22 Votes

GM: Cadillac CTS could get 4-cylinder turbo today, but are you ready?

omarrana submitted on 7/30/2008 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 10:20:46 AM

46 user comments | Category: New Cars | Source: | SOURCE: www.egmcartech.com

Tag Links: GM, Cadillac

GM’s ready to introduce a number of compact economy-cars in its lineup but says that customers are still going to have to indicate whether or not they’re serious about downsizing powerplant expectations.

According to Thomas G. Stephens, GM’s executive vice president of global powertrain, customers have to send a signal to GM that they’re ready to accept small engines.

He said that GM is pretty excited about its engine options as an answer for better fuel-economy. However, making a huge move to smaller-engines means it will lose capability to produce larger engines with more horsepower for the long-term.

Stephen says that their is a possibility of a 4-cylinder turbocharged engine for vehicles in GM’s lineup like the Cadillac CTS. “From a technical point of view, we could...

Read Article

GM: Cadillac CTS could get 4-cylinder turbo today, but are you ready?

About the Author

I hooked up my accelerator to my brake lights. I hit the gas, people behind me stop, and I'm gone.
— omarrana (View Profile)

User Comments

i dont understand why GM doesnt create a car smaller than the CTS, and give it a turbo 4. for example a stretched version of the solstice/sky platform, about the same size as the 3 series, or c class, with a turbo 4, and a 6 cylinder as options. Than they would have a small rear wheel drive entry level vehicle thats sporty with good epa ratings, instead of giving such a large heavy car a turbo 4 it takes 300hp to get to 60 in 6 seconds.....
— bmwdrvr (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 11:30:47 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

They are the chassis is called Alpha and will be shared w/ Holden and Opel, possibly also Pontiac as well.
— 91z4me (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 1:08:52 PM | | Votes: 3

BMWdrvr, I hope you don't mean a smaller Cadillac with a 4-banger. BTW, I now drive a 4-cyl. Passat -- my first ever turbo. A true Cadillac should always have a powerful DOHC V8. We considered a CTS but my wife thinks it is too wide and did not feel confident driving it -- I disagree and am glad we bought the Passat as it has more comfortable seats.
— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 3:00:04 PM | | Votes: -3

you said your wife, so I wont be to insulting, but you had more confidence driving a Passat with a turbo 4, than a CTS.....your kidding right????? Ive driven both of these cars, and dynamics the CTS is well ahead of the bloated, diving, light steering Passat.......I wouldnt even consider these 2 competitors certainly not the turbo 4 as its lag inducing engine is marginal at best, and its dynamics are poor but hey it is CHEAPER than the CTS
— bmwdrvr (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 8:57:36 PM | | Votes: 2

bmwdrvr, my wife is the principal driver (plays bridge and tennis 3 times a week) so I had get her something she is comfortable with. Getting more comfortable seats in the process is a bonus for me. BTW, my Passat has no turbo lag which surprised the hell out of me. I have to agree that the CTS handles well but I like the handling of the Passat also. My Passat has the same big low profile tire and wheel dimensions that my A6 had but the ride is much more comfortable than the A6 ride. I drive on public roads only -- not at the track.
— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 7/31/2008 9:06:55 PM | | Votes: 1

They do (or did) have one in Europe - the BTS or something, based on the Saab 93.
— ktu01 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/2/2008 3:09:39 AM | | Votes: 1

What a major change!
Will Cadillac owners accept a in-line 4 cyl? Now that oil prices are declining (at least for now) GM will probably put this plan on hold.
If oil prices were not falling, and were inching towards $5/gal for gasoline, the 4 cyl would be a no-brainer.
— BMW995 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 11:32:25 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

It's not matter of whether potential Cadillac buyers will accept 4-cyl or not. I doubt the turbo charge 4-cyl can really match the V6. Who would want Cadillac with turbo-lag and slower than GM trucks.
— TopGear (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 3:02:27 PM | | Votes: 1

Considering the 306hp v6 takes 6 sec to 0-60 the 4 would be an outright sloth.
— 85bmw745i (View Profile)

Posted on 7/31/2008 11:49:15 PM | | Votes: 1

The problem with GM and every other auto American brand is they're always planning to do just enough to stay in the market. What they should do is try to come up with new ideas and set goals that would blow everyone else out of the market just the way the Germans and Japanese do it. It all boils down to how highly you think of your self/company.
— SHOWTIME (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 11:36:03 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

lol oh yea you really chose the right brands to compare GM engines to.
— SHOWTIME (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 11:47:48 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

lmao. hes jealous because they didn't win engine of the year award that BMW had.
— Htay7500 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 12:03:56 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Garbage underpowered motors? BMW and Audi produce some of the best small engines available.
— Heyhuub (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 1:09:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Well GM powertrains are some of the best in the industry. BMW was such a fan of GM's automatic transmissions they used the 5 speed ones for a few years. Actually I think the base 3 series uses a GM 6 speed auto at this time.

