Cadillac Owners Forum banner

Prices Added to ATS Configurator

23K views 154 replies 27 participants last post by  JimmyH 
#1 · (Edited)
#3 ·
I wouldn't say "outrageously" but it isn't cheap. Keep in mind that this is a top of the line competitors to the leaders in the segment (and arguably superior to most). If you want the good stuff, it going to cost you.

Thanks for the update on the pricing for 'Build your own'; (I guess that was the reason that Build your own was absent for the last couple of days).
 
#4 ·
Perhaps "outrageously" was a bit too strong. Compared to an Infiniti G37x, the ATS seems expensive: G37x starts at $38,000 while the 3.6L Luxury AWD starts at $44,090. Then again, the G is a relative bargain.

At closer inspection, the ATS msrp across the trims is very much in line with the IS, C-Class and 3 series, and A4. Still, I guess I have a little bit of sticker shock considering that the ATS tops out at $55K while the CTS tops out at $58K.

Chuck
 
#7 ·
Right now, the configurator allows you to price the top ATS around $52k. You only get to 55k if you include the Driver Assist Package (code Y66) which retails for $3200 but is not yet reflected on the Cadillac Website. It is currently an interim availability option on the XTS and may be that way on ATS as well. There is nothing remotely comparable on the CTS, so the spread is more like 52K vs 58K.
 
#5 ·
Fully loaded this thing comes in at only 2K less than a similarly packaged 2012 CTS (50K vs 52K). The ATS should've topped out at 45K. All the reviews confirm that it's not as good a 3-series, good car but not there. The strategy was stupid. The car's interior is too small to be practical, and no turbo V6...why pay 50K for a loaded version? If the car is going to be a tad slower anyway...why not provide some extra rear leg room???

I bought my CTS not caring at all how it stacked up against the E/C class or 3/5 series. The reviews said at that time it was "the best American sedan ever made", that and precisely because it was in between the German rivals in terms of size is why I bought the car. I'm in my mid-thirties now, so I'm the target demo for the ATS...and Cadillac is forcing to BMW or to wait on the 2014 Infinit G, purely out of spite...and I've never owned a foreign car.

I don't want a compact car and I don't want my CTS to get bigger. Urggh!!!
 
#6 ·
Fully loaded this thing comes in at only 2K less than a similarly packaged 2012 CTS (50K vs 52K). The ATS should've topped out at 45K. All the reviews confirm that it's not as good a 3-series, good car but not there. The strategy was stupid. The car's interior is too small to be practical, and no turbo V6...why pay 50K for a loaded version? If the car is going to be a tad slower anyway...why not provide some extra rear leg room???
Fully loaded, it has a lot more equipment than a CTS and more high end chassis and braking components. Apples and oranges. Leg room is also greater than it's main competitor, the 3 series.

I bought my CTS not caring at all how it stacked up against the E/C class or 3/5 series. The reviews said at that time it was "the best American sedan ever made", that and precisely because it was in between the German rivals in terms of size is why I bought the car. I'm in my mid-thirties now, so I'm the target demo for the ATS...and Cadillac is forcing to BMW or to wait on the 2014 Infinit G, purely out of spite...and I've never owned a foreign car.

I don't want a compact car and I don't want my CTS to get bigger. Urggh!!!
So wait for the larger, more impressive 2014 CTS. It'll be roomier and have all the new technology from the ATS.
 
#8 ·
The new CTS is going to be longer than my '09...I don't want a bigger car. As far as apples to oranges...not quite, upgrades with the time shouldn't cost more...and so I'll be paying 60K for a non-V CTS in 2014???? Also, the ATS doesn't have more rear legroom than the 3 series, at least not on paper.

Unless this car blows me away I'm still going to feel betrayed by this brand, because the market research folks talked to German car buyers to build this car, not to those of us who supported this company when it went bankrupt - that's what I resent. I want a bad ass Caddy, with some muscle, chrome and legroom...with a little value.
 
