Options
Cadillac STS/STS-V: What's New for 2007?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Compared to the performance models 3.42s with overdrive 0.76 (2.60) and the rear tire size of 255/45-18s, rpms are 2004, or about 400 more revs per mile. 'Course that is what gives it the tremendous low speed punch. And yet, aren't the EPA fuel economy estimates about the same at 17/26? If so, it doesn't make any sense that the higher geared car wouldn't do better fuel economy wise, does it?
BTW, R & Ts overall average was only 15.6 mpg. Guess they were "kicking it" quite a bit!
Wonder what kind of fuel mileage the average driver is getting driving in a more normal fashion?
With that lower geared set up, Road and Track (08/2004) figured 43 mph in first, 67 mph in second, 92 mph in third, and 147 mph in fourth (direct drive) at 6450 rpm.
BTW, ever hear one of these motors at 6K or higher? What a sweet sound! I once did it in a SLS rental with those high gears (2.11s), and the digital speedo read 90 mph just as it shifted out of second gear!
Thanks for those gear ratios.
Does anyone know if this RPO that is listed as being of "late availability" which does list different Michelin performance type tires is more than just being different tires, such as the suspension perhaps being adjustable?
Or does it simply stiffen up the ride all the time?
The performance packages include the computer control magnetic suspension on the V8s. V6 does not appear to get magnetic shocks. Only the premium luxury performance package seems to get the 18 inch wheels, with an option of summer tires.
In 2004, the EPA rated the STS MPG separatly from the SLS. SLS 18/26, STS 17/24.
From the order guide:
"QAF Performance Handling Package, includes Tires,
P235/45ZR18 18" Michelin Pilot Sport, front and
P255/45ZR18 rear (summer only tires) and
Performance Brake Linings
1 - Not available for 2005 Model Year start-up. Requires(M22) Transmission, 5-speed automatic, RWD. Not available with(MV3) Transmission, 5-speed automatic, AWD."
Also - it is listed as available only with the 1SG package.
- Ray
Who has not seen one yet . . .
Diameter - from Miata calculator:
235/50 x 17 = 26.3
255/45 x 17 = 26.0
235/45 x 18 = 26.3
255/45 x 18 = 27.0
1SE = 235/50 f & r
1SF = 235/50 f & 255/45 r
1SG = 235/45 x 18 f & 255/45 x 18 r W all season
1SG /QAF = same but Z and NOT all season (Pilot Sports)
1SE vs. 1SF rear tires diameter: 26.3 / 26.0 = 1.15% diff
Just over 1% - where final drive ratio 1SF = 3.23 / 1SE = 2.73 = over 18% diff
I would just expect that the 1SF w/3.23 must have to be rated (if not 18% lower – there are other factors at work) at least 12% to 15% lower in the EPA highway test. (23 or 22 mpg – not 26)
Just rather curious. I wonder if Caddy was able to arrive at the 26 by suggesting a likely sales mix of something like 75% 1SE and 20% 1SF and 5% 1SG – and the 1SE actually received a 27 or 28 EPA highway rating. Thus resulting in a weighted average of 26.
And it may have to be recalculated once sales volume reaches some level.
Something like this I believe is what happened when (or actually after) the Lincoln LS was first introduced. I believe that the Audiophile system was restricted and then actually stripped of the sub-woofer – and the full size spare was replaced with the donut – because actual option mix sold resulted in a higher average weight than was certified.
I wonder what the real world MPG for each will actually turn out to be.
- Ray
Wondering if we will ever know how Caddy calculated their STS EPA ratings . . .
(excerpts from: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/factshts/fefact01.pdf)
Manufacturers are only required to test one vehicle in each base level (combination of inertia weight classes (250 to 500 pound increments)), transmission class (type of transmission such as Manual 4-speed), and basic engine (engine size, number of cylinders, and type of fuel system (such as 5.0-liter, 8 cylinder, multi-point fuel injected engine).
The required vehicle is chosen on the basis of highest sales projection.
Label values are calculated for different vehicle models by sales weighting the projected sales and fuel economy of one or more test vehicles.
- Ray
Not sure if this helps or further obfuscates . . .
Best I can find so far is $57,085 for a loaded 1SG with an MSRP of $60,610.
The invoice is $55,133.
The car will have to be ordered 'cause there simply isn't this exact car at any dealer I've checked.
Should I perhaps check further for a better price?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2005.pdf
There is only 1 listing for the RWD V8 - 17 / 26.
That still confuses me with the vastly different final drive ratios.
And only 1 listing for the V8 AWD - 16 / 22.
Seems like quite a ‘hit’ for the virtues of AWD, where (geographically) they matter.
- Ray
Fortunate to live where RWD is just fine, thank you . . .
And worse than the CTS w/3.6L V6 (w/the same automatic) @ 18 / 27.
Odd.
- Ray
Waiting for feedback from owners . . .
(Just confirmed w/my Audi sales guy.)
At least the Audi has a 21 gal. tank - vs. 17.5 for the STS . . .
- Ray
Looking at driving the A6 next week . . .
The unadjusted ratings are:
CTS (3.6 auto) 19.5/35.2
STS (3.6 auto) 19.3/31.4
STS (4.6 auto) 18.5/32.7
STS (4.6 auto/AWD) 17.7/28.8
I would really like to see a 3.23:1 axle offered on the CTS for better fuel economy. On the STS V8 a 2.93:1 ratio would give better performance than the 2.73:1 while fuel consumption should not be excessive.
Agreed.
Well, more precisely, I find the fact that the V6 STS receives a worse estimate than the V8 STS to be odd.
And the fact that the STS V6 only receives an (apparent) 1 MPG ‘penalty’ (vs. the V6 3.6L A5) in the CITY portion, but a 3 MPG lower rating in the HWY portion, where I’d expect that weight is less of an issue, seems odd to me.
