Howdy, Stranger!

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





Cadillac STS/STS-V: What's New for 2007?

1242527293042

Comments

  • Got a call this morning from a very helpful salesman in Alhambra that went to the trouble of calling GM, and verifing that the "F" package, as he called it (that's the 1SF option package) does have 3.23s (GU5.)

    So the 1SE has 2.73s, the 1SF has 3.23s, and the 1SG has 3.42s.

    Because of the slight differences in the 1SF and 1SG equipment, I doubt if there will be even 50 rpms differnce at 60 mph. Still, the Premimum Luxury Performance (1SG) should have the edge because of its slightly my powerful overall gearing.

    If you want your STS to be a real highway cruiser and get better fuel economy, I think you'll need the 2.73 gears that are supplied with RPO 1SE.
    Wonder if Caddy would allow a person to order the 1SF or 1SG option with the higher GU2 (2.73) gears? I'll bet it'll be impossible with the lower gears (3.23s or 3.42s) to get 22 mpg on the highway, and at the speeds I like to cruise, probably only 19 or 20 mpg. Oh well!

    The EPA figures of 15/21 for the SRX with its 3.23s and RWD back this up, and with AWD, those figures are only 15/20 mpg. 'Course, the SRX is heavier, and with its 37+ C/D, what would one expect?

    - Derrel
    Waiting for nbfc260 to pick up on this, and lay the 'real' fuel economy truth on us!
  • chavis10chavis10 Posts: 166
    300 and STS cannot be compared. The 300C is a near luxury car with an abnormally powerful engine, that's all. The STS is a full fledged luxury sport sedan that needs to make no excuses. I wasn't all that impressed with the 300 when I drove it. It didn't seem to handle all that well. Its steering seemed slow to me and felt too isolated to be called a sport sedan. It's a nice car for people who want something more composed than a Town Car or Park Ave. The STS is not it's competition. Many cars try to undercut the leaders of a segment with bang for the buck. None have succeeded. Acura has a similar philosphy as does inifinti with its G35. Still people accept the overpriced, too-small 3 series as the benchmark.

    INTERIOR: The rear passenger area showed where the cost is saved. Cheap plastics and materials. The leather is not up to the Nuance/Tuscany standard of cadillac nor is the wood. The Nav screen is tiny and seats are not as supportive. I was not a fan of the driving position. It feels to high for a car. Feature for feature, 300 cannot compete with luxury cars which is why it costs thousands less.

    Mechanical: I think the 300 is really under-tired. A car with such a long wheelbase and high weight deserves more section width and shorter sidewalls. Who the heck came up with a 225/6018 tire for a car anyways? It's funny how people are saying the 300 is such a bargain compared to the STS when the 300 outclasses DaimlerChryslers on E class to which it owes its existence. It seems the 300 is trying to bring back the glory years of the big 3. Big engine attached to a basic family car with only mediocre underpinnings. Where as Sigma platform and the E class for that matter feature all aluminum controls arms and links, the 300 uses steel and iron. Sure, the 300 can accelerate pretty fast in a straight line, but it will not be able to handle with the STS. The SRX fells more responsive than does the 300C. The 5.7 V-8 has no personality. I couldn't hear it and it runs out of steam at about 5400 rpm. The Northstar gives you 6500 rpm and makes better sounds. Chrysler needs to study GM engineers to learn how to make an ohv V-8, LS1 far superior in every way.

    Cadillac is moving away from making excuses. To go up against the "best", you have to command respect and fight fire with fire. I think people assume that since BMWs, MBs, Audis, and Jags cost more and command a premium they are worth it. They feel you get what you pay for even though MB and Jag have proven that theory wrong with their quality issues. I don't like the fact of these higher MSRPs but they have to regain respect in the luxury arena.
  • eaton53eaton53 Posts: 356
    I agree completely with your accessment of the 300C, especially in the area of handling. I wasn't impressed either.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The AWD STS EPA numbers suggest 16/22, so I would think that the RWD with either the 3.42 or 3.23 axle would not be worse, and possibly 1 MPG better. But how fast you drive will determine the actual fuel consumption. For high speed driving, over 80 MPH, the 2.73 axle probably is not the best gearing either, as the torque converter may have trouble locking up.

