This commercial for the Cadillac CTS starts off with the following: “When it comes to sport sedans, the Audi A6 is faster. At depreciating.”
The first half of the intro sure as heck surprised us, but it all comes back to the fact that the CTS won the Edmunds.com best retained value award for sedans over $40,000:
The GM Authority Take
Besides the fact that the A6 depreciates faster, it’s also based on a front-wheel drive (albeit longitudinally-mounted) platform — which makes it inferior thanks to a suspect weight distribution when it comes to sports cars. But even then, it’s nice to see Caddy pitting the CTS against other mid-size luxury sedans — instead of insisting that it’s a 3 Series fighter; hey, might as well start getting the name ingrained in the heads of consumers now before the all-new Alpha-based CTS comes to market… right?
Comments
Facts are facts and I won’t dispute Edmunds.com’s findings. But I feel that quick drive-by assault ads like this aren’t exactly what Cadillac should be doing; smearing and mud slinging it’s compeditors never really rated very high in my books.
I could understand if this was ad done for Chevrolet and was aimed at potential Ford buyers, but I’ve felt that the luxury markets were more mature, perhaps above the effects of mud slinging and where the car is sold on it’s exclusivity and build quality and not on things like depereciation.
I suppose if you have the means to finance a 3 year lease wherein you only buy luxury cars, I can see why depreciation is a factor to consider.
Also, this ad only applies to North American Cadillac CTS’s vs North American Audi A6’s. I can’t see this ad applying to anywhere on earth where both the CTS and A6 are sold.
The 2012 Impala ltz is faster. I have seen some with 15,000 miles down by $10,000 to $12,000.
@ GRAWDADDY it’s an election year there is going to be a “Hyundai load” of mud slinging.
hahahah I love it!!!!! take that Audi rear wheel drive wannabe!!
Fair is fair; this is tasteful “mud slinging”… Apple did the same with Mac vs PC ads, remember?
Calling the A6 inferior because of it’s “front-wheel drive based” all wheel drive is asinine. First of all, the whole basis of the car is all wheel drive, so if anything, you should call the front wheel drive variant an all wheel drive based front wheel drive setup. Rear biased all wheel drive with a center diff is hardly something for Cadillac to scoff at. I would personally love to have a Cadillac option such as that. And all wheel drive with a manual transmission would be nice too. Can’t get that from Cadillac.
That is one of the most annoying remarks I’ve read on the internet this month.
I really like Cadillac, but this is annoying. Actually this article is more annoying than the ad itself. Drive an A6 and say it’s inferior. Don’t read in a magazine that Audis are nose heavy and say that it is therefore inferior to a Cadillac. If someone gave you a BMW with 50:50 WD in an Audi body to test drive, you’d probably also cry that it’s nose heavy. Or drive the new VW GLI and whine that it has a torsion beam rear suspension 😉
I’ve driven the B8 S4 and the current CTS-V and (obviously the CTS-V has better overall performance and is an amazing overall machine) but surprisingly, I found the handling of the S4 to be more neutral, despite articles saying that it’s nose heavy, unless you mash the throttle whilst cornering in the V.
Fun fact: 53% of the Subaru BRZ’s weight is on the front axle, while 55% of the A6’s weight is on it’s front axle. I will also argue that the weight distribution of the BRZ is in another league above the weight distribution of a 3-series or the CTS, despite not having “perfect 50:50 distribution between axles.”
Another word to the wise: 50:50 split of weight distribution relative to axles doesn’t mean ideal weight distribution. This can be, and is, done by BMW by using cheaper, heavier materials in the rear, and this added weight is further from the Z-axis or axis of yaw moment, which resists yaw rotation and obviously harms handling.
Cadillac offers some great products, but nothing that could replace an Audi for me. Sorry for the rant. Just an engineering student venting during finals week. And a GM employee, fan, and Audi fan.
Andrew, thanks for the rant!
There’s no denying that Audi has come a long way from a decade ago, but the driving experience is still not up to snuff. Forget about the numbers or AWD and think of it from a business perspective: the only reason Audi hasn’t made the jump to “real” RWD architectures is financial in nature – the firm didn’t want to invest the colossal amount of money to bring itself out of the FWD/FWD-based era.
That’s one; two, have a look at any Audi, especially the 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the engine placement. It’s almost astounding how much of the longitudinally mounted power plant is over/ahead of the front axle. The only exception here, of course, is the R8, and I haven’t looked at the A8 or the new TT.
And then there’s the topic of AWD: supposedly, all modern Audi vehicles are able to transfer as much as 80 (or 90?) percent of the power to the rear wheels. In my experience, this has never taken place and the front bias shines through under hard acceleration due to the front wheels hopping.
Ultimately, it seems that the automaker decided against investing in real, proven technology only to make a “quick-and-dirty” attempt to be more like the traditional players in creatively stretching the wheelbase and moving the front axle forward. I’m no engineer, so I’d love some counter arguments from someone who is versed in the matter.
That said, I love the Audi styling, interior design, and otherwise attention to detail. If only the drivetrain layout were right…
I understand your viewpoint that rear wheel drive is superior to fwd in terms of driving experience. But, your whole first paragraph is simply wrong. The A4, A6 etc. are not front biased in any way shape or form. It is symmetrical all wheel drive and it is a fully mechanical all wheel drive system as well. I tried to find a layout picture that would drive this home similar to what Audi has on display at their museum in Ingolstadt, but I can’t find quite what I’m looking for. The best and simplest picture I can find is from Subaru and it makes the same point: http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/ir/finance/presen/motorshow2003/img/slide11.jpg
But, notice the first picture is not front biased nor rear biased. It is designed purely for all wheel drive in mind. So, that is why Audi has better all wheel drive than both Cadillac and BMW. They use a mechanical coupling (Center differential) between the two ‘axles.’ In the past they had used a Torsen center diff, but more recently have used a crown differential. And in normal driving conditions, the crown diff splits torque 60:40 rear to front, and this torque split is dynamic with adverse driving conditions.
There is no other viable option to have symmetrical awd in a sedan other than their current solution. You need the engine in front of the center diff to accomplish this type of all wheel drive. Therefore, the center diff/transfer case must be behind the engine and directly drive the front wheels while providing the coupling to the rear wheels. The engine length effectively grows from this transfer case forward. That is where the problem lies, but some see the pros of this to outweigh the negatives. AKA, “55:45 weight distribution ain’t so bad”
Otherwise you have a system like the TT/Golf R/A3 that is based on electronics, much like the Cadillac and BMW (but backward). These systems are tacked on all wheel drive by using a viscous coupling from the originally driven axle. Those systems are catching up, but will never offer the driving experience of the mechanical coupling.
Autoblog’s review of the S4 gives you an idea of this as well with the quote of “BMW’s AWD is aimed at snow-bound Northerners; Audi’s is a performance upgrade.” http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/28/review-2010-audi-s4-brings-back-the-boost-gives-s-a-reason-f/
I have driven the e90 335xi and of course the B8 S4, and the driving experience of the 3 series is not up to snuff, in my opinion. I must ask, Have you driven an S4? If not, I urge you to do so. It’s a neutral handling car that outperforms the BMW 335. And I enjoy the driving experience more as well. That said, I also prefer the driving experience of the newest f30 328i over the A4. But these are just different philosophies, not the sort of deal where one is clearly better than the other.
I don’t know where you picked up the idea that Audi is cost cutting by not going to a drivetrain setup similar to BMW and Cadillac, but I urge you to let go of it. They are differing philosophies. Audi has made several brand new architectures while keeping the symmetrical all wheel drive setup for a reason. Not because they’re cutting costs.
Most simply, BMW and Cadillac make rear wheel drive cars first and foremost, while Audi is different and centers their brand around all wheel drive. Many enthusiasts and well educated people get this wrong, so I’m only trying to drive this point home because I’m passionate about the technology and I think you run a good website and keep people up to date on new in the automotive industry. I only know a lot about Audi because of my interest in the brand and I understand not everyone delves as deep as I do into their technology.
I realize I repeated myself a bit to get my point across, but I hope you understand.
Also, I’d like to add that I have seen A6s driving around the proving grounds for good reason. It is the benchmark of the segment.
You can prefer rear wheel drive basis. The 3 series is great fun to drive and I’m sure the ATS will be a very similar experience. Just don’t call an A6 front wheel drive based. It’s as fwd based as an ATS is awd based.
Hopefully you have the time to read my somewhat rant-like poorly written argument trying to describe Audi’s philosophy. Thanks.
Andrew — thanks so much for your thoughtful and thorough replies. What you’ve brought up is quite interesting and I would like to dig into it a bit further here if you don’t mind. I’ll make a list of my comments for the sake of simplicity. Here’s what I’ve gathered from a few engineering acquaintances:
1. The layout in the photo you’ve linked to was very useful to me, but still shows the left-most layout with the engine over front axle, making it rather nose-heavy. Now, you mention that it’s a compromise well worth taking, but it’s a compromise nonetheless.
Perhaps this is what bothers me the most when we’re talking about luxury cars that are marketed as performance cars. If I’m going to spend $35,000 or more on a performance luxury vehicle, I want to make as few compromises as possible. Hence, BMW and MBZ.
2. I also understand that all Audis (except for A3, TT, Q7, and R8) use the same platform, from the A4 all the way to the A8. Obviously, the architecture is stretched in multiple directions to accommodate varying sizes, but it’s still the same platform. Is this correct?
If so, the base FWD (FrontTrack) A4 seems to be the basis for the entire line, Quattro or not, and casts doubt on the presumption that Audis are engineered for AWD from the get-go; a Front-Track A4 seems to show that they’re made to be FWD first, with AWD tacked on later.
3. I have indeed driven the current S4, but not extensively. But if we use the Autoblog review, even the writer admits to a “feeling” of RWD-biased oversteer; in that case, what’ the point of AWD?
4. As for cost-cutting: I wouldn’t call it cost-cutting — as there never were any costs to actually cut. Instead, Audi simply never took the initiative to invest big, big money to uproot its existing architectures and redesign them from the ground up to be RWD-based.
