Curbside readers, if they’ve read any of my work, know of my absolute, undying affinity for older cars. This doesn’t always add up to a disdain for modern conveyances, but I almost invariably save my unadulterated car lust for things with carburetors. The Cadillac ATS coupe is a modern exception, a car I’d love to buy if it made any financial sense. As a result of my affection, this car is doomed, as my tastes rarely align with current trends. The beauty of this Cadillac to me, although it wears a bodystyle that is not currently winning any popularity contests, is that it harkens back to many notable coupes from home and abroad.
The coupe is a bodystyle almost as old as the car, but the four-seat Thunderbird of the 1950s and ’60s is, of course, the paternal grandfather of the American personal luxury coupe. It was distinctive, attractive, and somewhat exclusive; but also quite ponderous, heavy, and comparatively slow. The Riviera, Toronado, and Eldorado may not have existed if Robert McNamara didn’t count pennies and find a market opening in the shape of a bigger T-Bird, but it’s somewhat hard to compare a modern ATS to an old T-Bird. The athleticism just wasn’t there.
Of course, in the Cadillac camp, the ’67 Eldorado best symbolizes the sum of all Cadillac coupes. It was beautifully styled, crisp, and desirable, but it was also the “it thing” for a time among the wealthy. This is Frank Sinatra’s kind of car, whereas the Frank of today would probably drive an Escalade. A new ATS simply doesn’t have the kind of snob appeal that the Eldorado, and to some extent the Escalade, projected in spades. Additionally, the Eldorado (and T-Bird, and Escalade) are much, much larger than the svelte ATS, which is actually shorter in length than a modern Mustang or Camaro.
Therefore, the true progenitor of the modern Cadillac coupe is probably not an American luxury coupe at all, but the BMW coupe of the 1970s, especially of the 3.0 variety. It shares much with a modern ATS: it’s understated but attractive, athletic and light on its feet, and it’s not angling for the “flavor of the month” crowd. Both it and the ATS seem like intelligent choices for people with discerning taste (not to talk myself up or anything).
The ATS isn’t Cadillac’s first attempt at a sporting coupe in the modern, Germanic idiom. The Eldorado Touring Coupe of the pre-Northstar era was svelte in size, but also crisp and attractive, as a Cadillac should be. But even though it was bedecked in road wheels, larger tires, and monochromatic paint, there was something of the imposter in this Eldorado. It was still front-wheel drive and vaguely reminded one of Beethoven in a jogging suit. Something didn’t quite fit.
More recently, Cadillac shocked the motoring world with its CTS coupe and optional “V” variant. Journalists swooned, but it had an almost comically oversized posterior that I can not overlook. Additionally, compared to the BMW, the new ATS, and even the Eldorado Touring Coupe; it is too showy, too creased, and too stealth-like for my taste. The radically raked rear window reminds me of a ’71 Mustang Mach 1, but with a second story attached. On the other hand, it is menacing in a Batmobile-like way, and it has a certain charisma that evokes the original Eldorado; in short, a nice compromise between Cadillac’s heritage and the modern reality of manufacturing a sporting coupe.
Unfortunately for Cadillac, coupes aren’t particularly good sellers these days, which makes one pause. Why did Cadillac spend time and money to design and build a car that hasn’t really been in style for a long time? Is it a 3-series (now 4-series) competitor? Couldn’t the ATS sedan do a fair enough job of that? The old CTS seemed to fit Cadillac’s modern design language better than the current ATS does, but the ATS is almost classically smooth, without too many discordant creases and body lines, unlike so many other modern cars. Its rear end is even more attractively proportioned, which is an uncommon touch in a world of severe wedges.
Almost everything about it seems in good taste. The overhangs and proportions are just right, and there’s little to distract the eye from its basic shape, which means that most modern buyers will probably find it bland.
For those folks, Cadillac does offer an ATS-V, with all of the spoilers and body cladding one might expect from a modern performance machine. Its twin-turbo V6 also offers more performance than one will ever need outside of a racetrack, and its handling is even more German than a BMW’s, whatever that means.
