Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Cadillac STS/STS-V: What's New for 2007?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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+.
And:
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 )
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????
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?
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.
M
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.
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.
M
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.
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.
M
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.
I don't see any test between the two. Do you have a link? I know they tested them seperatley.
The STS is a real nice car. You should read what Edmunds had to say about the V. Most people seem to like the car.
From what I have read the V seems to be a better car for normal daily driving than the M5 would be. For me the basic STS is closer to the mark and from the price standpoint, the CTS is closer. The Grand Prix is probably more in my actual price range but I expect to drive my SLS for another few years to bring the depreciation into line with my annual expectations ($4000).
I had hoped that (at least) the STS V8s - 1SF \ 1SG, at least - might be offered with the new 6 speed automatic trans. for 2007. As GM ramps up production.
This might mean I'd take another look . . .
And I wonder what they'll do with their pricing?
Rumors?
Thanks,
- Ray
Thinking it is still a bit short of 'wonderful', but certainly interesting . . .
The New 6 speed may be good from a marketing point of view, but don't forget it already has the french made (GM) 5 speed unit that is also in the SRX.
I would understand if only 4 speeds were offerred, but 5 is plenty fine to me. The main thing is that it has the manumatic mode and the adjustable shocks to make things really interesting.
Im sure it will come, but I dont think by next year. GM might wait untill its mid-cycle refresh.
The six speed automatic (on the _V models) offers gears that are closer together at the high gear end. There are two overdrive ratios, third gear (passing) is a better 1.53:1 and forth is 1.15:1. With a low gear ratio of 4:1, an axle ratio can be choosen for both good performance and decent fuel economy. My opinion is that instead of axle ratios of about 3.25 to 3.50 :1 that are required with the five speed automatic, an axle ratio of about 3:1 is good for both better performance and fuel economy. Actually, 2.93 to 3.08 :1 axle ratios would be a good range. The V6 axle ratios probably need to run more to 3.23:1.
And I want to be clear here: I am not saying that the STS is bad. Not the ‘regular’ V8 versions, or the -V. There is much to like, and again I applaud Caddy for both bringing the STS (RWD V8 and all) to market as well as producing the much lower volume -V variant. The STS is just not quite what I was hoping for, in several areas important to me. Many details are in my previous posts.
My basic issues with the STS fall into 2 categories.
Cat. 1: The Pricing. The bundling of \ availability of options I care about leaves me believing that the STS is not the best cost \ benefit proposition – for me. Specifically, as things stand right now, the 1SF package includes 2 rather expensive options (NAV and HID-s) that are of no particular interest to me. And I’d prefer not to pay something like $3K (best I can estimate at MSRP) for them, in order to receive several items that I would want – and that are not available on the 1SE. (A final drive ratio I'd want, for 1 non-negotiable example.) And another example is that the option code QAF \ ‘Performance Handling Package, includes Tires, P235/45ZR18 18" Michelin Pilot Sport, front and P255/45ZR18 rear (summer only tires) and Performance Brake Linings ($795.00)’ is ONLY available on the 1SG = MSRP well over $60K. None of the other V8 versions are available with such performance-oriented tires. By comparison \ For example: Last I knew, Audi offers this sort of setup as a stand-alone option on the A6. And the BMW 5 series offers a Sport Pkg (a bit more expensive, but also more comprehensive) on any 530i – regardless of other configured options or packages. I am not suggesting that the options in the Caddy packages have no value, just that I really want to select only the options I want. And pay only for those. The STS strikes me as the ‘bundling’ concept run amok.
