Cadillac to reportedly offer new smaller four cylinder sedan in 2010
The long-rumored smaller Cadillac now looks set to debut in 2010 and may be offered exclusively with four cylinder engines. The new sedan would be slotted under the existing CTS and be built on a new rear drive platform. The last time that Cadillac offered a four cylinder car in the U.S. market was in the early 1980s with the Cavalier based Cimarron. More recently, the Saab 9-3 based BLS has been on sale in Europe. Neither of those cars has been a commercial success, but neither was a particularly appealing car in its segment either. The new car would be developed specifically as a premium Cadillac model. Nonetheless, Cadillac general manager Jim Taylor is concerned that American consumers might not yet be ready to accept a Cadillac without at least the option of a V6. The new model would likely use the 2.0L direct injected turbo as used in the Pontiac Solstice GXP. At this point it appears that Cadillac will likely offer the 6-cylinder option, although if gas prices resume their upward spiral that could well change. If a V6 is part of the plan, it will probably be a rumored smaller displacement 3.0L version of the 3.6L currently offered in the CTS.
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]
Paris Preview: 2010 Chevrolet Cruze live reveal
Peugeot shows new 908 HY diesel-hybrid Le Mans racer!
Production Chevy Volt photos leak out!
Paris Preview: Honda Insight concept to be new global hybrid
BREAKING: Is this the production Chevy Volt in Transformers 2?
Honda to debut Prius-fighter concept this Thursday
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-25-2008 @ 11:43AM
DP said...
This is great news.
I just sat in a CTS sedan over the weekend, and liked it very much, but I don't need a 300 HP car. I would like to have a car get over 30 MPG, too. This sounds promising.
GO Cadillac!
(This coming from a pretty much never-consider-a-GM-product kind of guy)
Reply
8-25-2008 @ 12:10PM
why not the LS2LS7? said...
The base CTS is 250HP, which is even lower than the engine being bandied about here.
8-25-2008 @ 9:13PM
MikeW said...
Maybe he should of said, 'I don't need a 3.6 liter engine'
GM has 3.2 & 2.8, and could make a short stroke version of the 3.6 (using the 2.8 crank) for 3.1 liters.
8-25-2008 @ 11:58AM
why not the LS2LS7? said...
If it really uses the 2.0L turbo Ecotec, there won't be a lot of point in offering a V6. Even the DI high-feature V6 is only 306HP (versus 261HP). And with the increased torque turbo engines offer at low revs versus OHC engines, I can't imagine there will be much difference between the two except at WOT (wide open throttle).
The V6 won't have turbo lag, but I'm not sure now many people there are who will pay a lot extra to eliminate lag that is already relatively minor.
Reply
8-25-2008 @ 12:00PM
Sam Abuelsamid said...
It's not so much about what's actually needed as it is about perception of need, or want. The question will American consumers go for a four cylinder cadillac? If it's executed as well as the CTS I think the answer is yes. If it's as bad as a Cimarron, it wouldn't matter what they put in it.
8-25-2008 @ 12:17PM
why not the LS2LS7? said...
The Cimarron wasn't a great car. But I don't think its execution was its main problem (except perhaps for it looking too much like a Cavalier). The main problem was Cadillac's customers.
Cadillac had a bunch of old farts as customers (even more so than now). They wanted a big car. Additionally, many of them drove a lot fewer miles than us working stiffs, and so rising gas prices weren't quite as huge a deal.
Anyway, I don't know if execution can save the idea of a small Caddy. No matter how well they do it, a smaller Caddy will appeal to younger customers, like young professionals in their 20s and 30s. And these people won't buy a Cadillac anyway. They'll buy the worst BMW (like the X3!) before they'll buy the best Cadillac.
8-25-2008 @ 9:29PM
MikeW said...
If I were to buy a longitudinal engine Cadillac, it better damn well have at least a V6.
For better mileage...
GM can use the 6L45 instead of 6L50
GM can use the 2.8, 3.2, or 3.1 V6 engine.
Isn't GM developing a 7 (or 8) speed double clutch transmissions for longitudinal applications. Will that provide fruits in the next five years?
8-25-2008 @ 1:38PM
s10 said...
If you dilute a brand's image.. in the end the results are always negative.
Why does Cadillac need a 4 cyl car? It doesn't fit the image.
It is the same, or even worse, mistake as making a 12 cyl VW Phaeton.
GM has other brands that suit 4 cyl perfectly.
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 11:43AM
Bill Wiggins said...
SAAB has the best engine, why doesn't GM use it?
8-25-2008 @ 7:33PM
1985 Gripen said...
What is the point of this? GM owns Saab. Saab is perfect for the segment GM would be trying to push this Cadillac into and it wouldn't risk tarnishing Caddy's reputation.
The Saab 9-3 is already offered with a 2.0-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder Ecotec which outputs 255 bhp when mated with the XWD system (210 bhp w/o XWD). And they offer a turbocharged 2.8-liter V6 in that car which puts-out 280 bhp.
There are rumors the next-gen Saabs will get access to the same direct-injected (the current Saab engines are still port-injected as GM has starved them of the technical advances given to their "lesser" brands like Chevy, Pontiac, and Saturn) 2.0-liter turbocharged Ecotech engine found in the Pontiac Solstice GXP and Saturn Sky Redline. This should increase Saab's horsepower output over current levels while possible decreasing fuel consumption.
Saab was also put in charge of developing the dual-clutch transmission for all of General Motors, so whenever that comes out it should help on both fronts as well.
Saab is supposedly part of GM's "premium" portfolio along with Cadillac and HUMMER. Why aren't they treating it like so?
Reply
8-25-2008 @ 8:26PM
Dave said...
Give it a two mode hybrid setup to attract the poseurs and it will be a winner.
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 8:50AM
BGJ said...
People really need to get off the hang up of how many cylinders a car has. Who F'n cares? Does it get you from point A to point B with the speed and acceleration you desire? If the answer is yes, then why do you care if it has 4 or 6 or 8 pistions flying up and down?
A properly designed 4-cyl will beat most any 6-cyl in mass and efficiency (gas mileage) while still having plenty of power for small car applications.
I don't hear anyone complaining about the turbo-4 in the Solstice/Sky Turbo. That engine is a champ, and is the same thing going into the Caddy Alpha.
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 2:24PM
Steve C said...
I agree with BGJ. As an automotive engineer I can tell you that a 4 cyl of the same displacement and power as a V6 will always get better gas mileage. This is a thermodynamic truism. The 4 cyl is lighter, the car will handle better, and these days can be made just about as smooth in operation.
When gas prices resume their upward march, luxury car buyers will consider ANY power plant that gives superior mileage. MBenz is currently considering high tech 4 cyl engines in their future S-Class models!
8-26-2008 @ 9:53AM
Adelaide_John said...
"The new sedan would be slotted under the existing CTS and be built on a new rear drive platform"
If this is the case look at the Holden TT36 concept car (aka Holen Torana) as a possible source and the desire that it be on par or better than than a BMW 3 series
http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/conceptcar?modelid=20004
Reply