: Northstar well designed? Are you on crack???



Slipgate
10-02-10, 02:29 PM
I just got done hacking and pretzeling myself into position in order to get the battery, overflow tank, tank hose, heater hose, and the metal pipe and assorted hoses on the other side of the engine out.

Why did I have to do this you ask? Because some genius at GM decided that putting UNTREATED steel in the cooling system was a great idea! I guess STAINLESS steel or COPPER was too much money to spend on a $50k car! The pipe that runs behind the engine that can only be removed if the engine is dropped rusted out. Rather than drop the engine (or trade up to a new Cadillac as the GM brass wants you to do) I decided to bypass this rediculously designed coolant passage altogether and go above and around it with heater hose. I might actually use copper pipe and sweat the fittings in. BRASS and COPPER doesn't rust! (Can someone please tell GM this?)

When I finally got everything out, I see that there is rust all througout the cooling system.

I am sorry - well no, I am not sorry - this is a piss-poor designed engine. Like many American designs, it is planned obsolescence. You cannot argue otherwise. Maybe the basic engine design is sound, but everything else that goes into the engine is not. What a POS. I might just put this sack of extrement into the demo derby for some personal satisfaction. Sheesh!

Question for my learned colleagues - Do I need to have the overflow tank's lower hose going down from the bottom of the tank in the same design as it is now or can I go down out the bottom and then immediately you-turn up and connect the heater and other side above the tank and then go around by the upper part of the firewall to the other side? I am not sure how much of a part gravity plays in this area of the system. It sure would be a whole lot easier if I could do that though!

Ranger
10-02-10, 03:24 PM
I could be wrong, but if I am not mistaken the surge tank should be the highest point in the system.

You're not the first to have this problem. I suspect they rust from the outside as coolant has anti-corrosion additives in it. I wonder if one could not use some flexible copper tubing to replace it. Maybe that would make it a little easier?

Slipgate
10-02-10, 07:34 PM
Flexible would be ok, but I don't think you can get flexible copper pipe in 3/4 ID. I think I'll use standard house supply line size and route it down under the radiator. I'll document it and post my results. The hard part will be finding sweat copper to 3/4" barbed fittings. I might find them in PEX.

johnny kannapo
10-03-10, 11:13 AM
We feel your pain but you are over reacting. Annealed copper tube should be easily found & has a much heavier wall thickness than standard sweat pipe. I guy could simply file a couple of shallow grooves around the ends to provide the hose anchor points after they are clamped. The smarter approach would be to replace the OEM steel tubes & be done with it for 100,000mi or so.

Stingroo
10-03-10, 11:30 AM
"planned obsolescence"? So you get mad at cell phone companies, computer companies, TV companies, and video game developers too?

It's part of consumerism. You can fix the tube and have more trouble free driving, or complain about it, but I like option #1.

97EldoCoupe
10-03-10, 12:42 PM
If an arguement were started about this; being originally from Southern Ontario; I would begin the arguement with brake lines (tubing). They rust out, you lose your hydraulic brakes! Yet the Southern USA doesn't have issues with this.... Or the coolant tubes..... not normally. So should GM and Ford use stainless brake lines on only cars in the North, or the "rust-belt"?

Your '98 Deville has lasted 12 years already; now it needs new coolant tubes. Replace them and drive another 12 years. Ranger is correct - they rust from the outside in. These are not the only cars to have problems like this; and again- it's rust. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Ford Windstar's sub-frames rust and snap - on vehicles less than 5 years old. A good friend of mine Tony, a mechanic in Hamilton Ontario, had to replace the subframe because the steering rack mounts were rusted off - now THAT is a safety concern and poor metal conditioning complaint worth bringing up to the auto manufacturers.

Sorry but with the amount of Ontario cars blowing brake lines due to rust, (I still blame this on poor maintenance - undercoating and cleaning), coolant tubes are the least of my concerns. They can also be greased/oiled/undercoated to to prevent rust-through and many people around my area do this. It's the section near the RF wheel - that 90 degree bend - that rusts the most.

