How About This ...the New Sts V [Archive]

BeelzeBob

01-02-05, 11:52 AM

The R&T article is pretty good for some of the details of the car as well as the pictures and such. The GM Performance Division worked closely with Cadillac and R&T to come up with the "reveal" in the February R&T issue since the STS-V will officially be unveiled in person at the Detroit Auto Show in early January. This will be the magazine cover on the newstands during the Detroit show so it is particularily timely....

Since GM worked very closely with R&T the article has pretty good info and is fairly accurate.

Basically, I cannot imagine any descriminating motorist being unhappy with the STS-V. It is an excellent blend of track level performance and refined elegance in the same car. The STS is an excellent starting point and the HPVO group in the GM Performance Division was allowed free rein to incorporate the modifications necessary to make the car perform at that level, make it track capable off the show room floor and add the uplevel luxury befitting a car like that.

The "leather wrapped" interior has to be seen/touched/smelled to be fully appreciated. It basically blows away most anything else regardless of "value" or "price point"....

The entire suspension/brakes/driveline has been replaced with re-engineered parts to significantly increase the performance level of the car. This is not just a bolt on of other parts from other GM cars. These are new parts specifically designed for the STS-V. An example is the engine placement in the car. The engine is actually lowered almost 2 inches in the chassis compared to the production STS...a modification that would be unheard of years ago...yet one that was deemed necessary regardless of the expense for vehicle balance and packaging so it was incorporated into the STS-V.

The goal of the car was unquestionable performance on the track where it will be judged next to the competitors. One example of the dedication to this was the use of the more conventional mono-tube shock absorbers rather than the magna-ride system. Given a specific endeavor, such as track work, the monotube shocks can be developed to a higher absolute level than the magnaride system at the moment...so the decision was made to go with the monotube design. The magnaride allows a far greater range of chassis control in terms of smooth and soft ride quality at the one end of the extreme but, within the narrow performance band, the monotubes were still judged to be better after much evaluation and tuning so they were used. Everything in the car was subjected to this type of scrutiny to make sure it was the best available for the purpose of the car.

The outside body panels include a new, composite hood with a slight "power bulge" to clear the supercharger, fascias, valence panels, etc. including the wire mesh grill. ALL the body panel changes were developed in the wind tunnel to improve vehicle aero balance, cooling, duct cold air to the front brakes, duct air to the differential cooler, etc... All of it is funtional and none of it is "rice"...

The six speed auto trans is a new piece that will set the standard I feel for normal automatic trans operation and track oriented "tap shift" or manual control. The trans has the heavily developed Performance Algorithm Shifting logic built into it and it really works on an autocross track or the racetrack if you decide to leave the tap shift alone. With 6 forward speeds the trans can match the perfect engine speed at any vehicle speed which almost completely negates any advantage a continuously variable trans would have while allowing the launch capability of a torque converter combined with the traction control system.

The engine is a supercharged, 4.4 liter version of the VVT rear wheel drive Northstar. Just about every part in the engine is new, however. The basic architecture of the engine is based on the rear wheel drive Northstar but virtually every part and fastener is specific to the supercharged engine. The block is a precision sand cast part with a closed deck design which is the first time a Northstar engine did not have a die cast block with an open deck. Lower crank case, heads, etc... are all unique castings for the supercharged version.

The supercharger/induction system on the engine incorporates several patented features that were developed by Cadillac for the engine. The air intake to the supercharger is at the rear of the engine and underneath the supercharger and the supercharger blows pressurized air upwards thru the intercooler tubes on the top. The air then makes a single, smooth 180 degree turn down into the individual induction tubes along the outside of the supercharger housing.

The performance of the engine is very exciting. At 440 HP @ 6400 the engine is making 1 HP per liter of displacement....a specific output that is better than most any engine on the market...even some of the exotics...and much better than the E55 which has a screw compressor, even. Better yet, the 1 HP per liter is obtained at 6400 RPM....not the 8500 RPM required by some of the competitors. Reading between the lines this means that the engine has huge torque and a very very wide torque curve that is what will really move the STS-V. About 90% of the engines peak torque is available from 2800 RPM thru 6500 RPM meaning that it pulls like a locomotive no matter what gear you are in. The engine is rated at 430 lb.ft. of torque at 3600 RPM.

The engine will be built at the dedicated Performance Build Center in Wixom, Michigan by trained engine builders. Each engine will be built by a single assemblers to insure ownership and quality of the powerplants. The PBC is representative of the commitment of GM to competing with the best in the world in specialty cars and engines. There was a need for a facility to build very low volume engines that require special assembly techniques and care so the PBC came into being. It combines all the error proofing and fastening techniques of the normal assembly process with dedicated assemblers in a low volume atmosphere. Here, each engine can be assembled by one person and appropriate care and time devoted to each engine to ensure that it is done correctly without the demands of high volume production and the necessary automation restricting what can be done in the engine design and manufacturing techniques.

I have seen quite a few drivers that are used to some very fast and high output engines drive the prototype STS-V cars and I have yet to hear one that was dissatisfied with the performance.

Both the intake and exhaust sytems are specific for the STS-V and heavily developed for low restriction and high flow.... No "cold air intake" from the aftermarket required....LOL. The engine group set some extremely aggressive targets for inlet restriction and exhaust backpressure to obtain the 1 HP per liter goal and the targets ended up being exceeded by the induction and exhaust groups. Amazing little inlet restriction, excellent induction noise control and low backpressure still meeting the passby noise targets.

Keep in mind that a supercharged engine has to overcome the parasitic load of the supercharger.....so...in this case the engine is actually making over 500 HP when you consider what it takes to drive the supercharger at peak power. That means that the fuel system, cooling, etc... all are actually handling 500 HP....

