[Natedog]

Looking overwhelmingly positive thus far... massive transmission improvements, amazing sound, ~500 hp/tq and over 30mpg out of a V8, adjustable exhaust, amazing interior, easier to drive, etc.... and a base price around $63k.... not to shoot down the ATS-V before anyone drives it, but it seems MB built the car all of us were hoping Cadillac would build... my guess is Cadillac will win their intended battle, which is to beat the M3 around a track, but they'll lose the war to the overall industry as other competitors stayed true to their roots and did the R&D necessary to build a better all around car.

That being said, this is Cadillac's first version of the ATS-V and if they throw in a V8, integrate the CTS gauge cluster, ditch CUE, and stick to providing a legit manual, then they might have a winning combination.... until then i have a feeling most of the reviews will be "damn great effort by Cadillac, drives great, and feels great, but for the same money, there is better value out there".... only time will tell and I'm certainly pumped to see the head to head comparisons and drive all these in the spring time

https://grrc.goodwood.com/road/driv...rive-thrilling-mercedes-amg-c-63-super-saloon

http://www.digitaltrends.com/car-reviews/2015-mercedes-amg-c63-and-c63-s-first-drive/

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1502-2015-mercedes-amg-c63-review/

 

[syndr78]

Yea. It'd be foolish to not give the amg a real strong look if the ats-v is on your radar.

 

[thebigjimsho]

Easier to drive? How so? As for amazing interior, as long as they have the cheap tack on nav screen, I'm not having it. Ugly.

 

[CTSVsport]

Turbos in the V ? Holy heat soak issues batman!

I would imagine it will be difficult actually obtain a serviceable car at those prices, as items that should be considered standard will likely be expensive options.

X2 on the ridiculous add on nav screen. Looks like someone let the dash heat up in the sun and then jammed in a iPad mini.

 

[roadpie4u]

...and over 30mpg out of a V8...

Just to point out, the C63 is getting the same MPG rating of 25mpg (US) as everything else in this group. That "30mpg" is in UK gallons.

US Gal =/= UK Gal

Just so we're clear. AMG isn't pulling magic here. That said the C63 is a good performer, I just can't stand the new styling.

Turbos in the V ? Holy heat soak issues batman!

Actually no. If you design the exhaust manifolds properly and insulate them from the cylinder heads (which normally most car manufacturers don't do, btw) you can minimize the hot-side piping AND spool the things more efficiently/faster/harder. Additionally, you only have one "hot side" of the engine compared to two "hot sides" for a traditional TT V engine, which means there are fewer other components under the hood exposed to heat and it's better contained.

Not to mention the turbos (which are a serviced part) are located right in the top of the engine bay, so swapping and upgrading turbos is a snap! :suspense:

Many manufacturers (even GM) have engines that were designed and prototyped to do this, just not many have made it to production yet. it's a really neat idea, and would even let you take a V8 or V6 engine and run a "big single" turbo for maximum power. This engine will make a drag queen monster.

 

[baabootoo]

Wow, very impressive indeed! I think the current C63 AMG is about 4000#, and the new S only 3650#!

 

[pissedoffwookiee]

Easier to drive? How so? As for amazing interior, as long as they have the cheap tack on nav screen, I'm not having it. Ugly.

lol.

----------

Turbos in the V ? Holy heat soak issues batman!

I would imagine it will be difficult actually obtain a serviceable car at those prices, as items that should be considered standard will likely be expensive options.

X2 on the ridiculous add on nav screen. Looks like someone let the dash heat up in the sun and then jammed in a iPad mini.

lol....i get what you guys mean about the nav....i kinda like it, not for looks though.....if you look you'll notice how high up the Infotainment screen is it's even higher than the IP that is a big plus for visibility and safety and something we Cadillac buyers lost when we went from the pop-up radio to CUE.....the other thing i like about it, and this is for looks, is with such a high position the dash remains low and nice looking instead incorporating the screen creating a big hump and/or cave in the dash a-la BMW

 

[baabootoo]

I love the "gamer" electronic dash!

 

[Kools]

WHY are manufacturers losing the aggressive stance and appearance that made models like the C63 so hugely popular. Sorry, MB, this car is ugly. Looks like a plain C class

 

[Tedboss1]

Here is a the same test drive on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4XUTu2lzTo&feature=youtu.be

The engine is TT V8 with 503 hp and 516 lb-ft. vs ATS-V TT v6 with 455 horsepower and 445 lb-ft.

I wonder if ATS-v will be able to keep up specially that MB is lighter.

I like the Cadillacs looks better.

 

[Xaqtly]

Here's an article from Top Gear.

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/mercedes-amg-c63-first-drive-2015-02-26

Unfortunately for Cadillac, they have done what a number of us have been saying they were going to do - they priced the ATS-V too high. This isn't really about how good the ATS-V is as a car, it's about public perception, which has always been Cadillac's problem. If you go up to an average guy on the street, show them the ATS-V and the new C63 AMG and tell them they cost the same money, which one is he going to take? Right, unless he's somebody who posts on this board, he's going to take the Merc. As if that weren't bad enough, for the same money Merc is giving you a V8 while Cadillac is only offering a V6, with 50 less HP to boot.

