[Jbrock22]

Awful

[Vocans]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If you didn't test drive an ATS-V how can you evaluate the build quality, gauges, button feedback, and CUE? Assuming one has to go to a dealership to test drive a car, how do you know the dealership as good or bad? As far as build quality goes, BMW doesn't rank any better than Cadillac and depreciation is about the same as well.

The BMW dealership in Virginia I used to have my 23,000 mile (at the time in January 2015) aligned said they couldn't align the rear because there was something wrong with the components, but they couldn't be specific. The SA thought I had bought the CarMax extended warranty and as trying to milk it. Keep in mind this was the same dealership and SA that I had taken my '06 E90 with 263,000 miles (with all original suspension components except thrust arms and dampers at each corner- replaced at 185,000 miles) in October 2014 and they aligned it right up and made no mention of the age or wear of the suspension. The Cadillac dealership I've taken my Hummer to for insurance work (rodent damage) and one recall notice has a fantastic service department. That same dealership I had a terrible experience with the sales staff however. Point is dealerships are dealerships. To go and make a blanket statement about how bad Cadillac dealerships are as a reason you wouldn't buy an ATS-V is just Roundel fanboyism.

That's fantastic that you have great Cadillac dealerships where you live, because we don't have them here. The BMW dealerships are considerably better. I disagree wholeheartedly about your comment regarding depreciation, at least with M cars as compared to V's. ATS-V's were first released as 2016's and you can already find used examples with under 5k miles for $15k and higher off of msrp. With regards to saying that I'm a Roundel fanboy, my M3 is the first BMW I've owned and there isn't much else outside of maybe an M2 that I would drive from BMW. My next car will likely be a Porsche. I'm certainly not a BMW fanboy.

I don't need to test drive an ATS-V to evaluate touch sensitive buttons, the gauges, or CUE. There are several pictures and videos of each available on the internet. With regards to the buttons in particular, I don't want touch sensitive buttons in any form on a car. I wouldn't care if they were the best touch sensitive buttons in the world, analog buttons are always better.

If Cadillac wants to compete with the M3/M4, they need to beat it on price.

[RickFLM4]

You can also evaluate things like the interior quality, CUE and fit and finish at auto shows and through cars owned by people you know. I have a good friend with a CTS V-Sport, for example. While you can't form an opinion of drive quality without driving a car, you can certainly form valid opinions of other aspects of the car based on experience without visiting a dealership.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Vocans

That's fantastic that you have great Cadillac dealerships where you live, because we don't have them here. The BMW dealerships are considerably better. I disagree wholeheartedly about your comment regarding depreciation, at least with M cars as compared to V's. ATS-V's were first released as 2016's and you can already find used examples with under 5k miles for $15k and higher off of msrp. With regards to saying that I'm a Roundel fanboy, my M3 is the first BMW I've owned and there isn't much else outside of maybe an M2 that I would drive from BMW. My next car will likely be a Porsche. I'm certainly not a BMW fanboy.

I don't need to test drive an ATS-V to evaluate touch sensitive buttons, the gauges, or CUE. There are several pictures and videos of each available on the internet. With regards to the buttons in particular, I don't want touch sensitive buttons in any form on a car. I wouldn't care if they were the best touch sensitive buttons in the world, analog buttons are always better.

If Cadillac wants to compete with the M3/M4, they need to beat it on price.

Checking Truecar for actual sales price and they say you can get the ATS V for about $5800 off of MSRP and the M3 for about $1,500 off MSRP. I don't know if this is really true but it would be worth it to me to check. Then the V comes standard with more equipment so it looks to me that the ATS V is beating the M's significantly on price.

As I only care about what I can buy something for not what the asking price is, then depreciation should be calculated off what people are paying, if I was in the market I would still take the hour to look at both.

I still don't understand when making a $55k-$70k purchase the people that have such a love for a car that they can declare a winner without even looking at other alternatives, and reading a magazine article isn't the same as driving a car.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by David70

Checking Truecar for actual sales price and they say you can get the ATS V for about $5800 off of MSRP and the M3 for about $1,500 off MSRP. I don't know if this is really true but it would be worth it to me to check. Then the V comes standard with more equipment so it looks to me that the ATS V is beating the M's significantly on price.

I asked back in post 82 but I didn't get response...

What standard equipment comes with the ATS-V but not the M?

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by David70

I still don't understand when making a $55k-$70k purchase the people that have such a love for a car that they can declare a winner without even looking at other alternatives, and reading a magazine article isn't the same as driving a car.