The various STS-V mule vehicles and prototypes have lived on the Milford Road Course , the Nurburgring and several other race tracks around the country since the program started. I cannot imagine a vehicle (aside from the Corvette) that would have accrued as much track time during development as the STS-V. Actually, within the past 2 years any time there was a Corvette track test there were STS-V cars there also so it probably has more track time per vehicle than the Corvette mules given the number of laps turned.

BTW....the cars are being driven by very competent test drivers. One of the aspects of HPVO is to train and certify drivers against some of the best in the world so that vehicle performance is accurately rated. To say that some of the drivers of the STS-V program are "good" is an understatement. John Heinricy, who is very well known as a racing driver outside of GM, is the head of HPVO so he serves as the gold standard for driver performance. This really raises the bar in terms of vehicle performance and capability as the driver level is good enough to as to tax the car to the very limit.

The racetrack is certainly not the final answer for any car but a lot can be learned about the durability and performance of things like the powertrain, cooling capacity, fuel system (fuel pickup during slosh), etc... so the advantage of being able to test the STS-V almost daily on the MRC was huge.

The vehicle is track capable off the showroom floor with adequate brake cooling to ensure fade free performance at the performance limit for a full tank of fuel on the track. There are dedicated coolers for the radiator, engine oil, trans, power steering, intercooler heat exchanger, air conditioning, final drive, etc... that all meet track performance requirements in hot weather.

One of the main goals with the car was to provide this level of absolute performance while maintaining complete "street-ability" and requiring no compromises on the driver in daily traffic. This is one place the 6 speed automatic trans shines. It performs like a racing transmission on the track yet allows for simple stop and go traffic on the commute. The engine power level and power band is important here, also, as a high revving, peaky engine can get pretty tiresome in traffic and has low real world "cut and thrust" performance without constantly shifting. The supercharged Northstar comes to life with just a slight nudge of the pedal. NVH tuning was especially critical for the real world phase of operation as induction roar, droning exhaust booms, etc...would really detract from a world class car and would not be acceptable. All these types of things make the STS-V a world class luxury performance sedan that requires no special compromises by the owner/driver. One nice feature is the acceleration performance of the package. The engine power band combined with the torque converter/auto trans and launch traction control put the sub-5 second 0-60 times in the hands of every driver every time... no special clutch slip or launch procedure required for best times. Just stab the accelerator...but be sure you are pointed in the correct direction first.

Brett

01-02-05, 12:28 PM

sounds great bbob, but all this stuff they did just for this car makes me worry even more about the price. i assume GM will want some return on investment. When do you think pricing will be announced?

Crozier

01-02-05, 02:26 PM

majax

01-02-05, 03:03 PM

The V's are going to be GMs test mlue for these transmissions I think it was 4.4 to make room for the charger.

Reckamech

01-02-05, 05:51 PM

Ok. I give up on my subscription. What are the M45's numbers?

Not to steal the New STS-V thunder but the M45 numbers via Car & Driver put it's 1/4 mile time at 14.2 sec @ 101 mph. That's pretty good for a 4 door car with 335Hp. Car and Driver ESTIMATES the STS-V with it's 440 Hp running the 1/4 mile at 13.8 sec @ 101 mph and when stacked up against the STS-V the M45 is 280lbs lighter. I am sure the STS-V will put up better numbers than what C&D estimates but the M45 is quick espically when compared with the V8 STS.

BeelzeBob

01-02-05, 11:05 PM

Bbob,

Thanks for the excellent info! It sounds like this will be one amazing car! A couple of question for you though. First, why 4.4 Liters? Why go down in displacement for the HO model? Second, do you know the torque numbers? Third, will we be seeing this six speed auto in the Corvette pretty soon? Finally, is there an XLR-v coming our way soon? How about the others models, any V work headed their way?
Thanks again for all the great details!

The supercharged engine ends up at 4.4 liters due to a reduction in the cylinder bores from 93 mm to 91 mm to create more space between the cylinder bores to enhance cylinder head gasket sealing with the boosted engine. In addition, the engine runs a multilayer steel head gasket, precision ground block and head deck surfaces and 2.0 mm thread pitch head bolts for strength.

The advertised power numbers for the supercharged Northstar engine in the STS-V are 440 HP @ 6400 and 430 lb.ft. @ 3600.

Check out the info being released in the press for the Corvette....

What XLR-V.....?????

Brett

01-03-05, 01:24 PM

the Sandman

01-03-05, 01:35 PM

At 440 HP @ 6400 the engine is making 1 HP per liter of displacement100 HP per liter. ;)

megeebee

01-03-05, 03:01 PM

I can't say I am not impressed ;) Is their any word if the STS-V is still using the 5 speed auto transmission? From the pictures I see their is no manual but wondering if their is a 6 speed auto.

There will be a new 6 speed/manu-matic.

Stoneage_Caddy

01-03-05, 03:09 PM

I have seen quite a few drivers that are used to some very fast and high output engines drive the prototype STS-V cars and I have yet to hear one that was dissatisfied with the performance.

The various STS-V mule vehicles and prototypes have lived on the Milford Road Course , the Nurburgring and several other race tracks around the country since the program started. I cannot imagine a vehicle (aside from the Corvette) that would have accrued as much track time during development as the STS-V. Actually, within the past 2 years any time there was a Corvette track test there were STS-V cars there also so it probably has more track time per vehicle than the Corvette mules given the number of laps turned.

BTW....the cars are being driven by very competent test drivers. One of the aspects of HPVO is to train and certify drivers against some of the best in the world so that vehicle performance is accurately rated. To say that some of the drivers of the STS-V program are "good" is an understatement. John Heinricy, who is very well known as a racing driver outside of GM, is the head of HPVO so he serves as the gold standard for driver performance. This really raises the bar in terms of vehicle performance and capability as the driver level is good enough to as to tax the car to the very limit.

