1st twice in a row...I'm on fire!!

I think they should definitely consider a new name in place of the BLS, which could become an abbreviation for something not-so-complimentary. I know...they can call it the Cimarron!

A turbocharged 4 cyclinder seems like a no-brainer to me. Many car companies are following this trend because the HP gains and increase in fuel economy, when done correctly, are undeniable. I don't give a sh*t about the name though.

The current BLS looks nice. Their sales most likely sucked because there was too much competition where there were better made cars at the same price or close to the same price. Ii don't see that as being that much of a problem here. But wtf do I know? I'm just some guy behind a keyboard. =)

@WS

"I know...they can call it the Cimarron!"

Very funny!!

For the people don't get it, wiki "Cadillac BLS" and scroll to the bottom of the page.

G8 with a different nose and a 4 banger.

Seriously, why? a souped up 4cyl has almost no fuel econcomy benifits and gives you and engine that's under much more stresses than a larger engine, for example....

09 Dodge Challenger R/T
5.7L V8, 370hp, 390lb-ft torque
16 city, 25 highway

08 Honda S2000
2.2L 4cyl, 237hp, 162lb-ft torque
18 city, 25 highway

08 Subaru Impreza WRX STI
2.5L 4cyl turbo, 305hp, 290lb-ft torque
17 city, 23 highway

the S2000 get's 2 better city, no better highway and then Impreza gets 1 better city and 2 worse highway than the Challenger which has a V8, and it's also worth noting the S2000 has a 1200ish pound weight advantage and the Impreza a 600 pound advantage over the Challenger, put the Challenger's drivetrain in a lighter more aerodynamic car and it's going to get even better economy.

Mercedes has been successfully offering 4 cylinders in a few of its models for decades. Why not Cadillac?

@ doh:
This isn't just a G8 with a different nose and a 4 cyl. The G8 is a full sized car, this would be compact, certainly sub-CTS in size.

I think a V6 is unnecessary; for buyers in most of the world, a turbo 4 is more than enough. Why not source one from SAAB, the turbo pros?

If Cadillac is going to compete with BMW, then of course then need a 1 Series competitor (which would likely be closer in size to the 3 Series, just cheaper.) Just don't make it a repeat of the Cimarron. Or the Catera.

Names? Seeing as CTS is "Compact Touring Sedan", STS is "Seville Touring Sedan", and DTS is, by extension, "DeVille Touring Sedan", why not make this the "ATS". It's earlier in the alphabet than the bigger Caddy names and thus follows the German alpha-numeric tradition, and invokes memories of the Allante (I know, it was neither a sedan or a big success, but it was still a cool car and is piece of Cadillac's illustrious history.)

D! is right in that some turbo 4s are good at mileage and power. LNF for example. But once they start getting into higher boost levels or higher strung, they lose on the mileage front fast, like Sandra stated.

Put the LNF in a small RWD Caddy, and you have a 128i competitor then. Drop an LLT in it as a top level engine, which also has good power and mileage, for a 135i competitor. LNF gets better mileage in then the 3L BMW has in the 128i currently and LLT gets the same mileage as the 3L twin turbo in the 335i in the CTS. currently.

@Sandra

You're taking what I stated out of context. There's performance turbo-charging and there's fuel economy turbo-charging. Obviously, I was talking about turbo-charging for efficiency and economy purposes. All the vehicles you mentioned however, fall in the performance category, so of course they're going to have similar fuel economy numbers.

As the internet is pretty easy to search here are some numbers of my own:

2008 VW GTI
2.0 4cycl turbo, 200hp, 207 ft-lb torque
22 city, 29 highway

2008 Chevy Cobalt
2.0 4cycl turbo, 260hp, 260 ft-lb torque
22 city, 30 highway

2008 BMW 135i
3.0 6cycl twin turbo, 300hp, 300 ft-lb torque
17 city, 26 highway

Mileage is from fueleconomy.gov, the rest is from various websites, and as you can see it's all 2008 vehicles. These are sporty yet fuel efficient vehicles and prove exactly what I'm talking about. More power without using more fuel.

dejavue all over again. Little/compact/economical Cadillac is a oxy moron A lower dislpacement CTS with 6-7 speed is the only option for now. GM can't afford another Limmaron.

