Close

    • Car and Driver compares the 2016 Cadillac ATS-V to the BMW F80 M3 and Mercedes-AMG W205 C63 S and picks the M3 with the ATS-V finishing last

      Last week CaddyBoost commented on the spectacularly fast ATS-V test numbers Car and Driver somehow managed to achieve which blew their previous test figures out of the water. It is starting to make more sense as those test figures appeared in this comparison test of the ATS-V versus the BMW M3 and Mercedes-AMG C63 S.


      If we knew those figures were recorded for this test we would have stated Cadillac may have sent a tweaked ATS-V to Car and Driver. Maybe they changed the software on all ATS-V's. Either way, something happened and the ATS-V is now spectacularly fast.

      Speaking of which, the C63 AMG S is not recording any spectacularly fast times. At least not in this comparison. Of all the races we have seen between the C63 AMG S and the M3/M4, the AMG takes the victory and somewhat easily. So how is the C63 AMG S only trapping 116 in the 1/4 mile which is a mile per hour less than the M3 and how is it getting beaten to 100 miles per hour and 150 miles per hour by the M3? We can not explain it.

      Is Car and Driver just throwing together test figures from different days for the cars? That certainly is how it feels. The numbers do not make sense in context. The ATS-V may actually be as fast as they are saying despite the previous slow tests from more than one source but that would mean it blows the C63 AMG S away. It's not even close with their claimed 6 miles per hour trap speed spread. What this network thinks is that the C63 AMG S would be the highway king out of these three. The acceleration numbers are puzzling.

      As far as the weights there is no surprise that the M3 is the lightest at 3608 pounds followed by the ATS-V at 3800 pounds and the C63 AMG S at 3939 pounds. The W205 C-Class is not the lightweight car Mercedes claimed it would be. In all fairness, the F80 M3 missed its weight target too.

      The M3's weight advantage pays dividends in the slalom posting the fastest time follow by the ATS-V and the C63 AMG S. The Caddy does record the best skidpad figure at 1.02g followed by the C63 AMG S at .98g and the M3 at .97g.

      BMW's 50/50 weight distribution is simply a myth in the turbo era. The cars have more weight on the nose and Car and Driver records 52.1/47.9 front to back. The ATS-V and C63 AMG S fair no better with 52.5/47.5 and 54.3/45.7 front to back respectively.

      Out of the trio the car chosen is the M3 finishing in first place. They comment that it is the lightest and leanest but criticize the brakes which seems to always be a point of criticism on BMW's and BMW just can't get it right. The Cadillac's handling is said to be better and the AMG braking is set to be better yet they still pick the M3 due to it being the better all around package.

      The Cadillac ATS-V wows with its eye opening (and suspicious) numbers but its overall package and namely the interior is behind the other two. The engine also receives criticism for being 'dull' whatever that means. Its sound is criticized yet BMW is faking their engine sound with synthetic engine noise through the speaker system. The ATS-V is said to be the best handling car offering the best steering feel and brake feel yet it loses out because of the lack of refinement. Cadillac is almost there. Almost.

      The AMG's transmission is criticized but it's V8 engine is praised despite putting up the slowest numbers. We still do not understand how the most powerful motor out of the group is somehow putting up the slowest numbers when all independent testing shows us it should be the fastest. Something is off here and perhaps Car and Driver got some 'magazine specials' to test. It's becoming harder and harder to trust these test results.

      Make of it what you will.