And yeah - it's a PITA to replace these tubes. But it's also a good time to do other maintenance work to a 12 year old car - cam cover gaskets, blower motor replacement, O2 sensor replacement in the rear manifold, etc. etc. If you're unfortunate enough to have to do a HG replacement, those coolant tubes are part of the work process - I replace them for customers for the cost of the part, but only if they need it. The Georgia cars and the New Jersey cars seem to have "new" ones even at this age... My 97 Eldo was from Indiana originally and it had the original ones, looked like brand new.

Submariner409
10-03-10, 01:04 PM
Unfortunately the coolant tubes are mild steel, rusted, and need replacement. Would it be prudent to clean and preserve the new tubing before installation ??

Slipgate
10-03-10, 06:12 PM
Well my bypass worked! I got 6 feet of 3/4" heater hose, 9 clamps, 1 PVC 3/4" tee fitting and 2 PVC 3/4" 90 degree elbows. I broke off the rusted piece of poorly designed steel tubing that connects to the overflow tank and heater core with a screwdriver and in its place, made a similar connection point using 1 tee and 1 90 degree fitting. I reused the hose that comes off the bottom of the overflow tank in roughly the same place as before. The hose runs on the right fender side of the A/C line in that area. There are no clearance issues with moving engine parts. I ran the hose along the same path as the upper radiator hose and used a 90 degree elbow to attach it to the crossover housing. I removed the metal tube that goes from that housing to the green shorty hose that connects to the poorly designed steel tube. I used petroleum jelly to lub the fittings before attaching the hoses which made it easy to put them on.

The care, while idling, gets to 222 but seems to stay there. While driving it, I was up and down, with easy driving, it stayed largely under 210 but with any foot in it, it was in the 220 range. When I first got it, it always ran at 190 degrees while above 40mph. So I suspect I do have a blow gasket.

I currently have just about 100% water in it. After I switch to anti-freeze tomorrow, will it run cooler?

And to all that that defend this engine, it is admirable, but you are still wrong. It is a poorly designed engine. I suspect 100% of these will eventually blow head gaskets. I also suspect GM knows this. I bought and restored a 1966 LeMans with a 326 Pontiac engine that had well over 400k miles. NO blown head gaskets and the engine still ran pretty good with no overheating issues before I rebuilt it. I now know why these cars are so cheap used. Similar town cars are twice as much.

Nope, the Northstar is the epitomy of planned obsolescence.

johnny kannapo
10-03-10, 06:21 PM
You seem to be treating the wrong issue as you cry about it & all else. The wasted energy is complicating matters for you. Did you do the $30 coolant exhaust gas test? You know, we all want that Cadillac of your's to go down the road without issues. Don't you know?

Stingroo
10-03-10, 06:23 PM
There are still Northstars on these forums with 300k+ on the original head gaskets. You forget, this is a forum. People who come to forums come for advice to fix problems, for the most part. Therefore, if you only look at what a forum tells you, obviously the numbers are skewed.

I suppose it's good that you fixed the hose issue, though.

johnny kannapo
10-03-10, 06:30 PM
It is greenbacks & do it right or shoot the horse.

Submariner409
10-03-10, 07:07 PM
I bought and restored a 1966 LeMans with a 326 Pontiac engine that had well over 400k miles.

So did I - a 1965 LeMans auto 326 sedan. Remember: The 326 was an all-iron closed deck engine. 25 years before the Northstar; quite a few years before the wholesale changes to aluminum/composite/lighter/fuel-saving/FWD/"green" engines. Apples and oranges.

Let's see - According to your theory, in the 60's car makers built their products to last forever. In the 90's they abandoned that quest and built them to last 75,000 miles. Right ? Take your heart off your sleeve and remember that we're dealing with various designs of electro-mechanical products: Nothing is forever. If you buy a car to drive for 250,000 miles, gas and oil only, you're seriously misinformed.

