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

1487 · February 2004

perfect? I said that? dont recall that one. Why are you still trolling cadillac topics? I dont understand. Cadillac isnt perfect and LaNeve has said that already. But they are moving up in sales and reputation. Hey you should be happy, MB has claimed they will be back on top in terms of quality in two years.

I think Caddy will be #2 in sales by the end of this year. Of course that will be hard to do when MB has about 6 C-class models with powerful 4 bangers. It's hard to compete with that when you don't sell a lot of stripper luxury cars. Anyway, #2 isn't bad for a brand that you predicted would take years to turn around and climb the sales charts. If they can sell this many cars when their work is so incomplete imagine what they will be doing in a couple years.

BTW, what negative comments do you have about the CTS-V? I'm sure you have found tons of shortcomings aleady. Not that it could ever measure up to the C32, oh wait you'll probably compare it to the E55 which cost 20 grand more. Even I know it cant compare to the E55.

theo2709 · February 2004

A future Automotive News article is about the V variants of current models. Here's a sneak peak:

"Two more nameplates will get high-performance V versions after the CTS-V, dealers were told at their make meeting.

Candidates are the XLR, STS and Escalade."

Unrelated, but...

"Dealers learned that the redesigned 2006 DTS will come in 2005 and the redesigned 2007 Escalade in 2006."

merc1 · February 2004

Dude in all honesty give it a rest. My comment about Cadillac didn't excite anyone else but you. Why is that? Simple, you're looking for an argument, so you can get a chance to spew the same tired old rhetoric. Which you did in the last paragraph of your post.

I haven't said one thing to deride Cadillac or the CTS-V, period. Me posting that Cadillac should be cautious about their high-end market plans is not trolling. I'm sorry if you don't understand the basic rules of the Edmunds Townhall. If what I said was trolling tell the host.

If you can name the 6 Mercedes models with 4-cylinder engines you'll get a star! After all this time you still can't get the facts right.

Blah, blah, blah.....put down the wreath and crest nobody was comparing anything.

M

Kirstie_H · February 2004

Stop the personal comments. If you don't like another member's posts, ignore them. Further posts along this line will be deleted without warning, and referred to management.

sevenfeet0 · February 2004

Several weeks ago I was at my local dealership and while I was waiting for service, I got a chance to talk to a visiting Cadillac powertrain manager. We talked a bit about the STS and the one thing I was about to glean about a proposed V-series model is that it is going to have to have more power then they originally intended since the MB E55 AMG has 469 HP and the upcoming BMW M5 is supposed to have 500 HP or so.

The bottom line is that Cadillac is very aware of the price of entry into this very exclusive territory. I don't think we'll be disappointed.

blkcadillac · February 2004

Cadillac will continue Deville/DTS, its the best seller, atleast until 2012, because the redsign is up for the 2006/07 model year. And maybe phase out by 2012.

V or high performance models will be the STS, and Escalade. Maybe XLR (GM leaves that performance to the Vette) no GM car should out do the Vette, maybe GM has changed that idea.

The High luxury SEDANS one for S/7/A/LS/XJ, hell even Lincoln and later one for Rolls, Bent, and MyB.

So as the DeVille MAY phase out the Ultra may arrive on the heels of DeVille

bewhite25 · February 2004

I'm a Ford loyalist and I have to say that I don't care much for GM vehicles. They continue to use old pushrod engines, outdated 4 sp. auto transmissions, and build plasticky interiors. However, as much as I don't like GM, I do respect the Cadillac division. Lately they are designing some high-tech, attractive vehicles. The new STS really caught my eye. It looks great, inside and out, and has potent powertrains to back up these looks. And, of course, we can't forget that this vehicle has rear wheel drive. If the STS turns out as good as the previews are showing it to be, I'd have to say it'll probably be the best domestic sports sedan available and definitely worth taking a look at. It should be able to compete with BMW and Audi, since the STS's price more than likely will be much lower. But watch out, Cadillac fans, because a new LS should be right around the corner

cornellpremed · February 2004

"They continue to use old pushrod engines,"

Those "old pushrod engines" outperform the weak junk Ford puts in their cars.

Ford's in trouble with their truck line especially because of the new CAFE requirements. GM can continue to put high power engines in their trucks, because they will meet or exceed the new requirements with DOD.

Cadillac CTS-V with its "old pushrod engine"... Does Ford have any sedans that can beat it? Don't think so.

"outdated 4 sp. auto transmissions,"

Ford probably makes more extensive use of 4-speeds than GM does. Also, Ford is licensing GM's new 6-speed automatic FWD transmission because they don't have the know-how to do it themselves.

"build plasticky interiors."

GM's new products have good interiors, on par with or better than Ford's offerings.

bretaa · February 2004

bewhite25: Watch out with your GM criticism. Don't be too strident, as others have got into trouble for this. In general, though, I haven't liked GM products at all and have been a Ford loyalist myself until very recently. Ford had nothing in their stable for me to replace my SVT Contour. I was looking for a 4 door, high performance sports sedan and Ford had zip. I liked the CTS, but couldn't swallow its terrible interior for the price. At the same time, though, it's almost impossible to be high on Ford either. Their product in all aspects has been wanting and Lincoln has been dying a slow, painful death.

That said, I've like Cadillac's recent product a lot, especially the SRX. If I had $50,000 to spend on a car right now, it would be the CTS-V. I have high hopes for the STS, but am waiting to see a more in-depth preview, as I'm not sold on the smoothed out A&S styling we've seen in photos to date...

- Bret

eaton53 · February 2004

"Ford had nothing in their stable for me to replace my SVT Contour. I was looking for a 4 door, high performance sports sedan and Ford had zip."

Exactly... I also had a Contour SVT. I was in the Ford store about the time I sold it and asked the salesman to look around and tell me what he thought he could sell me. He had no answer.

