Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is no secret what the XTS is for and that Cadillac is working on a "real" flagship. It has nothing to do with the existence of the ATS or who it targets. Real open minded buyers are not confused.
Of course it’s no secret but it also doesn't jive with the Tier 1 premium model. The XTS is a vehicle that is both late to the party and too early at the same time. It was conceived before GM's meltdown and then put on the back burner only to be revived as a rush job. This is why GM execs are promising additional features and packages down the line and why a full size luxury car only has a single powertrain option.
The ATS is a respectable car, in the 2.0l and 3.6l trims. Why the 2.5 exists speaks to Cadillac's marketing problem, which is my main problem with the current regeneration of the brand. An ATS that's not far from the price of the Cadillac Park Avenue, er..I mean XTS, is counterintuitive, because the CTS is slated to be at a higher price point than the current model. Thus, the larger car is going to be less expensive than the mid-size offering because GM says so, via it's mantra that the XTS is not its flagship. Yet, GM has no flagship, and their small car is priced very close to the large car. Moreover, the race for more Cadillac-branded crossovers competes with itself. The Enclave sells very well, for example, and there is no current Cadillac counterpart, so it's not far from GM's habit of badge-engineering a solution to more short-term profits. If GM had truly reinvented the Cadillac brand, it would cease attempting to chase broader market segments than exist, and would have little overlap between its divisions in terms of price.
So, where does that leave the larger "not a flagship" sedan in the lineup? The XTS was designed for the traditional Cadillac buyer, and the fleet market as I have yet to see a car service that uses anything but a Cadillac or Lincoln sedan or SUV as the bread-and-butter car in their lineup. The Town Car was the preferred choice, but since it is no longer, for the sedans, it falls to Cadillac. The XTS should be a flagship Buick, but the fleet buyers would not buy it because the entrenched standard in the car service market is Cadillac or Lincoln, with a few Mercedes.
GM is sending mixed signals with respect to the Cadillac brand, which is why I feel the ATS should be a better value, especially in the 2.5l trim. Personally, I think the 2.5l is a joke for an ATS and should not have been included, but if it is, it should be at a better price point, about $5-8k less. In comparison, the C250 is an entry level vehicle with a 1.8l turbo, and while its interior has less expensive materials than higher end C's, it is generally well crafted, and the vehicle is solid; and, it stickers at $37k with a 7-speed automatic and a decent amount of standard equipment. BMW's new 3-Series has an 8-speed transmission and Mercedes C has a 7-speed, yet Cadillac fitted the ATS with a 6-speed, which competes with the current 3-Series and past Cs, but is not cutting edge, yet that is how Cadillac wants to be perceived.
The ATS should have debuted with the 2.0l turbo and 3.6l, with a promised V to come later. BMW does not always release the new M when the 3-Series is retooled, and Mercedes AMGs are not always delivered at the same time as the initial launch of the new Cs, so it would have been acceptable for Cadillac not to release it initially, but to have it come later. That business model is established in the class in which Cadillac wants to compete, but going back to the GM model of trying to be risk averse by not alienating any of its current customers in the hope of attracting new customers has caused it problems in the past. The 2.5l is evidence of that, in my mind, and it does undercut the perception of the ATS as true contender for an entry-level luxury vehicle, especially when competing with the entrenched BMW 3-Series. The ATS is a good car, one that I hope does not lose its way in GM marketing strategy, complete with incentives, although, at least GM has not as yet equipped it with a D'oro package to lure customers to the showroom.
Agreed.
In order to truly retain the "Standard of the World", Cadillac needs to stop offering these "entry level models". Get rid of both the 2.5L engine and get rid of the damn "BASE" models. The ATS should only be offered with the 2.0L Turbo and 3.6L engines with a V8 "V" model coming next year. Offer the 2.0L with three trims (no "base" trim) and offer the 3.6L with two trims- Performance and Premium. Start the pricing in the mid $30K's range and top out in the mid $40K's with the "V" model price at $10K more than the Premium 3.6L.
Cadillac needs to get away from "base" vehicles and solely focus on attracting luxury customers.
I'm really looking forward to the 3rd generation CTS, hopefully Cadillac can trounce the 5 Series just like it has done with the ATS and 3 Series.
