OT: Midsize Luxury Cars

[theRU]

I have to say i'm impressed with Cadillac. Using a stock image since the one i picked up today is glistening so much my camera can't take a good picture. If you haven't checked out a caddy and are in the market, i would suggest you take a look. These are not your Father's or grand father's cars.

 

[RU4Real]

The ATS is definitely worth a look, although it's coming up on a refresh cycle.

The CTS has failed to keep up with its German competition and is way overdue for a major refresh.

But you're right - Cadillac has definitely moved past their convertible pimpmobile image and on to much greener pastures.

 

[LevaosLectures]

I rented a Chrysler 300 on a recent trip and really really enjoyed it.

 

[RU4Real]

I rented a Chrysler 300 on a recent trip and really really enjoyed it.

The 300 is about to get one behind the ear from FCA. It's a 20 year-old platform - both the 300 and the Charger / Challenger sit on what used to be an old E-class platform that was borrowed from Merc back when Fiat Chrysler was Daimler-Chrysler. This is the last year for the current 300.

 

[LevaosLectures]

The 300 is about to get one behind the ear from FCA. It's a 20 year-old platform - both the 300 and the Charger / Challenger sit on what used to be an old E-class platform that was borrowed from Merc back when Fiat Chrysler was Daimler-Chrysler. This is the last year for the current 300.

Uh...me likey nice car.

 

[RU4Real]

Uh...me likey nice car.

I always knew you were a pimp at heart. :)

I had an '08 Charger R/T. It was a hoot and a half, but only in the retro sense to which it aspires. It excelled at one thing, really - turning fossil fuel into tire smoke. Nice cruiser, very reminiscent of my '74 Chevy Bel Air, which was the first car I ever owned.

It also got approximately the same gas mileage.

Other than that, it wasn't particularly competent, at least not when compared to the standards by which I judge cars.

But then, I'm one of those people who will readily admit my belief that there's just no such thing as an ideal car. Ideally, you need at least 5 different cars to cover all of your needs.

 

[theRU]

Uh...me likey nice car.

Thanks, Its also got some nice tech inside & the interior is very well done. I'd have to honestly say it beat the Germans i looked at.

 

[Alaska_Dawg]

I rented a Chrysler 300 on a recent trip and really really enjoyed it.

The 300's are a hit up here in Alaska with the AWD they offer.

 

[RU4Real]

I'd have to honestly say it beat the Germans i looked at.

At what?

Just curious. What "Germans" did you look at? What, specifically, did you like better about the Caddy?

Also, has Cue been updated for '16 / '17? It's gotten some pretty scathing feedback, in previous years.

 

[RUSK97]

The ATS is definitely worth a look, although it's coming up on a refresh cycle.

The CTS has failed to keep up with its German competition and is way overdue for a major refresh.

But you're right - Cadillac has definitely moved past their convertible pimpmobile image and on to much greener pastures.

The current CTS was just released as a 2014 model and I don't think it's outdated at all. It's a spectacular car that I was fortunate enough to spend some time in as a premium rental. I also spent some extended time in a Bimmer 5-series and I think it blows the doors off the German. That said, the Bimmer will outsell it 10 to 1, all because of image.

 

[RU4Real]

The current CTS was just released as a 2014 model and I don't think it's outdated at all. It's a spectacular car that I was fortunate enough to spend some time in as a premium rental. I also spent some extended time in a Bimmer 5-series and I think it blows the doors off the German. That said, the Bimmer will outsell it 10 to 1, all because of image.

First of all, the 5 series is a pig. It's the forgotten underachieving child of BMW's lineup.

That said, the 3rd gen CTS pushes the capabilities of the Alpha platform just a bit too far. They had to stretch it by 6" to get the increase in wheelbase over the ATS so that they could reposition the CTS in the 5 series / A6 category (and increase the base price by more than $6k in the process, which is what it's all about).

Yeah, it's a nice car. But it's overburdening its chassis. Even with the 200 lb. weight reduction the 3rd gen is still a 4000 lb. car. When you fail to check the box for the 3.6 V6, it's a 4000 lb car with a turbo 4 motor in it and it absolutely feels stressed under hard acceleration. Granted most of the people shopping for a $50,000 Cadillac won't really notice that, but serious drivers (who won't buy that engine) will definitely notice.

I would absolutely buy an ATS. I would never buy a CTS.

