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

derrelhgreen · September 2004

Wow, with the 0.76 overdrive and the plain Jane's 2.73s, you'd have a rather high overall gear ratio of only 2.075. With the standard 235/50-17 tires, that's just barely over 1600 revs per mile (1612) or only 1612 at 60 mph! If those high gears didn't knock the socks off of low speed performance, you'd really have good fuel economy on a long trip.

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.

derrelhgreen · September 2004

Regarding RPO QAF listed at $795,

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?

sls002 · September 2004

The car magazines (R&T, C&D) tested the STS with 3.42:1 axle and had 18 inch wheels. They reported 2000 RPM's at 60 MPH. STS's with the 2.73:1 axle probably have the 17 inch wheels, so the tire diameter will have to be taken into account.

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.

rayainsw · September 2004

"more than just being different tires"

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 . . .

rayainsw · September 2004

STS Wheel tire combo sizes

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 . . .

sls002 · September 2004

As yet, the EPA has not releasted 2005 numbers. They will publish by November and perhaps in October their website will post the offical numbers. They may list 3 values for the V8 STS. My 2002 SLS will get around 30 MPG on the highway cruising at 2000 RPM's (72 MPH).

rayainsw · September 2004

EPA fuel mileage testing

(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 . . .

derrelhgreen · September 2004

What kind of deals has everyone been getting?

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?

sls002 · September 2004

I expect to drive my 2002 Seville a few more years. Since the STS is all new, what sort of deal you can get will depend on how sales go. If you can get a deal on a custom order now, I don't know that you can do better. I have not seen one yet although the local dealer seems to have one V8 luxury in stock.

rayainsw · October 2004

The new 2005 Fuel Economy Guide is now on-line at:

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 . . .

sls002 · October 2004

Probably they have some guess on the number of cars with the base axle ratio (most of them?) and the higher performance gears. But, the 3.42:1 gearing is nearly the same as the old STS's 3.71:1 gearing, so fuel economy could be better with the VVT engine. But the V6 should do better than the V8 with the same gears. So the number must reflect the 2.73:1 gearing.

rayainsw · October 2004

STS V6 is worse than the V8 @ 17 / 24.
And worse than the CTS w/3.6L V6 (w/the same automatic) @ 18 / 27.

Odd.
- Ray
Waiting for feedback from owners . . .

rayainsw · October 2004

OTOH, the new 2005 A6 4.2 w/6 speed Tip AWD is listed at 17 / 23.
(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 . . .

sls002 · October 2004

The STS is a bit heavier than the CTS, so it should burn more fuel. The Deville is 18/26 and the DTS is 17/24. The SRX V8 is 15/21 or 15/20 (AWD). I would guess that the STS (3.42:1) would run about 17/23-24. The XLR is 17/25, but the axle is 2.93:1 and the transmission is probably programmed for better response (at least my 86 Corvette's automatic was).

sls002 · October 2004

I looked at the unadjusted numbers for 2003, 2004 and 2005 and there are some problems: the northstar numbers for deville, DTS and bonneville are all the same??? As they say, the MPG ratings are only guidelines and your results may vary.

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.

rayainsw · October 2004

The STS is a bit heavier than the CTS, so it should burn more fuel.

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 Id expect that weight is less of an issue, seems odd to me.

- Ray
To whom so many things seem odd . . .

rayainsw · October 2004

By 'unadjusted' - do you mean before they reduce the HWY numbers by 22%?
(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 . . .

sls002 · October 2004

I assume that the unadjusted is before the 22% and then rounding to the nearest integer. The EPA numbers are done on a "treadmill" when the emissions testing is done. So there is also an adjustment for the weight of the car. I'm not sure when that is done.

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.

sls002 · October 2004

They can (probably do) adjust the "treadmill" to simulate the weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle being tested. So the unadjusted numbers should be the results from the test. Taking 78% of the V8 STS is just over 25.5 and the V6 was just under 24.5 so they roundoff to 2 MPGs difference.

mbukukanyau · October 2004

Better be over 510 HP if anyone is going to notice it. It has to unseat the current kings. CL 65 AMG and M5

derrelhgreen · October 2004

Can anyone please explain which RPOs contain which ratios? I'm only concerned with the V8 models.

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?

sls002 · October 2004

As far as I can find, the only thing we know for sure is that the 1SG (premium luxury performance) package has the 3.42:1 axle. This axle ratio give 30 MPH per 1000 RPMs. So at 75 the engine will run at 2500 RPMs with torque converter locked up. The 2.73:1 would reduce this to 2000 RPMs but the base/luxury V8s have 17 inch wheels, so probably 2000 would be around 70. The 3.23:1 is also a RWD ratio:
http://media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/cadillac/sts/index05.h- tml

derrelhgreen · October 2004

Using the TireRack charts for Michelin 255/45-17s, that tire turns 794 revs per mile times the 2.73 ratio times .76, or 72.84 mph at 2000 rpms.
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.

derrelhgreen · October 2004

Congrats are in order!

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?

sls002 · October 2004

The 17 inch wheels with 255/45 tires are about 26 inches in diameter while the 18's are 27 inches in diameter. So the 17's will run about 4% faster. The 3.23:1 axle will run about 6% slower than the 3.42:1 axle. The net results of both 17 inch wheels and the 3.23:1 axle is that it should run about 98% as fast so:
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.

derrelhgreen · October 2004

nbfc260 . . Looks like it's up to you, as none of the four dealers that I visited had vehicles in stock with the 1SF option, although the GM BuyPower site showed all of them to have one or more of these vehicles in stock. All said that the vehicles were enroute. Yeh right!

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.

rayainsw · October 2004

For Ray . . how do you know that the 1SF you test drove had 3.23s?

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 . . .

sls002 · October 2004

I did assume 255/45's in back. But you are right, the GM site for dealer online orders say that the V8 gets 235/50's all around on base/luxury orders. So that would slow the engine even more. The 255/45 tire is about 26 inchs in diameter with 17 inch wheels. The 235/50 is about 1% larger diameter with 17 inch wheels.

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.

rayainsw · October 2004

"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 . . .

sls002 · October 2004

I was guessing a half second because the STS with 2.73:1 gears is geared like the FWD Seville with the 275 hp engine (3.11:1), while the 3.42:1 gears are very similar to the FWD STS gearing (3.71:1). Cadillac rated the 0-60 performance difference at a half second for the FWD STS vs SLS. Cadillac rates the STS 1SG package at 6 seconds or less for 0-60, while the V6 is said to do it in 7 seconds. I would think that the base V8 STS could do better than the V6.

derrelhgreen · October 2004

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!

chavis10 · October 2004

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.

eaton53 · October 2004

I agree completely with your accessment of the 300C, especially in the area of handling. I wasn't impressed either.

sls002 · October 2004

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.

derrelhgreen · October 2004

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?

sls002 · October 2004

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.

derrelhgreen · October 2004

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

sls002 · October 2004

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.

sls002 · October 2004

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.

bigmike5 · October 2004

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.

nvbanker · October 2004

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.

scottphillip · October 2004

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.

sls002 · October 2004

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.

exalteddragon1 · October 2004

Seat small compared to its competition? THe Eclass and 5 series, the S type or the GS?

sls002 · October 2004

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.

1487 · October 2004

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.

clpurnell · October 2004

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.

rcf8000 · October 2004

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.

merckx · October 2004

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

volvodan1 · October 2004

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.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles