Howdy, Stranger!

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





Cadillac DeVille

16869717374125

Comments

  • volvodan1volvodan1 Posts: 196
    It is the performance and handling, along with luxury that people get with the CTS. This is the perfect example of the difference between what Ill call BMW type customers and Deville type customers. To BMW customers, bigger isn't always better, the Deville customers it is. It's just a matter of valuing different things. Luckily, Cadillac has stepped up to the plate with CTS, SRX,XLR, and soon STS. Otherwise they would be dead in the water, like Lincoln. But for all of the changes that they have made, Cadillac has to kepp the Deville the same type of car to keep the "old core" customers while keeping on going with their other stuff to draw the BMW, MERC, AUDI, LEXUS, ETC. to Cadillac.
  • rxlessardrxlessard Posts: 1
    When i purchased my 2004 DTS, I followed printed material and used regular gas. Then, after 2000 miles, i had guage warnings on the fuel inj, and the dealer replaced the inj and portions of electronics under warantee. The dealership told me to use Supreme regardless of printed material....Anyone have experience here??? Thanks (especially with Gas prices in Seattle) HA!... or is it, expensive car, expensive gas? lol SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE SENSE HERE...
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Posts: 489
    I agree that the CTS is nicely finished inside and you are right about the BMW/Deville customers. My wife likes the Deville for her real estate customers. It is comfortable, not cramped for 4 passengers and her customers are relaxed in it. She says she also feels successful when she drives it. I went through the German phase of my life with a VW Quantum and an '86 Audi 5000S. The Audi was far better design-wise than anything else built in 1986 -in fact if it was sold today anyone would consider it a contemporary design. Unfortunately it was an incredible lemon with all sorts of electronic problems. It had a 50,000 mile warranty but I took lots of annual leave taking it back and forth to the dealers in both Washington and later in New Orleans. I dumped it at 48k and haven't been back to German cars since. (my English phase was a Jag MK X -another lemon - It was practically new and when it ran it ran beautifully). I agree with Cadillac's philosophy and may very well get the new STS when it is a year old or so depending on its size. It is bigger than the CTS. The new DTS should be nice, too. I don't have any problem with the CTS and would probably buy one if they made it in a coupe or convertible but as a 4 door sedan road car the Deville is more comfortable and I don't have any problem with its handling and performance. The CTS would be fine to drive to the office and zip around town but it has a woefully tight back seat. The STS and the DTS will rectify the lack of back seat space. Actually from a design standpoint, the present Deville has nice lines , almost as good as the 1965-67 Devilles which were beautifully proportioned. The problem with the CTS is that for less money there are plenty of nice mid-size cars such as the Camry or Avalon. Reliability and resale are great for these.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Posts: 489
    I've used regular in my 2003 base Deville with no problem at all. Your car is supposed to use regular. I use Chevron pretty much exclusively which seems to be fine.
  • hydra2hydra2 Posts: 114
    I have used regular (shell or Mobil)in my 2002 dts for 19,000 miles with no problems. Unless changes have been made, which I doubt, the DeVille is designed to run best on regular grade gasoline. In fact, previous posters have complained of carbonization problems when they used premium. You might want to try switching brands and avoiding the cheap generic brands.
  • richard5richard5 Posts: 2
    Thanks I used the GM link I found it very helpful. Richard5
  • richard5richard5 Posts: 2
    Hello I am new to Edmunds. Does anyone have idea what it will cost to have a night vision camera lens repaired?
  • caddy4caddy4 Posts: 1
    Has anyone heard of this problem?
    I came in to local dealer for a state car inspection.I was told first that the car was too heavy for the tires that came with the car and I would need to replace all 4 tires.I had 19,000 miles on the car.When I questioned this, he changed the story to that the tires were not properly maintained.After questioning THIS STORY he decided that only 2 of the 4 tires needed replacing but he would have to keep an eye on the remaining 2 tires.
    Has anyone else that is OLDER had a similar experience?
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Posts: 489
    I think that the person at the dealership is in need of professional mental health care.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    My 2002 SLS owners manual says to use at least 87 octane. Here (high altitude) regular is 85. My owners manual goes on to say that for "best performance" one might wish to use a higer octane fuel.

