Cadillac BLS Wagon
Car comparison
Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6vsVolvo XC70 II 3.0 T6
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonVolvo XC70 II
3.0 T6
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.4 s
- Fastest top speed250 km/h155 mph Unrestricted240 km/h149 mph Restricted
- Lightest1,605 kg3,538 lb
- Lowest combined fuel consumption10.7 L/100 km22.0 mpg US26.4 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption16.2 L/100 km14.5 mpg US17.4 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption7.5 L/100 km31.4 mpg US37.7 mpg UK
- Best performance score56/100
- Best economy score78/100
Volvo XC70 II 3.0 T6
- Most powerful285 hp213 kW
- Highest torque400 Nm295 lb-ft
- Best power-to-weight161 hp/t120 kW/t6.2 kg/hp
- Best estimated range609 km378 mi
- Largest trunk575 L
- Best overall score65/100
- Best practicality score88/100
Specification comparison
| Model | CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 255hp190kW | 285hp213kW |
| Torque | 350Nm258lb-ft | 400Nm295lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,605kg3,538lb | 1,769kg3,900lb |
| Gross weight | 2,150kg4,740lb | 2,400kg5,291lb |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 250 km/h155 mph Restricted 240 km/h149 mph Calculated | Unrestricted 220 km/h137 mph Restricted 210 km/h130 mph Calculated |
| To 99% top speed | 78.2s99% target: 248 km/h / 154 mph Calculated | 69.2s99% target: 218 km/h / 135 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.4s | 7.6s |
| 0-200 km/h | 25.3s Calculated | 34.0s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.1s Calculated | 7.2s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 10.7L/100 km22mpg US26.4mpg UK | 11.5L/100 km20.5mpg US24.6mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 16.2L/100 km14.5mpg US17.4mpg UK | 16.6L/100 km14.2mpg US17.0mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 7.5L/100 km31.4mpg US37.7mpg UK | 8.5L/100 km27.7mpg US33.2mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.2s Calculated | 15.5s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 159hp/t118kW/t72hp/1000 lb Calculated | 161hp/t120kW/t73hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 218Nm/t146lb-ft/ton Calculated | 226Nm/t151lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 542km337mi Calculated | 609km378mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 2,792cc170cu in | 2,953cc180cu in |
| Length | 4,716mm186in | 4,838mm190in |
| Width | 1,802mm71in | 1,861mm73in |
| Height | 1,543mm61in | 1,604mm63in |
| Wheelbase | 2,675mm105in | 2,815mm111in |
| Front track | 1,524mm60in | 1,614mm64in |
| Rear track | 1,506mm59in | 1,580mm62in |
| Ground clearance | 127mm5in | 210mm8in |
| Trunk volume | 419L | 575L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,273L | 1,600L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 58L | 70L |
| CO2 emissions | - | 269g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6: Power / Torque
- Volvo XC70 II 3.0 T6: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 5,500 rpm | 1,800-4,500 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 5,950 rpm | 1,500-4,800 rpm | 6,200 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.1 s | 7.2 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.4 s | 7.6 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 25.3 s | 34.0 s |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 250 km/h155 mph Restricted 240 km/h149 mph Likely limited | Unrestricted 220 km/h137 mph Restricted 210 km/h130 mph Likely limited |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.7 s | 2.7 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.9 s | 6.9 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.1 s | 10.2 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.9 s | 13.1 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.2 s | 15.5 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 158 km/h 98 mph | 151 km/h 94 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 255 hp 190 kW |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 285 hp 213 kW |
Volvo XC70 II 3.0 T6 has 30 hp more than Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6.
The biggest power difference is between Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6 and Volvo XC70 II 3.0 T6: 30 hp (22 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 1,605 kg 3,538 lb |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 1,769 kg 3,900 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | Unrestricted 250 km/h155 mph Restricted 240 km/h149 mph |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | Unrestricted 220 km/h137 mph Restricted 210 km/h130 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 7.4 s |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 7.6 s |
Although Volvo XC70 II 3.0 T6 has more power, Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6 and Volvo XC70 II 3.0 T6: 0.2 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 10.7 L/100 km 22.0 mpg US 26.4 mpg UK |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 11.5 L/100 km 20.5 mpg US 24.6 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6 and Volvo XC70 II 3.0 T6: 0.8 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 159 hp/t 118 kW/t 6.3 kg/hp |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 161 hp/t 120 kW/t 6.2 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 542 km 337 mi |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 609 km 378 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 255 hp 190 kW | 7.4 s | Unrestricted 250 km/h155 mph Restricted 240 km/h149 mph |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 285 hp 213 kW | 7.6 s | Unrestricted 220 km/h137 mph Restricted 210 km/h130 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 |
| 10.7 L/100 km 22.0 mpg US 26.4 mpg UK | ||||||
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 |
| 11.5 L/100 km 20.5 mpg US 24.6 mpg UK | ||||||
Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6 is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 10.7 L/100 km 22.0 mpg US 26.4 mpg UK | 7.4 s |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 11.5 L/100 km 20.5 mpg US 24.6 mpg UK | 7.6 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | 159 hp/t 118 kW/t 6.3 kg/hp | 10.7 L/100 km 22.0 mpg US 26.4 mpg UK |
| VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | 161 hp/t 120 kW/t 6.2 kg/hp | 11.5 L/100 km 20.5 mpg US 24.6 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | CadillacBLS Wagon2.8 T V6 | VolvoXC70 II3.0 T6 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 255 hp 190 kW | 285 hp 213 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.4 s | 7.6 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | Unrestricted 250 km/h155 mph Restricted 240 km/h149 mph | Unrestricted 220 km/h137 mph Restricted 210 km/h130 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,605 kg 3,538 lb | 1,769 kg 3,900 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 10.7 L/100 km 22.0 mpg US 26.4 mpg UK | 11.5 L/100 km 20.5 mpg US 24.6 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 542 km 337 mi | 609 km 378 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | - | 269 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 419 L 14.8 cu ft | 575 L 20.3 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 159 hp/t 118 kW/t 6.3 kg/hp | 161 hp/t 120 kW/t 6.2 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6 | Volvo XC70 II 3.0 T6 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 10.7 L/100 km22 mpg US26.4 mpg UK | 11.5 L/100 km20.5 mpg US24.6 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 18.72 LC100 km | 20.13 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 30.13 LC100 mi | 32.39 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,605 L424 US gal353 UK gal | 1,725 L456 US gal379 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,809 LC/year | 3,019 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.8 T V6
- Is 164 kg lighter
- Is 0.2 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 30 km/h (19 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 0.8 L/100 km less fuel
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
Cons
- Lowest power
- Smallest trunk
Volvo XC70 II 3.0 T6
- Has 30 hp more
- Has 50 Nm more
- Has 2 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 67 km (41 mi) more estimated range
- Has 156 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























