2013 Cadillac ATS 2.5L Review (Car & Driver)

[63GrandSport001]

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?

I do believe that some got right at 6 seconds (maybe a hair under), though its important to note that these were early cars (not broken in). In later test I expect the 2.0T to break into the 5 second range easily.

[hvac1000]

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

What he said too much engine. I never heard that before. Come on your teasing me how can you possibly have too much engine? Explain please.

[ral1960]

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

Except that it costs as much to manufacture and weighs about the same as the 3.6 and doesn't get better mpg. Other than that, it would be great in this car. There's a reason it's being phased out and replaced by the 2.0T.

especially if I could order advanced safety features on the base model.

Afraid you get half a loaf. The 2.5 Luxury has this as an option:
Driver Awareness Package, includes Safety Alert Seat, (UEU) Forward Collision Alert, (UFL) Lane Departure Warning, (CE1) Rainsense wipers, and (AYF) rear thorax air bags

The 2.0 and 3.6 offer this on Performance and Premium:
Driver Assist Package, includes all (Y65) Driver Awareness Package content plus (KSG) adaptive cruise control, (UGN) automatic collision preparation, (J77) electronic parking brake, (UVZ) Front and Rear Automatic Braking, (UFT) Side Blind Zone Alert, Rear Cross Traffic Alert, and (UV6) full-color Head-Up Display
http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/dom...=3&addOptions=
I imagine the safety bits will work their way down in the future.

[63GrandSport001]

The 3.0 V-6 would do well in a car as light as the ATS, fuel economy gap would grow bigger as torque would be less of an issue.

However as things stands the 3.0 has a bad rep. now so its going away.

[69project]

Who adjusts volume when reversing a car?

Apparently no one who drives this car....

[ral1960]

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.

If they had put a couple inches more tail on the car, there would be room for batteries and still have a usable trunk, but not as it is. Maybe they'll do it for Chevy or Buick derivatives or the ATS wagon/CUV. I sure hope Alpha was designed to support eAssist, but it might not be.

They've spent a lot of money developing hybrid drivetrains that don't sell or spread to many models. Eassist seems like the best of them, yet it's only on one engine still.

I think they've discovered enough wiggle room and fudge factors in the new CAFE calculations that hybrids just aren't a priority--if they can sell more Voltec cars.

[andretti]

Why can't GM build a smoother non coarse feeling/sounding 4 banger?

It is a good question. If they ever do, they should put it in the Malibu!

[ral1960]

The 3.0 V-6 would do well in a car as light as the ATS, fuel economy gap would grow bigger as torque would be less of an issue.

However as things stands the 3.0 has a bad rep. now so its going away.

costs as much to manufacture as 3.6
less low end torque than the 2.0T
Is it significantly smoother than the 2.5 in normal driving--not maniacal journalist driving?
Haven't driven either, but I doubt it.

Best use for the 3.0: half a 6.0 V12

I'm beginning to think the reverse/volume issue could be the Safety Nanny at work. GM didn't fire all their liability lawyers during Bankruptcy.
I wonder if they tried the steering wheel buttons or voice control while reversing or just the center stack buttons.

Has anyone heard why the Performance models have a fixed rear seat? Luxury and Premium have split folding. I don't get it.

[Z284ever]

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?

Seems to me that they liked the ATS........A-LOT! So they thought that the base engine wasn't up to being a match for the remarkable chassis. So what?
By the way - smooth, lusty, eager engines make you want to kiss the rev limiter every day. It's one of those things that make people fall in love with their cars.

[VS Ute 5Litre]

It's on the steering wheel, right there in the interior photo. Next to the phone button.
Also only a moron changes volumn in reverse while moving.

Why wouldnt they be able to though?

It's stupid just leave a normal knob there steering whel controls are never in the same place as your hands

[Mr. Burns]

What he said too much engine. I never heard that before. Come on your teasing me how can you possibly have too much engine? Explain please.

