ATS rental review
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
hattaresguy said:
Last edited:
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2026
Valid points made by everyone. I like a V6 or a V8 too, especially if I am dropping some coin on it. Meaning more than 30,000 bucks.
I just think the rental car had cheap gas and needs an ECU reset. I am pretty picky about acceleration. You know the 11 second 11 WS6 and the 13 second Grand Prix.
I have found the 2.0 turbo does just fine in the Malibu with 92 octane and not driving it like an old lady. No flat spot and hardly any lag. Heck the Malibu as tested by Road and Track out did a lot of it's V6 competitors. I can only imagine the ATS is better, but it is in a totally different class.
I just think the rental car had cheap gas and needs an ECU reset. I am pretty picky about acceleration. You know the 11 second 11 WS6 and the 13 second Grand Prix.
I have found the 2.0 turbo does just fine in the Malibu with 92 octane and not driving it like an old lady. No flat spot and hardly any lag. Heck the Malibu as tested by Road and Track out did a lot of it's V6 competitors. I can only imagine the ATS is better, but it is in a totally different class.
GM's turbo 4's are dogs with 87 octane. They'll run for longer than the rest of the car that way, though. I'm also surprised there was turbo lag, since that engine can make full torque from down low in the rev range. The AT generally doesn't keep revs much below 1500 to take advantage of that.
I can sort of see the point about flat spots in the factory tune. The turbo 4 in my car had a flat spot in the rev range that occurred daily up a particular hill that made the car buck very noticeably, even on 93 octane gas. An aftermarket tune made the issue disappear.
I can sort of see the point about flat spots in the factory tune. The turbo 4 in my car had a flat spot in the rev range that occurred daily up a particular hill that made the car buck very noticeably, even on 93 octane gas. An aftermarket tune made the issue disappear.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Valid points made by everyone. I like a V6 or a V8 too, especially if I am dropping some coin on it. Meaning more than 30,000 bucks.
It really is just that simple. And the V8 wins clearly in my world due to great balance, perfect sounds, and a generally relaxed feel at work!
Valid points made by everyone. I like a V6 or a V8 too, especially if I am dropping some coin on it. Meaning more than 30,000 bucks.
It really is just that simple. And the V8 wins clearly in my world due to great balance, perfect sounds, and a generally relaxed feel at work!
Being an S2000 owner who tracks his car, you have to understand that revving the engine to make power is what the car was designed for and it was also designed to be most enjoyable doing that. That NA 4 cyl. at 6-8k RPM with a skilled driver will out-lap many V8 cars. Basically, it's not a great comparison to the ATS with the exception of steering feel, they're actually similar in that one respect.
As luck would have it, I drove an ATS a few days ago and was utterly blown away by how responsive the steering/chassis was, I also recently drove a new 328i and it was not as sharp as the ATS. Both were similarly excellent in terms of driving position. My only gripes were the back seat room and turbo lag, otherwise Cadillac has done an outstanding job with the ATS. If they can make both the engine and the infotainment system a little less laggy and find some extra room for rear seat passengers I'd buy one in a heartbeat and this is coming from a long-time Honda/Acura guy who never in a million years thought I'd gush over a GM product.
As luck would have it, I drove an ATS a few days ago and was utterly blown away by how responsive the steering/chassis was, I also recently drove a new 328i and it was not as sharp as the ATS. Both were similarly excellent in terms of driving position. My only gripes were the back seat room and turbo lag, otherwise Cadillac has done an outstanding job with the ATS. If they can make both the engine and the infotainment system a little less laggy and find some extra room for rear seat passengers I'd buy one in a heartbeat and this is coming from a long-time Honda/Acura guy who never in a million years thought I'd gush over a GM product.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
That's the problem with that kind of car with a 4 cylinder, and I really don't care who the manufacture is. A 4 pot just doesn't belong in a car over $30k, no matter how much syrup they pour over it its still an economy design.
