A compact Cadillac sedan and wagon, designed and built in Sweden, sharing a platform with a Saab, available with a diesel, never offered for sale in North America? It sounds incredible, but it’s true. This is the Cadillac BLS.
Since the 1990s, GM has always had vague notions of expanding Cadillac’s presence in Europe. At first, the main hurdle was a lack of suitable product: V8-powered, front-wheel-drive boats had limited appeal in the European market. The 1998 Seville STS was a cautious step towards an appropriate entry, with a shorter overall length than its predecessor, competent dynamics and right-hand-drive availability.
photo courtesy of Rudolf Stricker
When the 2000s rolled around, a much larger range of Cadillacs were exported to Europe. Many of the new Art & Science cars, including the CTS, STS and SRX, made the trip across the pond. Unfortunately, a small dealer network – just nine dealers, for example, in the UK – meant sales were meager. To add insult to injury, some Caddys weren’t even available in RHD for the not-insignificant UK market.
Pitching an American luxury brand was always going to be an uphill struggle in a conservative market like Europe, where the established German brands are dominant. Perhaps it would have been imprudent for GM to spend more money on marketing and distributing Cadillacs in such a market. Still, GM did spend money tooling up a Caddy specifically for the European market; even burgeoning Cadillac market China has yet to receive an entirely new model for themselves, the closest being a revised STS.
If the BLS looks like it shares hard points with the Saab 9-3, you would be right. The BLS was simply a rebodied 9-3, using the same roof and windows, and manufactured in the same Trollhättan plant. Total development cost was $140 million, invoiced to Saab; an interesting strategy, considering Saab was basically financing a direct rival to one of its two core models. Exports were limited to a few markets: South Korea, South Africa, Mexico and select Middle Eastern markets.
Powertrains were carried over from the 9-3. A refined and punchy 1.9 turbodiesel was available in two states of tune: a 150hp/240 ft-lb unit, and an equally efficient twin-turbo unit with 180hp and 295 ft-lbs. These diesels were also available in the Alfa Romeo 159, Fiat Croma and a multitude of Opels. Petrol units consisted of a 2.0 turbo, again in two states of tune (175hp/195 ft-lbs and 210hp/220 ft-lbs) and a flagship 2.8 V6 turbo (250hp, 258 ft-lbs). Each engine was mated to a choice of three transmissions, a six-speed automatic with paddle shifters (five-speed in the 2.0T) or a six-speed manual transmission.
Although the BLS boasted sharper styling than its Saab counterpart, the suspension was tuned to be softer and more compliant. The flagship 2.8 V6 turbo was hardly the rabid fire-breather one might expect, instead being a comfortable and refined highway cruiser albeit one with a delightfully burbling engine note; 0-60 was accomplished in a shade under 7 seconds. Unfortunately, no BLS was what you could call a compelling steer: torque steer, body roll and indirect steering all conspired to make the BLS less than entertaining to drive.
The interior was more luxurious than the 9-3, with real wood trim and a center stack design resembling the 2007 SRX. There were still some pain points, namely switchgear and some plastics that fell short of the class standard, but the overall ambience was elevated over its Swedish sibling. The interior was also more spacious than many of its rivals, offering genuine rear seat comfort and a split/fold function for added versatility.
Critics saw the BLS as no challenge to the established Germans, but praised it as an appealing and stylish alternative with good value for money, striking looks and a comfortable ride. Prices undercut key rivals like the BMW 3-Series; UK-market BLS models generally undercut an equivalent Bimmer by around £2000, and in Germany the BLS diesel was €3000 cheaper than a 3-Series diesel and €3000 more expensive than an Opel Vectra with the same engine. The BLS only carried a slight premium above the 9-3, too. Unfortunately, buyers stayed away in droves: just 3,257 were produced in 2006 and only 2,772 the following year. In 2007, despite the arrival of the handsome wagon, just 282 BLS models were sold in Germany; a dismal figure in a market with annual sales hovering around the 3 million mark.
For 2008, Cadillac reconfigured the BLS lineup, still offering a large range of engines but only one level of specification, Elegance. Prices rose slightly (around £1500 pounds in the UK market), but thousands of dollars of extra equipment was added. All BLS sedans and wagons came with standard leather trim, heated front seats, a Bose Surround Sound 11-speaker audio system, dual-zone climate control, park assist and StabiliTrak.
