[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by 宝马.e90

Which is good, but I expected a bit more. BMW and Mercedes are pushing around 10k+ per month? I don't see Cadillac doing that with the ATS, I just don't. It's not fanboy talk, eventually you'll reach a point where brand image will come into play and truth is Cadillac still needs a bit of work to consider itself on the same level as BMW and Mercedes.

It takes a long time to cause a serious shift in market share. The ATS is a brand new car in the entry-level luxury class. It could hypothetically "be better" than the 3er, C-Class and A4 and it still wouldn't be the top or near-top seller. Customers are loyal and brand cache has a lot to do with repeated solid performances. On that same note, Cadillac is clearly on an upswing, and if they continue to pump out consistently good products then the brand's reputation will increase, along with their share of the sales.

Originally Posted by 3point0

wow i thought you were kidding with the "new" tag especially speaking of the outside from the A-pillar back, super boring and almost mid 90's in design. A-pillar forward almost looks like an overworked facelift of the outgoing car. not my thing at all

I'll have whatever you're smoking.

[DASHOCKER]

a coupe version of the cts is in the works too!

[swanson]

I'm sure the coupe is gonna look even better. Really loving this CTS a lot.

[killershark]

Am I the only person who doesn't like the LED foglights that go vertical?
IMO, should go horizontal.

[swanson]

too many other manufactors do it horizontally.

[Arctic-Rodz]

Caddy has been moving up for several years now. Since the LS6 vette powered CTS-V was introduced.

This new CTS looks great! Those designers must be enjoying their jobs

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by secretsquirrel

Yep. They say the car is 200 pounds lighter than a 528. Caddy is turning into the old BMW.

All true except for manual transmissions. Can't anyone just make a rear-drive, normally aspirated, manual-transmissioned sports sedan anymore?

Apparently all the auto manufactures think people who like MTs want either turbo fours, economy cars, or mega-horsepower expensive coupes (or wagons in Cadillac's case).

How about a mid-$30K NA six with a six-speed manual that won't break before 200,000 miles. I'll take one of those please...

[Lifted07Duramax]

That CTS is too long its almost looking like a Phantom

I hope the new ATS looks good and comes with that TT V6 as the ATSV

Ill give up my 335 for that, but dont tell my 335 that shes been running good

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Apparently all the auto manufactures think people who like MTs want either turbo fours, economy cars, or mega-horsepower expensive coupes (or wagons in Cadillac's case).

Because this is more or less the truth, as unfortunate as that is. You're in a very small minority with your MT wants.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

Because this is more or less the truth, as unfortunate as that is. You're in a very small minority with your MT wants.

I disagree. Automatic transmissions have been the prominent trans of choice for the US market for 40 years and that never stopped BMW from offering manual transmissions in every model (most of them as the standard transmission i.e. not an option). The 7-series used to be available with a manual transmission. The first gen X3 was available with a manual transmission. The F30 standard transmission is an automatic; you have to spec the manual. At least Cadillac gives a $1K+ discount if you spec a manual trans.

The issue is crash testing. The USDOT requires every drivetrain variation of a particular model be crash tested, so that what limits the availability. The auto manufacturers should get the crash test regulations changed so they can offer more diverse products to their customers.

[Red Bread]

Actually, I suspect it has a lot more to do with fleet efficiency standards. Now that automatics and dual clutch setups get significantly better mpg ratings, there is much less incentive to offer less efficient manuals, especially in high volume models.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by secretsquirrel

Yep. They say the car is 200 pounds lighter than a 528. Caddy is turning into the old BMW.

And the gap gets bigger as you go up in model.

As mentioned the 2.0T CTS is 200 lb. lighter than the 528i.

The 3.6 V6 is 300 lb. lighter than the 535i.

The TT 3.6 V6 is 400 lb. lighter than the 550i.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I disagree. Manual transmissions have been the prominent trans of choice for the US market for 40 years and that never stopped BMW from offering manual transmissions in every model (most of them as the standard transmission i.e. not an option). The 7-series used to be available with a manual transmission. The first gen X3 was available with a manual transmission. The F30 standard transmission is an automatic; you have to spec the manual. At least Cadillac gives a $1K+ discount if you spec a manual trans.

The issue is crash testing. The USDOT requires every drivetrain variation of a particular model be crash tested, so that what limits the availability. The auto manufacturers should get the crash test regulations changed so they can offer more diverse products to their customers.