There’s even a race car version for the Pirelli World Challenge series, with a raucous V6 of its own. Cadillac has certainly changed; I’m fairly certain that the ’67 Eldorado never competed in factory-backed, organized speed trials.
But then again, times have changed. The ATS coupe will likely become a forgotten sales flop, which is a shame, because it’s one of the few new cars that really pushes my buttons. If I weren’t into old cars with all of the expenses that come with them, I’d certainly look for one that’s a year or two old. At around $42,000 base price, however, even a new one is not unreasonably priced for a Cadillac.
Mine would be a low-optioned, turbo-four with a six-speed manual (which is still an option on that engine). This example is an ATS4 with the 3.6-liter V6, eight-speed automatic, and all of the electronic gimmickry that I have been able to do without for so long.
Anachronisms, that’s what I and this ATS are. Just as I’ll probably be the last person to ever buy a smartphone, the ATS may be the last bastion of understated design, without too many extraneous bulges and divergent lines. Of course, the old cliche “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” applies here, but even after a year or so, I am still excited to see an ATS coupe on the local dealer’s lot, and that says a lot.
Cadillac is now German in the same way American Beer is German.
the reason why the Eldorado was suscessful was that it was “separate” from the rest of the Cadallic line up, not a chopped down version of a 4 door sedan.
Also, it was Dad’s “fun” car. Other men were slightly envious that Dad got his way and drove an ego boosting excess that had plenty of swagger, power, and style.
The current ATS needs a lot of work to get to a level of someone’s “fun” car like the current BMW’s or Audi’s. Currently, Cadillac is attempting to be all things to all people. It needs to pick a distinct path or it will become one big blur.
I like it too but I will not buy a car from GM.
The Lincoln LSC was was a gentleman’s coupe that I enjoyed for a few years. The ’67/’68 Cougar XR7 also sticks in my mind but I never owned one. Where is a Ford/Lincoln coupe that addresses this (small) market? Not a Mustang but close – a little more formal, toned down and simple but still front engine, RWD. I guess sort of a “Mustang Grande” for lack of a better name.
I am a coupe owner and want a new one from Ford. I’ve had 280CE, CLK, Mustang, LSC, Riviera, etc. and sort of itch for a new coupe. But I will not buy a car from GM.
And I probably will never buy a car from Ford….
And I’ll probably never buy a car again. There, beat you all! 🙂
hehehe
I’ll never buy another car from Chrysler.
I’ll never buy a car from AMO ZiL. I just won’t. There, I’ve said it.
x2
🙂
It’s a nice looking car, but I’m not really into 2-dr cars and the Art & Science design language is getting a bit old now.
I tried finding statistics on ATS coupe sales but didn’t find any. However, the ATS coupe is in a size range where coupes are selling I think. I did own the ATS sedan for a while. I did like it but found it to be a bit smallish for long trips. Presently the CTS coupe is gone from the lineup and I think the ATS coupe is intended to replace it.
The Eldorado’s were all luxury coupes. The ATS is a true sports coupe, a completely different car. The new Camaro is now on the ATS platform and the Camaro has been compared to the ATS’s handling.
This looks about 100x better than the Camaro.
Agreed. And far better than the CTS coupe. I like the lines on this, and the front end is subtlety handsome.
It looks like a good alternative to a C-class coupe/4-series/A5 although I gather there are some aspects that need attention.
It is probably a good idea to have transferred the coupe offering to the smaller size but I think it would be great for Cadillac to produce the El Miraj as a flagship and alternative to the S-class coupe. That is the sort of car that would make people pay attention and shift perception, which is Cadillac’s real weakness at this point.
+1. A Cadillac in the super-prestige segment would not be an anomaly, particularly if it were something like the El Miraj or Sixteen.
It’s a bit *too* understated for what it’s trying to be, imo. The ATS sedan doesn’t have that problem; it was the same deal with the short-lived Hyundai Elantra coupe (two-door sedan, really); the roofline that was swoopy and rakish with four doors suddenly becomes almost staid with two.
