ATS rental review

[Quattro Pete]

Had this car for a few days while visiting family in Texas. I initially reserved a full size car, but they had this ATS 2.0T available which was technically an upgrade, even though it is smaller than a full size car. My only worry was insufficient rear space since we were traveling with an infant in a rear-facing car seat, but because I'm fairly short, I managed to fit it behind the driver's seat somehow. And luckily we were only traveling with carry-ons. Two carry-ons and a stroller filled up the trunk pretty good. If we had checked luggage, it wouldn't have fit.

What I liked:
+ good looks outside and inside with decent quality interior materials
+ pretty good handling/chassis tuning
+ very good brakes
+ decent fuel economy: we averaged around 23-24 mpg in mixed driving with a fairly heavy foot
+ configurable dash display, although not a ton of useful info there. You can display boost pressure, but you can't display oil temp, for example.

What I did not like:
- exhaust/engine note was fairly uninspiring/thin sounding, alas, it's to be expected from a 4-cylinder engine, I suppose.
- noticeable turbo lag, which the lethargic trans programming made appear even worse, even in Sport mode. Possibly a TCU reset could help revive it in case it 'learned' based on previous renters' driving habits.
- no paddle shifters (maybe a higher end version has these?), and using the center console shift lever to manually change gears felt a bit awkward - it was positioned too far back.
- touch buttons: probably my biggest gripe. I just hated the lack of physical buttons in center console and needing to press multiple buttons to adjust HVAC. Most car mag reviews seem to agree that this is this car's biggest shortcoming.

All in all, it was a nice enough rental, but I came away with an overall 'blah' feeling. It just was not engaging enough for me to consider buying one. Maybe with the 3.6 V6 engine it would have been a different story. But even then, I don't think I could get over the hvac/infotainment issues.

 

[UNC017]

A friend of mine drove the ATS-V and CTS-V at a Cadillac track day at Circuit of the Americas. He was a fan of the CTS-V but his ATS-V list sounds similar to yours, even though the -V has a lot more power and (marginally) beter exhaust sound than the 2.0T you had (you still can't make anything except a v8 sound like a v8, unfortunately).

His single biggest gripe was the lack of any tactile buttons in favor of multi-function menu driven cr*p. His daily is a Porsche Cayenne S, which has more buttons than an F-16 cockpit, so I can sure understand his gripe. He said, "you can't even open the glove box without going to the right menu on a touch-screen." While I don't know if that's literally true or just him expressing his displeasure, IMO you shouldn't have to touch glass for anything except entertainment and nav, and teritiary vehicle info like engine hours, accelerometer data, etc. It royally hacks me off to get a rental where the HVAC is menu-driven.

 

[OVERKILL]

And that's why I loved both the M5 and my current Charger's HVAC controls. They were buttons and the screen was for Infotainment:

Our recent Escalade rental had a completely digital gauge cluster (a big LCD panel). I found that one a bit weird too.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Caddy's touch screen is well known to be a bit arcane.

Best with the hot lil V6, bet the OP would have liked it better.

A fantastic chassis in search of a better engine...

 

[BobsArmory]

Yep the V6 is the better choice. To bad many of the newer cars are going to the "glass cockpit" look.

 

[ls1mike]

Pretty spot on but it needs an ECU reset most of them with auto are running 6.0 secs 0 to 60 and 14.30 1/4 miles and you are first person I have heard complain about it. In fact Road and Track and Motor week didn't get a much notable performance difference when testing the 3.6. Most of them returning times of 14.00.

 

[dishdude]

I sold my 2013 ATS this August after 2.5 years of ownership. I liked it, it was a really nice driving car and it didn't give me any problems. I liked the CUE screen but hated the capacitive touch buttons.

My biggest complaint was the size and how low to the ground it sat. I'm turning into an old man, I hate small cars.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
What I did not like:
- exhaust/engine note was fairly uninspiring/thin sounding, alas, it's to be expected from a 4-cylinder engine, I suppose.
- noticeable turbo lag, which the lethargic trans programming made appear even worse, even in Sport mode. Possibly a TCU reset could help revive it in case it 'learned' based on previous renters' driving habits.

- touch buttons: probably my biggest gripe. I just hated the lack of physical buttons in center console and needing to press multiple buttons to adjust HVAC. Most car mag reviews seem to agree that this is this car's biggest shortcoming.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And that's why I loved both the M5 and my current Charger's HVAC controls. They were buttons and the screen was for Infotainment.