Sales didn’t rise, though, and the writing was on the wall. In 2009, the BLS was axed; 7,365 units had been produced since its launch in 2006. Limited advertising certainly didn’t help the junior Caddy’s European run, a glaring omission considering Cadillac’s niche presence in the market and European consumers’ minuscule awareness of the marque.
GM echoed the mistakes of crosstown rival Ford in bringing its entry-level executive sedan to market. Ford’s entry, the Jaguar X-Type, used the same platform that underpinned hundreds of thousands of humble Ford Mondeos across the continent. Although the BLS was based on the near-luxury 9-3, the Swede was in turn based heavily on the Opel Vectra, resulting in an acceptable but hardly compelling entry. Furthermore, critics generally agreed a Mondeo was better to drive than a Vectra, and thus probably a better base for a luxury sport sedan.
Cadillac also wasn’t going up against just the Germans, as there were plenty of other rivals vying for buyers’ attention. Lexus’ IS offered rear-wheel-drive dynamics and Japanese dependability. Alfa’s 159 offered a more compelling brand image with European buyers, as well as breathtaking styling. And of course, the greatest enemy is often the one at home: Saab’s 9-3 competed in the very same segment.
The BLS had been designed without North American sales being a consideration, so no attempt was made to import it. Despite its larger size, the CTS was already available with MSRPs starting at around $30k. The BLS would have had to undercut that by a few thousand – a challenge given fluctuating exchange rates – to be successful. And if it did sell at such prices, those sales would have likely involved lower profit margins and possibly come at the expense of CTS sales. After all, the BLS’ interior may not have been perfect, but it was vastly better-looking than the first-generation CTS interior and quite roomy for the car’s smaller footprint.
Axing the BLS was a wise decision. Cadillac realized it wasn’t making any headway in the European market, and the BLS’ underpinnings were fast becoming dated. Additionally, GM’s bankruptcy readjusted priorities. Fighting for market share in an intensely competitive and conservative market with a brand that had yet to establish any real equity in said market was, in the grand scheme of things, hardly important. It was certainly not as important as getting core products like the Chevrolet Cruze to market, or releasing image-building products like the Volt.
One wonders why GM fashioned such a quick solution to a product gap. Their financial situation was getting precarious, yes, but there were plenty of projects in the works at the time including a new V8 engine, allegedly a suite of Zeta products, and new Saturn and Pontiac models. Why introduce the BLS rather than speed along development of a compact, rear-wheel-drive model like Cadillac’s eventual entry-level executive, the ATS?
Analyzing many of GM’s product decisions in the early/mid-2000s leaves a lot of similarly unanswered questions. One mustn’t forget, either, the series of decisions GM made that affected Saab. After moderate success in the 1990s and fledgling profitability, GM turned off the R&D spigot and delayed replacements for Saab’s two core products, the 9-3 and 9-5, and mystifyingly tried to plug holes in the lineup with half-baked cars like the 9-2X, 9-7X and the aborted 9-6X (a rebadged Subaru Tribeca, in case you hadn’t heard). The BLS, thus, represents another decision made at the expense of Saab (literally, as they paid for its development) and makes it appear that GM just didn’t know how to manage two luxury brands concurrently. Saab eventually received competitive products – the 9-4X and replacement 9 -5 – but by then it was too late, as Saab was one of several brands put out to pasture during bankruptcy proceedings.
The BLS, thus, has become a curious footnote. Cadillac now has a consistently compelling lineup, but its European presence has receded. With its financial situation in a better state, perhaps its time to go and put up a fight in Europe again.
With the ATS, Cadillac has a compact sports sedan that doesn’t have to sell on just style and equipment. One competitive threat has been eliminated in the interim, too: Saab isn’t around to battle with for market share.
Forgot all about these,they were very poor sellers in the UK,only coming in LHD didn’t help sales.The GM dealers pulled out of Britain leaving some very angry owners
I thought these bad boys were rhd?
oops – didnt scroll down.
I thought these looked good and if the stars aligned would consider one as a used buy (petrol)
Interesting article, I think the BLS looks really good, and I can’t see the Saab underneath it, so in terms of badge engineering it is a very good job.
