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?

1525355575863

Comments

  • hammen2hammen2 Posts: 1,313
    It would be best if you knew what was causing the light to come on, rather than ignoring it/shutting it off. The light does exist/come on for a reason...

    Some auto parts places (i.e. Autozone) will read the code and tell you what the problem is, for no charge.

    Otherwise, if you know why the light is on (i.e. loose gas cap - very frequent reason), you could disconnect the negative terminal from the battery for about 30 minutes. This should cause the computer to reset - the code may be stored, but the light should go out.

    --Robert
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Click and Klack (cartalk-PBS) suggest putting a bit of tape over it - either black electrical tape or duct tape.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,661
    And, duct tape can now be purchased in red or yellow, so no more dull, drab, silver/gray...duct tape aka Alabama Chrome...:):):)
  • I am considering purchasing a 2003 Seville STS. This is still front wheel drive, V-8 engine which sets crosswise. the battery is under the back seat. I haven't driven it yet, just talked to the salesman over the phone. It has power front seats, heated and cooled. Memory outside mirrors and front seats. Bose sound system. This car has 36,810 miles on it with 3 years left on GM 6 year, 100,000 mile warranty. On Star paid for 6 months. Are there any major problems with this year model? Are there terminals in the engine compartment for jumper cables if needed? How difficult is it to get to the battery?
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,476
    I have not seen the issue yet, but a usually reliable source writes that Jan 2006 MT test results are:

    STS-V
    0-60 4.8
    0-100 11.9
    1/4 Mile 13.3@105.7
    60-120 13.3
    100-140 15.7
    130-0 553 ft
    100-0 317
    Skidpad 0.90
    mpg 17

    CLS55
    0-60 4.3
    0-100 9.8
    1/4 Mile 12.5@114.5
    60-120 9.7
    100-140 10.4
    130-0 546 ft
    100-0 320
    Skidpad 0.91
    mpg 18

    - Ray
    Pondering . . .
  • It looks like the difference in acceleration is about 11-12%, favoring CLS55.

    The difference in base price will be about 11-14%, favoring STS-V.

    The difference in the "out the door" price will be 17- 20%,
    favoring STS-V.

    The difference to the American economy in buying an American vehicle is about 99.99%, favoring you if your paid in US Dollars.
  • A couple more questions about the 2003 STS V-8:
    1. What fuel does it use--premium or regular unleaded?

    2. Is this year model STS well insulated against outside noise like GM ads say the 2005 models are?
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I think that the STS is supposed to get premium fuel. The SLS (I have a 2002 model) can use 87 octane, but I use premium because I think that the preformance is very marginally better. I find that my car is quiet. The battery is under the rear seat and is not hard to get to. There is a box under the hood for jumping I think, although I would not recommend going around jumping other cars. You should not need a jump to get started.

    One thing to monitor carefully is the coolant level. Any loss of coolant needs to be checked out sooner rather than later, as a leaky head gasket can result in engine failure. The most probable cause will be a failing water pump that should be repaired before the engine overheats. An overheated engine might result in a head gasket failure.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,476
    C+D just received last night:
    They also report STS-v Quarter Mile as: 13.3
    (Comparison test with MB and BMW M5.)
    - Ray
    Unable to recall any other numbers . . .
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,476
    [[ Edit: 13.2 - at 107 - sorry! ]]

    And they quote the EPA rating as 14 / 20.

    C+D just received last night:
    They also report STS-v Quarter Mile as: 13.3
    (Comparison test with MB and BMW M5.)
    - Ray
    Unable to recall any other numbers . . .
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,476
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

    2006 STS-v is now reported here.
    - Ray
    Thinking at least 20 is better than 17 . . over 17% better, in fact . . and given the (relatively) small STS fuel tank size . .
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    and the brakes that stop it

    image

    image
  • hi my name is rocky. i have a problem that maybe you could help me out with. i have a cadillac sts 95'. it used to overheat but now it backfires and wont start. i have to wait a while so it can start. once it starts and runs there is a rattling noise. what is the problem and what can i do to fix it? it also loses compression. when i bought it had been in an accident. i bought it for $500. at first it had the wrong radiator on so i replaced it. then i changed the thermostat. i also took off the catalytic converter from the exhaust, at least i think thats what its called. id appriciate it if you could help me out. thanks.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    You might want to also post this in our Got a Quick, Technical Question? discussion. Good luck - hope we can help.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,476
    It has been quite some time since I was this disappointed in a test drive. Probably 20 years – or more.

    The STS-V is not a bad car. Not nearly. But the driving dynamics do not justify the MSRP, IMHO. Not nearly. And I in no way mean to disrespect the V.

    The interior is quite nice. Fit, finish, materials and ergonomics on the Black over Gray example I drove were acceptable. The seating is comfortable.

    The issues for me were the drivetrain and the suspension. The dynamics.

    First, the motor. I do not doubt the published acceleration numbers. But in about 10 miles of driving – from busy4 & 6 lane surface streets to just over 90 MPH on the Interstate, the engine just does not feel that powerful and the car does not feel as quick as the numbers would suggest. In 2nd and 3rd and 4th gear, the acceleration seemed quite ‘flat’.

    The exhaust is very quiet – allowing the predominant noise at all times to be the supercharger whine. From outside (as the salesman was backing it in against the dealer’s showroom, there was a bit of burble – and the whine seemed less pronounced. But I would be (much) more concerned with what I hear while driving.

