Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I can't remember the last time I saw an Avalanche that wasn't a dealers car.
TO each his own I guess. No dumber looking that the big 22inch wheels and tires on half the Vehicles down here.
He carries a lot of paperwork in his too. He'd probably like an Escalade just fine though. :shades:
It appears that, with the introduction of the substantially upgraded V6 version of the 2008 STS, Caddy has in fact decided to allow something quite similar to what I had in mind back then.
Essentially, I was looking for the highest \ best performance & handling equipment, without pushing MSRP well over $60K – for ‘stuff’ I really did not care that much about. ( Such as the Navigation system, Bose sound system, HIDs, rear heated seats, and a few other items. )
This V6, with 300+ HP and a flat TQ curve, implying good general drivability in addition to that rather high specific output, mated to GM’s 6L50 6 speed automatic ( a version of the trans. in my Corvette ) intrigues me. Particularly with the imminent release of the CTS. ( Still waiting to see pricing. )
** IF ** the dynamics of the 2008 V6 STS are actually much as described in the previews I have read, and the quality ( mechanically & cosmetically ) is improved – in addition to the revamped interior & exterior. ( The 4 previews I have read so far, including 1 here on Edmunds, have been quite positive. )
And ** IF ** the acceleration feel and handling feel of the V6 is truly as good as initial reviews, based on pre-production examples, is as good as reported. And the NVH control is refined.
And ** IF ** the [ real world ] fuel mileage is reasonable.
Etc.
THEN, I see this as an advance toward Caddy making the STS a sales success. And building a base of [ very ] satisfied Caddy customers. I see potential to sell more V6 STSs than V8s, as has always been true – and these advancements sound like they’ll make the STS V6 something that will impress.
And I also see this as a move toward making Caddy far more competitive – if not exactly “The Standard Of The World”. And certainly, if the V6 STS sells in larger numbers, and the upcoming CTS ( same motor available ) also becomes a sales success, these revenue stream enhancements ** MAY ** allow Caddy to invest in the other aspects that would push the Brand higher. If GM so chooses.
I have asked the Internet Manager at my closest dealer to notify me when 2008 V6 STSs start arriving. I plan to test drive one, equipped as close as possible to how I’d buy one: 1SC, PDQ & PCZ. MSRP just under $55K. ( Where previously a V8 with PCZ had to be a 1SG, and had an MSRP well over $60K. A 2007 1SG – V8 w/Sunroof and premium paint currently on my Dealer’s lot lists at $62,940. That is without a HUD. And with no PCZ. )
In addition to the larger ( Summer only ) tires & wider wheels & Brembo brakes, a 2008 STS V6 so equipped would even include a HUD – something previously only available bundled with (K59) Adaptive Cruise Control, and priced at something over $2,000. And again only available on the V8 with 1SG. I have had a HUD on past vehicles and have one on my Corvette – and appreciate the usefulness.
It would include the Navigation system, heated AND VENTILATED front seats – and even a heated steering wheel. For a much more reasonable actual transaction cost. IMHO. And at a ‘penalty’ ( vs the V8 version ) of only 0.2 seconds in 0 – 60 acceleration. A difference I suspect very, very few could discern. IMHO.
I see all this as Caddy making progress – movement in what I consider “The Right Direction”.
Cheers,
- Ray
Willing to be convinced that this is a satisfying sedan to drive . . .
There were no European cars that could have been taken apart, with two other cars like it, and then, after mixing up the parts, put together three new cars from the parts of the three old cars. However, Ford model A's or T's (not sure which might have been in production) could have done just as well as Cadillac's.
Article Comments - 2008 Cadillac CTS First Drive
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f149765/0
-Rocky
Looks like a nice ride, I can't see why anyone would buy a current one now.
-Agree Fintail......I guess the attractive lease deals and incentives have helped some take the plunge.
-Rocky
torque/hp curve:
http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/domestic/graytabcontroller.jsp?graytabtype=1&rp- oid=36105&vehicleid=4824®ionID=1§ion=oi_def
It's a very VERY good used car. 15-16K for a few year old example and well, it's SO much better than, what, a Fit or a new Corolla?
EDIT: The new DI - look at that - diesel flat torque. Now compare that to a typical Toyota or Honda engine. (evil grin). That means you get full power at any speed or gear, as long as the pedal is down more than 1/4 the way.(probably 1/8th for most around town driving)
Most people are going to be shocked. That's the flattest torque curve GM has ever made.
-Rocky
I am going to Vegas in a couple weeks, I see you can rent CTS there. I'd almost think about it.
That's an artifact of the inflated torque scale on the chart. 700 foot-pounds? Come on, it's not a diesel. It's running 220 ft-lb at 1200 rpm (80% of peak), which isn't anything to get excited about these days. And what's with the VTEC-looking dip in the low 3000s?
This is what a flat torque curve looks like.
11.3 is pretty low compression for direct injection. 12 is about as low as any self-respecting engine builder should go.
Rent a CTS-V and see how it compares to the E55.
I can get a S550 for $325/day from Dollar...but that's not gonna happen.
What's really important, though, is the under 3000rpm range where 90% of daily driving happens. An engine that's only putting out ~100-120HP at 3000rpm(and mile-tall gearing of course) is essentially no different than a little 4 cylinder turbo of old.
As for the compression ratio, yes, it's low. That's to be able to use standard gasoline. Or would you rather premium only?
There are exceptions to that sweeping generalization.
The current BMW 335i(xi) and 535i(xi) are prime examples.
