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?



  • 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.

  • 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: 3,703
    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: 2,933
    I have not seen the issue yet, but a usually reliable source writes that Jan 2006 MT test results are:

    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

    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 . . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • 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: 2,933
    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 . . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,933
    [[ 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 . . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,933

    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 . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    and the brakes that stop it


  • 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: 2,933
    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 . . .
    - Ray
    Crossing the V off the shopping list . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • 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.

  • tgftgf Posts: 1
    Have owned 5 STS, all purchased new. Despite front drive, enjoyed performance. Had opportunity to test drive the STS-V, not impressed. Rear seat uncomfortable with entry and egress not fit for ordinary size humans. Also, not impressed with performance compared to Audi A-8, BMW-5 series, and so forth. Have been a steadfast American car buyer for decades (also own an 05 Excursion diesel), but am about to swap for a Porsche SUV, and forget about the STS. Easy for wife to drive; rear seat entry and egress outstanding, and general performance (340HP) possibly preferable to the STS for our purposes. Finally, in my opinion that $70MM+ price tag displays a complete lack of realism as regards the marketplace. Might consider, despite shortcomings, if under $60MM. My guts tell me they won't be going for much over that by next year model.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,933
    Some additional thoughts:

    I truly do want to be fair here.

    Thinking about this specific impression at lunch, and checking a few numbers leads me to believe that the V’s acceleration may have felt ‘flat’ to me because:

    My “context”. Looking at my current sedan (Grand Prix GXP)’s WT, HP and TQ numbers vs the STS-V’s, I think I see where part of the issue may have been, for me.

    A - The V motor’s additional acceleration ability is blunted by the (rather significant) additional mass – compared to what I am used to.

    B – The 3.23 final drive and overall gearing likely require (much) higher RPM than I am used to using for entertaining acceleration.

    Now my GXP accelerates very quickly from low speeds from any RPM in first & second gear. Second is geared for approx. 100 MPH at the motor’s red line. And at higher speeds in third or fourth it gains speed effortlessly – though (obviously) not as quickly. The Torque to Weight ratio slings it along very emphatically.

    Specifically, comparing the V and the GXP:

    1 – The V’s peak TQ and HP are clearly higher than the GXP’s 5.3L n/a V8. And the total area under the curves is greater. But, the STS-V curb weight reported by MT was 4376. The GXP’s curb weight is 3632. The STS-V therefore weighs over 20% more than my car.

    2 – The V’s TQ at 3,000 RPM is (extrapolated from the graphs on the GM Powertrain web site) 410. The GXP’s TQ at 3,000 is approx. 310. A difference of just over 32%. If 20% goes to ‘motivating’ the 20% greater mass – that leaves only 12% to provide increased thrust.

    3 – At 2,000 RPM the Torque difference between the V and the GXP is only about 22%. (360 vs 295) Again, (still) pulling against 20% more mass. Probably resulting in a very similar thrust (feel) to my $27K sedan. .

    With the 3.23 final drive on the STS-V, 2,000 to 3,000 RPM is likely to be a common RPM range for initial acceleration. On many surface streets or 2 lane secondary roads, for example:

    2K in second = just over 20 mph, 3K in second = 31.
    2K in third = 32 and 3K in third = 48.
    2K in fourth = almost 43 and 3K in fourth = 64+.


    At typical highway speeds:
    2K in fourth = 43 mph, 3K in fourth = again almost 65.
    2K in fifth = 58, and 3K in fifth = 87.
    2K in sixth = 73. and 3K in sixth = 110.

    ( Discounting any TC effect here.)

    Thus, running from 2K to 3K in fifth gear would mean exceeding every current, posted speed limit in the US. With another gear to go . .

    My calculations, from the gear ratios I have seen, suggest that cruising at 60 mph in sixth gear - it looks like the V’s motor would be turning over at only 1,630 RPM. (MT says: 1,650.) And 75 would require barely over 2,000 RPM in sixth.

    The other point that may share in my perception of less than stellar acceleration (by comparison) is the fact that my GXP has a rather ‘loose’ Torque Converter. Meaning here: When I have the trans. in manumatic mode, and I press the accelerator toward WOT, the TCC smoothly unlocks, and RPM smoothly rise, without a downshift. Effectively increasing torque multiplication. Although I was not specifically looking for it, so cannot confirm or deny, the new 6 speed automatic in the STS-V may have a much tighter TCC management program. This, combined with the additional weight, and the relatively high gearing could have contributed to my impression. I happen to like big torque at low RPM - and the feeling of effortless, fluid acceleration afforded by such a motor.

