[CirrusSR22]

Jonny Lieberman (from Motor Trend) said in a Periscope that the ATS-V was the most comfortable of the 3.

He didn't reveal much else.

[David70]

Originally Posted by TheBingoBalls

I keep reading these types of comments and people are entitled to their opinion but you have to consider when each car was released. Up until the F8X M3/M4, BMW always had the engine and chassis and guess what? They had everything else as well but no one really considered these things outside of chassis and engine because the rest of the segment lacked these things. You can compare stuff like iDrive and COMAND back when the E9X M3 was released. Is there even a debate? iDrive wasn't the best but was still leaps ahead of COMAND and still is. BMW did and still offers the complete package.

You can say the ATS-V has the best chassis but you need more than that today. These aren't the E46 days where the pinnacle of a car was the chassis and engine. If you want to argue best driving car and nothing else matters, well someone is bound to argue that there are much better driving cars outside of the ATS, M3, C63 and RS5 if you don't care about anything else. What these reviews are basically saying is in driving, the ATS-V is a 10 but pretty much a 5 everywhere else while the M3 and C63 are 9's across the board. Which one would you pick if you had to drop $70k+? My guess is that people will be willing to give up that one point in driving if it means getting more value everywhere else.

My opinion is that I would consider both if I was in the market while you seem to have made up your mind. If I was in the market to buy one, when they were released wouldn't matter to me at all.

I also don't know what the "out the door price" would be on both as I would want to buy them (not MSRP which can be close to meaningless on some cars). This would also be a consideration.

For some of the other posts, the "BMW outsells Cadillac by a large margin" means a lot to the manufacturers but nothing to me. I can't see why an enthusiast would care.

I bought a year old ATS a year ago (CPO), price was also a factor. Magnetic ride is great, majority of the time I am in "Touring" but turning it to "Sport" really changes the driving dynamics. CUE isn't great but nothing like they make it out to be, my car is a '13 and the newer ones work far faster. The reviewer knocking the volume control can just use the button on the steering wheel, all I would use regardless of the dash control. I expect to keep the car until 150k miles (like the Audi I sold) and expect the long term maintenance/repair costs to be lower than a similar BMW. Selling heavy equipment, I believe the Cadillac has a better image for what I do over the BMW.

If the ATS-V turns out to have a better drivetrain/chassis compared to the M does it mean the choice is between The Ultimate Driving Machine and the ultimate driving machine?

Again I have no idea which one I would buy as I haven't seen or driven the ATS-V yet or know what the one I would want would actually cost.

[WhatsADSM]

Been following the ATS-V closely. I susepct it will, ironically enough, be the drivers car or the three but the BMW will be the best overall package. I don't consider myself much of a "dash stroker" but I will say the gauges in the ATS-V are a joke for a car in this segment. GM can do much better there.

If I were in the market and there was a significant difference in OTD price I think the ATS would be compelling argument.

[snaimpally]

The fact that BMW continues to be the benchmark for other manufacturers says something. Competition is always good - this will make sure that BMW doesn't get complacent. To some degree, the markets are different because there are some that will prefer a Cadillac to a BMW. There are also other factors, such as GM's tendency to offer more incentives (rebates/discounts) than BMW, depreciation, the GM ignition switch recall (ATS-V is not affected but it still makes you wonder what could be next), etc.

[DocWeatherington]

Originally Posted by CirrusSR22

Jonny Lieberman (from Motor Trend) said in a Periscope that the ATS-V was the most comfortable of the 3.

He didn't reveal much else.

Notice the.. the ATS-v makes more power than the BMW.... on Paper comment @ 5:50... We need the review

[RM7]

Originally Posted by snaimpally

The fact that BMW continues to be the benchmark for other manufacturers says something. Competition is always good - this will make sure that BMW doesn't get complacent. To some degree, the markets are different because there are some that will prefer a Cadillac to a BMW. There are also other factors, such as GM's tendency to offer more incentives (rebates/discounts) than BMW, depreciation, the GM ignition switch recall (ATS-V is not affected but it still makes you wonder what could be next), etc.