I imagine one of the main considerations, apart from giving Cadillac something to sell in Europe, must have been to give some volume to Saab production, in order to justify its existence.
But in another classical example of GM half baked efforts, what’s the point in investing for a new car, if you don’t invest on enough dealers to sell it, or put the steering wheel where it should be? This last point amazes me. How expensive would have been to offer a RHD model, since Saab already made a 9-3 like that?
There was a RHD model available.
My mistake I only saw a LHD sedan.
You apparetly don’t know the Saab 9-3. This caddy is Saab 9-3 from stem to stern.
Historically speaking, Cadillac was never a starter in the European market. Prior to the Seville’s European entry, Europe only knew Cadillac for its long line of long, low, sleek and outrageously-styled sedans and coupes. You could count on an importer or a collector to bring one or two to Europe, but these cars remained curiosities on the other side of the pond.
Perhaps today’s Cadillac should just come to grips with that and focus solely on satisfying the U.S. market. Judging by Escalade sales vs. sales of other vehicles within the lineup, the writing on the wall is pretty clear.
If it were up to me, I’d just make the marque an SUV/CUV-only brand that revolved around the Escalade – an ersatz American Land Rover with the Escalade as our homegrown Range Rover. Add a Range Rover Sport and an Evoque competitor to the mix and you’ll have a guaranteed sales success.
In the early 1900’s Cadillac’s were marketed in the British market, which is how Cadillac won their first Dewar Trophy (for Standardization). I am not sure about the rest of the European market at that time.
The BLS was quite good car, actually. The Saab it was based on was/is a solid driver’s car.
I also remember this:
“Cadillac BLS Nominated Best Winter Car In Finland”
“Cadillac BLS midsize saloon beats 20 new models to claim prestigious award in one of Europe’s toughest winter tests”
http://www.carpages.co.uk/cadillac/cadillac-bls-12-03-07.asp
But that was no surprise, the Saab 9-3 was a very good winter car, like all Saabs. The BLS basically was an updated 9-3, and most of the changes were applied to the original car as well. So even if Saab had to pay for developing the BLS, they did get benefits from it too.
Noteworthy is that the Fiat 1.9 liter turbo diesel engine was the first common rail diesel. Introduced in 1997 in the Alfa Romeo 156 1.9 JTD, alongside the 2.4 JTD inline-5.
A major step forward in diesel engine performance and the use of turbo diesels in luxury cars. From that moment onwards the power- and torque ratings increased rapidly and steadily.
That’s this car, the predecessor of the 159 in the article. The 159 is of course a beauty of a sedan, but it all started with this 156 in 1997. It was also significantly smaller and lighter than the 159.
The Alpha 159 is a very sharp looking car. Forget BMW, MB, Jaguar, etc. If I was in Europe, the Alpha would be on the top of my list.
Here we go again with common spelling error…
Alfa Romeo is NEVER spelled as Alpha. Alfa is derived from A.L.F.A., which is abbreviation of Anonima Lombarda Fabbrica Automobili (English: Lombard Automobile Factory).
I owned one when I lived in Texas, and it drove me nuts when people wrote or typed Alpha instead of proper Alfa.
The underlying 9-3 was a solid effort that I am glad we got in USA. I had a 2004 9-3 Linear with the 175hp turbo gas 2.0. The seats were excellent, second to Volvo but better support than the German competitors. The efficient 2.0, I got 36 highway with the 5sp auto, was to me at least a better choice than the lower mpg sixes in the BMW, CTS, and Japanese competitors. There was no more 318 in USA by then, American e-36 were perhaps too heavy for 138 hp.Thanks for write up, I found myself lusting over the great looking Alfa 159 with the diesel, I wonder how the seats were in that. The Saab did not impress your friends, neither would have the BLS, and the initial cost and trade value were heavily discounted, but I had a good ownership experience.
I believe the Malibu used the same platform as well.
The more I look at this car the worse it looks. Saab curves can’t mix with Cadillac sharp angles. Akin to bandages after cosmetic surgery, it looks like Cadillac sheet metal was literally placed over existing Saab sheet metal at the front, rear, and roofline, contributing to a bulky look. The sharp greenhouse crease at the C-pillar doesn’t even try to hide the Saab’s curved upper rear door. The wagon looks even worse. I would nominate the BLS for one of the worst GM designs of the 2000s, after the Aztek of course. I’d forgo the real wood trim and take a 9-3 any day.