I used to have a Cimmeron... Most luxourious $400 car I've ever had. It was built on the J-body and wasn't as bad as many of the people here are saying. Sure it had problems with power windows and door latches, but it's not like this won't have the same issues after a few years. GM's build quality has gone up in recent years, but the complexity of their products has increased proportionally --- meaning that things aren't really that much better.

@sandra

2008 saturn sky
2.4l i4
177hp 170ft-lb torque
19/21/25

2008 saturn sky redline
2.0l i4 turbo
260hp 260ft-lb
19/22/28

what now?

@ Sintekk

Oh no, the Cimarron WAS a lousy car. Maybe it was tolerable at the $400 price you paid, but that hunk of junk was better than 12k new. Totally not worth it at that price.

Sandra,

Another reason for going with a 4 banger with a turbo over an 8cyl is that the weight of the vehicle drops substantially. Putting big V8s into smaller packages results in poor weight distribution and bad handling.

Additionaly, these are the values I got from fueleconomy.gov and they vary quite a bit from what yours were. I believe that the real world figures are probably the most indicative of the kinda of mileage that these vehicles get as they are ... real world figures.

I used the Charger R/T since the Challenger doesn't have any data. They have the same engine, however I will acknowledge that the automatic tranny of the Charger probably hurts mileage by a point or two. I also added a Lexus IS350 for a comparison of what a good V6/auto setup can do. That car is also 3500lbs, approximately 600 lbs more than an S2000.

2007 Honda S2000

New MPG
18 City
24 Hwy
20 Combined

Old MPG
20 City
26 Hwy
22 Combined

MPG Estimates from Drivers Like You
Average based on 4 vehicles : 25.2
Lo 24
Hi 26

2007 Dodge Charger R/T (same engine as the Challenger)

New MPG
13 City
18 Hwy
15 Combined

Old MPG
14 City
20 Hwy
16 Combined

MPG Estimates from Drivers Like You
Average based on 5 vehicles : 15.4
Lo 12
Hi 18

2007 Lexus IS350

New MPG
21 City
25 Hwy
19 Combined

Old MPG
21 City
28 Hwy
23 Combined

MPG Estimates from Drivers Like You
Average based on 2 vehicles : 21.5
Lo 20
Hi 24

Turbo 4s, after adding the piping, intercooler, and turbo, actually weigh remarkably close to GM's small blocks. The LNF for example weighs 307 lbs without the piping, intercooler, and turbo. Add another 50 lbs or so for that. So 357 lbs for 260 hp and 260 ft-lbs of torque. 1.373 lbs per hp.

The LS4 weighs in at 417 lbs. Makes 303 hp and 323 ft-lbs of torque. 1.376 lbs per hp. Then you have engines like the LS7 making 505 hp and 470 ft-lbs of torque. It weighs in at 454 lbs. 0.899 lbs per hp. Lastly, the LLT weighs in at 380 lbs making 304 hp and 273 ft-lbs of torque. 1.25 lbs per hp.

So bigger engines can actually make more more hp for each pound over turbo 4s, and don't weigh all that much more. The LS7 makes 94% more hp then the LNF yet only weighs about 17% more for example.

lets not forget the s2000 has a gas guzzler tax. even the z06 doesnt. the z06 is roughly 300lbs more than a s2000, has more than 3 times its displacement, over twice its power, nearly 3 times its torque and no gas guzzler.

You are not going to get better fuel economy with a turbo. It is always about boosting torque which results in more horse power. However it's not a huge hit for the gain.

The example provided are not the same engines hence the skewed results that support your statement. The problem is at cruising speeds the turbo is generating parasitic drag on the engine from the exhaust. Even if you devised a clever system of bypass the turbo during cruising I doubt you would have the same flow as a standard manifold or header. On a high boost engine they will be forced to lower the engine compression resulting in less power and fuel economy off boost. Even still it's still worth the trade to many.