    I have been using premium (91 octane here).
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Posts: 489
    The "Regular" here is 86 octane (4600'). I've used it in my 2003 Deville
    and it runs just fine. I don't see spending the money on high test when regular is what the car was designed for. Performance is fine as well.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    My interpretation of what the owners manual is saying is this: the engine was designed to degrade performance when low octane fuel is used, but if you want the performance that you paid dearly for, premium fuel is required. I do know that I can get 32 MPG on the highway with premium.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Posts: 489
    I'm getting 30-31 on the highway but I'll take your advice and the next time I do a trip I'll try premium. It can't hurt. I was always of the opinion that if it didn't knock on regular, regular was ok. I stick with Chevron anyway and never use off brands. My other cars are a 2001 Malibu and a 1998 Silhouette so performance wise even with regular, the Cadillac is a vast improvement! I wonder if premium will improve city mileage which is terrible.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    You should understand that the engine has knock sensors and the engine control computer is able to adjust the ingnition timing to reduce knock. So, reading what my owners manual says, implies that the engine needs a minimum of 87 octane fuel, but that the computer can make use of higher octane fuel to improve power and performance. I am not sure how much difference you will see in gas mileage. My highway mileage is based on a couple of short highway trips at this point in time. I was cruising at about 65-70.

    I know that a lot of people think buying premium fuel is a waste, even if their engine requires premium. From my point of view, 600 gallons of fuel per year at 20 cents more per gallon is $120. So I think you should buy what makes sense for the cadillac. But pre-2000 model year cadillacs were supposed to get premium fuel only.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Posts: 489
    I'll at least move up to the mid-level gasoline. I think that is 88. I know regular here is 86. I think premium is 91. I've heard a lot of stories about using premium in a car that is supposed to run on regular. Most "experts" say that it is a waste of money but I can always put in a tank of mid-level once in a while.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Well, the way I read my owner manual, my 275 horsepower engine will only produce 275 horsepower when it is burning premium gas. If it gets regular the computer will retard the timeing and reduce the horsepower. This is really all that I am saying. The owners manual does say that you can use 87 octane fuel without damaging the engine. It also says that you won't get full power on regular.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Posts: 489
    Good - I may even try premium when I'm in the chips and see how much difference it actually makes performance-wise. If I don't notice much of a difference as I assume I won't I'll stick with regular. Has anybody else done a comparison? This discussion reminds me of the advocates of the 0-60 comparison. Car A is much faster than Car B because it goes from 0-60 in 7.3 seconds instead of 7.8 seconds or even (God forbid) - 8.1 seconds. These folks need to get a life. The only value of "performance" as far as I'm concerned is the ability to pass some slowpoke who is going 60 on a 70 MPH road and get back in the right lane before being impacted. Just my opinion, however.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    That's what I call folks who want to drive a Premium car, but are too cheap to buy Premium fuel for their high performance power plant. Those who fall into that category are really Buick people, pretending in their DeVilles, IMO.

    You'll likely not save any money afterall, my engineer friends tell me. Your mileage will also be degraded along with your performance, generally.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Posts: 489
    Perhaps your engineer friends as well as some of the people on this list can tell me exactly what the difference is in gas mileage on regular vice premium gas. When you are paying $2.00 a gallon the difference in cost between regular and premium is not significant especially when you are doing a road trip but the discussion about degraded "performance" or "power" or "mileage" is not specific enough for me. I don't have any problem with the way the car runs and the highway gas mileage I'm getting on regular but if your friends can provide something other than generalities I'd be all ears.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Well, you know, dispencer, they'd have to test your car. YMMV. So generalities is all they have to offer. Not sure I believe it myself in ALL cases....

    I still don't get the cheapskate logic though. I have friends who do it, my business partner does it in his Volvo, and I call him names too. I even have a friend with a 00 DeVille who does it. But, he proves my point. He's not a Cadillac man, he's really a Ford/Toyota guy, who happened to get a great deal on a used DeVille, and just can't bear to pay the extra .20 a gallon to feed it premium. Cheapskate. He should go back to his Toyota, he'd be more comfortable.
Sign In or Register to comment.