"I liked the CTS, but couldn't swallow its terrible interior for the price."

I love the CTS interior. I'll be driving a Mazda until pre-owned '04 CTS reaches my price point.

bretaa · February 2004

Eaton53: I know this isn't the forum for it, but doesn't the SVT Contour rock? If you ever want to trade stories, e-mail me at garrisiari@hotmail.com. I'm trying to sell mine right now. The Lincoln LS just wasn't a substitute, especially not having a manual.

Regarding the CTS, I'm glad you like the interior. It's all relative. Right now, I'm waiting for the CTS-V to fall into my price range preowned, maybe 2007 or 8.

Cadillac interiors are really getting impressive, though. I love the XLR interior, especially the center console. The SRX interior is also impressive and if the STS spy shots of the interior are anything to go by, it'll be a beauty!

- Bret

ateixeira · February 2004

I think Ford is doing better on the interiors, look at the F150 next to the Sierra and the GMC looks like a relic of the 80s.

Even newer cars, like the Ford 500 look better than the Pontiac G6 or Malibu.

GM needs new interior stylists. I like the CTS outside, but inside it could improve a lot.

-juice

bewhite25 · February 2004

I respect everyone's opinion and I don't want to fight with anyone. I'm just saying that instead of new innovative engineering like we've been seeing with Ford in the last year or two, GM sticks with reliable yet old technology. The 3.8L engine may be a good powerplant, but it's a very old design. The only reason it performs so well is that it has nearly a liter of displacement with most of the 3.0 v6s or smaller that it competes with. The Vortec engines are also good engines, but GM continues using a pushrod design because it's more cost effective. The new 5.4 outperforms the standard 5.3 in every way. The 6.0 has comparable specs, but with over a half a liter in displacement greater and less efficiency. They don't have the low end torque and responsiveness that overhead cams can give. Cornellpremed, I don't know where you heard that Ford is borrowing a 6 sp. automatic from GM (if you have a link to a site, please give it to me. I'd love to read it), but if this is true, how comes we don't see this being used in any GM vehicles? I mean, the best we're seeing from them are some 5 speeds used in the Cadillac division. And most of GM's new vehicle debuts are still using some form of a large displacement pushrod with a 4 speed auto. If Ford built a 3.8 dohc, it would destroy the GM ohv 3.8L. The new Duratec 35 will be a much more powerful engine than the new 3.5 from GM. I guess it bothers me that GM isn't taking any risks by coming up with more clean slate desings. In regard to plasticky interiors, it's main seller the Silverado has a less than glamorous interior. I've been in them before and you can find many hard, hollow sufaces. And the dashboard design really hasn't changed for quite some time. GM just builds upon already proven technology that gets the job done, but I think GM will need to reinvent it's thinking with it's mainstream sellers as it is with the Cadillac division. Most of the vehicles in the Ford division that have been around for a few years are less than impressive. I'm just making more of a comparison between the new vehicles and powertrains we're seeing come out from the Ford Motor Co. vs. new vehicles we're seeing come out from the GM Motor Co. I'm sorry, I really should have been more thoughtful. GM can make great vehicles, but I just think that if they don't come up with fresh ideas they will fall behind Ford. I didn't mean to rip on any GM fans. I just love debating this kind of stuff becasue I'm a huge car fan and I just learn more and more by doing this.

tomcat630 · February 2004

The STS should eventually be Caddy's volume car. For now, loyalists to FWD want a Deville. But eventually it should be phased out and GM buyers wanting FWD big cars should go to Buick/Pontiac.

rctennis3811 · February 2004

"GM's new products have good interiors, on par with or better than Ford's offerings."

Wait, you're saying the Malibu, TrailBlazer, and G6 have a better interior than any of FoMoCo's offerings!?! Check out the new 500, Freestyle, Explorer, Expedition, F150, Volvos, MAZDA6, 3, RX8, Lincolns, and the rest of their group. I wouldn't say they're as good as you think they are.

theo2709 · February 2004

You can read all about the new Ford/GM FWD 6-speed auto here.

In reality, Ford is essentially paying GM to develop the transmission, and both will use it. It works out for both companies in the end.

tomcat630 · February 2004

Asian car companies collabarate on transmisions and other components all the time, so what?

bewhite25 · February 2004

Thanks, theo2709. That was a cool article. Maybe this will help us take back a share of the market from the Japanese. But, the six speeds that Ford is coming out with in the next year or two aren't from this argreement, are they? The 500's tranny comes from ZF.

mbukukanyau · February 2004

Show me an Engine that is more advanced than the LS6 Covertte & CTS V Pushrod engine. Its the most advanced engine on the market place. more advanced than the Northstar or any engine BMW or Ford can put on the market.

"outdated 4 sp. auto transmissions,"

BMW uses GM transmissions. In all vehicles other than 7 Series. That is how outdated GM transmissions are

bewhite25 · February 2004

First of all, I think Germans make more sophisticated engines than the LS6. And if you're not convinced, I think that Ferrari's 6.0L V12 quad cam deserves a little more recognition than a high tech GM pushrod.I'm not debating the fact that GM can do great things. They really can make great vehicles if they want to. However, what bothers me is the effort they put into the cars that most of us Americans are able to buy, like an Impala or a Silverado. Where's that sophisticated LS6 engine or used-by-BMW transmission? I'm impressed how Ford is making advanced technology available to middle class people. A new Ford Five Hundred SE base model has a 3.0L DOHC, 6 sp. auto transmission, a beautiful interior, and a great host of power options, for just over $22k. That's something that a lot of people can get their hands on. And, this whole time I've been saying how I'm impressed with Cadillac so don't think I totally despise GM. I don't want this to turn into some kind of flame war, but I still want to hear other people's opinions.

theo2709 · February 2004

The 5-speed automatic is for RWD only, and the first GM vehicle that was able to use it was the CTS. It has been used in BMWs for a while. It's growing a bit long in the tooth, but it is worlds better than the old-school 4-speed Hydramatics GM uses in most other things. The Nomad had the same 5-speed auto, BTW.