Bob , the more you talk about vehicle devlopment the more i want to be a part of it...Im to the point im willing to throw away my "never wanna see snow again" mantality .....Too bad i blow at math ....but if you need a driver call me .....

BeelzeBob

01-03-05, 07:41 PM

Bbob, any idea how much power this engine makes without the supercharger? im thinking if the SC adds ~150 hp but costs 60hp to run. then its netting 90 hp, so would the engine make 350 hp without? my numbers are basically made up. but i was thinking if this engine is stouter than the standard N* AND more powerful, maybe it could become the standard V8 for the STS/SRX. thus bringing price down as well, economies of scale, blah, blah, blah.

I would say that it would make...about....310 HP without the supercharger. The 4.6 rear wheel drive Northstar makes 320 HP and that engine is pretty well tweaked for maximum HP combined with a good torque curve. I wouldn't expect any gains past that, really. The supercharged engine makes 440 HP because of the supercharger....period. That is why all the work went into adapting the blower to the motor.

BeelzeBob

01-03-05, 07:43 PM

100 HP per liter. ;)

Yea, thanks for the help. That is what I meant but my typing exceeded my brain I guess....

It is nice to note that the 440 HP rating is a very conservative rating. It is indicative of readily achieveable intercooler coolant temperatures on a warm day...not a flash number achieved by running ice water thru the intercooler...LOL. Give it cold water on a cold day and watch out.....

the Sandman

01-03-05, 07:50 PM

I see that the predicted numbers for the 300 Hemi C SRT 8 with 425 HP are 0-60 in 4.9 and the 1/4 mile in 13.2. Any predictions for the STS-V BBob?

BeelzeBob

01-03-05, 08:15 PM

I see that the predicted numbers for the 300 Hemi C SRT 8 with 425 HP are 0-60 in 4.9 and the 1/4 mile in 13.2. Any predictions for the STS-V BBob?

I'm surprised that they are going with "only" 425 HP....they have considerable displacement over the STS-V. I'm also wondering how they are going to haul that heavy car down the 1/4 in only 13.2 with that power level....LOL.

My money is on the STS-V in a heads up race. Hard to quote numbers at this stage. I would rather the magazines test them and report the numbers so no one thinks there is BS or bias.

Vrocks

01-04-05, 01:23 AM

If the STS-v had AWD it would have been perfect. At $70,000+ the car is very expensive but it looks better than the M5 and will drive better than the E55.

Does anyone know if the STS-v will get the same steering rack/gear as the CTS-v?

Brett

01-04-05, 11:41 AM

The interior STS pic on the bottom is just WOW, imo its the best interior ever for a cadillac

http://www.autoextremist.com/firstlook.shtml

the Sandman

01-04-05, 01:18 PM

I'm surprised that they are going with "only" 425 HP....they have considerable displacement over the STS-V. I'm also wondering how they are going to haul that heavy car down the 1/4 in only 13.2 with that power level....LOL.

My money is on the STS-V in a heads up race. Hard to quote numbers at this stage. I would rather the magazines test them and report the numbers so no one thinks there is BS or bias.Actually, I was mistaken about these "predictions". They are actual test results reported in the latest Motor Trend. The CTS-V did 0-60 in 4.7, and the 1/4 mile in 13.1. The '05 GTO did the quarter in 13.3. Damn this is a golden age for performance - the new Z06 should be in the mid 11's... for around $75,000.

CoupeDevilleRob

01-04-05, 07:16 PM

I heard somewhere, I wish I could remember where, that the new Z06 will be priced between $60,000 and $65,000. How's that for bang for the buck!

the Sandman

01-04-05, 07:43 PM

I heard somewhere, I wish I could remember where, that the new Z06 will be priced between $60,000 and $65,000. How's that for bang for the buck!The latest Motor Trend has a nice article on the upcoming Z06, and estimaties the price at $75,000 - $85,000. Still a bargain for a Dodge Viper and Ford GT slayer... :D

1SICKLEX

01-04-05, 08:37 PM

Kudos to Caddy for bringing this car to the market. I would have liked Caddy to try to destroy the E55.M5 but this is better than nothing.

Brett

01-04-05, 08:40 PM

red interior pics

Crozier

01-04-05, 10:52 PM

red interior pics

LOVED the first interior shots! I HATE the red. It ruins it IMHO. Bring on the Black!

jworkmans

01-05-05, 10:31 AM

Good Gawd....that red is just awful! :vomit:

I sincerely hope the red is just an option and not standard on the V. I'm priming the wife to let me buy a V when they're introduced, but I'd really hafta think a few more times if it had to come with that cheapass boy-racer interior.

I'm sure there are folks that will love it - and more power to them. Just, please, don't make it standard equipment. Let's let the grown ups have a choice and not just the children!

Just MY opinion......

Regards,

John

pkbw

01-05-05, 11:01 AM

Wow!!!!!!

TitanCTS

01-05-05, 11:02 AM

I almost shit bricks when i saw this car! OMFG this thing is insane! I love it, the front bumper looks soo sexy, the CTS-V would look better with a lower lip on it like the STS-V, I thought this car was suppost to have a v-12? the rear bumper design is incredible! The CTS-V shoulda had the same thing, But one thing that both cars lag is Quad exhaust tips! other than that, A lil more aggresive body work and this car is perfecto! I would definitely take this over an E55, RS6, And M5! It jus looks too damn good! :D

TitanCTS

01-05-05, 11:03 AM

Btw, More titanium trim would be better along with some carbon fiber accents besides the ash burlwood! :sneaky:

BeelzeBob

01-05-05, 12:06 PM

Btw, More titanium trim would be better along with some carbon fiber accents besides the ash burlwood! :sneaky:

Naah....you have to see the ash burlwood in person first. It is outstanding. Makes carbon fiber and such look cheap.

The "red package" is an option for those wishing to expess themselves....LOL. It has actually received high praise from some folks. It is an option. The black is the "standard" interior. Just goes to show that there are a lot of different tastes out there. Hard to please everyone. LOL.

