Jump to content

Report: Cadillac Converj production program killed


NewsFeeder

Recommended Posts

Filed under: Coupe, Hybrid, Cadillac, Electric, Luxury

cadillacconverjdd_09_opt.jpg
2009 Cadillac Converj Concept - Click above for high-res image gallery

Just when it seemed like the gorgeous Cadillac Converj extended-range electric vehicle (ER-EV) was going to make it to production, it now appears that the program might be dead. Strictly speaking, although General Motors executives had indicated that the Volt-based coupe would be produced, it had never officially been announced as a production program.

Nonetheless, Bloomberg is reporting that the program has been canceled for business reasons. Apparently, Cadillac came to the conclusion that even as a Cadillac, the car couldn't be profitable with the level of amenities that customers would expect. The extra equipment would apparently have cut the electric range to only 20 miles, defeating some of the purpose of an ER-EV and its ability to cover most driver's needs without using gas. Given the slow sales high-end hybrids like the Escalade and Lexus LS600h, this may be the right move for GM.

According to Cadillac spokesman David Caldwell, there is "Nothing to be announced" and the program was "not to a point in which development would be occurring in earnest in any case." Caldwell goes on to say "There can naturally be a lot of careful review over an idea as big and ambitious as this. And that can go back-and-forth. Vehicle plans can be revised numerous times before reaching production, or being declined."

Instead of the Converj, Cadillac will reportedly focus on less expensive plug-in hybrids like the XTS concept that was shown in Detroit.




[source: Bloomberg]

Report: Cadillac Converj production program killed originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:15:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

di
di

autoblog?i=3V4Gm3JSXPc:ie0qkrt4WLE:wF9xT autoblog?i=3V4Gm3JSXPc:ie0qkrt4WLE:V_sGL
3V4Gm3JSXPc

View the full article
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad this car isn't coming, but I suspect GM killed to just for cost cutting reasons, not because they didn't think it fit Cadillac's image (or image they are aiming for). Cadillac has 2 front wheel drive cars too many right now, no need for another. What worries me, is where is Cadillac's unique product? Other brands are getting new products, but Cadillac has to settle for a SRX which seems a lot like an Equinox to me, and the XTS which is a dressed up, oversized LaCrosse. Cadillac isn't innovating or engineering anything, they are just making do with the GM parts bin. That is what bothers me about Cadillac right now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GM is already walking a fine line with the Volt and the Cadillac version would have been a tight rope.

The lack of real gain in any area would be hard till the batteries improve.

As for the design I would not be suprised if it shows up or a good part shows up in the future. Helll the 1990 Fiero was used on the 4th Gen F body so anything is posssible.

I think a car similar to this with RWD and a Turbo V6 would be much more profitable for GM.

The Lexus version of the Prius is a rare sight around here. I have only seen one on the road so far.

Edited by hyperv6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good. Now make turn Converj into a conventionally powered ATS Coupe and they have a winner.

Powerplant wise, either a 270hp/233lb-ft 3.0 DOHC DI V6 (LF1) or a 255hp/295lb-ft 2.0 DOHC DI I4 -- but preferably not both in the interest of lineup and logistics simplicity. The 6L45 and 6L50 automatics make good pairings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good. Now make turn Converj into a conventionally powered ATS Coupe and they have a winner.

Powerplant wise, either a 270hp/233lb-ft 3.0 DOHC DI V6 (LF1) or a 255hp/295lb-ft 2.0 DOHC DI I4 -- but preferably not both in the interest of lineup and logistics simplicity. The 6L45 and 6L50 automatics make good pairings.

Or, better yet, a 3.0 straight six with 250 hp, and a twin turbo version with 330 hp. I'm not opposed to a turbo 4 as the base engine since Audi does it and the other Germans may soon, but this is a Cadillac. They need some good six cylinder options, and I'd like to see a V8 in this car also. Although I'd like to see a low curb weight more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>"Or, better yet, a 3.0 straight six..."<<

Ancient technology. Inline configurations date back to the dawn of the industry (1904), the V-6 is much more modern (1950) and has far better packaging. Everyone used to build inlines at some point, even top shelf lux marques like Packard did, but they're all gone. Even Ford dropped the excellent 300 I6 in the trucks after '96 - where packaging is not an issue.

