Continuing its push down market, Cadillac disclosed it will introduce a four-cylinder car in late 2010 as a 2011 model. The rear-wheel-drive model, which they may even saddle with the BLS moniker, will slot below the CTS. Even though it'll have a four-pot engine standard, Cadillac execs are discussing whether to offer a V-6 as an option, because they think (and probably rightly so) that U.S. buyers won't accept a four cylinder Cadillac. Caddy GM Jim Taylor told Automotive News [sub], "I don't think Americans are going to become un-American that fast. They still want power. We still have big open roads. People do not want to stop enjoying driving." Or maybe they're just still smarting from Cadillac's last four-cylinder fiasco, named Cimarron.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Let the self righteous bashing of Americans for wanting powerful cars begin!!
As long as they can find a way to make that four pot engine unique….say a V6-like 300hp?
The only problem is that USA based manufactures dont make a decent 4 cyl Engine as compared to Europe or Asian makers.
So I think they need to go back to the drawing boards and smarten up real fast. The price of Gasoline wont be going down any time soon if ever, get used to it being a very pricey commodity!
Less expensive possibly, but I wouldn’t consider offering a smaller 4-banger car to be exclusively a downmarket push. BMW, Mercedes, and Audi all offer 4 cylinder vehicles (though mostly in their home markets) which are fun to drive and popular in terms of sales figures. No one thinks less of any of those brands for offering models with small efficient engines.
NulloModo :
BMW, Mercedes, and Audi all offer 4 cylinder vehicles (though mostly in their home markets) which are fun to drive and popular in terms of sales figures. No one thinks less of any of those brands for offering models with small efficient engines.
But those are the vehicles that Pontiac (sports-performance) and Buick (sports-luxury) and Saab (uh… something) should be offering in the GM hierarchy, not Cadillac (unapologetic luxury).
Good point. Why not just slap a Caddy badge on a couple of Saab’s and save the money on developing another dismal GM designed 4 banger.
Drove the new 2009 Audi A4 the other day. An engine that sounds and feels quite good in a GTI doesn’t quite cut it in a luxury car. Although I guess that A4 wasn’t really a luxury car–too much prominently placed hard plastic for that.
Cool an economy Cadillac, that’s what this is right.
I don’t think Americans are going to become un-American that fast. They still want power. We still have big open roads. People do not want to stop enjoying driving.
I think this statement shows how out of touch those fools are. So driving a 4 cylinder makes you un-American, with a lack of power that can’t handle open roads and that you can’t enjoy driving it. Only if you buy one of their 4 pot industrial mills. My 4 cylinder has no problem smoking V8 Mustangs, cruising for hours comfortably and is way more fun to drive than their rolling turds.
And what RWD small platform do the plan to pull out of their ass in 2 years, didn’t they cancel the Alpha platform when the decided fuel efficient cars couldn’t be done in RWD.
Why not just slap a Caddy badge on a couple of Saab’s and save the money on developing another dismal GM designed 4 banger.
That’s what the BLS in europe is a just a Saab with a Caddy badge and body work, it’s not selling very good. Didn’t Saab switch over to the ecotech several years ago and ditch their own engines.
The could always re-work the Sky/Solstice platform into a larger car…and get a new 4 cylinder with better specs than what they have now, although the turbo 4 might not be a bad baseline engine.
I’m still jaded after the Cavacaddy incident years ago (Cimmaron).
OK Red! Your 4 banger can smoke a v8 Mustang?So no way your driving a run of the mill 4 banger.
Speaking of rolling terds have a look at Toyota Camry.
MK- The A4 works because Audi’s brand in the US is under engined, sporty vehicles with well appointed interiors. Notice that the 4-banger Merc is no-longer on sale in the states and BMW did not bring the 4-banger 1-series to the states.
The issue is the perception gap. Even a strong 4-cylinder is perceived as down-market. The RDX with a turbo-4 is worth watching. GM may be trying to copy Honda. Let’s see how this works….
I think American enthusiasts have been starving for a lightweight RWD coupe/sedan since the days of the 300ZX/240SX/RX-7/Supra/etc. But the way this Jim Taylor guy talks, it sounds like they don’t want to jump in on this potential market until someone else succeeds…and then GM will field a car (designed by committee/focus group) which misses the mark completely. Sigh.
Say it with me: “High-content, efficient vehicles with small engines are the wave of the future”
Europe was already nudged in this direction through artificially high fuel prices AND taxation-on-displacement (in most countries). The US is finally coming around, albeit more slowly because $4/gallon fuel is not financially devastating to most people. Inconvenient and annoying, sure.
I cannot understand the cylincer number obsession of Americans. What is the difference between a 1.4 Turbo+supercharged VW engine and a 3.0 litre V6 if they have the same power and torque figures?