    Anyway, my SLS gets over 30 MPG when I cruise at 70 MPH. I have not tried cruising at nearer 80. But I do know that a strong headwind (30-40 MPH) will burn more fuel. Loafing along at 70 will get me 600 to 700 miles in a day and I am ready to go the next morning.

    The Chrysler 300C is a low priced car. So was the 300M. I never looked at them, thinking that there was probably a reason why they were cheap.
  • Your SLS has almost the same gearing as the new 1SE STS.

    2.1148 vs. 2.0748, with the larger 27 inch tires making the overall gearing the same.
    It figures out to only about 20 revs per mile difference.

    Are you saying that you do not think that the T/C will remain engaged when you must
    lean on them a little more to get 'em to run at 80 mph or even higher?

    The T/C will lock up and remain engaged at a much lower speed than that, say at around 50 mph or even slightly lower. It'll remain locked up (engaged) until you must tip into the throttle more to get the horsepower you need to reach or maintain your desired speed.
    You do not have trouble remaining in lockup with your SLS at any higher speeds, do you?
    This relatively tall gearing is what gives you your excellent fuel mileage at higher speeds.

    The lower gearing of the FWD STS and the RWD STS will lower fuel economy at
    higher cruising speeds, but not by as much as the lower geared RWD STS.

    The 300C isn't even in the same ballpark with the new STS IMHO.
    Sure it'll outdrag it, but not by that much. That fuel economy trick where half of the cylinders are deactivated is a nice touch, but Caddy tried that once before (remember 8-6-4?) and it sure didn't work well for them then, did it? 'Course the technology is better now and maybe it'll work out okay for Chrysler in the long run, but I've read where most testers are not able to achieve anywheres near that EPA figure of 25 mpg.

    Which car will leave you more refreshed after driving it all day on a long trip?

    -Derrel
    Wondering when one of my nearby dealers will get a 1SF or 1SG is stock for a test drive?
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The gearing of the old FWD STS was very similar to the new STS with the 3.42:1 axle. The EPA highway numbers for the 2004/2005 Deville DTS (3.71:1 axle) are 2 MPGs less than the base deville. So my feeling is that the EPA STS highway should be near 24 MPG.

    What I noticed with my SLS is that when I passed someone and got up near 90, if I maintained that speed, the torque converter did not lockup very quickly, and in general stayed unlocked until I slowed down. I base that on the engine speed which was up near 3000 RPMs instead of the 2500 that it should have been. It does take nearly twice as much horsepower to cruise at 90 as it does to cruise at 70.
  • Agreed! I'm hoping that 24 mpg will turn out to be correct.

    That overall gearing is the same even though the numbers are different because
    of the differences in wheel/tire combination diameters, and therefore as you say,
    come out exactly the same.

    What happens to your SLS T/C when it is engaged, and you gradually increase your speed?
    In other words, how fast can you go without it becoming disengaged by gradually gaining speed
    with a very light application of the throttle, but not hard enough to cause it to unlock?

    Put another way, if you're at or near 90 mph after passing which caused the T/C to unlock because you had to kick it pretty hard, and it takes quite some time to re-engage or it doesn't seem to want to engage at all, what will happen if you ease off the throttle just a slight amount, maybe just enough to cause the loss of a little speed if necessary, will it then engage?
    I have discovered that it can take several seconds for the computer to realize that there is enough torque available at that speed and throttle setting or positioning for the T/C to become engaged.

    Another question: Will the T/C lock up when you have the transmission held in third speed
    using the lever? If that's the case, and I think it is, you could manually back shift from OD to third which should keep the T/C engaged, complete your pass and then move the lever back to O/D,
    and the T/C should remain engaged.

    These computers think in strange ways, no?

    Why does it takes it so long to decide that to engage the T/C is the correct thought?

    -Derrel
    Wondering why someone doesn't come out with a manual toggle switch arrangement
    to control T/C engagement
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I did speed up with the torque converter locked and got up to 90. I did not stay at that speed long though. I think my SLS is designed for cruising at legal US speed limits (~75) and not European autobahns. The STS was designed for the autobahns. GM is working on six speed transmissions and hopefully the top 3 gears will be close together:
    4:1, 2.5:1, 1.8:1, 1.3:1, 1:1, .75:1
    I'm not sure this is ideal, and with 3 planetary gearsets, the actual gears will depend on combinations.