      This article was originally published in forum thread: Car and Driver compares the 2016 Cadillac ATS-V to the BMW F80 M3 and Mercedes-AMG W205 C63 S and picks the M3 with the ATS-V finishing last started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 52 Comments
      1. Stevenh's Avatar
        Stevenh -
        I'd have to agree its a factory ringer as well, but at least we know it will be a strong car with a tune.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Stevenh Click here to enlarge
        I'd have to agree its a factory ringer as well, but at least we know it will be a strong car with a tune.
        How do we explain the M3 and C63 AMG inconsistency though? There is no way that car is trapping less in the 1/4 mile, none.
      1. ezec63's Avatar
        ezec63 -
        The times really don't make any sense it would almost be believable if they switched the atsv and c63s numbers by mistake lol A private owner has run his bone stock c63s at the strip and hit 11.7 @ 119mph so no way is doing half a second slower and 4mph less trap speed on a Vbox with 1 foot rollout. They also stated they pumped up the c63S tires to something like 48psi which is absurd. So the GTS C&D tested that's ~350 pounds lighter, has less torque but a small amount more top end hp, and DCT instead of mct is running 1.1 seconds faster and 12mph faster trap speed lol
      1. leveraged sellout's Avatar
        leveraged sellout -
        Has to be a ringer, GM SAE certifies its power output so they don't really do the "underrating" game. That trap sped gives it all away, that car is making over 500 hp and there's no way any customers are getting a 500 hp ATS-V. Also, seriously, that car needs a new interior. The engine also definitely sounds the least racy of the 3, imo.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by leveraged sellout Click here to enlarge
        GM SAE certifies its power output
        Does BMW not? It's not a requirement?
      1. BlackJetE90OC's Avatar
        BlackJetE90OC -
        Motor Trend has the same comparo coming shortly. Hopefully they took all three to the K&N dyno. I know they took the M3 during its first instrument test.
      1. Forced Air's Avatar
        Forced Air -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Does BMW not? It's not a requirement?
        No it isn't a requirement. The German manufacturers do the Euro test but its procedures are different.

        Lets not forget how easy and common it is to have different tunes in the cars a manufacturer provides to the magazines regardless of what tests you did to certify your production car claims.

        Honestly it is to the point where you just can't even magazine race cars at all due to the test car vs production car differences. We are going to have to start ignoring these comparisons. At least the portions power affects anyway.

        I would stick with the results we have seen from actual owners.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Forced Air Click here to enlarge
        No it isn't a requirement. The German manufacturers do the Euro test but its procedures are different.

        Lets not forget how easy and common it is to have different tunes in the cars a manufacturer provides to the magazines regardless of what tests you did to certify your production car claims.

        Honestly it is to the point where you just can't even magazine race cars at all due to the test car vs production car differences. We are going to have to start ignoring these comparisons. At least the portions power affects anyway.

        I would stick with the results we have seen from actual owners.
        Yep, this magazine stuff has become a joke. They don't care though as they just want to sell magazines and not piss off the OEM's who give them the cars. Just look at what Ferrari gets away with.

        The best thing would be for someone to do independent tests circumventing the OEM authority and magazine politics but who is going to donate their cars for that?
      1. BlackJetE90OC's Avatar
        BlackJetE90OC -
        Some lap times would have been nice.
      1. leveraged sellout's Avatar
        leveraged sellout -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Does BMW not? It's not a requirement?
        Nope, only GM does it as far as I know...the other two American manufacturers might but I can't remember exactly. The Germans do not. And that's totally fine with me, I like looking at BMW/Mercedes/Audi power figures and knowing they may be as much as 15% higher than reported, sometimes more.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by leveraged sellout Click here to enlarge
        Nope, only GM does it as far as I know...the other two American manufacturers might but I can't remember exactly. The Germans do not. And that's totally fine with me, I like looking at BMW/Mercedes/Audi power figures and knowing they may be as much as 15% higher than reported, sometimes more.
        This leaves kind of a big inconsistency in ratings making them almost meaningless.

        The BMW M4 is essentially doing at the wheels what it is rated at the crank. That's crazy.
      1. leveraged sellout's Avatar
        leveraged sellout -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        This leaves kind of a big inconsistency in ratings making them almost meaningless.

