Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Prev: 2018 ATS 2.0T NOW: 2020 CT4-V JR
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My 2018 ATS 2.0 Luxury AWD lease was up, so I went testing the CT5 Prem Lux 2.0.
Of course it didn't corner like my ATS, the new CT5 2.0 is slower, it didn't ride all that
much smoother than ATS and the CT5 seat bottom is 1" shorter/less than ATS/CTS,
making it less comfortable for me at 6'2". I considered ordering a CT5 Prem Lux 3.0,
but the seat was still bothering me. I didn't want to pay the extra $ for the Plat, to
get the seats like you see in the Sport or V. I could not see a CT5 Sport with the 2.0,
with some of them in stock up in the Plat/V price range.

I wanted those Sport seats without losing any performance, so I decided to rely/bet on
my ATS experience and research and order a CT4-V. It got built right before the plants
shutdown. They must have started the Vin's last 6 digits at 100,000 or higher, maybe
where ATS left off, so it's impossible to know how early a build it is, with a 136nnn seq #.
I consider this a next gen ATS.

I was satisfied enough with the ATS 2.0 engine, but not the slower version in CT4/CT5.
I can tell it's plenty faster, not broken in yet. The CT4 2.7 engine sounds a lot like the
ATS 2.0, but the exhaust is a lot better, more like a V6/V8 sound. Sound can be adjusted
some with the Modes discussed in the Mag reviews.

The trans feels really good and quick, no stumble from 1 to 2, like the ATS 8-speed.
The 2.7 in Prem Lux or V gets the 10-Speed and the electric shifter. The new shifter is pushed
forward for reverse, back for Drive and press a button for Park.

Even with the V FE3 suspension, it rides smoother than my ATS luxury. I know it's not the
Full V and is at the V-Sport level. It has the Sport seats, which are more comfortable than
the Lux/Prem Lux standard leather seats in CT4/CT5, which along with the 2.7 is why I got the
V trim.

CT4 is 4" longer than the ATS. Besides that 4", the hood and trunk are a bit higher, so it looks a
lot bigger than the ATS. Tires are Continental RF with AWD. AWD only costs $500, because it
replaces MRC. There are more Mode options. Mymode only adjusts 3 features in Tour.
Vmode can be used for all Perf or to be more variable than MyMode. If you have MRC, the
suspension will be adjustable also.

The top level Bose stereo sounds good and seems to provide more base if you want it.
You can control common things like sound, next, etc, multiple ways, buttons, dial, steering wheel,
voice. This should save wear on the CUE screen.

Back seat room is the same as ATS, but if that is an issue for anyone, they need a CT5 or SUV.
The dealers free Nitrous air in the tires doesn't seem to do much, as I see the pressure change
normally between 70° and 40° days. The front Sport seats have side bolsters and cushion length
adjustment.

CT4 has the general look of a smaller CT6.
The CT5 Sport with the 2.0 at $58-60K I see on lots doesn't make much sense, compared to
the CT4-V 2.7 with medium options at $52, with a few less options. The ATS Premium RWD
would be the closest to the CT4-V, which is faster and will cost less, depending on options.

I have the no cost Summit White with Black seats. Crystal White is not an option on the V.

581229


581230
 

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
393 Posts
Great write-up, and congratulations on your purchase. You did a lot of research and hands on driving, and awesome that you still were able to get a launch model.
 

·
Registered
97 Eldo ETC,98 STS,04 SRX N*,06 STS N*,14 CTS VSport Premium, 17 CTS Vsport Prem Lux
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
Congrats, but I'm jealous! I'm in no man's land on my CT5-V order. Build went in early March and then CV-19 hit and shuttered the factories. I'd probably have mine about now. 😕
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
Anxious for you to give us a more in-depth review on the performance/engine/handling once break-in is over! Congrats...looks great in white.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Any update on the performance aspect of this? Maybe a video of speedometer acceleration now that it may be broken in?
 

