|Cadillac V8 (Flickr/Hugo 90)|
Grandpa raised a good point. I, raised on turbo fours and preferring condensed European power to the brute force that's long been an American philosophy, thought it was a non-issue at the time. To him, a Cadillac wasn't a Cadillac without eight cylinders. (I wasn't born yet to ask him what he thought of the Cimarron). He never really forgave GM for their downsizing in the '70s and '80s, either. If Grandpa were around today, I wonder what he'd say about the new Cadillac ATS, the 3-series opponent that features two four-cylinders in its engine roster. He'd probably hate it. And, after much thought, I kind of have to agree with him.
|2013 Cadillac ATS (Flickr/Autoviva)|
Most of it sounds good on paper. Yes, the base engine is the 2.5-liter four out of the new Malibu, but you can upgrade to either a new turbo four or the fine direct injection 3.6 V6 out of the CTS. It's rear wheel drive, it's short and, in general, looks pretty good. But think about it: What does a Cadillac mean to you? To me, it's a big, blingy thing with lots of chrome and big wheels. It's a pretty showy car to be seen in. Granted, so is a Mercedes, but a Cadillac is more over-the-top. A Cadillac is American, it's supposed to follow the "bigger is better" mantra. A Cadillac with a turbo four doesn't sit well in my head.
|2011 BMW 5-series (Wikimedia Commons)|
|2012 Buick Regal GS (Wikimedia Commons)|
|2012 Chrysler 300 S (Flickr/sarahlarson)|