You see, the brand has always been a laggard and has had its fair share of financial issues over the years. So it simply never had the financial resources to “start over”, instead being forced to work with what it already had.
So it’s not really cost cutting as it is a lack of investment, resulting (again, according to a few of my engineering acquaintances) in a better set-up than FWD alone, but one that’s still FWD-biased. A lot of my mechanically-inclined friends call Audi’s solution a stop-gap — and that’s the name I would use as well.
That’s all I’ve got. I would love, love, and love to be proven wrong — because I actually would really like to adore Audi and its products in lieu of a performance standpoint. So I’m hoping you disavow my claims and set me straight. 🙂
I missed this back in June.
I guess I don’t understand all of your points since you are arguing the same things I already addressed. I take that as you have dismissed those arguments that I have made. But I don’t understand what basis you have for that.
1. There are compromises with every car. The whole design process is a balancing act. If you call Audi’s drivetrain layout compromised in terms of weight balance, you must also call BMW and Cadillac’s layout compromised in terms of all wheel drive application. They tack on a transfer case to distribute torque from the rear to the front, rather than starting off by distributing to the center (symmetrical).
Some of what your saying is opinion and up to you, but some is incorrect. I’ve already said it many times. But, Audi’s quattro is not fwd biased in any way. It’s designed fully around the all wheel drive aspect. Just because the cheapest iteration is front wheel drive, does not mean that is the basis of the car. The S4, for example, is not fwd biased in any way. I’ve addressed this before, but I don’t know what else to say. The fact that the cheapest iteration of the A4 is fwd does not mean that was the design target and awd was tacked on. It’s the opposite and I’ve said this already. The front wheel drive A4 is a joke of a car that IS tacked on and saves a few parts from a quattro A4 to allow people to afford the Audi as a status symbol alone. I think it’s a mistake of Audi’s to offer it. In the case with you and many others, it harms their reputation. People mistake the whole platform for being fwd based. If it were, the engine would be mounted transverse. It would save costs and simplify things greatly. It’s meant for all wheel drive. It just happens to be easy to essentially chop off the center differential and rear drive components and be left with a cheap fwd car.
Quattro and rear wheel drive are great in their own rights. The Audi was designed for all wheel drive. The rwd cars in their iterations are inferior to the awd Audi in terms of dynamics and driving feel. I can now say I would buy an ATS over the A4. But the ATS4? Not a chance. It doesn’t feel right. I can
I fully understand why people buy S4s. I fully understand why people buy 335is. I don’t understand why someone would buy a 335xi over an S4. It is someone who must prefer other things about the BMW aside from
3. It oversteers like a RWD car? I call this proper dynamics. This is the beauty of the S4. Only at absolute cornering limits under full throttle will you experience oversteer. It takes more coaxing to get her sideways compared to a 3 series. It isn’t an understeer burdened FWD BIASED car with awd as an after thought.
Why have all wheel drive anymore if that’s the case? Because of all the advantages of having 4 wheels driven. There are masters levels classes on vehicle dynamics that could explain this. I have yet to reach them. But there are some more basic reasons:
Power delivery. Launch. Did you know that every 3 series short of the M3 has an open differential? Talk about a compromise. I’m glad Cadillac did not overlook something so fundamental about dynamics. Tuned 335is are notorious for “one tire fires.” My brother loves drag racing them with his awd Trailblazer SS. The S4 would embarrass many Corvette owners at the drag strip. Corvettes are great, but they better have the right tires and right driver.
Dynamics. Distributing power delivery across more tires allows more lateral force to be maintained by each wheel. Cornering requires more lateral force from the front than rear tires. Hence, rear bias.
Snow: Of course you’ll accelerate much faster with all 4 tires spinning. You’ll accelerate nearly twice as fast as a Cadillac on corner exit in the snow. Perhaps nearly 4 times as fast as a 3 series since it will only spin 1 tire.
The 3 series x-drive system is somewhat similar to a 4×4 pickup truck. A transfer case distributes power from the rear axle to the front axle. It takes more drive components, and simply doesn’t feel right when compared to Audi’s system that distributes power to the center and is transferred to the front and rear directly from the center. Drive them all. at the limits. I think that is the only thing that could convince you at this point.
I was somewhat disappointed in the ATS4 (also has 4×4 setup). The all wheel drive felt truly tacked on “for snow bound northerners, rather than meant for performance” like the BMW. You can even feel it in the steering anywhere near full lock. Turning radius also suffers more than Audi
I’ve had the same argument with other engineers as well. The main thing is to recognize different strengths of a RWD BMW and an AWD Audi. Most prefer one or the other. One is not a cheap alternative to the other. Just like being a Republican doesn’t mean you’re inferior to a Democrat and are in any way “wrong.” Different ideals. Stating and being so sure that one is greater than the other, especially when very few people truly understand each complex system (myself included), makes you a bigot.
Some people prefer rear wheel drive. That’s why BMWs exist. Some people prefer all wheel drive. That’s why Audis exist. The benefits of all wheel drive come with the compromise of added weight. Automotive design, again, is a balancing act. The S4 surpasses the 335i in every performance aspect. One could argue that their balancing act worked better and in effect had less compromise than the 335i…