·
Registered
Prev: 2018 ATS 2.0T NOW: 2020 CT4-V JR
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
With CV situation, I am still not broken in. I am not a track type driver, but I like being
faster than a high %% of cars on the road.

I had a Check Engine light during the first tank of gas, and assume it was regular.
Dealer said it was a false alarm and GM is looking into it, but they didn't say it was gas related.
They reset the code, but I don't have the code.

I don't think anyone will be unhappy replacing their ATS with CT4, as long as they know the standard
2.0 is not as fast as the ATS 2.0. The seats in the Sport or V are really good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
I'm just curious in the platform and if itll be more solid and reliable than that of the ats. My ats was making more power than a stock atsv and I drove it around a circuit track as well and it was great. My thing with it was I had a blown motor only 5k miles into having the car do to those piston issues aka bad factory tune and a tight ring gap. I have seen all of the videos and tech specs on the l3b engine (CT4V) and I know it looks much more durable given the fact that it was built for the Silverado. I'm just hoping it holds up that way. And every video of spec that I've seen for acceleration with this car I believe has been on regular 87 pump gas. I would bet $1000 that will make the car slower since its supposed to run on 93 so it probably backs down timing and boost.
 

·
Registered
Prev: 2018 ATS 2.0T NOW: 2020 CT4-V JR
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
My ats was making more power than a stock atsv and I drove it around a circuit track as well and it was great. My thing with it was I had a blown motor only 5k miles into having the car do to those piston issues aka bad factory tune and a tight ring gap.
Some forum members think that some % of the blown ATS 2.0 engines were from tuning. You must
have tuned yours well, to get it's power more than the ATS-V.

You have a good theory that the 2.7 engine might be more durable than the 2.0, so the 2.7 might
be safer to tune for higher HP.

When Youtubers get a car from a dealer to test, there is a good chance it has Reg gas. You would
think they would at least add a few gallons of 93. When Cadillac loans a car to Motor Trend, etc,
you would think that they have 93 in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
my motor blew completely stock at 8k miles on the car. Pretty sure do to bad stock tune as if you ever used alot of torque in those setups on stock tune even on 93oct you can hear pinging knock and one day it just gave.

I've driven one of these ct4v cars and I love the amount of tech that comes in them. As for power though, because they are heavy, even though they make a nit more power, its only a bit quicker than a stock 2.0t ats. This is why I think it could have more potential with the correct premium gas.

There's just very little people that have the car or the ones that have it don't actually play with it and or still put regular gas in lol
 

·
Registered
Prev: 2018 ATS 2.0T NOW: 2020 CT4-V JR
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
ATS 2.0 0-60 in reviews is 5.6-5.8. CT4-V is 4.8-5.1.

While .5 second is a small time, isn't it a pretty good amount in car 0-60 times?
 

·
Registered
2014 ATS 3.6L AWD Performance
Joined
·
492 Posts
ATS 2.0 0-60 in reviews is 5.6-5.8. CT4-V is 4.8-5.1.

While .5 second is a small time, isn't it a pretty good amount in car 0-60 times?
Considering the CT4-V's place in the line-up, I think the more appropriate comparison is with the previous top-rung 3.6 Premium sedan models.
ATS 3.6 RWDATS 3.6 AWDCT4-V RWDCT4-V AWD (per MT)
Weight3535 lbs.3682 lbs.3616 lbs.3780 lbs.
HP / Torque321 hp / 275 lb-ft.321 hp / 275 lb-ft.325 hp / 380 lb-ft.325 hp / 380 lb-ft.
0-605.4 sec.5.6 sec.4.8-9 sec (est.)5.1 sec.
1/4-mi.14 @102 mph14.1 @ 100 mph13.5 @106 mph (est.)13.6 @104 mph

