Why are people buying the M3 over the ATS-V?

>>17842528
because American cars suck.

File: 24822296480_e8e0c1ff23_b.jpg (277KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1024x683px

>>17842528
Why are people buying the ATS-V over the SS?

>>17842530
because tarbos

>>17842528

Why would I buy a luxury car from an american company

>>17842534
Yeah but veeate sound and muh tork
https://youtu.be/LrHgHstEbiw

because the M3 costs the same and is faster and better looking and has a superior i6 engine and a way better interior.

>>17842528
Ats v doesn't have a foothold in this market for the price it seems. It also has a lot to do with what are my options for bench racers and comfort that other companies fill in both performance and pedigree.

Or that People would rather buy a zl1 or a ctsv

>>17842528
it's completely about status
the AST-V is the better car, but retards still fall for the BMW meme

>>17842908
>better car
>V6
>ugly cheap trash interior
>nigger tier looks
>heavy as shit
nice delusions gm fangirl

File: gmshit.jpg (73KB, 464x519px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 464x519px

why the fuck does the ats v cost the same as an M3?

>>17842977
comparing a competition package to a base model kek. Even then the stats are nearly the same

>>17842908
>ugly as shit
>overpriced
>"luxury" "sports" car
>made for niggers

>"better car"

File: gmshit2.jpg (83KB, 493x577px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 493x577px

>>17842985
the competition package is a $4500 option, literally meaningless.
And even without the Comp. pack the M3 still kills the ATS V.
What is the point of this thread?

>>17842985
even if the stats were ''nearly the same'' it still does not answer the question.
What makes the ATS V cost the same as an M3 because it is objectively inferior in every possible way.

>>17842528
Badge whores

>>17843001
>And even without the Comp. pack the M3 still kills the ATS V
>posts laptimes where the M3 is clearly slower

>>17843030
it's faster on some tracks but lap times are irrelevant in the real life, it's more than a second faster for 0-200kph or 0-124mph which is like 5 car lenghts, embarassing.

>>17843034
>suddenly laptimes don't matter, highway pulls do
New BMWs drive like ass, but you wouldn't know that you damn bus rider

>>17843041
>new bmw's drive like ass
Yet they still drive better than everything else, how else can you explain a 444hp car beating a 470hp car on every track? It makes up the lack of power via superior handling.
>>17842977

>>17842528
Camaro sales likely eat into ATS-V sales. there are people going from BMW cars to Camaros because the Alpha platform is too god-tier to ignore like this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zi6HZ_1FaQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D87tO7VUs2I
and of course the M4 as pointed out by MotorTrend isn't even that good of a luxury car on top of the money you pay for missing features.

>>17843049
>he thinks lap times translate into road manners
>after stating that lap times don't matter
Seriously, go get a driver's license

>>17843049
>how else can you explain a 444hp car beating a 470hp
You or some other anon above you just said the ATS-V was heavy as shit... the real question is how does it move all that weight around as good as the much lighter M car.

>>17843050
>buy an $80k car
>get cloth seats
Bravo BMW

>>17843061
which $80k BMW has cloth seats?

>>17843069
The M3

>>17843019
because the stat differences are negligible and it might come down to personal preference. believe it or not most people who aren't poor buy things because they want them, not to impress people in the internet. imo, imaginary track times are about as valuable as trying to impress people with how low your car is or how big the wheels are. if they're nearly the same, it's all feelz. also I bet the American car is cheaper to maintain. this is all coming from a euro who likes the bmw more, but isn't a bench racer

File: 80003897.png (729KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 1280x960px

>>17842755
/thread

>>17843061
???

>>17843070
But it costs $64k.
>>17843072
even if you try to ignore the inferior handling capabilities of the ATS V it still gets easily walked by the M3 on a straight line.

>>17843075
>>17843075
see>>17843050

Interior is shit. Rides like shit. Has shit steering and road feel

It's a shit car

>>17843075
Leather is an option but at its price doesn't come standard in the MotorTrend comparison.

>>17843078
>0-100kph
>0.2 difference
>walked

pretty sure that difference could easily be made up by a good driver versus an amateur driver. btw the atsv has a slightly higher top speed so clearly the BMW is getting walked /s ayylmao

>>17843087
Leather is a $1000 option
So you can get leather seats in a $65.000 bmw which is faster and better handling than a $78.000 Niggerliac
>>17843090
0-200kph (0-124mph) is 13.2 for the M3 vs ATS V 14.5 lmfao.

>>17843085
video seems pretty biased dude, unless you've driven both cars I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion.

Also
>interior is shit
compared to the Camaro? hilarious

>>17843100
Except the ATS-V is only $61k

>>17843105
>unless you've driven both
>they clearly drove both but you just call them biased anyway
what was the point in even saying that then???