97EldoCoupe
10-03-10, 08:54 PM
Yeah- what Sub said -

And don't forget - that Pontiac with the 326, don't get me wrong they are beautiful cars and great engines! - but - (I don't know the numbers on that particular block) I doubt that 326 is capable of getting 25+ miles per gallon and doing 0-60 in around 7 seconds.

Everyone knows the older iron engines with no dex-cool and closed decks almost lasted forever. I have a 455 and I love it - I doubt it will ever blow its head gaskets. But it's also not producing 1 hp/c.i.. It does not get 30 MPG. It won't have the original honing marks after 320,000 miles.

1986 Pontiac Parisienne Brougham - my dad's old car - 26 MPG, 305 c.i. SBC, 700 R4. Couldn't kill it but it began to burn oil at about 150,000mi. The cylinders wore out of round. The rings were worn. The cam was worn (305s were known for that). 165 horsepower. 0-60 in 10-12 seconds.

Our Caddys are amazing cars. If you can't appreciate the engineering and design that was used to build these, sell it to someone who will and go buy a Lincoln.

RippyPartsDept
10-03-10, 10:18 PM
:yeah:

Submariner409
10-04-10, 10:38 AM
:yeah:

Jake, rippy - I built several Pontiac 326's, all in LeMans sedans, all in the late 60's. Pig of an automatic transmission (you could mate up a Muncie 4-speed with work).......but the engine could be made to run. There were few aftermarket parts for the engine, so you had to mix & match - 4bbl manifold (iron) and a worked over QJ, honest duals with glasspacks, ignition work. Basic head port cleanup and blending. Iskenderian or Engle cam. Springs.

The engine was never a drag star, but like our present Cadillac similar models, it could be massaged to beat most of the same Pontiac models/engines. The beloved Pontiac 389 was the star then..............

drewsdeville
10-04-10, 11:03 AM
Jake, rippy - I built several Pontiac 326's, all in LeMans sedans, all in the late 60's. Pig of an automatic transmission (you could mate up a Muncie 4-speed with work).......but the engine could be made to run. There were few aftermarket parts for the engine, so you had to mix & match - 4bbl manifold (iron) and a worked over QJ, honest duals with glasspacks, ignition work. Basic head port cleanup and blending. Iskenderian or Engle cam. Springs.

Most of this isn't unique to the 326. Head porting, exhaust, intake and carb are kind of "givens" for any engine, no?

Any engine can be made to run, it's a matter of the amount of resources you are willing to stick into it.

Slipgate
10-04-10, 12:23 PM
OK after sitting overnight, I came out this morning to find the caddy was a full gallon low on coolant. I don't think that this burned off or ended up in the cylinders. I just think it was always a gallon low (since my hose repair) and overnight it "burped" itself and was waiting for more coolant. I say this because after I filled it and took it on a test drive, it stayed at a consistent 190-193 and never went over 200. KNOCK ON WOOD - this looks like the problem is solved (head gasket maybe not blown). I have never seen a cooling system that was so hard to fill. Is there some trick to it?

Well anyway, now I have another problem. My headlights are screwed up. I had to take the battery out to fix the coolant hoses, and when I did, for some reason it discharged in the 2 hours it was out. So I had to jump it to get it started. It was doing all sorts of crazy crap when I attempted this. The trunk was opening, the fuel door opened, etc. After getting it started the headlights are on, but I cannot turn them off, twilight doesn't do anything and the brights do not work. And I am assuming that the daytime running lights are not on since the headlights are on. So what the F could have caused this and how do I fix it?

Also as others have mentioned, the low coolant light goes on everytime now since removing the sensor cable, not sure what happened when I removed the tank, but I checked the connection several times, cleaned it out, etc but it is not working.