    The point here is that at least part of what I was likely responding to here was a lack of low end \ low RPM “pull”, compared to what I am now used to. Certainly, when I did run the engine above 3,000 RPM, it pulled well – but again, not enough so that I was extraordinarily impressed. Not for a sedan at this price level. (There is that price issue again.)

    The GXP (5.3L n/a V8) has an easy, graceful (refined?) acceleration, without requiring a downshift, from most any RPM.

    Had I concentrated my driving of the STS-V in the upper RPM regions, my impression could have been somewhat different. Since that is not how I generally drive, it is just not relevant – to me. (Not that I never seek the red line – just not every time I accelerate.)
    ( end part 1 )
    2016 BMW 340i
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,933
    The V’s specifications suggested to me that the supercharged motor’s elasticity and low RPM Torque would provide exhilarating acceleration under all the conditions of my test drive. I have driven several cars with supercharged motors – and one thing I was impressed with (and led to the level of expectation here) was the low RPM Torque generation of such motors. The fact that the STS-V did not impress ** me ** is likely more my problem than any real criticism of the V. And if I came across as being highly critical, it is largely a reflection of the very high expectations generated by that lofty MSRP and the published specifications. And my finding is merely that the result does not happen to suit my taste.

    So – some here will clearly never agree or even understand my posts about this car. Or perhaps even understand that all these comments are only ** my ** impressions and evaluations of this car ** for me ** . . . And that has to be OK. But again, I do want to be fair. And I do applaud Caddy for investing the time & $$s in a sedan such as the STS-V. A significant undertaking, given such severely limited sales volume potential.

    My expectation of substantially better acceleration in the V than I am used to in my current Sedan stemmed partly from the additional technology ( like VVT ) that I expected to allow the S/C motor to develop exceptional low speed Torque – even with a DOHC valvetrain. Certainly, my old 3.4L V6 DOHC Grand Prix (1991) in contrast, absolutely required 3 or 4,000 RPM to develop exciting thrust.

    Anyway – The V is off my list. The ‘list’ I refer to here is my list of those in contention for me to drive someday before I retire (to that empty refrigerator box - with Cable TV and Internet access) in 8 or 9 years. Well, semi-retire, at least. I (quite seriously) expect to spend whatever it does end up costing to have a truly top notch vehicle to drive for at least a couple of years. ‘Top notch’ in whatever the particular class – be it a sedan like the STS-V or a Corvette C6, possibly. We’ll see.

    And although I had no intention of buying this V this day, I did not feel any guilt at accepting the offered test drive, since production appears likely only to allow approx. 1 per Caddy dealer, as I understand the current plan. Thus, in the future, it may be rather difficult to find one to test drive at any given time & place.

    I specifically like and appreciate (and use daily) the ability of my GXP to accelerate quickly from any RPM, without resorting to downshifting and the resulting higher RPM. That elasticity is one thing whose absence probably contributed disproportionately. Particularly given the supercharger whine of this particular example, I would definitely have wanted the ability to accelerate (very) quickly without winding that s/c up . . it did not produce a sound I found particularly refined or entertaining.

    But that’s (obviously) just me.
    - Ray
    Wondering of 2007 might bring a CTS-V with the A6 & paddle shift????
    2016 BMW 340i
  • is 10,000 less than the MB. Realy now, at that price, isn't the MB a little outclassed?

    One thing i do not understand, though. Is why GM chose to make a special S/C northstar, when they could have put in or S/C the new Z06 engine in it.

    It will do just fine as a Cadillac/Corvette engine. The CTS-V kicks its opponents to the curb with the 400 hp corvette enine. Only the new Audi stands a chance with just 14 more hp.

    Also, GM would add VVT and S/C the new Z06, to give it 550 or 600 hp, and put it in the STS. THEN WHO WOULD BE OUTCLASSED!

    They could put the reg 500hp engine into the CTS-V. Or save money and leave the 400hp but make the inside better. What do you think?
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    For 10K less than the CLS the STS-V is typical GM, merely a competitive car. Not best at anything. The CLS isn't "outclassed" by much of anything let alone a Cadillac. For the STS-V to outclass the CLS55 AMG it would need to have a better interior, and beat the CLS55 in performance and it wouldn't hurt for it to get a better sense of style.

