Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Cadillac DeVille

1606163656683

Comments

  • Am finding your posts on Northstar vs Hemi helpful and informative. I currently own a 2004 Deville but have owned Chryslers in the past, most recently a 1997 LHS,
    with the V6, 214 HWP. I wouldn't mind owning a 300 C for a second car but at least for now Cadillac is number one with me. Am also considering a 1998 or 1999
    Concours for a second car. I liked the body style for cars of those model years.
    The Northstar is of the previous generation but having owned a 98 Deville in the past haven't found enough difference to let the first generation issue be a major factor.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Can't understand why you think the Hemi is all new. Just off the phone with a close friend of mine who is also a DC engineer and he did indeed tell me that DC did use some of the design of the original Hemi, hence, NOT A NEW DESIGN. As for the Northstar being based on 4.1 and 4.5, impossible. This car has the DOHC setup, 32 valves that either of those previous designs would not even have the technology to spin off a sophisticated engine like the Northstar. Both the 4.1 and 4.5 have 16 valve cyl. heads. Sure it may have the same stroke, but numerous cars with like size engines share this same coincedence. "The Corvette engine is new"-- Think again buddy. It's the same architecture as the small block Chevy V8 of 1957. The Corvette ZO6 7.0L V8 is all new from top to bottom. The 3800 still uses the same crank from 30 years ago. Maybe that's why it lasted this long. All of these engines including the Hemi are great engines in our war against the foreign makes,

    P.S. As for OHC designs existing before GM did the Northstar, It was Lee Ioccoca that started development of hi-po ohc motors during his days at GM.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Still got my '97 DeVille D'Elegance and it runs great. Of course with this generation it is premium fuel only. That's the only major quarrel that I have.
  • Thanks for the info. I thought it wouldn't be a big difference. No sense paying for premium when you don't need it. I had a 95 Buick Roadmaster before the Caddy. The owner's manual recommended 87. They were right. I tried other grades and it didn't change anything. The engine in the Roadmaster was a detuned version of the Vette LT1 - 260 HP. This was a great engine. Strong power from take off to whatever. Very smooth and quiet. The NorthStar is better on gas and 275HP.
  • I have a new 05 Deville, base model . I have the midnight blue leather and like the looks of it. Not sure how good it is. It's plain looking in some ways. Time will tell. It's only 3 months old. Will make more comments about interior as it gets older. The dark interior does show more dust. That's a reminder to wipe it off once and awhile. The base model has 275HP. My overall gas mileage on a recent 1200 mile trip was 25.4. That included some city, rural, and 98% highway. This was actual mileage from gal. used at the pump. At times on the highway, the computer was between 27 & 28.This engine is rated at 18 city and 26 Highway. I think the DTS engine is rated at 17 and 25.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    The DTS is 17/24 city highway. I get about 23 in city/highwy mix.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Sorry, but the old Corvette engine was cast iron. The new Corvette engine is all aluminum, the change was done in the not too distant past. I thought that I made it clear that the northstar was not precisely the old 4100. However, putting a different head is not a big problem, the Citations 2.8 liter V6 was upsized to 3.4 liters and a DOHC head was installed. The 3800 started out with a standard V8 crankshaft cut off at 6 cylinders. The even firing crankshaft was designed in the late 70's. You have very strange ideas about what makes an engine new or old. I very much doubt that Chrysler is using the old 50's hemi head tooling to build the new engine.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Hemi head - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Hemi_engine
    Scroll down to modern hemi - you will see that this engine really is not a hemi at all, thus what I said above is true, an all new design.
    chevy small block gen II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LT_engine
    genIII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine
    Both the gen II and III are all new designs as I read it.

    Cadillac's northstar was also re-engineered for the 2000 model year, making the pre-2000 engine different than the post-2000 engine. The RWD VVT northstar is also a new engine, a different design than the FWD version, with a different cooling system.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    You are the one with the distorted views about what makes an engine "old or new". Because the Chevy's engine is aluminum does not mean it doesn't share architecture with iron ones from the distant pass. The main reason GM did this in it's cars and light trucks and SUV's was to reduce weight and improve durability. Oh and hate to tell you that the 3.4L GM motor was not an adaptation of the 2.8L V6, but rather an offspring of the 3.1L. I know that there was a 3.4L DOHC that served in some Olds. Cutlass',Chevy Monte Carlo, Pontiac Grand Prix, just not the ones served in the Pontiac Grand Am, and all of GM's minivan's and minivan based SUV's (ie: Buick Rendevous and Pontiac Aztek). Neither were based on that antiquated 2.8L motor. True enough the 3800 motor is a 6-cyl. version of the 307 V8. So is the 4300 V6 which is a 350 with two cyl. taken off. And as I said in my previous post, Chrysler used some of the ideas of the original Hemi, not actual PARTS. And for the last time, the Northstar is a "from scratch design"--meaning ALL NEW. Do you actually think that back in '92 when GM was marketing the STS with the Northstar that they would lie about the Northstar engine being a "from scratch design"? I think NOT. Also as I've said that using old-school methods is not a bad thing at all. Maybe this time you won't chop my words up for your on personal benefit.
  • bolivarbolivar Posts: 2,316
    Buy a used one. From a Cadillac dealer. Get it 'certified', which will warranty it for 7 years to 100,000 miles (I think this is what it it now).