    Yes, in held in third (or even not held), my SLS will lock up in third gear. I usually use third for climbing long steep grades.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I have a book on the 84 corvette that has some interesting charts. In particular, there is one showing the MPG in each gear for the automatic. Third and overdrive are probably the most useful. At 50 MPH in 3 - 22.5 MPG; 4th - 30 MPG. At 90 MPH in 3rd - 16 MPG; 4th - 20.5. 2000 RPMs results in 70 MPH in 4th; 50 MPH in 3rd.

    There is also a horsepower needed graph that shows 25 horsepower are needed at ~67 MPH; 150 are needed at 135 MPH.
  • bigmike5bigmike5 Posts: 960
    My dealer had a coming-out party for the new models, and had a black STS on the showroom floor. Got to paw it over for about twenty minutes to myself. Stickered for about $60k with the $11.8K luxury package. My reactions to it are as follows. I found the seats very firm compared to the wife's 00 Eldo and my 04 Vette, but I did not work the buttons for the lumbar, etc., so they may have been better when adjusted. The steering wheel adjustment was all power in all directions not just on the telescoping aspect. Looks like infinite positioning is possible which is great, I just wonder about the whiz bang electrical stuff that isn't all that necessary. Would hate to see that button fail. Rear seat room is almost non-existent. I set my front seat position and then climbed in the back. I am only 6' tall but have long legs. It would have been hard being back there on a long trip. Similar to the space in the wife's Eldo backseat. Why bother. Trunk opening was smaller than I liked, and the trunk was smaller in size than I expected. I looked at a CTS on the floor and it was almost the same size. In fact, I paced the two cars off and they are almost the same length. The fronts are almost identical except for the mesh in the lower grill and orange parking [?] lights. Didn't get to play with the Nav system, but otherwise the interior seemed pretty spartan, except for nice wood trim and a few bells and whistles which I didn't figure out what they were for. Probably garage door openers, and other high tech things. I had hoped to get a test drive then but it was just too busy. Will try again later. Want to compare the Magnetic Selective Ride in the STS with how the Vette's works. Should be like glass given how good the Vette's ride is now. On balance, it has to do a lot in the test drive for the money they want. Would be interesting to compare the six and eight. Oh yes, I opened the hood too, and the cover over the engine and the shrouds around the rest of the engine bay make seeing anything in there almost impossible. This design would have been a "breakthrough" three years ago, but with the CTS being here for three years already, it seems a lot less revolutionary.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Disturbing....but appreciated. Sounds like the Caddy is missing a lot of what I have liked about the Caddies of old. It may a helluva driver - and that's great and important, but it's gotta have room in the back seat, it's gotta be attractive inside, I want passengers to say WoW when they get inside, and it's gotta be bigger than the CTS, which is just way to small for a Cadillac in my opinion.
  • Both the STS and CTS share the same platform, but the STS has a longer wheelbase. The CTS has 99 cubic feet of interior room and a 13 cubic foot trunk. The STS has 104/13. This information is at http://www.fueleconomy.gov.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Cadillac's website indicates that the STS has a couple of inches more rear seat leg room than the CTS. Of course the amount of rear seat room depends on where the front seats are. The Deville is the big Cadillac. The Seville was a small Cadillac when first introduced in the mid-70's and the last generation Seville was smaller than the Deville. Sports sedans are not large vehicles.
  • Seat small compared to its competition? THe Eclass and 5 series, the S type or the GS?
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    STS rear seat legroom is 38 inches, 5-series BMW is 36 and E-class mercedes is 36-, lexus GS430 is 34+. Assuming that they are all using the same standard of measurement, one sees that the STS looks best on paper. The jag s-type is close at 37.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    The STS was sized based on its competition and they are not bigger. The deville will be redesigned next year and it will have plenty of room. If the STS was a roomy as the DTS there would be no purpose for the deville, the two cars would be in direct competition with each other.
  • clpurnellclpurnell Posts: 1,087
    At The GM auto show in motion. While it was a very quick drive I liked the car. But the steering was very over assisted and there was more body sway then I would have liked. However I think it is over priced. I am looking to replace my FX when the lease is over with maybe an E320 CDI, 530i, STS, M45, or RL. RIght now the STS would be a bit low on that list.
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Posts: 619
    Considering the demographic of buyers likely to visit Cadillac showrooms, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people who go in to see the STS drive out with a DeVille, which they will perceive as more car for less money (considering the discounts available). I presume that the dealers and GM won't mind if that's the case.
  • merckxmerckx Posts: 565
    i have to admit that it's not readily apparent to me why espically the Seville,but STS,too,is more than the Deville....
    Randy
  • volvodan1volvodan1 Posts: 196
    To the customer who thinks larger size equals larger dollars, it is the case. But we have sold all of our new STS's to non-Cadillac customers.

