GM: Turbocharged four for the CTS? Only if customers want it.
Click above for a high-res gallery of the 2008 Cadillac CTS.
"We're ready. When (customers) want it (the option of smaller engines) - we'll do it." That's a (somewhat mangled) quote from Thomas G. Stephens, GM's executive veep for global powertrain and quality, speaking at the inauguration of the General's Powertrain Engineering Development Center last Friday. What Stephens is referring to is the possibility of equipping Cadillacs with smaller, turbocharged engines – specifically fitting the 260-hp (or more) 2.0-liter, turbocharged four in the CTS sedan.
Sounds like a Hell of an idea, but how – exactly – is GM going to determine when consumers are ready for it? How about now?
Prices at the pump may have peaked (for now), but consumers are still craving fuel-efficient rides that don't skimp on power and poise. GM is already making V8 levels of output with its direct-injected 3.6-liter V6 (see: Camaro) and that, coupled with Stephens' quote, means that GM isn't totally oblivious to the idea of offering smaller engines that balance fuel economy and thrust in packages that might benefit from them. But again, how will the market tell GM when it's open to the idea of fewer cylinders making just as much power? Ford is already ramping up to release its line of direct injected, turbocharged EcoBoost engines, BMW has proven that turbocharged sixes are the bee's knees and practically every other automaker is looking into forced induction as a means to a lighter, more powerful, more fuel efficient end. So why is GM stalling? If the General has the capabilities, it needs to step up and let the market embrace it. It will. If GM doesn't, it risks its own extinction.[Source: AutoObserver, Image ©2008 John Neff]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
John 4:03PM (7/30/2008)
Considering how well the base V6 moves down the road, a boost 4cyl with close to the same output and less weight, not to mention the potential for better mileage...yeah, sounds like a winner to me. 6spd please though.
Reply
jac1d 4:26PM (7/30/2008)
I would say things a bit differently.
I think the real challenge for GM isn't whether they can sell 4 cylinder Cadillacs, it is whether they can build a high volume, low price world car.
In that vein I have an unusual idea. Take all the direct injected advanced development goodness from the 3.6 DI V6 in the Camaro and aim for a 100 HP 1.2L four to be used at the economy end of the range.
Instead of saving all the DI magic for the upper end, why not leverage the surprisingly good development work done by GM in recent years and scale it down so you can compete with ultra fuel efficiency in the low end of the market?
DI for the masses at low displacement.
-Jeff
Frylock350 4:52PM (7/30/2008)
@jac,
GM is replacing the Ecotec lineup with DI ones. GM's fuel efficient motor will be a boosted 1.4L making 140hp and 40+ mpg in a Cobalt/Cruze. The bigger Ecotec has been replaced with a 200hp DI version for the Equinox.
Declan Moran 5:09PM (7/30/2008)
A big four cylinder, not a small one, like a 2.5 with a turbo/super suck/blow push me pull you kind of thing good for a boat load of torque to move the Caddy's over large backside.
Dave 7:21PM (7/30/2008)
Looks like GM has been considering this for a while (though not specifically the CTS)
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-gm-announces-new-second-generation-mild-hybrid-syst/
wonkydonkydotnet 10:39PM (7/30/2008)
@Frylock350
I hate to say something actually Good about the General, but an efficient boosted 1.4 for economy is the -Perfect- displacement.
(if they can keep the car's weight down)
Def. agreed w/ others that a boosted 4 is great, -If Caddy wants to make a lighter (for them at least) Cadillac version of the BMW 3-Series that isn't a Cimarron, Catera or Buick Reatta. The CTS is not the platform for that mill.
I would be weirdly kind of psyched if Cad could make a CTS that was Faceted even more, like a Reventon almost, *BUT make it the size of a Mazda 3/BMW 3.
Of course that wouldn't fit the brand, they wouldn't do it & then we'd still be relegated to GM's 1 and only marginally good car, the New Malibu. Oh well.
Wally 4:07PM (7/30/2008)
Good for them. It appears that they genuinely have started listening to the domestic market and made themselves a nimbler, more customer-centric automaker.
It will pay dividends in the long-run.
Reply
mk 4:08PM (7/30/2008)
If I want a turbocharged 4 in a sporty sedan, I'll stick to my Legacy GT.
The CTS is not much physically bigger, but weighs more than 500 additional pounds...
