap that SSEi motor into my ’03 LeSabre and make it the Buick from Hell.
1. How fast will it go around the Nürburg-Ring?
2. How long can it do powerslides?
My two questions.
1. Quicker than the old V most likely
2. Until you lift or blow the rear tires