A 4-cyl Impreza WRX STI produces 407 Nm and 300HP. 300HP is more than enough to cruise at 200km/h (120mph). Don’t fool yourselves that “every American needs at least 500HP to be an American, because we have long roads”.
By the way, isn’t there a speed limit on US higways?
Orian:
The could always re-work the Sky/Solstice platform into a larger car…and get a new 4 cylinder with better specs than what they have now, although the turbo 4 might not be a bad baseline engine.
They tried that with the Kappa platform but it wasn’t engineered to be stretched/enlarged for sedan use, hence the Alpha platform.
Why not a diesel?
Khutuck, I agree it doesn’t sound rational, but most times – all else being equal – the more cylinders, the lower the rpms at which an engine will reach peak torque and horsepower. Since most U.S. driving is not high speed and nearly all vehicles have automatic transmissions, it’s a point to consider in choosing a powertrain.
@Michael Karesh
Drove the new 2009 Audi A4 the other day. An engine that sounds and feels quite good in a GTI doesn’t quite cut it in a luxury car.
The new A4 doesn’t have the same engine as the GTI. The A4 has the all-new engine with the Valvelift system.
BuzzDog, you’re right that more cylinders generally mean more power, but 4 cyl is not always worse than 8, it’s just a (nasty) marketing trick.
Also another thing about US. What is the reasoning of using a V-8 car with automatic transmission in a town!
In my opinion, a city car is a 1.4/1.6 L 80 to 120 HP automatic car for convenience in traffic; and a highway car is a small engined (2.0 to 3.0 L) 200HP manuel car with +250Nm torque for fuel efficiency.
Why should I burn one more liter of gas by driving an automatic car on a highway? I’ll just change the gear 5 or 6 times until I reach to 120mph, and let the engine torque do its trick!
Whether this car succeeds or fails is entirely in the execution. The Cimarron failed because it was essentially a tarted-up Chevy Cavalier. Cadillac has come a long way since then and is entirely capable of making a competent four-cylinder luxury car. If they can pull off a viable competitor to the A4, I think they’ll have buyers. I’d even consider one.
Americans seem to have no problem with 4-cylinder engines (in appropriately-sized cars) when fuel is perceived as “expensive”.
On the other hand, a 4-cylinder Cadillac had better have a 4-cylinder that matches the NVH of the excellent 3.6 l direct-injection V6, or it will be an abject failure. Their 2.4 l four makes every GM car equipped with this engine feel like it was sourced with an engine from a third-world supplier.
Finally, no 4-cylinder will be effective as long as a small sedan weighs in at 3000 pounds.
The new supercharged Ecotec is supposed to be a pretty good mill isn’t it? With suitable tweaking for perhaps some more low end grunt and quiet operation, it could do the trick. It would have to be distinctly different in look and feel from the Cobalt engine. I think the execution of the rest of the car is the tricky part.
If done the right way, this could work wonders – meaning I’d consider it. I like smaller cars. Even tho I think the new CTS looks nice and seems to be a good car, it’s too big. It needs: (1)the right 4 cylinder engine (smooth, quiet, reliable, efficient, good horsepower, good tech), (2)good build quality, (3)fun driving dynamics, (4)low weight, (5)a nice interior, and (6)an attractive body. They’d have a winner. But, considering GM history, I’d be surprised if they got more than 2 of those right. (If it wasn’t for recent improvements, I would have predicted getting 1 of those right.)
A four cylinder Cadillac is just as stupid an idea as a four cylinder Camaro. GM continues to destroy it’s brands.
@ reclusive: this isn’t autoblog, we here at TTAC don’t think you have to have tons of power.
I hope GM can do this, and do it well like the CTS.
Whatever you do Caddy, do not call it a BLS. Different folks have different reason for not liking the BLS, but every time I hear that disgustingly fugly acronym I think of bacon-lettuce burger joints. That’s not what I want to come to mind when I see/read the name of an upscale car.
Oh and there had better be a turbo, regardless of diesel or gasoline. And NO FRONT WHEEL DRIVE for Christ’s sake. Just because the dumbasses at Audi and Acura still do it, that doesn’t mean Caddy should stoop to the same level.
Those who yearn for a wrong-wheel-drive luxury car, well, there’s more than enough used examples to choose from.
I think psknapp has the right formula, and a car like that would sell and do well for the Caddy badge.
I don’t buy in that Saab/Pontiac/Buick should prevent Cadillac from having an affordable luxurious small car. Saab should be Saab, and should really have its own R&D, design, and engineering teams that source very little from mainstream GM vehicles. Pontiac should be sporty and aimed at a younger buyer, not competing with the luxury/refinement side of Cadillac, and Buick should be big, soft, boring but reliable, ergonomic, and safe cars for old people, ala Lexus.