Ralph

01-05-05, 02:26 PM

I like the splash of color (red) as it gives it some character. Too many car interiors suffer from the "black lung" syndrome IMO and I even welcome two and even three tone colored interiors. The nicest colored interior I've seen is the new Monte Carlo in beige leather with with black and white accents all over the dash and door panals.

Oh ya, light wood for me, honey euclaptus from the XLR is a good start! ;)

60 special

01-05-05, 03:32 PM

BeelzeBob

01-05-05, 06:49 PM

Why....thanks!!! I appreciate that. I work in product engineering, actually.

Playdrv4me

01-06-05, 02:31 AM

bbob is the internet's resident engineer and mad scientist extraordinaire :D Were lucky to have him on our forum.

That red interior is absolutely disgusting by the way. Reminds me of that burgundy interior color I saw on an LS430.

Ralph

01-06-05, 02:39 AM

That red interior is absolutely disgusting by the way. Reminds me of that burgundy interior color I saw on an LS430.

That's strange. Everyone seems to love that color combo in the 2005 Mustang, but put it in a muscular Luxury car and it's terrible.

Yes, I'm aware they are two different types of cars. :yawn:

No BLACK LUNG for me, thanks. :D

harryctsv

01-06-05, 04:15 AM

red interior pics
Brett,
as I see this is the probably new interior for the regular STS. You can see the sign on the glove box which says STS and not like the V will have the V-sign.
Am I right or wrong???
Thanks
Harry

Night Wolf

01-06-05, 11:28 AM

I can't believe how America is finally getting these cars out....

I looked at the new Motor Trend... on the front is the CTS-V vs. SRT8 vs. GTO...... on the bottom was an artical on the Corvete...

not a single import.. I was shocked....

ALL of these cars are nice... makes me want one...or more :)

naybe in years from now they'll be on the used market in a range i could afford....

I don't like the normal STS but the STS-V really floats my boat...

Wow is all I can say....

BeelzeBob

01-07-05, 09:42 PM

Check the new issue of AutoWeek for some more info and pics of the STS-V. There is an unofficial picture of the engine compartment with the engine without the beaty cover. It is actually a picture pirated somewhere along the line of a development mule (note the yellow stickers and lack of tuners in the induction tubes) but it does give an idea of what the engine looks like under the beauty cover.

the Sandman

01-09-05, 09:13 AM

What XLR-V.....?????Are you trying to tell us something? ;)

cardio-doc

01-09-05, 10:05 AM

I've been holding my breath for 5 years now waiting for Cadillac to roll-out this "Pace Car" edition. Should I stop waiting?
;)

~Doc

b4z

01-09-05, 04:52 PM

Regarding the red accents.
It looks to me that the pics of the black interior show the interior properly, while the pics of the red interior have been brightened up or overexposed.
Hopefully the red will actually be a deeper red.
If the red actually looks like the pics, then it is just awful.
Not befitting a luxury car.

I like the V very much, especially the side profile which shows the chunky, muscular front end with the raised hood and the lower air dam.
It is a more successful rendition of the "V" theme than the CTS-V.

I also think that the 6 speed auto should be available across the Cadillac line in '06.
This will help with gas mileage, especially on the SRX.

Maybe bbobyinski will let us know how much of the lineup will have the 6 speed auto.
And what ratio 6th gear is. I am guessing a .68 or .67.

Playdrv4me

01-10-05, 04:34 AM

It is a more successful rendition of the "V" theme than the CTS-V.

Lest we not forget that the STS-V is powered by a massaged Northstar, the CTS-V is still the king when it comes to real American self-aspirated muscle.

b4z

01-10-05, 09:07 AM

From gminsidenews.com
NAIAS autoshow coverage.

DETROIT – The 2006 Cadillac STS-V is General Motors’ most intense expression of Cadillac power and performance yet, and the luxury nameplate’s latest offering in its growing family of high-performance V-Series vehicles.

The STS-V carries all the craftsmanship and sophistication of its STS sibling, but does so at an entirely different level. Designed for everyday driving, the STS-V has been developed to deliver supercharged, rear-drive performance with an elegant design statement that is unmistakably Cadillac.

At the heart of the STS-V is a new, 4.4-liter version of the Northstar engine outfitted with a positive displacement intercooled supercharger. The dual overhead cam (DOHC) V-8 engine delivers the highest horsepower rating of any production Cadillac engine to date.

Called the Northstar V-8 SC (supercharged), the engine produces 440 horsepower (328 kW) at 6400 rpm and 430 lb.-ft. (583 Nm) of torque at 3600 rpm (power and torque figures estimated) – and the engine’s power is underscored by its ability to deliver 90 percent of its peak torque between 2200 and 6000 rpm. Vehicle redline is 6700 rpm.

The Northstar V-8 SC generates 120 horsepower (90kW) and 115 lb.-ft. (156 Nm) of torque more than its naturally aspirated counterpart, while its specific output of 100-horsepower-per-liter makes it one of the world’s highest specific output production V-8 engines.

However, the Northstar V-8 SC used in the STS-V is more than just power and torque. The DOHC engine includes variable valve timing that enables outstanding top-end performance while maintaining the expected refinement and quality associated with a luxury marque.

The aggressive torque curve enabled by the choice of a supercharged engine gives the STS-V acceleration capable of placing it firmly in the under-5-second-club for 0-to-60 time. The refined shift feel is enabled by careful electronic calibration of both the engine and transmission. During shifts, power is instantaneously lowered, then ramped back up carefully to make gear changes virtually unnoticeable.

The Northstar V-8 SC is mated to the all-new Hydra-Matic 6L80 six-speed automatic transmission – the first use of GM’s new six-speed automatic. The 6L80 – the only transmission offered on the STS-V – is one of the most technologically advanced automatic transmissions in the industry, using clutch-to-clutch operation and an advanced integrated 32-bit transmission controller to deliver smooth and precise shifts.

