Well its not exactly like an "anti Honda/Acura circlejerk" OR a case of being a "reverse fanboy". I'll speak for myself, but I'm sure you'll find that most of the guys here who are most critical of H/A are in the same boat as me.

Having owned a number of Hondas and 2 Acks kinda gives me a - "you've earned the right to be critical and bitch about H/A" card. No one wanted Ack to produce my next car more than me. I've had good luck with them, and minus two bad trannys...they've been pretty reliable. BUT H/A has not evolved with their customer base (me)...or with other automotive trends. And once they jumped aboard the failboat of ugliness...well, 'nuff said. In a nutshell H/A has left me...I have not voluntarily left them.

Because of their "foresight" in their design and business model, H/A deserves every bit of criticism that they get. They also deserve any lack luster sales that they have created.

So...I am happily looking at ALL brands for a suitable replacement. Hopefully the ATS will be that car.

 

I just got my latest issue of MT.....
I really hope they haven't delayed the coupe or cancelled the wagon. Every time you see glimmers of life old GM rears it's ugly head. Brutal.

 

Give us a reason not to dislike the brand and the direction and you'll see people come around.

Five years ago, most on this board would have ever considered buying a Ford. Now there's nothing but positive comments in Auto News about the direction Ford is headed in ...

The reverse fanboyism is not without cause.

 

ATS starts at $33,990

 

Obviously, equipment levels at each trim level are going to be important.

But that said, I'm sort of disappointed that the 3.6 isn't getting a M/T option.

But this puts Buick's decision for gutting the Insignia OPC's 321hp and AWD when it brought it here as the Regal in serious doubt.

For about the same money you can get a FWD 6MT Regal GS or a RWD 6MT ATS with the same engine. They're both good looking cars but I'd go with the ATS for sure.

 

North of 42 large is pretty steep for an ATS IMHO.

 

I wonder what they will actually sell for? Why such a huge price gap between the 2.0 and the 3.6??? wtf is the V variant going to cost?

Charliemike. That link said the auto tranny is the standard equipment. But will they "decontet the car" to the manual if requested? That's kinda the way Caddy handles the CTS.

 

Note to Cadillac: capacitive screens don't work with gloves.

 

That's why you need a piece of Slim Jim to hold while using it ... Which is apparently what the Koreans do with their iPhones

 

It'll be over $50k closer to $55-60k I'm guessing. Anymore than that and you're pushing right into CTS-V territory which starts at $64k.

 

34K$ for the base 2.5L similar to one in base Malibu is ridiculous.

 

Hoping they offer the Recaro seating package on the V..

 

None of these prices surprise me It all comes down to standard equipment ...if GM can deliver, I think the ATS has some promise.

The main ATS competitor is the 3-series and having been a 3-series owner I can tell you that BMW nickel and dimes everything. Never look at a BMW MSRP, add a few grand at least for even basic luxury.

For example, the new 328i including destination bases at $35,795 .. but that doesn't include metallic paint. Your options are non-metallic jet black or alpine white at this price. Add $550 for any of its 9 metallic paints. Now at $36,345. This does not include leather (only leatherette), power seats, nor does it include even a universal garage door opener.

So a must-have would be the Premium package with the power seats, garage door opener, etc. But to get the Premium, you have to get leather. Total added cost: $3600 for a total of $39,400.

You're basically at 40-large with the 4-banger + some conveniences. This does not include any of the "lines" - Sport, Modern, or Luxury Lines - and obviously doesn't include Harman Kardon, navigation, or mention of the 335i.

"Build Your Own" 3 on bmwusa.com and you'll see the ATS pricing isn't bad...

 

^
There is no doubt that BMW prices have officially gotten out of control. Friggin 135s push the high 40's for a nicely equipped example. But that doesnt justify the base prices of the 3.6 ATS. I just hope that the content of the ATS is really comprehensive. For 42K, for the 3.6, I expect A LOT! Plus I want a manual.