If inline engines were really better than Vs, everyone would be building them when instead, only BMW and volvo are still hanging on to them.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>"Or, better yet, a 3.0 straight six..."<<

Ancient technology. Inline configurations date back to the dawn of the industry (1904), the V-6 is much more modern (1950) and has far better packaging. Everyone used to build inlines at some point, even top shelf lux marques like Packard did, but they're all gone. Even Ford dropped the excellent 300 I6 in the trucks after '96 - where packaging is not an issue.

If inline engines were really better than Vs, everyone would be building them when instead, only BMW and volvo are still hanging on to them.

:D

Inline six is smoother and better balanced than a V6. Everyone knows that. Other automakers don't use them because most automakers sell mainly front wheel drive, and can't fit an inline six in a front drive car. Mercedes used to have an inline six, I don't know why they dropped it, maybe just to share a block between their V6 and V8 and it was easier that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>"Mercedes used to have an inline six, I don't know why they dropped it, maybe just to share a block between their V6 and V8 and it was easier that way. "<<

mercedes dropped the I-6 because it was cheaper, you say ????? My oh my.

Face it: inline engines are old, outdated, obsolete. All the other makers dropped them for that reason and one more big one- Vee-types are perceived as modern... inline engines make many people think of MoPar Slant Sixes.

There are no discernable smoothness differences between an apples-to-apples I-6 & a V6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A straight six, flat 6, or V12 are the most balanced engines. It's just how it is.

http://www.answers.c.../engine-balance

Mathematically... you are correct. However, manufacturers can throw so much technology at an engine these days (you know..that stuff you harp on pushrods for "not having") that it removes any differences in smoothness that the customer actually feels.

VW has some incredibly smooth V6es and the HF series is getting pretty darn close as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathematically... you are correct. However, manufacturers can throw so much technology at an engine these days (you know..that stuff you harp on pushrods for "not having") that it removes any differences in smoothness that the customer actually feels.

VW has some incredibly smooth V6es and the HF series is getting pretty darn close as well.

Agreed, but I've driven the 3.6 in fwd and rwd cars, with and without DI, and it isn't as good as my V8, or any other V8 car I've driven. The BMW straight six is better than my engine and most V8s I've driven, I think BMW's six is actually better than their V8 as far as smoothness goes. The ATS would be a better car with a straight six, but I don't think sales would be much different with a V6. The C-class sells just fine with a V6, of course the 3-series sells a lot better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last MoPar car I-6 : 1982-ish

Last FoMoCo car I-6 : 1975-ish

Last Buick I-8 : 1953

Last Pontiac I-8 : 1954

Last Chevy I-6 : 1975

Last Oldsmobile I-6 : 1951

Last Oldsmobile I-8 : 1948

Last Packard I-8 : 1954

Last Hudson I-6 : 1956

Technology advances have cast the inline engine aside decades ago. It is perceived as ancient tech, old school, yesteryear. Tooling up for a brand new I-6 (Cadillac never had either an I-6 or an I-8 ), with it's packaging issues, would be foolhardy.

If NVH issues could not be overcome, there's no way mercedes or jaguar --you kno, those brands supposed only "engineering for excellence"-- would have abandoned the I-6.

You can't have it both ways.

Edited by balthazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Olds :: Ahh, that's why I stuck the all-forgiving "-ish" up there. ;)

Looked in another source that goes up to '80- it does show the 200 & 250 CI I-6 in the Fairmont & Granada in the late '70s thru '80. Damn Chiltons.

-- -- -- -- --

The Atlas I-6, heretofor only used in trucks, was put in a fiendishly tall-cowled concept, the Chevy Bel Air of circa '02. A bunch bigger than BMW's, plus I believe BMW builds a 'slant six' whereas the Atlas is a due North block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...