: Sts/cts



MARKVIII
09-10-07, 06:38 PM
anyone else besides me pissed off at cadillac that the new CTS is so much better then the STS when it comes to interior/audio/navigation/lighting/etc and at 15k less...i sure the hell am.
Binky what is your take on this??

dkozloski
09-10-07, 07:37 PM
anyone else besides me pissed off at cadillac that the new CTS is so much better then the STS when it comes to interior/audio/navigation/lighting/etc and at 15k less...i sure the hell am.
Binky what is your take on this??
After driving my AWD STS I wouldn't walk across the street for a CTS. The CTS was nice but the interior is too small and the V6 motor is harsh. It's a good city car but it's a kids car. The first thing I said to myself when I got in my STS was, "This is a real Cadillac". Neither NAV works in Alaska so that's a non issue. I have a 90% hearing loss in the higher frequencies from years of flying so the sound doesn't matter and everything else is fine. I got an exceptonal deal when I bought it so the price doesn't bother me. I finally figured out the seat presets so there is absolutely nothing about the car that annoys me. I'll stick with the STS.

c5 rv
09-10-07, 08:02 PM
It sure does seem that the CTS and STS are closer than ever with the release of the 08s. I think GM had originally planned to move the STS further upmarket, but that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon - if ever. I read somewhere (maybe here) that the STS and DTS will be combined into a single offering with AWD or RWD/FWD (don't remember which).

Lifer
09-10-07, 08:14 PM
I wouldn't walk across the street for a CTS.

Probably because you might slip and fall on the ice up where hell freezes over - Fairbanks, eh? :thumbsup:

dkozloski
09-10-07, 08:38 PM
Probably because you might slip and fall on the ice up where hell freezes over - Fairbanks, eh? :thumbsup:
Not to worry! The street sanding crews do a good job around here.

MARKVIII
09-10-07, 09:25 PM
ok granted. however, what i am talking about the technology that can be had in a $34k cts that you cannot get in a 60k sts. the interior is far superior, the naviagation/ipod integration is better. the headlights and the interior lighting and lots of other cool "toys"

thefred
09-10-07, 09:48 PM
The nav and bluetooth in the STS are miles behind the current offerings. Whenever Cadillac decided to put these things in, they put as little effort into them as possible. After speaking with the manufacturer of the unit, they told me that they had only tested three phones for their use with the car!

dkozloski
09-10-07, 09:49 PM
ok granted. however, what i am talking about the technology that can be had in a $34k cts that you cannot get in a 60k sts. the interior is far superior, the naviagation/ipod integration is better. the headlights and the interior lighting and lots of other cool "toys"
I don't give a dog about no eye-pod, the headlight/intellibeam works great, the interior suits me fine, I've got enough light to see what I'm doing. Ignorance is bliss.
Evidently you're the kind of guy that buyers remorse eats him up.

MARKVIII
09-11-07, 07:38 AM
for what i paid and for what i got i do not have buyers remorse. the point i am trying to make here is that the sts is supposed to be the flagship GM sedan. it certainly has a sticker price to back up that statement. however, the current CTS has options (and toys if you will) that even the Current STS DOES NOT. does this make sense to anyone here? except for a (underpowered) V8 engine what else would be the reason to purchase an sts when you can get a little smaller car with a lot more content for a much cheaper price??!?
Chew on that Mr. Bear

corvette00
09-11-07, 08:22 AM
I agree with MarkVIII. I have had seven STS's and may go to a CTS for my next vehicle. The CTS appears to be a lot more bang for the buck (plus it looks better). The side vents added to the STS look slapped on, and I am not sure how I like the new grill. Since the STS is slated for some sort of change in the next two years it would be nice if a V- appearance package was offerred on the current awd. I think GM has product introduction backwards. They should introduce the higher-line vehicle first then follow in the next year with a lower model. I can't tell you how many times people have thought my STS is a CTS and I have a loaded 1SG. I am anxoius to see the new CTS V. Perhaps Gm will incorporate a traction system that will actually work on snow and rain.

dkozloski
09-11-07, 12:01 PM
The CTS is for kids who want gadgets. The STS is a smooth comfortable ride for the mature who don't want to be bothered fiddling with gimcracks. CTS owners want people to think they're important. STS owners don't give a damn. I have just as many people walk up to me and tell me I have a beautiful car with my STS as I did with my CTS. They're both nice cars made for a different demographic.