RippyPartsDept
10-04-10, 04:47 PM
that trunk and fuel door popping is a low battery... check the voltage before cranking it up... and watch it climb as the engine starts turning the alternator

ejguillot
10-04-10, 08:40 PM
OK after sitting overnight, I came out this morning to find the caddy was a full gallon low on coolant. I don't think that this burned off or ended up in the cylinders. I just think it was always a gallon low (since my hose repair) and overnight it "burped" itself and was waiting for more coolant. I say this because after I filled it and took it on a test drive, it stayed at a consistent 190-193 and never went over 200. KNOCK ON WOOD - this looks like the problem is solved (head gasket maybe not blown). I have never seen a cooling system that was so hard to fill. Is there some trick to it?

Well anyway, now I have another problem. My headlights are screwed up. I had to take the battery out to fix the coolant hoses, and when I did, for some reason it discharged in the 2 hours it was out. So I had to jump it to get it started. It was doing all sorts of crazy crap when I attempted this. The trunk was opening, the fuel door opened, etc. After getting it started the headlights are on, but I cannot turn them off, twilight doesn't do anything and the brights do not work. And I am assuming that the daytime running lights are not on since the headlights are on. So what the F could have caused this and how do I fix it?

Also as others have mentioned, the low coolant light goes on everytime now since removing the sensor cable, not sure what happened when I removed the tank, but I checked the connection several times, cleaned it out, etc but it is not working.

BTW, when you refilled your cooling system, did you fill it with a 50:50 mix of coolant and water? The anticorrosives in the coolant are essential to the survival of your Northstar...

Ranger
10-04-10, 09:19 PM
When you refill the system you need to rev it to around 3000 RPM a few times to purge the air from the system. Even then, you need to check it after a few drive cycles and may still need to top it off a bit.

Slipgate
10-05-10, 07:37 PM
Well I just finished filling it. I used DexCool against my better judgement mostly because it was $15/gallon (concentrated) which was the same price as the 50/50 regular premix. I flushed the system as well as I could and filled it, added distilled water and 4 tabs. It is still a major PITA to fill it. You have to fill, run it, turn it off, wait for the coolant to go down, add some more, etc. Takes like 1/2 hour to fill. I'll check again tomorrow and see if it is down at all. I also changed the thermostat since they are easy and cheap. The old one worked but was all tore up when I took it out.

Oh and I wasn't going to use the tabs but they had them right there. $22 for a big jar of them (probably 100 or so) and I only needed 4. Oh well! The headlights magically started working again too. The low coolant sensor seems to be broken. But I let the car idle after driving it around the block a few times for about 20 minutes and it never got over 203. So I am a happy camper right now.

97EldoCoupe
10-06-10, 07:33 AM
Jake, rippy - I built several Pontiac 326's, all in LeMans sedans, all in the late 60's. Pig of an automatic transmission (you could mate up a Muncie 4-speed with work).......but the engine could be made to run. There were few aftermarket parts for the engine, so you had to mix & match - 4bbl manifold (iron) and a worked over QJ, honest duals with glasspacks, ignition work. Basic head port cleanup and blending. Iskenderian or Engle cam. Springs.

The engine was never a drag star, but like our present Cadillac similar models, it could be massaged to beat most of the same Pontiac models/engines. The beloved Pontiac 389 was the star then..............

Jim I didn't mean to put down an iron engine at all - even those old Chev 305's could be made to run strong - Lunati built one with 343 HP. I love the old iron beasts too (hence the 455 in my driveway :D).

The Northstars are a 275/300 HP powerplant right out of the box getting 25-27 MPG, I've heard sometimes above 30 MPG. That is worth appreciation.

I was recently at the Livonia "Northstar" engine plant..... :cool2:

Submariner409
10-06-10, 08:48 AM
..........never said a thing about iron engines as a whole - you know I build Olds 455's. Just that the Pontiac 326 was a wimp engine that never had much aftermarket support, so the Chevy 327's and Pontiac 389's overshadowed the 326 - you could get one to run, but other GM engines were pretty much of a drop-in and speed parts were a dime a dozen (still are).

BUT - a dressed Olds 455 weighs very close to 800 pounds without transmission or flywheel !!! The Northstar is about half that, so here comes the old FWD weight problem - no one can deny that the old 455 Toronado was a handling pig and the later Sevilles make it look sick.