I totally agree- inline 4-holers have incurable imbalance without power robbing balance shafts, and they sound awful. Pure race car? SURE. Econobox? Nothing beats em. But everything else needs better inherent balance and lower NVH than a 4-holer can offer
I misquoted in my previous post. My respond was to this "inline 4-holers sound awful".
The F20-F22 in Honda S2000 don't sound awful at almost any RPM, it sounds as good as any engine in a vehicle that costs less than $50-60k, especially when the rev is above 4-5k.
One of the advantages of a small 4-cyl is light weight, so that the total weight of the car is lighter and the result is more fun to drive than heavier cars. As long as that small 4-cyl produces adequate power.
A comparison test of 2003 S2000 with Porsche Boxter 2.7L, BMW Z4 3.0L, Nissan Z350 3.5L by Car&Driver did mention the inadequate 2,0L engine, either by power or by engine/exhaust sound.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
That's the problem with that kind of car with a 4 cylinder, and I really don't care who the manufacture is. A 4 pot just doesn't belong in a car over $30k, no matter how much syrup they pour over it its still an economy design.
I totally agree- inline 4-holers have incurable imbalance without power robbing balance shafts, and they sound awful. Pure race car? SURE. Econobox? Nothing beats em. But everything else needs better inherent balance and lower NVH than a 4-holer can offer
I misquoted in my previous post. My respond was to this "inline 4-holers sound awful".
The F20-F22 in Honda S2000 don't sound awful at almost any RPM, it sounds as good as any engine in a vehicle that costs less than $50-60k, especially when the rev is above 4-5k.
One of the advantages of a small 4-cyl is light weight, so that the total weight of the car is lighter and the result is more fun to drive than heavier cars. As long as that small 4-cyl produces adequate power.
A comparison test of 2003 S2000 with Porsche Boxter 2.7L, BMW Z4 3.0L, Nissan Z350 3.5L by Car&Driver did mention the inadequate 2,0L engine, either by power or by engine/exhaust sound.
Last edited:
This is interesting review. I test drove a new (7 miles) 2.0 ATS a year ago, and was dying to see what she could do when I floored it, but all that happened was the car would die every few seconds. The guys from the dealer had to come push the car back to the dealers lot when the car would not start up. The saleswoman was quite embarrassed sitting next to me as was the manager when we got back. I told the manager this is why I drive an Acura but he didn't think that was very nice.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: sciphi
GM's turbo 4's are dogs with 87 octane. They'll run for longer than the rest of the car that way, though.
They call for premium so I wouldn't be so sure about that. When I filled my 15 CTS from empty with some 87 I had noticeable detonation, more than it should. Alot of the 2.0L turbos are cracking pistons in 13/14 Cadillacs, tuning exaggerates the flaw. GM revised their 2.0L pistons for 2015.
GM's turbo 4's are dogs with 87 octane. They'll run for longer than the rest of the car that way, though.
They call for premium so I wouldn't be so sure about that. When I filled my 15 CTS from empty with some 87 I had noticeable detonation, more than it should. Alot of the 2.0L turbos are cracking pistons in 13/14 Cadillacs, tuning exaggerates the flaw. GM revised their 2.0L pistons for 2015.
.
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
That's the problem with that kind of car with a 4 cylinder, and I really don't care who the manufacture is. A 4 pot just doesn't belong in a car over $30k, no matter how much syrup they pour over it its still an economy design.
I totally agree- inline 4-holers have incurable imbalance without power robbing balance shafts, and they sound awful. Pure race car? SURE. Econobox? Nothing beats em. But everything else needs better inherent balance and lower NVH than a 4-holer can offer
I misquoted in my previous post. My respond was to this "inline 4-holers sound awful".
The F20-F22 in Honda S2000 don't sound awful at almost any RPM, it sounds as good as any engine in a vehicle that costs less than $50-60k, especially when the rev is above 4-5k.
.