>>17843105
I have driven the F80 M3, it's pretty bad
I've only been in the 2.0 turbo ATS but it was a nicer place to be and felt more like an E46. Infotainment was total fucking trash though

>>17843106
A optioned out ATS V costs around $80k
Even if the ATS V costs $61k i'd pay the $3k more and get an m3 for $64k so I don't look like a tasteless nigger

>>17843113
i've driven the F83 M4 vert
the interior, ergonomics and overall refinement was better than any GM product i've ever owned or driven.

>>17843112
they clearly drove both yet their comments really threw me off guard
>yeah the m4 is so shitty, it just goes down the road, not fun at all
>woah dude the Camaro is amazing, so mechanical them driver feels
Really, is that your objective analysis of two cars?

>>17843113
I honestly think the M4 and M2 are more fun, the M2 being more of a driver's car than any of them.

>>17843115
>caring about what other retards think about you
What are you, a sand nigger?

>>17843126
probably only owned his mom's hand me down Aveo

>>17843128
I guess only sand niggers have good taste?

>>17843127
GM's Alpha platform was literally designed to replicate the feeling of driving an old BMW

>>17843131
>sand niggers
>good taste
Nice try Ahmed

>>17843128
I would care if an M3 driver would beat my ats-v at a stoplight with his superior DCT transmission and shit

>>17843136
Street racing is for kids, grow up

>>17843134
>niggerlac
>good taste
Nice try Cletus

>>17843132
sounds interesting, got any link to read about this?

>>17843127
>>17843127
>Really, is that your objective analysis of two cars?
Did you watch the Video? they said the Camaro was easier to drive and more responsive and came with more features standard making it objectively more appealing. as far as insults go there are people ITT trying to insult Cadillac based on what demographic drives them which is the lowest most shallow of superficial shit.

>>17843146
>there are people ITT trying to insult Cadillac based on what demographic drives them which is the lowest most shallow of superficial shit
I agree, yet you have people doing exactly that with bmw and Mercedes all the time.

and no I didn't watch the entire video, just skipped to the driving parts, it seemed like they didn't even give the m4 a chance.

>>17843142
>The dynamic benchmark for the ATS was the E46 3 Series, the car many enthusiasts still regard as best of the breed.
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2012-detroit-2013-cadillac-ats-first-look/

>>17843132
why is the whole GMs performance car lineup so fucking heavy then.

>>17843162
>http://www.motortrend.com/news/2012-detroit-2013-cadillac-ats-first-look/
Thanks I'm gonna look this over, I hope this is true to life and not just marketing material. If it is then I have some newfound respect for GM.

>>17843163
Modern safety standards

File: 1428678611_cadillac-ct6-4.jpg (224KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1600x1067px

>>17843132
>>17843142
The Alpha chassis really is a great piece of automotive engineering and a lot of research and hard work went into it and it definitely shows in driving dynamics. Omega platform too.

>it seemed like they didn't even give the m4 a chance.
They' definitely did they were just disappointed since they (and most people in general) are use to BMW being the Ultimate Driving Machine. in short, the Camaro highly exceeded their expectations and the M4 underwhelmed them.

The last time american cars had luxury cachet was in the 60s. In terms of luxury they cannot compete with Japan (Lexus) or Europe (MB, BMW, Bentley, Ferrari etc). Tesla has unironically more luxury cachet than Cadillac.

>>17842528
Because the interior is fucking garbage, CUE is borderline unusable and the rear seats are too small for anyone to realistically fit in. GM just needs to give up and contract out their interior designs to another company.

>>17843185
bottom half of the comment was meant for>>17843152


>Tesla has unironically more luxury cachet than Cadillac.
That would probably prove right there that the market doesn't care for what really is and isn't luxury and just ride on Trends and badges. Tesla interiors are worse than everything in its price-range including Cadillac but they have the trend of being synonymous with Electric cars so people overlook that. Maseratiuses dodge parts and they also somehow sell lots of cars at the price they do.

>>17843235
meant for>>17843187

Fuck i can't reply for shit today.

>>17843050
or is it that maybe, just MAYBE MotorTrend is *slightly* biased towards American cars?

>>17843292
No, or they would almost never give awards to foreign cars.

File: caddillac trying to get the west coast market.png (50KB, 177x416px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 177x416px

>>17843115
In canada the ats-v is 10k cheaper than the m3.

File: IMG_1475.jpg (115KB, 568x450px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 568x450px

>>17843366
>chinese characters
>canada

kek

Cadillac styling is really gross and tacky.