So, an improvement on what was ATS? ...a step forward, straight-line performance wise?...undoubtedly. 1/2 sec. faster on 0-60 (despite the extra weight) is a big deal, which is why the CT4-V compares well for the higher-end ATS lessee coming back in, who now has the option of a quicker CT4-V at a similar price point. The challenge in gaining mainstream desirability remains vs. GM's own stated competition - A35 (4.7 sec.), S3 (4.6 sec), and M235i (4.6 sec.) - which are a few tenths quicker, and physically shorter/lighter. I'm keenly interested to read the multi-car comparison reviews when available...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Huh? This car is a LOT quicker than the ATS 2.0.
I'd also like to mention that 0-60 on paper fluctuates a lot from review to review. I like to see it in person and see if it really feels faster. Don't get me wrong, the motor has so much more potential for going faster! But the limited boost (maybe because the car was on 87 octane or in a break-in phase) on the ct4v plus the added weight doesn't make it actually as fast as the numbers claim. I have a ats coupe with 8 speed auto and have test driven 2 ct4-v cars and I can tell you now the ct4-v is no sub 5 second 0-60 car that's for sure! Maybe a 5.2, I think I can give it that. But then you're talking only .2 seconds faster than my stock ats 8 speed did its 0-60 in 5.4 seconds stock.

This is all why I was asking earlier for anyone who owns one of these if they have broken it in completely and or have put premium gas in it. Maybe that's why they seem a little slower on test drive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
very nice, but for 100k the ct6v for 6'2 would be a much better choice. Corners like butter too... and the nav is embedded not a tablet slapped on the front
 

·
Registered
2013 3.6 RWD Premium - 2006 BMW Z4M
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
Considering the CT4-V's place in the line-up, I think the more appropriate comparison is with the previous top-rung 3.6 Premium sedan models.
ATS 3.6 RWDATS 3.6 AWDCT4-V RWDCT4-V AWD (per MT)
Weight3535 lbs.3682 lbs.3616 lbs.3780 lbs.
HP / Torque321 hp / 275 lb-ft.321 hp / 275 lb-ft.325 hp / 380 lb-ft.325 hp / 380 lb-ft.
0-605.4 sec.5.6 sec.4.8-9 sec (est.)5.1 sec.
1/4-mi.14 @102 mph14.1 @ 100 mph13.5 @106 mph (est.)13.6 @104 mph

So, an improvement on what was ATS? ...a step forward, straight-line performance wise?...undoubtedly. 1/2 sec. faster on 0-60 (despite the extra weight) is a big deal, which is why the CT4-V compares well for the higher-end ATS lessee coming back in, who now has the option of a quicker CT4-V at a similar price point. The challenge in gaining mainstream desirability remains vs. GM's own stated competition - A35 (4.7 sec.), S3 (4.6 sec), and M235i (4.6 sec.) - which are a few tenths quicker, and physically shorter/lighter. I'm keenly interested to read the multi-car comparison reviews when available...
As a current ATS Premium 3.6 RWD (included Magnetic Ride) owner I am somewhat disappointed in the new CT4V. Car got longer and heavier (especially V-6 to turbo 4) but the interior space didn't change. ATS came out in 2012 and now 8 years later I was hoping for more, including better packaging, but much of the car seems to be a carry over. Roughly the same length as a 3 series or A4 but far less backseat room? Acceleration is better than my car but lags the competitors. With my car 7 years old I was hoping it would be a "got to get it" car but I have 61k miles on my ATS (in close to perfect condition) and don't see much of a reason to change. My guess is my car is worth about $11k, and getting a similar CT4V would be my car plus a $35k check.
 