    My 97 Deville will easily get 25mpg on the highway. I've seen as high as 28.5 and 27.5mpg - 70 or 75mph.

    Aren't you an attorney? Since when does an attorney not be 'in a financial position' to buy a new car? Is the economy that bad?
  • batistabatista Posts: 159
    I have read from many sources that the 3.4L pushrod V6 was derived from the 3.1L pushrod V6 which was derived from the old citation 2.8L V6.
    The 3.4L DOHC was not a brand new design.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    If you read my post closely, I never said the 3.4L DOHC was a new design. And the 3.1 and 3.4 engines were not derived form the 2.8L. I should know because I worked at GM for 36 years in 7 engine manufacturing plants. So your sources are invalid! As for the 2.8L engine, it was a joint GM/AMC engine development in which some GM and some AMC (including JEEP) used this engine during the late '70's and on into the '80's until Chrysler bought out AMC in 1987, altho some GM cars used it afterwards for a few years. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
  • Local Cadillac dealers in your area may have more Certified used in stock right now because they have sold so many new cars with the GM EMP. Discount + CASH rebates. My local dealer has a lot more than he did back in June when I bought a new one. The DTS model seem to be more rare to find used. I think my dealer had 1 used.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,161
    The DTS may be a fast mover when they do show up used. I'm seeing a lot of DTSs that appear to have been bought used. I'm going to check at the local Caddy special used car lot. They 8-10 recent Devilles always sitting. I'll see what ratio they ahve.
  • geo9geo9 Posts: 739
    Base cars-ex-rentals are at a large Caddy and GM dealer(s) around Syracuse
    NY are priced at $25,xxx. Forget the "certified"........Costs $$$$ more.

    A quick web search finds Black Cadillac in Pa. that sells genuine GMPP
    warranties VERY reasonable. They can be bought up to the end of the
    mfr.s factory warranty. (If your gonna keep the car)
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I am sorry, but I find this webpage more credible than you.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_60-Degree_V6_engine
    If you bother to read thru it you will find that the 3.1 is a second generation of the 2.8, and while I would say that makes it a new engine, it is an evolutionary design, not revolutionary.

    The V6 that was used in Jeeps was the Buick 3800, which was sold to Jeep in the 60's. This web page supports that notion of mine:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_3800_engine
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Your information is incorrect. AMC/Jeep used the 2.8L V6 in the 84-87 Cherokee until 1987 when the 4.0L I-6 motor was used, not the 3800. This site that you say supports your "notion" has quite a few errors on it's facts. But whatever I say will not sway you, which is a shame because you will go on thinking that you are right.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I have a published book on Buick's history titled "the Postwar Tears" by Jan Norbye and Jim Dunne. This was published by Motorbooks international in 1978. In any case, it supports the notion that GM sold the V6 assembly line to Kaiser Jeep in 1967 (see page 95 of this book). At that time the 3800 was a 225 cubic inch engine (not the 231 cubic inch 3800). The Buick V6 was designed to use the tooling that the 215 cubic inch aluminum V8 was built with. However, they made the V6 cast iron with thin wall casting. The first V6's were a 198 cubic inch engine on the 1962 Special. This engine was upsized to 225 cubic inches in 1965 and sold after the 67's were done.

    After the 1973 fuel crisis, GM bought back the tooling for the V6 from what was then American Motors, who had aquired Jeep. They put it into production for the 1975 model year, increasing the bore to match that of the 350 cubic inch Buick V8, making the V6 a 231 cubic inch V6. The pistons from the V8 would fit the V6 saving vast sums of money on production costs. For the 1978 model year, the crankshaft was redesigned to make the V6 an even firing engine, making it into a much smoother running engine. This is the end of my book of course, but does not contradict the website given above.

    I think that this book was fairly well researched. I have published a number of papers in refereed journals so I am aware of what it takes to publish something. However, I will admit that I am not an expert on automotive design. All I really know is what I read. But I have two sources of information that say you are wrong. This is not to say that the Chevy engine was not used in the time period that you are talking about.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Overhead, even double overhead camshafts were used in the early 1900's, so DOHC's are not new technology. Some racing engines used DOHC's with 4 valves per cylinder, so even multi-valve engines are not new technology. The concept that pushrods are old technology and overhead cams are new technology is nonsense. Any production engine that is continually updated is not old. I also feel that cast iron is not a bad material to build engines with. Aluminum is very touchy about coolant leaks, while a cast iron engine is less so.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Never said that DOHC technology was new. Pushrod engines are older than DOHC engines, no matter what you say. Do You think Henry Ford was installing overhead cam motors in the Model T? Probably not. DOHC was around in the early 20th century, but not widely used in the american car market. "Aluminum engines are very touchy about coolant leaks". Wasn't it the Northstar (oh and unless you forgot, its all aluminum) that invented the 50 mile driving radius on absolutely 0 coolant. Yeah, I think so. A cast iron engine may be less prone to head warpping than aluminum engines, but it will. Overhead cam engines are smoother than pushrod motors, while aluminum engines are lighter thus saving more fuel in comparison to a "heavy metal" engine. Just let you know!!
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I know someone who did not pickup on the fact that he had a coolant leak in his northstar. By the time they figured it out, the engine was junk. Not because it overheated either. I think smoothness is designed in. Remember the quad 4?