Hard to tell if that's really the case, or confirmation bias from reviewers. After all the "hype" about european interiors, I got my first one a while back. There was plastic and other "cheap" parts, just like any other car. Sure, a few trim pieces here and there, but but on a luxury mercedes it wasn't as if the entire thing was inlaid in gold and hacked out of a huge mohogony tree. Most other interiors have caught up significantly and there is little difference, except in our heads. When these manufacturers charge more for the "experience" and not the actual features, it starts to shoot them in the foot, even if they are riding on the perception for a while. My parents have a fully loaded subaru outback. There's nothing there that is worse than a BMW 3/4, in fact, it seems better and has even more features. It used to be that with BMW you would get things that other manufacturers didn't offer yet, because they were putting their own R&D into it and BMW or the euro manufacturers were simply ahead.

So while a lot of luxury/high end cars are nice, they aren't that nice and I think that they are finally starting to stall out a bit as cars like the ATS-V and CTS-V start to beat them at their own game.

We've had a major "awakening" with the US manufacturers IMO, they've realized that cars have to handle well to be competitive. I think interiors have constantly gotten better on middle-line cars, to the point where there's no longer any real defining factor with 60K and cheaper "luxury" cars, as compared to 30-40K "normal" ones, but looking at the american high end, they have changed drastically into something that isn't a joke and can compete at the highest levels.

[StealYourFace]

Originally Posted by Shredicus

It'll be interesting to see what Biermann can do with Hyundai's ///M knockoff line/nascent N-performance division. I mean it was a logical move.. N comes after M...

Just look at that logo..


http://jalopnik.com/hyundai-launches...s-j-1480453036

Dial N for Notorsport!

[Mavus]

So after reading comments here some folks are stating that the performance outweighs other features. My opinion is that is true for track specific cars but ATS-V competes in a LUXURY performance market based on the price. That market includes M3, RS4, AMG and Jag, and maybe Lexus. Those are brutal competitors!

Potential customers in this market don't necessarily buy the car because of performance only but decide based on the overall package and how well it functions based on their requirements/needs. I do think this Caddy would stir up the pot a bit more if the price was $10-15K less since they clearly cut corners in the interior. Then the next gen could go up a bit but they seem to struggle with perceived brand value vs. price. They got a loooong way to go to re-build prestige of the brand. Until that happens not many folks are willing to pay the premium.

[hellrotm]

Seeing that the new Camaro is built on relatively the same chassis. This bodes very well for the Camaro. With a chassis that exceeds what Germany is putting out these days, in combination with the award winning LT1 from the Corvette. The base SS in the second hand market will be one hell of a cheap track car in the future.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by DocWeatherington

Notice the.. the ATS-v makes more power than the BMW.... on Paper comment @ 5:50... We need the review

Hopefully they put it on the K&N dyno like the did with the M3.

[TheBingoBalls]

Originally Posted by Smooth 330i

So after reading comments here some folks are stating that the performance outweighs other features. My opinion is that is true for track specific cars but ATS-V competes in a LUXURY performance market based on the price. That market includes M3, RS4, AMG and Jag, and maybe Lexus. Those are brutal competitors!

Potential customers in this market don't necessarily buy the car because of performance only but decide based on the overall package and how well it functions based on their requirements/needs. I do think this Caddy would stir up the pot a bit more if the price was $10-15K less since they clearly cut corners in the interior. Then the next gen could go up a bit but they seem to struggle with perceived brand value vs. price. They got a loooong way to go to re-build prestige of the brand. Until that happens not many folks are willing to pay the premium.

This.

Look, if you're looking for that E46 replacement, great the ATS-V is for you, period. But that's the past. Today's cars offer so much more than what the E46 did and just because that car is arguably the best M3 ever, doesn't give it a pass in today's segment where you have cars like the C63 that offer both refinement, luxury and performance. Heck I can go on further and say the F8X with extended leather and the walknappa checks those boxes too regardless of price. The ATS-V fails to address those points. I'm not going to argue whether or not the ATS-V is the better performer in this class - it is. But I, like many others, look at BMW as a car that brings the complete package and they've done so with the F8X.

[DocWeatherington]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

Hopefully they put it on the K&N dyno like the did with the M3.

Hopefully they put all 3 on a dyno...

[Efthreeoh]

Christ. I've spent significant time in both the ATS and the 335i and a 228i. The BMW interior is not significantly better than the ATS, sorry it's not. It used to be the function of an interior for a sports sedan was to aid in driving the car faster, so drop the CUE and iDrive both which distract from driving the car fast, and the ATS is the better ultimate driving machine. Saying the interior in the BMW is better is just fanboy-speak for "Fuck, I can't believe a Cadillac out handles my BMW."