·
Registered
2013 ATS 3.6 Premium RWD
Joined
·
339 Posts
As a current ATS Premium 3.6 RWD (included Magnetic Ride) owner I am somewhat disappointed in the new CT4V. Car got longer and heavier (especially V-6 to turbo 4) but the interior space didn't change. ATS came out in 2012 and now 8 years later I was hoping for more, including better packaging, but much of the car seems to be a carry over. Roughly the same length as a 3 series or A4 but far less backseat room? Acceleration is better than my car but lags the competitors. With my car 7 years old I was hoping it would be a "got to get it" car but I have 61k miles on my ATS (in close to perfect condition) and don't see much of a reason to change. My guess is my car is worth about $11k, and getting a similar CT4V would be my car plus a $35k check.
If it helps, it's not really any heavier (the last 3.6L RWD C&D tested weighed out at 3662 lbs), but it is crazy how the redesigned front and rear added 4 inches to the car. I probably wouldn't worry as much about acceleration, the German triplets likely need full on launch control to hit close those numbers - I'd guess 5-60 times or a street launch would favor the CT4-V. Those cars might "feel" more fun though with shorter gearing, more revs and better top end power curve, and the FWD hot hatch roots giving a more frenetic front end feel. Despite it's low revs, I'm pretty keen to try the 2.7T for it's small V8-like torque curve - I hardly rev out my ATS where the power is at, city streets are too slow for 1st and 2nd, and then on the highway the top of 3rd gets me up to 100, which then I just look like a jerk. Sadly, I don't think my dealer will ever carry one so chances are slim I'll ever get to try it (without travelling). Your beef with the packaging not improving hits me too, but GM doesn't seem interested in improving versatility outside CUV and truck platforms. Now that Mazda is going to offer the their 2.5T in the 3, I might go back to the zoom-zoom life if the dynamics and packaging hold up. I'm tempted to hang onto my ATS for a long time (92k miles right now), since nobody will ever make a NA 6 cylinder RWD sport sedan ever again, but replacing the ATS and my winter beater Milan with something I don't have to think about cargo space or weather while still putting a smile on my face is pretty tempting.
 

·
Registered
2013 3.6 RWD Premium - 2006 BMW Z4M
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
C&D had mine (2013 3.6 RWD Premium) at 3561. C&D 2013 Cadillac ATS

If the CT4V weight above is correct somewhere along the line the car got heavier and the 2.0T used to be about 100 lbs. lighter than the 3.6. My comparison was mostly about what upgrades I would get from going from my car to CT4V.

CT4V gets better mpg 20/29 - 23 combined
ATS RWD 3.6 19/27 - 22 combined

CT4V Premium fuel is recommended/tested with it and with it the overall cost for fuel is higher at $1850 to $1500 for the ATS RWD 3.6 GOVERNMENT FUEL MPG LINK

(fuel costs at 15k miles per year you can change it to suit what you do)
 

·
Registered
2013 ATS 3.6 Premium RWD
Joined
·
339 Posts
C&D had mine (2013 3.6 RWD Premium) at 3561. C&D 2013 Cadillac ATS

If the CT4V weight above is correct somewhere along the line the car got heavier and the 2.0T used to be about 100 lbs. lighter than the 3.6. My comparison was mostly about what upgrades I would get from going from my car to CT4V.
Gotcha - gonna throw a wrench in though, does your car have a sunroof? The 2013 C&D tested did not (according to photos), saving what I'd guess to be about 40-50 lbs. The 2017 they last tested did have the sunroof, LGX weighed a touch more, start stop added a little weight, might have been a couple of structural changes in 2016 too - that's where the weight gain came from.

As for upgrades, a lot more torque below 5500 RPM, 10-speed vs 6-speed, updated suspension w/gen 4 MRC...maybe SuperCruise, eventually? What would really make the CT4-V need to do to hit your sweet spot?

CT4V gets better mpg 20/29 - 23 combined
ATS RWD 3.6 19/27 - 22 combined

CT4V Premium fuel is recommended/tested with it and with it the overall cost for fuel is higher at $1850 to $1500 for the ATS RWD 3.6 GOVERNMENT FUEL MPG LINK
Yeah, for all the tech thrown at the 2.7T it is disappointing that it doesn't outdo the LGX and barely edges the LFX on FE tests (even more disappointing knowing what BMW's 400 real-world-HP B58 can do). I'm interested in what C&D finds out for their 75 mph highway test though, maybe real world it does better. The premium vs regular is harder to parse, at current prices the 2.7T would have to get about 27 MPG combined (vs 22) to even out there - if gas goes up, that sting lessens though. The cost of mega torque I suppose.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top