[ On the BMW 5, according to their web site, this Pkg includes: Sport suspension calibration, Active Roll Stabilization(ARS), 18x 8.0 Star Spoke (Styling 123) alloy wheels, 245/40R-18 performance run-flat tires, Shadowline exterior trim, 12-way power front sport seats with power adjustable thigh support ]
As one other data point: When last I was checking, the Infiniti M45 Sport with 2 options (rosewood on the dash and XM or Sirius) as I’d buy one had an MSRP of very close to $51K. And it has everything I’d want. The STS V8 1SF was over $58K – and still lacked items I’d want – the Sport Suspension, for example. $7 or $8,000 is enough of a difference to matter – to me. And at that MSRP, I’d still not have been able to add the option of the Performance Handling Option to the STS. Annoying. I have driven 3 or 4 M45 Sports. If someone (today) put a gun to my head and demanded: “Choose between an Infiniti M45 Sport (no options) and an STS V8 as well equipped as possible for the same real-world Transaction Price as the M45.” - I would choose the M45 Sport immediately, without hesitation and without any reservations. [ Another interesting difference here: Powertrain warrantee on the M45: 72 mo 70,000 miles. ]
Cat. 2: The Product. A few examples – and focusing on only 1 competitor here. In my test driving, the M45 Sport manumatic function works much better than the STS’s. The M45 Sport even does a decent job of ‘rev matching’ on downshifts – something the STS does not attempt. The M45 is quicker than the STS V8. (And has posted very close to the same Quarter Mile numbers as my GXP in C+D’s testing.) The M45 Sport also posted better braking and cornering and lane change numbers than the STS in the C+D comparison test. And so on.
In summary, the M45 Sport provided a significantly more enjoyable driving experience – for me – at a substantially lower price point.
Now I did not buy an M45 – for several reasons not directly germane here – and I also did not buy an STS. The point is that at the (say $50K to $60K) price level, I find the M45 Sport to be a considerably better deal. But the STS certainly does have potential – and I respect the effort.
And although the loss of any single customer may not seem like a big deal, I believe that in the car business, where most customers only buy 1 car at a time, and only every 3 or 4 or 5 years, the loss of 1 customer does need to be looked at – at least superficially. . And where Caddy sells only 10% or so of the volume of Chevy (for example), every 1 lost sale is (or ought to be) even more important to Caddy.
I believe that I fall within Caddy’s stated demographic target for the STS V8. As previously (recently) buying 2 Lincoln LS V8s (since 1999 – an early Y2K and a ‘late’ \ leftover 2003), I actually think that I am close to the ideal “conquest” STS sale. I even buy new cars more frequently than any sane person would . .
But that’s just 1 (lost) customer’s opinion.
- Ray
Waddo I know???
Inventory reported:
STS (all) 1 Feb 2006 . . .1 Jan 2006
9,300 = 134 days . . . .71 days
http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA4544210.PDF
Total BMW inventory at 1 Feb stood at about 30 days.
Just f.y.i.
- Ray
Wondering why Caddy does not have any sort of rebate on the STS today . . .
Interesting to see that the production numbers for the STS are now (as of 12 March) less than 65% of last year's same period production:
http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA5230310.PDF
http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA5218310.PDF
STS sales are off about 500 units, 3400 vs 3900. Mercedes sales are also down for the E-class. The Lexus LS sales are down.
I think that the DTS, new this year, is taking some sales away from the STS perhaps. The DTS is doing quite well, as is the Lucerne, a cheap Buick DTS.
STS sales are off about 500 units, 3400 vs 3900. Mercedes sales are also down for the E-class. The Lexus LS sales are down. "
You are correct.
I mis-read the chart in haste.
No excuse.
My apologies.
- Ray
http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA510033.PDF
If I have made that clear to anyone, I have mis-typed.
In fact, although I am not convinced that the STS-v is worth the (rather breathtaking) amount of money Caddy is asking, and the ‘regular’ STSs (V8s in particular) are priced \ marketed \ optioned \ packaged in such a way that I (still) cannot configure or build one to suit what I’d actually want, I am very interested in the STS. For several reasons.
1 – Since Lincoln’s failure (of will, in my opinion) to follow up with effective continued development of the LS V8s past the 2003 model year upgrades, I see the STS as the only American player in what could be called the Premium Sport Sedan market. When C+D last year decided to test competing sedans in this category or class, the STS V8 was the lone American chosen to do battle. Up against Acura, Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Jaguar, Lexus, M-B.
2 – Particularly with the CTS-v and now the STS-v, Caddy has put forth significant effort and I consider them now serious and credible in the Sporting Sedan arena. In a pretty select group – with those I mentioned above. I respect that. I admire the accomplishment. Regardless of whether or not I ever buy one.
Again, if I said I was not interested: A) I do not remember typing those words and if I did, I hereby withdraw them, and
I do not post inventory or sales numbers to ‘pick on’ Caddy or the STS – I just find them interesting. As I found the fact that last June, when the STS was selling reasonably well, they did add this sedan to the “Employee Pricing for Everyone” campaign. Where (like the Corvette) it was not clear that they actually needed to do so. And I configured \ priced an STS V8 1SF (Luxury Performance – at approx. $7K off then MSRP of approx. $58.8K) at that time as close to what I’d buy as possible, and even at that reduced price, I primarily did not see it then as a good value. Still don’t. That absolutely does not mean I don’t find the STS interesting.
And I have been known to buy vehicles that were just really interesting (to me) despite the fact that I did not consider it a particular bargain or value. In spite of my review above, if the STS-v was available for $50K, I’d very seriously consider buying one this afternoon.
I also have tried to be as fair as I know how to be every time I have criticized the STS (v or not) – as I do when I visit other make & model forums.
I think that the STS does represent a fine foundation upon which GM could begin to build a reputation and a sales history and reliability history – and particularly a robust resale value history. If they choose to spend the $$s and focus their R&D on some critical (to me) aspects. I am watching with interest.
I have actually tried here to be sure I state my respect for the effort that resulted in a V8 RWD Sport Luxury sedan that can legitimately compete (for my $$s) with Audi, et al. I bought 2 Lincoln LSs, in part because they were from an American Brand.
If a V8 STS actually does become available, for 2007 or 2007.5 with the new 6 speed automatic (and they effectively implement ‘rev match on downshift’ – heck the $45K - $50K Corvette Coupe does it with the same trans.) and they decide to loosen up the option groupings in such a way that I can actually select the items I want and not have to take and pay for what I don’t want, then I will very seriously consider it when I am next in the market – likely sometime next year.
Whereas, for example, I will almost certainly not consider some competitors like the Audi A6 4.2 V8 (without a significant bump in HP, I admit that it is a nice car, certainly, but not quick enough for me and I do not want or need AWD) or the BMW 5 – largely because the BMW’s interior and exterior styling I dislike rather intensely. Despite the fact that the V8 550i reportedly is quick & handles well. Etc. Just a few of my biases.
We’ll see. But I expect to continue to be ‘interested’ in the STS.
[ Another lunch hour blown . . ]
- Ray
Believing interested does not necessarily equal ready to purchase today . .
rayainsw: Your latest post indicates that you are not interested in an STS at the current price level. You want the STS_V for about $30,000 off the list price. I suppose that means you want the STS 1SF to sell for $25,000 or so off the list price.
– equipment:
STS V8 1SE
(This Option Group now includes both their Navigation system + the Bose 5.1 DVD – and is something like $1,600 more expensive than on the last 2005 1SE I saw. And neither of these 2 items is of particular interest to me - sigh)
But several other 1SE items are of interest to me . . So even configuring my ‘dream STS V8’, I guess I’d have to start there.
( aside: Has anyone actually seen a 1SD = ‘Base’ V8? I see none in stock shown on GMBuypower within approx. 100 miles of me, 20 or so miles North East of Metro Atlanta. And I have never seen one. )
Anyway, 1SE base now: $47.5K + $4,445 + $720 dest = $52.7K
The following stuff is what I’d want added to a 1SE, if I could.
[[ Note: Currently, the only item listed here that can actually be added \ ordered separately and on a 1SE is the sunroof. Thus, that is the only price that is likely accurate. The rest are my guesses – and could be off by 50% or more, in either direction. ]]
1SF final drive ratio (3.23 instead of 2.73): $0.
G80 Ltd Slip Diff: $500?
JE5 Perf brakes? As on 1SF? Just different pads? $0.
FE3 Magnetic Ride Control: $1K?
KB6 Heated AND Cooled front seats: $250?
QAF Perf handling: $1200?
(Currently $795 on 1SG, but this would be a further upgrade – meaning: from lower equip level = 17” wheels & tires on the 1SE)
NV7 Premium ZF steering $500?
CF5 Sunroof $1200
Total: approx $56.8K - for what I’ll call an ‘STS V8 Sport’.
With MSRP $56.8 – could I buy it (if they’d build it) for $50K-ish?
$7K or $8K off MSRP at this level seems reasonable to me.
But waddo I know? (Rhetorical question.)
I cannot say that I’d buy one for that price.
What I can say is that availability of an STS V8 with this configuration would mean that I’d compare it quite seriously against the M45 Sport, for example. It still would not be as quick as the M, but I’d see it as a much more worthy competitor than a 1SF ** for me ** (Current 1SF MSRP is $58,980, approx. $2K more than my hypothetical ‘STS V8 Sport’) and the 1SF still would lack the highest level QAF Performance Handling Suspension.
