For the most part, the 2.5L inline four-cylinder Ecotec motor gets a significant amount of criticism, denunciation, and hate from seemingly from all over for being the base powerplant in the Cadillac ATS Sedan. But does the naturally-aspirated four-banger deserve the bad press? We don’t think so, despite the irony in that the less expensive 2016 Camaro gets the 2.0L turbo I4 LTG as the base engine, rather than the more premium ATS. Here is the reasoning behind our thinking.
1. The Owners Like It
At 202 horsepower and 191 pound-feet of torque, the 2.5L I4 LCV is by no means a power monster. But every owner of the 2.5L ATS we’ve talked has loved their ATS, and thinks that the engine is just fine for the vehicle.
Sure, it might not win you any stoplight to stoplight sprints, but that’s not the point. The engine is for those who don’t care about posting the fastest 0-60 or quarter mile sprints, or about being pushed back into their seat upon acceleration. Rather, it’s for those who simply want a comfortable and nice — in the general sense of the word — luxury car, plain and simple. Whether or not you feel that the 2.5L is refined enough is an entirely different question.
And at 33 MPG highway and 21 MPG city, we should also note that the 2.5L is the fuel efficiency champion of the ATS family.
| Metric | 2.5L I4 NA LCV | 2.0L I4 Turbo LTG | 3.6L V6 NA LFX |
|---|---|---|---|
| City MPG | 21 | 21 | 18 |
| Highway MPG | 33 | 30 | 28 |
2. Competitive Pricing
Consider this: at a starting price of $33,215, the ATS Sedan is the least expensive model in the Cadillac lineup. That price is — you guessed it — is for the ATS Standard trim level (read: base) with the 2.5L I4 LCV engine. Opting for the least expensive ATS with the turbocharged 2.0L I4 costs $36,240, a rather substantial difference of $3,115. That’s why the ATS needs the entry-level 2.5L I4 until the sub-ATS Cadillac is released. This new vehicle will allow Caddy to reach an even lower price point, at which point the 2.5L will likely disappear from the ATS lineup due to the vehicle moving slightly upmarket.
In fact, its the market and segment positioning of the ATS Coupe that has resulted in Cadillac not offering the 2.5-liter in the two-door ATS.
3. BMW 320i
Much like the ATS 2.5, the BMW 320i is the base model of the 3 Series Sedan lineup. It’s powered by a detuned version of the same engine as in the 328i, and carries a starting price of $32,950, undercutting that of the ATS Sedan by $265 (though with less standard features). So, simply to remain price competitive with the Bimmer, Cadillac needs the 2.5L in the ATS.
| Measurement | Cadillac ATS 2.5L I4 NA | BMW 320i 2.0L I4 Turbo | + / – Cadillac | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horsepower (HP / kW @ RPM) | 202 / 151 @ 6300 | 180 / 134 @ 5000-6250 | + 22 / 17 | |
| Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ RPM) | 191 / 259 @ 4400 | 200 / 271 @ 1250-4500 | − 9 / 12 | |
| Transmission | 8-speed automatic (2016 MY) | 8-speed automatic | 0 | |
| Base Price | $33,215 | $32,950 | $265 |
If Cadillac were to discontinue the 2.5L in the ATS and increase the price to the level of the ATS 2.0T ($36,000) then it will be taking out a nice chunk of ATS sales by alienating customers who would have actually bought the ATS 2.5L, while also pushing away shoppers who are attracted to the ATS’ $33,000 starting price — made possible by the 2.5L, and who then end up buying a more potent ATS 2.0T or 3.6L V6.
As a bonus, the ATS’ 2.5L makes 22 more horsepower than the 328i’s 2.0L turbo. Even so, it’s down 9 pound-feet when it comes to the torque metric.
And So…
It all comes down to this:
- Owners of the ATS 2.5L actually like the engine in their car, and
- Removing the 2.5L I4 form the ATS lineup will only drive the price of the ATS Sedan higher, thereby making it less price competitive with its biggest and most direct rival — the BMW 3 Series
As such, we should think of it as a necessary component of the ATS family, at least until the sub-ATS model arrives at a lower price point. Until then, dropping the 2.5L from the ATS family wouldn’t help boost ATS sales numbers whatsoever.
But the one thing we would definitely change is that awkward, offset single exhaust pipe on the ATS 2.5; it needs to make up its mind and either get offset more to the left, or — better yet — gain a companion on the right for a nice-looking dual exhaust. But hey, at least there’s an accessory for that.