Well, sound is purely subjective so I'll give you that- if you like the inline 4-cylinder sound, then the S2K is probably one of the better sounding ones. I just don't like it in any form, and the less muffled and higher the revs, the worse it is to my ear. I don't like Ferrari flat-crank v8 noises nor most V12 noises either, and some folks think those are positively musical. I do like the opposed-4 sound pretty well, though.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
That's the problem with that kind of car with a 4 cylinder, and I really don't care who the manufacture is. A 4 pot just doesn't belong in a car over $30k, no matter how much syrup they pour over it its still an economy design.
I totally agree- inline 4-holers have incurable imbalance without power robbing balance shafts, and they sound awful. Pure race car? SURE. Econobox? Nothing beats em. But everything else needs better inherent balance and lower NVH than a 4-holer can offer
I misquoted in my previous post. My respond was to this "inline 4-holers sound awful".
The F20-F22 in Honda S2000 don't sound awful at almost any RPM, it sounds as good as any engine in a vehicle that costs less than $50-60k, especially when the rev is above 4-5k.
.
Well, sound is purely subjective so I'll give you that- if you like the inline 4-cylinder sound, then the S2K is probably one of the better sounding ones. I just don't like it in any form, and the less muffled and higher the revs, the worse it is to my ear. I don't like Ferrari flat-crank v8 noises nor most V12 noises either, and some folks think those are positively musical. I do like the opposed-4 sound pretty well, though.
Originally Posted By: Gasbuggy
Originally Posted By: sciphi
GM's turbo 4's are dogs with 87 octane. They'll run for longer than the rest of the car that way, though.
They call for premium so I wouldn't be so sure about that. When I filled my 15 CTS from empty with some 87 I had noticeable detonation, more than it should. Alot of the 2.0L turbos are cracking pistons in 13/14 Cadillacs, tuning exaggerates the flaw. GM revised their 2.0L pistons for 2015.
That's the problem with that kind of motor, I'm sure a ton of ATS are running around most of their lives on 87. A lot of people just put in whatever gas is cheaper.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
GM's turbo 4's are dogs with 87 octane. They'll run for longer than the rest of the car that way, though.
They call for premium so I wouldn't be so sure about that. When I filled my 15 CTS from empty with some 87 I had noticeable detonation, more than it should. Alot of the 2.0L turbos are cracking pistons in 13/14 Cadillacs, tuning exaggerates the flaw. GM revised their 2.0L pistons for 2015.
That's the problem with that kind of motor, I'm sure a ton of ATS are running around most of their lives on 87. A lot of people just put in whatever gas is cheaper.
Quote:
A lot of people just put in whatever gas is cheaper.
Especially when it's a rental.
I suppose one shouldnt judge performance of a car that requires premium gas based on a rental, unless you keep it long enough to burn through a couple of tanks of fuel.
A lot of people just put in whatever gas is cheaper.
Especially when it's a rental.
I suppose one shouldnt judge performance of a car that requires premium gas based on a rental, unless you keep it long enough to burn through a couple of tanks of fuel.
Especially a small turbo-4. I filled both of my Infinity rentals with regular, despite them calling for premium, but they still went like stink. I suspect the 3.5L VQ engine isn't nearly as sensitive to fuel quality as a small 4-banger with a turbo.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Quote:
A lot of people just put in whatever gas is cheaper.
Especially when it's a rental.
I suppose one shouldnt judge performance of a car that requires premium gas based on a rental, unless you keep it long enough to burn through a couple of tanks of fuel.
One would think that they could offer a "rental tune" which defaults all conditions to 87 octane base-timing. Doesn't mean that "owners" (I suspect renters in the form of leasees mainly) would do the same and would not want the rental tune...
Quote:
A lot of people just put in whatever gas is cheaper.
Especially when it's a rental.
I suppose one shouldnt judge performance of a car that requires premium gas based on a rental, unless you keep it long enough to burn through a couple of tanks of fuel.
