I know it’s a video game so I won’t rant as much. We all know that the ATS V out handles the M4 and the C63 AMG in real life. So why is the Cadi rated at 6.6 and the m4 7.1?! Also I really don’t understand how they could release the ats v and not give us the option to put the bigger spoiler, carbon front end, and carbon hood. The CTS V has that look so why did they have to make the ATS V so tame? I was really looking forward to this car, but to me the ATS V in this game feels a little rushed, like they didn’t put much effort in it 
I’m guessing the ATS V doesn’t have the Carbon Package is to differentiate it from the CTS V. The cars look fairly similar (although the ATS is smaller) so I’m sure they wanted an easy way for people to tell the difference between the two.
I will say, it would be nice to have the spoiler and splitter as options similar to how the BMW M2 has the optional carbon bits available in the aero section.
Yeah exactly, that’s all I was hoping for. An option to put those carbon bits on the car. I personally prefer those carbon parts on the car. It makes it look more aggressive
Yeah and on top of all that they classified it as a musclecar so we dont even get to race it against a M4 without gong through the 20 step blueprint process
3 Likes
It’s like 4 steps. Not 20.
I havent taken a look at the ATS V yet, but seeing that big gap in handling the first thing that comes to my mind is that the ATS-V is being sold with worse tyres than the C63 and M4. First equip all three cars with the same tyre and than compare the handling stat.
I’m guessing that turn 10 had a base ats-v when they did the laser scan for the car because the ats-v does come with the carbon package.
According to who ? General Motors’ MotorTrend ?
I don’t get why you people get salty over such a horrendous looking car.
2 Likes
Id be hard pressed to belive that in real world conditions ie on a twisty bit of tarmac and without a proffesional race driver at the wheel the ATS-V could out handle an M4. But hey thats me, im not american. 
1 Like
The ATS V is faster than the standard M3/M4. The M cars need the Competetion Package to come close (the cars are within a tenth if a second at some tracks). Don’t believe me, go watch the newest Motor Trend Head 2 Head episode. The ATS is faster at VIR and on the MT Figure 8. Even then, both cars are very close on the track.
If you think GM doesn’t build cars that handle well, wake up. I’ve said it before, they have some of the best chassis engineers in the world. Look at the Z06, Z28, C7 Stingray, SS 1LE, etc. Yes the ATS has some areas of improvement, but so does the M3/M4.
Both are absolutely amazing cars, but it’s annoying when people can’t acknowledge that.
They put the updated ATS V and M3 against each other and the M3 still won.Still, sorry but I tend not to follow reviewers that are biased towards a manufacturer as much as those guys are haha. This head to head might have been one they got right but other that they’ve made are really laughable haha,
Updated ATS V? Did we watch the same video? The ATS they drove was a regular car with the optional aero package. The M3 was the only “updated” car there. Either way, the M3 needs trickle down bits from the M4 GTS to be just as fast. Your precious M3 won by a tenth of a second, which is negligible in the real world. Like it or not, they are even.
Stop being so dramatic. That Atsv barely won when they did the first head to head also, negligible margin once again. Still, the previos statement about it handling better than an M3/4 is worthless in this case. Would’ve been valid if eachother win against eachother by a good margin. So chill. It’s nowhere near a special or good looking car, i don’t get all your salt.
ATS-V handles very well. I think the stats are lying.
Handling stats in car games are inherently ambiguous because lateral G is often the predominant factor. The problem there is that while a car may be capable of .98G, its handling balance may discourage making full or continuous use of it.
I think the most immediate issue regarding the ATS-V’s statistical handling deficit relative to the M4 is that it doesn’t have the revised aero from the Track Performance package, which gives it more downforce. But it is widely acknowledged, even by some BMW publications, that the ATS has the better, more malleable chassis, and my first impressions in the game supports it. When you’re able to line up a car how you want to, that can transcend quantitative stats.
So how about that Alfa Gulia…lol
I’m disappointed in the ATS-V as well. It’s totally not the sort of land barge I truly want in a Cadillac.
Is the speed for the cars accurate in real life?
I find the ATS-V rather enjoyable. The ATS and CTS both can come with a carbon package. It isn’t standard equipment and if I understand my information correctly, the packages themselves are a rarity amongst both the lineages. Not like the GT350R type of rare, however.
I just find it lame that aesthetics devalue the car itself in your eyes. Most of you, if not all, won’t drive it stock anyway and the car itself is a driver’s car. Meaning, you’ll be tuning to slide or grip harder than it would stock anyway.
It’s a bit naive to think that aesthetics has no impact on how a car is valued. And that’s putting it mildly.
1 Like