    The demographics of Cadillac customers is not what you would think. The customers who generally buy the Deville do fall into that demographic. But CTS, SRX, Escalade, etc. prospects are not that demographic. The STS will probably have more of a mix of the two Cadillac demographics.

    The STS is a much better value than the Deville, IMHO. For only being somewhat more than the Deville (sometimes) it is twice the car. But really they are two totally different cars.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The Seville (FWD) is on a shorter wheelbase. The base Deville is a six passenger bench seat car. The base Seville was a 5 passenger euro style seating. Cadillac liked to think the FWD STS was a sports sedan, but the market did not buy that. I would say that the DTS and STS were very similar, with the Seville TS on a shorter wheelbase. I like my SLS with premium luxury package.

    The new RWD STS is a sports sedan. With V6 a nicely equipped STS can be had for under $45000. A base Deville with minimal options to make it into a respectable Cadillac, runs nearly $50,000. For that you do get a V8.
  • about the lack of the new STS rear quarters, when the competition all have smaller seats? Car and driver started this nonsence, and now a bunch or nay-sayers are joining the fray.

    What gives?
  • volvodan1volvodan1 Posts: 196
    It's compared to the Deville that it is smaller. To the CTS customer it is better.
  • The sound system (Bose 5.1) and navigation are incredible. The STS is certainly comparable to the 5 series and E class.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Motor Trend did complain (not sure offhand about C&D). Novemeber's Motor Trend had a letter to editor pointing out that Motor Trends pictures of rear seat room showed that the BMW was even less roomy and they did not comment on that. Motor Trend agrees that the STS is better than the BMW, but the Malibu Maxx is more like it.
  • bigmike5bigmike5 Posts: 960
    I didn't want to be a troll here, that was not my intent. I just set the front seat to a comfortable depth for my size and then got in the back. There was not much room for the knees, that was all I was saying. They did scoop out the back of the front seat giving a little more room because of the concave effort. The wife's 00 Eldo has about the same space but without the scooped out area. Of note, when you look under the Eldo's hood you find about 9" of unused space in front of the motor, which alway made me wonder what they were thinking when they could have put those extra inches in the rear seat area to improve rear seat comfort.

    The salesman I talked with about the STS also stated that the 8 gets better gas mileage than the 6. I can believe that, as the wife's Eldo with the Northstar engine has gotten 30 m.p.g on our longer road trips pushing 70 mph. My 6 cylinder Chrysler 300M only gets 26-27 in the same kind of driving.
  • that teh V8 is more comfortable with the cars heft, and that the V6 has to do more work to keep it at speed.
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Posts: 619
    The eight gets better mileage than the six because of the lower (numerical) rear axle ratio (in the 1SE version).
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    If you don't understand what a "sport sedan" is, then the STS won't make any sense to you. In any case, the Deville is the Cadillac with rear seat legroom, at least according to the "standard measurement", with more rear seat legroom than front seat legroom.

    The V6 has a 3.42:1 axle ratio standard with no optional ratio, while the V8 comes standard with the 2.73:1 gears. The 2.73:1 axle is very similar to the 3.11:1 "axle" ratio for the FWD Cadillacs with the "base" northstar V8. The FWD base engine is EPA rated about 2 MPG better than the "high output" northstar's, which have 3.71:1 gearing.
  • Does anyone know any details of the STS-V?? Will a dealer take a deposit on a V??
This discussion has been closed.