MARKVIII
09-11-07, 02:06 PM
Binky i like ya but your wrong. It maked no sense to me why the CTS has things the STS does not. Weather you would want them or not in your vehicle is not the question here. Content is king when it comes to many things. Just the fact that the CTS has the better interior/nav/audio/ipod integration/headlights/ambient lights/suspension eats me up alive.

Curious George
09-11-07, 02:39 PM
I think GM has product introduction backwards. They should introduce the higher-line vehicle first then follow in the next year with a lower model.

I submit that's exactly what Cadillac did. The Sigma-based, higher-line STS was introduced in 2004, followed by the Sigma II-based lower model CTS in 2007. The STS, in its day, was a ground-breaking car for Cadillac and GM. The STS has now been supplanted by the evolutionary 2008 CTS. In time the STS/DTS replacement will supplant the CTS. As I am wont to remind everyone every once in a while: every year, in most ways, cars get better and better.

That's not to say that Cadillac shouldn't install a newer Nav system, add an MP3/iPod interface, and fit adaptive headlights to the STS. But those things require investments in engineering and design for a car that is, apparently, nearing the end of its life. It's my belief, based on the absence of such incremental improvements and the dearth of STS advertising, that Cadillac has given up on our (mostly) beloved STS. Gentlemen, we own/lease orphans-in-the-making.

The king is dieing!:crying2: Long live the new king!:banana:

Hey! This is my 100th post. Drinks for the house!:alchi:

MARKVIII
09-11-07, 02:53 PM
I realize that if a car is not selling then there will be little or no money for R&D and improvments. I give you the cadillac eldorado of which i owned two. Here was a car that first came out in 1992. I would imagine the research for this car started in the late '80s. The car was just about unchanged for 11 years until it was discontinued. That means that cadillac was (trying) to sell a 1980's technology car in 2002. And at $49,000 (for the etc) yet.
This is one of the main reasons cadillac is behind the imports. I cannot think of one high end luxary import car company that would do that with any of there models. they would rather cancel production then sell some 10 yr old shit box.

dkozloski
09-11-07, 03:59 PM
I realize that if a car is not selling then there will be little or no money for R&D and improvments. I give you the cadillac eldorado of which i owned two. Here was a car that first came out in 1992. I would imagine the research for this car started in the late '80s. The car was just about unchanged for 11 years until it was discontinued. That means that cadillac was (trying) to sell a 1980's technology car in 2002. And at $49,000 (for the etc) yet.
This is one of the main reasons cadillac is behind the imports. I cannot think of one high end luxary import car company that would do that with any of there models. they would rather cancel production then sell some 10 yr old shit box.
Something doesn't compute here. My friend had a '54 Eldorado; dual 4-barrels, tailfins and all.

MARKVIII
09-11-07, 04:08 PM
and your point is??

dkozloski
09-11-07, 04:21 PM
and your point is??
You stated it came out in 1992. ???

Lifer
09-11-07, 08:06 PM
I have a 90% hearing loss in the higher frequencies from years of flying. I'll stick with the STS. After reading your posts I get the idea that the flying was done in a bi-plane and Orville Wright was your flight instructor. :patriot:

dkozloski
09-11-07, 08:23 PM
After reading your posts I get the idea that the flying was done in a bi-plane and Orville Wright was your flight instructor. :patriot:
I learned to fly in a Cessna 180 and my instructor was Ron Klemm. http://www.evertsair.com/images/default.htm

malatu
09-11-07, 08:36 PM
I don't own either an sts or a cts but One of these days I'll own an STS. Today I sat in both the STS and the CTS while at the dealership. I must say, the aesthetics of the CTS's interior knocked my socks off! In fact I sat in the CTS first and then the STS (both 2008). When I sat in the STS the interior looked/felt like an older model car. I sat in both for less than two minutes each but that is my initial reaction. I can't speak to any details or specifics .... again, only my initial reaction and feeling I got from each interior. I do appreciate and understand where MarkVIII is coming from and agree with his assessment. Also, do we appreciate cars for what they are, or who drives them?

dkozloski
09-11-07, 10:28 PM
I learned to fly in a Cessna 180 and my instructor was Ron Klemm. http://www.evertsair.com/images/default.htm

A good friend of mine taught himself to fly. His dad had a couple of old planes in pieces in the back of a shed. He picked out the best stuff and put it all together into a flying machine. He had read a lot of stick and rudder books on flying instruction and started out taxiing up and down the runway. He went faster and faster until he was kind of skipping into the air and setting it back down. He got braver and braver until he was flying around and around the field. He read more books and did more practicing until he thought he was ready to apply for a license. At this point he ran afoul of the air regulations and found out he had to have a certain amout of dual instruction and some endorsements in a logbook. He'd kept a record of what he'd been doing and with the help of a few friends, soon he took his check ride and had his license. He started a very successful flying school and is very highly regarded as an aviator. This is the God's honest truth.