Cadillac REALLY screwed up on this one. Not the car itself - the ATS-V is brilliant. But by pricing it directly in M3/M4 and C63 AMG territory they basically guaranteed nobody is going to buy one. Because why would they? What incentive does an average person have to buy an ATS-V over an M3 or a C63? Cadillac does not have the market infiltration they think they do. BMW and Merc are still the de facto standards in the performance sedan market, it doesn't matter how good the ATS-V is or if it beats them both on a track, nobody cares. It's about perception, not reality.

And unfortunately the perception is still that Cadillac is so much of an also-ran that people aren't even aware that they make performance cars now, never mind GOOD ones that are comparable or even better than the Germans. The only reason anybody is even vaguely aware of Cadillac at all is because of the V2 CTS-V, which finally put them on the performance map. And the only reason that happened? Because the CTS-V undercut its competitors by a healthy $20-30k. THAT is what got people into showrooms. Not the fact that it beat the Germans and took their lunch money. It was the PRICE.

And then word of mouth took over, as more people bought CTS-Vs the more people heard about how good they were, etc. But Cadillac took that to mean that the world at large is now exactly as aware of Cadilac's performance lineup as they are of Merc's and BMW's, and that is just not the case. But Cadillac is acting like it is, and pricing their cars like it is.

There will be plenty of head to head videos with the ATS-V and the C63 and the M3/M4. There will be plenty of comparative reviews, and I have no doubt the ATS-V will compare favorably. And reviewers will tell you right to your face that you should buy the ATS-V over the other two, and it won't make a difference. Because for the same price you could have an M3 or an AMG Merc and that is the only thing most people care about.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. Cadillac's engineering team is on a serious roll, they're producing insane cars that feel glorious to drive, but they're being let down by the management at Cadillac.

 

[vfaninva]

^^Yep. Totally agree. I cannot understand why those who make decisions at GM don't get it. Illogical.

 

[Kools]

I agree with Xaqtly as well.
I'll be honest here, The ATS-V styling is better than the C63, but about equal to the M3/M4 to me.
However, like ya said, if it was between those 3 models....sorry the V is at the bottom. It's a brand new car, brand new everything. They priced it like it has clout and deserves to be among the proven. It doesn't. At the end of the day, it's still a cadillac and cadillacs don't fetch Benz or Bimmer coin. $45-50k and I'd put it at the top of the 3

 

[OldRoadDawg]

The C63 S is a cool ride.

However....."AMG hasn’t yet announced pricing, but figure about $63,000 or so base for the C63 and $73K for the C63 S."

And all the reviews so far have been about the C63 S. Isn't that the model that we seem to be comparing the ATS-V to?

If we think the ATS-V is being priced too high, then what will this C63S set you back after it is optioned out? Everyone knows MBZ seems to have an endless list of ridiculously priced options that can easily add $$$ to the final price. You want those sweet 'available optional carbon ceramic brakes'? Figure on $8 to $10K.
Me thinks that by the time you build this C63 S how you want it, you will be in the mid to upper $90s.

It sounds like I'm defending Cadillac's pricing for the ATS-V. I'm not. Just trying to compare what it will cost me to drive off the lot in similar performing cars. Sooner or later ATS-Vs will be available with pricing incentives. MBZ C63S.... very doubtful.

(and you can order a manual trans in the ATS-V )


My .02

 

[Tedboss1]

May be Cadillac will get the V-8 turbo engine that they are apparently developing for CT6 ?

 

[baabootoo]

One big plus for the MB is that the auto is standard and not an option.

 

[tomuchwrk]

Don't forget about the resale value you'll get on the ATS-V, unfortunately BMW and MB have the history to keep their values. Would of been nice if this car stripped down went in the 50k range, but what's 10k in this market of car. If you want American, you'll have to pay for it.

 

[thebigjimsho]

The ATS-V comes well equipped and ready to race for the price of a base 6+ year old V2.

It's a bargain. You people are clueless...

 

[Kools]

That motor isn't proven and I'm not confident it's even as fast as a V2. I don't care about a track, I never tack my cars and neither do 95% of owners. Track numbers are pointless. Show me 1/4, show me a roll. That's what I care about. Show me aftermarket. BMW went turbo and the factory turbos are weak beyond stock. Those turbos in the ATS-V are already at 18psi.
I really dig the ATS-V, but 62K is a little high for a first gen, unproven car. Prove it. It makes considerably less than 500hp. That's the number I was looking for. 62K and it makes 100hp less than the V2. yeah it supposedly weighs like 500lbs or so less, but at a 100hp difference, the weight is almost negligible.

 

[thebigjimsho]

Neanderthals and their straight lines. The ATS-V was built to handle. But, let's ignore all that.

As for me, I'm in that 5%. I'll even put my Town Car through its paces to get my handling fix taken care of.