(Speaking of 455's I just scored a 1970 thick-web long block with forged crank and Ga heads - for $75. Original 11:1 pistons and bearings. It's from back when 102 octane was $0.37 a gallon.)

97EldoCoupe
10-06-10, 01:56 PM
Jim where is your source - I want that $75 engine :) LOL

Great score!!!

Slipgate
10-06-10, 03:07 PM
I had my 326 built pretty well. It was a screamer. I had it bored .30 over, Competition Cams 268/268 camshaft, edelbrock aluminum intake with edelbrock 650 cfm carb. Hooker headers with dual exhaust and turbo mufflers. Mallory high voltage electronic ignition and coil. I dumped the 2 speed powerglide in favor of a mildly built turbo 350. It would catch a wheel in 2nd and if it was wet, it would break the rear end around. I replaced the stock 2:65 rear with a 71 GTO 3:23 posi unit.

The biggest problem was stopping - I had the stock 4 wheel MANUAL DRUM brakes! You really had to think ahead!

The '66 LeMans stock engine was the 326. The optional engine was the overhead cam 6.

I also added a vintage air A/C unit. Everything under the hood was stock and everything in the car was vintage air. You want to talk about a task, try finding A/C brackets for this engine!

btw: I am lucky to get 20 mpg in the N* with very mild driving. I was getting well over 30 in my 92 camaro RS 8 cylinder. So I still see nothing special with this engine.

97EldoCoupe
10-06-10, 03:56 PM
Sounds like a nice build! :thumbsup:

You should be getting over 20 MPGs highway. If not I'd definitely be looking into some diagnostic work. Unless you have the same problem I have sometimes- my right foot gets a bit heavy....

Submariner409
10-06-10, 04:38 PM
slipgate, If you want a trip back in time, dig up the Performance Automotive Warehouse (Chatsworth, CA) catalog and look up your old Poncho 326 parts :thumbsup:.

The '65 LeMans - I put a Chevelle 3.31 posi under that one - had to turn down a speedo drive gear shaft to get things back to normal.

Heck, if I can massage 24.5 out of my STS on long trips, you should be able to easily beat that with a Deville.

Slipgate
10-06-10, 08:15 PM
I do have a lead foot. I've always been a stoplight drag racer. When I was really trying to see what I could get out of the Caddy, I got it up to 21.7. That's the best I could muster. I get about 15 in my Daytona Charger. The Expedition gets 11.5.

My speedo on the '66 LeMans was off too after the rear swap. I didn't correct it, just drove it like that. It kept the speeding tickets down since it showed I was going faster than I was.

I probably called every salvage lot in the country looking for the A/C parts! Finally got them all though! I had close to $15k in the car and easily could have put in another $10k. But I sold it, and am embarrassed to say for what. :(

Ranger
10-06-10, 09:55 PM
'64 or '65 LeMans brings back memories. I remember my girlfriend had one with a 326. It had independent rear suspension and enough torque to keep shearing the drive axle. I think I replaced 2 of them.

Submariner409
10-06-10, 10:25 PM
'64 or '65 LeMans brings back memories. I remember my girlfriend had one with a 326. It had independent rear suspension and enough torque to keep shearing the drive axle. I think I replaced 2 of them.

The LeMans/GTO/Chevelle/??? bodies had 4-link solid rear axles. Cable emergency brakes. Springs and divorced shocks. The standard good ol' differential, axle tubes and 2 axles. Drum brakes. Neat chrome diff covers available and C-locks on the axles. Punch it in 1st and the entire rear would try to hop and get out of the car; needed AirLift bags and spring tuning to keep the rear tires on the ground. (Take a look at P.83 of the December issue of CarCraft - the top all-black axle by Strange is very close in appearance to a mid-60's GM midbody setup.)

ponyboyt
10-07-10, 09:42 AM
30mpg in a 92 RS V8?? You must have a baseball bat under the gas pedal. I had an 87 IROC-Z with factory 5.7 and 5 speed, lucky to average 10mpg. Ill admit, i drove the sh@t out of that car. But still....