Lifer
09-12-07, 09:00 AM
I learned to fly in a Cessna 180 and my instructor was Ron Klemm. http://www.evertsair.com/images/default.htm

Cool site on Ron.

My Uncle paid for my flying lessons. Of course I had to work for him to satisfy his effort. Class 68-3, Red Hats, Ft. Rucker, Alabama. Fixed Wing.

35451

dkozloski
09-12-07, 12:58 PM
Cool site on Ron.

My Uncle paid for my flying lessons. Of course I had to work for him to satisfy his effort. Class 68-3, Red Hats, Ft. Rucker, Alabama. Fixed Wing.

35451
I've got some single engine Otter time. 65 Knots climb, dive, and glide. It climbs out nose low. Kind of like flying a giant Super Cub. Big round engines forever! Big wheels keep on turnin'.

Curious George
09-13-07, 04:41 PM
OK, trying to tie the original subject of this thread to flying: has anyone test-flown either the '08 CTS or '08 STS? How do they compare in VFR conditions? IFR? Are either capable of water landings? Is ACC a factor in avoiding taxi-way collisions (a plus of STS)? In either car, can one confidently ignore those "Aircraft have right-of-way" signs at airports?

dkozloski
09-13-07, 04:50 PM
OK, trying to tie the original subject of this thread to flying: has anyone test-flown either the '08 CTS or '08 STS? How do they compare in VFR conditions? IFR? Are either capable of water landings? Is ACC a factor in avoiding taxi-way collisions (a plus of STS)? In either car, can one confidently ignore those "Aircraft have right-of-way" signs at airports?
I had a pilot friend of mine in Oregon that scared the sh!t out of me while riding with him in his old DeSoto. Everytime we'd run into a fogbank he'd start staring at the instrument panel trying to drive the car on the gages.

Lifer
09-14-07, 10:16 AM
I had a pilot friend of mine in Oregon that scared the sh!t out of me while riding with him in his old DeSoto. Everytime we'd run into a fogbank he'd start staring at the instrument panel trying to drive the car on the gages.

Hope he didn't put it cruise control and then stretch out in the rear seat.

We had a mission in Nam where at 10,000 feet we flew the Otter in a circle above a team on the ground. A few light taps of the trim wheel and slid the power just right and the Ugly One (U-Ia) almost flew itself for the next four hours. :bonkers:

Curious George
09-14-07, 04:24 PM
Cool site on Ron.

My Uncle paid for my flying lessons. Of course I had to work for him to satisfy his effort. Class 68-3, Red Hats, Ft. Rucker, Alabama. Fixed Wing.

35451

BTW, I like the design of the airplane you picture in your post. Is it a Boeing? The rear of the fuselage and the rudder remind me of a B-17.

dkozloski
09-14-07, 04:50 PM
BTW, I like the design of the airplane you picture in your post. Is it a Boeing? The rear of the fuselage and the rudder remind me of a B-17.
Dehavilland of Canada, DHC-3 Otter is the factory designation. 600HP Pratt & Whitney Geared R-1340 engine.

Lifer
09-14-07, 09:37 PM
Dehavilland of Canada, DHC-3 Otter is the factory designation. 600HP Pratt & Whitney Geared R-1340 engine.

59-foot wing span, 8K lb gross, three fuel tanks, and fully intrument rated. She handles heavy, like a Caddy, and is smooth as glass in all but a storm cloud. Easy to take off and easy to land. Real slow. Mak x-wind - 20 knots at 45 degrees across the front (I did 30 knotts at 90 degrees 'cause I'm a cowboy). No pressurization, so a solid 10,000 feet max. Takes 30 min to get there from sea level.

The picture was taken over Nha Trang, South Viet Nam at 10,000 ft by me in an identical aircraft. Its a special tricked-up plane for special missions. The engine is a 1340 P&W but rebuilt by Spatan Mfg (a real mistake).

It can be fitted with floats for some fine bush flying. It was the plane the Beaver was designed from. Sure miss both of them.
35578

dkozloski
09-15-07, 09:12 PM
59-foot wing span, 8K lb gross, three fuel tanks, and fully intrument rated. She handles heavy, like a Caddy, and is smooth as glass in all but a storm cloud. Easy to take off and easy to land. Real slow. Mak x-wind - 20 knots at 45 degrees across the front (I did 30 knotts at 90 degrees 'cause I'm a cowboy). No pressurization, so a solid 10,000 feet max. Takes 30 min to get there from sea level.

The picture was taken over Nha Trang, South Viet Nam at 10,000 ft by me in an identical aircraft. Its a special tricked-up plane for special missions. The engine is a 1340 P&W but rebuilt by Spatan Mfg (a real mistake).

It can be fitted with floats for some fine bush flying. It was the plane the Beaver was designed from. Sure miss both of them.
35578
Beaver preceded the Otter by about six years

Lifer
09-15-07, 10:38 PM
Beaver preceded the Otter by about six years

I stand corrected. No, I sit corrected. The Beaver dates back to 1948 and the Otter began design in 1951 fbased on the Beaver's success, with production strating 1952. However, anyone who volunteered for Otter school got awarded the Congressional Medal of Otter. That's a fact, Jack. :crybaby:

Lifer
09-15-07, 10:46 PM
has anyone test-flown either the '08 CTS or '08 STS?

I don't know about that thing they call the CTS, or the new STS, but I did get an 50-ton M-60 Combat tank off the ground, hitting 45 MPH over a washboard road at Ravena Army Arsenal in 1984. It was confirmed that there were no tank tracks in the road for over 15 feet - YEE HAA!! We came down flat and banged hard. No torsion bars broken, but we did a full swing on the road wheels on landing. Heck of a vehicle. Built by the lowest bidder in Lima Ohio. :thumbsup:

Lifer
09-15-07, 10:52 PM
I don't know about that thing they call the CTS, or the new STS, but I did get an 50-ton M-60 Combat tank off the ground, hitting 45 MPH over a washboard road at Ravena Army Arsenal in 1984. It was confirmed that there were no tank tracks in the road for over 15 feet - YEE HAA!! We came down flat and banged hard. No torsion bars broken, but we did a full swing on the road wheels on landing. Heck of a vehicle. Built by the lowest bidder in Lima Ohio. :thumbsup:

35603

dkozloski
09-16-07, 01:10 AM
I don't know about that thing they call the CTS, or the new STS, but I did get an 50-ton M-60 Combat tank off the ground, hitting 45 MPH over a washboard road at Ravena Army Arsenal in 1984. It was confirmed that there were no tank tracks in the road for over 15 feet - YEE HAA!! We came down flat and banged hard. No torsion bars broken, but we did a full swing on the road wheels on landing. Heck of a vehicle. Built by the lowest bidder in Lima Ohio. :thumbsup:
I attended a live shoot at Aberdeen Prooving grounds in Maryland one Armed Forces Day. They ran an M1 back and forth across the whoop de doos and got major air every time. Next they ran across the whoop de doos and while in the air fired at a target down range with the big gun and dead centered it every time. It was an absolute blue bird day and I could see the projectiles as they went down range. They looked a gray color as they came out the barrel but by the time they got to the target were near incandescent. Also demonstrated were a Bradley, a Carl Gustav, and numerous artillery pieces. The air show consisted of a Cobra gunship firing everything it had from miniguns to rockets until it was empty in one burst. All in all it was quite a show. The most exciting part was still to come. There was a huge groan and some snapping noises and the whole grandstand shifted in a partial collapse. You never saw so many people all trying to levitate at the same time. Everybody filed off very calmly and carefully without further incident. I was very happy when my feet were on solid ground again.

Lifer
09-16-07, 05:49 PM
I attended a live shoot at Aberdeen Prooving grounds in Maryland one Armed Forces Day. They ran an M1 back and forth across the whoop de doos and got major air every time. Next they ran across the whoop de doos and while in the air fired at a target down range with the big gun and dead centered it every time. It was an absolute blue bird day and I could see the projectiles as they went down range. They looked a gray color as they came out the barrel but by the time they got to the target were near incandescent. Also demonstrated were a Bradley, a Carl Gustav, and numerous artillery pieces. The air show consisted of a Cobra gunship firing everything it had from miniguns to rockets until it was empty in one burst. All in all it was quite a show. The most exciting part was still to come. There was a huge groan and some snapping noises and the whole grandstand shifted in a partial collapse. You never saw so many people all trying to levitate at the same time. Everybody filed off very calmly and carefully without further incident. I was very happy when my feet were on solid ground again.