I think part of the answer is other competition. People don't necessarily test drive every possible car in their price range. It takes a lot of time to go to dealerships and take cars on test drives. ATS is competing in a crowded space. Aside from the 3-series, there is MB C series, Audi A/S-4, Lexus IS and now Jag XE (along with a couple of others). No one is going to spend the time to test drive all of them. They filter out the cars they are least likely to buy or lease and test the handful of finalists using whatever information they have. Caddy still has interior / exterior design and brand perception work to do in order to get a visit from customers currently filtering them out. (When I got my M, the ATS V didn't exist and the new C63 wasn't released yet, but the Audi RS was still in production.)

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Yep, more of the BMW gets out handled by the GM product, so the interior sucks and I won't buy it.

Exactly. This may come as news, but where I'll spend 99.99999% of my time with the car does play a big factor in what I decide to buy.

I almost test drove an ATS, but after sitting in the interior I immediately took it off the list. Don't care how it drove if I'll have the urge to constantly wipe fingerprints off the center stack. That and I don't care for the rear.

Will likely not be driving a Caddie in the near future. You like it? Congrats, you're in the minority.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

#1 commercials are supposed to appeal to the target group they are selling to so you can imagine yourself in the car in this example. Their target group seems to be the LGBT minority crowd as I don't see any traditional white guy or girl examples. I think someone there thinks this will make caddie look hip but it's really not doing anything for them. See the other poster comments on the Jason Wu commercial as an example. Do I want my personal image associated with him? No. Personally I prefer the old stereotypes of mafia and pimp car over this crap.
#2 Styling. Styling should be unique, identify the brand, and pleasing to the vast majority of the population. Caddie and a few other brands have styling that misses on the third point. It's so overdone it's polarizing and like hillary or trump, you love it or hate it. This looses a lot of potential buyers who just can't get past the looks.
#3 BMW and most makers have upsized each generation for decades. Caddie, known for being the big American luxury car, has downsized and it's flagship car is now about the size of a 5 series. Even caddie has recognized this and says this is a filler until they bring out their real full size sedan S class 7 series competitor.

To point number 1, buy an Escalade if you want to look like a mafia or a pimp...dunno why you'd want that but ok.

Number 2, they're supposed to be polarizing. All luxury cars tend to be polarizing since polarizing turns heads. How often do people look at Camry's and have discussions on the styling?

Number 3, they were going to build an S-Class competitor but scrapped those plans to build more crossovers since those are all the rage these days.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If you didn't test drive an ATS-V how can you evaluate the build quality, gauges, button feedback, and CUE? Assuming one has to go to a dealership to test drive a car, how do you know the dealership as good or bad? As far as build quality goes, BMW doesn't rank any better than Cadillac and depreciation is about the same as well.

The BMW dealership in Virginia I used to have my 23,000 mile (at the time in January 2015) aligned said they couldn't align the rear because there was something wrong with the components, but they couldn't be specific. The SA thought I had bought the CarMax extended warranty and as trying to milk it. Keep in mind this was the same dealership and SA that I had taken my '06 E90 with 263,000 miles (with all original suspension components except thrust arms and dampers at each corner- replaced at 185,000 miles) in October 2014 and they aligned it right up and made no mention of the age or wear of the suspension. The Cadillac dealership I've taken my Hummer to for insurance work (rodent damage) and one recall notice has a fantastic service department. That same dealership I had a terrible experience with the sales staff however. Point is dealerships are dealerships. To go and make a blanket statement about how bad Cadillac dealerships are as a reason you wouldn't buy an ATS-V is just Roundel fanboyism.

Did you use Roger Moore Cadillac? That's the exception, that's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) Caddie dealer in the US and SOLELY focuses on Cadillac, they also did Hummer before they went away but point being, their staff has always been trained to provide an experience someone buying a luxury car would want. Most dealers are combined with Chevrolet, Buick, etc. So the person who wants to drop $90k on a loaded CTS-V and the person who wants to buy the $15k Chevy compact shop in the same roof and are very, very different demographics.

I think BMW of Sterling used to sell Mini's in pretty much the same lot but I think they have since separated.

EDIT: Lol just noticed I used Roger Moore Cadillac instead of just Moore Cadillac. Would be cool if old 007 owned a Caddie dealer though.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

To point number 1, buy an Escalade if you want to look like a mafia or a pimp...dunno why you'd want that but ok.

Number 2, they're supposed to be polarizing. All luxury cars tend to be polarizing since polarizing turns heads. How often do people look at Camry's and have discussions on the styling?

Number 3, they were going to build an S-Class competitor but scrapped those plans to build more crossovers since those are all the rage these days.

Don't want it but I agree.