The Saab curved rear door upper is a cardinal sin. I look at that thing and I always see quite literally a square peg in a round hole, and it can not be unseen. It’s interesting, beacuse I can’t reallt fathom what the techincal problem was. No outer skin is common between them, but obviously, some crucial body hard point must have been. I think it’s a quite curious effort, as it really looks like a Saab with a Cadillac suit.
OK, this is a problem that manifests itself over and over in the higher-end segments. Plunking down for a brand-new luxury car is one of the most conspicuous acts of conformity there is, so if you’re not one of the “right” choices you have to really offer a compelling proposition.
Halfway doesn’t make it since any buyer non-badge- and image-obsessed enough to be willing to take a crack on one of these would probably just as soon have just bought an Opel and saved the money.
That would be this, a contemporary Opel Vectra.
That photo shows the big problem with the BLS. Namely, the cheaper, less prestigious car is a considerably more attractive and coherent design.
Yum! I prefer the Vectra with the OPC package, though.
I like all the things I can’t get in the States, unfortunately.
Forgot the pic…
…You also forgot the new (207 hp) Opel Corsa OPC for your wife…
William, you beat me to it. I had a nice BLS saloon planned for a Cimarron or Europe” piece.
Quality piece of research and analysis though!
BLS = Bullshit
Seeing the BLS as a 9-3 package means the maker added another twenty grand of value on every 9-3 making a loss on every single one of them. I don’t know if it looks like twenty grand extra, but that was the cost that went into all of them in research & development on top of the 9-3 cost. I don’t know the price difference between an equivalent 9-3 and BLS, but there’s just no way they could ever recoup a 140 million dollar development cost on some 7000 cars. What were they thinking? And what was their projected sell? The entire European Cadillac market is usually only about 30000 cars.
The rather megalomaniac Kroymans Corporation was the European Cadillac importer and distributor. They went bankrupt in 2009, also the last year of the BLS.
Those were the days…
By the way, that building is in a town called Breukelen. Known in the US as Brooklyn.
Like a 9-3 minus the charm and character…Awkward at best, born to be an orphan…GM= Cynicism on wheels
GM bought SAAB, but didn’t know what to do with it. They needed to turn a profit from their purchase, so they decided to take the best of what SAAB had at the time and expand its distribution. It was a pretty good idea to launch Cadillac in Europe, using the SAAB platform. GM also needed a replacement for their Opel/Saturn and tuned the SAAB into the Malibu and the Aura. It was hoped that by expanding the distribution of the SAAB platform, GM could help offset the costs of buying SAAB.
It didn’t work out though. It was more expensive to buy SAAB than it was to turn a profit out of it. This left GM with a new challenge. They needed to find a new way to turn a profit with SAAB. This is what created the SA-buru, and the SA-Blazer. The thinking could have been that if GM couldn’t turn a SAAB into a Cadillac, Opel/Saturn or Chevrolet, then perhaps GM could turn a Subaru and a Chevrolet into a SAAB.
If either scenario worked, it would have helped pay down the costs of acquiring SAAB for GM.
Problem was, as wonderful as SAAB was, the era it represented was gone. What SAAB represented was gone along with it. If a SAAB couldn’t be turned into a niche carving car line for the other GM domestic brands, then it certainly didn’t carry enough panache to turn one of the domestic cars into a niche carving car line either. What made SAAB specially appealing to their fans, was not attractive to everyday drivers who paid the GM bills.
Buying a storied European luxury brand like SAAB and Jaguar, then standing back and let American consumers flock to them like they had in earlier times, was not going to happen in a world with too much car capacity and not enough buyers. The Chinese and Indian markets weren’t developed sufficiently to save either Ford or GM as the clock ran out. Ford was able to unload Volvo and Jaguar for a few million dollars, (losing tens of millions), right after the 2007 market crash, but GM was stuck with SAAB and ended up eating every lost investment buck it put into it.
So – the BLS is not a Cadillac, nor a SAAB. It isn’t a classic ride, nor is it an iconic ride. It might have future collectable potential, but I sure as heck wouldn’t want to figure out where parts for it will be found.
