Sign in to follow this  
Variance

Cadillac BLS In Depth

102 posts in this topic

regfootball    234

its ok, but not right for the US, obviously.

A car this size, sure, but one so obviously 9-3 and so feminine.

this is a chick cadillac.

The CTS is a great bottom product for Caddy.

Edited by regfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sciguy_0504    0

I think it is nice. I would take one over the CTS even though it is FWD. The interior is much better and I like how the exterior looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZL-1    160

Interesting, but too descriptive. I wished for real-world driving impressions.

If things go well career-wise, this car will make it to my shortlist. The 1.9L diesel would be a nice company car.

EDIT: I hope Kroymans does a good job in translating the BLS brochure to Portuguese. The job they did with the other Cadillacs and the Corvette is nothing short of :censored:

Edited by ZL-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are rough... I don't think the car's that feminine.

It looks fine..it would make a good entry level Caddy for the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boblutzfan    0

No thanks. While I understand the need for it in Europe - I like the idea that the CTS is unique not sharing a platform with any other GM brand while offering a true RWD drivers car as the base vehicle for Cadillac.

The interior issues will be corrected with the next CTS within the year. I predict the next CTS will have a nicer interior than the BLS anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jrockb4    0

I think that is real nice, should go up against the Acura and lower level Lexus (300) real well. I think it will also serve as a good intro into the Caddy family. A good place holder until the new BLS comes and the CTS grows, they will need something small to battle the IS, C Series and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This car is gross. It looks like someone stretched the nose of a CTS on photoshop without any clue as to aesthetic proportions or a sense of balance. The whole damn thing si guly and ungainly, every line is "off" or "unbalanced" somehow and the nose is almost cantelevered in a most horrible way.

Of course worst of all the SAAB/Opel mechanicals and FWD are unexceptable!

Tie me up and pour hot molten lead down my throat I still say it's NOTHING more than a 21st century version of the C1marron.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Edited by Sixty8panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This car is gross. It looks like someone stretched the nose of a CTS on photoshop without any clue as to aesthetic proportions or a sense of balance. The whole damn thing si guly and ungainly, every line is "off" or "unbalanced" somehow and the nose is almost cantelevered in a most horrible way.

Of course worst of all the SAAB/Opel mechanicals and FWD are unexceptable!

Tie me up and pour hot molten lead down my throat I still say it's NOTHING more than a 21st century version of the C1marron.

There's nothing wrong with Saab 9-3 and Opel mechanicals...not all Cadillacs have esclusive platforms/engines/etc--look at the Escalade.

It's an exaggeration to compare the BLS to the Cimmaron--the Cimmaron was based on the lowly Cavalier!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VenSeattle    8

I don't have a problem with the BLS. I think it's attractive and a good vehicle for Cadillac. I'd buy one over the 9-3.

If Cadillac imported the BLS, I think more Americans would buy it over the current 9-3 also. Sad... but probably true.

When it comes to market placement, it makes me think of Infiniti's original G20 or Acura's current TSX. Someone mentioned Volvo's S40. That too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zbad1    0

I remembered this car as a lot uglier than it is. Has it been tweaked since the original pcitures were released? I really like the back end! I wish I could have the CTS front end and the BTS reaar. Perfect....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flybrian    0

The fact that it unintentionally shares front fascia cues with the Avalon bothers me. But besides that, not bad.

And Sixty8, to serious attempt to liken this to the valiant attempt at an entry-level luxury car shows a lack of reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northstar    11

The interior is pretty good, and I like the design, but there's something that just doesn't quite say luxury car to me.

I do like the exterior except for the roofline. It's too curvy for the rest of the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1982 J-body = todays Cobalt

by extension the Cobalt has a lot of Opel in it and therefore vice versa in a manner of speaking....

The fact that the BulL$h! is a "better" car than the C!marron is only because todays cars are better NOT becuase the BLS is any more distanced or upscale from the top of ther line Cobalt versus the top of the line 1982 Cavalier in the C;marron';s case.

In other words in todays Mostly-RWD Caddy lineup the BLS is just as much of a pathetic wannabe as the FWD C|marron was in the 1982 Caddy lineup, which was (unfortunately) primarily FWD and therfoer they at least had an excuse to use FWD... althought it was a lame one!

Longwinded and convoluted but it's a very valid point if you think about it. THe BLS is a waste of time... it's more inferior to the CTS than the J-body attempt at an entry-level luxury car was to the Bustle back Seville in the early 80s, and even more so the super-compact 84-up Sevillle.

Edited by Sixty8panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flybrian    0

:stupid:

1982 J-body = todays Cobalt

by extension the Cobalt has a lot of Opel in it and therefore vice versa in a manner of speaking....

No. NA Delta is not shared with anything Opel. Check the facts.

The fact that the BulL$h! is a "better" car than the C!marron is only because todays cars are better NOT becuase the BLS is any more distanced or upscale from the top of ther line Cobalt versus the top of the line 1982 Cavalier in the C;marron';s case.

Cavalier was a compact economy car occupying below-middle rung status in Chevy's lineup. Epsilon is a midsize family car, with the 9-3 occupying an entry-luxury position in the market. So does the BLS. Check the facts.

In other words in todays Mostly-RWD Caddy lineup the BLS is just as much of a pathetic wannabe as the FWD C|marron was in the 1982 Caddy lineup, which was (unfortunately) primarily FWD and therfoer they at least had an excuse to use FWD... althought it was a lame one!

Cadillac's 1982 FWD lineup consisted of the valiant attempt at an entry-level luxury car, Eldorado, and Seville. RWD entires included the Fleetwood, Fleetwood Brougham, Coupe and Sedan DeVilles, all of which made up a higher percentage of sales (136k vs. 96k) for the '82 model year, so hardly "primarily" as you claim. Check the facts.

THe BLS is a waste of time... it's more inferior to the CTS than the J-body attempt at an entry-level luxury car was to the Bustle back Seville in the early 80s, and even more so the super-compact 84-up Sevillle.

That line alone invalidates your whole argument. All conjecture and personal sentiment with a total lack of fact.

...it's a very valid point if you think about it.

I did. And I checked the facts. So should you.

Longwinded and convoluted

At last! We agree! :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fly:

The Ecotech, for one thing was in the Europe powering the Astra logn before the Cadaver & Grand Am got it.... The BLS mechanicals do not impress me at all. It's a step in the wrond direction IMHO, SAAB is not my idea of Luxur anyway... it's my idea of a Quirky Europan car that profesors drive. Not all SAABs are bad but most are overpriced and underwhelming. Sorry, but that's my :twocents:

Hey Sly, lay off the crackpipe...THEN post.

As soon as you sotp taking the Jerk Pills I shall comply. :)

Edited by Sixty8panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum 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.

Sign in to follow this