As I’ve said before, I am adamantly against the idea of a smaller Cadillac being brought to U.S. shores. The Cadillac BLS is already being sold in Europe, and is frankly isn’t selling. There seems to be two ways GM can handle Cadillac: either making them upscale, a world-class leader in the luxury field, or moving them down market, a move that would make Cadillac even less competitive in the luxury field. Bringing the BLS to American shores will bring Cadillac even more down market and (in my eyes) seal its fate as a noncompetitive automotive entity.
The Cimarron was such an incredible mess it nearly single-handedly destroyed Cadillac’s prestige. But the Cimarron was nothing more than a tarted-up Cavalier, another casualty of GM’s J-Car fiasco. Later, Cadillac tried again with the Catera, which was nothing more than a rebadged Opel. And, despite two rebadged failures, they want to try again with the Cadillac BLS (which is based off the Saab 9-3). I say, no dice!
[In all fairness, the original Cadillac Seville (‘75 – ‘79) was a success and heavily derived from the Nova]
Granted, the a Saab 9-3 derived Cadillac isn’t as bad as say, a Chevrolet Aveo-based Cadillac (maybe that can be GM’s next [mis]step!), but still, with all the bad karma the Cimarron’s left behind, do you think people are honestly willing to trust another badge-engineered Cadillac product?
Cadillac doesn’t exactly resonate with this niche, and just having an offering there doesn’t mean people will consider it, or that existing Cadillac buyers will go that route.
A better option would be to, well, sell Saabs. From Cadillac stores. A lot of GM’s problems could be solved if any dealer could buy any GM product without being restricted to a particular brand.
Of course, GM, being GM, will probably just sell the Saab 9-3Cadillac BLS stateside and, when it fails, declare that luxury buyers don’t want four-cylinder cars and bail on Saab and a low-end Caddy. Meanwhile, Audi will probably have moved a number of A3 and A4 2.0Ts.
OK Red! Your 4 banger can smoke a v8 Mustang?So no way your driving a run of the mill 4 banger.
Speaking of rolling terds have a look at Toyota Camry.
A turbo 4, but 4 cylinders none the less. My point was GM’s management loves to alienate buyers that don’t fall in line with their stupid thinking. Just because we don’t buy their lousy products just because they don’t know how to make anything we like doesn’t make us un-American. These guys are clueless to what a majority of customers want, and it shows in their falling market share.
I totally agree about the Camry, ugly as sin(at least GM can make the outside look nice) and their 4 cylinder is just as noisey and unenjoyable as GM’s.
The point a lot of you are missing about making a small Caddy is where it would be priced. Sure the idea has validity if Caddy was an upscale luxury brand, but they have all but destroyed that image. This BLS will end up competing with Pontiac, Buick and Saabs in price and possibly content. GM branding is going to be the death of them, it’s clear they have no clue how to manage their brands, or products, or marketing, or R&D, but they are great at the executive pay scales.
Edgett: Finally, no 4-cylinder will be effective as long as a small sedan weighs in at 3000 pounds.
Actually, our Mazda3 5-door comes in at about 2950 lbs and its 4-cylinder is more than adequate to pull that weight around. My 3100 lb GTI pulls like an ox w/ its turbo 4.
In this case, we’re talking about Caddy, so the 4 pot will HAVE to be forced induction, if only to get Caddy-like power figures.
I say the 2L turbo Ecotec in the Sky Red Line/Cobalt SS/Solstice GXP would be perfect in this new Alpha Caddy at current or even just slightly higher power levels (think 260 to 285 hp, w/ similar torque). Power would be great, fuel economy would be amazing, weight would be low, and luxury intenders who want to be seen as “green” wouldn’t feel guilty.
I say go for it, GM.
I say the 2L turbo Ecotec in the Sky Red Line/Cobalt SS/Solstice GXP would be perfect in this new Alpha Caddy at current or even just slightly higher power levels (think 260 to 285 hp, w/ similar torque)
Have you tried that engine? It’s utterly unsuited for a luxury car. It has nothing down low or up high; it’s just a massive mid-RPM torque hump that sounds for all the world like a blender. Every FI 4-pot with more than a token amount of boost is the same way. I like fuel economy, but I’m with Michael Karesh: when I can get a 270HP V6 in a 24K Camry that’ll do 28 MPG, why should I settle for anything less in a Cadillac?