Frankly I think someone should bring back the Mazda Eunos 600 series Miller cycle engine.

Use a small 4 or 6 cyl and add a supercharger or turbo. Design it with the correct variable valve timing and you should get roughly 30% more power and 20% fuel savings....

I'll grant V8's can be fuel efficient. However like I once heard remaking the Viper, "It'll get you 20 mpg on the highway, if you can keep your foot out of it." And that's the problem with having a V8. It's easy to get to the power, it's right there. But in a turbo 4 you have to push it, you know you are burning more gas.

omg a 4 banger cadillac...LMAO...ha ha ha i see a white flag waving...GM you lose!!!

And this is why GM will never succeed. Just too many parochial managers not managed tightly by the top sergeant.
What the f... is Lutz doing?
A federation of opiniated companies overseen, rather than managed, by burocrats.

The Cadillac motto: Mercedes has a 4-cyl, so can we. Dozens of MBA's, incl Gary, to do market studies to prove the niche exists.
Nobody asks deep questions to the consumer.

Ofcourse i want a cheap cadillac, who says 'no' to that questyion in an interview?

Nevermind, that this would be a great nice for Saab, and that not going there with Cadillac might, just might, make Cadillac more 'exclusive' in the long run.

The long run? You mean the next two months?

Guys, we have to shift 150k Camaro's and Avis is taking any....

@Cashmoney

Those are the wrong numbers for the Charger, you quoted the SRT (6.1L) not the R/T (5.7L), the R/T was 17/25 under the old system and 15/23 under the new system (I have a Magnum R/T so same engine and I get 25-26 highway), also the Challenger R/T and Charger R/T aren't the same engine yet as the 09 Challenger R/T has an updated 5.7L with more hp and better fuel economy than the version currently avaliable in the 08 Charger.

@cobaltssman

hehe. thats about what i thaught when i saw this post.

This should be called the Caddilac plan "B" not the BLS as stated above.

Cadillac should think twice about this. And seriously consider what they want their image to be.

No one wants to drive an econobox made by Cadillac.

If the committees in Cadillac HQ are even allowing the word 'economical' to be spoken in their meetings about this project they should drop the entire concept right now.

Cadillac should not be about economy. They should be working to earn an image of jewel-like precision, American style power, world class road handling and outstanding luxury. While I dispute whether or not they've achieved those standards, I can at least see them trying for it, and applaud them for the efforts.

But if they make some sort of Malibu? Forget it.

why not just throw a 4 banger into the current cts, its not like every model has to be a autobhan killer... do you think a 60 yea rold grandma cares how fast shes going along? not the 60 year old ladys that hold me up driving every day. hehe

You can't throw a 4 banger into the CTS and expect it to work. The CTS weighs 4000 lbs. The 4 banger would save 50 lbs, make less power and torque, and not get much better fuel economy, if at all. Not worth it at all, especially taking into consideration what kw said.

If they built it on Alpha, or maybe modified Kappa even (which Alpha is a bigger Kappa), a 4 banger would work because your weight is now down to around 3000-3500 lbs. But they would have to be spot on and do it right. Otherwise, they will hurt the image they are trying to go for. An engine like the LNF is sporty, and when you think of it, you think speed first, fuel economy second. Kappa is a proven handler. Alpha is a larger Kappa, but has yet to be proven. The other advantage to Alpha is it can use everything from a 4 cylinder to a v8, which leaves many options available. It would clearly need Cadillac sheet metal and interior. They could do it. It is a question of doing it right and if they will do it right aka concept looks great, production version not so great.

Alpha is the new F-body with a v8 under the hood. It is also suppose to help Pontiac go all RWD, starting with the G6 in 2010 apparently. It is also rumored to be what is going to be used in the BLS. BLS-V with an LS3 anyone?

@Avatar

caddilac plan_B-V more like it

why not, a 2.5liter 4 banger, again its not like it has to be fast it just needs to get you from point A to point B ??? the weight cant be much more than a camry or altima and those offer a 4 banger and seem to work just fine...