File: 2016-Cadillac-CTS-V-cockpit.jpg (1MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1360px

>>17842968
>>ugly cheap trash interior
>>nigger tier looks

this is pretty accurate.
fucking CUE system is so ugly and SHINY

>>17843001
Hey buddy idk if you actually looked at the image you posted but the Caddy wins 2/3 of those races

>>17842530
because the SS is OVERPRICED!

its an updated G8, not an entirely new chassis.
they didnt even give it a new engine or transmission.

also fuck all the boomers trying to talk up this car as to try to increase its value.

>>17843480
Should have bought one in March when GM had them all 20% off MSRP. It does have Magneride standard, which the G8 GXP didn't.

Also I'm not even close to a boomer, I'm 20.

>>17842528
Badge prestige and styling (Caddy styling is very polarizing). That's it.

Nobody IRL actually cares about anything else.

The ATS-V should have had a LS3 standard, supercharger as a dealer installed option.

>>17843524
>you should have this car X when it was closer to what its worth


nah ill wait till next year an try and haggle down a 15 to around 30Kish OTD

>>17842755
faster yes
better looking no
the caddy looks better, the styling on the m3 is getting tired, they need to update it

>>17843555
>the styling on the m3 is getting tired, they need to update it

Nah fuck off m8. Go drive you hideous E60s with cat eye eye liner headlights. BMW may have shit quality, planned obsolescence everywhere, plastic cooling systems, and no regard for customers, but their refined exterior styling is perfect. If they go the way of Lexus and "modernize" their exterior styling just for modernization's sake, they will lose sales to Audi and I will kill myself. All of the gripes with BMW are warranted, but their exteriors should not be messed with.

>>17843540
Get a 16, the Magneride wasn't standard on 15s and most people didn't get it

>>17843583
>(((PANIC)))
are you serious?
well that fucking sucks.

you gotta be fucking with me, the only options this car had was manual and spare.

the 14's didnt have MRC, not sure if you've confused the two.

>>17842528
its hideous and its american

They should have just put the LS7 in the ats-v. Probably weigh the same if not less. Helps the heavier Z28 go around a track faster than a lighter more Hp GT 350R

>>17843600
Sunroof was an option too.

Shit yeah I was wrong it is standard on 15s. Must have read it wrong back then.

The other thing 16s have is different wheels, a new bumper cover, hood vents, the bi-modal exhaust, and standard Brembos all around. 14/15 had standard front Brembos but optional on the rear.

>>17843635
Fuck me I keep getting bad sources. No rear Brembos was 14

>>17842528
Because GM will have used cheap parts put together by some boomer UAW assemblyman who can't be asked to screw them together properly because he needs his benefits.

>>17843624
The LS7 is old and can't meet emissions. Cadillac didn't want to put a V8 in the ATS-V because
1- they already have a V8 powered car the CTS-V
2- V6 can be balanced further back and one of the key features of the car was driving dynamics and a V6 helps with that.
and 3- Gas mileage. the V6 gets the same MPG (despite being heavier) as an M3/4. an old ass LS7 would've gotten atrocious fuel economy if not been impossible to even meet emissions. i think they did a really good job with the V6 myself. good fuel economy (again, despite weight) and good power just lacks sound.

>>17843667
>same fuel mileage
nah, the M3/4 gets around 26mpg on highways and the CTS V gets about 21.

>>17843690
>CTS V
>V6
Read dude.

>>17843635
15's had rear brembos (they have torque vectoring)

but i like the style and wheels on the 15's only thing missing is the bi-modal exhaust which i dont care for

>>17843694
I meant ATS V, my bad.

File: screenshot-www.fueleconomy.gov 2017-09-08 19-35-11.png (115KB, 713x437px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 713x437px

>>17843700
The ATS-V gets 25 MPG highway.

>>17843742
its AWD and has turbos and shit

>>17842528

because anyone that wants an american coupe got a camaro/mustang/challenger instead

and anyone that wants an american sedan got a charger instead

>>17842530
Chevy doesn't advertise the SS for some fuckin reason. It's basically a r door Camaro

>>17843742
official EPA mileages are 14/17 for the ATS V and 17/26 for the M3.
Sure they vary by your driving style etc but the m3 is better on gas in general.
it has to be, it's cuck-ropean lol.

>>17842530
>415 hp

it'd probably get more attention if it had 500

>>17843765
>It's basically a r door Camaro
Its on the older Zeta platform so it doesn't even handle anything like the Camaro. there are dozens of alternatives for the same price as the SS as far as old 4-door platform muscle cars go. a last gen CTS-V would basically be the same car only with a supercharger instead of NA. its the same reason why Ford didn't "advertise" the Crown Victoria. they were getting way too old and there are way too many better alternatives when buying a brand new car including used cars on similar platforms that can be just as good.