The 6L80 also incorporates a host of advanced driving enhancement features, including advanced Performance Algorithm Shifting (PAS) and Driver Shift Control (DSC). PAS lets the electronic transmission controller override the automatic gear selection during closed throttle high lateral acceleration maneuvers, rapidly downshifting with the release of the torque converter clutch for smooth powering up when the throttle is reopened. Driver Shift Control allows the driver to sequentially shift gears manually via the gearshift lever.

The STS-V has been tuned for performance on virtually every road condition and environment including GM’s all-new Milford Road Course facility and the Nordschleiffe (North Course) at Nürburgring.

As a result of this extensive development, the vehicle has track-capable acceleration, braking and cornering abilities. This is due, in part, to increased tire sizes (P255/45R18 front, P275/40R19 rear); increased brake rotor diameters, larger pad areas, and larger calipers; increased stiffness stabilizer bars and suspension springs; a faster steering ratio; and chassis tuning aimed at delivering high performance without punishing the driver.

Exterior elements on the STS-V enable higher-performance capabilities; yet express the sophisticated elegance associated with the STS name. Exterior refinements include:
A larger, polished stainless steel wire mesh front grille that enables the required additional airflow for engine heat dissipation. The wire mesh grille not only signifies the sedan as a V-series, but is also a heritage cue – wire mesh grilles were applied on the Cadillac V-16, the standard bearer of luxury and performance in the 1930s;
A new, lower front fascia that incorporates a larger lower grille (also wire mesh) for increased cooling capability; brake ducts for front caliper and rotor cooling; and splitter to counteract lift created by larger grille openings;
A new lower rear fascia that facilitates smooth airflow under the vehicle for improved cooling;
Lower rockers that visually bridge the lowered front and rear fascias;
A specific, fluidly sculpted hood designed to provide space for the engine’s supercharger;
Ten-spoke, flangeless, painted aluminum alloy wheels that assist in brake cooling. Front wheels are 18 x 8.5 inches; rear wheels are 19 x 9.5 inches;
A higher, more rearward-positioned rear spoiler that enables balanced aerodynamic downforce with the front splitter; and
V- series badging prominently displayed on the vehicle’s rear decklid and front doors along with “Supercharged” block lettering on the doors.
The interior of the STS-V reflects craftsmanship with the addition of more leather-wrapped surfaces to promote a high-quality, tactile feel and distinctive, crafted appearance. Interior refinements include:
Hand-wrapped leather surfaces throughout;
Olive Ash Burl wood appointments;
Kinetic-finished aluminum accents;
Sueded fabric seat inserts;
V -series badging in the instrument cluster, on the instrument panel, and on door sill plates; and
A new Tango Red color accent offering that is applied on seat inserts (front and rear), console, center armrest, lower instrument panel and door mid-sections (front and rear).
With three million subscribers, OnStar is the nation's leading provider of in-vehicle safety, security and information services using the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite network and wireless technologies. The 2006 STS-V will offer OnStar’s Gen 6.1 system. With Gen 6.1, GM OnStar subscribers can interact with OnStar's voice recognition system in Spanish, French or English. With the push of a button an OnStar advisor can change the system to allow the subscriber to interact with the system in their preferred language. Other core OnStar services are stolen vehicle location assistance, remote door unlock, roadside assistance, emergency services and automatic crash notification.

GM is the only automotive manufacturer committed to offering a full range of vehicles with safety protection before, during and after a collision. All OnStar-equipped vehicles come with Automatic Crash Notification. If air bags deploy, the system sends a signal to a highly trained OnStar Emergency Advisor, who contacts the vehicle to see if help is needed, and can contact an emergency responder to send for help. In many cases the occupants are severely injured and cannot speak for themselves. OnStar’s GPS unit allows Advisors to tell emergency responders the vehicle’s location. OnStar responds to at least one air bag deployment in the US or Canada every hour.

Additionally, the 2006 STS-V will offer the GM-exclusive Advanced Automatic Crash Notification system. The AACN system detects collisions, even rollovers, regardless of whether air bags deploy. AACN also transmits other crash data, such as the direction of impact force, the number of and which air bags deployed and the maximum change of impact velocity, so that emergency responders are more prepared with this critical information before they arrive at the accident scene.

The STS-V was engineered and executed by GM’s Performance Division, an in-house center designed to explore potential enthusiast-oriented versions of production models. No engineering, design or assembly functions were outsourced – the vehicle is truly an original equipment offering.

Like its STS sibling, the STS-V will be built at GM’s state-of-the-art Lansing Grand River (LRG) assembly center beginning in 2005. In 2004, the LGR facility received JD Power’s highest award for plant quality in North America .

The STS-V is expected to arrive in Cadillac showrooms in the fourth quarter of 2005

b4z

01-10-05, 10:33 AM

More info:

6speed transmission
http://media.gm.com/events/autoshows/05naias/brands/cadillac/stsv_trans.html

BeelzeBob

01-10-05, 12:13 PM

Lest we not forget that the STS-V is powered by a massaged Northstar, the CTS-V is still the king when it comes to real American self-aspirated muscle.

"self-aspirated".....????? Since the engine drives the blower I would say that the Northstar SC is "self aspirated"...LOL LOL LOL

The CTS-V does have more cubic inches...and you cannot beat cubic inches....no matter whether normally aspirated, self aspirated or whatever....LOL

BeelzeBob

01-10-05, 12:13 PM

Are you trying to tell us something? ;)

uh...no....not at all......LOL

BeelzeBob

01-10-05, 12:18 PM

I've been holding my breath for 5 years now waiting for Cadillac to roll-out this "Pace Car" edition. Should I stop waiting?
;)

~Doc

Well...it depends on what you mean.