The 6-speed automatic Ford is using on the 500 et al. was purchased from an independant supplier, as Ford had the gumption to make the 500 as competitive as possible out of the gate. GM is stuck with its 4-speed autos until the Ford/GM 6-speeds come out in ~MY06. That is also the time period when GM's 6-speed RWD automatic transmissions will begin to show up, most likely first in the XLR and Corvette. It will probably be used more extensively on the new RWD Zeta cars coming out later in the decade.

Was that confusing to anyone?

b4z · February 2004

I don't think there is any auto manufacturer that knows how to do something better than another at a significantly lower cost.

Hondas have better, smoother engines than the GM, but they also have thinner sheetmetal.

Volkswagons have better quality interiors than GM, but their engines and maintenance are worse than GM's.

I am sure GM could build a car the equal of a BMW, but it would cost the same as a BMW.
And there are only a certain portion of the population that is willing to go to that price point for a car.

merc1 · February 2004

GM's LS6 engine is more sophisticated than BMW's 4.4L V8 and direct-injection V12? Yeah right!

4-Speed transmissions are outdated, and no BMW uses a 4-speed GM transmission, so that statement is incorrect also. Most BMW's use ZF transmissions. Only the 3-Series cars use a (5sp) GM trans now. A 4-speed on the new Corvette is beyond outdated, it's ridiculous.

M

chavis10 · February 2004

This is getting outrageous. I just finished reading your posts and it's time to wake up and smell the Starbucks. I can't believe we have to go over the basics of valvetrain and how it relates to specific output. Actually, this should be discussed in the "i don't like pushrods, why do you" forum. People are here to talk about the STS, not hear you rant about why you don't like GMs engines. It's funny because most GM bashers at least like good products. Ford engines not only are inferior to GM but almost every other good engine builder as well.

1) A two valve/cylinder engine will never produce as much power per litre as a four valve. That's why a 3.8L competes with a 3.0-3.5L 4 valve. It's funny because the 3800 has better gas mileage than the 3.0 Duratrash and is the ONLY V-6 that is SULEV rated. The 3800 would not compete with this engine anyway, the 3.6L VVT would. But hey, it's outdated.

3) Ford 500/Mercury Montego will be 3800+ lbs vehicles with only 200hp/200lbs-ft. If that's not a recipe for slow, please tell me what is?

2) 5.4 24 valve Triton outperforms 5.3 Vortec in every way? Do you have anything to support this? Or is this another opinion turned fact?

3) What does low end torque and responsiveness have to do with OHC versus in block cam? Nothing

4) 6.0l Vortec comes in 300, 325 and 345 hp config. I think that's a little more than "comparable" with Fords new Triton which accelerates not much faster than the old 260 hp unit.

5) A good 4 speed is better than crappy 5 speed. Think about the shifting issues the Lincoln LS experienced when introduced. Edmunds had a long term LS and had to get the tranny serviced numerous times to no avail. I think it took them about two model years to get the software right.

6) Ford doesn't even make their own 6 speed. Aisin makes it. And as someone else stated, the new FWD 6 speed will be built by GM who will then let Ford use them.

7) With regards to the Truck interiors, think, GMs are based on a 1999 design while the F150 is a 2004 design. It obviously should be better.

8) Northstar continues to be a superior engine to any of the "Modular V-8" variants.

Lincoln has consistently been behind the eight ball. The Town Car hasn't been able to touch the DeVille in years. The LS while nice, was a flawed design to begin with. The back seat is tiny and there is no storage. The new interior is nice but it now costs as much as the current (1998-2003) STS did. It may handle a little better because of the balanced chassis, but the STS was a superior car in every other respect.

Merc1, just because GMs 4 speeds lack ratios compared to newer models, they are not "outdated' as you put it. The electronics and shifting algorithms are as up to date as anyone else's. A lot of six speeds have trouble shifting smoothly and transparently(think VW). You won't have that in a GM auto. While most jumped to 6 speeds before they even got four or fives speeds right (i'm talking about in cars less the say $50k), GM has perfected the 4 speed and the new 6 speed will surely raise the bar. The 4 speed being installed in the C6 vette will be the most advanced 4 speed ever installed in a car. It'll only be there for a year. It'll incorporate PAS and PAL from the 5L50 E.

Back on topic, I think the STS will be hot. It definitely will offend less people than the new 5. Everyone has the E class. The S type is overpriced and so 2002. The new A6 look exactly like the old one. I think it should stack up well and it's interior looks better than that of the new 5 series.