Not polarizing. Iconic. Mercedes, bmw, etc are iconic but still attention grabbing. Polarizing means about half the people don't like the look. I don't know many people who don't like the look of mercedes, bmw, jag, aston, etc.

I don't see the other luxury brands dropping their full size sedan for small crossovers. Could you imagine no s-class, 7 series, A8? They need it as their flagship even if it doesn't make money just for promoting the brand and for people to say wow when they see one so they get more presence and brand recognition.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I don't see the other luxury brands dropping their full size sedan for small crossovers. Could you imagine no s-class, 7 series, A8? They need it as their flagship even if it doesn't make money just for promoting the brand and for people to say wow when they see one so they get more presence and brand recognition.

I didn't say others were doing the same thing, Caddie just decided that they just focus their R&D on profitable vehicles, which happens to be SUV's.

I guess they figure the opportunity cost to build a flagship wasn't worth it?

[Vocans]

Originally Posted by David70

Checking Truecar for actual sales price and they say you can get the ATS V for about $5800 off of MSRP and the M3 for about $1,500 off MSRP. I don't know if this is really true but it would be worth it to me to check. Then the V comes standard with more equipment so it looks to me that the ATS V is beating the M's significantly on price.

As I only care about what I can buy something for not what the asking price is, then depreciation should be calculated off what people are paying, if I was in the market I would still take the hour to look at both.

I still don't understand when making a $55k-$70k purchase the people that have such a love for a car that they can declare a winner without even looking at other alternatives, and reading a magazine article isn't the same as driving a car.

In my case, I got my M3 for more than $4,000 off of MSRP so I'm not sure it's really all that relevant what Truecar says the average M3 discount is, though admittedly I didn't haggle down an ATS-V to find out if I could beat $5,800 off, either.

With regards to why I didn't test drive the ATS-V, it's because to me, the M3 doesn't have any glaring faults. Sure, there are things that I would change if I were designing the car or minor things that I wish were slightly improved, but I can't find any serious negatives with the car and I fell in love with the M3 on the test drive. If I wasn't in love with the M3 on the test drive, I would have taken the time to test drive at least the ATS-V. And on top of the previous criticisms I listed, I don't find the ATS-V to be a particularly good looking car, though I might get used to the styling.

Despite loving the interior and sound of the AMG, I ruled it out almost immediately and didn't bother to test drive it because MB doesn't offer a stick. The lack of a stick on a performance car is an absolute deal killer for me, which leaves the ATS-V as the only real competitor to the M3.

The M3 and the ATS-V have traded wins in most comparison tests but it seems like the M3 has won more than the ATS-V. If I had to guess, the new competition package on the M3 will make the BMW a clearer winner in any future tests, but that's just speculation. But, even assuming the ATS-V is a slightly better driving experience (which would probably be nearly imperceptible outside of a track in any event), I'd take the slightly worse car without glaring faults over the Cadillac at roughly the same price.

By all accounts Cadillac made a car that can keep up with the M3, a seriously impressive feat given where they came from. But outside of performance, the rest of the car just isn't there yet.

[DieGrüneHölle]

I'm a big fan of the new CTS-V, I would no question buy one over the M5 and E63. The ATS-V is a different story, not interested.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Blipit_

I'm a big fan of the new CTS-V, I would no question buy one over the M5 and E63. The ATS-V is a different story, not interested.

+1.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Blipit_

I'm a big fan of the new CTS-V, I would no question buy one over the M5 and E63. The ATS-V is a different story, not interested.

+1.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Blipit_

I'm a big fan of the new CTS-V, I would no question buy one over the M5 and E63. The ATS-V is a different story, not interested.

I just checked out the specs for the CTS-V. Amazing. 640 HP and 0-60 in 3.6 seconds. What the hell is going with all this one-upmanship. The CTS-V, a heavy sedan, has number comparable to super cars of just 10 years ago. I took a second and extrapolated this performance trend. By 2025 sports sedans will have 3450 hp, 4000 pound feet of torque, and they will go 0-60 in minus 4.2 seconds. If you drive one, you will actually get to your destination before you leave your house.

[Mywifes335]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

I just checked out the specs for the CTS-V. Amazing. 640 HP and 0-60 in 3.6 seconds. What the hell is going with all this one-upmanship. The CTS-V, a heavy sedan, has number comparable to super cars of just 10 years ago. I took a second and extrapolated this performance trend. By 2025 sports sedans will have 3450 hp, 4000 pound feet of torque, and they will go 0-60 in minus 4.2 seconds. If you drive one, you will actually get to your destination before you leave your house.

Wow. This is SIGNIFICANTLY quicker than the prior gen CTS-V.