 

[theRU]

The current CTS was just released as a 2014 model and I don't think it's outdated at all. It's a spectacular car that I was fortunate enough to spend some time in as a premium rental. I also spent some extended time in a Bimmer 5-series and I think it blows the doors off the German. That said, the Bimmer will outsell it 10 to 1, all because of image.

Yup you are right. The BMW badge is what sells. I've already had people scoff and question my decision to go with a caddy but i've had a few 5 series owners step out after letting them drive and say "wow".

 

[theRU]

At what?

Just curious. What "Germans" did you look at? What, specifically, did you like better about the Caddy?

Also, has Cue been updated for '16 / '17? It's gotten some pretty scathing feedback, in previous years.

You are so wrong about the CTS its not even funny. 2016 cue is updated and it works flawlessly .

I compared it to an A6 and 535. Better car $ for $.

 

[RUSK97]

First of all, the 5 series is a pig. It's the forgotten underachieving child of BMW's lineup.

That said, the 3rd gen CTS pushes the capabilities of the Alpha platform just a bit too far. They had to stretch it by 6" to get the increase in wheelbase over the ATS so that they could reposition the CTS in the 5 series / A6 category (and increase the base price by more than $6k in the process, which is what it's all about).

Yeah, it's a nice car. But it's overburdening its chassis. Even with the 200 lb. weight reduction the 3rd gen is still a 4000 lb. car. When you fail to check the box for the 3.6 V6, it's a 4000 lb car with a turbo 4 motor in it and it absolutely feels stressed under hard acceleration. Granted most of the people shopping for a $50,000 Cadillac won't really notice that, but serious drivers (who won't buy that engine) will definitely notice.

I would absolutely buy an ATS. I would never buy a CTS.

Yeah, I hear that a lot about the 5-series, but regardless, it's still often the benchmark for this class of car.

I drove the 3.6 normally aspirated engine and though I didn't push it anywhere near its limits, I never felt the engine strain or more importantly (for me) flex through the corners. In fact, it felt like a monolithic block of machined high strength steel. After all, if this chassis can handle being propelled by 600+ hp through the 'Ring, how bad can it be (I know, the CTS-V is a different animal, but they start from the same place).

 

[kjb32812]

I used to be a BMW guy and have driven my buddy's Caddy...just wasn't for me. My wifes 400h has turned me into a Lexus guy now though. Probably never own another brand unless I buy an M Series at some point. Can't quite get the performance of the BMW or even an Infinity but knowing the extent of your maintenance is tires and oil just can't be beat.

 

[RU4Real]

You are so wrong about the CTS its not even funny. 2016 cue is updated and it works flawlessly .

I compared it to an A6 and 535. Better car $ for $.

Different strokes. The A6 is the current benchmark in the class. I would buy one over a CTS every day and twice on Sunday. If they sold cars on Sunday.

Yeah, I hear that a lot about the 5-series, but regardless, it's still often the benchmark for this class of car.

I drove the 3.6 normally aspirated engine and though I didn't push it anywhere near its limits, I never felt the engine strain or more importantly (for me) flex through the corners. In fact, it felt like a monolithic block of machined high strength steel. After all, if this chassis can handle being propelled by 600+ hp through the 'Ring, how bad can it be (I know, the CTS-V is a different animal, but they start from the same place).

The V gets some chassis tweaking, obviously. It's part of what you get for the money. And yes, the 3.6 is definitely a better animal than the 2.0, that was largely my point - the price leader of the model lineup is a "pass" from the standpoint of any enthusiast, but all said and done, that's going to be the volume car. So it makes you wonder about the aggregate "car intellect" of the CTS's target demographic. I've driven both and the 2.0 feels exactly how you would expect a 4000 lb car with a 2 liter 4 cylinder engine to feel. Above 4000 RPM the word "asthmatic" comes to mind.

 

[theRU]

I used to be a BMW guy and have driven my buddy's Caddy...just wasn't for me. My wifes 400h has turned me into a Lexus guy now though. Probably never own another brand unless I buy an M Series at some point. Can't quite get the performance of the BMW or even an Infinity but knowing the extent of your maintenance is tires and oil just can't be beat.

which one did u drive?