I have a 98 STS with 120,000 km's. Brand new engine from GM in 2005 @ 85,000 KM's (insurance claim). That engine now has what... 35,000 kms. It gets 30-32 MPG with cruise on at 80 km/h, depending on wind. My foot has netted me a 14 mpg average over the last 10,000 km's. Its got new big 235 michelins on it, breaks the tires loose at 30 km/h and spins them all the way through the 1-2 shift. It burns about 3 litres of oil per change, and boy can i smell the carbon coming out once a week when im on the highway running it up and down a few times in -2-.

The engine is the least of my concern.

The entire underbody of this car is in mint condition, and this is a southern ontario car. Passenger rear quarter is starting to bubble. Floors and front/rear sub frames are perfect.

Every -inch- of brake line is coated in rust. Ive light sanded about a dozen spots of break line and none of it is close to rusted through, but still.... the rear springs are also coated in rot. To the point that its peeling off. The rear calipers were seized, ive since broken them loose but the e-brake arms are toast. Both rear shocks had rotted air bags, and the pump was totaly dead. Inlet filter was intact, but all the pump internals were rotted. Dead solenoid, and dead pump. The floor at the rear body mount bushings is perfect, but the rubber is dry and the metal "donuts" are coated in rust.

This is a car that was not winter driven. This rot all happened while the car sat for 11 months because the previous owners' wife tossed his keys into a lake.

I like this car, i can drive it hard. If it breaks in half, i guess im out 900 bucks but i still have a 35k northstar as a donor, and its still a great looking car.

codewize
10-07-10, 10:00 AM
You must also understand that during development the actual engineers did a much better job than what made it to market. The system was well thought out and well designed. I think what happened is small changes were made along the way by the bean counters, after the fact, that caused a lot of our pain.

97EldoCoupe
10-08-10, 08:19 AM
Code you make sense - I can imagine the original design incorporating more stainless and more expensive parts. Still, if the cars last 8-10, even 12 years without too much trouble, that's reasonable.

I will admit the water in the trunk issues of some of the Caddys (even without the moonroof) gets annoying quickly. My 98 was just a moonroof drain so I don't have much to complain about.

tateos
10-13-10, 05:26 PM
Yeah - I've had 3 Eldos - 2 "94s and my current '97 - they all leaked water into the trunk

RippyPartsDept
10-13-10, 09:35 PM
isn't that trunk water leak just the weatherstripping seal around the trunk?

Submariner409
10-14-10, 09:07 AM
isn't that trunk water leak just the weatherstripping seal around the trunk?

rippy, In the late 90's and 00+ Sevilles, Eldorados, and even some Devilles the first rounds of trunk leaks were either the trunk lip weatherstrip - the one that goes all the way around - or leaks in the body seams, particularly at or near the outer tail light assemblies. TSB's and internal bulletins talk about body sealer goop and redesigned trunk weatherstrip gasket. Another Seville "fix" was a long flexible rubber flap from the lower edge of the rear window glass to the top of the transverse trunk drain channel. In most of these leak cases the water runs all the way around the trunk weatherstrip and drips out at the latch area where it quietly fills the spare tire well and ruins everything - jack, wheel, well body metal.

Later trunk leaks - those that show up after the warranty fixes above - are usually clogged sunroof drains from parking the car outside and/or under trees. Sunroof drain leaks show up as water in the trunk, water under the rear seat and in the sail panels, or water on the front seat floorpans or A-pillar covering. A simple drain tube fix is to cut off the flapper valves at the bottom of the tubes - they get clogged with grit and leaf matter. You have to do some searching in the inner fenderwell liner areas, but they're there.....................