#10 ·
As far as apples to oranges...not quite, upgrades with the time shouldn't cost more...and so I'll be paying 60K for a non-V CTS in 2014????
My point was that many brands have overlapping price points in their vehicles. It's not unheard of, because the two vehicles have different purposes and target audiences, and there's no law that says each model's price must end where the next one begins. I can build a 328i Sport Line with Tech package, Nav and Cold Weather package that has an MSRP higher than a 535i.

Chances are you will be paying closer to $60k for the 2014 CTS, as it's going to get more technology and equipment as it moves out of the "entry" position in Cadillac's lineup. By that time, Cadillac will have had the XTS and ATS on the road for over a year, hopefully beginning to turn the heads of import buyers accustomed to the price structure of the German makes.

A lot of longtime Cadillac people are going to freak out at a $60k CTS, but in reality the 2014 is going to be a CTS in name only- the ATS is now what the CTS used to be, while the CTS is becoming something else larger and more advanced.

Unless this car blows me away I'm still going to feel betrayed by this brand, because the market research folks talked to German car buyers to build this car, not to those of us who supported this company when it went bankrupt - that's what I resent. I want a bad ass Caddy, with some muscle, chrome and legroom...with a little value.
ATS: Small and sporty, with room for 4 but tight in the back. 80% sport/20% Luxury
CTS: Mid size and sporty, room for 4 including the back. 60% sport/40% Luxury
XTS: Large and luxurious, room for 5 and a cavernous trunk. 30% sport/70% Luxury

Lots of choices there for everyone- just depends on your priorities.
 
#11 · (Edited by Moderator)
A lot of longtime Cadillac people are going to freak out at a $60k CTS, but in reality the 2014 is going to be a CTS in name only- the ATS is now what the CTS used to be, while the CTS is becoming something else larger and more advanced
You made my point right here...they're getting rid of the CTS, a car that was called "the best American sedan ever made" just a few years ago, and I believe it's going to backfire. That car appealed to a new demo beyond "longtime Cadillac people"...I was 31 when I bought my CTS.
 
#12 ·
So when the '14 comes out, get one without all the whiz bang options and it'll probably be close in price to the current CTS and nearly the same size. The current CTS is 192" long, while the XTS is 202". Educated guess tells me the new CTS won't grow more than an inch or two, all in the back seat.

At least wait to see what they do with the '14 before you freak out.
 
#13 ·
after configuring it was 55k i'm thinking 2012 srx is a better deal alot more options for the coin and the 2013 will be overpriced if they charge extra for safety options. i like all the bells and whistles then i think my 1st house did not cost this much where do you draw the line. i need a reality check
i need a new car the car wins!
 
#15 ·
Chuck C said:
Perhaps "outrageously" was a bit too strong. Compared to an Infiniti G37x, the ATS seems expensive: G37x starts at $38,000 while the 3.6L Luxury AWD starts at $44,090. Then again, the G is a relative bargain.

At closer inspection, the ATS msrp across the trims is very much in line with the IS, C-Class and 3 series, and A4. Still, I guess I have a little bit of sticker shock considering that the ATS tops out at $55K while the CTS tops out at $58K.

Chuck
As an owner of a G35, these cars are the luxury bargain of the decade. Dollar for dollar, nothing competes with it.
But I expect that a new ATS will have a more sophisticated ride than the Infiniti's.
To those worried about price, compare apples to apples and ATS to 3 Series. Things don't look so bleak then.
I used the Cadillac and BMW website tools and the 3.6 AWD was $48k and the 335 xDrive was $52k (iirc). Both were MSRP and there will probably be wiggle room with the 335.
The ATS price doesn't seem out of line.
 
#25 ·
Well, you claimed before that they would be sharing "everything". I don't see that - especially no V6 on the Fusion.