I got this lucky shot with my trusty Pentax Spotmatic and 200 mm lens at the air show, Ft Stewart, Ga, Armed Forces Day, 1970. Look closely at the tail wheel and the ailerons. He was landing, slow, and a gust hit him. Close call for sure - but he handled it like a practiced pro. :bouncy:

35641

dkozloski
09-16-07, 06:39 PM
I got this lucky shot with my trusty Pentax Spotmatic and 200 mm lens at the air show, Ft Stewart, Ga, Armed Forces Day, 1970. Look closely at the tail wheel and the ailerons. He was landing, slow, and a gust hit him. Close call for sure - but he handled it like a practiced pro. :bouncy:

35641
Looks like a military Helio H295. G0-480 Lycoming 295HP. As exotic as it looks, for short takeoff it is consistantly out performed by a Cessna 206. The secret is to remove the tailcone on the 206 so it won't drag the ground on roation.

MARKVIII
09-16-07, 07:59 PM
i am glad my thread got hijacked by two old farts talking about balsa wood planes.

dkozloski
09-16-07, 09:56 PM
i am glad my thread got hijacked by two old farts talking about balsa wood planes.
They're made from recycled beer cans! Thank you very much!

MARKVIII
09-17-07, 08:47 AM
how many rotations of the rubber band can you make before it snaps?

Lifer
09-17-07, 08:52 AM
i am glad my thread got hijacked by two old farts talking about balsa wood planes.

Please, we are talking old used license plates, crushed rusty Fords, and top military contract procrurment systems here. No balsa wood in my areoplanes.

:gives:
'Cides, there is no comparision between a CTS and a STS. One is for kids with money, the other for adults - with pride.

ncCADDYman
09-17-07, 08:58 AM
gm plans to introduce a smaller-than-cts vehicle and brand it "entry level lux", then it will merge the sts & dts into one, flagship vehicle (a little larger than current sts). and then you'll have 3 distinct classes of vehicles

corvette00
09-17-07, 09:43 AM
I drove an 08 CTS at the Milford Proving Grounds last week. The new six still does not seem to have as much push as the Northstar. The interior in this vehicle looks great, and drives very nice. I disagree with the kids and adults comments that pertains to the ownership of these two vehicles. I am in my early 40's and still like the 03 STS. I think the current STS just seeems to lack some style that the old STS had and the new CTS appears to have. Is GM getting rid of the wheel wood package for the heated steering wheels? It seems a lot of the 08 product does not have the wood wheel.

ncCADDYman
09-17-07, 11:57 AM
6 i agree that the 03 sts lines flow better than the current model

MARKVIII
09-17-07, 12:07 PM
the wheel wood is in very short supply at the moment and cannot be had for any amount of money.

Lifer
09-17-07, 01:31 PM
the wheel wood is in very short supply at the moment and cannot be had for any amount of money.

What sort of tree is a wheel wood? Could be the shortage of supply may be on the surplus quantities being bought up by the Chinese? Always a plausible explaination. Then again we could blame the Middle East unrest for the shortage of wheels, let alone wood, since it may not grow in the dessert.

Hmmm :shhh:

gothicaleigh
09-17-07, 02:32 PM
6 i agree that the 03 sts lines flow better than the current model

The '98-'03 STS is honestly one of my least favorites and one of the most un-Cadillac looking designs to come from the brand in recent memory IMO. :canttalk: They took the sharp lines of the '92-'97 and rounded everything off. Plus, one of the things I always disliked about the SeVille is how it didn't use the signature Cadillac vertical tail-lamps; They've now remedied this in the latest design and it is finally unmistakably a Cadillac from every direction.

The new STS design isn't perfect, but it's much more bold than the luke-warm trying-to-please-everyone design of the '03.


What sort of tree is a wheel wood? Could be the shortage of supply may be on the surplus quantities being bought up by the Chinese? Always a plausible explaination. Then again we could blame the Middle East unrest for the shortage of wheels, let alone wood, since it may not grow in the dessert.

It's African Zebrano wood.
http://www.globaltrees.org/reso_tree.asp?id=33