RippyPartsDept
10-14-10, 01:08 PM
ahh... thanks Sub

ponyboyt
10-14-10, 04:47 PM
mine was leaking out the backs of the tail lights in the lid, i pulled the little rubber plugs out, they are on the outside of the weather stripping.

bcpape
10-27-10, 02:12 PM
Built in obsolescence! It's in these vehicles for sure. No, I do not complain when I have to buy a new cell phone or computer or toaster after only a couple of years. The last time I checked, I don't pay $50,000 for a toaster!

GM should have been allowed to fail and not be bailed out. It's these poor designs and poor decisions that have been made for decades that justifys why they are a failure.

Submariner409
10-27-10, 02:38 PM
Is it safe to assume that, by your statement, only GM products wear out/fail prematurely so they are a poor economic choice, but all other automobiles do not wear out or incur failures, so they are therefore more economical ??

Stingroo
10-28-10, 08:44 AM
But of course, Sub. They MUST be the devil, they've got such terrible products that are so unfathomably bad. Never mind that he owns two. And they MUST be making some crazy scheme to control all consumers with disposable cars because they're "teh g0vernmentz!#$@$#!" - never mind that an IPO is only WEEKS away at this point.

Nah, must be GM. This wouldn't happen in Japan. :rolleyes:

jimsbox
10-28-10, 05:39 PM
Foe what it's worth, I have had 2 Northstar powered caddies, 95 STS and my current 00 DHS. The STS had over 235000 miles on it when I got rid of it and it still never had a valve cover off it, the most major repairs to my recollection was a coil pack, water pump, alternator, and O2 sensor. The DHS went about 275000 miles before it blew a head gasket. No repairs except oil changes, belts, surge tank, plugs before that. It was still getting around 24 to 28 mpg at that point. Even when the head gaskets went I was able to drive it from Des Moines to Kansas City with just 2 or 3 gallons of water. So, yes, I guess I would have to say that it is a well designed engine. Cheap shots are easy but I will continue to drive Northstar powered Caddies as long as I have that kind of experience with them. I think you will find that these experiences are the rule not the exception. Also, believe it or not, thoughtful people do not have to be on crack to disagree with you.

maeng9981
10-30-10, 05:04 AM
I have 2 Northstar powered vehicles, 00 Seville SLS and 99 Deville, recently my 00 developed some head gasket troubles.

Do I hate it? NO--in fact, I love it. I love it even when it has problems. And I am looking forward to fix it. I cannot just give up on these cars because these, my friend, have Northstars in them! Also it is a 10-year-old car that needs some attention.

FWIW sometimes some of my friends with Toyota come up to me and say how my car is for grandmothers, and start talking about how their 4 cylinder 1.8L car is so awesome. No way they are my close friends, but if they are not my enemies I give them a ride. Some people have too many bad things about Cadillac to talk about that it just goes over the limit; I race them. In both cases they keep their mouth shut after such an experience. I mean, their engine doesn't even have a cool name!

In my opinion this 32 valve Northstar V8 is such a technology-advanced piece of power, first mass produced back in 1993. They have some weak points like head bolts, but what engine does not have a weak point? For example with my friends, their economy engine might be trouble free but it ain't even close to 4.6L Northstars when it comes to the power. Those engines don't and can't make 300lb-ft. If I had to choose between a Northstar car and a economy car, I'd take the Northstar car even if it has problems. Better to think about how to fix problems than how to improve performance out of a small engine.

I still remember one member here said "Cadillac is the car you drive because you want to, not because you have to". I immediately thought of this sentence when I had to ride my uncle's Toyota for a day -- Garage door was inoperative and I had to leave in hurry. Driving was no more fun because the car didn't follow me. Things I noticed is the lack of power, turned on the radio and the quality of sound was just bad, amount of road and noise that came through the body, no more bells and whistles, ...etc.

I am thinking about a 93-02 Eldorado or a 00-05 Deville if I need another. My dream car is a 04-09 XLR. All Northstar cars. I also want to have those V series Northstars.

Anyway I think I have enough reason for me to like my Northstar Cadillacs. Am I on crack? I don't think so.