Also there is no other engine series on the planet that offers the performance for the dollar as the LSx V8 series. It is compact, light, and cheap and makes amazing power while being able to still get great gas mileage compared to it's competition.

GM's DI turbo 2.0 (LNF) Ecotec runs with any other FI 4 cylinder in the world. Perhaps not all of GM's offerings are world class but they certainly offer some of the best engines in the world.
— 91z4me (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 1:13:01 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

True, GM powertrains are amongst the best in the world, and this is especially true today.

Also, the BMW 3-series and the X3 both use a GM sourced, 6 speed transmission.

As for Audi/BMW making crappy engines...I can't say that I agree.

I do find it somewhat annoying that a buddy's BMW 525 (I think...its the smaller engine offered like 2 yrs ago) is kind of sluggish on the low end. People often forget the importance of low-end torque that the Big3, Mercedes and Nissan/Infiniti seem to get right.
— neutral (View Profile)

Posted on 7/31/2008 11:23:46 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Underpowered? What GM engine has more power per litre than BMW excluding turbo/forced induction?
— 85bmw745i (View Profile)

Posted on 7/31/2008 11:50:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

crapan is full of crap
— mini22 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 12:31:54 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

This would be an instant turn off for me. Instant.
— Tour18 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 1:59:16 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

91z4me: "..Well GM powertrains are some of the best in the industry. BMW was such a fan of GM's automatic transmissions they used the 5 speed ones for a few years."

Well, I had one of those BMWs with GM's 5 sp automatic, which for your information was one of the worse automatics produced in recent memory. They had catastrophic failures as low as 40,000 miles which resulted in a $5,000 repair charge. Sure, it worked very well, but could you go on a trip with confidence? Absolutely not. I sadly, sold an otherwise great 323i and bought a Lexus IS250 whose 6 sp auto is great.
— BMW995 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 3:00:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

LMAO, and you think a a 2.5L 323 has more than 170 hp?
stop making excuses for that horrible transmission and weak engine.

i somehow agrees with lexus's approach, put a small v6 instead of turbo 4. that 2.5 L engine, while not a powerful one, is one of the best among NA 2.5 in term of performance and fuel effiency.
— ghosthunter (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 3:45:46 PM | | Votes: 1

BMW, what can I say everyone makes lemons (even Lexus). Individual experience varies amongst every single vehicle. By and large GM's automatic transmissions are smooth shifting and reliable.
— 91z4me (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 5:13:46 PM | | Votes: 1

Ok....its not GM's transmission they may have the same supplier but not a GM sourced transmission.....comeon
— bmwdrvr (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 8:59:37 PM | | Votes: 0

bmwdrvr, no it was, and is, a GM designed and built in a GM factory (in France IIRC) that was sold to BMW who installed it into their cars.
— 91z4me (View Profile)

Posted on 7/31/2008 10:53:18 AM | | Votes: 1

How very untrue. You are a typical biggot.
— mattman953 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 7:39:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Well, that's not the case in Europe or Asia.
— mattman953 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/31/2008 4:17:52 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

"When you think about it Mike finally got one right for a change, 4 cylinders dont belong in luxury cars. the future of performance will be a luxury thanks to the high cost to run a sports or sports luxury car."

When you start selling a big V8 in Asia or europe, you'll be welcomed with heavy displacement taxes and expensive fuel. Thats why europes big 3 can sell so well down there.

— Htay7500 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 10:32:46 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

BMW is a part of the consortium of companies interested in using the 2 mode system (Chrysler, MB, BMW are on board as I recall).
— 91z4me (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 6:15:59 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

crapan: "...Just the fact you bought a CHEAP Lexus shows you don't know what the EFF you're talking about."
Having a BMW 3 and the Lexus IS, I can tell you that the Lexus quality (fit and finish, ride and handling) is NOT cheap. It easily outhandles my last BMW and the current BMW would have cost me $9,000 more than the IS250 with the same equipment.
Yes, 204 HP for the IS250, but it feels like a lot more than that - and I get 26 mpg in normal driving and 33 mpg at 75 mph on the highway.
In this gas price environment, why would I want 300 HP and horrible gas mileage when I give it the gun.
— BMW995 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 3:29:38 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

"According to Thomas G. Stephens, GM’s executive vice president of global powertrain, customers have to send a signal to GM that they’re ready to accept small engines."

