Howdy, Stranger!

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

Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?



  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,294
    Really? Longer lasting? I have a 1988 Buick Park Avenue with the 3.8 litre V-6 and a 1989 Cadillac Brougham with a 5.0 litre V-8. Both are pushrod engines. They're still here as are millions of older cars with pushrod engines. Most of the Japanese cars of the same vintage around here have collapsed into piles of iron oxide dust about five to ten years ago.

    My 2002 Cadillac Seville STS had a DOHC Northstar V-8 and my current 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance has the same engine. To be brutally honest, I can't tell the difference between how well a OHC/DOHC engine performs versus a OHV design except that the pushrod engine has more of a punch with the torque. I miss that little "kick in the butt" with the OHC/DOHC designs.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    If one counts the cam lob as one part and valve as a second part, then a DOHC engine with 4 valves per cylinder (the usual case), has eight valve train parts per cylinder and at least two, if not four cams per engine. The pushrod has the valve, lob and the pushrod and rocker arm for a total of four parts per valve. However, the pushrod engine has half as many valves per cylinder, so the total parts in the valve train are the same. But there is one one cam per engine, so a pushrod engine has fewer expensive parts.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Your STS's engine is tuned for high speed performance and does not have much low end torque. The 3800 is tuned for low end torque and has little power or torque at high engine speeds (over 5500 RPMs). My supercharged 95 Riviera and my 98 Aurora had very similar performance. My 2002 Seville, tuned for low end torque, was very similar to the Riviera for performance. The Riviera's supercharger made icy roads much more difficult to start up on.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 21,319
    More reliable? I have 2 3800s in full-sized comfortable cars that get great gas mileage and don't cost me double for service in a foreign car store's service department for repair let alone piled on maintenance mandates from a dealer who sold me a totally reliable car but seems to think it needs constant over-servicing and replacements to keep it 100% perfect?

    I'm not sure where this world commission is that determines what is out-dated and what is world standard choices. I want a car that has lots of torque and doesn't have to wind to 5000 rpm before high torque appears and then it's time to shift again...

    As for Japanese cars don't break down--I have been collecting complaint posts asking for help with those Japanese brand cars failing their owners in my Watched Items page. I can link to some of them if lykourinou needs help finding them.

    Sometimes I realize that people live in the past and think they can still hang problems of the 80s and 90s where a higher problem rate occured for some owners of US brand cars rather than stepping into the current world where JDPowers ratings show US built cars on a par with the Japanese brands. Things have changed in the build of US brand cars; and things have changed in those Japanese cars.
    Does anyone have a link to the JDPowers ratings. I have to look through lots of bookmarks to find the last ones I saved and can't find it quickly.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • bumpybumpy Posts: 4,435
    I've driven my fair share of OHV engines over the years, and I didn't find the low-end torque to be a "kick in the butt" at anything less than WOT, and even then the "kick" didn't last long. I don't think that's a good trade for the loss of rpm range, horsepower, and smoother power delivery.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I think that it can be said that a well designed pushrod engine will last just as long as a well designed DOHC engine. I also think that in the case of a poorly designed DOHC engine, the cost of replacing it when it fails will probably be twice as much as a failed pushrod engine.
  • the 3 of you must work for GM. I give up, It will make you happy to hear this so I'll say it.ok GM builds the most modern and most dependible cars in the world. The rest of the world is wrong for having standard intelligent keys with push button start on base models.

    The rest of the world is also behind GM for having DOHC engines and independent rear supsensions. Although GM is starting to sway and build cars backwards. 2007 Buick Enclave DOHC engine, 2007 CTS DOHC engine.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I don't think I would agree with that either.

    GM does have DOHC engines. Their 4 cylinders are either all, or mostly all DOHC designs. The V6 and V8 engines are a mix.

    Intelligent keys are cute, but not needed for anything useful.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    while I am not sure, I think that the SRX's (and CTS and STS) shocks can be replaced without replacing the strut. This would save money.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,613
    Hey, what about me? I gave up on GM and they will need to show vast improvement going forward before I go back to the below par offerings in recent memory. I wonder why they are bleeding at the bank? Is that the gold standard of the automotive industry?

    Why is Porsche the most successful earner year after year? Because they make junk? They are rolling in the dough so it must be that their customers are "not in the know" regarding pride of ownership.

    That pride is long gone from everything except US Trucks and the Corvette, IMHO.

    If they keep offering CTS, Malibu, Lambda, Camaro products that prove reliable and strong enough to win back from the rest of the World, the tide will eventually turn back. Time alone will tell.

    Pontiac needs to get rid of the "G" designation and Buick needs a car with a soul or die.

  • "I want a car that has lots of torque and doesn't have to wind to 5000 rpm before high torque appears and then it's time to shift again..."