        The BMW M4 is essentially doing at the wheels what it is rated at the crank. That's crazy.
        I think it's a good thing overall, because like someone said in the other thread, it's like a worst-case-scenario number. You know that under almost any circumstances, it's going to make *at least* that much. For example, look at th Z06 and how many issues with heatsoak that car has had...those given power numbers are pretty much a first-run, once-a-day thing...after that, it starts to drop off. Where as with a German car, you know that you're gong to be comfortably making at least the given power figures, in 90% of the situations you find yourself in. I kind of like that.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by leveraged sellout Click here to enlarge
        I think it's a good thing overall, because like someone said in the other thread, it's like a worst-case-scenario number. You know that under almost any circumstances, it's going to make *at least* that much. For example, look at th Z06 and how many issues with heatsoak that car has had...those given power numbers are pretty much a first-run, once-a-day thing...after that, it starts to drop off. Where as with a German car, you know that you're gong to be comfortably making at least the given power figures, in 90% of the situations you find yourself in. I kind of like that.
        What I would like more is for manufacturers to put as much effort into their cooling systems as they into marketing their peak horsepower.

        A BMW M car that goes into limp mode after a lap? That's a joke.
      1. Hipressr's Avatar
        Hipressr -
        What is most impressive is that the ats-v traps 122mph almost 5mph faster than the others, as well over 4s faster 0-150mph. Its making a lot of power....
      1. Sticky2's Avatar
        Sticky2 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Hipressr Click here to enlarge
        What is most impressive is that the ats-v traps 122mph almost 5mph faster than the others, as well over 4s faster 0-150mph. Its making a lot of power....
        Did you read the article?
      1. Hipressr's Avatar
        Hipressr -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky2 Click here to enlarge
        Did you read the article?
        Yes, read both articles, theirs and yours. I agree the numbers are suspicious
      1. rppwm3's Avatar
        rppwm3 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Does BMW not? It's not a requirement?
        GM must be taking a page out of Ferrari's book for these new magazine tests. They must know how much of the general sports sedan target market is only about bragging rights and that most will never push their cars to even 80% of their limits so winning a comparo is big for that.

        That being said I'm impressed with what they've done with the new ATS-V, it really is nipping at the heels of its German competitors and though I haven't driven it, Ill bet it delivers better "feel" than the M3 and C63 when it comes to handling. As always with Caddy, the gadgets (Cue...needs serious help) and the plastics are what let it down. From the pictures the interior looks great but having sat in a new ATS, I can see what they mean. The engine makes great power but I think Cadillac is extremely dumb for piping engine sound through the speakers a la BMW (though they claim its "noise cancellation" not fake engine sounds) see >>http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/26/2...-review-video/.

        Weirdly, I was most excited for the ATS-V thinking it might really challenge the M3/M4 but now Im most looking forward to seeing what two new companies to the segment have to offer.

        Jaguar with the XE R-S, as the base S model has been compared favorably to the 335i m-sport. ( )

        And then the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio, which could be absolutely great to drive and is expected to have 542hp, plus looks great to my eyes.
      1. Forced Air's Avatar
        Forced Air -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        This leaves kind of a big inconsistency in ratings making them almost meaningless.

        The BMW M4 is essentially doing at the wheels what it is rated at the crank. That's crazy.
        The big thing with the Euro manufacturers is that their displacement and power output are both tied to the insurance and fee costs.

        Also, all BMW, MB, Audi, etc. are really performance cars. Which means they almost have to underrate to prevent perceived competition with their own vehicles (on a strictly hp level). American companies don't have this problem because they only have 2 or 3 performance models and everything else is mpg, luxury, cost or size oriented with little to no regard to performance.
      1. Forced Air's Avatar
        Forced Air -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Hipressr Click here to enlarge
        Yes, read both articles, theirs and yours. I agree the numbers are suspicious
        Click here to enlarge Then why would you say this:

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Hipressr Click here to enlarge
        What is most impressive is that the ats-v traps 122mph almost 5mph faster than the others, as well over 4s faster 0-150mph. Its making a lot of power....
      1. Hipressr's Avatar
        Hipressr -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Forced Air Click here to enlarge
        Click here to enlarge Then why would you say this:
        The Rated HP numbers are suspicious.

        I am very impressed with the Ats-v acceleration, I have no doubts the times car and driver gathered are accurate. What I have doubts with is the rated hp of the ats-v. At 3800lbs, the DOHC 3.6L ats-v running 18psi of boost is making power than advertised.