So basically you're suggesting Cadillac build to a price point, which is what they've been doing for decades. That's exactly what the brand is trying to break away from with the ATS. The goal shouldn't be "keep it under X price point" but "do it right and price it as competitively as doing it right will allow."
I'm not getting where you guys are ragging on them for having a "base" car. I've driven everything the ATS may compete with and the "base" ATS isn't any different from a base 3-series, IS, A4 or C-class. Does anyone rag on Audi for churning out a FWD $32k A4? How about Lexus for a $33k IS250? Do those cars, make them less of a luxury brand?
When you look at the whole market, there is room for a $33k "base" ATS. My ONLY argument with that car is the powertrain, they could have done better. Again, the base 220hp turbo engine from the Regal would have been a better match. However, while the base A4 and IS have what I would consider a better engine, the base ATS is still a more premium car then what you get in the others. A $33k ATS is still coming with real leather, premium paint, standard Bluetooth and standard premium audio. All things that are part of expensive option packages on the other.
The pricing works out so that the base 2.5L ATS competes with the IS250 and base A4. When you step up to the 2.0T ATS then you are in direct competition with the 3-series. The C-class is kind of the segments anomaly. It specs in $35k base trim like the base IS, A4 and ATS, but is priced more like a 3-series. Consider it the Mercedes tax. Beyond that once you get into the meat of the market, the ATS is very price/value competitive.
The XTS is also not an oddball if you consider Cadillac's legacy market. The market for people who would buy an XTS is a market that Cadillac and Lincoln solely compete in. These are the oldest of the Boomers and folks a little older then that who will ONLY buy an American nameplate and want that fullsize classic American luxury ride, which the XTS delivers. This is also a staple market for the livery folks. This is a segment where they can easily sell 25k+ models a year. Not enough volume for a new platform car, but plenty for a spinoff of a volume platform that can be tarted up with a Cadillac logo. If it's very succesful the volume could be 50k+ like the DTS was doing not even 5 years ago. Again though, I don't see how having the XTS diminishes Cadillac given the uniqueness of that market for them.
I called the sales manager at our BMW dealer. The average purchase price of a new 328i is $44,500. So, when making the comparisons use that as your market "center point" where most transactions happen. Now, obviously that is the number for that dealership, not a national number. The dealer is located in South Jersey in the middle of the affluent Philly suburbs and is the highest volume BMW dealer in the area. So, I think they are pretty good sample.
Using that you can get an ATS as follows for $43,705...
Turbo 2.0L Performance Trim ($42,790)
Includes the following; HID's, CUE, Adaptive Lighting, Collision Warning, Lane Departure, Sport Pedals, Brembo Brakes, "Driver Awareness System", Full Leather Sport Seats, Premium Audio, Rainsense Wipers, Sport Shift Paddles
To that I selected the following options...
6-speed Manual (-$1,280)
18" Rims (+$800)
Cold Weather Package (+$600)
Navigation (+$795)
So, a pretty well decked out car.
I then looked to see what I could build on a 3-series. I took a 328i Sport Line which bases at $39,895. The sport line is the most comparable to the "Performance" ATS and the only thing of note it really came with was 18" rims were included.
To that I added leather for $1,450 and I was already at $41,345 and didn't have anything but a basic 3-series with the sport line package and leather. From that point anything I selected was going to put me well over the price. I could snag the Cold Weather Package for $950 and hit my ATS price. Getting anything remotely close to nav and all the other tech easily pushed my 3-series to $46k+. Try it and see which one is the better value.
My numbers were a lot closer, using the zip code where the car would be purchased in New York.
ATS 3.6L Premium AWD with most options ($1k extra for a sunroof and an extra $995 charge for paint) = $54,950
335 X-Drive Luxury with tech/active cruise control/cold weather (similar spec, but no charge for paint/sunroof) = $55,745
Just throwing in the sunroof and paint, Cadillac would have a price advantage of a couple of thousand over the BMW, but I guess I should be thankful that GM did not do its laundry list of options, though there are way too many packages with the 2.0l in my opinion.