Two things that stand out among the cadillac coupes to me
1. *This is subjective* The proportions indeed suck. I’m sorry but it looks like the rear end of the sedan was just sunk into the existing sedan roofline, giving it a not quite fastback appearance, dare I say it reminds me of a Marlin.
Plus I don’t know why the Coupes need to be so much shorter and rakish than sedans. The minute I laid eyes on the CTS coupe a few years ago the car I instantly associated it to was the Pinto. They all look stubby and less substantial than their sedan counterparts, hence the lack of presence. Those old Tbirds and Eldos were as big in every dimension as a contemporary sedan, they just had totally unique skin and packaging to make them stand out.
2. If Cadillac wanted to impress anybody and match the Germans, make these things friggin HARDTOPS! Seriously, Mercedes can do it, there’s no reason GM, the inventors of the damn things, can’t do it too. The massive wedge shape and wheelbase ratio would even be accommodating to it! Would go a hell of a long way to add some true exclusivity that you genuinely cannot get on plebeian cars anymore.
In your #1 did you mean “rear end of the coupe”?
I agree that making the coupes hardtops would make them more appealing. A lot depends on how that would change the roofline, but the C-pillar should change some, and look less like the sedan.
I meant rear end of the sedan in terms of what the designers tweaked to make the sedan into a coupe – it looks like the existing roof stayed in place and the existing rear half of the lower body was pulled forward.
Actually the coupe is longer and wider than the sedan
“… make these things … HARDTOPS!”
Well, I was going to say almost the same thing. Sadly, hardtop or not, that rear side glass is still fixed. Beautiful car, but I must move on.
” If Cadillac wanted to impress anybody and match the Germans, make these things friggin HARDTOPS! ”
^THIS^
For whatever flaws the ATS coupe has…hey, its still a coupe! Its a good looking car and I for one am just glad to see a 2 door. 4 doors are just boring, and unless you have a family or just hate being noticed then I cant understand the appeal.
I do agree that this car could stand the hardtop treatment. Mercedes has one, so why not Cadillac?
I guess it’s how we grew up…My parents always drove two-doors, and we drove all over the country in those things.
My parents drove nothing but 4 doors and minivans, all over the country in the latter as well. Nostalgia has never clouded my judgment when it comes to aesthetics.
Well, you’re one in a million then.
The equivalent Mercedes C-class coupe is not a hardtop though, I don’t think they have had one below the S-class since the W124 coupe finished in 1993-94. I expect it would cost more to do a hardtop body, but surely Cadillac could do this to provide a more compelling product than Mercedes and the others while they are still in conquest mode.
The C209 CLK was also pillarless. There are still lots of them around these parts.
Oops, I overlooked that one and just thought of the first CLK.
Matt, the window mechanisms and frameless seals would also be more costly than a fixed rear side window. Of course it could be easily absorbed or to put it another way, the difference would likely not make any difference to a purchaser of a car of this type. If it gave the car a more elegant look how many would not spend the extra $1000 or two?
I more brought Mercedes up as an example that it could be done in today’s seemingly more stringent climate(often blamed for the lack of hardtops), not necessarily that it has direct competition. It’s clearly doable and once the engineering is done I can’t imagine the production cost would be much, if any, greater, but it would make a much more compelling case for itself as being something special.
The latest roof crush standards would probably make it costlier to do (which may be why the more recent CLK has not been pillarless) — doable, as the S-Class coupe demonstrates, but probably not inexpensively.
You’re also forgetting that the 2010-present C207 E-class coupe is, in fact, pillarless. And the rear side windows roll down, except for a tiny slice where the C-pillar meets the body (that presumably won’t clear the wheelwells).
Not commonly seen, but a true hardtop that is less expensive than the six-figure CL-class.
I know it’s not an Eldo, but that plain black interior just leaves me cold. No thanks, plus it’s way too small.
I think it looks great and I would love one. But, not spending anything like that much.
I like these, too, Aaron – good piece. Their basic look and proportions succeed in a way the CTS coupe looks awkward from some angles. I think the size and details are just right, and I especially like the side profile. “Beethoven in a track suit” – great imagery. I wish more cars across all price points had this level of detailing. (Oh – and I was rocking a Samsung flip-phone through 2014.)