Like a lot of GM cars during this era, there are some gems hidden among the wreckage of bankruptcy. Yet, it also isn’t surprise, in hindsight, to see just how badly GM mangled their company with these kinds of cars.
You seem to have forgotten that the “SAAB platform” (9-3) was actually an Opel platform (Vectra). Saab only ever had two original/exclusive platforms; the 92-96 series, and the 99-900 series. After those, everything was either shared or GM.
I don’t know if I’d call Saab a “storied luxury brand.” It may have been a luxury brand on this side of the pond briefly in the mid-1980s, when Cadillac was imploding, Lexus didn’t exist and the Germans hadn’t quite gained full traction in the market. By the early 1990s, however, Saab’s moment in the U.S. was finished.
Prior to the 1980s, Saabs were quirky cars bought by people who wanted something different. They weren’t considered particularly luxurious or prestigious by most Americans.
In the seventies and eighties Saabs were for doctors and dentists. At least, that was the widespread stereotype.
In the U.S., the stereotype was college professors and other left-of-center types. We used to joke that SAABs (and Volvos) came from the factory with the ACLU/random Democratic candidate/No Nukes bumper stickers pre-applied.
Hmmm…that sounds like the typical Citroën clientele from that era…
Rural guys liked Opels. Contractors, farmers and scrap metal dealers (living in trailer parks) liked Mercedes. Old money drives Land Rovers and Volvo wagons, the older models (since their money is in real estate, not in a pile of cash to buy new ones). Crooks & pimps like seventies-US cars, especially Camaros and Firebirds. Illegal contractors (“koppelbazen”) bought big Chevrolet V8 sedans. Paid in cash. And if the ashtray was full, they bought a new one.
All stereotypes. Of course, of course….
… Hah! For Austria, one could add Chrysler minivans for members of certain minorities with large families, older BMWs and M-Bs for their offspring not yet having had their marriage arranged, Korean cars for retirees, Romanian Dacias for misers on their first car, anything older with certain East-European licence plates for the construction worker on black wages, Opel Adam/Mini/Fiat 500 for younger women who consider themselves to be cool, VW/Peugeot cabrios for their middle-age sisters and… I could go on for hours, but I’d better stop before this becomes entirely non-PC/political.
Even under GM ownership, the one thing Saab had was demographics. It was one of the few brands that attracted wealthy, educated people. Several other brands did that but with Saab they were one thing more. The owners skewed younger. What they could not do, is get their people to pay full price, for Sweden’s high cost manufacturing. So you get fake Saabs in USA, 9-2 & 9-7, and BLS to fill out capacity in Trollhaten.
Analyzing many of GM’s product decisions in the early/mid-2000s leaves a lot of similarly unanswered questions. One mustn’t forget, either, the series of decisions GM made that affected Saab. After moderate success in the 1990s and fledgling profitability, GM turned off the R&D spigot….
For me, the problem of GM’s lurching about seems pretty typical for a mature corporation like GM. At top of the company sit detached executives who care about ‘business’ and for whom cars are simply ‘widgets’. They spend most days scanning Excel presentations, with the accountants whispering in their ears about profit and loss. Occasionally they get a dramatic presentation from a recently promoted Vice President with ‘new ideas©’!
New Vice Presidents must have new ideas. That’s the angle that gets them the job. First comes the ‘expand sales by conquering Europe’ guy. He gets the OK to develop a Europe-specific model. However, his budget is tight, and he must get the car to market quickly to show results. The resulting product is compromised. Further, since the cars haven’t been successful in the past, he gets no advertising budget – the accountants want to spend those budgets on cars that sell.
The next VP is stuck with the cars that aren’t selling, so he bumps content and lowers price to get some volume going. Doesn’t work because the reputation of the earlier cars is already established.
The third guy’s new idea is obvious at this point – all that development money was wasted, but we have dealerships to feed by contract requirement. How to honor the contract without wasting money on new products that won’t sell? Let’s use the time-honored rebadge BOP model to save some money. Now, which brand has some cheap, under-utilized factory capacity? Great! They now build SAABs, Cadillac’s, whatever! We can do a grill and trim package for lunch money, and after all ‘Cars is Cars’.
The final thing will be retreat from Europe because we haven’t managed to sell anything there in 10 years. Let’s use the Europe budget to update the Escalade!