    There's still no substitute for CUBIC INCHES--as opposed to litres. The mid-50's to the early 70's were the glory days for those kinds of cars. The ultimate would be a 1970 Buick Electra with a 365 HP 455 driving a 2.56 axle ratio--loafing along at about 1,800 RPM at 60, it could be kicked down to second and blast to 75 with no strain whatever at 15 MPG--those days and engines are gone for good. The engines were still large into the 70's, but they became strangled with emissions gadgets. I still keep one on hand, 'tho--I've got my 4th '77 Mercury Grand Marquis in 23 years. It has a 460 with a 2.5 axle ratio--only 202 HP, but the torque from the displacement is incredible. Just by default of their size, these engines were virtually indestructible--they were designed to power motor homes and trucks. Placed in a 4,700 lb. chassis and running around 1,900 RPM to move a car is like they're not even working.

    If the coming trend over the next 10 years is indeed to smaller engines to meet mileage requirements, then we'll be back to screaming little four cylinders that will work their hearts out like they did in those hilarious Castrol ads back in the 80's. High specific horsepower can indeed be gotten out of little engines, but they can't make the torque that gives you that satisfying feel of effortless performance.

    The single worst mistake Cadillac ever made was in placing that disgusting 4.1 litre engine with 125 HP in the full size chassis--a chassis that just three years earlier had 425 cubic inches. You literally had to go back to the late 40's to find performance that was as sluggish as those cars--'49 six cylinder Chevy territory. I remember driving a couple on used car lots just to laugh at them. Cadillac lost so much momentum with that boondoggle, plus all the other GM blunders, an entire generation only remembers Cadillacs as trash. My frame of reference is the Cadillacs of the mid-50's on--cars easily the equivalent of anything BMW or Mercedes can produce today.
  • I was being facetious, I think GM builds the worse vehicles, because they build them cheaply.I've had my share of GM vehicles, and I've had my share of imports. I can say it is like night and day in quality. And you should rent a car with intelligent key, you will wonder how you ever lived without out it. You never have to touch a key at all to enter, exit, start, open the trunk, or get gas. The key stays in your pocket and as long as you have a finger you can do all of the above. GM will probably incorporate them in the next 10 years or so.By then the rest of the world will have moved on to the latest technology.

    And by the way remote cute, That is what the 56k Escalade has. I had remote start that came with a Viper alarm that I had on my lowrider back in 1997.

  • Hey, what about me? I gave up on GM

    As of today I have offiically given up on them I wanted to get my mom a full sized SUV. I have decided on the QX, just talking to these guys in here helped me to realize, that GM wont' change. I refuse to pay full price for outdated technology. Besides the reveiws on the Escalade are horrible, I was literally ignoring them. Hoping that GM would turn it around and offer what other manufacturers offer, most consumers have been burned. Sucked in by the looks and left broken hearted due to mechanical failure.. If we built cars that way we build weapons....we would have an owner loyalty, a hundred times stronger than Toyota or Nissan.

    I'll be hanging out in the Infiniti forums.....
  • I know of all that I have said about the lade and GM's committment to quality. That being said, if GM incorporates a DOHC V8 and an independent rear end, including the implementation of STANDARD power fold flat 3rd row seats AND IMPROVE ON QUALITY I would gladly purchase an Escalade. Even in all it's glory due to ride height the LX570 does not have HID lights....that is pretty bad for a 74k SUV. I love HID driving at night is alot better for me, and I have to hand it to GM the Vette and the Escalade do have some of the best HID I have seen. I'm not being funny either...
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,613
    I have to hand it to GM the Vette and the Escalade do have some of the best HID I have seen. I'm not being funny either...

    That's what always frustrates at GM...every once in a while they do really good things in the midst of the usual games.

    BTW, the wallet ripping on the imports is mainly due to the U.S. auto companies themselves. High costs have driven their quality and profits down so their cars, including Cadillac ARE NOT the Gold Standard of the world. Yes, the cars do not break as much but the craftsmanship and quality of parts/materials is inferior.

    Can they be the standard? Only if the desire is there. Do I have faith it will happen? Not really. The competition has a HUGE lead and the desire is in spurts and dies.

  • I think you are right.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Why the heck would I ever buy a full size SUV that gets 26 mpg when it lacks the push start button the competition has? Come on. If I have the money for a top line SUV damn the gas. I can suck every last gallon while I push the start button. :P
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    My SRX has everything that you want, but the size. I do like the HID lights. They light up both sides of the road so that you can see deer if they are looking to cross in front of you.
  • I saw on NBC news that they said the cost of the GM Hybrids are not worth it, they recommended the Lexus hybrid instead. Also, said that the Chevy hybrid is not worth it. I saw the vid review about 2 weeks ago.
  • My SRX has everything that you want, but the size. I do like the HID lights. They light up both sides of the road so that you can see deer if they are looking to cross in front of you.