LOL

[WhatsADSM]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Christ. I've spent significant time in both the ATS and the 335i and a 228i. The BMW interior is not significantly better than the ATS, sorry it's not. It used to be the function of an interior for a sports sedan was to aid in driving the car faster, so drop the CUE and iDrive both which distract from driving the car fast, and the ATS is the better ultimate driving machine. Saying the interior in the BMW is better is just fanboy-speak for "Fuck, I can't believe a Cadillac out handles my BMW."

LOL

I'm a GM lover at heart... But seriously? I was sooooo underwhelmed at the ATS interior. After sitting in a 3 next to the ATS I noticed a very big difference. Funny enough I think the SS is GMs best interior, especially for the money.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by WhatsADSM

I'm a GM lover at heart... But seriously? I was sooooo underwhelmed at the ATS interior. After sitting in a 3 next to the ATS I noticed a very big difference. Funny enough I think the SS is GMs best interior, especially for the money.

I spent a week in a 2012 ATS, almost 1,000 miles of driving on my daily commute, which includes a lot of back road work. Just after that, I spent a week in a 2012 335i. Both cars were loaners, so the CUE and iDrive didn't have much functionality (i.e. NAV). The ATS seats were as comfortable as the BMWs (my commute is a minimum 1 hour and 45 minutes). The ergos of the ATS for driving - pedal/seat/steering wheel positioning - were all as good as the BMW. The BMW had a fancy mood lighting function for the interior, BFD. My compliant about the Caddy was I'm not a fan of blue gauges (after 26 years of BMW orange you get used to it) and the Caddy doesn't dim low enough for me. The Caddy had a lot of info selections in the gauge cluster, GM calls it the DIC (Driver Information Center) - LOL, all controlled by switches on the steering wheel; a bit cumbersome, but easy to master and get used to. iDrive has a learning curve as well. But I could give a rat's ass about a bunch of useless information anyway, so I find any infotainment system pointless. And the materials and construction of the interiors of both cars I found on par with each other each has pluses and minuses.

What is funny is most guys here are far too young to remember, let alone drive, a BMW from the 70's or 80's, which is the timeframe that built BMW's exalted reputation as the "ultimate driving machine". The interiors of those BMWs were minimalist. I had a 1989 E30 for 18 years. The radio sucked, the speakers sucked, the materials were average, the center console squeaked if you pushed on it too hard, but the design of the interior was fantastic. It never got in the way of the act of driving and in fact helped the act of driving, which was BMWs intent. The gauges were clear and informative; you could see the tack swing while keeping your eyes on the road, and you didn't even need to look at the HVAC controls to operate them.

So when I read these posts about how great the BMW interiors are compared to Cadillac, it is just hilarious, because during the time BMW was building it reputation as the "ultimate driving machine", Cadillac had interiors that just blew BMW (even the 7 series at the time) out of the water. Go find a pristine example of a mid '70 Sedan Deville, those cars had interiors on par with cars of today considering the level of tech available at the time. But the materials and fit and finish were excellent. Real metal, think leather, and cush everywhere. Back in the day Cadillac’s intent was to have an interior that was a luxurious living room on wheels and a nice soft cushy, isolated ride, and GM executed that design very well; just as well as BMW building an excellent driving car. Now it seems each manufacturer is going in the opposite direction, and Cadillac still has to fight against a bad reputation (well earned from the late 80’s and 90’s) espoused as the Cady’s interior sucks compared to BMW, which I find quite ironic. But I've found in the 3 or 4 samples of the ATS and CTS I've driven to drive better than the current BMWs, which again I find seriously ironic.

[secretsquirrel]

Originally Posted by Smooth 330i

So after reading comments here some folks are stating that the performance outweighs other features. My opinion is that is true for track specific cars but ATS-V competes in a LUXURY performance market based on the price. That market includes M3, RS4, AMG and Jag, and maybe Lexus. Those are brutal competitors!