    The 6 speed automatic trans. is (as stated most everywhere) a bit slow to respond – particularly on downshifts. I drove exclusively in Manumatic mode – as I almost always have in my current and past 3 sport sedans. It does not rev match on downshifts – making downshifts to 3rd or 2nd rather more jolting than I’d hoped. Upshifts are executed reasonably quickly and are well managed – but again the pause between request & shift is long enough to be annoying.

    I found the suspension to be rather irritatingly stiff & harsh over many surfaces. Again, surprisingly so. (They did dump the Magnaride. Interesting.) The handling seemed OK – I did not push the cornering much, with the salesman in the right seat. But the ride did not impress me. I did check the tire pressures – 31 or 32 PSI in each.

    Now, a bit of background, to help put this in some context. The last really high performance sedan I drove was the 2004 Jag S-Type R the general manager of the local dealership ‘forced’ me (of please, no) to take for 36 hours. At roughly the same time I test drove several other $50 – 60K Sport Sedans – Audi S4 and A6 V8s, etc. Prior to that I have driven a couple of Lincoln LS V8 Sports for a total of over 50,000 miles. (A Y2K and a 2003.) I currently am driving a 2005 Grand Prix GXP.

    My GXP feels quicker than the V. I realize that it is not. Published numbers peg the GXP at low 14s in the Quarter. It sounds better than the V – to me. (Essentially no mechanical engine noise – and Pontiac engineered the exhaust to allow some of the heterodyne V8 beat through.) The (rather) old style 4 speed automatic with TAPShift manumatic control actually feels much better (to me) when it shifts up and down that the V. And the pauses before shift execution seem shorter. Weird. And the GXP’s ride (I drove it on most of the same test drive loop immediately after I left the dealership) is actually a better compromise between ride and handling. Again – for \ to me.

    Odd. Very odd.

    More to the point: Although in some respects one could argue that the S-Type R is not a direct competitor to this V, if those were my only 2 choices – I’d pick the Jag – in a heartbeat. The acceleration feel was better in the 400 HP Jag. The J-Gate is not a wonderful substitute for a true manumatic, but the trans. overall was superior to the V’s. The Jag’s ride was much better. Etc.

    I have no intention of driving a car such as the STS-V or the Jag on a track. I am thus only concerned about what it can do under real world conditions – and particularly how it ‘feels’ while performing at well below absolute cornering limits. From a Car and Driver test of the S-Type R: “ . . handling remains in a league with the M5 and Mercedes E55 AMG, but the ride is considerably more plush.”

    I took the test drive (I had not initially intended to even ask to drive the V) largely because the current limited supply, and initial allotment in some areas apparently being sold might limit test drive access – for a while. Thus my attempt to offer some insight from a potential buyer’s perspective. My only goal here is to try to provide readers with another point of view – typically at least slightly different from those who test drive for a living.

    My focus here on acceleration is largely because I would use all of the acceleration available every day I drove it. Since I can do that, at least for some duration, with most anything short of a Corvette Z06. Safely, legally, and without annoying other citizens too much. In contrast, I do not exceed 7 or 8 tenths of absolute cornering capability, for instance, in my street driving. Leaving room for the unexpected. But acceleration – there I feel that I can use all of it – and much more often.

    Part of my point here in specifying the sedans I have driven is actually that since I have ** not ** owned a directly competing sedan, my expectations were that I’d be extremely impressed. (The term "blown away" comes to mind here.) If I drove one of the direct competitors daily, I would likely have been even less impressed than I was. But I think Caddy is looking for potential buyers among those that currently own sedans that one could classify as ‘one rung down’ from the V. Those with an STS V8 (1SF or 1SG) class sedan, for instance, or one of the many competitors in that class, now looking to step up. And again, I in no way mean my car ownership & test driving experiences to impress or qualify me – only to provide background and context.

    So. Just my $0.02 . . .
    YMMV.
    - Ray
    Crossing the V off the shopping list . .
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by the acceleration being "flat". I suspect that you mean there isn't a noticable increase in performance as the engine speed increases. One should not be surprised at this as the torque is flat averaging right at 420 lb-ft from 2000 RPM's to 6000 RPM's. The peak is 439, ~5% more than the average, but the point here is that the torque is plus or minus 5% of 420 lb-ft over the 2000 to 6000 RPM range. So one should not expect a burst of power as the engine picks up speed.

    The six speed automatic is new, and may need some refinement before it performs as it should. When it comes to ride and handling, you can have one or the other, but the best combination of both is very difficult. Cadillac has used the variable shock absorber to try to get the best of both and I am not sure they were very successful in the past.
  • The STS-V beat out the MB and was 2nd place behind the BMW is a Car and Driver test. I am not sure if it was mentioned here.

    If you felt the acceleration flat it was b/c compared to your car this is a vault of solidity and I am sure in the MB and BMW you would get the same feeling. This is why these cars cost 75K and not 35K. Its one thing to make it go fast, its another to make it do so effortlessly.

    I don't understand why this forum is so dead. This car is NOT in any way outclassed by its competition. What gives?
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    The only reason the STS-V won over the CLS55 was because of a bigger back seat and cheaper price. In performance the STS-V is indeed outclassed by the CLS55 and it can't even come close to the M5. The CLS55 beaten the STS-V in Motor Trend quite easily, and Automobile Magazine came right out and said that STS-V doesn't have what it takes to compete the Germans.

    That latter comment Automobile may have been a little overboard though. It is an impressive car though still.

    If nothing else the STS-V is easily "outclassed" when it come to performance.

    M
Sign In or Register to comment.