2017 Cadillac ATS 2.0T AWD... just picked it up

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: webfors
Thoughts, suggestions and ramblings are welcome.

Congrats on a new ride! It's a nice looking car with pretty good handling.

I had one as a rental about 2 years ago. Can't remember if it was AWD or not. And of course, being a rental, it must have been filled with regular gas, so what I experienced may not have been representative of the car's true performance capabilities. Handling was decent. Turbo lag was noticeable, but I am kind of susceptible to it. Others may not have noticed it. I typically try to stay away from smaller displacement turbo engines for this reason. I think BMW has figured out a way to mask it well, but most other manufacturers haven't yet. So my preference would have been for the NA 3.6 engine in the ATS as well.

I think my biggest gripe with it was the infotainment system and touch screen. Just not a fan of this design in general.

You asked for ramblings, so there.

 

[webfors]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy


You know you are really right about the balance of the 2.0T and the way it is tuneable. The 2.0T has the better weight advantage and just a mild tune with boost added and fuel to match is putting over 300hp so yes - that is the better choice over the 3.6 in that respect. Also - I hope I didn't come across wrong in my earlier post. I really like the car and Cadillac did it wonderful job on the dynamics of the car. It handles so well and the little 2.0 does pull hard right around 3000rpm. Feels bigger than it is.


Not at all. I love differing opinions and insight.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Can you pull over long enough to get us some iPhone shots please ?




I was going to say as soon as he finds a pier big enough to dock at, but this is not my uncle’s Caddy.

 

[webfors]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: webfors
Thoughts, suggestions and ramblings are welcome.

Congrats on a new ride! It's a nice looking car with pretty good handling.

I had one as a rental about 2 years ago. Can't remember if it was AWD or not. And of course, being a rental, it must have been filled with regular gas, so what I experienced may not have been representative of the car's true performance capabilities. Handling was decent. Turbo lag was noticeable, but I am kind of susceptible to it. Others may not have noticed it. I typically try to stay away from smaller displacement turbo engines for this reason. I think BMW has figured out a way to mask it well, but most other manufacturers haven't yet. So my preference would have been for the NA 3.6 engine in the ATS as well.

I think my biggest gripe with it was the infotainment system and touch screen. Just not a fan of this design in general.

You asked for ramblings, so there.

Low octane would definitely decrease the experience. I don't find the lag bad. Then again I don't have a lot to measure it against. Off the line it launches like nobodies business, with little to no lag.

CUE takes some getting used to for sure. It's not a system you can have for a day or two without developing a hate for it.

 

[webfors]

Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: webfors
Thoughts, suggestions and ramblings are welcome.

Congrats on a new ride! It's a nice looking car with pretty good handling.

I had one as a rental about 2 years ago. Can't remember if it was AWD or not. And of course, being a rental, it must have been filled with regular gas, so what I experienced may not have been representative of the car's true performance capabilities. Handling was decent. Turbo lag was noticeable, but I am kind of susceptible to it. Others may not have noticed it. I typically try to stay away from smaller displacement turbo engines for this reason. I think BMW has figured out a way to mask it well, but most other manufacturers haven't yet. So my preference would have been for the NA 3.6 engine in the ATS as well.

I think my biggest gripe with it was the infotainment system and touch screen. Just not a fan of this design in general.

You asked for ramblings, so there.

Low octane would definitely decrease the experience. I don't find the lag bad. Then again I don't have a lot to measure it against. Off the line it launches like nobodies business, with little to no lag.

CUE takes some getting used to for sure. It's not a system you can have for a day or two without developing a hate for it.


So I've finally gotten through two full tanks of 94 octane gas. The car went up north with my wife on a ladies weekend. There is no doubt that this car's ECU was using 87 octane timing tables because on the way there she averaged 8.6 L/100KM. On the way back she averaged 7.3 L/100KM. It appears it has adjusted the timing to accommodate the higher octane gas. I was worried when we first got it because the fuel economy was not as expected.