bewhite25 · February 2004

I'm afraid this would happen. First of all, let me say what I said first of all that the STS will be a beautiful car. Also let me say that I respect the Cadillac divison and think they make great cars. I know the Northstar is a better engine than than Ford's Modular V8's. But how many cars use it? Do any of the cars made for ordinary people have this? Do any of the cars made for everyday people have this sophisticated Cadillac technology? No. I'm not debating the fact that GM can make good cars and powertrains. If you would have taken the liberty to read all of my previous posts, you would have seen that I defended the Cadillac divison and also seen that I said I know GM is a very capable company. What I am trying to say is that the everyday cars they make aren't up to today's standards. In regard to your previous statements:
1) I don't care about the 3.6. It's a fine engine. However, I don't see it being put into an Impala or Malibu anytime soon. As for fuel economy, the current Duratec (I do have the respect to not come up with insulting labels for GM powertrains) is rated at 20/29 and the 3800 at 20/30 so I call that a somewhat hollow claim for superior fuel economy. Anyway, my focus is on the new vehicles coming out from Ford, specifically the Futura and the 500, which use the same engine with a better transmission. I'm sure the fuel economy will be better than that of the 3800. If you claim that's not fair due to two extra gears, tell GM to take an initiative like Ford and use a better transmission too. As for your claim that the 3800 is a SULEV, I could find no information to back it up. If you have a link to prove that, I would love to see it. Ford is making hybrid engines to meet these standards, so I doubt a large displacement V6 can do it.
2) Well, I gues being "better in every way" is more of an opinion-based statement. For that I apologize. However, the 5.4 Triton produces 300hp @ 5000 rpm and 365 lb.ft of torque @ 3750rpm, with over 80% of this being produced below 1000 rpm. The 5.3 Vortec achieves only 295 hp at a higher 5200 rpm and only 330 lb.-ft at a also higher 4000rpm. EPA estimates on the Triton are 15/19 and 16/19 on the Vortec, which are very comparable. I've heard both engines run, and I prefer the smoothness of the new Triton (yes, I have heard more than a few 5.3's operate and I'm less than impressed). I guess that if I was looking for a capable truck, I would want a torquey Triton. It also has variable cam timing, which gets more low end torque and high end power, offering the best of both worlds.
3)Low end torque and responsiveness has a lot to do with ohc vs. block cam. With a pushrod, you have only one camshaft that operates the intake and outake valves via pushrods. The longer distance an exerted force is spread out, the more that will be lost, reducing efficiency. Overhead cams operate directly above the intake and exhaust valves, which means that the input force from the camshafts have less of a distance to be lost over. Also, any input from a camshaft that is working directly on the valves will provide a more instant response. With a block cam, those pushrods, no matter how good the design, still create a greater distance and unfortuantely with the physics in our world, the greater the distance that anything takes place over, the more forces it will encounter. This basically reduces the response from the camshaft.
4)Sure, the 6.0L Vortec has more power depending on the configuration. However, it's not used in the 1500 except as a performance engine in the 345 hp configuration. If we're talking performance engines in half tons, then don't forget to look at the 500hp supercharged 5.4. The 300hp configuration is for the 2500/3500. Sure it might be a better base engine than the 5.4, but most of these trucks are sold with diesel engines. When it comes to diesel peformance, the Powerstroke has the specs to beat out the Duramax (but maybe not the reliability to back it up). Any other use of the 6.0L is in Cadillac. Once again, my concern is regarding the majority of vehicles sold that anyone can afford. In this area, the 5.4 3v is a more powerful, smoother engine than the standard 5.3 Vortec.
5)Well, that transmission has been vastly improved for 2004. Anyway, it shows an initiative by Ford to build better technology. Nothing new is perfect. It takes time to perfect. GM is near that point with many of their 4 speeds, but they're not going to last forever. Ford is beating GM to the use of better transmissions by using independent suppliers like ZF. And once again, I don't care about what Cadillac does. I respect them and they make good cars. I care about primarily the Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Buick linse, which account for the majority of sales. I've seen no innovative engineering here except maybe for Quadrasteer.
6)Who cares if Ford doesn't use their own transmission? They're going the extra lengths to make sure that their finished products are quality. And GM doesn't deserve all the credit for the upcoming 6-speed transmissions. This is a collaboration and Ford is entitled to as much recognition as GM.
7)The '97-'03 F-150 even had a more stylish interior than the current GM trucks. And the new interiors like the Colorado and the Malibu are nothing to wrtie home about. Ford didn't make the best interiors a few years ago, but now they're really starting to get it right.
8)As I said before, you're right here. However, the majority of GM vehicles don't get this superb engine. Sure, Ford could develop a quad-cam V8 and only put it in a few hundred vehicles and no one would care. GM best sellers use commonplace powertrains.

I'm getting tired of this. Obviously, a "good car" is a matter of opinion and we Americans are too stubborn to let each other tell us what our opinions should be. GM can make good cars, and I love the new STS. I hope it can make foreign competition start to sweat, because I'd love to see the phrase "American car" actually be a positive thing once again.

merc1 · February 2004

All the "electronics and shifting algorithms" in the world won't compensate for that lack of gears. Period. That's the same (outdated) thinking behind Cadillac trying to send 300hp to the front wheels all this time, terminally flawed. They "perfected" that too per the GM faithful only to be behind the rwd cars in the segment and to ultimately abandon such a practice. If Chevy wants 911 buyers to look at a Corvette they could at least offer a 5sp automatic to match the tips in the 911s. All that shifting through those algorithms wouldn't be necessary if you had the right amount of gears to begin with. Even with all those algorithms it won't be as flexible as a modern 6speed, or even a 5speed auto. The Corvette's automatic transmission is outdated and really ridiculous on an all-new car.

Uh...a lot of 6-speeds have trouble shifting....right. I see no such problems with BMW's, Lexus' or Jaguar's 6speed autos....only one the VW has a problem (per you) doesn't mean a "lot of them" have a problem.

M

eaton53 · February 2004

"That's the same (outdated) thinking behind Cadillac trying to send 300hp to the front wheels all this time, terminally flawed. They "perfected" that too per the GM faithful only to be behind the rwd cars in the segment and to ultimately abandon such a practice."

Actually, Merc, I don't see them abandoning the practice, just trickling it down to other divisions and not putting it in Cadillacs anymore.

The FWD Northstar works much too well to abandon it. If one wants a FWD luxury car (there's obviously a market for them) there's no better powertrain.

ateixeira · February 2004

FWIW the V6 in the RX400H is SULEV.

I'm not sure if that's only when mated to the hybrid, or if all 3.3l V6s qualify for that.

Isn't PZEV even cleaner? The Focus has a PZEV 2.3l engine, Subaru sells a PZEV Outback 2.5l.