The issue isn't with crash testing. The problem has to do with a lack of sales. Your referencing of crash testing and regulations wouldn't be a problem for manufacturers selling mass-produced cars in large volume; that problem would affect much smaller brands or models that have an extremely low production unit run.

The "problem" is that automated transmissions have become vastly superior to their clutch operated alternatives in most critical areas. Fuel efficiency is superior thanks to the addition of more gears (allowing a compromise of tight packed ratios with a sixth, seventh or eighth gear for economy), faster shift speeds, smarter computers, and various other improvements, like torque converters being fully locked in 95% of driving situations.

The only reason manufacturers will offer a manual is if they believe it's beneficial from a sales perspective, either directly or indirectly; directly meaning a particular model is perhaps a [sports car, GT, muscle car, etc] and would attract a decent portion of manual-buying consumers, or indirectly meaning that the brand has an established image/tradition of offering manual transmissions (BMW and Porsche are prime examples), and keeping manuals on offer reinforces this image.

I'm all for manuals and more choice benefits us, the consumers. The fact of the matter is that we're an increasingly fractional minority in the buying world and sales is the end all be all. I'm sure that as much as some of these companies would love to offer manuals, they're in business for profit and sustainability, and the costs of additional R&D/engineering to fit two different types of transmissions in just doesn't make financial sense.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

The issue isn't with crash testing. The problem has to do with a lack of sales. Your referencing of crash testing and regulations wouldn't be a problem for manufacturers selling mass-produced cars in large volume; that problem would affect much smaller brands or models that have an extremely low production unit run.

The "problem" is that automated transmissions have become vastly superior to their clutch operated alternatives in most critical areas. Fuel efficiency is superior thanks to the addition of more gears (allowing a compromise of tight packed ratios with a sixth, seventh or eighth gear for economy), faster shift speeds, smarter computers, and various other improvements, like torque converters being fully locked in 95% of driving situations.

The only reason manufacturers will offer a manual is if they believe it's beneficial from a sales perspective, either directly or indirectly; directly meaning a particular model is perhaps a [sports car, GT, muscle car, etc] and would attract a decent portion of manual-buying consumers, or indirectly meaning that the brand has an established image/tradition of offering manual transmissions (BMW and Porsche are prime examples), and keeping manuals on offer reinforces this image.

I'm all for manuals and more choice benefits us, the consumers. The fact of the matter is that we're an increasingly fractional minority in the buying world and sales is the end all be all. I'm sure that as much as some of these companies would love to offer manuals, they're in business for profit and sustainability, and the costs of additional R&D/engineering to fit two different types of transmissions in just doesn't make financial sense.

Well we are both correct actually. I agree that the newest autos with either dual clutch technology (which is just an automated shifting manual transmission), or advanced torque converter operation (locking torque converters have been around for 30 years or more) provide as good, or better fuel mileage (by just a few MPG though) than manuals. But automatics, regardless of how good they are, just do not offer the control that old dogs like me prefer. The main reason automatics are so popular is because people are lazy and really don't care about driving and would rather have their hands free to be distracted while driving.

The crash testing is expensive and as you've stated would not effect a model that has a large sales volume; but that is the point, the business case of offering a manual transmissioned model of a vehicle that has 95% of its sales as an automatic doesn't support spending the money to crash test the manual transmission version. If the USDOT would allow computer model simulation of crash testing the chassis regardless of drivetrain configuration it would drastically reduce the cost to the manufacturer to offer a more diverse model range. There is no engineering risk to crash test the chassis to collect real crash test data and then use that data in validation of computer simulation crash testing for the other drivetrain variations of the same chassis.

I'll give you an example; the new Cadillac ATS. It has 3 engines and two transmissions in its drivetrain component list. The 2.5L offered only with an automatic, the 2.0L Turbo offered both in manual and automatic, and the 3.6L V-6 offered only in automatic. Considering the 2nd gen CTS originally offered the same 3.6L V-6 with a manual transmission (now since dropped - sales) there is really no R&D dollars required to offer that combination in the new ATS. The clutch pedal system is already designed for the 2.0L Turbo, the engine/transmission design exists already from the CTS, so outside the transmission mounts and perhaps a different drive shaft and tuned gear ratios, there is not much additional cost to design the ATS 3.6 with a manual transmission. Cadillac will sell tens of thousands of 2.5L ATS for fleet sales (rental cars), which justify crash testing that configuration.