However, eventually comes the day when a new VP has a ‘new idea©’!
We can expand sales in Europe! By this time the guy in the top seat will have been replaced at least once and the corporate failures in European Adventures will have been forgotten.
Dreamer, Pragmatist, Cynic, Executioner, Dreamer. And so goes the cycle of life in a big corporation.
The BLS was Lutz’s idea I think. Car & Driver suggest that BLS is short for Bob Lutz Special.
Lutz is a strange bird. At some places he implies you should go the extra mile to make sure you are living up to the customers expectations. Then he complains that Saab got a special seat frame that cost twice as much as the other Epselons. So the famous comfort of Swedish seats has escaped him or he is really an accountant at heart.
I have no idea of the behind-the-scenes of the BLS specifically, but I think this is pretty much on target as regards the mentality of most any big corporation. A couple of common additions (by no means to specific to GM or even the auto industry):
– The VP or other senior exec who gets promoted to Bigger and Better assignments based primarily on the results of decisions made by their predecessor and thus is fortuitously long gone by the time the results of their own major decisions become apparent (for better or worse);
– The ambitious manager or director trying to make a name for themselves by concocting clever plans to save X millions or increase profits by Y percent by cutting out or cheapening the features that made customers buy the company’s product or service in the first place;
– The veteran managers who have the best grasp of how things actually work, but end up getting marginalized or laid off for not having the right political connections or for being either too ambitious or not ambitious enough for someone’s taste;
– The managers who have no idea which end is up, but who have been continually promoted due to good connections, good teeth, or because it was the easiest way for previous supervisors to get rid of them. (This is surprisingly common in large organizations — I’ve never served in the military, but I’ve heard that this is a fairly popular tactic.)
One of the dangers for outside analysts and historians is that it’s often tempting to try to decipher an organization’s actions as if the organization were a single individual (or at least a hive mind) making unified decisions. The truth is that big corporations are unwieldy collections of individuals who don’t necessary share the same goals, only know pieces of what’s going on at any given moment, and not infrequently are actively competing with each other.
I served in the military and am working for a large international corporation and can confirm everything you said.
Brilliant analysis, Lokki!
100%. It’s not what you know, it’s who you know. It’s even more interesting when you get to do their job for them since they have no idea of what to do except take credit for it.
Interesting post, and an interesting discussion, too. I might as well admit something here: My initial reaction when I saw the first photo was “Nice Photoshop, but today is May 1st, not April 1st.” It looked like a stretched Pontiac Vibe with a Cadillac grille grafted on (although, now that it has been pointed out to me, I also see the SAAB connection).
They should have called it the ‘Cimarron II’.
So was Saab supposed to be upmarket of Cadillac, or Cadillac upmarket of Saab? I suspect GM’s perception and the buying public’s perceptions might not have been the same.
GM did it once before remember they rebadged an Opel Cadillac and said it zigs so doing the same for another market must have seemed like a good idea, after all calling a Vectra a Buick is working ok so far why not another grille another brand Opels, Vauxhalls Holdens, Buicks and Cadillacs differentiated by the grille and some minor panels must have looked attractive to the accountants
Here in Austria those sold in single figures. My impression was they fell between two chairs: not American enough for the typical American vehicle buyer, nothing to offer when compared with Opel or SAAB. I only ever saw one or two. But as the owner of some GM shares, I believe (delude myself?) such clangers belong in the past:)
While I do think the headlight pods are a bit much for the front end of the car size-wise, I’d take the wagon…
The interior is definitely an improvement over my 9-3…
Interesting to see the comments from observers in different markets. I’ve had Saabs from a 1981 900 Turbo to a 2008 Turbo-X. Kept buying non-GM used 900s until the Turbo-X. I loved the Top Gear episode on the demise of Saab, two points sticking in my memory: (1) the Saab engineers telling the GM bean counters they would toe the line and then when they came out with the cars they had a lot of non-GM components because the GM stuff was junk and (2) dropping the inverted 900 and a BMW 328 and the old 900 being quite survivable and the Bimmer crushed. And on the stereotype owner it was architects. (I’m a professional with advanced degrees, a private pilot and modified the engine in my 900 myself, so I probably fit a Saab owner stereotype)