Thoughts on the Cadillac ATS 2.0 Standard AWD?

[barlowc]

So I'm thinking about getting rid of my 2008 Nissan Altima Coupe and replacing it with nice sports sedan. The other night I took a look at the Cadillac ATS. I drove the trim known as ATS 2.0L TURBO STANDARD AWD.

While I only drove it for 30 minutes, I can see the "needing refinement" comment I've heard about the powertrain. The shift points combined with the when-needed boost of the turbo resulted in some tach patterns that felt "different". (I think "different" is the best word for it. It wasn't bad. It wasn't good. Just different.) I will have to drive it a few more times to really determine whether I like the powertrain or not.

The interior is VERY nice. The exterior has nice styling and has all the lines and aspects that are currently signature for Cadillac. Braking is extraordinary with dual-piston Brembo calipers on the front and vented discs in the rear. (I've never had a vehicle with vented rear rotors; they've all be solid discs.) The overall ride is very smooth, but handling is excellent with minimal roll and movement.

For those that have driven one, own one, or maybe chose one of its competitors instead, what do you think?

 

[SteveSRT8]

We had a 2wd ATS for 2 weeks and it really impressed us. Solid, fast, good economy, and some of the best dynamics period. And I mean compared to ANY car no matter the price.

If the price is there I would definitely consider it!

 

[Quattro Pete]

Whenever the 530i becomes too costly to maintain, I will seriously consider the ATS. I'm not a big fan of small turbos, so it'd have to be the 3.6 model. I just wish Cadillac would have offered that engine with a manual trans. No need for AWD either - it just adds weight, slows down the car, and negatively affects MPG. My current RWD car handles winters beautifully with a proper set of winter tires.

 

[JHZR2]

Interesting. Though the engine is different, it relates back to the ecotec 2.0t in my saab, which is an engine I love. 175hp and full torque off fast idle, never any lag and high efficiency (34-36 MPG). Great to drive and cruises effortlessly at even 90 MPH on the I95 stretches south of VA where people drive VERY fast.

I take it this was an AT, which likely does not help... with all the gears, these things are changing nonstop and Id guess that means more loss of turbine inertia. Mine is a low-inertia turbo, and while less powerful, has no lag whatsoever.

Interested to read comments here. I love my 2.0t ecotec. This is obviously a much newer iteration...

 

[MBS500]

Saw one couple day ago driving by. 2.0Turbo badge got my attention. Nice.looking car, and unusual for Caddy to have such small engine.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I take it this was an AT, which likely does not help... with all the gears, these things are changing nonstop and Id guess that means more loss of turbine inertia.

Yup... I was reading some comments on Cadillac forums about this 2.0T engine with AT that basically confirm what you wrote above. The guys with MT seem to love it.

 

[aquariuscsm]

2.0 seems like a tiny engine for a Caddy. Wasn't that the size engine Escorts came with??

 

[sciphi]

GM's automatic transmission tuning with their smaller turbo engines is a work in progress. Their turbo engines are excellent mills, and their automatic transmissions are generally good. Getting them to play nicely together is another trick they're still working on.

A 2.0T engine seems like plenty of engine for the ATS. 260 hp and all its torque available down low in the rev range make daily driving easy. It's nice not needing to rev the snot out of a car to get it to move smartly. Comparing a modern 2 liter turbo engine to a 1980's 2 liter NA engine is like comparing the new GM 2.5 to the old Iron Duke 2.5. They have the same displacement, and that's where the comparison ends.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
2.0 seems like a tiny engine for a Caddy.

It may be small, but it develops 272 hp and 260 lb·ft of torque from 1700-5500 rpm. And with aftermarket software, probably even more. Plus, the ATS is fairly light.

 

[PhillyJoe]

But it's not your father's Cadillac either.
Heven't seen a 4 cyl Caddy since the Cimmaron or Catera days? Might be a tough sell.
The 2.0T has 272 h.p., the 3.6L has 321. The turbo requires premium.
Where did the weight go? At 3,400 pounds ,it weighs the same as an A4, a bmw 328, an Acura TSX and less than my 2007 Grand Prix.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: PhillyJoe
But it's not your father's Cadillac either.

Yeah, GM is definitely not trying to sell the ATS to the traditional Cadillac client base. They're going after the younger crowd, trying to steal business away from BMW/MB/Audi.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
2.0 seems like a tiny engine for a Caddy.

It may be small, but it develops 272 hp and 260 lb·ft of torque from 1700-5500 rpm. And with aftermarket software, probably even more. Plus, the ATS is fairly light.


Trifecta Performance purchased a 2.0T ATS in late November 2012, and got it to about 310 hp and 330 ft/lbs with a rough tune. They probably got another 5-10 ponies and 20 ft/lbs out of it by now. Those guys know their GM turbo engines. I have one of their tunes on my Cruze, and they've been great to work with when I wanted some things changed (less power, believe it or not!).