 

Not sure if this was already posted, but I read this on another site. Some more info on the packages/standard equipment can be found here.

 

For what I'm suspecting they are asking for on the V, I'd much prefer a V8 over some twin turbo V6...

 

Plus I see no mention of a manual tranny option. wtf?!?!?!
This is supposed to compete with the 3 series. Doesn't the 3 series have a manual available?

 

There is one. At least for the 2.0T.

 

0-60 :

2.5L - 7.5s
2.0L - 5.7s
3.6L - 5.4s

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...he-competition

MotorAuthority : 2013 Cadillac ATS: 0-60 MPH In 5.4 Seconds


Cadillac’s 2013 ATS sedan is arguably the most-hyped car to come from GM’s luxury division in decades. From the very beginning, Cadillac made it clear that the ATS was built to go head to head with the BMW 3 Series, long considered the leader in the compact luxury sedan class.

We’ve driven the ATS, but we can’t tell you about our impressions just yet. We can, however, tell you how the ATS stacks up against specific models from Mercedes-Benz, Audi and BMW.

Base models of the Cadillac ATS come with a direct-injected, 202-horsepower in-line four that returns a GM-estimated 22 mpg city and 32 mpg highway. The run from 0-60 takes 7.5 seconds, which is slower than the Mercedes C250 Luxury (6.9 seconds) and the Audi A4 Premium (6.3 seconds.).

Both the Mercedes and the Audi post higher horsepower numbers than the base Cadillac ATS, which helps explain why they’re quicker. On the other hand, the Cadillac posts better fuel economy numbers than either competitor, thanks to a curb weight that’s over 100 pounds lighter than the the Mercedes and nearly 200 pounds lighter than the Audi.

The base ATS, however, isn’t targeted to driving enthusiasts. Those who see driving as a passion and not a chore will likely gravitate to the 2.0L Turbo Performance ATS, which comes packing a 272-horsepower turbocharged and direct-injected four with an available six speed manual transmission.

That’s enough grunt to get this version of the ATS from 0-60 mph in 5.7 seconds, which is 0.2 seconds quicker than a BMW 3281 2.0L Turbo. In this case, though, the fuel economy nod goes to the BMW, which delivers fuel economy of 23 mpg city and 33 mpg highway, one mpg better in each category than Cadillac projects the ATS will return.

Opt for the 3.6L Premium variant of the ATS, and you’ll get a 3.6-liter V-6 engine good for 321 horsepower, enough to propel the fastest ATS from 0-60 mph in just 5.4 seconds. That’s the same time put up by the BMW 335i, which comes with a 300-horsepower turbocharged in-line six engine.

The 3.6L Premium ATS delivers comparable fuel economy, too, returning an estimated 19 mpg in the city (one better than the BMW) and 28 mpg on the highway (the same as the BMW).

One category where Cadillac will soundly beat the competition is price. A base 2.5L ATS, sans options, will start at just $33,990, while an optioned-out 3.6-liter with all-wheel drive will still sticker below $56,000. We’re guessing that range will net the ATS, and Cadillac, a lot of new fans. <!-- rendering content took 72.726964950562ms -->

 

V8 V variant....

 

I wouldn't call those prices soundly beating the competition.

 

^^^^^

Exactly. A compact-sized V6 AWD ATS for ~$56K !? This ain't a BMW, and don't deserve a BMW level pricing.

But a V8 AWD ATS-V would be a good buy at $56K.

 

328s optioned, easily come in at 50K now.

 

The 3-series, TL, and CTS all belong to the same class.

So the smaller ATS is one class below all of them, and should be priced as such.

 

The ATS isn't really smaller than the 3 series.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1zLSIn9qt

So I'm not sure what you mean when you say "class". If you are talking about the size of the cars, the TL and CTS are gargantuan compared to a 3 series and the ATS.

 

^^^^^

You're right. I didn't realize that the current CTS has grown considerably in size from before a compact-sized sedan to now a mid-sized sedan.

 

Also...the TSX competes with the 3...not the TL.

