[alcatraz]

I know that we have a bit of a biased audience here at ssforums.com, but I thought that it might be worth taking a look at other options for performance-oriented sedans that are also made by GM. The 2014 Buick Regal GS AWD and the 2014 Cadillac ATS 2.0T are both made by GM and could give the 2014 Chevrolet SS a run for its money.

2014 Buick Regal GS AWD

MSRP: $40,195
Engine: 2.0L turbo DOHC 16-valve I-4
Horsepower: 259
Torque: 295 lb-ft
Wheelbase: 107.8 in
0-60 MPH: 6.2 seconds
EPA City/HWY: 19/27 MPG

A benefit of the Buick Regal is its AWD. That makes it great for people living in more wintery climates (which seems to be everywhere these days.) It beats out the SS in terms of fuel economy too.

2014 Cadillac ATS 2.0T

MSRP: $43,020
Engine: 2.0L turbo DOHC 16-valve I-4
Horsepower: 272
Torque: 260 lb-ft
Wheelbase: 109.3 in
0-60 MPH: 5.7 sec
EPA City/HWY: 21/31 MPG

The Cadillac wins in terms of the luxury it offers drivers. Though the 272 horsepower trails the SS by quite a bit, but it does boast the best fuel economy of the three.

2014 Chevrolet SS

MSRP: $45,770
Engine: 6.2L OHV 16-valve V-8
Horsepower: 415
Torque: 415 lb-ft
Wheelbase: 114.8 in
0-60 MPH: 4.6 sec
EPA City/HWY: 14/21 MPG

In terms of power the other two GM sedans are really no competition. But the same is true in terms of price with the SS being the most expensive of the bunch. Another point on which the SS isn't the best of the bunch is its fuel economy.



What makes you choose the SS over these other great GM sedans?

 

[z51vett]

v/8 engine rear wheel drive. CTS six and ATS six better choice and CTSV is great interior is smaller on CTS.
z51vett
Doug

 

[Ctsv4now]

Regal is too slow.

ATS is too small.

SS is easily the winner.

 

[willy92]

Rule # 1. In our family car, I only do V8's and I don't care how much gas it uses. It won't be a daily driver.

Rule #2. Our family car needs to be big enough for "My Peeps". Our current car, Infinity Q45, is bigger than all of them. The SS is the only one comparable in size.

Rule #3. It must be fun to drive. I'm an "Old Racer" and I love cars that are "engaging".

You can keep the all wheel drive for our friends back east. I had one once, its only challenge was driving fast in the rain. Otherwise it seemed like a normal car.

 

[G8 GT V8]

I laugh at all the others...SS is #1 hands down

 

[Navy Lifer]

Give us vehicle weights & pounds per HP numbers to look at.

Include CTS V-Sport (3.6 TTV6) - ATS is like a .8 scale car--just TOO small for much of the Cadillac owner market, IMO. I realize they're trying to attract a different segment of the population, so I'll just call it a chick car.

Then lets have a conversation about the difference in cost between SS and the V. It would take quite a few more gallons of gas purchased to make up the $15-$20K difference in purchase price for the V.

Comparing any of these cars should also include a track visit (road course) to see how they compare.

Then there's the normal ergonomic comparisons--head/shoulder/hip/leg room, overall useability and ease of operation of the driver controls, etc.

I'm gonna turn this on it's ear slightly, and suggest going low-ball with a Buick Verano 2.0T 6-speed manual as a baseline to compare with the rest of this lineup--available for about $30K. It has most of the bells & whistles of the more up-market cars with the right boxes checked on the order form, and while it IS a bit smaller, I think in a head-on comparison, it could actually present fairly well in it's overall performance (perhaps other than top speed, but how important IS that, really?), with the kicker being the purchase price difference IS significant enough to actually make it worth considering....literally half the price of a CTS V-Sport, but with 85-90% of it's overall performance--and a stick, to boot.

Call me nuts, but IF I was looking at how this all weighs out, I'd go for the SS as the best compromise car, does most everything as well or better than any other, and it's FUN to hit the loud pedal and squirt around "situations" that frustrate you with ease, rather than waiting for a turbo to kick-in--with the Verano as a second choice--bang for the buck truly favors the SS, and even though Verano may "only" run 130, limited by the OE tires more than anything else, it should easily run up to 150 with appropriate tires and tuning.

I understand the argument FOR the AWD Regal, but where someone lives is going to be the decision maker for that model--I don't want or need it due to it's greater weight & complexity.

Just not ready to drop $60K+ on a Cadillac that provides the most direct comparison to the SS in overall capability & execution. The 2.0T ATS doesn't ring my bell--at all.

 

[monaroCountry]

As with any turbos, the CTS/ATS V-sport do get affected by heat soak, so those times you see in the magazines arent what you will be seeing on the road.

The car WILL slow down the more you drive it or if it has been sitting in traffic.

Also, the Chevrolet SS is fully loaded stock. To get an accurate and comparable offering from each three cars, you really should price the other two as having all options ticked.

 

[willy92]

As with any turbos, the CTS/ATS V-sport do get affected by heat soak, so those times you see in the magazines arent what you will be seeing on the road.

The car WILL slow down the more you drive it or if it has been sitting in traffic.

Also, the Chevrolet SS is fully loaded stock. To get an accurate and comparable offering from each three cars, you really should price the other two as having all options ticked.

Trudat. I've had 2 turbo Mazdas and they run best in the morning and slows down thoughout the day.

 

[alcatraz]

I was a bit surprised that the SS was more expensive than the ATS. The SS wins out in performance and that's what I care about most, but I can't help being a little jealous of the looks and interior of the Cadillac ATS.

