2013 Cadillac ATS 2.5L Review (Car & Driver)

[Dr. Show-Me]

If the base Model doesn't have CUE, that's the one I would get.

I don't think it does, but I haven't seen any ATS without CUE.

[b4z]

An 8 speed would help this combo out a bunch and if you gave the the 2.5l the same 90 hp per liter as the 3.0L v6 it would have 225hp.so there is room in the 2.5l for more hp,but it might make it even more coarse and you wouldn't want to take it up to where the power is anyway.

[b4z]

Base ats does come without cue, it's a much simpler look kind of like cts's

[Dr. Show-Me]

I think a better combo with be the 2.5 with eAssist, picking up some 15 horsepower with better fuel economy in city and highway driving. I think the eAssist weighs about 65 pounds, so that weight gain would be worth it.

[germeezy1]

Probably because BMW, according to longstanding rumors, consistently under-rates the power of its engines.

I have an E36 325i, and I can emphatically assure you that its engine only makes 189 hp, and 181 lb ft although it does have a notable weight advantage in relation to the ATS.

This is just awful. I do most of my driving at 6000 rpm or more. Worked really well in today's ice storm.

I always drive around at my engines power peak as well because I find it quite conducive to exemplary fuel economy.

Of the 13,600 odd ATS in national dealer inventory, only about 2,500 are 2.5 liter examples.

So when buyers go to a dealership, they are mostly greeted by $45,000 to $50,000 versions.
GM and Caddy dealers aren't stupid, they know that most buyers are after turbo and V6 versions

An exploitation for lowish ATS sales numbers could be that most sales are actually high series profitable versions..


IMO, Cadillac needs to move to +$40,000 sales and open up space for better Buicks below
and in turn move Buick up in price and appointments to make room for better Chevrolets below it.

The 2.5 ATS is a joke, that's what you do for a Buick, not a Cadillac and for minimal additional effort,
a 3.0 V6 with 50 hp more for similar money would strengthens the ATS' market position and identity.

You do realize that almost every entrant in this class either now or in the recent past offered a base engine not utterly divergent in output from the LCV engine in the ATS right?

An 8 speed would help this combo out a bunch and if you gave the the 2.5l the same 90 hp per liter as the 3.0L v6 it would have 225hp.so there is room in the 2.5l for more hp,but it might make it even more coarse and you wouldn't want to take it up to where the power is anyway.

Also the valve events neccessary to really push for specific output will most likely damage even further the already lambasted NVH signature of this engine , at high engine revolutions.

[megeebee]

For the kind of driving I do, in town mostly a 2.5 would be fine for me. I'd use the extra money not spent on an engine for more luxury goodies.

[jpd80]

You do realize that almost every entrant in this class either now or in the recent past offered a base engine not utterly divergent in output from the LCV engine in the ATS right?

While I agree that a 2.5 I-4 in the ATS plays to the bottom end of market,
I thought that was something Cadillac is trying to distance itself from....

GM has a wonderful 3.0 V6 there that would work a treat in a light vehicle like the ATS
and allow Cadillac to offer something in a base model few other manufacturers could match
something that would set the base ATS apart from the competition and more DESIRABLE to own

[Tone]

Short of engine NVH, this seems what a base Cadillac should be -- a car superior than cheaper marques, but without all the toys/features. You pay more (loaded Malibu money) to get a comparatively more spartan car, but the basic goodness of what you are buying - the chassis, the material quality, etc -- is better.

For people who really don't care about one of the best sports sedan chassis around right now, GM is happy to show you a Malibu Turbo loaded to the gunwhales with features. Frankly both are valid choices -- for different buyers. Me, I'd rather have the superior drive with less power and less features. But, I'm probably in the minority. Most people would rather have the loaded Malibu - or be successful enough to buy a $50K ATS also loaded with every feature available. My point is - kudos to GM for making all of this available. Now, teach the 2.5 to sing and get back to work on the Malibu refresh!