 

[RUSK97]

The V gets some chassis tweaking, obviously. It's part of what you get for the money. And yes, the 3.6 is definitely a better animal than the 2.0, that was largely my point - the price leader of the model lineup is a "pass" from the standpoint of any enthusiast, but all said and done, that's going to be the volume car. So it makes you wonder about the aggregate "car intellect" of the CTS's target demographic. I've driven both and the 2.0 feels exactly how you would expect a 4000 lb car with a 2 liter 4 cylinder engine to feel. Above 4000 RPM the word "asthmatic" comes to mind.

Never driven the A6, but don't you have to compare apples with apples? Isn't the volume leader in the A6 the 2.0T? I gotta say though, the A6 interior is without doubt absolutely gorgeous.

 

[theRU]

Never driven the A6, but don't you have to compare apples with apples? Isn't the volume leader in the A6 the 2.0T? I gotta say though, the A6 interior is without doubt absolutely gorgeous.

i tried to compare apples to apples.

535I RWD 8 speed Auto with similar equipment was stickered at 69k. This came with a 3.0 Turbo putting out 300HP and 300 tq. on premium. It had head up display, blindspot, 360 surround view, adaptive cruise control, ventilated seats, leather. etc.

CTS 3.6 RWD premium stickered at 64K. 8 Speed Auto. Putting out 335 hp with 286 tq on regular fuel. head up display, blindspot, 360 surround view, adaptive cruise control, ventilated seats, leather PLUS MY FAVE 12" LCD customizable display, instead of a traditional instrument cluster.

A6 3.0 Prestige Stickered at 67K, AWD( not available in RWD only) similar load outs to the above

 

[chrisru99]

i tried to compare apples to apples.

535I RWD 8 speed Auto with similar equipment was stickered at 69k. This came with a 3.0 Turbo putting out 300HP and 300 tq. on premium. It had head up display, blindspot, 360 surround view, adaptive cruise control, ventilated seats, leather. etc.

CTS 3.6 RWD premium stickered at 64K. 8 Speed Auto. Putting out 335 hp with 286 tq on regular fuel. head up display, blindspot, 360 surround view, adaptive cruise control, ventilated seats, leather PLUS MY FAVE 12" LCD customizable display, instead of a traditional instrument cluster.

A6 3.0 Prestige Stickered at 67K, AWD( not available in RWD only) similar load outs to the above

I got the same one as you but black I love it. Great car

 

[theRU]

Different strokes. The A6 is the current benchmark in the class. I would buy one over a CTS every day and twice on Sunday. If they sold cars on Sunday.



The V gets some chassis tweaking, obviously. It's part of what you get for the money. And yes, the 3.6 is definitely a better animal than the 2.0, that was largely my point - the price leader of the model lineup is a "pass" from the standpoint of any enthusiast, but all said and done, that's going to be the volume car. So it makes you wonder about the aggregate "car intellect" of the CTS's target demographic. I've driven both and the 2.0 feels exactly how you would expect a 4000 lb car with a 2 liter 4 cylinder engine to feel. Above 4000 RPM the word "asthmatic" comes to mind.

A6 is a 4000lb car with a 2.0 liter too. I dont know what your point is.The fact that you are bashing the CTS on weight, which everyone is saying is one of its strengths is astonishing and makes me wonder what your angle is.
a6: 3,858 lbs
Horsepower: 252 hp @ 5,000 rpm
Engine: 2.0 L 4-cylinder

cts:
Horsepower: 268 hp @ 5,600 rpm
Engine: 2.0 L 4-cylinder
Curb weight: 3,646 lbs

BMW 5 :
Horsepower: 240 hp @ 5,000 rpm
Engine: 2.0 L 4-cylinder
Curb weight: 3,814 lbs

 

[theRU]

I got the same one as you but black I love it. Great car

I really wanted the vsport but my wife wouldn't budge.

 

[RUaMoose]

Wish GM would bring back the Pontiac brand. Great performance for the dollar. I have a G6 -- great car. Son has an old '95 Grand Prix coupe and loves it. Other son has a Grand Am. I had a Bonneville that finally died a few years back at 185k (rotted brake lines - wasn't worth fixing)

 

[kjb32812]

which one did u drive?

CTS...not sure the package type

 

[RU4Real]

A6 is a 4000lb car with a 2.0 liter too. I dont know what your point is.The fact that you are bashing the CTS on weight, which everyone is saying is one of its strengths is astonishing and makes me wonder what your angle is.
a6: 3,858 lbs
Horsepower: 252 hp @ 5,000 rpm
Engine: 2.0 L 4-cylinder

cts:
Horsepower: 268 hp @ 5,600 rpm
Engine: 2.0 L 4-cylinder
Curb weight: 3,646 lbs

BMW 5 :
Horsepower: 240 hp @ 5,000 rpm
Engine: 2.0 L 4-cylinder
Curb weight: 3,814 lbs

C&D quotes the curb weight for the CTS 2.0 at 3721 lbs. and the 3.6 at 3889.