    I never used to like the SRX at first, but I do like it now. It is a pretty cool SUV. The HID is lovely, Nissan makes some pretty good HID as well I have seen the HID on the new CTS though and it does not look like the HID on other Cadillacs it is almost yellowish
  • bumpybumpy Posts: 4,435
    I think that's the color temperature of the bulbs. The lower temperature has less blue in it.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    Not worth the cost over a Non Hybrid Tahoe. But if you're going to spend $50k plus on a full sized SUV then it is in your price range, and offers the new technology you crave.
  • I never said I wanted a hybrid..
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    No, you didn't. But considering the fact that you complained about the OHV engines as being old fashoned, I figured this 2 mode hybrid could catch your eye technologically, not to mention the fuel economy being far superior to anything in it's class.
  • pmc4pmc4 Posts: 198
    There's no "lower temperature" bulbs; xenon gas is xenon gas, period. If one looks yellower than another one, chalk that up to the placebo effect.
    Three different lights:
    1. Halogen (white/yellow)
    2. Xenon (white/blue)
    3. LED (white/blue).
    Most cars come equipped with halogen lamps. Some higher-end cars come with Xenon (same kind of gas in strobe light bulbs), and the highest-end, most advanced cars come with LED all-around (Most Cadillac and Lexus models).
    Since Honda is still in the stone age making cars with old, antiquidated 5-speed automatics and clunky, old SOHC powerplants that don't even have VVT phasing on the exhaust cam, we can expect Honda to add xenon headlamps to their lineup of cars around the 2050 model year. LED headlamps in Honda's have a year 2100 target date.
  • pmc4pmc4 Posts: 198
    I agree with you, lykourinou I also refuse to pay full price for outdated technology. Here's what you said:

    "Just talking to these guys in here helped me to realize, that GM wont' change. I refuse to pay full price for outdated technology."

    That means I have to scratch any Honda product off my shopping list. It's like the only engine they offer is a cheap, old SOHC V6 that has seen service since like the early nineties. This engine doesn't even offer VVT on the exhaust cam, for crying out loud! I think even Daewoo is now making engines more sophisticated than Honda.
    And what about Honda's ONLY automatic transmission? Yep! It's a clunky old five-speed unit that hasn't had a major upgrade in over 15 years! You know Honda is still offering ancient transmissions that even the Koreans were offering last century when the only transmission the car company has is a clunky, wheezy 5-speed auto.


    I refuse to pay full price for outdated technology. I refuse to buy Honda.
  • pmc4pmc4 Posts: 198
    I don't know of anyone who thinks the OHV LS7 or LS3 is "old fashioned". Certainly not Porsche or Ferrari, who once again got their proverbial behinds handed to them at the 24-hr/LeMans endurance race by the OHV LS7 that poweres the C6-R...
  • pmc4pmc4 Posts: 198
    I totally disagree with this. Sure, the HT4100 (4.1 L engine to which you refer) was a feeble engine (130 HP and around 200 ft/lb torque), but just look at the competition of the time: Acura Legend was 150 hp, BMW 535 had a whole two engine choices: Either the 2.7L "high efficiency" 120 horsepower (120!!!), or the 180 horsepower mill that was optional.

    So indeed the Cadillac drivetrain was competitive for its time.

    What the America-haters ("General Motors made nothing but junk during the 80's while BMW and Honda marched on with excellent vehicles...") fail to tell us are these depressing facts. And these facts are that BMW was hardly the "Ultimate Driving Machine", with putt-putt's that barely coughed and sputtered out 120 horsepower, and the Honda Legend -- priced $2,000 more than the 1986 Seville redesign -- had 40 ft/lbs less torque than the HT4100, meaning it was even slower than the 1986 Seville or eldorado.

    I am not kidding and this is not a Photoshop. This jalopy is a BMW 5-Series sedan from the 80's. Utterly embarrasing in its cheapness:


    Downright pathetic. The vinyl seats just scream cheap! So much for the mid-80's GM cars being cheap and the imports being the ultimate drivin machine...
    In contrast, the next photo is the interior of the 1986 Cadillac ElDorado, the car the America-haters claim is no good. Notice the advanced digital plasma displays, power everything and Driver Info Console. Even though this specimen is sure to have over 200K miles on the odometer, it still looks good:


    Car and Driver's 10-Best in 1986-1989. Costs over $2,000 more than the ElDorado, but still manages to look cheaper and less luxurious. Still prettier than the BMW by a long shot, though, and also less expensive by a long shot, as well....


    Since the Caddy wasn't any slower than these other cars, and certainly more substantial than either (especially that eastern Europe-looking BMW), why wasn't the Caddy placed on the 10-Best list instead of the Acura?
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    What is the 3rd car? It has the most lux interior by todays standards than the cad or BMW. Gotta tell you though the 5 series looks real cheap and teutonic by todays standards. The caddy is miles better but still has the odd looking dash styling of that time period, at least by todays standards.
Sign In or Register to comment.