Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Cadillac DeVille

1262729313250

Comments

  • volvodan1volvodan1 Member Posts: 188
    It is the performance and handling, along with luxury that people get with the CTS. This is the perfect example of the difference between what Ill call BMW type customers and Deville type customers. To BMW customers, bigger isn't always better, the Deville customers it is. It's just a matter of valuing different things. Luckily, Cadillac has stepped up to the plate with CTS, SRX,XLR, and soon STS. Otherwise they would be dead in the water, like Lincoln. But for all of the changes that they have made, Cadillac has to kepp the Deville the same type of car to keep the "old core" customers while keeping on going with their other stuff to draw the BMW, MERC, AUDI, LEXUS, ETC. to Cadillac.
  • rxlessardrxlessard Member Posts: 1
    When i purchased my 2004 DTS, I followed printed material and used regular gas. Then, after 2000 miles, i had guage warnings on the fuel inj, and the dealer replaced the inj and portions of electronics under warantee. The dealership told me to use Supreme regardless of printed material....Anyone have experience here??? Thanks (especially with Gas prices in Seattle) HA!... or is it, expensive car, expensive gas? lol SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE SENSE HERE...
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    I agree that the CTS is nicely finished inside and you are right about the BMW/Deville customers. My wife likes the Deville for her real estate customers. It is comfortable, not cramped for 4 passengers and her customers are relaxed in it. She says she also feels successful when she drives it. I went through the German phase of my life with a VW Quantum and an '86 Audi 5000S. The Audi was far better design-wise than anything else built in 1986 -in fact if it was sold today anyone would consider it a contemporary design. Unfortunately it was an incredible lemon with all sorts of electronic problems. It had a 50,000 mile warranty but I took lots of annual leave taking it back and forth to the dealers in both Washington and later in New Orleans. I dumped it at 48k and haven't been back to German cars since. (my English phase was a Jag MK X -another lemon - It was practically new and when it ran it ran beautifully). I agree with Cadillac's philosophy and may very well get the new STS when it is a year old or so depending on its size. It is bigger than the CTS. The new DTS should be nice, too. I don't have any problem with the CTS and would probably buy one if they made it in a coupe or convertible but as a 4 door sedan road car the Deville is more comfortable and I don't have any problem with its handling and performance. The CTS would be fine to drive to the office and zip around town but it has a woefully tight back seat. The STS and the DTS will rectify the lack of back seat space. Actually from a design standpoint, the present Deville has nice lines , almost as good as the 1965-67 Devilles which were beautifully proportioned. The problem with the CTS is that for less money there are plenty of nice mid-size cars such as the Camry or Avalon. Reliability and resale are great for these.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    I've used regular in my 2003 base Deville with no problem at all. Your car is supposed to use regular. I use Chevron pretty much exclusively which seems to be fine.
  • hydra2hydra2 Member Posts: 114
    I have used regular (shell or Mobil)in my 2002 dts for 19,000 miles with no problems. Unless changes have been made, which I doubt, the DeVille is designed to run best on regular grade gasoline. In fact, previous posters have complained of carbonization problems when they used premium. You might want to try switching brands and avoiding the cheap generic brands.
  • richard5richard5 Member Posts: 2
    Thanks I used the GM link I found it very helpful. Richard5
  • richard5richard5 Member Posts: 2
    Hello I am new to Edmunds. Does anyone have idea what it will cost to have a night vision camera lens repaired?
  • caddy4caddy4 Member Posts: 1
    Has anyone heard of this problem?
    I came in to local dealer for a state car inspection.I was told first that the car was too heavy for the tires that came with the car and I would need to replace all 4 tires.I had 19,000 miles on the car.When I questioned this, he changed the story to that the tires were not properly maintained.After questioning THIS STORY he decided that only 2 of the 4 tires needed replacing but he would have to keep an eye on the remaining 2 tires.
    Has anyone else that is OLDER had a similar experience?
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    I think that the person at the dealership is in need of professional mental health care.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    My 2002 SLS owners manual says to use at least 87 octane. Here (high altitude) regular is 85. My owners manual goes on to say that for "best performance" one might wish to use a higer octane fuel.