I still don't see a reason why an ATS should cost as much as a CTS or an XTS. It is a small car with limited features and options. Just bumping up the price-level to match that of a 3-series but ignoring the fact that you can get an XTS for the same amount of money is going to cause some problems. I certainly don't see a reason why a small sport-sedan should cost as much as a better equipped luxury-sedan (XTS).

BMW or Mercedes aren't selling their 3- or C-series at 5- or E-series prices, either..
 
#26 ·
The ATS is a compact sport sedan which is aimed at the BMW 3 series. That's pretty obvious. They used the previous editions as their benchmarks, as the current F30 was not available until recently, and size-wise, it's very close to the previous 3 series in interior room, which didn't seem to hurt that car's sales at all.

I had a chance to sit in a 3.6 Premium at Atlantic Station this past weekend, including with the engine running. It was Black Diamond, with the Black leather/aluminum trim, and it had the cold weather package. MSRP on that car should be about $49k, including $1000 for the paint. While that seems like a lot, I priced against a BMW 335 Sport, similarly equipped, and that car would be about $55k. The M Sport might be more equivalent, due to it's adjustable suspension, but I didn't price that yet, and that would cost even more. Bear in mind that the premium is quite loaded; to be fair, though, we should add $1000 for the sunroof that is standard on the BMW, which makes it approximately $5k more expensive, comparably equipped. The equipment is not exactly comparable, but pretty close.

So far, all of the initial tests have shown the ATS to be at least as good overall as the BMW. There have been no direct comparison tests, though I am sure they will be happening quite soon. Driving impressions show great handling and brakes with a firm but smooth ride, and good acceleration. Steering feel has been praised, and may be better than the BMW, which has been criticized for being somewhat numb. Only a back to back test will reveal the truth, however. The brakes have been widely praised, and that is another BMW weakness, as they are prone to fade, even on the M cars. The BMWs are probably a bit quicker, due to the 8-speed transmission, which I have read is coming in the ATS, but not yet available. Perhaps the closest match will be between the 2 liter turbo sticks; the ATS is rated as more powerful, but many think the BMW is way under-rated. The BMW gets great mileage, thogh the stop/start feature has been widely criticized as rough and jerky, and many will turn it off because of that. The BMW 4 has also been criticized for it's uninspiring soundtrack, while the ATS reportedly sounds great. The 3.6 may not be quite as quick as the 335, due to the relative lack of low-end torque compared to the 335, but it should be lighter, and takes regular gas, compared to all of the BMWs.

Styling-wise, I prefer the BMW and the CTS, though the ATS is handsome enough that it would not deter me from a purchase. THe interior of the ATS is quite a bit nicer than the 3 series, and more comfortable, though just slightly less roomy. The BMW is now possibly the roomiest car in it's class, and definitely roomier than previous editions. When I sat in the F30, the car was notably roomier than before, but I didn't find any of the seats to be particularly comfortable. The interior styling was an improvement overall, but not great by any means, and build quality wasn't all that great, either (the 3 was never really meant as a luxury car). As to the ATS, after I adjusted the front seat properly, I entered the back seat, and was pleasantly surprised by the room! I really expected less. Now, I'm 5'9", so I'm sure with the seat all the way back it would be tight, but that's true for every car in the class. Moreover, there was adequate headroom( a bit better than the CTS), and good foot room under the seat. There was also more foot clearance in the rear door than the CTS. Comfort, both front and rear, was great, and quite surprising. The front Sport Seats were very comfortable, and the side bolsters could be felt, though I can't tell how well they would work on the track yet; I suspect not nearly as well as the Recaros in my CTS-V. The rears were also very comfortable, especially sitting behind my seating position, and these seats were much more supportive than the rear seats of the F30. The interior was very attractive and well built, though not quite as plush as the CTS. For instance, the CTS dash and door tops are padded as well as sewn, whereas the ATS is just hand sewn. The trim in the ATS is way better than the CTS, however.