>>17843777
>official EPA mileages are 14/17 for the ATS V
Where? what stats are you looking at? i didn't see that anywhere on the internet even amongst the lowest estimates.

>>17843765
Ive heard they didnt advertise it due to CAFE or some kinda environmental agency. like if they advertised the car, it would have lowered their numbers overall

>>17843792
it would be even more overpriced if it did.
but thanks to its the after market, for 6-10K more you can defeat most cars on the road...but that only after 6-10K...

>>17843804
other than the kill mode chargers what options are there?

>>17843777
read a book nigga, the ats-v is rated at 17/25

>>17843049
>drive better than everything else
All reviews out there say that bmw lost their handling niche.
The Ats and now the Jaguar Xe took the throne

>>17843571
>hideous E60s
Shit taste

>>17843908
>other than the kill mode chargers what options are there?
Old M5s (not the V10s), Old CTS-Vs, G8s,

if you removed the requirement for "muh V8" you can get very cheap base model AWD V6 ATS that will handle better and be much faster with much better fuel economy. if you remove the requirement for 4 doors more whores (has any SS owner ever had to have anyone sit in the back of their SS?) you could get last gen V8 stangs on the extreme cheap too. all these things severely hurt SS sales. its basically an old car packaged as a new car competing with new and old cars.

File: 08-IMG_3185.jpg (126KB, 1600x989px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1600x989px

>>17844042
old C63 AMGs should've came down in price for a fairly low mileage example by now as well.

File: 3.jpg (55KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x533px

>>17844042
ah you meant on the used market, thats true.

>all these things severely hurt SS sales. its basically an old car packaged as a new car competing with new and old cars.

omg im saving that, that is the best representation on the SS.
my favourtie was when motortrend compared it to the fucking 2001 M5!!!!
I hope it sales keep getting hurt, I want one and not trying to get a G8.

>>17844048
very nice looking cars but the cost to mod and maintain turned me off. id really like one though

>>17842528
complete newfag here, how much are these things with taxes and everything included

>>17842528
Ummm... I am not geezer or nigger. It is just Cadillac.

File: 50K 2018 ATS.jpg (244KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 900x600px

>>17842528
This is what you get for $50k. Low quality. Plus, I am not one of Niggerlac's demographic.

>>17844427

>thought this was a meme
>it's real

the city of niggerlac

>muh german engineering
>niggers

No in-between

>>17843984
And all the reviews out there say that BMW got it back with the competition package.
It's gone a full circle again - people were bashing the M3 F80 at first but after all the ''M3 killers'' it's getting appreciated more again and still considered as the benchmark, nothing has changed.
Watch some more reviews senpai

>>17844427
Feels like an old "Chevrolet" Sonic's dashboard with a screen attached to it.

Fucking disgusting.

>>17843235
This. Teslas interiors are dogshit, especially compared to the price they sell for

>b-b-but muh 0-60 times
Hardly impressive unless you buy something like a P100D for like $150k

>>17843292
Nah, GM's just been killing it recently

>>17842528
Because Cadillac is for niggers and BMW is for white people and asians.

>>17846142
BMWs are for sand niggers

>>17846163
Nigger detected

>>17846260
Keep projecting your insecurities, white boi

>>17846031
Tessa buyers don't give a shit......

>>17846265
You're right, they just want to virtue signal and show everyone how morally superior they are

>>17844376
The E39 M5 was one of the best "driver's" cars ever made. The comparison is deliberate, well considered, and instantly understood by anyone who doesn't think of car "newness" in lifespans of their fucking smartphone.

File: IMG_0382.jpg (199KB, 1109x1080px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1109x1080px

>>17846264
Keep being a nigger

>>17846142
I don't see any asians in bmws, only benz and tesla

>>17842528
outside of metro Detroit, Cadillac is a shit-tier --they make rental cars and Escalades for tacky moms in Texas

flashy youngish rich people that can afford a new ats-v or m3/4 want PRESTIGE. cadillac offers NEGATIVE prestige

and the cadillac's Johan De Nysschen is a con artist.

move the company back to DETROIT

>>17846265
This

>>17846364
Yeah asians love amg's from what I've seen

>>17843480
>blaming boomers

Could you even tell me what years they were born in without searching for it?

>>17842530
My car from 2003 makes the same power and does 0-60 almost a full second faster.

>>17848759
Ok? Go be a used vs new babby somewhere else.

better question is why does Cadillac even bother making cars anymore? the cars nobody wants eat up all their profits. just make the escalade & xt5 xt4 xt3. really wish they'd bring back an escalade pickup truck, too