    GM can do a lot of things to change the STS-V performance, but at the current moment the STS-V can't keep up with the German iron.

  • That is merely your oppinion. C&D said not only can it compete, but it beat the "German Iron". And the interrior does not Lack at anything. It is better designed than the CLS and they used some Euro designer to help them with the V. The exterrior, while a little conservative in base trim, in the V trim its just rights. The CLS is garbage. No wood on the doors? If there is I don't see it.

    No back seat room! It reminds me of the Pontac Grand Prix! The STS is a real car, and looks most solid than anything Mercedes or BMW offer. Under the hood BMW has it on the V but Gm can change that. They ned to use the Z06 engine.

    The only car than can compete with the STS in the "solid looks" dept is the Infinity M. There is a solid looking car too. Both the M and the STSmake German Iron look like bunnies.

    My Opinnion.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Well I can see there is no point of this discussion. None of these cars are garbage. No wood on the doors means what exactly? What difference does that make? Wood on the doors has suddenly become the standard for a luxury/sports sedan? Secondly GM didn't use the same "designer" as Mercedes, they contracted the same supplier to provide some of the leather touches for the STS-V's interior.

    The STS-V gets beat bad in the area in which people buy a 469hp car, performance. Fact. The M5 in particular annihilates the STS-V.

    The STS-V is a more solid car than anything MB or BMW make? Guy you're dreaming. You sound like some of GM's managment, totally detached from the reality of the situation.

    The majority of reviews have gotten it right about the STS-V, Motor Trend and Automobile. Just because it managed to sneak in one victory based on price and rear seat space doesn't really amount to much. Its easy to point to one review and ignore the others.

    The Infiniti M and STS-V both get their doors handed to them by those German "bunnies" in peformance. That is a fact, not opinion. Everything with a GM car is always "wait until next year" or "wait until they put this engine in". Just excuses.

  • How people will talk of this car only to trash it. Wood on the doors, these little details say alot. At 90K how can you buy a car without wood on the doors? is this a chevy or toyota?

    When i saw the CLS i knew MB was starting to loose it. The STS did beat the MB in the most important magazing to people like yourself, C&D. Of course it is not now, but it will be if the MB beats the STS in the next test.

    This car is better than the CLS, i cannot see were that extra 10K went. Cadillac is more prestigious anyway. Unless of course you are a fan of certain defeated German Govt's of Yore.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    How people will talk of this car only to trash it. Wood on the doors, these little details say alot. At 90K how can you buy a car without wood on the doors? is this a chevy or toyota?

    Exactly, any old Chevy or Toyota can have wood on the doors, means nothing. Many cars have wood on their doors and they aren't real luxury cars. Every wannabe luxury car under the sun has some type of fake wood on the doors nowadays and some non-luxury cars have the real thing on their doors. Means what? Wood alone doesn't define a luxury car anymore.

    When i saw the CLS i knew MB was starting to loose it. The STS did beat the MB in the most important magazing to people like yourself, C&D. Of course it is not now, but it will be if the MB beats the STS in the next test.

    Yeah it is impressive that it beat the CLS, but if looked at why you'd see that the victory was hollow at best. Now if other magazines had stated the same thing then you'd have a point. They haven't, they've said the opposite.

    I'd say you need actually see or drive one to see where the extra 10K went. If the STS-V was the "better" car more than one source would have said so. How a supposed to be tuner version of a car that can't perform up to the class, much less out-perform any of its competitors, can be "better" than the competition is beyond me.

  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Car & Driver tested both the STS_V (in a comparison) and the Grand Prix V8. The STS_V was quicker in acceleration times except for the 30-50 test. The STS_V can accelerate to 150 MPH in 36 seconds. The Grand Prix can't go 150 MPH, and while C&D only did 0-130 MPH in their reported testing (over 30 seconds), I estimate that 0-140 would take the Grand Prix about 38 seconds.

    Based on your comments, I think that you might have really liked the Buick dynaflow. My experience with the dynaflow is limited to the first model built for the straight eights of the early 50's. However, the triple turbine design of the late 50's may have been better. Certainly the 4 speed automatics of GM's current line do depend on the torque converters. I am not at all sure how the six speed transmission is designed, but with the upper gears closer together I would expect the torque converter to do less work.
This discussion has been closed.