If you have been waiting for a FWD performance car like the LeMans Pace Cars were then you need wait no longer. Simply go buy a Pontiac Bonneville GXP. The GXP is basically what the LeMans pace cars were. The performance of the two is very close, actually. The same chassis engineer and powertrain engineer that did the developement and tuning work on the LeMans Pace Cars did the work on the GXP.

The STS-V will push the FWD LeMans Pace Cars right off the track....LOL. That is what 140 HP will do for you.

In the rain I would still give the nod to the FWD Pace Cars, though. There were complaints from the race teams during the race the first year the FWD STS Pace Cars were used at LeMans that the pace car was driving TOO FAST during the rain delays they had. This is true.

b4z

01-10-05, 01:21 PM

BeelzeBob

01-10-05, 02:11 PM

bbobyinski,

The 2005 CTS-V was on delaer lots in July 2004.

Do you think we will see the STS-V production begin in June and be on the lots in July 2005, or will be October/November time frame?
Kind of like the way 2004 CTS-V was introduced.

Is the rear end whine problem been taking care of on the Sigma cars,
or is just something we have to live with?

My SRX whines as does my brand new GTO.
GM problem?

I would expect a fall introduction of the STS-V from what I have read.....like the CTS-V.

Hypoid gears in rear axles whine. Nature of the beast. This is a little issue that poeple forgot about what with years of FWD cars and FWD transaxles that did not have hypoid gearsets....LOL...LOL FWD was not for everyone and not perfect either but it certainly eliminated decades of rear axle whine complaints.

Seriously...they all whine. Just to what degree is the question. Mounting, isolation, drive line design variences, etc...all have an effect of drive axle whine. The axles in the SRX and GTO are completely different suppliers... both are made for GM by outside companies and those two are made by different companies if I am not mistaken.....

I don't think that there is any inherent "problem" with the final drives.... The whine is affected by the hypoid gear, the rear end setup procedures, how the gearset backlash is set, how the pinion depth is set for durability, etc.... Drag car gears whine horribly due to the lack of backlash and pinion depth biasing done for durability at the dragstrip....just no one hears them over open headers.

I don't think that there is any particular issue with the axles in those cars. You are just hearing the range of axle noise that varies slightly in production with gear variation and set up variation. The STS-V diff mounting is liable to be on the firm side for isolation to control the axle in performance situations so ANY driveline noises are going to be amplified to some extent. Not making excuses for the axles, here, just being realistic about it.....

The STS-V mules and prototypes that I have driven and been in have been very quite overall for axle noise, induction noise, blower whine and exhaust noise and booms. I don't expect any overall complaints (other than they will maybe be TOO quiet for some) but I am sure, what with a hypoid gear in the rear end, that there will be some trace levels of gear whine in some cars with otherwise perfectly fine rear ends.

Katshot

01-10-05, 03:26 PM

b4z

01-11-05, 03:27 PM

I just saw that the STS-V weighs 4300lbs!!

Dang. that thing got heavy, fast.
The CTS-V weighs 3850 and the STS_V is 450lbs more.
All that performance stuff really puts the lbs on.

BeelzeBob

01-11-05, 09:17 PM

Maybe it's not the same thing but years ago (about 1993) Cadillac started using rears that were only previously used in GM trucks, and IMMEDIATELY started getting complaints about gear noise (gear whine). The fix was to replace the gear sets with beveled gear sets. Seems that the ones originally used were NOT bevel cut because they were used in trucks and since the cabin noise level of a pick-up is a good deal higher than a Cadillac limo.....
Get the picture?
Maybe this is a similar issue?

First that I have ever heard of the "beveled gear" explaination....LOL.

Hypoid gears are always lapped and fitted for the axle so I don't know where "beveling" is involved. I'll have to go find out.

I know that in the RWD Devilles...er...ah...Broughams...the rear axle source was changed several times and the final time in the late 80's early 90's the ring gear diameter was increased which is the rears with the most whine complaints. I suspect that the larger diameter, heavier duty ring and pinion contributed to the increased noise. The larger the ring gear...the greater the propensity to whine.

bcs296

01-11-05, 10:49 PM

I just saw that the STS-V weighs 4300lbs!!

Dang. that thing got heavy, fast.
The CTS-V weighs 3850 and the STS_V is 450lbs more.
All that performance stuff really puts the lbs on.

Where is everyone seeing this 4300 number? Every time I see it I go into denial because it is so depressing. The E55 AMG doesn't even crack 4100 and I usual expect Benzes to be heavy. Less power, a LOT less torque, and significantly more weight. A lot less horsepower than an M5, a lot more torque, and significantly more weight. Whoopee doo. A let down considering it was hot on the trail of the CTS-V which blew everything away.

Afreet1

01-12-05, 12:07 AM

First let me preface with the fact that I have always stuck with the GM family and I seriously hope they can get Cadillac to #1

That being said I also am very disappointed with the specs for the STS-V. Here we have a CTS-V with a stock 400HP NA engine with many different aftermarket speed parts available (and several supercharger companies with prototypes) pushing out near or above 500HP and showing even more impressive lap times.

One naturally thinks that the STS is a "higher-end" Cadillac than the CTS and therefore should exceed all of the luxury and performance aspects of its predecessors. This is not a hard connection to make, nor would one expect the result to change with any of the V models.

So on one hand we have a barn-burning CTS-V with a 0-60 of 4.7 seconds and a SCCA race car while on the other hand we have a maxed-out (or at least the perception of maxed out) undersized engine with a roots-type supercharger used in order to achieve the marginally greater horsepower needed to “on-paper” out-power the CTS-V.