- Ray
Point of reference. My current GM sedan was: MSRP $33K (with exactly & only what I wanted for equipment), bought for $27K in June 2005.
Although I haven't seen any on the lots, I did a GM buypower search and found quite a few listed locally here in Connecticut. I even found a totally base V6 with AWD. I suspect that a lot of the V6 AWD's are in transit or just now arriving. Most of the V6 AWD seem to have the luxury group and about half of those have sunroofs. They are a heck of a lot cheaper than the V8 AWD's.
While the STS inventory may seem high, I will point out that the spring and summer sales season has yet to start. So, while the inventory may be a bit high, if STS sales are good in April thru June/July, the excess could easily be sold off.
In summary, it's a great car and GM just needs to have a better marketing plan for the STS
the commerical for the STS had all the imports dancing around and then the Cadillac shows up and teaches them a thing or two about dancing in its own back yard!
AWESOME!
I see them available in Vegas - and my daughter & I will be renting something to drive to Zion and the Grand Canyon after my conference next month.
I am curious about several things:
1) Are they (all) V6 or V8s?
2) I see sat nav listed as a feature on the Hertz site - is that Hertz's system or GM's?
3) Anyone ever successfully 'waive' the mileage limit of 100 per day? Or reduce the overcharge if that's exceeded?
We'd likely exceed that limit by 200+ miles @$0.39 per . . .
Thanks,
- Ray
Prefering this to a Taurus - but not quite that much . . .
1. V6
2. Depends. If the car has NAV, its the GM system, but not all of them have nav.
3. Yes. I had unlimited miles, and a discountd rate. I'm a bit of a travel junkie and obtained a rate of around $64.99 a day, with unlimited miles.
My car was a Black STS. Really enjoyed it, what a great rental. Made my want one, but unfortunately its out of my price range (though I'm seeing really low prices on used low mile ones...hmmm...)
Also,the bucket seat bolsters seemed a little narrow...os seat comfort an issue for anybody?
http://www.media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.co- m/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=25969
With this development now official, a 2007 STS V8 is 'officially' on my "short list".
I wonder if:
Caddy will effectively implement 'rev match on downshift'?
The final drive ratio selection & availability will remain as in 2005 & 2006 among the 1SE, 1SF & 1SG?
- Ray
Wondering, but encouraged . .
I would hope that they choose axle ratios that improve the overall performance. The current base axle ratio of 2.73:1 gives about the same level of straight line acceleration as the 3.42:1 axle ratio. So I think the optimum gearing is somewhere in between.
The six speed transmission may be a performance option.
I have seen nothing in any 2006 C6 Press Release, the on line order guide or the Owner’s Manual to indicate that it does. I have no ideas why this feature is completely ignored in promotional literature, as my driving experience in Infiniti M45 Sports indicate (to me) a substantially more refined driving feel with this feature.
Point being: We may not know for sure about this and other features until someone actually test drives a 2007 and reports. GM has not proven to be a comprehensive and accurate resource for product information. For me.
Heck, I have now personally contacted GM twice regarding incorrect EPA ratings for the STS-v listed at this GMBuyPower url:
http://www.gmbuypower.com/vehicleList.bp?make=Cadillac&model=All&modelId=all&mak- eId=006&identifyThumbnail=showAllMake&
Still incorrect. (sigh.)
Oddly, the 2006 STS-v, with essentially the same transmission as the Corvette, did ** not ** implement this “rev match on downshift” feature. And that still surprises & confuses me. Very odd.
- Ray
Waiting now oh so very patiently for a 2007 STS V8 to test drive . .
Possibly.
However, my understanding is that the trans features would not actually be issue in implementing something like “rev match on downshift”.
Since the TBW is already there, the issue would seem to be one of integration between downshift command (manual \ TapShift generated) and coordination between the PCM and TBW to achieve an appropriate amount of “throttle blip” based on the current RPM and calculated \ expected RPM after shift execution. To smooth the transition.
Again, I believe that this would require no additional hardware components – and achieve an additional measure of driving refinement. Something that I expect would be ‘a given’ as important in a Premium Sedan like the STS.
But I have been wrong before . . .
- Ray
Glad the six speed is coming, and still hopeful . . .
The current 6L80 is used in some trucks, which may not have the computer power to include everything.