I like these coupes, too. Good looking and very capable mechanicals, from what I’ve read. My simplistic expaination for its lack of success: it doesn’t have a real name!
Nice, but it suffers from GM Big Butt syndrome. Why can’t GM design a vehicle with a nicely tapered rear end?
A nicely tapered rear end probably wouldn’t fit with the current Cadillac design philosophy. But, as others have said, it’s past time for a change. GM has gone up too many stylistic blind alleys.
Also, Cadillac has been beating this particular drum for more than a decade now. I understand wanting to develop styling continuity, but I was never inspired by this theme and it’s gotten very, very old.
I have mixed feelings on this design language. I’ve always liked it, and I still like it, but I can’t tell generations or models apart very well at all. It’s so distinctively Cadillac yet so indistinct within itself.
That’s the thing — it has brand identification, but any time they bring out a new model, I feel like it’s barely worth looking at the photos because it’s going to be indistinguishable from the previous cars I already don’t like.
When new models look more like an alternative design study for the original, then it’s past time to change the design language.
It’s interesting that you should start by mentioning the four-seat Thunderbirds of the fifties and sixties. Athletic that may not have been, but they had a style that set them apart from just about anything else on the road, and a real sense of presence. I was captivated by them as a kid, and I only ever saw them on TV!
Style, and Presence. I’ve given this way too much thought of the ‘Why Is It So?’ nature, and I think it comes down to the low cowl height and the long dash to front axle measurement of all the early four-seater Birds. They looked like big American car lowered, sectioned, and lengthened where it counted; sleek and powerful, the style without the bulk. Pure Essence of America – no wonder us foreigners loved them!
The modern Cadillac? Sadly, its style is generic. It doesn’t have the proportions that evoke a ‘WOW!’ response, like the Thunderbird of old. Like most modern attempts at a coupe, it comes off as more of a two door sedan: ‘Yawn’ rather than ‘Wow!’ In both cases the mouth is wide open, but the motivation is somewhat different.
I suspect that you’ll vie with me to be the last to buy a smartphone – I have no idea how someone who can play the piano reasonably well can so consistently fat-finger a phone.
You probably all know I’m a Cadillac man and I love the past couple of decades’ worth of Art & Science Cadillacs (for the most part). But I’m much more a sedan man than a coupe man so although I think the ATS Coupe’s design is a little more fluid than the sedan, I’d still take the four-door.
sorry. as soon as I saw Justin Bieber’s one, done up like the Batmobile that put me off it for life!!!
It looks good from the outside IMO, but somehow that interior still screams old fart with more money than brains who’s really NOT a car guy. Like several others who’ve posted , I find it hard to praise anything GM after their 30 year run of crap-mobiles.
I’m on the fence about these stylistically. As with most of Cadillac’s Art and Science cars — a theme that at this point I think is really tired — it’s frustratingly angle-dependent. From certain vantage points, it looks handsome and crisp. Take a step or two in either direction and it becomes one of those optical illusion puzzles that usually give me a headache. I hate the headlights and the grille treatment, the window reveals are way too wide, and the black car’s awful alloy wheels do it no favors.
I think the overstyled interior is ghastly as well, but I could say that about a lot of current cars. (I’m not philosophically opposed to center stack/center console unity, but designs like this help me understand why some of you hate it so much.) Is the silver trim on the doors actual brushed metal or “satin-finished” silver plastic? Neither seems appealing; the plastic usually feels cheap, nasty, and desperate (what designers use if they’re afraid to stick a piece of plastic wood on something) while having a big swath of metal trim on the doors seems like a terrible idea on a hot or cold day. I don’t miss the Cadillac interiors of the ’70s and ’80s, but why does every modern automotive interior have to look like those ridiculous over-styled cheap stereos of the mid-90s?
The black interior come with what is call brushed aluminum trim, which is optional with other interior colors (@1000+). Wood trim is optional (850). I don’t like it.