 

[z51vett]

I was a bit surprised that the SS was more expensive than the ATS. The SS wins out in performance and that's what I care about most, but I can't help being a little jealous of the looks and interior of the Cadillac ATS.

The ATS is smaller inside.
z51vett
Doug

 

[pigman440]

I don't drive enough that the mileage is a factor either way. The other two are fine cars but don't have the exclusiveness ,power, or charisma of the SS. I did consider a CTS coupe/AWD that was slightly cheaper than the SS and very sharp in Silver but back seat was almost unusable as to the size and again the LS3 swayed me !!!

 

[PFWiz]

My wife and I have a simple test we perform on every car we are considering purchasing to be our "family" car. I try to sit in the back seat. I am 6' tall, 260 lbs. If I can fit comfortably in the back seat then most anyone else should be able to also. None of these other cars that you guys are comparing can pass this test, therefore none were even worthy of our consideration.

Trying to buy a GM automobile our choices were the Impala, the LaCrosse, the SS and XTS. To be honest the Impala and LaCrosse never had a chance. So it came down to the luxury (and mediocre performance) of the XTS vs the performance and excluciveness of the SS.

You guys can all tell which way the wife and I voted! :cheers:

 

[rbSS]

I believe that is a picture of the LaCrosse and not the Regal

 

[Shortbus]

- In the other cars half the engine is missing.
- How could you look at those rear tires on the SS and not want tires that wide?



And on a serious note, I've driven a Mercedes S550 and the SS is just as comfortable in the front. This is one of the only cars that I can actually extend my left leg straight out before hitting the dead pedal.

 

[monaroCountry]

I was a bit surprised that the SS was more expensive than the ATS. The SS wins out in performance and that's what I care about most, but I can't help being a little jealous of the looks and interior of the Cadillac ATS.

Meh the look of the ATS is pretty much the same for all Cadillacs, at least you have a unique looking car with the Chevrolet SS, the only one that looks remotely close is the G8. Forget about idiots that think the SS looks like a Malibu/Impala, they are just haters.

The SS is also fully loaded, much bigger, uses space far better, already have a strong aftermarket support and more proven than the ATS. I would also guess that the SS is much more solidly built that the ATS (im not talking about things like how the door thumps when closes etc) with far higher testing already done.

 

[monaroCountry]

- In the other cars half the engine is missing.
- How could you look at those rear tires on the SS and not want tires that wide?



And on a serious note, I've driven a Mercedes S550 and the SS is just as comfortable in the front. This is one of the only cars that I can actually extend my left leg straight out before hitting the dead pedal.

Holdens have always been good at space utilization. These actually many former BMW and Mercedes owners who now own an SS/G8 etc.

 

[Commodoreman2000]

without seeing or driving one I would say the most comparable car to the SS from the GM stable is the all new CTS Vsport, similar size not sure on weights but power is on paper comparable.
Has anyone lined these two up in a 1/4 Mile run or on a track?

 

[monaroCountry]

Its scarily comparable, so comparable in fact that one wonders why GM even bothered to develop a whole new platform.

As mentioned before though, the Chevrolet SS being naturally aspirated would most likely start edging away from the CTS-Vsport after the first or second runs due to naturally aspirated engines not suffering from heat soak as much as turbocharged engines.

Also its amazing that the SS weighs less and is so close in performance, considering that its fully loaded, physically bigger (much bigger interior room), much less aluminum parts and chassis, and do not have trick MRC suspension or the more advanced transmission among other things.

In terms of going up against the best from Bavaria, performance wise, the big dog Zeta II (Gen-F HSV's) would be a better challenge than the big dog Alpha. This simply follows on from previous generations where the Zeta (not really a generation ago) I slaughtered the Sigma CTS-V.

2014 CADILLAC CTS-VSPORT

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $60,095 (Vsport Premium: $69,995)

ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled V-6, aluminum block and heads

Displacement: 218 cu in, 3564 cc
Power: 420 hp @ 5750 rpm
Torque: 430 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 8-speed automatic with manual shifting mode

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 114.6 in
Length: 195.5 in
Width: 72.2 in
Height: 57.2 in
Curb weight: 3966 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.8 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.5 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.9 sec @ 111 mph
Top speed (drag limited, mfr's claim): 172 mph
Tires: Pirelli P Zero Neros measuring 245/40 front and 275/35 rear
Braking, 70-0 mph: 149 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.97 g

FUEL ECONOMY (MFR'S EST):
EPA city/highway: 17/25 mpg




2014 CHEVROLET SS

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $45,770 (Base and full options: $45,770)

ENGINE TYPE: pushrod 16-valve V-8

Displacement: 376 cu in (6162 cc)
Power: 415 @ 5900
Torque: 415 @ 4600

TRANSMISSION:6-speed automatic with tapshift

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 114.8 inches
Length: 195.5 inches
Width: 74.7 inches
Height: 57.9 inches
Curb weight: 3931 pounds

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.9 sec @ 111 mph
Top speed (gov ltd, mfr's claim): 160 mph
Tires: Bridgstone Potenza RE050A measuring 245/40 front and 275/35 rear
Braking, 70-0 mph: 153 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.95 g

FUEL ECONOMY (MFR'S EST):
EPA city/highway: 14/21 mpg

 

[PFWiz]

The rear seat and trunk on the CTS are much smaller than the SS!
If you are big guy like me the back seat of a CTS is not some where you want to spend a lot of time....

 

[black magic]

I thought this newer gen CTS was a larger car than last gen.