CTS 3.6L SFI = 3872 lbs
Camry SE 2.4 = 3351 lbs

The motor might only weigh a little more because its 1.2 liters larger say 200 lbs then the power per liter would be simmilar to a Camry if Caddy uses a 2.5 liter engine.

500lbs you think make that big of a difference in perfomance ? you know most fat asses in america weigh 2-300lbs per person, therefore a young coupple out on date night could weigh almost 500lbs, and even though i wouldent fuck her with my worst enemys dick i still think your power to weight argument is unfounded and needs to be reviewed in a real world scenario basis.

A4 2.0 T quattro with Tiptronic = 3660Lbs with 200hp 4 banger and its considerd a Luxury car with all the bells and whistles.. yet you still hapen to think a cts wont work with a 4 banger? so now gm is going to engeneer a whole new platform and squander more money when it looks like all they need to do is make the cts platform more 4 banger compatible...

@Avatar

caddilac plan_B-V more like it

why not, a 2.5liter 4 banger, again its not like it has to be fast it just needs to get you from point A to point B ??? the weight cant be much more than a camry or altima and those offer a 4 banger and seem to work just fine...

CTS 3.6L SFI = 3872 lbs
Camry SE 2.4 = 3351 lbs

The motor might only weigh a little more because its 1.2 liters larger say 200 lbs then the power per liter would be simmilar to a Camry if Caddy uses a 2.5 liter engine.

500lbs you think make that big of a difference in perfomance ? you know most fat asses in america weigh 2-300lbs per person, therefore a young coupple out on date night could weigh almost 500lbs, and even though i wouldent fuck her with my worst enemys dick i still think your power to weight argument is unfounded and needs to be reviewed in a real world scenario basis.

A4 2.0 T quattro with Tiptronic = 3660Lbs with 200hp 4 banger and its considerd a Luxury car with all the bells and whistles.. yet you still hapen to think a cts wont work with a 4 banger? so now gm is going to engeneer a whole new platform and squander more money when it looks like all they need to do is make the cts platform more 4 banger compatible...

Alpha has already been developed. Holden has been working on it since 2004. It, like Zeta, is set to be a global platform. Pontiac, Caddy, Saturn, and Holden are all suppose to use it. And there again, it was made to handle a 4 cylinder to a v8, flexible.

The v6 in the Caddy does 18 city, 26 highway, 21 combined. The LLT does 17 city, 26 highway, 20 combined in the Caddy. The Camry is doing 21 city, 31 highway, and 25 combined. Throw an extra 500 lbs on the Camry, and it will most likely be getting very close to what the Caddy is getting. Now, the Caddy makes 306 hp in the LLT. The Camry makes 158 hp. The Caddy makes 94% more power, yet uses 30% more fuel with 16% more weight.

Let's look at the Charger real quick. It has a 2.7L v6 as the base engine weighing 3727 lbs getting 21 combined mileage. The 3.5L weighs in at 3800 lbs, getting 20 combined for mileage. The 3.5L makes 34% more power, 186 hp vs 250 hp. Everyone knows the 2.7L Charger is a slug. Stepping up even higher, the 5.7L gets 18 combined weighing 4031 lbs, making 34% more power then the 3.5L and 81% more power then the 2.7L, 335 hp. The smaller displacement engine does not save that much gas in a car weighing 3800+ lbs.

Another example, the G8. v6 gets 20 combined. The v8 gets 18 combined. It weighs 4000 lbs as a v8 and and 3900 lbs as a v6. Drop a 4 cylinder in there, you might get 1 mpg more then the v6 and not even lose 100 lbs and another 100 or so hp off the v6.

4 cylinders, in big cars, just aren't worth it. Not enough power for the weight they are hauling around, and you will most likely burn away your fuel savings by having to floor it at every light to get moving.

Even all the way back in 2002, the v6 Firebird got 1 more mpg then the Trans Am v8, and that car weighed in around 3500 lbs as a Trans Am, 3300 lbs for a v6. 2 mpg more for the autos. 200 hp vs 310 hp for 1 or 2 mpg?