- Ray
To whom so many things seem odd . . .
(And the actual / raw city #-s by 10%.)
- Ray
Thinking 32+ mpg in any real world driving would be difficult to obtain in a V8 STS . . .
My 2002 Seville (LS with 3.11:1 axle) averaged 29 on a trip to the west coast in August (A/C on). At times the average MPG on the Driver Information Center was 33, although 30+ was mostly the case. The 29 was based on the actual fuel put into the tank for the whole trip. When I was sightseeing (Mt. St. Helens, Crator Lake, highway 1), MPG dropped off to about 27 on the DIC.
With the 3.42:1 axle, I think the V8 STS will not get better MPG than the V6. The V8 with 3.23:1 might do as well as the V6, the 2.73:1 ratio could do better though.
The Premimum Luxury Package (1SG) has the 3.42 ratio.
What about the 1SF and the 1SE?
I think the average Plain Jane 1SE may have really tall gears like perhaps the 2.73s, at least the one I drove was going well over 70 mph when the tach was approaching 2000 rpms. I was expecting the tach to read 2000 rpms with the speedometer at 60 mph, but they were far apart. Was surprised at the good acceleration however.
Are the 3.23s reserved only for the AWD models?
I want to order the 1SG, but I'm afraid that at the speeds that everyone is crusing at today, I'll wind up turning 2850 to 3000 rpm! And reving at those rpms, will the car with the 1SG option even get 20 mpg?
BTW, does anyone here know where the SPID is located?
http://media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/cadillac/sts/index05.h- tml
I'm not sure whether this is the exact tire that comes with the 1SE RPO or not, but I tried!
The difference for the 17 inch tire and the 255/45-18s that are supplied with the 1SG RPO package makes for 762 revs per mile. 762 X 3.42 X .76, or 1980 rpms at 60 mph.
This means that the regular sedan with 1SE that has 2.73s will be going 12 mph faster at the same (2000) rpm.
No way that the performance axle equipped 1SG (3.42) will deliver the same highway fuel economy even with the slightly larger wheel and tire combination.
Maybe mount the 255/55-18s that are available on the SRX if they'll fit?
To bad it's not possible to order a fully equipped 1SG with the 2.73s, or the 2.93s that come standard with the XLR 2-seater.
Do you know for sure what your rear-end ratio is?
Or, what exact rpm are you turning at exactly 60 mph in overdrive fifth gear with the T/C engaged or locked up? Knowing that, one should be able to determine the exact rearend ratio.
Anyone know where the SPID is located? It will show all the RPO codes for your car including the gear ratio.
G80 is the RPO code for the limited slip differential, and the ratio codes will be one of these:
GU2 - 2.73 - 1SE
GU5 - 3.23 - All-wheel drive models and maybe the 1SF
GU6 - 3.42 - 1SG
Done any fuel economy testing yet?
Was wondering what you are getting in your real world conditions?
For Ray . . how do you know that the 1SF you test drove had 3.23s?
If the 1SF has 3.23s and 17 inch wheels and tires, that will work out to be almost the same overall ratios (rpms) as the 1SG package with the 18 inch wheels and tires, right?
if the 3.42:1 axle with 18 inch wheels is 2000 RPMs at 60 MPH
then the 3.23:1 axle with 17 inch wheels should be 1960 RPMs at 60 MPH
The 2.73:1 axle would give 1655 RPMs at 60 MPH. This axle would permit 1st gear to reach 50 MPH, 2nd to hit 80 MPH and 3rd to reach 110 MPH. The quarter mile with the 3.42:1 gears is reached in 4th gear in the magazine tests.
So nbfc260 . . IF you would be so kind as to open your trunk, lift that floor compartment cover and inspect your SPID label for the RPO that starts with GU - and tell us what that number is on
your car. I can't find one at a dealer to verify what is the correct rear-end ratio for the 1SF option. Thanks in advance.
Checked out a 1SE and it did have the correct RPO (GU2) for the 2.73s.
sls002 . .
Don't know how you got 1655 rpms when I calculate only 1629 but we are close enough for debating to be sure.
It depends on which tires we're using for the revs per mile.
The one I'm using is a Michelin 235/50-17 that shows 785 revs per mile (26.3".) Your calculation is based on another Michelin tire, a 26.0"(?) that turns 797 revs per mile?
BTW, the standard tire for the 1SE isn't 255/45-17, but 235/50-17. Maybe that's where we differ?
TireRack isn't up to date on most of the tires that are listed as OEM for these cars.
Neither is the Michelin site!
We do know for sure that whatever it turns out to be exactly, it is 300 plus rpm lower than the 2000 rpm figure that is agreed upon for the 1SG option that has 3.42 with 255/45-18 drivers.
Someone with access to GMVIS did a vehicle build and said the 1SF is 3.23.
- Ray
Impressed with the difference in ‘liveliness’ between 2.73 and 3.23 . . .
I think that the 17 inch wheels with 3.23 axle and the 18 inch wheels with the 3.42 axle should result in very similar performance. The 1SG should give the best performance (since it costs more), but the differences should be small. The 2.73 axle should result in less performance, but it may be only a half second on 0-60.
Well - my (un)calibrated "butt dyno" suggests more like a full second.
(My current Lincoln LS V8 has been independently established as capable of a mid-6 second 0-60 and 14.7-ish quarter.)
My guess is that the 1SE is a 7+ sec 0-60 and the 1SF is roughly equal to the 1SG times I have seen published (less than 6 sec.)
- Ray
Wondering if 1SE buyers will feel shortchanged . . .
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
There is also a horsepower needed graph that shows 25 horsepower are needed at ~67 MPH; 150 are needed at 135 MPH.
Randy
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.