At the flywheel, the torque curve of the 3.0L Twin Turbo motor is dead flat from approx. 1,500 to 5,000 RPM.
One ‘real world’ chassis dyno test:
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0609_c_bmw_335i_dyno.jpg
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0609_2007_bmw_335i_dyno_revised/
Not really. There's a dyno chart floating around for the G37, showing its torque curve to be almost literally flat from 2200 rpm to 7200 rpm.
What's really important, though, is the under 3000rpm range where 90% of daily driving happens.
Anyone who buys a "sport" sedan with the optional high-output engine, then loafs it along at 2000 rpm all day long has wasted their money. They should have bought a Buick or an Avalon.
As for the compression ratio, yes, it's low. That's to be able to use standard gasoline. Or would you rather premium only?
Yes. A premium car with a premium engine should be designed to run on something better than dishwater. Computer controls can retard the timing and fuel maps to allow cars to run on crap gas, so there's no good reason to hobble the engine with low compression. Anyone making the payments on a $40,000 car should be able to afford an extra 20-30 cents a gallon.
This one???
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0705_c+2008_infiniti_g37+dyno_chart.j- pg
Remember, despite it having all the power in the world, unless you can get a 6 speed manual gearbox with tight gearing in that "sports sedan" and then keep it in second gear around town(to get it into the 2500-4000rpm range - expect 16-18mpg!), you're stuck with loafing around town.
(of course *I* ignore gas mileage and do this - get about 250 miles per tank. 90% of people don't)
Mash the pedal - 3-4 seconds - 35-40 mph... torque converter locks up and you... "loaf". It shifts up a gear... you loaf. You want to unlock that torque converter and pass someone? Well, it's "loafing" at a whopping 900-1200rpm and you suffer a 2-3 second lag before it gets into its power band. The GM? Nope - none of that WOT-lag beahvior with this.
The BMW is an exception obviously because they use I-6 engines, which develop better torque and power for their displacement.(technically, the I-6 is the closest thing to a perfect engine that's possible from a power, weight, and efficiency standpoint - which is why BMW refuses to change)
P.S.
Though, you'll note that only TWO of the GM 3.6 applications are geared for low-end torque. The rest are no different from the standard stuff out there.
Go drive a CTS with the 3.6. Now, go across the street to the Buick dealer and drive the LaCrosse CXS. Same engine, same suspension, but which one drives better? Surprizing, isn't it? The CTS feels average. The CXS feels like a small block V8 from the 60s. Blip the throttle even a tiny but over idle and presto - maximum torque.
The new DI CTS seems to be simmilar - just without sacrificing HP to do it.
Who would want to drive at 1200-1600 rpm?
As for the rest of it, it sounds like a torque converter is a death sentence for a good engine and a good reason to avoid the slushbox. Now, where's that manual Lacrosse?
Me, for 1.
My Corvette, in sixth gear shows 1600 RPM at approx. 73 MPH. A cruising speed I often find comfortable. Returning 30+ MPG. 80 MPH is approx. 1750 RPM.
But who’s counting . . .
- Ray
Happy at low RPM, cruising & happy at high RPM accelerating ( um ) briskly . . .
But who would want to run a DOHC V6 that slowly? That's like asking a thoroughbred to do a mule's job.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/HPT%20Library/HVV6/20- - - 08_39L_LZG_Impala.pdf
Would re-engineering the valve train to have a DOHC instead of the single cam in block change anything? What I mean is to keep the two valve per cylinder design, with the same intake manifold and the same valve timing. I think below 6000 RPM's there would be no change in performance, torque or horsepower. Above 6000 RPM's the DOHC might possibly have bit more power, but with the peak horsepower at 5600 RPMs, it is more a question of falling off more slowly, not resulting in more horsepower.
The point of course is that with a DOHC design, one would have 4 valve per cylinder and separate VVT on the intake and exhaust valves. Then one gets something like this:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/HPT%20Library/HFV6/20- - 08_36L_LY7_CTS.pdf
The big difference between these two engines is the extra valves with the intake and exhaust timing variation independant of each other. The pushrods are irrelavant, except that they probably make putting more than two valves per cylinder difficult or of little real value.
Of course if all the bulbs are starting to go one by one...
I doubt that Chevy light bulbs are easily changed either...
With 2 months and around 3K miles, I am nothing but impressed with the car and the dealer. The car runs perfectly. The ride is smooth, the cabin is quiet and the nav system is a dream. My trip from upstate NY to Brooklyn and back ran without a hitch. My mileage on this still new engine and transmission averages around 24 MPG mixed local and highway driving.
Is Cadillac setting the standard for American cars? My experience is that they are, and from reading about the new CTS and STS for '08, they are again raising the bar.
Personally, I will always drive a GM car - I refuse to be on the road without OnStar. My wife has severe medical issues, and having OnStar available has assisted us on several occasions. Enjoying the experience of driving a Cadillac just makes that even sweeter!
Anyone else with this problem.
Oh, and also the rear end was replaced at 20k miles, you can't replace front exterior light bulbs without dismantling the bumper, and the car will not start at all at times.
But mostly, I am interested in why a honda accord has a beter paint job than my Cadillac SRX
-Rocky
That does sound poor. Anybody know how a vehicle can have vertical stripes? If there is a problem it is horizontal stripes due to the fact that the paint gun runs along the car horizontally, not vertically. I guess if the paint is put on too heavily it could run.
Doesn't say most powerful V6 it says most powerful engine.