None of my current old cars has infotainment, and I love it. Simple push buttons and switches are much easier to use.

The 4-cyl engine in the S2000 doesn't sound bad at all, specially when it is above 4,500-5,000 RPM to 8,000 redline.

As of now I don't like turbo charged engines mainly because of turbo lag. I test drove once 25-30 years ago and truly hated it. The instant I smash the gas pedal of my S2000 the car just zoom if the RPM is above 3000 for the first 3 gears, and above 4000 the last 3 gear, no waiting like a turbo engine.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
As of now I don't like turbo charged engines mainly because of turbo lag. I test drove once 25-30 years ago and truly hated it. The instant I smash the gas pedal of my S2000 the car just zoom if the RPM is above 3000 for the first 3 gears, and above 4000 the last 3 gear, no waiting like a turbo engine.

Modern turbo engines aren't as bad, and if you keep it above 3K rpm, the response is fairly quick. The problem is that if it's mated to an auto trans, the trans is programmed to keep the rpms very low for fuel economy, often times significantly below 2000 rpm. So, if you're at say 1,500 rpm in a 4-cyl turbo engine and hit the gas pedal normally, you end up having to wait for the turbo to spool up because there isn't enough exhaust gases flowing at such low rpms. And if you floor it, then you have to wait for the trans to down shift first. Of course you could take over the gear shifting and force it to stay at higher rpms at all times, but this is much easier/more intuitive to execute if you have a manual trans, just as long as you don't care about fuel economy.

 

[dparm]

What class did they put the ATS into, Pete? And what agency did you rent from?

Hertz had CTS sedans in the "luxury" class as of two years ago, which wasn't too bad since a points redemption for me makes it cost the same as intermediates and full-size.

I suspect they put the ATS into "premium" to indicate that it is nicer than a full-size, but still not quite a full-blown luxury car. Being a near-weekly renter from Hertz, the sweet spot is intermediate class. That will get you a lot of great midsize cars that are often better equipped than the full-size Malibus or even the premium-class Impalas.

 

[Gasbuggy]

You can really wake those cars up with a cheap tune. But In stock form they are pretty quick, lower 14 second cars. Your supercharged Audi would be a good match. Premium is required, I would almost expect to get the car full of 87 from a rental agency.

While my CTS-V was in for recall work I put 1100 miles on a 2015 CTS-4 with the same engine/trans and many other things, they're similar all around. The loaner had just rolled off the delivery truck, I got it with about 5-6 miles on it. I experimented with fuel, total dog with 87 octane.

I agree with most of what you said. Their no button CUE system sucks and I'm the young customer who is supposed to like it. I started to like it but by the end of my two weeks I did not. Cadillac knows they screwed this up and will bring back a mix of touch and buttons (according to Motor Trend). Did you find the secret compartment that opens up with the touch system? The gauge cluster looks hideous in daylight but great at night. My loaner had a 10 speaker Bose system and it was something else.

The exhaust has no sound but a pedestrian Cadillac is supposed to be quiet. The trans is geared for MPG because that matters most. Sport mode is a joke, and the shifter location is in an awkward spot. Still some typical cheap GM to this car, when I shut the truck the rear deck hoped up in the air. And I'm not into that man made leather they use.

My best running mpg was 28.9, my worst was 13. I will say mine was responsive to throttle and I never could say I felt lag unless I forced it to hold higher gears. It would chirp tires from a dead stop with AWD.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Pretty spot on but it needs an ECU reset most of them with auto are running 6.0 secs 0 to 60 and 14.30 1/4 miles and you are first person I have heard complain about it. In fact Road and Track and Motor week didn't get a much notable performance difference when testing the 3.6. Most of them returning times of 14.00.


But the driving experience is completely different. Especially when you're not going for the speed but just tooling around. The 3.6 is an eager revver and likes to run, but it is also silky smooth and has none of the weird flat spots in the power curve like the turbo 2.0 has.

It also makes a sweet sound IMO...

 

[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.


With the 6 its probably a decent little car.

The glass cockpit seems to be the new thing, I hope it dies off.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Pretty spot on but it needs an ECU reset most of them with auto are running 6.0 secs 0 to 60 and 14.30 1/4 miles and you are first person I have heard complain about it. In fact Road and Track and Motor week didn't get a much notable performance difference when testing the 3.6. Most of them returning times of 14.00.