    I have been using premium (91 octane here).
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    The "Regular" here is 86 octane (4600'). I've used it in my 2003 Deville
    and it runs just fine. I don't see spending the money on high test when regular is what the car was designed for. Performance is fine as well.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    My interpretation of what the owners manual is saying is this: the engine was designed to degrade performance when low octane fuel is used, but if you want the performance that you paid dearly for, premium fuel is required. I do know that I can get 32 MPG on the highway with premium.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    I'm getting 30-31 on the highway but I'll take your advice and the next time I do a trip I'll try premium. It can't hurt. I was always of the opinion that if it didn't knock on regular, regular was ok. I stick with Chevron anyway and never use off brands. My other cars are a 2001 Malibu and a 1998 Silhouette so performance wise even with regular, the Cadillac is a vast improvement! I wonder if premium will improve city mileage which is terrible.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    You should understand that the engine has knock sensors and the engine control computer is able to adjust the ingnition timing to reduce knock. So, reading what my owners manual says, implies that the engine needs a minimum of 87 octane fuel, but that the computer can make use of higher octane fuel to improve power and performance. I am not sure how much difference you will see in gas mileage. My highway mileage is based on a couple of short highway trips at this point in time. I was cruising at about 65-70.

    I know that a lot of people think buying premium fuel is a waste, even if their engine requires premium. From my point of view, 600 gallons of fuel per year at 20 cents more per gallon is $120. So I think you should buy what makes sense for the cadillac. But pre-2000 model year cadillacs were supposed to get premium fuel only.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    I'll at least move up to the mid-level gasoline. I think that is 88. I know regular here is 86. I think premium is 91. I've heard a lot of stories about using premium in a car that is supposed to run on regular. Most "experts" say that it is a waste of money but I can always put in a tank of mid-level once in a while.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    Well, the way I read my owner manual, my 275 horsepower engine will only produce 275 horsepower when it is burning premium gas. If it gets regular the computer will retard the timeing and reduce the horsepower. This is really all that I am saying. The owners manual does say that you can use 87 octane fuel without damaging the engine. It also says that you won't get full power on regular.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    Good - I may even try premium when I'm in the chips and see how much difference it actually makes performance-wise. If I don't notice much of a difference as I assume I won't I'll stick with regular. Has anybody else done a comparison? This discussion reminds me of the advocates of the 0-60 comparison. Car A is much faster than Car B because it goes from 0-60 in 7.3 seconds instead of 7.8 seconds or even (God forbid) - 8.1 seconds. These folks need to get a life. The only value of "performance" as far as I'm concerned is the ability to pass some slowpoke who is going 60 on a 70 MPH road and get back in the right lane before being impacted. Just my opinion, however.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    That's what I call folks who want to drive a Premium car, but are too cheap to buy Premium fuel for their high performance power plant. Those who fall into that category are really Buick people, pretending in their DeVilles, IMO.

    You'll likely not save any money afterall, my engineer friends tell me. Your mileage will also be degraded along with your performance, generally.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    Perhaps your engineer friends as well as some of the people on this list can tell me exactly what the difference is in gas mileage on regular vice premium gas. When you are paying $2.00 a gallon the difference in cost between regular and premium is not significant especially when you are doing a road trip but the discussion about degraded "performance" or "power" or "mileage" is not specific enough for me. I don't have any problem with the way the car runs and the highway gas mileage I'm getting on regular but if your friends can provide something other than generalities I'd be all ears.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    Well, you know, dispencer, they'd have to test your car. YMMV. So generalities is all they have to offer. Not sure I believe it myself in ALL cases....

    I still don't get the cheapskate logic though. I have friends who do it, my business partner does it in his Volvo, and I call him names too. I even have a friend with a 00 DeVille who does it. But, he proves my point. He's not a Cadillac man, he's really a Ford/Toyota guy, who happened to get a great deal on a used DeVille, and just can't bear to pay the extra .20 a gallon to feed it premium. Cheapskate. He should go back to his Toyota, he'd be more comfortable.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    That's OK - When you have to resort to name calling during what should be a discussion on cars, not perceptions of whether in your opinion one is a "cheapskate" because he puts regular gas in a car (since 2000) that is supposed to run on regular, then I'll bow out of this list. Adios.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    Didn't mean to offend - just having a discussion.
  • bolivarbolivar Member Posts: 2,316
    Are you aware that Cadillacs starting in model year 2000 (maybe 2001?) are designed to run on regular gasoline?
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    What does this abbreviation mean please?