Sorry for dragging this off-topic, barlowc!

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
No need for AWD either - it just adds weight, slows down the car, and negatively affects MPG. My current RWD car handles winters beautifully with a proper set of winter tires.


Glad too see someone else articulate my thoughts exactly. Apparently GM hasn't been watching the goings-on with the AWD Chrysler LX cars, because those are exactly the complaints with them. Oh, and thrown in a larger turning circle, too. It really is amazing how much AWD slows down a rear-drive car, all else being equal. The little bit of added traction doesn't come close to offsetting the extra weight and friction.

 

[Dave Hess]

Most of the younger crowd that will buy an ATS is more into looks and styling than performance / horsepower & torque ratings.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
2.0 seems like a tiny engine for a Caddy. Wasn't that the size engine Escorts came with??


So is a big block caddy with 170hp from 1978 somehow magically better than a 2.0L with 260? Which one will win in a race?

 

[barlowc]

Awesome feedback guys... thanks! To some of the comments:

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
If the price is there I would definitely consider it!

The price is pretty good and I can get the Friends & Family discount and likely the added Executive discount too. Combine that with 0% for 36 months and it makes for a good purchase.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I take it this was an AT

Yes it was. The 6-speed AT which I understand to be the Hydra-Matic 6L45.

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I was reading some comments on Cadillac forums about this 2.0T engine with AT that basically confirm what you wrote above.

The tach-patterns/boost issue is really my only concern after first impression / test drive. Part of the reason why I'm considering getting rid of my Nissan is that the CVT feels a little funny in that regards. I want something with a solid powertrain that I have complete confidence in.

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Most of the younger crowd that will buy an ATS is more into looks and styling than performance / horsepower & torque ratings.

I'm into both of those things which is why I find it appealing. IMO, the interior and exterior looks/styling is very nice. Combine that with things Cadillac has done to make it a well-performing driver's car (e.g. I'm impressed with the braking setup) and it results the combination that I'm looking for.

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
No need for AWD either - it just adds weight, slows down the car, and negatively affects MPG. My current RWD car handles winters beautifully with a proper set of winter tires.


Glad too see someone else articulate my thoughts exactly. Apparently GM hasn't been watching the goings-on with the AWD Chrysler LX cars, because those are exactly the complaints with them. Oh, and thrown in a larger turning circle, too. It really is amazing how much AWD slows down a rear-drive car, all else being equal. The little bit of added traction doesn't come close to offsetting the extra weight and friction.

I find this interesting! I like in Michigan where I have to expect/plan for snow during the winter. I've always had front-wheel drive cars which do fine in the snow, and rear-wheel concerns me and I'm not sure I want to do the second set of wheels with snow tires thing. (Nothing against it; just not sure I want to do it.) So that's where AWD comes into play for me. I'm not sure if the salesperson was correct, but she said that the s

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: barlowc

I find this interesting! I like in Michigan where I have to expect/plan for snow during the winter. I've always had front-wheel drive cars which do fine in the snow, and rear-wheel concerns me and I'm not sure I want to do the second set of wheels with snow tires thing. (Nothing against it; just not sure I want to do it.) So that's where AWD comes into play for me.

Wife and I spent significant amount of time in western Michigan this winter. All I'm going to say is that my 530i with winter tires handled it better and felt a lot more confident than my wife's C300 AWD with all-seasons. But can you get by if you're very careful? Sure.

 

[WishIhadatruck]

I would rather have RWD with good winter tires than AWD with all season tires. I enjoy the control the winter tires give you when you need to turn and stop more than the ability to get moving. It is a safety thing for me more than a "can I get to work" thing.

I love the look of the ATS. I have been inside one but have not driven on. I was impressed with the rear seat considering how small it is. It is more comfortable than the current CTS if you ask me.

 

[barlowc]

Hmm... I may need to seriously rethink my conventional thought about AWD. Anyone out there reading that would recommend AWD over RWD + winter tires?

 

[dishdude]

I also did not want AWD when I bought my ATS - we just don't get enough snow here to justify it.

The only powertrain I have not driven was the 2.0T, so I can't really comment. I did have a VW CC rental that had the 2.0T and DSG auto combo, and it drove very rough (jerky) since the transmission kept trying to get into the highest gear as quickly as possible, which was lower than when the turbo would spool up. So you never got a little bit of power to pass, you got the transmission kicking down, then the turbo spooling up, then the transmission upshifting. Very uncomfortable.

Are you happy with the performance of the Altima? I would think the 2.5 in the ATS should perform pretty similarly. (Assuming you are considering going w/o AWD)

I have 350 miles on mine and everytime I drive it I like it more and more. The brakes, CUE, the ride, steering feel, handling - everything about it is impressing me. I went out on a 45 minute drive the other night that included some highway, and then some back roads that were twisty and hilly - plus I needed the navigation system since I wasn't familiar with the area I was going to. That drive confirmed I had purchased the right car.