My ATS sedan with red leather came with carbon fiber trim. My current car, a CTS, has a black interior with the carbon fiber trim. At the time I traded, my choices were a white car with light interior/wood trim, 4 cylinder engine; or a black diamond with black interior and 3.6 V6.
I am not sure what you mean by overstyled, but my CTS has a lot of different materials on the doors and dash, making it a bit fussy looking perhaps. But the overall look is vastly more luxurious than my 2002 Seville’s interior.
I’d be very nervous about having a big swath of brushed aluminum on each door panel. My car has an aluminum plate on top of the shift knob, which looks neat, but is obnoxious on a hot sunny day and would be similarly so if I lived somewhere where it got really cold. With an aluminum trim plate on the door panel, I have visions of always having to wear a long-sleeve shirt and gloves even in the summer so that I don’t have to worry about singeing myself when I reach for the interior door handle or dig out my wallet and brush against the sun-heated trim plate.
As for overstyled, this is a subjective call, obviously, but I find it really obnoxiously busy — there are way too many textures and shapes and materials and shut lines, none of which seem to have anything to do with one another. Even if the materials are excellent, it’s visually chaotic and the center stack looks like it might keep flying off to appear as an extra in the next Transformers movie.
I don’t think the aluminum trim looks that good. The carbon fiber trim is OK, but wood trim is nicer. In my CTS the carbon fiber trim is almost invisible, making the rest of the trim on the dash an doors less obvious, as everything is one color.
I would have liked the brown leather seats, which come with black trim and wood instead of the carbon fiber, but I bought mine at the end of year when they were closing out, so you take whats left.
The red leather in the ATS is a very nice color.
Yep, that’s what I don’t like about the Art and Science. The XTS (the car in the Cadillac line up that should theoretically appeal to me) is rather attractive from certain angles…but then gawdawful ugly from others. No thanks, I’ll pass.
The old school DTS was the prettiest of them all-and also about the least Arts and Science of them all too. Plus it had actually usable headrests.
I don’t think I’ve seen those angles on the XTS! It looks pinched and too tall to me.
The worse issue for me is the CT6, the headlight arrangement is a mistake I think. They should have gone all-LED headlights to allow a narrow light the full height as seen on the Ciel and El Miraj. That would have looked dramatically different to get people’s attention, but instead they have compromised and cheaped-out.
I gave a very hard look at buying one of these not quite a year ago. At that time the base model started at a hair under $40K. However, it didn’t take long to figure out the base model was designed to be something you didn’t want. Vinyl seats, with no memory feature, limited interior colors, no navigation system, meh wheels, various other indicators you are a real cheapskate, Mr. Buyer, and we’re going to punish you. If you added enough features to make it an actual luxury car and an attractive one to boot, the sticker zoomed into the mid fifties right quick. All of a sudden the loan or lease payment is getting a bit scary. As in closer to my monthly HOUSE payment than I liked.
Also, this was right around the time that DeNysschen was saying for the record, in effect, that Cadillacs were priced high because he wanted them to be expensive, and he had no intention of trying to undersell the Germans. OK, I got two ears and some brain cells in between, thank you for telling me your cars are overpriced, so basically I would be a chump if I bought one new. I’ll think about it again in a year or two when I see how the depreciation curve looks.
While there seems to be a lot of sentiment that the Art & Science design language has gotten old, I don’t personally agree. To my eyes, it gives the car a very definite brand identity. You see one and you *instantly* know it’s a Cadillac, without having to resort to oddball cues like Lexus’s “spindle” grille (which has always looked to me like a pinched-in ripoff of Audi’s trapezoid). True, the individual models can be harder to tell apart, but I think brand recognition trumps model recognition.
As to the ATS coupe, I like it. I was a fan of the CTS coupe, big butt and all, and it’s still a car I’d like to own one day. But it was polarizing, and did have less successful angles. This ATS is a far cleaner design, with no bad angles, though it’s somewhat less distinctive. A test drive could change things, but based on design, I’d buy one of these over a 4-series or C-class coupe without question.