The car does have a high price, but a less well equipped model would be substantially cheaper. The premium model has some equipment that more corresponds to the CTS-V, like the MagnaRide, Brembos and forged wheels, and then all the extra tech items such as CUE, front parking sensors, and the fancy safety equipment that's not yet available on the CTS. Comparable CTS models usually cost about the same as a 3 series, so a comparable ATS should really be about $5000 cheaper than a CTS, too.

I anxiously await the arrival of the ATS, especially the stick turbo. If it drives as well as or better than the BMW, I might even consider it to replace my CTS-V. I wouldn't mind a smaller car for the city with better gas mileage, as long as the handling, steering, and brakes are good, and if it's decently quick and fun to drive.
 
#27 ·
Just to be perfectly clear: I think the ATS is a great car and it was on my list as well - it might still be because I don't know as of today what the 2014 CTS is going to deliver. Even when I used the configurator and came up with the relatively high price, I also said to myself "well, at BMW, you wouldn't pay less, either - and the rebates/incentives on the ATS are probably higher, too."

Then - just for fun, I decided to build an XTS Premium AWD - and found out that it was just about the same price. I couldn't believe it. I mean, the XTS Premium is certainly well equipped...

So I decided to wait for the new CTS. that will probably deliver the best of both worlds.
 
#32 ·
The days of the undercutting competitors by a huge margin are gone.

Cadillac's renaissance started with the '03 CTS. It was targeted to steal sales from the Germans midsize and entry levels...for an entry level price. Then, many improvements were made with the '08.

Now that Cadillac has made dents in the market, bringing in a true entry level, 3 series fighter with a larger CTS it's time to price accordingly.

The ATS is a no compromise car. That's why it's priced higher. The new CTS will be an evolution of the Gen2. Without compromise, it will also be priced higher. If you think the 2014 CTS will be priced the same as the current one, dream on.

It's also why when they come out with the Omega chassised car, it will be well above DTS and current XTS pricing.
 
#33 ·
I dont understand why this is so difficult to understand. ;) The reason BMW and Mercedes dont have this pricing problem is due to those brands having 3 properly spec'd and defined levels of car. The reason the CTS and ATS are so close in price is due to the CTS being a straddler at present, great car, but underspec'd compared to regular 5-series. The ATS looks to be a dead-on competitor to the 3. It demands a higher price. Just for fun, add Brembos/MRC/and CUE and a few other options to a package, and watch the price of the CTS jump 7-10k.
 
#35 ·
More than a CTS? Maybe. More than a loaded XTS? Nope.

Magnetic Ride Control? Not available on the ATS AWD. The XTS AWD, however, has it. Brembo Brakes? XTS has it, too.

At the same price, the ATS lacks: 14-Speaker Bose-system, ventilated seats, heated rear-seats, the "real" CUE, 3-zone A/C, sunshades, power steering-column and electric glovebox door.
 
#38 ·
caddyfanFL said:
The CTS will be smaller than the XTS so an equally equipped CTS mustn't cost more than the XTS. The V-series, of course, is on a different level.
A Z4 Sdrive35i can get up to $65,000, but you don't hear people moaning that it should be less than a 535i because "it's smaller". Size has nothing to do with it, but rather cost to build. That cost can go into luxury, performance, or a mix of the two. Sometimes the exotic materials that go into a proper small car can take the price up near or equal to larger vehicles.

Cadillac's technology has moved so fast, the V isn't really on "another level" anymore. Outside of the supercharged truck engine (and that's what it is), everything that makes the CTS-V special is on the ATS- Magnetic ride, Brembos, leather wrapped dash, sport seats, etc. The ATS trumps even the V with its CUE system (compared to the now outdated Nav in the CTS-V), heads up display and more.

Comparing the ATS to the XTS based on price is folly. One is a purpose built RWD sports sedan on a clean sheet chassis with extensive weight saving measures through expensive materials, while the other is a FWD luxury cruiser built off an existing GM platform whose R&D costs have already been recouped by other models.