[GM-Joe]

For drivers who are not left-laners, the 2.5 is sufficient enough.

[roy219]

Why do they bemoan the availibility of this base engine on a car that has two higher powered variants available for those that desire more power?

They don't. It isn't the mere availability of the 2.5L engine on the ATS, or even the power output from that unit, that merits criticism in the article. Mr. Kolwell accurately reports that the unrefined manner in which power is delivered is the primary demerit with the 2.5L engine, something that is true (to a lesser extent) with the ATS' other two engine options as well.

Simply stated, the ATS' chassis is a paragon in the compact executive car segment; the engines on the other hand are decent but not class leading.

[63GrandSport001]

My only beef with the ATS is that Cadillac doesn't offer a manual transmission in both the 2.5L and 3.6L engines.

They are being silly, they are acting as if the only player in this class is the BMW 328i.

IS250: 204/185
G25 sedan: 218/187
C250 sedan: 201/229
ATS 2.5: 202/190

So you see the 2.5 ATS is in line with the other cars in its class in base form, also BMW is suppose to get an engine under the 328i. In base trim (no options) the ATS 2.5L is 3,315 pounds which gives it a good power to weight ratio compared to other base cars in its class. ATS 2.5 is 16.4 pounds per horsepower, the IS250 is 16.8 pounds per horsepower, and the G25 is 16.3 pounds per horsepower. As you can see it has the power to weight ratio, I just think that an optional manual transmission would do wonders for the 2.5L I-4 engine.

[roy219]

I don't think it does, but I haven't seen any ATS without CUE.

Base ats does come without cue, it's a much simpler look kind of like cts's

My brother ordered a ATS 2.0T 6MT Standard without CUE, and we both had an opportunity to test drive one last month. Here's a photo of the non CUE audio system control layout:

[Dr. Show-Me]

My only beef with the ATS is that Cadillac doesn't offer a manual transmission in both the 2.5L and 3.6L engines. They are being silly, they are acting as if the only player in this class is the BMW 328i.
IS250: 204/185
G25 sedan: 218/187
C250 sedan: 201/229
ATS 2.5: 202/190
So you see the 2.5 ATS is in line with the other cars in its class in base form, also BMW is suppose to get an engine under the 328i. In base trim (no options) the ATS 2.5L is 3,315 pounds which gives it a good power to weight ratio compared to other base cars in its class. ATS 2.5 is 16.4 pounds per horsepower, the IS250 is 16.8 pounds per horsepower, and the G25 is 16.3 pounds per horsepower. As you can see it has the power to weight ratio, I just think that an optional manual transmission would do wonders for the 2.5L I-4 engine.

You're right, it would. Similarly FOR ME, adding the awd unit would add 150 lbs or so, but would allow winter driving without worry. I would seriously consider such a package, especially if I could order advanced safety features on the base model.

[regfootball]

I would probably get the 2.5. I'm not a fan of turbos and the 3.6L is too much engine.

you are exactly why the 2.5 is available. a 2.5 sans CUE would be attractive to me also....

i've driven a 2.5 malibu....it's a nice powertrain. better than they are giving it credit for. 7.4 0-60 is pretty good.

[ral1960]

Fair review. GM needs to step it up a little on its smaller engine NVH. Can you imagine this review if it came with a manual trans and the 2.5 sang smoothly and beautifully to its redline?

Then they would gripe about the rear legroom and small trunk, which oddly never bothered them in the 3 series. Their first drive review says "The big four-cylinder is fairly loud at high revs"--it only recently became a leaf blower. They might be noticing because it's fairly quiet at normal revs.

People who buy the 2.5 will rev it near the redline once in a blue moon. It irritates me when magazines rate a car by an inappropriate standard. Cadillac engines have often been pretty loud at full throttle--I think it's intentional.

C&D got 6.3 sec 0-60 for the 2.0T (1.1 less than 7.4)? Didn't other people get under 6, or was that the manual?