Now, the cars I have listed aren't point A to B cars. They are suppose to be fun to drive, minus the Charger in the SE and SXT forms. Cadillac, like kw said earlier, is trying to make an image for itself. So you want it to make a slug for 1 or 2 mpg more, which people who are buying a Cadillac in the first place probably don't care about? They care more about putting their foot down and moving. Putting your foot down and not moving is not very sporty.

The Audi A4 gets 17 city and 26 highway, 20 combined. It makes less power then the CTS in both forms, and gets the exact same mileage as a 306 hp CTS does, or 53% more power. The CTS, as you pointed out, weighs 200 lbs more then it. Why exactly is that? Must be because of that torque curve thing again.

Here's how much 500 lbs matters Dennisil. All the following info straight from Audi's and Volkswagen's website:

GLI
FWD
Curb Weight: 3334 lbs 4 door, 3290 lbs 2 door
Engine: 2L Turbo, 200 hp, 211 ft-lbs of torque,
Trans: 6 speed auto
Mileage: 22 City, 29 Highway, 25 Combined
0-60: 6.9s
lbs/hp: 16.67 4 door; 16.45 2 door
lbs/ft-lb: 15.80 4 door; 15.92 2 door

Audi A4
AWD
Curb Weight: 3660 lbs
Engine: 2L DI Turbo, 211 hp, 258 ft-lbs of torque
Trans: 6 speed auto
Mileage: 17 City, 26 Highway, 20 Combined
0-60: 6.7s
lbs/hp: 17.34
lbs/ft-lb: 14.19

Same engine, A4 has direct injection making more power thanks to it. A4 has AWD and more torque per lb, thus slightly faster 0-60. More weight however, less gas mileage. The GLI from a roll would walk away from the A4, and wouldn't be surprised if it has a quicker quarter mile either thanks to better power to weight. And this is only a 326 lb difference at best, 370 lb difference at the worst.

And lastly:

A4
AWD
Curb Weight: 3748 lbs
Engine: 3.2L, 265 hp, 243 ft-lbs of torque
Trans: 6 speed auto
Mileage: 17 City, 26 Highway, 20 Combined
0-60: 6.3s
lbs/hp: 14.14
lbs/ft-lb: 15.42

Guess power to weight really does matter in the real world.

@avatar

that is precisely NOT the point.

'Technically possible', is everything. Economically viable, or desirable is an entirely different topic.

Cadillac MUST not go this way, unless GM will cancel Pontiac and Buick brands at once and puts Saab on death-row.
Cadillac then becomes GM's Volvo, and sits directly ontop of Chevy.

@ lowest iq

Better still, put 'Cadillac' on a Segway! No emissions.
Very exclusive!

True lowest iq. This is the reason for the LNF only, and only in Alpha or modified Kappa. 260 hp in a car weighing 3500 lbs would be 13.46 lbs/hp. The 273 hp CTS is 14.18 lbs/hp. The 306 hp CTS is 12.65 lbs/hp. So a base BLS would be faster then a base CTS in theory, yet slower then a LLT CTS, right were it needs to be. More size for a base CTS, or more mileage and speed for a BLS. Then if you had an LS3 for a V version, let's say 3700 lbs, 8.77 lbs/hp. The new CTS-V weighs 4200 lbs (est) making 556 hp, 7.55 lbs/hp. So again, the BLS-V would fall under the CTS-V, where it needs to be.

Saab isn't suppose to get Alpha, so there is not competition there since its FWD. A Buick Alpha would be more squishy, and a Pontiac Alpha more speed driven, like the G8 GT is vs the CTS. Alpha would also put the weight of the G6 hopefully right around 3300-3400 lbs and RWD(less gadgets then the BLS), in BMW territory, which is what GM wants to do with Pontiac.