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that the A6 is AWD. It matters, a lot, in every phase of the drive.

I don't get how you say "everyone says weight is one of its strengths." Sheer mass, in itself, is not a positive attribute. Nobody says otherwise. You look for structural rigidity, or you look for reasons to justify the weight - such as an AWD system or, in the case of a convertible, properly engineered bracing that serves to stiffen the chassis.

Like I said, the CTS isn't *bad* - in fact, it's quite good. but it's not best in class. The A6 is. In 2014's 4-way comparison test, the CTS finished second, although it got good commentary on being "sporty".

The 5 series was last, behind the E350. BMW is a shade of its former self.

 

[rudad02]

Go with the Cady. Been buying cars for 50 yrs. Never bought a foreign car. Keep American workers working.

 

[jonS]

Go with the Cady. Been buying cars for 50 yrs. Never bought a foreign car. Keep American workers working.

Practically every major foreign car company has an assembly line in the US so what's an American car these days anyway? Chrysler was given away by the Feds to Fiat , an Italian car company. So is a Chrysler an American car?

 

[RU4Real]

Go with the Cady. Been buying cars for 50 yrs. Never bought a foreign car. Keep American workers working.

The AALA rating for most of Cadillac's lineup is only 60% (the XTS and SRX are even lower).

 

[MozRU]

Wish GM would bring back the Pontiac brand. Great performance for the dollar. I have a G6 -- great car. Son has an old '95 Grand Prix coupe and loves it. Other son has a Grand Am. I had a Bonneville that finally died a few years back at 185k (rotted brake lines - wasn't worth fixing)

Mine is dark evergreen, it use to be my parents ride (Goodyear no longer makes the raise white lettering so I have no idea what I am going to do). Sad to see Pontiac go, but they had a good run. Tastes change, and Pontiac niche was no longer appealing.

 

[RU4Real]

Mine is dark evergreen, it use to be my parents ride (Goodyear no longer makes the raise white lettering so I have no idea what I am going to do). Sad to see Pontiac go, but they had a good run. Tastes change, and Pontiac niche was no longer appealing.

There are tire manufacturers who still make RWL tires. The classic tire market is huge.

 

[RRRRUUUU]

A6 is a 4000lb car with a 2.0 liter too. I dont know what your point is.The fact that you are bashing the CTS on weight, which everyone is saying is one of its strengths is astonishing and makes me wonder what your angle is.
a6: 3,858 lbs
Horsepower: 252 hp @ 5,000 rpm
Engine: 2.0 L 4-cylinder

cts:
Horsepower: 268 hp @ 5,600 rpm
Engine: 2.0 L 4-cylinder
Curb weight: 3,646 lbs

BMW 5 :
Horsepower: 240 hp @ 5,000 rpm
Engine: 2.0 L 4-cylinder
Curb weight: 3,814 lbs

Honda Accord V6:
Horsepower: 278 hp@ 6200 rpm
Engine: 3.5 L 6-cyl
Curb weight: 3,543

 

[theRU]

C&D quotes the curb weight for the CTS 2.0 at 3721 lbs. and the 3.6 at 3889.

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that the A6 is AWD. It matters, a lot, in every phase of the drive.

I don't get how you say "everyone says weight is one of its strengths." Sheer mass, in itself, is not a positive attribute. Nobody says otherwise. You look for structural rigidity, or you look for reasons to justify the weight - such as an AWD system or, in the case of a convertible, properly engineered bracing that serves to stiffen the chassis.

Like I said, the CTS isn't *bad* - in fact, it's quite good. but it's not best in class. The A6 is. In 2014's 4-way comparison test, the CTS finished second, although it got good commentary on being "sporty".

The 5 series was last, behind the E350. BMW is a shade of its former self.

And that same test said the cts drove better. The chasis is light and rigid vs the competition.

I did not leave out the fact the a6 is AWD, i mentioned it earlier. And in fact the AWD version of the CTS is still 100 lbs lighter. Maybe the Audi is rate higher overall, but my point again is that this isn't the caddy of old. They are worth a look and should be in the discussion.

