Howdy, Stranger!

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

Cadillac DeVille



  • 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 -
    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:
    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: 18,046
    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.
    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:
  • 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!!
Sign In or Register to comment.