Thanks, avatar, for taking the time.

size Chevy Cadillac Saab Holden Style
=Saturn
=Opel
Corsa na na na yes 3,4,5
Astra Cruze na na/Coupe? yes 2, 2c,3,4,5
Vectra yes na yes, 93 yes 2c,4,5
'Saab 95' yes yes,v6 yes, 95 yes, 'G8' 2c,4,5
Large FSize yes yes na na 2c,4

@Avatar i never said power to weight isnt important your right its faster but do you think my grandmother cares? do you think we need to go fast all the time or just sometimes, there is a market for people to convert a toyota MR2 into a faux ferrari or lambo do these people care how fast they can drive? they just want to look good, so why can't a CTS have a 4 banger and get better gas milage even if its just 1mpg or 5 mpg, just to keep up caddilacs reputation? thats not a good enough answer....

How is it that an audi A4 can run on a 1.8 liter turbo 4 banger like they used to be made and now a 2.0T i think caddilac needs to try giving its customers the option to buy a slow CTS just because it will cost less. I always buy the base model of any car i buy if my TL came in a 4 banger option you bet your ass i would have it, its my choice and no amount of gypsy math will change my mind Avatar.

A4 2.0T = 3660Lbs
CTS 3.6L SFI = 3872 lbs

thats 200 lbs but audi thinks there car can run just fine on there 4 banger... i wonder if its because they are smarter than our douchbags at GM..you decide?

Allow me to use the almighty powers of ctrl+c and ctrl+v again: "i still think your power to weight argument is unfounded and needs to be reviewed in a real world scenario basis."

GLI
FWD
Curb Weight: 3334 lbs 4 door, 3290 lbs 2 door
Engine: 2L Turbo, 200 hp, 211 ft-lbs of torque,
Trans: 6 speed auto
Mileage: 22 City, 29 Highway, 25 Combined
0-60: 6.9s
lbs/hp: 16.67 4 door; 16.45 2 door
lbs/ft-lb: 15.80 4 door; 15.92 2 door

Audi A4
AWD
Curb Weight: 3660 lbs
Engine: 2L DI Turbo, 211 hp, 258 ft-lbs of torque
Trans: 6 speed auto
Mileage: 17 City, 26 Highway, 20 Combined
0-60: 6.7s
lbs/hp: 17.34
lbs/ft-lb: 14.19

A4
AWD
Curb Weight: 3748 lbs
Engine: 3.2L, 265 hp, 243 ft-lbs of torque
Trans: 6 speed auto
Mileage: 17 City, 26 Highway, 20 Combined
0-60: 6.3s
lbs/hp: 14.14
lbs/ft-lb: 15.42

CTS
RWD
Curb Weight: 3874 lbs
Engine: 3.6L DI, 304 hp, 273 ft-lbs of torque
Trans: 6 speed auto
Mileage: 17 City, 26 Highway, 20 Combined
0-60: 6.3s (MT)
lbs/hp: 12.74
lbs/ft-lb: 14.19

4 banger in the CTS would save, maybe 100 lbs at the most. If the A4 is any indication, the mileage improvement would be nothing. You would simply lose speed. 326 lbs was enough to make a combined 5 mpg difference in fuel economy for Volkswagen. Other things are a work, like AWD with more drive train lose and DI on the Audi to make some more power. The biggest difference, 326 lbs. That looks pretty real world to me, and also seems like you said power to weight doesn't matter. Didn't actually say it, but you did beat around the bush.

"do you think my grandmother cares?" That was the exact mentality of Cadillac in the 90s, what do the old people think. Didn't get them very far now did it? Thus the reinvented themselves, and made their cars more sporty and less squishy aka Buick which is now also trying to reinvent itself.

"i think caddilac needs to try giving its customers the option to buy a slow CTS just because it will cost less." If Cadillac wants a cheaper CTS, make a BLS then. Don't devalue the CTS. They are trying to move up market, not down.

"thats 200 lbs but audi thinks there car can run just fine on there 4 banger... i wonder if its because they are smarter than our douchbags at GM..you decide?" Yup, smarter alright. Since the A4 2L Turbo is one of the slowest in its class and gained through being slower besides being cheaper. Hey, look, a BLS would be cheaper still, with better gas mileage, and possibly better performance...

Did anyone notice just how freaking UGLY this car is???

please cadillac - don't release this one. This is so ugly - this is like something from the 1980's for god sake - don't do it. The CTS was a bright light - don't let this drag you back into the dark ages. please