-juice

merc1 · February 2004

They are indeed abandoing that practice with the Seville replacement. The DeVille may sail on with the current layout because it's not a performance car, so there you're correct. But on the Seville Cadillac wasted years and years and untold amounts of money trying to convince mid-size luxury car buyers that 300hp through the front wheels was competitive with cars like the 5-Series, an utter waste of time.

M

chavis10 · February 2004

Most five or six speeds don't even use first gear unless the driver requests WOT. As we know, most don't. No Cadillac drivetrain is "flawed." GM is the only manufacturere that was able to send more than 275 hp through the front without torque steer. How many owners actually drive their cars hard enough to enjoy the benefits of RWD. I'd say about 10%. For the average driver the current STS/DTS drive as well and as smooth as any of the competition. I'll respond to the other guy and you in depth when I get some more time.

merc1 · February 2004

Don't tell me tell Cadillac, they're the one that felt the need to change. I wonder why if their way was so good to begin with.

Torque steer wasn't the only problem with a V8 FWD car, weight distribution is another demon that all that CVRSS and what not in the world couldn't overcome. Even Cadillac admits that a proper rwd car is needed to woo import buyers and you're still preaching how nothing was wrong with the old layout...wow. It was the most flawed layout in the class, for a performance minded sedan (STS). I'm not talking about the "average" driver, I'm talking about an enthusiast driver or at least one that thinks he is. For the average driver a Deville will do yes.

"GM is the only manufacturere that was able to send more than 275 hp through the front without torque steer"

A class of their own I guess, a legend in their own mine because nobody else is trying to send more than 275hp to front wheels, everyone else knows better.

FYI, I remember an Audi A8 model, with a 3.7L V8 to be exact, it was fwd and had 270 hp, and Car and Driver clearly stated that Cadillac should study the car to see "how it's done". I guess you forgot that.

A 4-speed automatic is ridiculous in a 45K V8 sports car with intentions of getting 911 buyers to consider it. No further "detail" (excuses) are needed.

M

rctennis3811 · February 2004

"GM is the only manufacturere that was able to send more than 275 hp through the front without torque steer."

You've gotta be kidding me! STS had a LOT of torque steer, but only when driven hard like accelerating onto a highway.

mbukukanyau · February 2004

GM's LS6 engine is more sophisticated than BMW's 4.4L V8 and direct-injection V12? Yeah right!

YES!
In most peoples mind, Pushrod=Low Tech old. You forget this is the III or now IV generation of this Engine. This is not your original small Block. To claim that Pushrods. = Low Tech just demonstrates our naivety in engine Technology.

For the cam-in-block engines to meet the demands of a new millennium  or increasingly stringent emissions standards - The LS1 small block represented the pinnacle of overhead valve technology, until the introduction of the 5.7L LS6. The Gen IV LS6 and now the 6.0LS2 V-8s share little with the original Chevrolet small block, save the classic 4.4-inch bore centers. the ultra-high performance LS6 When it comes to performance and efficiency BMW can only dream of.

The LS2 and LS6 V-8 engine, are so advanced that no engine in the world Including V12's can match its power output and efficiency per cylinder, while delivering power, packaging and efficiency to match the world's best.
If you doubt this, all you have to look is where a $ 55,000.00 Z06 performance #'s are compared to other cars in this price range.

A Z06 can only be matched up against cars up in the $100,000.00 price range in horsepower output and overall performance.

Do not listen to marketing hype, look at the details and #'s and know see.
Wait till you get the Nortstar Applied to STS-V. AMG And M5 Skunkworks will have to go back to the drawing board.

markhampton · February 2004

Merc1:

"Uh...a lot of 6-speeds have trouble shifting....right. I see no such problems with BMW's, Lexus' or Jaguar's 6speed autos....only one the VW has a problem (per you) doesn't mean a "lot of them" have a problem."

You don't see the problems because you don't live with one of them day in and day out. It took BMW 18 months and 5 software updates to get my my '02 745's transmission to operate correctly (for the most part). I wonder if Microsoft wrote the software

. The flakey electronics are another matter. I doubt BMW will ever exorcise those demons from my car. I hear that same ZF six speed used in the Jag S-Type has similar problems.

Earlier someone said something about BMW quality... LOL... Do your self a favor and go read some of the BMW and MB boards, along with JD Power and CS before you take that leap. As for me, I'm going back to Caddy when the lease is up on this beastly 7er. Goodbye unreliable BMW, hello reliable Cadillac (don't care if it's an STS, DTS or SRX).

Oh, and the 911-Corvette comparison is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say? I don't think they're being marketed to the same folks. A minimum $30k price difference probably has something to do with it. BTW, what do the 911 drivers get for that $30k? One lousy extra gear (a 5-speed tiptronic). Now that's really down there on the value scale.

Period.

b4z · February 2004

Drove a SRX on Friday and it is sweet.
I drove a base SRX and was suprised how well
the motor did hauling around 4100 lbs.
Lots of low end power too. I suspect 0-60 was around 7.5 secs.

Also looking at VW Toureg at 32,XXX cheaper than the SRX and a much nicer interior.
Curious how well the little V6 will haul around a 5,000+ lb vehicle.

And very concerned about VW reliability and dealer service. I have heard bad things.

I am going to try to negotiate my best price using Cadillac conquest cash(I own a Lexus) and see if i can get the SRX down into the 32-33K range.

Also wondering if a base STS will be available around 40K?

merc1 · February 2004

Now again, tell me exactly what makes the LS6 more sophisticated than the BMW V8 and V12?

Maybe it's the time of morning, but after reading that I didn't get anything technical from you on this. I do see where you said:

"The LS2 and LS6 V-8 engine, are so advanced that no engine in the world Including V12's can
match its power output and efficiency per cylinder, while delivering power, packaging and efficiency to match the world's best."