Potential customers in this market don't necessarily buy the car because of performance only but decide based on the overall package and how well it functions based on their requirements/needs. I do think this Caddy would stir up the pot a bit more if the price was $10-15K less since they clearly cut corners in the interior. Then the next gen could go up a bit but they seem to struggle with perceived brand value vs. price. They got a loooong way to go to re-build prestige of the brand. Until that happens not many folks are willing to pay the premium.

There are a lot of opinions that can be made. Some could say that you could get the ATS-(whatever its called) thats not the "real V". Also, what exactly does "luxury" mean for sport sedans in the 45-75k range? Realistically, outside of good leather and fluffy options (that you'll almost never use), there is very little separating a 60k sedan from a 35k outside of the chasis and suspension, which Caddy has apparently nailed.

We as the top 5% of enthusiast have been asking automakers to make a car that delivers on the things that matter--good engine, great chasis and suspension, etc. And when caddy delivers it, our tune turns to "this car isn't main stream enough for me".

[secretsquirrel]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I spent a week in a 2012 ATS, almost 1,000 miles of driving on my daily commute, which includes a lot of back road work. Just after that, I spent a week in a 2012 335i. Both cars were loaners, so the CUE and iDrive didn't have much functionality (i.e. NAV). The ATS seats were as comfortable as the BMWs (my commute is a minimum 1 hour and 45 minutes). The ergos of the ATS for driving - pedal/seat/steering wheel positioning - were all as good as the BMW. The BMW had a fancy mood lighting function for the interior, BFD. My compliant about the Caddy was I'm not a fan of blue gauges (after 26 years of BMW orange you get used to it) and the Caddy doesn't dim low enough for me. The Caddy had a lot of info selections in the gauge cluster, GM calls it the DIC (Driver Information Center) - LOL, all controlled by switches on the steering wheel; a bit cumbersome, but easy to master and get used to. iDrive has a learning curve as well. But I could give a rat's ass about a bunch of useless information anyway, so I find any infotainment system pointless. And the materials and construction of the interiors of both cars I found on par with each other each has pluses and minuses.

What is funny is most guys here are far too young to remember, let alone drive, a BMW from the 70's or 80's, which is the timeframe that built BMW's exalted reputation as the "ultimate driving machine". The interiors of those BMWs were minimalist. I had a 1989 E30 for 18 years. The radio sucked, the speakers sucked, the materials were average, the center console squeaked if you pushed on it too hard, but the design of the interior was fantastic. It never got in the way of the act of driving and in fact helped the act of driving, which was BMWs intent. The gauges were clear and informative; you could see the tack swing while keeping your eyes on the road, and you didn't even need to look at the HVAC controls to operate them.

So when I read these posts about how great the BMW interiors are compared to Cadillac, it is just hilarious, because during the time BMW was building it reputation as the "ultimate driving machine", Cadillac had interiors that just blew BMW (even the 7 series at the time) out of the water. Go find a pristine example of a mid '70 Sedan Deville, those cars had interiors on par with cars of today considering the level of tech available at the time. But the materials and fit and finish were excellent. Real metal, think leather, and cush everywhere. Back in the day Cadillac’s intent was to have an interior that was a luxurious living room on wheels and a nice soft cushy, isolated ride, and GM executed that design very well; just as well as BMW building an excellent driving car. Now it seems each manufacturer is going in the opposite direction, and Cadillac still has to fight against a bad reputation (well earned from the late 80’s and 90’s) espoused as the Cady’s interior sucks compared to BMW, which I find quite ironic. But I've found in the 3 or 4 samples of the ATS and CTS I've driven to drive better than the current BMWs, which again I find seriously ironic.

[Mavus]

Originally Posted by secretsquirrel

There are a lot of opinions that can be made. Some could say that you could get the ATS-(whatever its called) thats not the "real V". Also, what exactly does "luxury" mean for sport sedans in the 45-75k range? Realistically, outside of good leather and fluffy options (that you'll almost never use), there is very little separating a 60k sedan from a 35k outside of the chasis and suspension, which Caddy has apparently nailed.

We as the top 5% of enthusiast have been asking automakers to make a car that delivers on the things that matter--good engine, great chasis and suspension, etc. And when caddy delivers it, our tune turns to "this car isn't main stream enough for me".