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Your Mileage May Vary

    :)
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    My owners manual states the following (2002 SLS):
    minimum octane should be 87. For full performance, higher octane fuel may be used. For towing, higher octane is recomended.

    So, yes one can used 87 octane (regular is 85 octane here). But to get the full 275 horsepower and 300 lb-ft of torque, premium fuel is probably needed. However, if you all are getting plenty of power from regular, why spend more? I am averaging about 24-26 in local driving, which is a mix of highway and city. Later this summer I plan to make a long trip to the west coast.

    Anyone planning to experiment with regular and premium for fuel consumption differences probably should fill alternatly with each type several times keeping track of the mileage. If you used the on board computer (DIC), you should reset for each tankfull. Or else use the fuel used to compute the mileage.

    Then one can use a statistical program to compute the statistical significance of the differences (if any). MRPP is a useful set of programs to do this (MultResponse Permutation Procedures for the uninitiated).
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    as my friends 2000 specifies Premium fuel.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    The northstar was re-engineered for model year 2000. But I don't really know when they reduced the recommended octane to 87 (not regular but 87). The current northstar web site lists 87 for the FWD's but the VVT recommends premium (10.5:1 compression).
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...in all my Cadillacs all the way back to my 1975 Sedan DeVille. I currently own a 2002 Seville STS. You can use 87 octane, but I prefer Sunoco 94 Ultra. It's like you can eat at McDonald's but prefer to dine at a far more upscale establishment.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    I have experimented with a tank of regular (85 octane). There should have been enough premium left to give a mix that was between 86 and 87 octane. I did not see a significant difference in MPG. However, I did notice a slight difference in performance. The difference was, with A/C on and under hard acceleration, during upshifts, there was a slight hesitation with regular that is not there with premium.
  • watersurgeonwatersurgeon Member Posts: 9
    Hey. I normally post on the Olds, Aurora forum and have always gotten great responce over there as an Aurora owner.

    My wife wants a Deville and we have been looking at 2000 and 2001's. We can get them pretty cheap out here on the west coast and with some pretty low mileage.

    I would appreciate your input on these cars. The good and the ugly. What kind of long term mileage you can expect that kind of thing. Major repair issues.

    Thanks,
    Patrick
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    I don't like FWD cars generally, and so have stayed away from this very powerful car because of the exaggerated torque steer. But, if you need FWD, or it doesn't bother you, these are good cars, IMO. No reason they shouldn't give you 150,000 miles of fairly trouble free service. Issues of note are oil leaks, fairly common at around 60,000 miles. Fairly expensive to fix too. Also, if your starter goes out, it's in the engine valley and the intake manifold has to be removed to get at it. Also, in that vintage, the Northstar engine tends to carbonize after a while, requiring a "decarbonization" treatment that the dealer gets too much for. I've been told, but don't like this solution, that if you don't burn premium gas in them, they won't carbon up. I wouldn't take that to the bank though.

    The best part of these sleds is that they depreciate like a rock in the first 3 years, so finding a great car for a song is very possible.

    Good luck!
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    Try and get one under 4 years old and 50k mileage so you will get a break on an extended warranty. I wouldn't dream of having any car without a 100,000 miles 0 deductible 6 year warranty especially a Cadillac. When the warranty is gone so is the car. The 2001 model had leather standard and the 2002 had the most standard equipment including an electrochromatic (self dimming) outside side mirror and power adjustable seat belts. These were gone by 2003. Each year something standard seems to disappear. Expect great highway mileage (30-31) and terrible city mileage (14-16). This car is a road car. The dreaded torque steering problem with FWD means very little to someone like me who is used to driving FWD cars. I just drive them normally and they seem to drive normally. Perhaps if I drove a Lincoln and then my Cadillac I would know what these people are talking about. Good luck on the Cadillac purchase. These are great cars - ride well and get as good mileage on the road as a Camry (probably better). Plenty of power to keep from constantly downshifting on cruise everytime you go up a hill (like my '98 Silhouette). I have a base model 2003 Deville (ex-Alamo rental car) and like it very much. I'd get the extended warranty though. I made sure mine was 'certified" with the protection plan for 100k miles.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    What did you finally buy?
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    I have not found that GM's full size FWD cars have much torque steer. My 83 Buick Skyhawk did have a lot of torque steer.