Someone should give Jim Taylor the keys to any number of 4-cyl cars that are quite fun to drive on big, open roads. GTI, A3, Mazdaspeed3, Mazda3, Civic SI, TSX, WRX, older Celicas, etc. What kind of tool makes such blindingly ignorant and still maintains an executive position? Wow…
KnightRT, I haven’t tried the 2L Ecotec, but I do own a 2L turbo DI engine in my GTI. The boost doesn’t turn on until 1800 rpms, but it’s far from lacking in power and oomph, and it’s pretty smooth, too. You can barely discern the turbo kicking in, and that’s only if you’re looking for it. Audi fits 2 liter turbos in its A4 and no one’s complaining about that. Is the Ecotec so inferior to it that it’s worth your complaint?
I think we in the US are going to have to go through a change of how we define luxury in our cars, as in, more lux on the inside with smaller, more frugal, yet still powerful engines under the hood.
As well, your argument about mid-range power could be made for almost any V6 VVT engine today, nothing down low, a mid-range kick, and peters out at the top.
I think the problem is less the worth of a four-cylinder engine and more the ongoing dilution of GM’s brands. Does it make sense for GM to add another platform-engineered mid-size car that will end up competing, in size and price, with its other, existing models? VW is getting away with it — for now — with the VW and Audi lines (A3 vs. Golf, to the death), as is Toyota with the Camry and Lexus ES, but that’s because the Audi and Lexus brands still have customer value. Cadillac’s value is not nearly so robust these days, and this seems like a good way to work against reestablishing any kind of prestige.
I wouldn’t mind seeing a hybrid Caddy.
Isn’t this supposed to be Saab’s job?
I’m still jaded after the Cavacaddy incident years ago (Cimmaron).
Let it go, man. The last Cimarron rolled off the assembly line back when we had a President who’s last name wasn’t Clinton or Bush, and a rapper from Oakland made parachute pants a popular fad.
I, for one, support the idea of a four-cylinder Cadillac. It’ll be more fuel efficient, and that’s what everybody wants these days.
I don’t want a four cylinder Cadillac – ok I don’t want a Caddy at all but I think the point about Cadillac being an American luxury aspirational brand is a good one. They probably shouldn’t have anything smaller than an A6 in the lineup never mind trying to compete with A3s or A4s, let Buick do that.
Cimarron!
I am a 29 year old male and would love to buy a small, world class, rear wheel drive Cadillac with about 200 or so horse power for about 25K. If it is four cylinder, all the better. A longitudal four cylinder… What a dream to maintain. As a 99 Deville driver for 7 years, I know I will never buy any car with a transverse V8 again. Yea, we can fix your oil leak, but we have to remove the motor, it will be $3000.00 Yea we can replace the HVAC fan but we have to lower the motor 10 inches to get at it, that will be $800.00. Yea we can replace the evapotator core, but we have to lower the engine 10 inches to get at it. It will be $1400.00. Yea we can replace the starter, but it is under the intake manifold. Yea we can fix the head gasket leak, but we will have to remove the engine. It will be more than the car is worth….
psknapp :It needs: (1)the right 4 cylinder engine (smooth, quiet, reliable, efficient, good horsepower, good tech), (2)good build quality, (3)fun driving dynamics, (4)low weight, (5)a nice interior, and (6)an attractive body. They’d have a winner.
No they’d have an Alfa Romeo! (Except for #2 perhaps, and lately #4. Oh, well.)
To be perfectly honest, I don’t like the idea of a 4-cylinder Cadillac, unless Caddy wants to permanently cement itself in the ranks of the near-luxury set, very much like what Lincoln has done. Acura territory. Caddy can do much better, especially if anyone within the ranks wish to return to the top-tier luxury echelons, where the customers couldn’t be bothered to give a damn about gas prices (Escalade, anyone?).
In times past, Caddy was well known for building luxurious full-size highway cruisers with smooth, powerful V8s, luxurious interior appointments and impressive styling that made its owner proud to own a Cadillac. Caddy, by virtue of GM Corporate and external forces beyond their control, squandered that image with piss-poor quality control, weak/disastrous/destructive engine choices, and lackadaisical product decisions that’ve contributed to Caddy being considered second- or even third-tier in the luxury leagues.
Now Caddy can take a cue from Hyundai and go to work on a superb V8 highway cruiser with a V6 option to sooth the worry-warts jonesing for fuel efficiency at a price low enough to bring curious car-shoppers in and invite others to change their perceptions. Build that for 3 to 5 years with a unprecedented level of quality control and rock-solid reliability. Then you can focus on a mid-sized companion with the same attributes. Then an even smaller companion with an engine choice no lower (i.e. cruder) than a V6. Or even an I6, since the inherent smoothness of one can net brownie points.
A I4 (turbo or not) will only have people smirking in their frappachinos. Plus it’ll not only bring Caddy down to Lincoln’s level in their constant pursuit of some lowest-common-denominator ideal of “Lexus”, but painfully remind people of why they never considered looking at a Caddy in the first place.