Comments
Forget a 4 cylinder in a CADILLAC . This is , to me , completely absurd ! I never thought I’d see the day that GM would put a hard working 4 banger into a prestige vehicle like Cadillac . This 4 banger , if I’m not mistaken , is not a Cadillac engine . If it is , shame on them . The ATS needs a V6 , say something minimum size of 2.7L twin scroll turbo charged Cadillac designed engine as the base engine . It will not have to work as hard with the higher displacement and two extra cylinders and as a prestige sports sedan it would be worthy of the name Cadillac . Those numbskulls that decided on a 4 banger at head office should be given their walking papers , yesterday !
You are not looking at the segment that the ATS plays in. It’s competitors all have and need 4 cylinders for price point, fuel economy and separation from upper trim levels.
Although the 2.5NA is a fine enough engine I agree it has no place in a Cadillac.
They should replace it with a more powerful version of the GM’S new Ecotec 1.6T .
It already makes slightly more power in the performance trim of the Cascada.
The 1.6T would have the benefit of better low and midrange pop as well.
There would be little effect on fuel economy also.
Cadillac is suppose to be high end luxury vehicle. Leave the economy concerns for GM’s other vehicles.
The lt4 is not a caddy engine. The LS6 and LS2 were not caddy engine. The 2016 ats v and cts v are good looking cars. The first and second gen cts v were butt ugly. The only thing that made them look good was the SMALL BLOCK CHEVY.
It is necessary to have 4 cylinder engines in all brands including luxury brands with corporate average fuel economy averages on the way up. Today’s 4 cylinder engines are smooth and powerful.
This is the same base engine as the Colorado and Canyon (and soon Equinox and Terrain). It’s solid. Buy it is not Cadillac material. Not naturally aspirated, anyway.
I tend to think this goes back to the parts bin mentality. Cadillac is after all “Cadillac” and therefore deserves better and some exclusivity on these kinds of things.
I agree !!!
Brilliant Conclusions!! 😉
A few months back Johan de Nysschen reminded that Cadillac will get their own exclusive V8 engines, but I wonder if they will also develop their own “refined” V6s, I-4s & I-4Ts in the future?
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/04/johan-de-nysschen-has-to-remind-the-internet-that-cadillac-will-get-new-v8-engines/
Think they will for V8 & V6 applications but wonder if there is enough of the $12 billion left over to do I-4 and I-4T’s.
I guess it depends on them committing properly to a sub-ATS platform.
The real question is what is the saturation point of this engine? Just how many do they sell compared to the other engines. Also how much incentive have they place on it?
The second question is if they priced the Turbo between the two 4 cylinders as it is and cut the 2.5 would the sales rate really change much?
The way I see it the Turbo being the base engine which it could easily be done with the mark up on the car would be added value for the higher price point. The turbo engine is not all about 0-60 times but a better driving car and added value of buying a better car. When you buy a top line you should get the kind of things you have to pay extra for on other cars not get the same thing you would get on a base Chevy.
Features mechanical and comfort that are optional on you value leaders should be standard on the brand you are offering as the new standard of the world.
From my understanding the new engines will cover the entire line at some point. The V8 is first and the V6 and 4 cylinder will follow in time. They can not afford to do them all at one time from a financial and man power stand point.
But Cadillac should take any engine shared with other GM divisions and use their own tunes on them for extra power. The turbo engines can gain 50 HP with just a different tune and Premium Fuel requires. They can see over 300 HP with no issue.
The Cadillac Turbo 2.0 should see noting less than 300 HP and the MPG really should not be effected much. I increase mine an even saw a confirmed by GM gain in MPG by 1-2 MPG.
The fact is if you want to be better you have to be better.
I think if they would up their game here and offered the better engine as a base it would be embraced as well or better as well as improve their image as having a better base engine here.
If you want to be the best you must offer the best.
I’m disappointed that Cadillac is using the upcoming 3.6 V6 in the 2016 ATS/CTS instead of the proper Cadillac specific 3.0TT V6 they just unveiled for the upcoming CT6. They could’ve detuned it to 350 HP and would’ve been almost top of the class, as the new C class has like 365/370 HP. Well will Cadillac realize that if they truly are gunning for the Big three, they can’t use Chevy parts bin engines, especially since they engineered their own V6. I just do not understand that thinking at all. Now I’m not saying the 3.6 V6 isn’t good enough, I’m sure it’s a great engine. I’m just saying it shouldn’t be good enough for a Cadillac.
Is it too soon to judge the next generation 3.6 NA for ’16? That engine may surprise us and it may not be the best engine but as long it has more than ample performance and refinement and starts off being in Cadillac and Camaro first, no one will find fault with it if it exceeds their expectations.
The ’16 engine has numerous enhancements that the competitors twin-turbo 6 have or may not have.
Also there is an ATS-V Sport model coming around the same time next year with similar or better hp/torque rating from the Mercedes C450 AMG Sport for ’17 model year according to automotive news.