Please eplain this further. Power per cylinder is what we're down to now? Not power per liter? Interesting. Efficient...I'd call 333hp from 3.2L I6 pretty darn effecient. 405hp from 5.7L is more efficient??? Due the math, BMW's 4.4L V8, 4.9L V8 and 6.0L V12 all deliver more power per liter than the Z06 Vette's engine.

Next, what in the world does the Z06's performance for the dollar have to do with its engine being more sophisticated than BMW's 3.2L I6 (M3) or 4.4L V8 (5/745), 4.9L V8 (M5)?

We're not talking about performance bargains here, we're talking about engine technology. Part of the reason the Corvette Z06 is so cheap is because of it's pushrod engine. The minute GM does a modern OHC engine they scream it's costint them too much. Up until now on the OHC Northstar escaped the bean counters. Now add the new 3.6L V6 in the CTS/SRX and Rendevous. A cheapo interior helps the Vette in this reguard (low price) too.

Now I'm willing to listen, but only the facts.....not this:

"the ultra-high performance LS6 When it comes to performance and efficiency BMW can only dream of."

as it isn't factual..........at least not yet. Maybe this is a job for chavis10.

markhampton,

Hey Mark! Long time no post from. Anway I told you years ago not to put too much faith into those surveys. You harped on how BMW is so much more reliable than Mercedes, yet you commited a traditinal no-no (per your harping about S-Class buyers buying those oh so unreliable 2000 MY S-Classes.)......by buying a first year BMW 7-Series, based on those same surveys.........when I tried to tell you that those surveys aren't etched in stone and can't possibly account completely for how BMW's upcoming (at the time) cars are going to behave. Period.

I would think anyone that puts so much into surveys would have thought twice about buying a new model BMW 7-Series considering that the 2002 car was light years ahead of the 2001 model in evey way, for better of for worse. All that new technology alone should have given reason for pause since you obviously value reliability very highly (not that there's anything wrong with that).

BMW's long term rating has to drop for 2005, if they get enough 2002 7-Series owners in the mix, otherwise it'll be like before BMW at the top of the list, while there are quite a few of them out there that weren't anywhere near being reliable. But the survey clutchers will never ever get this. They simply see the BMW nameplate as #5 on the list, with no thought about where individual models might place. Truth be told the 7-Series has NEVER had stellar reliability. The 1995-2001 model had electrical, engine etc problems almost it's whole production run. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

There is similar problem/situation with Acura TL-S owners. One tranny after another, yet Acura remains high on the JDP Dependability survey, which goes back 3 years. BMW's rating should take a dip in 2005 when the ask the 2002 owners about their 7-Series cars.

I'm not making it up about the Corvette and the 911. Dave Hill stated that they are trying to get people that consider "import iron" like the 911 to look at the Corvette. Though I do understand your point, the demographic is kinda different for both cars.

I won't go into you thinking that 30K more gets a 911 buyer just an extra gear, thats another debate for another place.

So which Cadillac are you going back to?

M

markhampton · February 2004

I gave up writing on these boards -- no time really. Once in a while, when I hear a gross mischaracterization, or someone who, after all that has been written on the subject, is still uninformed on just how far American-made automobile technology has come, I'll jump in for a comment or two. I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing the point here, however.

I've written before on the reasons for leasing the 745. Suffice it to say that I didn't expect it to be perfectly reliable, per se. I did, however, expect that BMW could fix the problems quickly and easily. Unfortunately this has not been the case, and I deeply regret putting my faith in the company.

As bad as BMW reliability might be, MB is far worse. I've shown you the evidence ad nauseam, but I'll do it yet again. The S-Class, the M-Class and now the E-Class all demonstrate abysmal reliability. Choosing an MB would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fryer. No thanks. The MB remains merely average in the 2003 initial quality study -- slightly below Chevrolet -- and well below average in the 2003 long-term reliability study -- slightly below Dodge. BMW is better, but still well below Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, Cadillac, and Jaguar in terms of reliability.

"Please eplain [sic] this further. Power per cylinder is what we're down to now? Not power per liter? Interesting. Efficient...I'd call 333hp from 3.2L I6 pretty darn [sic] effecient [sic]. 405hp from 5.7L is more efficient??? Due [sic] the math, BMW's 4.4L V8, 4.9L V8 and 6.0L V12 all deliver more power per liter than the Z06 Vette's engine."

Who really cares about hp/liter? Really, why does it matter? If I wanted maximum HP/Liter, I'd buy a motorcycle. Of course, motorcycle engines need to be rebuilt at 10-20k miles. And there's the rub. All of that high-revving technology tends to wear out faster. As we all should know by now, compexity (i.e., more moving parts) rarely equates to higher reliability. Especially if all those moving parts generate more friction -- an inherent problem in low-displacement, higher revving engines.

There's more than one way to look at efficiency: HP/liter is one way. But I think gas mileage/HP is a far better measure. If the engine fits in the car, has more power, gets better mileage, and lasts longer (because of it's lower-revving inherently simpler design), I could really care less what it's displacement is. That's the bottom line. Power is something tangible to me because it changes the driving experience. Gas mileage is something tangible to me because it affects how much I will spend over the life of the car. Longevity matters to me, albeit less so since I don't keep cars past the warranty period. Displacement does not matter to me unless it affects one of the above. Lower displacement, by itself, offers no advantages to the driver. The Z06 offers all of these advantages in spades. That's all the buyer should care about in the end.

And with that final note, I'm going to enjoy the rest of my day.

eaton53 · February 2004

Merc,
The FWD Northstar is not going away, it's going into the Bonneville this year. Don't be surprised if it also starts finding its way into Buicks before long.

Horsrpower per liter... unless there's some stupid government displacement tax, who cares? Like the above post says, efficiency is the amount of power made relative to the amount of fuel used.

eaton53 · February 2004

"If hp per liter is no measure of an engine, than what is? Fuel economy surely isn't the only criteria."

