New York 2015: A Personal Invitation From Cadillac Head Johan De Nysschen

I missed this entire discussion because, ironically, I was out driving a new ATS loaner from my dealer while my CTS was getting new rear shocks. It was a base model with the 2.0T. There are a few things that are really right with this car: the drivetrain and the ride/handling balance are at the top of the list. It's very impressive for a base model. Potholes that are painful in the CTS are much less so in the ATS. The transmission shifts much more quickly. The 2.0T is punchier than the 3.0 in my car. Unfortunately, there are a number of things wrong with it as well: it's cramped (there's very little footwell room and with the sunroof, my head was brushing the headliner), the seats can't be adjusted properly and the trunk is ridiculously small. In short, it's a lot of fun to drive but I'm not sure I could live with it on a daily basis. I tend to like Cadillacs. But this is the first time that I found myself agreeing with the crowd who questions the idea of this car as a Cadillac.

LMAO! After calling me semi-trollish above, there's this from Archie: "I missed this entire discussion because, ironically, I was out driving a new ATS loaner from my dealer while my CTS was getting new rear shocks." How's that Cadillac/GM reliability "thing" working out? Blown rear shocks on a still warrantied Caddy, you say? "There are a few things that are really right with this car...Potholes that are painful in the CTS are much less so in the ATS." 1st, wow, so how's that Cadillac luxury working out in the CTS is it can't handle potholes as well as a $20,000 less expensive Chrysler 300 or $30,000 less expensive Camry? 2nd, I've driven every iteration of the ATS, and the ride is harsh & unrefined (Motortrend put it best when they stated "it'd have been more appropriate as a Pontiac G6,"), so thanks for clarifying what your incredibly low standards of a luxury/premium car are. Onto your admission that the ATS is not an appropriate vehicle warranting any premium /luxury designation - in full agreement with my prior opinions of it (though you failed to mention the gauges, the odd noises and startup vibrations, and your ATS apparently, fortunately had a CUE system and cruise control that actually worked): "Unfortunately, there are a number of things wrong with it as well: it’s cramped (there’s very little footwell room and with the sunroof, my head was brushing the headliner), the seats can’t be adjusted properly and the trunk is ridiculously small. In short, it’s a lot of fun to drive but I’m not sure I could live with it on a daily basis. I tend to like Cadillacs. But this is the first time that I found myself agreeing with the crowd who questions the idea of this car as a Cadillac." So you agree with me, then. Thanks for clarifying that, Troll. You're the irrational person, making trollish comments, in love with a fatally flawed, schizophrenic badge.

When I read comments about what's wrong with a particular car I wonder what the commenter would buy. So Mr Deadweight, what car do you drive and why? If you could and wanted to spend $60,000 on car what would you buy?

I am genuinely impressed with the technology they put into the CT6. That doesn't mean I'm impressed with the car. Time will tell on that. As far as I can tell, Cadillac passionately wants to be the American BMW. But they never will be, or at least it won't work if they do. I don't see how the CT6 is the right direction for Cadillac. Conversely, the Continental is exactly the right direction for Lincoln.