    As far as fuel consumpution goes, I get over 20 MPG in local driving (around 25 actually), but most of my driving is part highway. How bad your gas mileage gets will depend on how short your local trips are with a cold start up. Even in winter (temperature around 15 F), when I still lived in town, I got 18 MPG.

    The big thing to watch for is coolant leaks. A leak in the wrong place will cause corrosion which may require an engine replacement if it goes on too long.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    THAT's encouraging! I don't want to have to worry about that all the time.

    I guess torque steer is what you're used to. My Infiniti doesn't have severe torque steer, but you can sure tell it's FWD just with the differences in road surfaces as you accelerate, which is what I'm objecting to, given the choice. The DeVilles/Sevilles I've driven in recent years are smooth enough, but when you goose it, particularly making a turn in an intersection, you sure feel it.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    Well, one does get some indication that the power is moving through the wheels that also steer. But my Skyhawk (4 cylinders) would spin the steering wheel if you did not grip it hard, when on wheel was on slippery surface and the other had plenty of traction. I have never noticed any tendency like this with the full size FWD's.

    The new STS with RWD should be a much more satisfactory car for handling.
  • frmofrmo Member Posts: 4
    We have a 1990 DeVille. We are experiencing problems with the door locks and recently have had trouble turning the car off.
    Doors - key fits but is extremely difficult to turn. We have tried to replace the cylinders and locks - no luck. This happens in both doors.
    Ignition - Intermittantly, you have to jiggle, push, pull, stand on, wait 20 minutes and try again - response varies before you can turn the key to turn the ignition off. Have never had trouble turning it on. Can these problems be related?
    The car was given to us by my in-laws. One person owner. He had problems with the locks and no one was able to find the solution for him either. My son will start driving this soon and I want him to be able to lock the car - or I fear it will be stolen.
    Any suggestions are appreciated.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    Your key is worn down. Hopefully you have another less worn key around that you can use and copy. If not, perhaps an old, experienced, and skilled locksmith can fashion one for you. That's all it is, and it's pretty common with GM keys. Don't know why. My niece has an 01 Saturn that this has happened to already! Fortunately, she had an unused key put away. Solved all the problems.
  • frmofrmo Member Posts: 4
    Hadn't though of that. We will check this out. We do have several sets but they may have all been made from the same worn out key. Why would it be easy to start the car but hard to turn it off? Also, you have to hand unlock each door, power system doesn't work and replacing parts has not changed that.
    I was fearing electrical, but will explore the key fit first.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    Your door locks problem is electrical, and unrelated to the ignition problem. I doubt the new key will fix the door lock problem at all, but it should give you a smooth ignition switch.
  • boomer1bboomer1b Member Posts: 316
    I had a 90 Deville from new........The locks were always hard to turn!
    Much easier to use the push button panel on the outside of door
    to unlock. Must of been the plunger mechanism for the power locks
    that made it hard to turn key.
    Quite a pain ! Sure glad my 96 and later Caddies had the remote!

    I would say your ignition key and/or switch in the column is getting worn out. Too bad you didn't have the key code. A locksmith could make ya a new key for it. That would be your best way out. Can you track the car back to the selling dealer?
    I have had a few ignition switches stop working altogether (unable to turn) in some of my GM winter rats.