I think you need to look at the market demands to understand what luxury means across the spectrum. It is similar to hotels actually, for example Marriott vs. Westin vs Four Seasons. "Luxury" includes vehicle specific design features as you mentioned but also NVH, material and ride quality (soft but stable), and here is the important part - ownership experience and service. Simply put customers in this field want high quality piece if mind experience that includes both product and services.

The perfect example of an enthusiast cars in GM's stable are Vette and Z28. Now go ahead and compare a customer of Z28 to the customer of ATS-V. Then compare a typical Caddy and BMW/Benz customers.

Also, Caddy was competing with Buick and Lincoln until yesterday and the brand's reputation as a high performance brand is weak at the moment. My point was simply that it will take a few years and several models until Caddy is able to attract young-medium age high net worth customers as Porsche, BMW, Audi, Benz, Jag and Lexus are doing at the moment yet they are pricing their vehicles as if the brand perception is equal to others when it's not, in my opinion.

Enthusiasts currently have very little options to get a simple high performance vehicle that is somewhat affordable. Porsche Cayman GT4 may be one of the best but is still cost prohibitive to many. That is the type of vehicle enthusiasts are looking for that is raw, driver focused with non-luxury but durable materials and features. GT350 may turn out to be another one and I am hoping M2 has a track package similar to M235 Racing.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Smooth 330i

I think you need to look at the market demands to understand what luxury means across the spectrum. It is similar to hotels actually, for example Marriott vs. Westin vs Four Seasons. "Luxury" includes vehicle specific design features as you mentioned but also NVH, material and ride quality (soft but stable), and here is the important part - ownership experience and service. Simply put customers in this field want high quality piece if mind experience that includes both product and services.

The perfect example of an enthusiast cars in GM's stable are Vette and Z28. Now go ahead and compare a customer of Z28 to the customer of ATS-V. Then compare a typical Caddy and BMW/Benz customers.

Also, Caddy was competing with Buick and Lincoln until yesterday and the brand's reputation as a high performance brand is weak at the moment. My point was simply that it will take a few years and several models until Caddy is able to attract young-medium age high net worth customers as Porsche, BMW, Audi, Benz, Jag and Lexus are doing at the moment yet they are pricing their vehicles as if the brand perception is equal to others when it's not, in my opinion.

Enthusiasts currently have very little options to get a simple high performance vehicle that is somewhat affordable. Porsche Cayman GT4 may be one of the best but is still cost prohibitive to many. That is the type of vehicle enthusiasts are looking for that is raw, driver focused with non-luxury but durable materials and features. GT350 may turn out to be another one and I am hoping M2 has a track package similar to M235 Racing.

Cadillac has been developing and building performance oriented cars for over a decade now, not since a few years ago when the ATS came out to start competing with the 3-series. Cadillac sold a version of the Corvette up to just a few years ago. The BMW performance hype is a bit over blown now and most car companies have caught up while BMW has moved downward. Read magazine articles on BMWs from 20 years ago, when interiors were not that important and you'll find BMW almost always won a performance comparo based on how the car drove. Mercedes has always had higher level interiors than BMW, but BMW always won a performance comparison in magazines. It's only now that BMW has lost its DNA that interiors of the cars are judged as a deciding factor.

[SCOTT26]

The more things change.
Everything remains the same...

[RM7]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

The more things change.
Everything remains the same...

Umm, no. Cadillacs and US manufacturers in general are making serious performance cars now. This is not the 1980s, 1990s or even 2000s. ATS-V, CTS-V, G8, SS, GT350, Focus RS, Stingray, Z06, and many others. You can pick and choose I guess, but when a Z28 comes in only .1 s slower than a Ferrari F12 and turns in an amazing time at the ring in the WET, smashing pretty much everything else, it's apparent they really have thought this over and decided to not make cars that are performance jokes.

I fail to see these huge interior differences. Just like some people are prejudiced and calling Z28s and GT350 "straight line cars", others are insisting that their european interiors are inherently better. No, these things just aren't true. Maybe they were true at one time, but that's not the case anymore. It's not like BMW plastic, wood and metal are somehow "better" than other plastic wood and metal. Go sit in any BMW. There's plastic all over the place. It's not like they CNCed it from a huge block of aluminum or carved it out of wood.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

The more things change.
Everything remains the same...

This would be funny if the trend of E chassis BMW's winning comparison tests wasn't inverted by F chassis cars universally losing them. Hopefully the G's are a return to form.