That heft is harder to push around, and means that a turbocharged 4 has to be on boost more often.
I can't imagine that it is going to give much benefit for 300hp I4 vs a 300hp DI V6. The V6 has more inherent torque by it's displacement, and doesn't need to push as hard for the same effect.
If the CTS were a lighter car, say about 3500lbs... it might make more sense. with more weight, it makes less sense.
Plus caddy drivers don't want that kind of peaky delivery, or being caught under the boost curve, having to grab a higher gear, and spool up the turbo before hitting warp speed. They want smoother power delivery than that. Especially for a lot more money than a turbo 4 Legacy GT.
Reply
XJ 10:50AM (7/31/2008)
I agree. I loved my Eclipse Turbo, but that thing was a dog in low boost. I can't imagine a car like the CTS having this as an option. I think they'd be better suited fitting this to a sportier car or at least a smaller car...for people who don't mind mashing the pedal to go fast.
Icon149 4:09PM (7/30/2008)
GM will know the market is ready to embrace it after all the other automakers save chrystler have boosted 4 cylinders in there large sedans and coupes. Hey GM how about inovating and creating trends rather than being swept up in them and scrambling to react? build an award winning luxury barge with a turbo 4 that gets great gas mileage performs well and has a high dollar interior. people with money want to be green and save money at the pump. don't leave the highest trim levels exclusive to the biggest engines.
Reply
Dave 7:18PM (7/30/2008)
"Hey GM how about inovating and creating trends rather than being swept up in them and scrambling to react?"
This is a refreshing quote after reading a multitude of posts here claiming that GM created a market for large trucks and SUVs out of thin air.
2007RC46SP2 4:09PM (7/30/2008)
whose gonna want a 4cyl in a mid-large size luxury car? turbo or non
and since when did it bother the person who has the $1000+ per month payment if he gets 5-8mpg less.
Reply
Julius 4:17PM (7/30/2008)
You could argue that it's what SAAB already is - a turbo-four small/mid-size near-luxury sedan maker.
Flashpoint 4:09PM (7/30/2008)
Cadillac is turning out the best cars in GM's line and the best vehicles it has ever turned out. Not to mention the best American cars overall.
The CTS is a great car but the CST-coupe (especially a V-series) will be the closest thing the average consumer will ever get to owning a car like the Lamborghini Reventon.
I am waiting for that car to come out so I can trade in my wife's 300c. Truth is, I want it just for me.
Problem is, this car isn't fuel efficient at all. In the city, the CTS gets just 17mpg. But this isn't a car you buy to save money - you get an Accord or Civic for that.
Reply
Juan 6:36PM (7/30/2008)
Right on Flashpoint. The CTS is the only car in its class that actually has its own definitive style. Theres no way that you can mistake a CTS for anything else on the road unless you're blind in one eye and completely missing the other. Cadillac is the best American brand out there right now, hands down...
Don 6:24PM (7/31/2008)
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to drive this car and get great gas mileage? Even before the gas crisis I felt this way. I like to drive in luxury, but I don't like the poor gas mileage. If GM can do it, I'll buy a Caddy with great gas mileage.
Brian 4:13PM (7/30/2008)
Please don't ruin the value of my CTS by putting 4 cylinders in them. If you want to save gas, buy a compact. Its not like the V6 gets horrible mileage. Its fine. It gets what a V6 should get. Yeah, yeah, a 4 banger can have the same power output somewhat, but I want smooth and torquey exceleration. Not high strung engines. If they offered regular V8 model to compete with the MB e550, or the 550i, I would have that.
Reply
Vintage 4:21PM (7/30/2008)
Uh... then don't buy the 4 cylinder model? Quit being stupid. More options are good. If the 4 banger sucks as much as you say, it'll only increase the value of a model with a v6.
Dondonel 5:12PM (7/30/2008)
@Vintage
Who says that the 260hp turbo 4s get better fuel consumption or are lighter than the equivalent NA V6s?
The 300hp turbo I6 from BMW is a pig compared to the 300hp NA V6 from Cadillac, so why bother? Besides, both consume just as much (17/26) despite the fact that 335i is the smaller car.
So what do you get from it being turbo? Turbo lag?
arturo 4:14PM (7/30/2008)
it all depends if sales go up or not.
Reply