 

[theRU]

Honda Accord V6:
Horsepower: 278 hp@ 6200 rpm
Engine: 3.5 L 6-cyl
Curb weight: 3,543
Dimensions: 193″ L x 73″ W x 58″ H

wrong thread...this isn't midsize economy cars. But since you are at it.... Google states the accord v6 curb weight is 3605lb. Factor in all the options the luxury cars we're talking about carry and you can see how they can bulk up by 300 to 400 lbs easily. ( Radar, ventilated seats, power sun screens, panoramic sun roofs, 450 speaker audio(i'm exaggerating but you get the point) surround view cameras, heated rear seats.... it all adds up.

Name this American FULL SIZE sedan.:
Horsepower: 305 hp @ 6,800 rpm
Engine: 3.6 L V6
Curb weight: 3,682 lbs
Dimensions: 201″ L x 73″ W x 59″ H

 

[MozRU]

There are tire manufacturers who still make RWL tires. The classic tire market is huge.

I have research it and couldn't find it. I will have to dig a little deeper. thanks.

 

[MozRU]

Is it me or do rich guy not like American cars? I am not a rich guy. This is my ride. 2013 coupe. All the other guys in my office who are paid, its Range Rover, Audi, Mercedes or nothing.

 

[theRU]

Is it me or do rich guy not like American cars? I am not a rich guy. This is my ride. 2013 coupe. All the other guys in my office who are paid, its Range Rover, Audi, Mercedes or nothing.

Well i think that some of it is that Caddy's weren't that good 10 years ago and now people don't even shop them when they are in the market. Case in point I had a buddy and his wife who were looking at Audi for a Q5. He was checking out my caddy and loved it so i told him about the new XT5 from Caddy. They checked it out and loved it. Bought one the same day.

Its about building that brand and brand experience. Sometimes you have to go backwards before you can take a step forward. ANd what i mean by that is that the cars now are more expensive( if you want luxury it costs money) and the customers aren't there yet in the numbers they need because of the perception. They need to survive this and improve their image and accept lower sales before the volume can grow again.

Case in point, i was told by my dealership that now when dealers remodel, if they want to retain the right to sell Caddy they must build a separate showroom from the rest of the GM lineup. This won't happen overnight but when its done, it will continue to strengthen the luxury appeal of the brand.

 

[theRU]

C&D quotes the curb weight for the CTS 2.0 at 3721 lbs. and the 3.6 at 3889.

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that the A6 is AWD. It matters, a lot, in every phase of the drive.

I don't get how you say "everyone says weight is one of its strengths." Sheer mass, in itself, is not a positive attribute. Nobody says otherwise. You look for structural rigidity, or you look for reasons to justify the weight - such as an AWD system or, in the case of a convertible, properly engineered bracing that serves to stiffen the chassis.

Like I said, the CTS isn't *bad* - in fact, it's quite good. but it's not best in class. The A6 is. In 2014's 4-way comparison test, the CTS finished second, although it got good commentary on being "sporty".

The 5 series was last, behind the E350. BMW is a shade of its former self.

The "light" weight is one of its strengths.

I'm going on the defensive because i feel that Caddy has a lot in common with Rutgers. LOL

You insinuated that the chassis is overweight, when in fact is is one of the lightest in the segment.

You insinuated that is is under-powered by offering a 2 liter 4 cylinder, when everyone in the segment does it. Considering they are the lightest car out there you think they'd actually get some kudos for this, when instead you bashed them.

You insinuated that by stretching an ATS architecture to fit a segment, they didn't actually fit in the segment. When in fact the wheel base is identical to the A6 and the car overall is longer.

And finally you made it sound like they made some serious compromises as a result of the "stretch". When by your own admission the car placed second in a direct competitor test back in 2014. So while Car & Driver rates the A6 a 5/5 and the Caddy is a 4.5/5 it seems they've done pretty well with this car considering that its usually less expensive when you line similarly equipped models side by side.

So in summary, the car is better and slightly less expansive than most, yet somehow is placed last in perception by the general public. As a result the general public continues to devalue the overall brand when it is full of potential. Sounds a lot like Rutgers to me.

 

[JRZEER]

Is it me or do rich guy not like American cars? I am not a rich guy. This is my ride. 2013 coupe. All the other guys in my office who are paid, its Range Rover, Audi, Mercedes or nothing.