Under-hood mechanics aside, look at the two "benchmarks" that Cadillac is aiming for: the E55 and M5. The E55 is an automatic transmission car with 465HP (and 300 less lbs) that does so well in performance due to its amazing traction systems (or so I have read). From the BMW camp we have the M5 which is a performance car from the ground up with the newest technology including a F1 inspired 7 speed SMG transmission. The E55 and M5 are relatively well matched and offer room for passengers while remaining suitable as the "daily driver". The real selling point is that with all of the luxury and capacity they still have the ability to out-accelerate and out-perform most of the other cars on the road. Neither of these cars are designed as pure race cars but the owners like to have that capability available. We all dream of being the fastest and these are top-end models.

Bottom line for me is that if I size up the E55 and M5 against the STS-V, I know I will be happy with the E55 or M5 since it satisfies my normal routine and my "weekend warrior" mentality without any sacrifices (except perhaps my wallet). With the STS-V I have no doubt that it would be a fun daily driver but I want the ability to at least beat a Subaru WRX STI or an Audi S4 and preferably go toe-to-toe with a M5 or E55.

…and before anyone says it, Yes I know there is a price differential, but how much would it really cost to change the engine specs?

Katshot

01-12-05, 08:22 AM

I only need to say one word, Northstar. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Northstar is just plain out-gunned these days. It cannot, and WILL NOT be able to compete with the cars that Cadillac "claims" to want to compete with. I've said it MANY times, Cadillac NEEDS a new engine. The CTS-V owes 99% of it's credentials to the Chevy engine under the hood. Not only is it a powerhouse in stock trim but is EASILY able to accept a multitude of modifications that can boost the power significantly higher. This is NOT the case with the 4.6 Northstar. Even GM realizes the need to shore-up the Northstar before significant power increases as evidenced by the bore reduction on the S/C version of the engine which will be used in the STS-V. As far as the car itself, from what I've read, the car seems to be well engineered with respect to chassis tuning but until some serious full road tests come out on the car, I'll remain cautiously optimistic.

b4z

01-12-05, 08:53 AM

I am not at all disappointed in the STS-V.
It is not only the peak hp., but what is under the curve.
I imagine that there is a boatload of torque at 1500 rpms w/ that roots type supercharger.
Also I have heard that the new MB 7 speed transmission hunts for gear like crazy.
Something a Turbohydramtic will not do.

And you guys are forgetting that the 1st gear of the STS-V is a
4.02!!!
Think about that for a minute.
The 2nd gear ratio is lower than the 1st gear of a Muncie M-22 4 speed.
This car will have a huge amount of low end power and it's 0-60 times without traction control on will be interesting to say the least.
Probably a smoke show.
I am sure it will only be a couple of months before the aftermarket boosts the pressure of the supercharger.
Lastly, I find it hard to believe that we are complaining about a car with ONLY 440 hp.

BeelzeBob

01-12-05, 11:43 AM

The STS-V just finished several days of press reviews at the Detroit Auto Show with a very enthusiatic response. Interesting that all competitors to the STS-V were also in the "press" crowd. The 100 HP/liter specific output of the Northstar SC engine generated quite a bit of buzz in the crowd. That level of specific output is not lost on the competition.

The STS-V will always stand for a more refined, more elegant vehicle than the CTS-V. It is going to be heavier as it is a bigger car, with more luxury and more features.

Track times at the Nurburgring testing indicate that the STS-V is perfectly capable of competing with any of it's competitors.

No question that you cannot beat cubic inches......

The Northstar SC is rated at 440 HP at the standard SAE correction points...specifically 80 degrees F ambient. This is a very conservative rating as it is run with a hot vehicle intercooler condition...not ice water thru the intercooler. One nice thing about a supercharged engine with a very efficient liquid-to-air intercooler system is it's ability to maintain power at higher ambient temps (due to the intercooler efficiency) and it will pick up loads of power as the ambient decreases. With good fuel, cool (normal) ambients, etc...the 440 power rating is very conservative. As the ambients rise the engine becomes detonation limited and spark retard restricts the power output as the intercooler efficiency drops. Simple changes to the intercooler heat exchanger system..i..e...easy things like a spray bar on the intercooler heat exchanger....to keep the compressed mixture cool will dramatically affect power output...to the positive side.

50cal

01-12-05, 05:02 PM

Under-hood mechanics aside, look at the two "benchmarks" that Cadillac is aiming for: the E55 and M5. The E55 is an automatic transmission car with 465HP (and 300 less lbs) that does so well in performance due to its amazing traction systems (or so I have read).

The E55 also uses a 5spd automatic vs. the STS-Vs 6.

Not to mention, the E55 is 6+ inches shorter in overall length than the STS-V.

Don't be suprised if the STS-V can outhandle the E55, which is not one of its strong points.

bcs296

01-12-05, 09:48 PM

BeelzeBob

01-12-05, 10:32 PM

The E55 engine is big displacement but pretty disappointing output for a screw compressor on a high performance engine. For the cost and complexity of the screw compressor you would expect MUCH higher specific output...that is what screw compressors are good at. It makes high power and torque because it is getting some boost but it is not really a very elegant package due to the low specific output.

The BMW makes HP with RPM. The torque is very low but with the high engine speed capability it does make HP. Trouble is you constantly have to wring the thing to get the power.

With the Northstar SC one of the most endearing things about it is the fact that it has 90 percent of the peak torque value available from 2200 all the way to 6500 RPM.... It goes no matter what the RPM you are at. Very satisfying to drive.