 

So what does the TL compete with ? IF not 3, and definitely not 5 !?

Price-wise, the TL competes with the A4, 3-series, C-class, Lexus-IS, and Infiniti-G.

 

size wise the TL is larger than the those cars...and the TSX was always the model compared to them.

 

That's the problem (maybe benefit??) with not having a defined a line up...

 

And I assume you can option a mid level ATS for close to that as well.

 

Which is way too much $$. I would look at a much better car used than overpay (in my mind) for a 2.0T for $50k.

 

There was an earlier quote here where they say the ATS has less back seat leg room than an old 3-series, which I assumes makes it comparable to an IS (i.e. hardly usable nowadays). So it's smaller.

On the other hand, Cadillac aims to make this one a 3-series competitor and the CTS a 5-series competitor, so they should price them equivalently and not have to cut on quality to compensate.

 

We won't know until they hit the dealers. But if what they say is true, that an optioned out AWD 3.6 will be at 56K, anything is possible. Don't forget...the 335 pushes into the 60's now.

 

I didn't read that the ATS has less leg room than the old 3 series. From what I could see at the car show, the rear leg room isn't great, but it has MUCH more leg than an IS, which you are correct is completely useless.

The only thing smaller about the ATS is the wheelbase is 1.3 inches shorter than the new 3 series. That would explain the tighter rear leg room. Otherwise the ATS is basically the same size are as the new 3 series.

 

Base 2013 Cadillac ATS Gets EPA Rating of 22/33

The EPA has delivered the fuel economy results for the 2013 Cadillac ATS with the 2.5-liter, 4 cylinder: 22 city, 33 highway, 26 combined. The response so far range from 'That's not what we expected' to 'Well, what did you expect?' Cadillac describes the ATS as a "compact luxury sedan... built on a foundation of quick, nimble fun-to-drive dynamics and mass efficiency," so everyone is ready to grade on the sports-sedan curve, and while we think taken on their own they're fine if nothing special, some were expecting better frugality from the Ecotec motor.

The issue is that the EPA numbers for the 2.5-liter put the ATS in the thick of the playing field, in there with the 23 city/33 hwy of the BMW 328i, the 21 city/31 hwy of the Mercedes-Benz C250 Sport Sedan and the 22 city/30 hwy of the front-wheel drive Audi A4. But the Cadillac's 202-horsepower and 190 pound-feet mean it is down on power to the other cars in its class – 38 hp shy of the BMW, 39 lb-ft down on the Mercedes-Benz, for instance – at the same time, it is less expensive than the BMW and Mercedes.

Motor Trend reports that General Motors predicts 22 city/32 hwy for the more powerful 2.0-liter turbo that puts out 270 hp and 260 lb-ft, the same as it did for the 2.5-liter, and that's what could make for the biggest question mark. The 2.0-liter would give the ATS a leg up on others in its class – it's not for nothing that the ATS site uses this motor for comparison – and the $1,805 premium over an ATS with the 2.5-liter pegs it exactly to the 328i's $35,795 base price. If the stronger engine does return the same EPA numbers, then until we have a better idea of standard equipment, lots of folks will wonder whether $1,900 is enough monetary space to make a case for a markedly less powerful car that won't save you any money on gas.

 

... and in the end none of this matters to an owner because all these cars return pretty much the same mileage in real-world driving and they're purchased for the looks, not the fuel economy anyway.

 

Build your own with pricing on the Cadillac site :

http://www.cadillac.com/ats-luxury-sport-sedan.html

Sadly, I think I may have been priced out by a couple of grand. We'll see what they end up really going for.

 

^ yeah they're up there. I built an ATS and a 3er. The 3er was 60k and the ATS 53k with what I thought was comparable and features I would want. For 7k more I'd go with the 335i M sport.

 

I want this car... Prem 3.6L in Diamond Tri-Color White, Black interior, and RWD (ONLY). Prices out at a little over $49K, and Caddy is not leasing any of these.