As Jim pointed out, just because the CTS-V and the Escalade are both $75,000 doesn't mean one is better or one is priced wrong. ATS and XTS are polar opposites that happen to have overlapping price points if you equip each one in a certain way. Plenty of other brands have overlapping price points inside their own line simply because that's how much it costs to build the cars- it's not like they just pull these MSRPs out of a hat, you know.
 
#39 ·
A Z4 Sdrive35i can get up to $65,000, but you don't hear people moaning that it should be less than a 535i because "it's smaller". Size has nothing to do with it, but rather cost to build.
On the Z4, it's not just cost to build. It's rather the cost to build divided by the low volume of this car. Now IF Cadillac is planning on selling less of the ATS compared to the XTS, I'm with you - but if they want this car to be a success, I'm guessing they want to sell quite a few of it.

Sometimes the exotic materials that go into a proper small car can take the price up near or equal to larger vehicles.
And what materials would that be on the ATS?

Comparing the ATS to the XTS based on price is folly. One is a purpose built RWD sports sedan on a clean sheet chassis with extensive weight saving measures through expensive materials, while the other is a FWD luxury cruiser built off an existing GM platform whose R&D costs have already been recouped by other models.
So on the ATS, I need to pay for the development while others already did that for me on the XTS? I guess that answers the question which car has the better value. And BTW, that's what I'm talking about the whole time.
 
#40 ·
Okay then, how about the Miata? Mazda sells a metric ton of those, yet it still costs more than the larger and fancier Mazda3. Reason? Lightweight materials cost money, especially when they're custom made for a specific car.

Look, we can go round and round all day. ATS will be offered in a Turbo Manual for under $40k, a tremendous value in its class. If you don't find value in a RWD car that's lighter and more powerful than the 3 series with AVAILABLE (key word) luxury items like CUE and HUD, then by all means buy an XTS. Value is a relative term, and if you feel like the bigger trunk, softer ride and fancier interior justify a $55k sticker more than 3400lbs, magnesium paddle shifters and an all new world class chassis with magnesium and structural adhesives, then ATS isn't your car.
 
#43 ·
CaddyFanFL said:
It's not that I don't like the ATS - just check out the initial reaction of some other users on page 1 of this thread. One user stated that the ATS should've topped out at 45K. I'd even OK a fully loaded one at $50K but $55K?..:helpless:
Because you're used to cost cutting. This car looks to be as good, or better than, the C class/3 series.

Sorry you don't understand what it takes to actually build a car. The XTS is on an affordable LaCrosse platform that has been out for years. That's why you can pack it full of gadgets for that price.

But, hey, you've owned a 2006 M5 so you "know" what a driver's car is. lol
 
#47 ·
Because you're used to cost cutting. (...)

But, hey, you've owned a 2006 M5 so you "know" what a driver's car is. lol
Do I hear a little frustration here since you're getting personal?:histeric:

And the claim that the ATS is BETTER than the 3-series is quite optimistic. So far, the ATS is considered a car ALMOST as good as the 3-series at ALMOST the same price. So what?
 
#48 ·
Besides, a 3 series is not entry level. It has prestige as THE sports sedan. People don't cross shop it with the 5 and 7s.
So according to that logic, they could charge the same for a 335i, a 550i and a 760i? After all, the 3-series is THE sports sedan, the 5-series the business-car and the 7-series the luxury-model. So no cross-shopping means it doesn't matter what price-relation they have to each other. This certainly is interesting. I wonder why neither BMW, Mercedes nor Audi have introduced a "one price fits it all"-strategy...

What Cadillac did is simply unique. If you disagree, please name a manufacturer that offers two non-performance sedans (and the ATS and XTS are just that) at the same price where the BIGGER one with MORE options/features costs as much as the significantly smaller one. Mercedes doesn't, BMW doesn't and Audi doesn't.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top