However add in the high cost to crash test the configuration and the business case is not there for the several hundred or few thousand buyers like me who want the 3.6/manual trans configuration to offer that version of the ATS. Let GM use computer simulation crash test data for the ATS chassis, regardless of its drivetrain layout, and GM could offer the ATS with a 3.6/manual combination. You could try make an argument around carrying the logistics costs for a rare drivetrain layout, and there is some cost there, but not that much - just a few part numbers in the database and some warehouse stock space.

Peace. Good discussion my friend.

[hks786]

[Who?]

wish they sold these here, down under

its the very definition of US luxury car.
design wise, I would buy this over the germans and japanese

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by newbmwuser

wish they sold these here, down under

its the very definition of US luxury car.
design wise, I would buy this over the germans and japanese

Interesting, I didn't realize you guys didn't get Cadillacs. Do you get the Corvette? We recycle plenty of your Holdens, it seem fair you guys would get at least the ATS and CTS.

[Who?]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Interesting, I didn't realize you guys didn't get Cadillacs. Do you get the Corvette? We recycle plenty of your Holdens, it seem fair you guys would get at least the ATS and CTS.

nah, we dont get corvettes either, nor do we get any chevrolets apart from the odd vault

guess the market here is just too small.. dont really mind not having Chevys here, as their market overlaps with holden, but we could really use a new luxury maker here to spice things up..

[See5]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

It takes a long time to cause a serious shift in market share. The ATS is a brand new car in the entry-level luxury class. It could hypothetically "be better" than the 3er, C-Class and A4 and it still wouldn't be the top or near-top seller. Customers are loyal and brand cache has a lot to do with repeated solid performances. On that same note, Cadillac is clearly on an upswing, and if they continue to pump out consistently good products then the brand's reputation will increase, along with their share of the sales.


I'll have whatever you're smoking.

Getting there already...these are March numbers.

3series 8,858 -10.5%
Cclass 8,396 +32.4%
Gsedan 4,530 -3.5%
A4 3,951 +20%
ATS 3,587
TL 3,080 +9.3%
CTS 2,791 -37.8%
MKZ 2,360 -19.5%
IS 2,255 -13.9%

The new IS, Q50, A4, and ATS will be battling pretty hard for those midpack numbers.

[texvette]

Starting to think about cars again since my 335 goes out of warranty
next years. Swore would not get another GM because of the bailout
mess. (Never say Never) but only reason there is a dealer in town
and Bmw is an hour away.

So went and Test drove a ATS and a CTS wagon. I was not impressed
with either car. The ATS felt exactly like the 2010 Rx350 traded on the
335. I did not like the torque steer or the rear blind spots. ATS was
almost a copy of the RX. Quality wise felt Cadillac was still below Lexus.

On the CTS sport Wagon, was rear drive a plus. Just did not say
Cadillac. Have found out not going to be a 2014 CTS Wagon so
Caddy is out of the running. Remember the Big Caddy of years pass,
the luxury car to have, not now. Motor had a very high pitch V6 sound.

Its down to X3 X5 or a Range Rover

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by txagBMW

Starting to think about cars again since my 335 goes out of warranty
next years. Swore would not get another GM because of the bailout
mess. (Never say Never) but only reason there is a dealer in town
and Bmw is an hour away.

So went and Test drove a ATS and a CTS wagon. I was not impressed
with either car. The ATS felt exactly like the 2010 Rx350 traded on the
335. I did not like the torque steer or the rear blind spots. ATS was
almost a copy of the RX. Quality wise felt Cadillac was still below Lexus.

On the CTS sport Wagon, was rear drive a plus. Just did not say
Cadillac. Have found out not going to be a 2014 CTS Wagon so
Caddy is out of the running. Remember the Big Caddy of years pass,
the luxury car to have, not now. Motor had a very high pitch V6 sound.

Its down to X3 X5 or a Range Rover

Is it possible that when you say ATS you really mean SRX? The ATS is a rwd sedan and would not have torque steer. It does come with available awd, but it really shouldn't have noticeable torque steer in that setup either.

[texvette]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Is it possible that when you say ATS you really mean SRX? The ATS is a rwd sedan and would not have torque steer. It does come with available awd, but it really shouldn't have noticeable torque steer in that setup either.

The suv version. This vehicle did not have awd. The sales rep did say
that torque was noticeable but would be lessened with awd, Getting
back in my 3 felt there was no comparing it to cadillac