[Fundguy1]

I want to tune it so I go 0-60 before I get in.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Exactly. This may come as news, but where I'll spend 99.99999% of my time with the car does play a big factor in what I decide to buy.

I almost test drove an ATS, but after sitting in the interior I immediately took it off the list. Don't care how it drove if I'll have the urge to constantly wipe fingerprints off the center stack. That and I don't care for the rear.

Will likely not be driving a Caddie in the near future. You like it? Congrats, you're in the minority.

The minority with the better driving car. If one believes the "ultimate driving machine" motto then one would want the best driving car. If you can't deal with fingerprints (my plastic-capped light poplar E90 trim has the same issue) and that's the sole reason to take it off some list, then you are definitely hard to please.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Did you use Roger Moore Cadillac? That's the exception, that's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) Caddie dealer in the US and SOLELY focuses on Cadillac, they also did Hummer before they went away but point being, their staff has always been trained to provide an experience someone buying a luxury car would want. Most dealers are combined with Chevrolet, Buick, etc. So the person who wants to drop $90k on a loaded CTS-V and the person who wants to buy the $15k Chevy compact shop in the same roof and are very, very different demographics.

I think BMW of Sterling used to sell Mini's in pretty much the same lot but I think they have since separated.

EDIT: Lol just noticed I used Roger Moore Cadillac instead of just Moore Cadillac. Would be cool if old 007 owned a Caddie dealer though.

It was Roger's dealership . I also stopped in on the Caddy dealer in Arlington and the one in Bethesda (all independent Caddy dealers). It was August 2014. I was toying with getting an ATS at the time, but couldn't find the right one for what I wanted to pay. Dropping $40K on a automobile that I'll drive 35,000 miles a year was getting hard to swallow, when my E90 was seemingly still plugging along for just gas and maintenance costs.

Sterling now sells Mini's along with Rolls in the old BMW site across the street. So the argument about buying a $90K CTS-V next to a $20K Cruze apparently isn't seen as an impediment in the industry, considering the cheapest Rolls is north of $200-large and Mini's retail in the mid-to late $20s and low $30s. Perplexing to say the least. And apparently Chevrolet has no problem selling $80K Vette's next to $25K Malibu's...

I really don't buy the argument. Ford never had a problem selling the build lot of GT(40s) along side the Focus. Roundel snobbery is more the culprit here...

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

I just checked out the specs for the CTS-V. Amazing. 640 HP and 0-60 in 3.6 seconds. What the hell is going with all this one-upmanship. The CTS-V, a heavy sedan, has number comparable to super cars of just 10 years ago. I took a second and extrapolated this performance trend. By 2025 sports sedans will have 3450 hp, 4000 pound feet of torque, and they will go 0-60 in minus 4.2 seconds. If you drive one, you will actually get to your destination before you leave your house.

By 2025 we may no longer be allowed to drive new cars and they could be back to 0-60 in 8 (autonomous) seconds.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Vocans

In my case, I got my M3 for more than $4,000 off of MSRP so I'm not sure it's really all that relevant what Truecar says the average M3 discount is, though admittedly I didn't haggle down an ATS-V to find out if I could beat $5,800 off, either.

With regards to why I didn't test drive the ATS-V, it's because to me, the M3 doesn't have any glaring faults. Sure, there are things that I would change if I were designing the car or minor things that I wish were slightly improved, but I can't find any serious negatives with the car and I fell in love with the M3 on the test drive. If I wasn't in love with the M3 on the test drive, I would have taken the time to test drive at least the ATS-V. And on top of the previous criticisms I listed, I don't find the ATS-V to be a particularly good looking car, though I might get used to the styling.

Despite loving the interior and sound of the AMG, I ruled it out almost immediately and didn't bother to test drive it because MB doesn't offer a stick. The lack of a stick on a performance car is an absolute deal killer for me, which leaves the ATS-V as the only real competitor to the M3.

The M3 and the ATS-V have traded wins in most comparison tests but it seems like the M3 has won more than the ATS-V. If I had to guess, the new competition package on the M3 will make the BMW a clearer winner in any future tests, but that's just speculation. But, even assuming the ATS-V is a slightly better driving experience (which would probably be nearly imperceptible outside of a track in any event), I'd take the slightly worse car without glaring faults over the Cadillac at roughly the same price.

By all accounts Cadillac made a car that can keep up with the M3, a seriously impressive feat given where they came from. But outside of performance, the rest of the car just isn't there yet.

I'm impressed with the amount off you got. If this is true throughout the price range and with the M3, then reality is there isn't as much price difference between the M2 (supposedly selling above MSRP) to the M3 as it looks on paper.