Not talking fuel economy, which is the amount of fuel without regard to horsepower. I'm talking about the amount of horsepower relative to the amount of fuel used. The Z06 is an efficiency superstar.

"Oh, btw I don't want the Northstar powertrain to go away. I just think it was a waste in the fwd STS when trying to compete with GS430s and 540is. Nothing wrong with it in a less sporting car, nothing at all."

I agree with this completely. IMO, putting this powertrain and a nice interior in a big Buick would improve them tremendously. Just leave all of the RWD versions exclusive to Cadillac.

merc1 · February 2004

"Not talking fuel economy, which is the amount of fuel without regard to horsepower. I'm talking
about the amount of horsepower relative to the amount of fuel used. The Z06 is an efficiency
superstar."

Eaton I agree with this (for the most part), and it's no secret that a slow reving OHV V8 engine is going to be efficient when it comes to making power on very little fuel, but again this isn't the only way to measure how "efficient" an engine is. Sorry if you thought I meant MPG stuff, I didn't. I'm waiting on conclusive proof that the Z06's engine is the "most sophisticated engine on the market", one that Ford, and even BMW can't come close to touching.

I can't believe that hp/fuel used means everything and hp/liter doesn't mean anything to people on whats supposed to be an enthusiasts board, and that buyers of cars like Vettes, M3s M5s etc (enthusiasts with $$) don't care about hp per liter....but they're counting how many ponies can be made per gallon of fuel used. Amazing. The theory has to be made to fit the GM point of view everytime I guess.

M

eaton53 · February 2004

"I'm waiting on conclusive proof that the Z06's engine is the "most sophisticated engine on the market"

I'm not touching that one. A point I will make is this... I 'm not interested in the most sophisticated - I'm from the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) engineering school.

If there's a simple way to get something and a complex way to get something, I will take the simpler way every time because it makes for a more robust design at less cost.

The Germans can't seem to do anything without making it complex, which worked fine in the good 'ol cost-be-damned days. But when combined with cost cutting, it leads to the problems that have been showing up lately.

merc1 · February 2004

True, very true but we're talking about engines here, not Nav systems and window lifts..or idrive.

If the Z06's engine is the best in the world etc etc, then proof is needed, sophistication is only part of the original poster's claim.

M

b4z · February 2004

I agree with just about everythng in your post, but i did want to add an aside.
While pushrods are indeed simpler they is a little bit of an Achille's heal thre when it comes to high rpm operation.
Just about all of my small block Chevy's have had some sort of valve guide issues.
Blue smoke upon start, etc.

mbukukanyau · February 2004

So to you DOHC=High tech?
Pushrods. = Low Tech?
Nothing else counts

markhampton · February 2004

b4z:

I agree; pushrods do have limitations with respect to high RPM operations. The physics of moving the mass of a pushrod up and down at a high rate limits the revs in such a design. Evidently, however, GM's engineers have found a way to get the redline up to 6500 RPM. Not bad, eh? Who knows, if some of the ceramic designs prove viable, the mass of a pushrod could become negligible.

The last 350 small block I owned was in an '89 Chevy K1500. It didn't burn any oil at 50,000 miles, which is when I sold it. I know some people who drove '70s vintage 350s 200,000 miles or more without burning any oil, but I also know people who had oil burners. The rest of a '70s vintage Chevy was another matter, however. Most '70s vintage cars rusted to dust before the engines wore out -- that was my experience anyway

.

There are undoubtedly many factors at play when it comes to oil burning. I suspect oil burning has less to do with pushrod design, and more to do with valve and valve guide materials, design, tolerances, oil flow, oil technology, etc. I guess I have a hard time seeing how pushrod designs would inherently cause greater valve guide wear, but I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject.

Merc1:

Sounds like you're advocating the notion that complexity for complexity's sake is a good reason to choose a car. That's certainly BMWs view of the world. Take it from me, though, living with this complexity is no fun at all. They need to do a much better job of getting all of this complex technology working reliably before they release it to the public. That goes for both BMW and MB. If they can't do that, they deserve every single slam they get, and there will be plenty of victims/buyers like me to do the slamming.

When the time comes for you to buy your first S-Class/745, please be my guest and use your anecdotal evidence over the scientific statistical methods employed by JD Power. Just don't say you weren't warned.

merc1 · February 2004

"So to you DOHC=High tech? Pushrods. = Low Tech? Nothing else counts"

1. Not always.
2. Not always.
3. Yes, other things count, but I'm waiting on your complete technical breakdown as to why the Corvette Z06's V8 is "the most advanced engine in the world", one that "even BMW can't match". Seems like you have nothing at all to back up this tallest of claims.

markhampton,

Mark, Mark, Mark.....I'm talking with someone else about an engine comment and you're trying to tie it into your experience with a BMW 745i. My only point with you was that you harped about all those surveys, extolling BMW's placement on the charts, but you never checked where the 7-Series itself ranked, leading you to buy one on a belief that was never true in the first place. This has nothing to do with the engine conversation going on elsewhere. You simply took the BMW nameplate ranking 5th and ran with an assumption of reliability.

I agree with the complexity remarks made by you and others, especially with the Germans. Mercedes and BMW love it, but that has nothing to do with preaching on surveys only to get burned by them. BMW in particular has made, starting the 7, gear selection, seat adjustment and other basic functions ridiculously complicated in the 7-Series, no denying that. I've never had to have anything "explained" to me until I drove the 760Li.

