Fuel Economy Update for August - 2013 Cadillac ATS Long-Term Road Test
ADVERTISEMENT

2013 Cadillac ATS Long-Term Road Test

2013 Cadillac ATS: Fuel Economy Update for August

September 5, 2013

2013 Cadillac ATS

Our long-term 2013 Cadillac ATS saw quite a bit of action in August, adding nearly 3,000 miles to its odometer. After all those miles, lifetime fuel economy on our four-cylinder ATS stands at 22 mpg. This is, of course, 2 mpg short of the ATS 2.0T's combined EPA estimate. And if you've read Dan Edmunds' piece, "MPG Is Stupid," you know we're actually 8.3 percent off the pace.

While 8.3 percent isn't massive, things could be better. We have yet to hit the highway EPA estimate of 31 mpg in the Cadillac ATS. This past month, we had a record low of 12.6 mpg. I attribute the bad tank to some record-high temperatures and loading the ATS down with cargo to help a friend move. Despite this tank, our lifetime average for the ATS actually went up slightly, improving from 21.6 mpg in July.

Worst Fill MPG: 12.6 mpg
Best Fill MPG: 28.5 mpg
Average Lifetime MPG: 22.0 mpg
EPA MPG Rating: 24 Combined (21 City / 31 Highway)
Best Range: 432.9 miles
Current Odometer: 14,778 miles.

Travis Langness, Associate Editor @ 14,778 miles


Comments

  • quadricycle quadricycle Posts:

    Hmm, might as well get the 3.6L then right? Its going to cost less than two thousand more, you'll get the same mpg, more power and torque, and only add 90 lb. to the weight of the car. Why not?

  • fordson1 fordson1 Posts:

    Well, it costs more, that's why not, although that might not be an issue for some people. The 3.6 makes more torque above 3500 rpm but the 2.0 makes more from 1700-3500. The 2.0 is going to be more tuneable for cheaper - Trifecta Tune is already making around 335 crank torque on these engines. Getting to those levels on the NA 3.6 would be a very different proposition.

  • quadricycle quadricycle Posts:

    Tuneability on a Cadillac? I'm sure that there's a market for it but still, I would think that customers of Cadillac who want to go fast will just take the 3.6L, the half second quicker to sixty, and its warranty. Also, the difference between the two is $1800, not insignificant, but not terrible on a $35,000 car. Especially not when you consider the additional cost of a tune (and whatever else) to get the T2.0L up to that level. There'll still be a difference in price, but it won't be huge. Regardless, the whole reason that I'm having this thought is that I was expecting more from the T2.0L. The power is actually fine, but better fuel efficiency and weight savings of more than ninety lb. would have been better. At least you can get a stick with the T2.0L....

  • s197gt s197gt Posts:

    Automobile Mag in their July update of their long-term ATS V6 said they are averaging 22 mpg combined. I'm suspect of that because in their intro they clearly show a photo of the IP that indicates Avg MPG of 16.5; could have been after testing, though...

  • So for $1800 more the v6 version has a smoother more powerful and better sounding motor that gets about the same mpg?

  • quadricycle quadricycle Posts:

    @desmolicious: That's my though process... Brent Romans agrees too if memory serves. On a luxury car, $1,800 is actually quite the deal. Ask BMW for example, they want $4,400 for a 328i over a 320i. To be honest though, you probably get some extra equipme

  • quadricycle quadricycle Posts:

    *CHANGES not chances. Sorry.

  • fordson1 fordson1 Posts:

    Yeah, people tune Cadillacs. Probably to keep it stock, the V6 is a better idea, but if you're going to tune, a forced-induction engine is a lot easier.

Leave a Comment
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Past Long-Term Road Tests

ADVERTISEMENT
Have a question? We're here to help!
Chat*
Chat online with us
Email
Email us at help@edmunds.com
*Available daily 8AM-5PM Pacific
Phone*
Call us at 855-782-4711
SMS*
Text us at ED411