I expect that the 3.0 is delayed till production is greater and they get more in the market in one model. The Xt5 may see next with the new platform introduction.
Also we must factor in how long the 3.0 may be around. It is really a smaller version based on the 3.6 HF engine and it could be just since Johan came in to be replaced with a more centered V6 based off the coming V8. While Cadillac is the only one using it now I expect it will be going to the Buick line at some point. The Avenir had one.
There are moves down the road you can not yet account for as to why something is not done.
For sure the 3.6 needs replaced at Cadillac as having the same engine in a Chevy and a Cadillac sends a wrong kind of message about image. While not all notice many do.
Also the 3.6 has an odd shake to it that should not be felt in a Cadillac. Really should not be in a Chevy either.
At this point the changed Johan has enacted mechanically will not be seen of felt till the start of 2017. These will be the updates and minor refreshes that can be done in two years. Changing engines in cars can be a little more complex between emissions, Warranty concerns and the fact it takes time to set up with suppliers and production too. Just how many engines was GM geared for in the first place. Will they or will they not replace this engine at Cadillac since it is not a full Cadillac power plant?
Skip the 2.5L I4. Keep the 2.0L turbo but tune it for more power to justify the premium over the 320i.
The 2.5 is the secretary’s car. It is for posers. Those who cannot afford and should not be Cadillac customers. I would argue the same for the 320i.
Take that new Opel 2.0 diesel and pop it into ATS. Now that would be something fun and economical to run.
Yes ‘fun and economical ‘ but not inexpensive and entry-level. ATS is there to attract new clients to Cadillac much like 3 & 2 Series for BMW.
Getting rid of the 2.5NA would invariably move the price point up.
Opel is not a luxury brand, but a cheap and tacky budget brand. Taking that cheap unrefined diesel from the opel parts bin, and put it in a Cadillac, is just a horrible idea.
Things like that makes the current Cadillac the loser of the luxury brands.
Cadillac should stay away as far as possible from opel.
Current Cadillac’s already have too many cheap parts from budget brands.
Btw, diesel should be just for trucks, not luxury cars.
Only cheap europeans would put a noisy smelly truck engine in a luxury car.
And no, modern diesel engines are not better than previous diesel engines.
diesel is for trucks, period.
Actually I am not a Diesel fan but understand very well that if and when Cadillac goes to Europe it needs a world class Diesel. These engines are very popular in luxury cars in Europe the land of $6+ fuel.
Audi and Benz have proven how well these engines are and how popular can be in Europe. Also they are cheaper to do over there as the government regulations are no where as strict.
I would never buy one but I fully understand the need in Europe.
Just wait until you try to sell it or trade it you will get ) nada ,zilch nothing for it as nobody will buy a used luxury gutless car…
Why not add a turbo to the 2.5, it can easily reach 320 hp without issues.
Because the 2.0 is designed with the turbo in mind. It has extra cooling and it has more strength in the block and head. GM normally take some size out to give the cylinder bores more strength too and that is why the 2.2 and 2.4 were not used on the turbo engines.
Stock the 2.0 can see 15-16 PSI depending on temps and on altitude. Those with the GM tune will see 23 PSI with no issues.
GM learned their lessons on just adding a turbo to an engine back in the 80’s. To find a early T type Regal, Sunbird Turbo or even a TA turbo with any miles with no rebuild beyond 50K miles are rare. Even a running rebuilt example is rare.
The GN was the first one they got right with water-cooled housings and better oiling and bottom end improvements.
The 2.5 was never designed for the Turbo and would need reworked. Note the 2.0 had a lot of work done by Lotus engineering. This is the engineering arm that is no longer part of the car company. They do contract work much like Cosworth and Ilmore. They are very good at what they do. Saab also played a small part too in the castings.
Have you done it. Or seen it done? I can’t find anyone that’s even tried.
“Sure, it might not win you any stoplight to stoplight sprints, but that’s not the point. The engine is for those who don’t care about posting the fastest 0-60 or quarter mile sprints, or about being pushed back into their seat upon acceleration.”
Exactly.
When I was young and my Dad and my Uncles were driving Cadillacs, I never remember the word ‘performance’ even surfacing. Those cars were simply luxurious yachts — and what’s so wrong with luxury taking precedence over power?
There’s nothing wrong with two classes of Cadillacs. Luxury with real world handling, Luxury with race track handling.
John it is not really about racing and more about offering more. The luxury segment is all about excess and more. Power has always been a part of that.
While Cadillac never really was pushed as a Muscle car they were almost always powerful accept for a time in the 80’s.
Back in the day they never needed a 500 CID V8 but it was offered as it was larger and more powerful and anything Lincoln offered at the time. Even in the 90’s the N star was one of the most powerful in the segment but it too soon got passed by.