Well in the real world there are very few instances where you can take advantage of such an engine's power, whereas the fuel economy tradeoffs are a disadvantage almost all the time. Then of course there is the added cost during purchase.

[buickman104]

costs as much to manufacture as 3.6
less low end torque than the 2.0T
Is it significantly smoother than the 2.5 in normal driving--not maniacal journalist driving?
Haven't driven either, but I doubt it.

Best use for the 3.0: half a 6.0 V12

I'm beginning to think the reverse/volume issue could be the Safety Nanny at work. GM didn't fire all their liability lawyers during Bankruptcy.
I wonder if they tried the steering wheel buttons or voice control while reversing or just the center stack buttons.

Has anyone heard why the Performance models have a fixed rear seat? Luxury and Premium have split folding. I don't get it.

Split folding seats require the change to have the part bend the rear seats reminded taking away rigidity from the rear suspension. then ones with a pass through, usually have a x brace for added rigidity.

[roy219]

Then they would gripe about the rear legroom and small trunk, which oddly never bothered them in the 3 series.

ATS' exiguous rear seat and trunk room may elicit mild complaints, but I doubt those gripes would be all that significant. Compact sport sedans as a group prioritize sporty driving dynamics above interior roominess, something Kolman did adumbrate in his review.

Also, the F30 3-Series is among the best in its segment for rear seat room and trunk space, so that's probably why those attributes never bothered reviewers.

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.

I don't know if this is the case for 2.5L ATS models, but the 2.0L turbo 6MT version my brother and I test drove exhibited a mild low frequency groan in the 1800 - 2500 rpm range. It was definitely noticeable, but not too annoying.

[germeezy1]

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.

Perhaps this article was written before BMW announced the 320i which also will not be utterly divergent from the ATS 2.5 for output? You also forgot about the Audi A4 which has a TOP engine offering of a 211 hp 258 lb ft 2.0TFSI, and the Acura TSX with a 201 hp / 170 lb ft inline 4 cylinder base engine as well.

The 3.0 V-6 would do well in a car as light as the ATS, fuel economy gap would grow bigger as torque would be less of an issue.

However as things stands the 3.0 has a bad rep. now so its going away.

Realistically to expect a 270 hp as the base engine in this class is at best a bit divergent from what should be expected. Also if anything the LF1 would have been placed in the lineup where the 2.0T is today. Perhaps the LF1 is one of the most under appreciated base engines available , and the scrutiny of the engine is mainly due to its placement in relatively heavy vehicles it seems.

costs as much to manufacture as 3.6
less low end torque than the 2.0T
Is it significantly smoother than the 2.5 in normal driving--not maniacal journalist driving?
Haven't driven either, but I doubt it.

Best use for the 3.0: half a 6.0 V12

I'm beginning to think the reverse/volume issue could be the Safety Nanny at work. GM didn't fire all their liability lawyers during Bankruptcy.
I wonder if they tried the steering wheel buttons or voice control while reversing or just the center stack buttons.

Has anyone heard why the Performance models have a fixed rear seat? Luxury and Premium have split folding. I don't get it.

Perhaps there happens to be cross car bracing between the rear shock towers?

Seems to me that they liked the ATS........A-LOT! So they thought that the base engine wasn't up to being a match for the remarkable chassis. So what?
By the way - smooth, lusty, eager engines make you want to kiss the rev limiter every day. It's one of those things that make people fall in love with their cars.

Personally all of my engines see high engine speeds even the ones that are not as aurally pleasing at high rpm.

[Tone]

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?

Perhaps, but the ATS is a sports sedan. And part of the fun in a lower powered sport sedan is you can actually use a lot of their capabilities on normal roads -- try that with a ZL1 Camaro ("Hello, officer!"). From various reviews, it doesn't necessarily have to be quieter so much as have a more pleasing quality to the sound of when working hard. They've nailed the hard part -- the chassis balance, the braking. The fours just need a bit more polish and the ATS will be the clear class leader. THAT'S quite an accomplishment if Caddy's willing to keep its nose to the grindstone.