[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It used to be that BMW interiors were sparse and to-the-point of assisting in the activity, should I dare say enhancing the "art" of driving. So my angle with any sports sedan is the interior should enhance the activity and art of driving. That means comfortable, supporting seats, good sightlines, simple and informative gauges, and ergonomic controls.

The previous gen ATS (only gen - LOL) arrived at the near introduction of the F30. I drove both cars extensively. The ATS was heads above the F30 in terms of being a (ultimate) driving machine. When I espoused the driving dynamics of the ATS on this forum 8 years ago, most of the feedback was (mimicking the auto mags), "Yeah, but the interior sucks". I didn't find the ATS interior any better nor any worse than the F30 for the purpose of driving the car very well. Of course, it was styled differently, used different materials, and the Cadillac CUE was a touch screen-based system when it is obvious a stationary mouse user interface is a much better solution for a moving vehicle. But I find any type of screen-based user interface pointless in an automobile. I like to drive and not scroll through my phone, even if it is stuck in the dashboard. The magazines even tried to convince readers the ATS windows were too small, even after they originally said from their years-earlier first assessments that the sightlines out of the car were good.

What was better than the F30 was the ATS chassis, brakes, steering, and dynamics. So if one is a Roundel Hound and doesn't really give a shit about driving dynamics and prefers driving an iPhone, then the BMW wins for you. If you care about driving dynamics, then an ATS was the winner. I'm sure the same is still the case with the current line up between BMW and Cadillac. But surely the interior of the Cadillac, without even physically experiencing it, "sucks".

Based on my idea for the function of the interior, the E30 was the best car interior I've experienced. Simple, attractive, driver oriented, and effective at interfacing with the chassis. "Form follows function"

I follow your logic. However, despite you assuming that I have no experience with cadillac nor with the ATS line, a buddy of mine bought that car, he was in his thirties, not old, I was in my twenties. I liked the exterior of the car, and the performance seemed great although I never drove it. I thought the interior was cool, unique, different. But the same perception as you I hated the VUE touchscreen, and so did he. This new blackwing has the same touchscreen in a package that just looks cheap, the UI looks dated, and that is before fingerprints are riddled all over it. Further, the manual transmission version (the bread and butter) forgoes the spinwheel navigation option ie you have to touch the screen. Further, the interior has those circlar shaped wiper and turn signal knobs, the same ugly and cheap design from chevy aveo's that you get on your vacation rental (when you are an up-and-coming). So for these reasons, the interior sucks. I will not withhold my opinion on an online opinion forum just bc it is the unpopular one to you and others. Cadillac will not be on my cross-shopping list until they fix their interiors. If you or someone else likes the Caddy interior (maybe you dont care about the things I care about). Great, buy it. And no, this doesn't mean I buy cars just for interior and don't care about performance. Last I checked, BMW still makes the best performing luxury car for the money.