ROFL!!!

Hey genius, why the hell do you think GM, Ford and Chrysler has been losing market share to Toyota, VW, Honda, and Hyundai?

This Stephens guy is just another overpaid, useless, moronic exec that only on the payroll because he's part of the old boys' club.
— Bored (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 6:02:14 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Hey armchair quarterback. GM, Ford, and Chrysler haven't been increasing displacement at NEAR the rate that Japanese brands have been. Take a look at the Camry's offerings over the last decade for starters. Also manufactures across the board have been working on performance much more so than economy recently. Increased fuel economy has been more of a side effect than the primary goal recently as well.
— 91z4me (View Profile)

Posted on 7/30/2008 6:18:37 PM | | Votes: 1

I say scrap the standard fuel injected 3.6L V6 and make the base motor on the CTS the 2.0L, turbo, direct injected 4 cyl (260hp/260lbft). The next engine up should be the 3.6L direct inject, but power might have to be boosted, otherwise it may be too close in numbers to the 4 cyl.
— neutral (View Profile)

Posted on 7/31/2008 11:26:01 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Very much along the lines of what I was thinking. However the CTS is no lightweight, and the 4 probably wouldn't put out the percieved feel that a luxury customer would want. Not to mention that with all that weight, it might strain alittle [heh.] harder than what it would need to in say a cobalt, or sky, and would produce similar if not worse fuel economy. How about a diesel or hybrid for now?
— mattman953 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/31/2008 7:12:49 PM | | Votes: 1

Yes, Caddy's are heavier, more solidly built vehicles. GM, Mercedes and Audi (to name a few) seem to build heavier, more solid vehicles. But this day & age, with fuel the way it is, I think more and more poeple would be perfectly happy waiting a fraction of a second for the turbo to spool. Hell, with Variable Geometry turbos the lag times are almost nothing.

Personally, I like N.A. engines best, but I'd love to have the 2.0SIDI Turbo in a CTS if the mileage gains were at least a few mpg!!

As for diesel, the 2.9L GM-VM Motori engine will be going in the Euro version of the CTS. You can thank Congress / California / EPA for the lack of diesels in America. I don't even want to get started on that conversation because I will flip out.
— neutral (View Profile)

Posted on 8/1/2008 10:52:25 AM | | Votes: 2

"Considering the 306hp v6 takes 6 sec to 0-60 the 4 would be an outright sloth."

Interesting statement. So if a turbocharged 4 puts out 306 hp and perhaps more torque than the v6 it will be slower? Turbocharged 4's are light and rev better too. The SR20DET is one example. Just do a google search. Some racers and speed freaks have swapped out larger v6's etc, for a turbocharged 4.

It doesn't always come down to the number of cylinders.
— tkindred (View Profile)

Posted on 8/1/2008 1:15:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Also, I can of look at an engine like a block box. First there are 2 simple aspects. How much hp and torque does it produce? How much does it weigh? Who cares about how many cylinders it has. Then, I ask where the power is delivered through out the rev band, etc.
— tkindred (View Profile)

Posted on 8/1/2008 1:19:23 PM | | Votes: 1

I like this idea. Same big car, smaller engine. Most people wouldn't even notice the missing 2 cylinders, but they'd sure as heck notice the absence of 2ft of crumple space if Cadillac made poser car smaller than the CTS.
— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/1/2008 5:04:47 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

85bmw,
BMW's ultra-luxurious 323i I6 takes 7 sec to get to 100km/h, so Cadillac doesn't exactly have to worry about 4cylinder performance (the 323i is even smaller than the CTS).
— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/1/2008 5:07:28 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

I stand corrected, the 323i actually needs 7.5 seconds.
— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/2/2008 1:57:51 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Add your Comments

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters): [img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent001.myautospies.com/images/sample.jpg[/img]

Email Me When Someone Replies To My Message

GM: Cadillac CTS could get 4-cylinder turbo today, but are you ready?

About the Author

User Comments

Add your Comments

Submit an article

Photo Galleries

Cars

Autoshows

Latest Articles