I have the same car. Only drive it on weekends in nice weather. 2012 with 9k miles on it. Love it. Great car for the money.

 

[RU4Real]

The "light" weight is one of its strengths.

I'm going on the defensive because i feel that Caddy has a lot in common with Rutgers. LOL

You insinuated that the chassis is overweight, when in fact is is one of the lightest in the segment.

You insinuated that is is under-powered by offering a 2 liter 4 cylinder, when everyone in the segment does it. Considering they are the lightest car out there you think they'd actually get some kudos for this, when instead you bashed them.

You insinuated that by stretching an ATS architecture to fit a segment, they didn't actually fit in the segment. When in fact the wheel base is identical to the A6 and the car overall is longer.

And finally you made it sound like they made some serious compromises as a result of the "stretch". When by your own admission the car placed second in a direct competitor test back in 2014. So while Car & Driver rates the A6 a 5/5 and the Caddy is a 4.5/5 it seems they've done pretty well with this car considering that its usually less expensive when you line similarly equipped models side by side.

So in summary, the car is better and slightly less expansive than most, yet somehow is placed last in perception by the general public. As a result the general public continues to devalue the overall brand when it is full of potential. Sounds a lot like Rutgers to me.

You missed my point.

They stretched the Alpha - which is the ATS platform - to make the CTS six inches longer (5.6, actually) than it was on the old platform.

The car isn't too heavy, it's too heavy for the Alpha platform. That's my point.

They used the same platform for the Camaro but the Camaro is 400+ lbs. lighter than the CTS.

I think Caddy cheaped out, here. They're pushing the limits of the chassis - which is why they had to brace it for the CTS-V - and as these cars age that stress is going to show up, somewhere, in the ownership experience.

As for devaluing the brand, they're their own worst enemy. They took the '13 car, replatformed it to make it 6" longer, and raised the price by more than $6000.

Somebody asked why people prefer German cars in this segment. A company like Audi makes changes to a product line to improve the car and thereby improve sales.

Cadillac made a change to its flagship sales leader so that they could make it more expensive.

They continue to be guilty of the old American Car Manufacturer Sin of believing that consumers are stupid.

 

[theRU]

You missed my point.

They stretched the Alpha - which is the ATS platform - to make the CTS six inches longer (5.6, actually) than it was on the old platform.

The car isn't too heavy, it's too heavy for the Alpha platform. That's my point.

They used the same platform for the Camaro but the Camaro is 400+ lbs. lighter than the CTS.

I think Caddy cheaped out, here. They're pushing the limits of the chassis - which is why they had to brace it for the CTS-V - and as these cars age that stress is going to show up, somewhere, in the ownership experience.

As for devaluing the brand, they're their own worst enemy. They took the '13 car, replatformed it to make it 6" longer, and raised the price by more than $6000.

Somebody asked why people prefer German cars in this segment. A company like Audi makes changes to a product line to improve the car and thereby improve sales.

Cadillac made a change to its flagship sales leader so that they could make it more expensive.

They continue to be guilty of the old American Car Manufacturer Sin of believing that consumers are stupid.

I think you continue to guilty of the old american mentality that foreign cars are always better. You are making the assumption that when caddy makes their chassis better for a V version car, that the original is lacking somehow.

Where does it say in engineering that every time you build a new chassis, you need to start with a blank canvas? Where are you getting the information that stretching the alpha compromised the chassis?

They Braced the ATS V chassis too
Chassis
In its first V application, GM’s Alpha platform sports torsional rigidity that is 25 percent greater than the regular ATS’s. This is attributable to additional bracing in the engine compartment, including an aluminum skid plate bolted to the bottom of the subframe, sealing it off from the road. The front track grows by an inch on the sedan and 0.2 on the coupe, while the rears decrease by 0.5 and 0.3 inch, respectively. But with wider rubber all around, Michelin Pilot Super Sports measuring 255/35R-18 in front and 275/35R-18 out back, the overall footprint is still wider. Spring rates are up 50 percent at all corners, and GM’s third-generation Magnetic Ride Control dampers are joined with new bushings and ball joints. The ZF variable-ratio electrically assisted steering is a claimed 14 percent stiffer. Brembo supplies the brakes—14.6-inch discs up front squeezed by six-piston calipers and 13.3-inch discs with four-piston pinchers out back. Carbon ceramics will not be an option, Leone says, as the ATS-V doesn’t need a “$9000 brake package to make it track-capable.”