One would think that they could offer a "rental tune" which defaults all conditions to 87 octane base-timing. Doesn't mean that "owners" (I suspect renters in the form of leasees mainly) would do the same and would not want the rental tune...
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Quote:
A lot of people just put in whatever gas is cheaper.
Especially when it's a rental.
I suppose one shouldnt judge performance of a car that requires premium gas based on a rental, unless you keep it long enough to burn through a couple of tanks of fuel.
One would think that they could offer a "rental tune" which defaults all conditions to 87 octane base-timing.
Right, but again, that would not be representative of what this car is capable of.
Just to be clear, i did not have a problem with this car's power. I just noticed there was some lag in delivery. Whether that was a result of using 87 octane gas or ECU needing reset, or yet something else, I dont know.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Quote:
A lot of people just put in whatever gas is cheaper.
Especially when it's a rental.
I suppose one shouldnt judge performance of a car that requires premium gas based on a rental, unless you keep it long enough to burn through a couple of tanks of fuel.
One would think that they could offer a "rental tune" which defaults all conditions to 87 octane base-timing.
Right, but again, that would not be representative of what this car is capable of.
Just to be clear, i did not have a problem with this car's power. I just noticed there was some lag in delivery. Whether that was a result of using 87 octane gas or ECU needing reset, or yet something else, I dont know.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Acuras are great if you're looking for a FWD sled that you need to put a transmission in every 50k.
This sled has 153k on the factory transmission.
Acuras are great if you're looking for a FWD sled that you need to put a transmission in every 50k.
This sled has 153k on the factory transmission.
Originally Posted By: Dohc98vteC
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Acuras are great if you're looking for a FWD sled that you need to put a transmission in every 50k.
This sled has 153k on the factory transmission.
Yeah well this one had 109k when I totaled it (well actually the idiot driving the Altima behind it), on it's third transmission and a ton of other repairs to get to that point. Officially more repairs in this one car than every GM and Chrysler I've owned combined. The airbag didn't even work. I try not to brand bash, but if you want to come into an unrelated thread and start I'm happy to respond.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Acuras are great if you're looking for a FWD sled that you need to put a transmission in every 50k.
This sled has 153k on the factory transmission.
Yeah well this one had 109k when I totaled it (well actually the idiot driving the Altima behind it), on it's third transmission and a ton of other repairs to get to that point. Officially more repairs in this one car than every GM and Chrysler I've owned combined. The airbag didn't even work. I try not to brand bash, but if you want to come into an unrelated thread and start I'm happy to respond.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Dohc98vteC
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Acuras are great if you're looking for a FWD sled that you need to put a transmission in every 50k.
This sled has 153k on the factory transmission.
Yeah well this one had 109k when I totaled it (well actually the idiot driving the Altima behind it), on it's third transmission and a ton of other repairs to get to that point. Officially more repairs in this one car than every GM and Chrysler I've owned combined. The airbag didn't even work. I try not to brand bash, but if you want to come into an unrelated thread and start I'm happy to respond.
I didn't say it was perfect. Honda/Acura have had many problems with their transmissions, especially TLs, Odysseys and my old Prelude. I was merely stating my test drive experience with the ATS. If that offended you, then not sure what to tell ya!
Originally Posted By: Dohc98vteC
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Acuras are great if you're looking for a FWD sled that you need to put a transmission in every 50k.
This sled has 153k on the factory transmission.
Yeah well this one had 109k when I totaled it (well actually the idiot driving the Altima behind it), on it's third transmission and a ton of other repairs to get to that point. Officially more repairs in this one car than every GM and Chrysler I've owned combined. The airbag didn't even work. I try not to brand bash, but if you want to come into an unrelated thread and start I'm happy to respond.
I didn't say it was perfect. Honda/Acura have had many problems with their transmissions, especially TLs, Odysseys and my old Prelude. I was merely stating my test drive experience with the ATS. If that offended you, then not sure what to tell ya!
- Status