Most importantly.......the difference between you and I is that I only use the surveys as one reference point, not as the bible. I know people with Audis, BMWs and plenty of Mercedes, and yes overall they aren't the most reliable bunch of cars compared to say Acura, Lexus and Infiniti, but unlike you I'll know this going in. I won't be mislead into to thinking these cars are something they are not. I already know the potential for problems exists. I won't ever let JDP or the truly stick-in-the-mud people at Consumer Reports influence my decision that much, because I know people with the 3 German brands that have had cars to exceed any and everything those surveys have said and I know people who've had just as much trouble as the surveys said they would.

M

markhampton · February 2004

Haven't we been here before? I'll say it again in the simplest terms:

1) There were NO surveys when I got my 745. 2002 was the 745's first model year.

2) I never claimed BMW had a good reliability record. I claimed they had a better record than MB, which isn't saying much. I also claimed that both were far below any other luxury make, including Cadillac, in terms of reliability. I stand by all of those claims, and can do better than "my friend says his car is peachy" to back it up.

3) I figured BMW could fix whatever problems might arise. In that, I was sorely mistaken.

4) Throw the anecdotes away my friend, because a sample size of even a dozen "friends" will give you a statistically meaningless result. You may as well use a dart board or a magic eight-ball as a third factor in your decisionmaking process if you're going to go that route. If you don't understand why, then we need go no further. Caveat emptor.

chavis10 · February 2004

Wow, I see I missed a lot. With regards to FWD Caddy's. GM obviously had to create a new rwd sedan because people like merc1 won't by a FWD car because he thinks RWD is better even though he'll only exploit the advantages about 2% of the time that he drives. Sure, you can cry about the "feel" of RWD all day and some of it is justified. However, since you like to talk about facts, the fact remains that a STS without the lastest tech available (MagneRide or CVRSS 2.0/Stabilitrak 2.0) posted better numbers than a 540i. No, the test didn't take "feel" into account, it just produced numbers and the numbers came back in the STS's favor. Weren't you the one always preaching about how Caddy needed "electronic crutches" to compete with the Europeans? Can you say ABC, AirmaticDC, Active Roll Stabilization, Active Steering, CATS, etc? Hmmm. That Audi 3.7 V-8 had only 230hp/235 lbs-ft, check your facts Merc- I guess you forgot that. You say weight distribution is such a big deal, why has the RS6 beaten the E55 in every comparison when it's weight distribution is 60/40 (the same as a Caddy DTS)??? I believe that the RS6 qualifies as a sports car, albeit one with AWD. Nissan and Acura still have trouble sending 230-260 lbs-ft through the front wheels while GM has been sending 295-300 pounds successfully for years, with struts mind you. VW Touareg apparently has some shifting smoothness issues with it's six speed. As does Jag. For cars that have a lot of torque, 6 gears seems like a little overkill- not only that, I haven't seen fuel economy increase in 6 speeds. A lot of cheap four speeds have trouble with gear hunting with their "grade logic" programs. So adding more gear choices will only make it worse. The fact remains that no amount of gears can make a bad automatic better than a good one with less gears. A 4 speed is ridiculous in a $45k sports car? How about a $45k sports car with cloth seats/manual seats(M3)? How about a $45k sports sedan with vinyl(5 series) or ones without CD players? For some reason, a Vette gets better mileage than a Honda S2000 with a 3.7L smaller engine, 110 less HP, and less weight. How does that happen since it's ridiculous two have only 4 gears? With regards to the LS6 being more technically sophisticated than the 6.0 Valvetronic V-12, I'll leave than alone. Most good engines are very technically sophisticated. I will say direct injection is a waste of time in North America until they get more sulfur out of the fuel. The valvetronic throttle-less intake system is trick but does have limitations. It won't be utilized in any M engines unless they decided to lower current redlines. It has an extra cam above two conventional cams to control the valve lift which act like individual throttles. It might be asking a little too much to rev all this hardware to say the 7000+ rpm redline that would be appropriate in an M5. Mechanically, the V-12 is a more complex design than any other engine configuration. However, Benz is kicking BMW's butt in the HP race with conventional means so the "sophisticated" V-12 seems pointless. I did hear that BMW is pumping of the juice for the freshened 7 series coming next fall.

Tennis, I've driven DTSs and STSs around a road course and they torque steered only in extreme situations. You obviously haven't had much seat time so I won't even respond to your nonsense. In fact, the felt no different than the LS430 and S430. Unless a RWD car is set up for serious performance, it won't really handle any better than a good FWD car. I'd buy a current STS (now used I guess) over a A6, 5 series, or E class in a minute. First off, AWD is a waste of time and fuel if you live in an area where you only get snow a couple times a year. However, for those few times it does snow, I'd rather have FWD than RWD. The market now dictates that a luxury car have an AWD option. That's good for folks who live in the extreme climates. However, if you own a good FWD, AWD isn't needed. It only helps you go, not stop which is where trouble can happen. How many accidents were caused by someone trying to accelerate as opposed to someone braking?

markhampton · February 2004

You hit the nail on the head. The handling advantage one gets with a 745 is a complete waste 95% of the time. And for this, we're forced to live with sub-par noise and comfort characteristics. No thanks. And Merc, please spare us the "I drove an Uber Buggy once and it was wonderful in every way" crap.

Cars that attempt to be all things to all people, almost end up to be a sad compromise that please few people. Next time, if I want no-compromise Corvette-style performance I'll just buy a used Corvette, and drive a DTS the other 95% of the time.

blkcadillac · February 2004

Can we mature people please get back on track about the STS, and not other makes, MB, BMW, etc. So what about the engines, talk about the STSs egines and stop dissing each other.
And yeah 4 speeds do sell I dont care if grandma and papa buys them. DeVille has been the number one luxury best seller almost 20 years. HA HA, and I love that car. To all the Caddy/GM engine haters remember GM is #1 so their doing something right.
Do hate the SPEEDS.
P.S. if one lives in a large city where traffic is hell, who really needs 6,or 7 speeds you probably would even use all of them.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles