: How do you explain the northstar's short comings?



elwesso
04-28-04, 10:09 PM
Alright, this is not a flaming thread, but Im really interested in this.

I got to talking to one of my friends on the internet about this and I am wondering about the northstar's shortcomings.

This is more/less directed towards Bbob....

Dont get me wrong, the northstar is an engineering masterpiece, and is overall a good engine... however, I would like someone to explain WHY these things happen....

I am aware that most cars have at least one major flaw. On the 90-93 Q45, they used plastic timing chain guides, causing the chain to derail.

However, the northstar is known for at least these issues:

Head gasket failure
Oil consumption
Oil leaks

Those are the top 3 issues, as there are more smaller issues, as on any other car.

What I am wondering about is how that 99% of all other cars on the road dont have these sort of failures. Its not uncommon to see a decently maintained northstar to have leaky seals, and head gasket failure, along with oil consumption.

My Q45 at 128k does none of these things, it may consume about .5qt at my 90 day oil changes. I know that somehwere along the line someone will say "the northstar is a high compression engine, the head gasket is under more stress.". Not legit, because the Q has just as high of compression and headgaskets dont fail (there has been 1 reported failure from a VERY reputable source). Also the oil leaks, NO other car of similar mileage (that I know of) leaks oil like the northstar does. It seems some people pull off the dealer lot with them leaking!

Aside from this, even other CADILLAC enignes have these sorts of problems. They may to some degree, but not to this magnitude. Obviosly somehting is lacking in the design, assembly or something.


Im certainly not hating at all, I just want ot have the facts straight!

Pimpin_Whity
04-28-04, 10:49 PM
i'm on 75,000+ miles now and i have no leaks or any gasket problems, it does eat up alot of oil :hmm:. i was concerned about this at first but the guy at the dealership told me it's all of them :annoyed: , then i came here and found out that lots of people were having this problem. i want to find out what's causing this :banghead:

Ralph
04-28-04, 10:56 PM
i'm on 75,000+ miles now and i have no leaks or any gasket problems, it does eat up alot of oil :hmm:. i was concerned about this at first but the guy at the dealership told me it's all of them :annoyed: , then i came here and found out that lots of people were having this problem. i want to find out what's causing this :banghead:

I thought it was normal for an engine to use some oil. Some is burned away obviously from heat, and some from friction. My Dad was a mechanic, and I remember him saying that after high mileage, he would rather rip appart an engine that used some oil, rather than one that didn't. Supposedly because if it uses oil, it will have less internal wear. Then again, a lot has changed since 1980!

p.s. My Fleetwood uses a little oil, but it takes about 1,000 miles before I notice it on the dipstick.

Bob will clear this up.

Pimpin_Whity
04-28-04, 10:58 PM
if it was a little, its alot :bighead:

eldorado1
04-28-04, 11:02 PM
however, I would like someone to explain WHY these things happen....

Because it's a fairly new engine that hasn't been 'field tested'. They're getting better at anticipating potential problems, I promise ;) The quad 4 was similar... 90% of them went through a headgasket within the first couple years.

gothicaleigh
04-29-04, 12:10 AM
The Northstar is not a new engine. It's over 10 years old now. Does anyone with the newer version have this problem? (4.6L RWD configuration VVT with 320hp)

As for the oil, I would rather have to add a bit of that than have my timing chain falling off. ;)

Ralph
04-29-04, 12:43 AM
As for the oil, I would rather have to add a bit of that than have my timing chain falling off. ;)

Damn, she's good! :worship:

Jesda
04-29-04, 01:10 AM
I think the performance of the Northstar is more than commendable, but these annoyances add up. Well, mostly the head gasket issue, which becomes very expensive. The 90-93 Q45 plastic timing chain guide problem can be averted with a $1000 remedy to convert to metal-backed guides.

Fortunately, any Q45 after 1993 doesnt have this issue anyway, and other than that, theyre tight and flawless for 450k+ (longest running VH45DE engine on record had 460k, but was sadly wrecked last fall).

I still read about 02 Sevilles blowing head gaskets :( Its a BIG thorn in the side of an otherwise awesome engine. And its really the only thing that keeps me from buying a Northstar Cadillac.

The question is, what causes these issues? Design? Assembly? Cost cutting? How do you prevent or resolve them?

-Jesda

Randy_W
04-29-04, 08:02 AM
The Q45 was a SLUG!! Pure and simple, it wouldn't fall out of a tree without a push. They were by far the slowest and ugliest of the so-called near luxury sedans. Sorry if you love your's, but I would rather add a qt of oil now and then, than be seen in that overgrown Sentra. By the way at 88'000 miles, mine uses no oil, has no cold start knock, the head gaskets don't leak, and it doesn't look like a poor imitation of a '77 BMW.:rolleyes2

eldorado1
04-29-04, 11:03 AM
The Northstar is not a new engine. It's over 10 years old now.
You're absolutely right.



The question is, what causes these issues? Cost cutting?Yes. GM's accountants add up the total costs of the warranty pullouts due to head leaks, oil leaks, whatever... and if it's less than the millions it takes to retool the assembly plant, and the millions it takes to redesign something as simple as a seal (or threaded inserts, or whatever the case may be), they won't do anything about it. Works the same way with recalls... $4,000,000 in wrongful death lawsuit settlements, vs $8,000,000 to fix a crumple zone problem? It's the way business works I guess...

Pimpin_Whity
04-29-04, 12:37 PM
They redesigned the N* when they made it VVT and RWD anyway, they should have looked into those problems. only time will tell :rolleyes:

BeelzeBob
04-29-04, 12:47 PM
The simple answer here is that most Northstars do not have the problems mentioned.... the problems are really blown out of proportion on the internet forums as everyone that has a problem of some nature goes looking for a place to vent and/or get help/information. The other 99% of them do not bother....so....every internet forum I read thru has a similar pattern. There are literally millions of Northstar engines on the road. Many of them have way over 100K on them with few if any problems. The few hundred people that post on an internet forum are NOT a scientific sample of what is out there nor a reflection of the magnitude of some of the problems.


There has been a lot posted already on oil consumption. I would urge a "search" for detailed explainations. There are really two confusing issues here. The Northstar was designed to use some oil due to the aggressive cylinder wall finish (hone pattern) and there is a great deal of variability in the oil consumption from one engine to the next on the forum. This honestly causes way more concern than it should. Oil consumption is not necessarily bad and the engineers that developed the engine probably erred on the side of a little two much consumption in the interest of the engine running hard for long periods of time and living to high mileage with little or no wear. The engine was not designed to be perfectly "dry" with no oil consumption.

Head gaskets have also been been beaten into the ground. Most of the problems seen are on the 93-95 engines that had the conventional coolant that hasn't been serviced and the resulting internal corrosion is to blame for the demise of the head gaskets. I know there are other, later model, engines with head gasket failures but they are really pretty few and far between considering the number of engines out there. With any all aluminum engine the head gasket is indeed a challenge and some head gaskets will start to turnup on highmileage engines over the years.

The oil leaks are an issue, specifically at the lower crankcase split line seal. The engine was the first into production with a two piece block that splits at the crank centerline. Sealing this joint is a challenge. The early years of the engine are showing up with seepage at this joint....that joint has been made much more robust over the years and current model engines have looked very good in the field over the past few years. Quite honestly, I think that this problem is being a little overstated also. Very few, if any, of the lower crankcase split line leaks cause anything other than an oily, greasy lower engine. But...any leak or drip is always blamed on the lower crankcase split line. There are a number of other, easily repaired, leak sources such as the oil filter adapter, cooler lines, cooler line fittings, etc...that often are the reason for oil leakage that is misdiagnosed as the lower crankcase....


I don't think any of these problems as stated have anything to do with the engine being "new" or any "cheapness" on the part of the engineering or manufacturing community. The engine is full of premium materials and parts that should belay any concerns over "cheapness"

I would say that the Northstar engine, and the 93 and later Cadillacs with it, are their own worst enemies in a way. In 1993 and before when the cars were engineered 100K was still considered to be the "meat" of the life of a car. The fact is that today, many of those cars are still around with way over 100K on them. People on this forum are buying them with 100K and better on them and then posting about their problems as if they are new cars. The engine is demonstrating that it can reliably and repeatably run to 150 and 200K with good performance and driveability and still reasonable fuel economy and oil consumption. Guys that do pull the heads ALWAYS report cylinder walls with the original honing crosshatch visible in the bores with way over 100K. 20 years ago and engine with 100K would have a .015 ridge at the top of the cylinder that wouldn't allow you to remove the piston without a "ridge reamer" first taking it off. Of course, that engine never used any oil during it's life...LOL. The oil consumption is for a reason. It is a bit too much due to the production process capability on some engines...but it is not unbearable and the engine lives a VERY long life as a result of it.

The one big mistake the engineers made with the development of the engine was assuming that people would use the engine, rev it up and take advantage of the performance. They don't, generally. They baby it around. So...the rings never break in to the side of the piston ring lands...and then they start to stick from dis-use and carbon deposits build up. The pistons and combustion chambers get full of carbon until the pistons strike the carbon and the cold carbon rap takes place. A great number of the "problem" oil consumption and all the carbon rapping engines are 'cured" by regular use of the throttle. Current think on the engine is toward tighter ring pack designs for better oil control and better oil consumption...and more friction and slightly less power and long life as a result. Can't have your cake and eat it too....LOL.

BeelzeBob
04-29-04, 01:01 PM
BTW....read some of the other sites and read similar problems with other engines/cars....


BMW is now notorious (along with the Northstar...LOL) for oil consumption. Same situation as the Northstar , really. The BMW M cars warn the owners to check the oil at each fillup as the "acceptable" oil consumption rate can be great enough to lower the sump too low in slightly more than one tank of fuel.

LS400 engines are starting to snap timing belts and wreck the engines. It costs as much for normal, ROUTINE timing belt replacement on an older LS400 as it costs to do the head gaskets on a Northstar....IF you happen to need to have them done. No belts to worry about breaking on the Northstar. The timing chains run forever.

Toyota is somewhat famous for their V6 sludging itself to death in their minivans and other applications due to a poor, inadequate PCV system design. While GM and Cadillac puts an oil life monitor on the cars and allows longer and longer change intervals up to 12,500 on current Northstar engines Toyota BLAMES THE OWNERS FOR NOT CHANGING THEIR OIL EVERY 3000 MILES. Whose engines have the problem???


BMW has replaced thousands of V8 engines (complete engine R&R) due to the nikosil finish on the cylinder walls failing and the cylinder walls scoring and resulting in loss of compression, tremendous oil consumption, etc... I wouldn't be too surprised if this problem equals the Northstar head gasket "problem" in terms of the number of units affected...and there were a LOT less of those BMW's on the road than Northstars.

Honda has service bulletins galore on retightening head bolts to stop a "chirp" noise from the engine leaking compression due to the head bolts loosening.

The Yamaha V8 in the Ford SHO Taurus breaks the timing drive gear off the camshaft destroying the engine...read the SHO hate sites....

I could go on and on...but....my point is not to deflect the criticism....the point is that every piece of machinery out there sooner or later has some weak link that becomes it's hallmark "shortcoming". The longer it lives and the better service it gives the more and more likely something is likely to become "chronic". Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between design character and design flaw..... Some engines are sensitive to one area of service or maintenance ...some more than others.

While there are some characteristic issues with the Northstar (nothing is perfect, right..???) there are a LOT of great things about it that get over looked in the "issues" discussion.

JohnnyLfromCT
04-29-04, 01:22 PM
Bbob > all of us.

elwesso
04-29-04, 04:44 PM
Excellent discussion..... Bbob has asome great points, that I sorta overlooked. I agree with him that every engine has their shortcomings that will eventually rear their evil face.

Some come earlier, some come later. From these forums, it seems that the headgaskets fail around 100kish if bad maintenance. The timing guides on the Q45 are the same way, but they cost less to fix (usually) and can last much longer. Jesda's Q45 has 185k on it right now, and it has the original guides.

And Im sure there are plenty of northstar owners who have gone that far on the headgaskets.

And like they say, hindsight is 20/20. Im sure that the engineers would LOVE to look back and have the headgaskets and other things redesgned on the northstar, but its too late now, they can only fix it for the future.



Bbob, has there been any redesigns in the northstar, so we could maybe see more reliable performance from them...?


The Q45 was a SLUG!! Pure and simple, it wouldn't fall out of a tree without a push. They were by far the slowest and ugliest of the so-called near luxury sedans. Sorry if you love your's, but I would rather add a qt of oil now and then, than be seen in that overgrown Sentra.

Ignorance is bliss my friend!!! The Q would run even with ANY northstar powered car out there, Im not gonna say it would OUTRUN it, but it owuld be right there. You obviously have no knoweldge of the car, or are confused, or the Q you drove was near death. Come drive mine and that opinion will change! :)

Pimpin_Whity
04-29-04, 06:49 PM
Ignorance is bliss my friend!!! The Q would run even with ANY northstar powered car out there, Im not gonna say it would OUTRUN it, but it owuld be right there. You obviously have no knoweldge of the car, or are confused, or the Q you drove was near death. Come drive mine and that opinion will change! :)can it keep up with the XLR :tisk:










http://www.bmw-forums.com/forum/html/emoticons/joking.gif

Smokey
04-29-04, 08:41 PM
My 2000 Deville had a rough idle, stalling at cold start and slight engine knock, when I first purchased on December 22, 2003. I have since replaced the plugs with factory AC Delco, cleaned the throttle body per instructions I found on this forum (thanks a lot guys!), run nothing but premium fuel and give it a dose of WOT at least once a week. All those early problems are gone and it purrs like a little kitten, that is until you step on it. :) My Deville now has 95,000 on the odometer and I could not be happier. I did have the "vibration" issue, but got the tires load forced balanced and all but one came out okay. I still have a sight vibration in the rear due to one tire that was way out and was moved to the RR, but the front is smooth now. I am saving for a new set of tires next month and that problem will be gone as well. I am very satisfied with my Deville, but I do wish at times it was a DTS if only to get rid of the 112 top speed limit. As for oil consumption, about 1 QT every 3000 miles. I have no complaints on that.

OlManRivah
04-29-04, 08:58 PM
http://www.motortrend.com/features/news/112_news56/

I would say most of these Cads had Northstars in them.:worship:

Randy_W
04-29-04, 09:37 PM
[



"Ignorance is bliss my friend!!! The Q would run even with ANY northstar powered car out there, Im not gonna say it would OUTRUN it, but it owuld be right there. You obviously have no knoweldge of the car, or are confused, or the Q you drove was near death. Come drive mine and that opinion will change!"

:)[/QUOTE]"Under the hood rests an all-new 4.5-liter V8 engine tuned to produce 340 horsepower and 333 lb-ft of torque.

Comparing that horsepower output to its closest rivals (Lexus LS 430 at 290 hp, BMW 540i at 282 hp, Mercedes E430 at 275hp), the Q45 has them all beat handily -- at least on paper. Subsequent track-testing revealed a Q with noticeably less gusto than its lofty horsepower figure suggests. Although Infiniti estimates a 0-to-60 time of 5.9 seconds, our best run yielded a somewhat less impressive 6.7 seconds. Even in the more horsepower-friendly quarter-mile category, the Q45 only managed a 15.1-second pass. Considering that we were able to wring faster times (6.4 and 14.8) in both categories from a slightly heavier LS 430, we can't help but wonder: Where did all the horsepower go?"

15.4 from 340 h.p.!
Like I said, a slug!
My lowly 275 h.p. Seville ran a 14.73, bring on the Q-ship!

Jesda
04-29-04, 10:13 PM
The Q45 was a SLUG!! Pure and simple, it wouldn't fall out of a tree without a push. They were by far the slowest and ugliest of the so-called near luxury sedans. Sorry if you love your's, but I would rather add a qt of oil now and then, than be seen in that overgrown Sentra. By the way at 88'000 miles, mine uses no oil, has no cold start knock, the head gaskets don't leak, and it doesn't look like a poor imitation of a '77 BMW.:rolleyes2

That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard on this forum. Anyway, moving on to productive discussion...

Jesda
04-29-04, 10:18 PM
Excellent info Bobynski!!! That clears up a lot of questions.

Vesicant
04-29-04, 10:33 PM
IM betting that what bbob and other Northstar engineers did, was basically create a race engine for the street. It happens with all "made to perform" engines alike (Porsche, BMW, Mercedes)... that if you dont exercise them regularly, then the internal parts and gaskets fail! They aren't meant to be consistently run at low rpms.

Its all about exercising.


I also tend to believe that when Cadillac builds and/or retrofits any engine for their cars, they put performance orientated items into them.

Randy_W
04-29-04, 11:11 PM
That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard on this forum. Anyway, moving on to productive discussion...
If it's so stupid, explain why they claim 340 h.p. but are slower than cars weighing more with 40-50 less horsepower!:rolleyes:

SoundAdvantage
04-30-04, 04:56 AM
The Q45 was a SLUG!! Pure and simple, it wouldn't fall out of a tree without a push. They were by far the slowest and ugliest of the so-called near luxury sedans. Sorry if you love your's, but I would rather add a qt of oil now and then, than be seen in that overgrown Sentra. By the way at 88'000 miles, mine uses no oil, has no cold start knock, the head gaskets don't leak, and it doesn't look like a poor imitation of a '77 BMW.:rolleyes2

Too Funny :drinker it's enough to make me go back to drinkin again!
I will have to admit I do like what Bob had to say in Defence of the N* engines but... theres alway's a butt in these threads :farting: I guess from a General Motors Auto Manufacturer and Engineers perspective "The Worlds Full Of Excuses". Unfortunatly the average consumer doesn't properly research all the important problem issues a paticular vehicle has before they make their decision to make that purchase and it ends up costing them $$$ Cadillac had a good thing going with the FWD 4.9 Litre engines. They should have just kept the 4.9 in the FWD cars and used the 5.7 Litre LT1 engines in all their high performance cars and made them RWD. And never accepted the German Designed N* in the first place. Could you imagine a RWD CTS with a 5.7 LT1 and a nice 6 speed tranny :burn: Just my Opinion :)

Jesda
04-30-04, 08:12 AM
If it's so stupid, explain why they claim 340 h.p. but are slower than cars weighing more with 40-50 less horsepower!:rolleyes:

Quite simple, actually.

First, the final drive ratio was adjusted in later Q45s (which came too late for magazine tests).
Second, important software updates were made to significantly improve off-the-line performance. Once the engine is properly broken in, the current Q45 sprints to 60 in 5.9s. The first year it came out, it did in 6.5s.

I love Cadillac, among other cars. My good comments about the CTS-V were recently published in the May 04 issue of Automobile Magazine:
http://q.spilky.com/automobilemag.jpg

I frequent other forums for domestic cars I dont own including Olds forums, Dodge Intrepid forums, Chrysler 300M forums, and Chrysler Sebring forums. Why? Because I know the truth about domestic quality and performance is in places like these, not in the colorful pages of magazines run by German and Japanese fanboys. I've become more informed as a consumer and more appreciative as an enthusiast.

But sadly, your own close-mindedness keeps you from learning anything outside of your comfort bubble.

You drive a luxury car, like the rest of us do. So live up to your ride and have a little class.

-Jesda

BeelzeBob
04-30-04, 11:17 AM
Too Funny :drinker it's enough to make me go back to drinkin again!
I will have to admit I do like what Bob had to say in Defence of the N* engines but... theres alway's a butt in these threads :farting: I guess from a General Motors Auto Manufacturer and Engineers perspective "The Worlds Full Of Excuses". Unfortunatly the average consumer doesn't properly research all the important problem issues a paticular vehicle has before they make their decision to make that purchase and it ends up costing them $$$ Cadillac had a good thing going with the FWD 4.9 Litre engines. They should have just kept the 4.9 in the FWD cars and used the 5.7 Litre LT1 engines in all their high performance cars and made them RWD. And never accepted the German Designed N* in the first place. Could you imagine a RWD CTS with a 5.7 LT1 and a nice 6 speed tranny :burn: Just my Opinion :)


Man, I hate to be in your face all the time ....but....you are just full of misinformation....LOL

German designed Northstar....!!!!....??????.....what have you been smoking. NOTHING could be further from the truth. The Northstar engine was designed in Detroit, Michigan by Cadillac Powertrain engineers on drafting tables in the original Scotten Avenue Engineering Center. I was there. I know this for a fact. There is no "German" influence or heritage in the engine what so ever. Anyone who insinuates otherwise is full of BS. There are oft repeated rumors of Lotus designing the engine, Oldsmobile designing it, it being two Quad-4's put together, other outside companies and NOW the GERMANS...!!!!....all BS. That was a complete internal design from the beginning to the end.


Regarding:"Could you imagine a RWD CTS with a 5.7 LT1 and a nice 6 speed tranny"..... YES I can....it is in production and called a CTS-V......It has a Z06 400 HP Gen3 small block with a 6 speed manual trans. What rock have you been hiding under...???? This car was brought to you by Cadillac and the GM Performance Division. Check out Cadillac.com and click on CTS-V....and dig out your wallet.....LOL


The 4.9 liter engine is a fine piece...but dated and limited in capability. When the study was done to determine what had to be done to it to make it a world class engine to propel Cadillac into the next century the answer was....the Northstar. Once the Northstar was in the market place the Cadillac dealers no longer wanted the 4.9. That is a fact. The plan was to actually continue the engine in the FWD cars but once people experienced the Northstar engine the demand for the 4.9 plummeted. If it was so good why did every one like the Northstar better...???? They were in the market place at the same time for 3 years and the demand for the Northstar outstripped the supply for that time period.


I understand your comment about the "world is full of excuses" but...it is hard to separate explainations from excuses some time....depends on your viewpoint I guess. I know some Cadillacs have cost the owners some $$$... That is unfortunate. On the other hand, there are thousands of owners who bought Northstar cars and are still running them into the ground without a problem for each one that had a costly issue. It is unfortunate that some had problems. We wish that they all would run on forever. As a whole, however, the engine has a pretty good service record.

The other unfortunate side of this whole issue is the service and dealer network "refusal" to learn about new product and how to correctly service and repair the engine. Also, the rather short sighted approach of many service spots and dealers. As an example, folks on this and other forums have learned and experienced that the Northstar water pump is one of the easiest water pumps to service in the world bar none....yet....go to a dealer and it is made to sound like a horror story and costs $500 to $600. Pure gouging and profiteering on people's fears...unfortunately it turns people off to the Northstar. Same with head gaskets and head bolt repairs. It reallly is a very strainght forward repair if there is a problem. There were service techs on forums several years ago that had never heard of Timeserts.....the correct way to repair the head bolt holes that is specifically called out in the Service Manual...!!!! No wonder engines were junked trying to repair them otherwise. And, lets not forget our other discussion on the coolant supplement and the dealer's (mistaken) understanding of how and when to use it and the fact that they said (erroneously) that the Northstar is not supposed to use it... Amazing the amount of ignorance in the field....just amazing....considering that just reading the service manual will clear most of it up.

OlManRivah
04-30-04, 01:06 PM
I, also, am a member of a few automotive Forums. I find Forums very informative, but, like all internet activities, reader beware........

Since I have a diverse garage, ie. 1978 Ford Ranchero GT 500, 1973 Eldorado Convertible, 1999 Jeep Wrangler Sahara, 1997 Eldorado, 1988 Toyota 4x4, etc., I find Forums a learning experience and a source of a wide pool of experience.

About this Forum, one point I find amusing, is the number of folks that will buy an automobile, apparently history of which is unknown, with 80,000+ miles, and expect it to run perfectly, and if it doesn't, feel they can knock the quality and craftsmanship of the vehicle because it is a Cadillac.

This doesn't prevail in those other Forums. They are happy to get a new automobile through the 1st year without a major problem.

Oh, and another point, try bragging about that Q45 and knocking a Jeep on one of our Jeep Forums......LOL!

You gotta just love that N*.......:worship: !

BeelzeBob
04-30-04, 01:54 PM
I agree that people here are very quick to 'knock' Cadillac.. Unfortunately, Cadillac has earned that reputation.. People go out and buy a Cadillac against their friend's recommendations - and then all they hear are, "I TOLD you not to buy a Cadillac!" - and all they can do is come here to vent...

Still, like BBob said - most people complain more than commend.. There aren't people looking for Cadillac Forums to come and say, "Wow! I bought a Cadillac two years ago and it's Never broken-down! Not once!".. People generally search for Cadillac owners to talk to when they've got a problem.

ljklaiber
04-30-04, 02:54 PM
Golden Boy!

You never quit.

FYI

My 95 sls has 143222 miles and is doing fine. I bought it used, and perhaps abused. I am responsible for the maintenance. Suggesst you gather your Q, the same. Having a GM designer on site is a real plus. Bbob hangs in!

Just think how bad your days would have been , if you had worked for me for all 32 years of building American V8's...LOL

ljk

elwesso
04-30-04, 04:31 PM
Randy, I didnt realize you were talking about the current generation Q45. I have a 1st gen, and there were some bad things with the first year 02+ Q.

Drive an M45 (same engine, basically the same weight) and tell me that again!!!!!!

This is a hell of a thread.... Keep it comin!!

I still admire the northstar, it is a great engine. I think car and driver named it the engine of the year one yaer or something. Definitely something worth respecting.

The one thing I like about the northstar is its OBD. You can view every parameter on the dash, rather on my Q45 I have to have a $5000 consult diagnostic tool! On the northstar it is hardly needed, only for certain activities.....

Now ONLY IF they made the seville/eldo/deville RWD with that northstar. I could say I would have one of those cars instead of my cars, regardless of reliability!!!!!!

ljklaiber
04-30-04, 09:27 PM
Have driven M45 and heard all the bit abot titanium valves and all. It IS a HotRod. but most of the engine bashing on this site fails to ask the simple question...Are we talking Cars?

If I look at the M45 as a CAR!, which it is, It is NOT a Cadillac.

If you want to race Dynomometers, try Stock Car Racing, and bring lots of beer.

Get real! If your lady likes the Caddy , your evenings will be much better than argung on a forum like this. :bouncy:

Pimpin_Whity
05-01-04, 12:59 PM
I, also, am a member of a few automotive Forums. I find Forums very informative, but, like all internet activities, reader beware........

Since I have a diverse garage, ie. 1978 Ford Ranchero GT 500, 1973 Eldorado Convertible, 1999 Jeep Wrangler Sahara, 1997 Eldorado, 1988 Toyota 4x4, etc., I find Forums a learning experience and a source of a wide pool of experience.

About this Forum, one point I find amusing, is the number of folks that will buy an automobile, apparently history of which is unknown, with 80,000+ miles, and expect it to run perfectly, and if it doesn't, feel they can knock the quality and craftsmanship of the vehicle because it is a Cadillac.

This doesn't prevail in those other Forums. They are happy to get a new automobile through the 1st year without a major problem.

Oh, and another point, try bragging about that Q45 and knocking a Jeep on one of our Jeep Forums......LOL!

You gotta just love that N*.......:worship: !so true. people come here to insult caddies and say how much their cars are better, when in reality they're not :tisk:. if you want to get blasted doing that go the the BMW forum, they're more ignorant then ricers and think they're behind the wheel of a ferrari or something.

horse power isn't everyting, look ab MB. soo much horses and torque in the AMG cars that it's not even funny but they get beat by most other performance option cars from other companies. CL55 or E55 vs. CTS-V or M5, and who got the most HP?

like Bbob said, everyting has a problem. caddies are actually very good compred to other cars, buy a used 745i and get it up to 150k miles and tell me how much money u wasted on repairs.

elwesso
05-01-04, 01:07 PM
Agreed... I heard somewhere that the 96ish and later 740iL is the worst car in terms of problems.....

No wonder you see a ton of them on ebay with low miles... NO one wants to drive them

It seems that the hotspot for value and reliabiltiy for old luxury cars was 94 and 95, except for BMW with theyre POS blocks.....

Again like I said I certainly am not hating the cadillacs. If I were hating I wouldnt be here... they are nearly on the top of my list of cars i wanna own...!!

Jesda
05-03-04, 08:46 AM
"Oh oh but BMW is cool and quick and chic and... how can you go wrong with BMW! Its our favorite, every year!"

Bahahaha, dont you just love the stupid automotive press? They take Audis for long-term runs, end up with thousands of dollars in out of the ordinary repairs, and STILL give positive reviews.

I wont doubt the driving characteristics and charisma of BMW. I will however question long-term usefulness. If I'm buying a car for keeps, and not a lease-and-dump, make it one thats affordable to fix or more infallible.

Pimpin_Whity
05-03-04, 08:38 PM
"Oh oh but BMW is cool and quick and chic and... how can you go wrong with BMW! Its our favorite, every year!"

Bahahaha, dont you just love the stupid automotive press? They take Audis for long-term runs, end up with thousands of dollars in out of the ordinary repairs, and STILL give positive reviews.

I wont doubt the driving characteristics and charisma of BMW. I will however question long-term usefulness. If I'm buying a car for keeps, and not a lease-and-dump, make it one thats affordable to fix or more infallible.very ture. how do u explain the fast and the furious, japan paid them to do it :rant2:. and audi is not that good on the safety department, i seen an audi hit a tree sideways :annoyed: and split in two halfs (which were about 10 feet away from the tree) with the door wraped around the tree (not a big tree, like 10" in diameter), and it did all that while going 90kph which is like 50mph :suspense:

SoundAdvantage
05-04-04, 03:44 AM
Again i have to say i like Bobs comments in Defence of the N* issues. It's to bad the General Motors Engineering Techs and Service Techs and Mechanics in general can't all be More informed and in agreement on Servicing and Repairing these High Performance engines. I wanted a N* in a STS last year but my mechanic talked me out of it. One of my good friends just bought a 97' STS with the N* engine, it's a beautifull car and looks like it was very well maintained. I had him pop the hood and start it up and i listened to it run for about 15 minutes and he reved it up and i will admit > it was one Sweet engine with only 72,000 miles on it it sounded great, very quiet and smooth idle. I was told that one of the main engineers working on the N* project was from Germany so i assumed the engine was German engineered, I will get his name and let you know on that issue. As far as the Rock Bob > I don't hide under them, but i have a tendency to throw them sometimes :) I Thought it would be great if Cadillac would put the 5.7 LT1 in a RWD version of the CTS with a 6 spd gear box last year, along with a new concept of drawing people back to the Cadillac Dealerships using some Lockheed Martin Technology, I guess i better apply for a patend on that idea before they bring it out next because it's comming soon. I Love Cadillac cars, even had one save my life when i was a kid. Cadillac Mills, Cadillac Grills, Look at the oil my Cadillac spills :) Yea i admit my Caddy leaks a little oil when it's sittin in the garage but thats why they made cardboard boxes.

Pimpin_Whity
05-04-04, 03:41 PM
why an LT1? isn't that the C4 vette engine with a low red-line? they have the LS1 and LS6 now, and going to put a brand new LS2 in the C6 vette. and they already have a CTS with an LS6 wich is 5.7L and is A LOT BETTER then the outdated LT1 engine.

elwesso
05-16-04, 10:11 PM
IM reviving this thread...

Bbob, i was just thinking... Why did they engineers decide to go with FWD instead of RWD.....?

BeelzeBob
05-16-04, 10:57 PM
IM reviving this thread...

Bbob, i was just thinking... Why did they engineers decide to go with FWD instead of RWD.....?
I would say that the fundamental philosophy that drove a lot of cars to FWD back in the early 80's was due to down sizing and fuel economy concerns. In that era decisions and design direction was heavily influenced by the "gas crisis" and the urgent need to get better fuel economy. So the next generations of vehicles went to more compact drivetrains that packaged transversely with FWD to minimize packaging space and to improve the efficiency of the drivetrain. Eliminating the hypoid gear in the right angle drive required for RWD reduces friction in the drivetrain and improves fuel economy. Also, incorporating the final drive into the transmission (making it a transaxle) eliminates the need for the heavy rear axle and long prop shafts thus saving some mass in the vehicle. Reduced mass = fuel economy. I would say that in that era NO one could foresee the upcoming performance race and stable gas supply and low gas prices. All the "experts" projected to end to the gas crisis so the assumption was that engines would just get smaller, fuel economy would have to be increased and the cars would get smaller and lighter. The FWD and TFWD arrangements support this approach nicely.

FWD has many advantages, particularily for a daily driver in northern climates so it was not really a hard choice to justify for most drivers asside from the fuel economy and packaging advantages. Pesonally, for a daily, year round driver, I would not have a RWD car and my wife insists on having a FWD car for the winter... So there is definitely a place for them.

The performance race has tended to bring back the RWD cars to some extent to satisfy the "purists" who must have a RWD car....but really the FWD cars make much better all round vehicles for most people.

This is a subject that one could write a book on so it is difficult to answer it briefly without leaving a lot of loose ends that can be taken out of context and argued forever....LOL. The eternal RWD vs. FWD argument....neither FWD nor RWD is a panacea. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. It really depends on the application and what the vehicle is going to be used for.

Ralph
05-16-04, 11:06 PM
I would say that the fundamental philosophy that drove a lot of cars to FWD back in the early 80's was due to down sizing and fuel economy concerns. In that era decisions and design direction was heavily influenced by the "gas crisis" and the urgent need to get better fuel economy. So the next generations of vehicles went to more compact drivetrains that packaged transversely with FWD to minimize packaging space and to improve the efficiency of the drivetrain. Eliminating the hypoid gear in the right angle drive required for RWD reduces friction in the drivetrain and improves fuel economy. Also, incorporating the final drive into the transmission (making it a transaxle) eliminates the need for the heavy rear axle and long prop shafts thus saving some mass in the vehicle. Reduced mass = fuel economy. I would say that in that era NO one could foresee the upcoming performance race and stable gas supply and low gas prices. All the "experts" projected to end to the gas crisis so the assumption was that engines would just get smaller, fuel economy would have to be increased and the cars would get smaller and lighter. The FWD and TFWD arrangements support this approach nicely.

FWD has many advantages, particularily for a daily driver in northern climates so it was not really a hard choice to justify for most drivers asside from the fuel economy and packaging advantages. Pesonally, for a daily, year round driver, I would not have a RWD car and my wife insists on having a FWD car for the winter... So there is definitely a place for them.

The performance race has tended to bring back the RWD cars to some extent to satisfy the "purists" who must have a RWD car....but really the FWD cars make much better all round vehicles for most people.

This is a subject that one could write a book on so it is difficult to answer it briefly without leaving a lot of loose ends that can be taken out of context and argued forever....LOL. The eternal RWD vs. FWD argument....neither FWD nor RWD is a panacea. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. It really depends on the application and what the vehicle is going to be used for.

Thanks Bob, good post! You've just done the equivelant of patting all us FWD owners on the back LOL! I can attest to it's advantage in winter. My Grand Marquis was heavy (4,000 pounds) but I would spin forever trying to merge, and that's just not safe!

I bet that a FWD would be more costly to fix in a front-end collision than a RWD because of all the extra components involved with FWD? I heard something about this before?

Also, they are back to RWD because of the increased power that they can handle. We've talked before about 300 hp seemingly being the MAX safe hp that a FWD transaxle can tolerate.

elwesso
05-16-04, 11:18 PM
Good post Bob, and I guess that makes sense...

But I agree, 300hp is too much for FWD... 100hp hondas its fine, but a V8 CANNOT = V8

Ralph
05-16-04, 11:22 PM
But I agree, 300hp is too much for FWD...

Other than a DTS you mean :confused:

I bet that's one of the reasons for the creation of the CTS-V. They can't put much more into the DTS, so they went back to the drawing board for a different platform to handle the 400hp Vette engine?