    Prior to World War Two, Stutz and Duesenberg offered some DOHC engines. My point was that overhead camshafts are not some new design. In the last 25 years the primary advance has been digital computers controlling the engine. Before about 1980, most electronic fuel injection systems were run by analog computers. The microprocessor became available in the 70's, making digital fuel injection systems possible. This has been the really big advance, making variable valve timing possible too. A full blown variable valve timing requires a double camshaft, which is why the DOHC is an excellent device for this purpose. However, GM has found the varing both intake and exhaust valves together, results in 80% of the full effect, so VVT on pushrod engines is possible.

    Consider the 3.9 liter V6 in the Impala and the 3.6 DOHC V6 found in the LaCrosse. The 3.9 has 242 lb-ft of torque and 242 hp, while the 3.6 has 240 hp, but only 225 lb-ft of torque. The 3.9 VVT pushrod is doing very well I think.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    You do not have to have DOHC to get the "full effect" of VVT. Mercedes among others use SOHC in all of their V-6 and V-8 engines. Not only do these cars have VVT, they have VVT-i (intelligence). And they are only 3-valve per cylinder.

    The 3.6L V6 that serves in the CTS and STS makes 255hp. In the SRX, 260hp. So in the Lacrosse, Buick detuned the engine. It has nothing to do with VVT.

    P.S. I do remember the Quad 4. I would agree with a lot of gearheads that it was a horrid piece of machinery. And as for the person that didn't know that they had coolant loss, they either had driven over the maximum 50 miles or they just didn't pay attention to the various warnings that Northstar-equipped cars gives to the owner. It must of been some other on-going problem with the engine if over-heating didn't cause the engine problem as it would take heat to warp the heads or cause internal damage
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    This discussion is specifically about the DeVille. The News & Views board is more appropriate for this type of debate. There may be a suitable discussion there now, but if you don't see one, you can fire one up.

    Let's get back to the DeVille here - thanks.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    batista, I need you to email me - pat AT edmunds.com. Please put Edmunds in the subject line and include "batista" in the message, thanks.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The DeVille that suffered the engine loss was full of coolant and the water pump was working and the engine was not overheating. The problem was a slow leak in one of the head gaskets which of couse is not obvious by simply looking at the engine. The water pump had failed a year or so before, but as soon as the engine hot warning was posted, he shut off the engine and called for a tow into the dealership. The car was not run hot for any distance. But even so, one or both head gaskets were damaged. The slow coolant leak corroded the aluminum to the point that the engine could not be put back together.

    By full effect of VVT, I mean that the intake and exhaust valves can be varied independently of each other, which requires that the intake valves are run by one cam and the exhaust valves by the other. The CTS's V6 has a variable intake manifold while the LaCrosses does not.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,673
    I am an attorney, but that does not mean I enjoy taking a severe depreciation hit on my Crown Vic, having bought 2 new cars in 2004...go easy on my wallet, will ya???...I already have one wife draining it dry, I do not need another,,, ;) :shades:
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The longer you drive any car, the lower the average depreciation rate is. I would suggest driving new cars at least 6 years, and longer is better. However, everyone has their own needs to consider. Fuel costs are really not going to make any real difference, unless you are going to move from something that gets 5 MPG to say 30 MPG.
  • 04cad04cad Posts: 131
    Our 04 just went over 35,000 on vacation and the mileage jumped up over 29 mpg highway. Just getting broken in....
  • My mpg is generally between 28 and 29 on the highway. In my opinion this is a very good fuel economy for a car of this size, power and weight. I have even gotten over 29 mpg if I don't have to do a lot of highway passing of vehicles not going the speed limit. I also own a 2004 Deville with 26,000 miles on it.
  • During its 100 or so years of history, Cadillac has innovated many times in many ways. It would be very timely for the company to now introduce a Northstar engine
    with a hybrid component. I'm sure some will say it can't be done or it isn't practical
    but we might still be riding in horse drawn carriages with that attitude. Many of us get close to 30 MPG with the present Northstar, there's no reason not to believe that we could get over 40 MPG with a Northstar hybrid. I hope the American auto
    industry doesn't let the Japanese win again by failing to innovate with new and improved fuel efficiency. Cadillac has been an innovator in the past and hope they will again innovate in the large car fuel ecomony area.
Sign In or Register to comment.