    Problem is a 90 Cad has the "pellet" in the key. Pretty $pendy nowadays to have remade. I can just imagine how much it would cost to
    replace ign. switch and key.
  • bremertongbremertong Member Posts: 436
    Just traded my 98 Deville for a 2004 model. For some reason the 04 seems to have a little less acceleration power than the 98. I have used premium gasoline in the 04 since purchasing and always used premium in the 98. Think the compression ratio rating in the 04 is a little lower than the 98, would that be the reason? Could promptness in downshifting of the transmission have something to do with it? Perhaps just my imagination since the soundproofing in the 04 seems to insulate the cabin more in the 04 than the 98.
    Any feedback from others who owned 97-99 Devilles and now own 2000 models or later will be greatly appreciated.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    A "little less" acceleration or power would be anticipated in a brand new, not yet broken in, car and shouldn't be a concern. The car will hit a stride point somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 miles, when acceleration and power should be optimal. Right now, it's very tight. Plus, the computer is calibrating for optimal performance and driving conditions.

    Lastly, there are all kinds of variables between the 98 and the 04, like weight, drag, tires, equipment changes, they may look alike, but they are very dissimilar cars, so it's very possible that your performance and mileage may vary.
  • boomer1bboomer1b Member Posts: 316
    I have had 89/90/96/02 and currently a 03.... Devilles.

    My 90 with the 4.9? ran like a scalded dog and up to 100k plus troublefree miles. When I got my 96 with that 4.6 N-star that required premium fuel and was 250?hp vs.the 180?hp of the 90 I
    felt CHEATED !

    The 90 would "walk" my buddies 5.0 Mustang outta the hole and
    down to the next stop light with the Bose playing and the AC on!
    Also would BURN the rf Michelin to a cloud of smoke if not careful!

    The 96 was a PIG off the light and the traction control was a PIA
    till I found the disable button in the glove box.
    It would do a minor burn out if pushed tho. It also served me well
    to 100k miles till traded for my 02.

    My 02 I only had for a few months because the "BOSS" said the dark
    blue interior was too hot ! She picked it out tho.......
    So I never had a chance to really pound on it..........

    My 03 even with 275 hp seems no faster than the 96 with 250? hp.
    Sure is nice to use any cheap pump gas tho. The 96 would buck, stall,
    ping on anything but premium.

    I assume its the nature of the beast esp. with the DOHC motors to
    not hit the sweet spot in power till the RPMs are up there.
    I liked the 90 the best outta all of them for power at any range!

    All of them would cruise 80 mph or so easily all day long and
    spank a beemer, benz, etc. on the street or hi-way with 20k change
    in my pocket and never have spendy maint. visits at a dealer either!

    But getting 20 mpg plus all day long in a full size v-8 powered
    CADDY is better than a appliance cam-cord anyday !

    All in all I have had NO regrets with any of my Caddy purchases.
  • boomer1bboomer1b Member Posts: 316
    My mom has a 98 Deville with about 50k miles.
    It runs the same as the 96 or 03.

    She wants a SUV now and likes that HUGE sunroof
    on the Caddy SRX. She assumes that it is smaller than her Deville.thus easier to drive.
    Another plus is she likes that you sit higher up than in the car and can see more easily plus the extra open space to haul her dog,gear and the grandkids around.

    Hopefully she gets the V-8 N-star powered one !
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    The 96 northstar should have been 275 hp - 300 lb-ft of torque. The 4.9 was 200 hp/275 lb-ft.
  • boomer1bboomer1b Member Posts: 316
    Did some checking because my old memory is getting foggy !......LOL

    My 90 had a 4.5 180 hp.
    The 96 indeed did have 275. Same as my 03 !

    But still the 90 had the best seat of the pants performance !
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    One thing that GM does to some engines is a non-linear throttle response. I think that the northstar engines are linear. The older engines may have been non-linear. What this means is that if you pust the accelerator pedal down 1/4 of the way, the throttle should open 1/4 (linear), but may open 1/2 (non-linear). The seat of the pants feel is great off the line power with non-linear throttle response.

    One thing I know, my supercharged 95 Riviera would always engage the traction control on icy roads when starting from a dead stop. My Seville does not unless I push too hard on the accelerator.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    the General does seem to like that sudden tip-in, or at least did several years ago....
Sign In or Register to comment.