The key here is Cadillac should not offer a engine that is a base engine in a Chevy. For the money you pay you should get at least the next step up for a base engine. The MPG is not much different if at all.
The thing I think that drives this is the lease deals to people who can not afford to buy and to low ball the price for advertising.
But in the end if you want to improve your image you can not offer a Cadillac with a Malibu base engine and expect people to think highly of it or your company. Things like this undo all the good a V and V sport does for the base car.
I can still remember old me in their 70’s Coupe Deville’s telling how they went out and blew the carbon out of the old 500 on the freeway. They would take them out and run them up to 100 MPH just because they could.
Today the 2.0 is far from a race engine and is more an engine that is the average sedan engine with 270 HP today in the mid size market. Sure it runs well but it also is just what is expected in lesser cars so why not in a better car?
Lets face it for what most of us so driving back and fourth we could easily get by with a 3 cylinder Spark. The truth is most of us want more car and if we pay much more we expect even more. It is not that we have to have it but that we expect to get more with out money. The Image also comes into play once you get over the volume brands.
Much of this is customer expectations. In the segment Cadillac is playing in more comfortable, more technology, more power, more about anything else is expected. Size used to be a part but with CAFE that part is going away for all accept the highest price models.
The Turbo 4 is not really a performance engine anymore it is just the norm and standard of this size segment. Performance is in the TT V6 and higher HP models. Performance does not start at 270 HP anymore it is 400 HP at least in this segment. Heck even a standard base pick up truck with a V6 has more power.
The engine is not “Cadillac” quality in refinement and performance. After all, in the new quest to remake Cadillac and the customer base, what consideration should be given to the existing customers that prefer this inferior engine? Let them buy something else.
The engine is not considered highly in the automotive press.
I’m not sure why the city/hwy rating of 21/33 is so great for the cadillac 2.5L. The Honda Accord 3.5L V6 gets 21/34 and does high 5 second 0-60 times on regular gas. The comparable Honda 2.4L I4 does 27/36. What’s next for the ATS? The 1.5L turbo from the 2016 malibu?
Also, for any GM execs reading these threads… A base 2.5 ATS looks like crap compared to a 2.0T ATS luxury. The front lighting looks cheap. They are noticeably different from the exterior. The 320, 328 and 335 look almost identical from the outside because when you buy a Bimmer you get a luxury car. Same thing goes for A4s and C class. It’s almost like caddy punishes those not rich enough to afford the luxury model to force them to upgrade so that they can be proud of their new ATS.
In my opinion, the ATS is not a good purchase, regardless of how its optioned. Its priced similarly to the previous generation CTS, but is not as much car. I know several people who switched from the last gen CTS to the ATS when their leases were up because the new CTS had gotten so expensive and the ATS was about the same price as their last CTS. Unfortunately they’re disappointed with the ATS. For the ATS to be successful it requires a major upgrade in every category, but especially in the engine compartment and the interior, which is just plain cheap looking.
I love the 2.0t in my ATS. It always averages 22mpg city and 32mpg highway. I use mid-grade fuel and am able to get up to speed quickly. While it is a great little engine, it seems very redundant when there’s an optional V6 with more responsiveness (and now greater efficiency with the new “LGX” model). I have a simple answer to these problems. I believe that the ATS should have:
Base Engine- 2.0t I4 with 250HP and 260LB-FT
Optional- 3.6L V6 with 335HP and 280LB-FT
VSport- 2.7t V6 with 350HP and 340LB-FT
V- 3.6tt V6 with 470HP and 450LB-FT
I haven’t heard any good things about the 2.5L I4 when it comes to real-world fuel economy (especially on models without the variable valve lift and stop/start). Not to mention NVH, or lack thereof for such a luxury car.
Overall, to me, it sounds like Cadillac really needs to bring out the Sub-Compact Alpha “CT#” for their entry-level car to scoop up new, and more importantly, more customers.
Another thing to like about the 2.5 engine is unlike the 2.0 turbo, it does not call for premium gasoline.
I like my ATS 2.5L engine. It has enough power. It was my preference engine.
My 2000 mustang V6 had 190hp, my 2016 ATS I4 has 202hp. I Always buy the “Base” engine in new vehicles. Why pay more? I can drive faster than the speed limit and still merge just fine.
2016 ATS 2.5L engine, Impressive highway Fuel economy.
36 MPG (average of past 25 miles) straight, flat I-5 freeway driving in full 8-speed automatic mode. I was pleasantly surprised.
Very happy with my choice of engine.
My 2014 2.5 Luxury has good power,more then my 2012 Accord and Hyundai Sonata….I’m impressed for an American car