The degree to which I think it's slightly overpriced would span that difference ($5-8k), $1,995 in excess options charges (sunroof and paint), duty of around $1k on the BMW because it is imported, goodwill for the BMW with class-leading equipment, such as the 8-speed automatic, over the Cadillac's 6-speed, ~$2,000 (what I would expect to pay for an 8-speed option, should GM have had one available, though that would make it more expensive than the 335). So, that comes to about $4,995, before deducting for a personal value decision (and offsetting the extra that BMW charges across the board) where the ATS is larger overall (slight detriment because it will be a Manhattan-based vehicle), yet has a smaller back seat (factor because of regular back seat adult passengers, though not every day), and smaller trunk. Thus, that's how I came up with my estimation that it's about $5-$8k or so overpriced when evaluating it as a purchase for my aunt (who is a boomer).
For a $50k MSRP, the configuration I specified above would be a fair value on an ATS. For $48k, it would be a good value. I think the ATS is a very good car, as I have mentioned, but not when it's less than $1k between it and the 335.
__________________
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
~William Shakespeare (As You Like It Act II, Scene VII)
I really like the new ATS. I've considered an off-lease 3-series, but it would be a few years because I just paid off our 2010 Altima. By the time I'm ready for a new car to replace the Nissan I'm sure there will be lots of pre-owned ATS's available.
Of course it’s no secret but it also doesn't jive with the Tier 1 premium model.
There is no tier 1 model. Stop kidding yourself. Whoever wins (sales) gets to make the rules.
The top four best selling premium vehicles:
Lexus ES - a tarted up Camry/Avalon (how is that tier 1? FWD and based on a cheaper car from a lower line.)
Lexus RX - a high riding tarted up Camry wagon (ditto)
Mercedes E
BMW 3
That's why the ATS is a "tier one" car no matter who makes it. If the XTS were to somehow outsell the ES ( which it won't, but the Lacrosse might and the two combined most likely will) it would make GM execs very happy and they couldn't care less what tier the internet people put it in. That's why they put all their emphasis on making competitors for those four vehicles first before ANYTHING else. Lacrosse/XTS, SRX, CTS, ATS. Everything else is secondary.
I'm not getting where you guys are ragging on them for having a "base" car. I've driven everything the ATS may compete with and the "base" ATS isn't any different from a base 3-series, IS, A4 or C-class. Does anyone rag on Audi for churning out a FWD $32k A4? How about Lexus for a $33k IS250? Do those cars, make them less of a luxury brand?
Perception.
The A4 and IS250 aren't running around with rental car engines. The IS does get a fair amount of flak for the IS250 being too weak. Both it and especially the A4 are not trying to be sports sedans as much as the ATS or 3-series... maybe that should be amended to say previous 3-series. There's just something off-putting about selling a driver's car with a rental engine.
I don't put a whole lot of stock in reviews, but I have to say that's about what I expected. I have driven the new 3-series... and it's a fantastic car. For a 5-series. It's just not a very good 3-series. The ATS looks like it could be a real contender for a driver's car... but they didn't build it. At $36.5 the V6 ATS would, imo, bet a very compelling package. Not up to par with the 335i in engine, perhaps, but for the price of 328i that's a forgivable transgression. The 2.0T has been pretty much universally panned as mediocre at best... again, I'd like to test drive it myself, but form third-party accounts the V6 is the engine to get. Unfortunately, you can't buy a V6 without CUE. Worse yet, you can't buy a V6 with a manual.
I don't think that's exactly a fit for Cadillac's image... I don't think of myself as a Cadillac buyer. Most of their products are crap. The CTS is okay for people that aren't geriatrics and the Escalade is a nice truck for people with metal in their teeth. The fact that I think a stripped-down, no frills V6 manual driver's car sounds like something I'd really be interested in might be the best indication that it isn't. Cadillac builds cars for fat white men who play golf and rappers, not guys in their 20s looking for something with a bit more class than a StiEVO. Given, Cadillacs image is definitely changing... but that much? Not so sure.
The A4 and IS250 aren't running around with rental car engines.
The 1.8/2.0T is found in several VWs and the 2.5 V6 is smaller then the V6 Camry's engine. That's about as rental as it gets. What are people like you going to do when BMW and Mercedes start offering 5/7 & E/S class with 4cyl engines in this country?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