But the driving experience is completely different. Especially when you're not going for the speed but just tooling around. The 3.6 is an eager revver and likes to run, but it is also silky smooth and has none of the weird flat spots in the power curve like the turbo 2.0 has.

It also makes a sweet sound IMO...

Sound aside the Malibu which is a bit heavier and down on power doesn't have any flat spots. It has virtually no Turbo Lag. Tooling around town is where it is really good. I can only assume the tuning is different in the ATS or the ECU need to relearn.

If does not feel like any other turbos I have driven or owned.

an advanced, electronically controlled turbocharger with a unique twin-scroll design is used to increase power in the LTG Ecotec 2.0L turbo. Each of two scrolls on the turbine is fed by a separate exhaust passage – one from cylinders one and four, the other from cylinders two and three – virtually eliminating turbo lag at low engine speeds, giving the engine immediate throttle response associated with a naturally aspirated high-performance engine. The turbocharger generates maximum boost of about 20 psi. Because direct injection cools the intake process compared to port injection, it allows the LTG Ecotec 2.0L turbo to safely operate at higher boost and a relatively higher compression (9.2:1) than a conventional turbo engine, increasing both output and efficiency.

 

[UNC017]

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

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
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

Agreed. That's why I recommended that wife gets the 6-cylinder engine in her Q5. The power/torque figures aren't significantly higher than the 2.0T 4-cylinder version, but it behaves a lot more refined and there is no turbo lag. Of course, there is MPG penalty to pay, alas, she doesn't put on a ton of miles, so it's not that huge of a penalty.

 

[Gasbuggy]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike

Sound aside the Malibu which is a bit heavier and down on power doesn't have any flat spots. It has virtually no Turbo Lag. Tooling around town is where it is really good. I can only assume the tuning is different in the ATS or the ECU need to relearn.

If does not feel like any other turbos I have driven or owned.

an advanced, electronically controlled turbocharger with a unique twin-scroll design is used to increase power in the LTG Ecotec 2.0L turbo. Each of two scrolls on the turbine is fed by a separate exhaust passage – one from cylinders one and four, the other from cylinders two and three – virtually eliminating turbo lag at low engine speeds, giving the engine immediate throttle response associated with a naturally aspirated high-performance engine. The turbocharger generates maximum boost of about 20 psi. Because direct injection cools the intake process compared to port injection, it allows the LTG Ecotec 2.0L turbo to safely operate at higher boost and a relatively higher compression (9.2:1) than a conventional turbo engine, increasing both output and efficiency.




I was in a heavier CTS with all wheel drive, I had no Turbo lag. Power down low was impressive. Look at this graph, this is what an engine with no lag looks like.

I'm wondering if his car had 87 in the tank and the ECU was not letting it build boost.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Yep, any time it's a rental there's no telling where it's been or what has happened to it! That turbo, like many others, has full torque right off idle if healthy.

The ATS has been hailed as a fabulous platform, a terrific handler and is a slick little car. Very pricey IMO, but really well executed...

 

[hattaresguy]

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


Yep, and I have driven them all I just can't get any love for a 4 pot even though they do pull OK.

I guess its what your used to, my uncle who is not a car guy thought his 428I was OK, until he drove my buddies 135I with some Dinan mods. Now he understands why I was just like meh when I stomped on his car. If your coming from a Civic or something the 4 pot in the BMW probably feels fine.

I test drove a 2015 Audi A6 recently and the base engine is the 2.0T, which is a great engine just not in an A6. The V6 is really what you have to to get to get a proper luxury car feel.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

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 guess its what your used to, my uncle who is not a car guy thought his 428I was OK, until he drove my buddies 135I with some Dinan mods. Now he understands why I was just like meh when I stomped on his car. If your coming from a Civic or something the 4 pot in the BMW probably feels fine.

Did you try Honda S2000 on a track ?

The 2.0-2.2L 4 banger doesn't have the power/torque of a 3.0-4.0L engines but in a light car it does pull very well.

Before I bought the S2000 in Nov 2003, I had LS400 and E430, both cars have V8 engine and they do very well. With a small 4 cyl I didn't expect the S2000 could run as good as a V8, but I was wrong especially when I kept the rev above 4k.