4300 is the published mass of the car.... That is what it weighs. The supercharger package adds mass what with all the hardware, the intercooler circuitry and intercooler heat exchanger. There are other extra coolers on the car to handle the trans, the power steering, the final drive unit, the engine coolant, etc...and all are sized for track work. Things like cross tower braces seem to not weigh much on their own but all those pieces add up. The interior appointments add mass. Little here...little there. There has been strict attention to the mass of the car as everyone understands that F=MA...but all the things required for a car like that add up....

pietroraimondi

01-24-05, 10:17 AM

Am i the only one dissapointed by the 440hp? Considering how low the cts-vs are dynoing, and then you add in the wheel hop, 440 in real terms is more like 350....Maybe i was crazy to be thinking it should be in the 475 range

No for sure!....you are not the only one that is disappointed in the CTS-V. At least the STS-V is a true genuine proprietary Cadillac Northstar engine that has been reduced in size to a 4.4 Liter Northstar engine from its current 4.6 and then re-engineered to handle the additional HP of the supercharger to arrive at the base rated 440HP. The dyno slip for sure will tell the tale, but there is some comfort in knowing that in spending $75K f, I received a Cadillac Northstar Engine.

I sat on the fence for all of about 10 seconds when deciding NOT to buy the CTS-V versus the 3.6 VVT CTS and none of it was a cost factor. In fact the cost spread between my "off the lot" 3.6 versus the CTS-V was only about $6000 take or leave a few bucks. I have more $$ in my 3.6 with it's rebuild and the dyno slips to prove that my 3.6 will outperform the CTS-V on the dyno, as I have yet to see a CTS-V crack the 357 mark at even the flywheel, so I'm not quite sure where Cadillac has derived there 400 BHP rating from.

But truth be told, If I'm buying a damn Cadillac CTS-V, I expect a 400 HP Cadillac built engine. I don't expect to pay for a Cadillac and then have them "shoehorn" in a 5.7 liter pushrod Chevrolet engine and call it a damn Cadillac! Where in the hell is the truth in advertising there?

The bottom line is that the next generation of CTS-V's will find that Chevy 5.7 liter pushrod in the boneyard in favor of a better engineered Northstar engine with perhaps a 450+ BHP rating by 2007.

In my mind, the current 2004 CTS-V was nothing more than a CTS LUXURY SPORT, with some trim mods, and suspension modifications that were designed to support nothing more than a Chevrolet crate motor that Cadillac stuffed into the CTS engine bay simply because it fit because the market asked for more HP and quite frankly nothing else would fit the engine bay without extensive retooling and the marketplace clock was ticking.

It sort of reminds you of the first generation of Escalades. They too started of as GMC Yukon Denali's with a bit of Cadillac badge trim and gingerbread aesthetics to justify the MSRP price line. Two years later, the Escalade was a proprietary Cadillac engineered product from front tag to rear tag. The CTS-V will also follow the same suit with a Cadillac engineered Northstar Engine that will utilize the same supercharger system that will be installed in the STS-V as well as the XLR-V. The STS-V will be rated at 440 HP with a 4.4 liter Northstar in comparison to it's current 4.6 liter Northstar.

I would expect to see the new CTS-V to be rated somewhere between the 450+ and/or 475 with a genuine Northstar supercharged engine. When Cadillac does that; they'll have my attention as well as my check!

I realize that the above may sound like a bit if conjecture, however I have had some extensive discussions as part of a "marketing focus group" with Cadillac and the above statements concerning the new supercharged CTS-V will prove to be true. There is ongoing discussion as we speak with the "powers to be" at Cadillac about installing a tiptronic type sequential gear management transmission and move away from the standard 6 speed manual fits all thinking. The thinking is that at $55,000 and adding triptronic, you bring back into the buying fold all those that stayed away because they did't want a manual or in my case a Chevrolet engine stuffed into a Cadillac chassis!

Cadillac realizes that if they are going to build the true "American Ultimate Driving Machine" that fits form, function, luxury and satisfies the true American driving enthusiast; they need to be prepared to meet BMW "heads on" in both the product and the service experience.

They realize that they MUST install a triptronic SGM (SMG) manuamatic transmission in order for this CTS-V vehicle to be successful in catering to the BMW crowd.

They also realize that the current Cadillac Service Department model is still lacking miserably and is delivering a "Chevrolet service" experience. Over the next 3 to 4 years you will no longer see Cadillac dealerships sharing showroom floor space with other GM brands. The Cadillac Showroom and Service Dept will be standalone units.

This may sound silly, but as an example when I would take my BMW M3 in for service, I was greeted by a Service Advisor in a business suit. We would review the car and sit in his private office for a review of my scheduled service and any recommended services.

If I was going to work that day, there was a new BMW loaner waiting for me outside....not a single bit of paperwork to fill out as everything was on file.

If I was waiting for service, the waiting area rivaled that of a lobby/business center of a fine hotel. Free continental breakfast, capuccino & coffee machines, all of the major newspapers, various plasma screens for tv watching and at least a dozen cubicle desk stations with computers, internet access and a telephone. In some ways, I got more accomplished work wise at there then I would once I arrived at my office!

When I take my Cadillac in for service, (which I don't)....I'm greeted; rather looked at quite strangely is a better description, but a guy wearing a pair of blue coveralls who lacks the common sense to even put protective plastic covers over my sheepskin seat covers. It is quite a sight to be seen and from what I understand it is also a "countrywide problem".

I was asked by Cadillac Communication to join there focus marketing group as I had owned BMW's exclusively for the since 1985. Cadillac realizes first hand that they only have 3 years to fix the service department problem that they now face. They have done a wonderful job at engineering the overall vehicle, (exception noted on the 5.7 CTS-V) and in training the dealerships in how to sell the product. Service however was an afterthought and they are hearing first hand that the 30-40 something driving enthusiast expects his mechanic to know at least as much as I dwe about our vehicles, when in reality they are very lacking in product knowledge.

They laughed a bit at focus group web meeting when I made the analogy of that famous philospher, "Gomer Pyle", when I said; "fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me".

The point is that in order for Cadillac to bring us all back for the second CTS or STS.....they need to keep the "service experience promise"; and they have failed miserably in that arena. They are aware of it and are taking action as we speak. In fact, you will actually see some Cadillac Dealerships that will be closed by GM because they lack the physcial space for a first class service department to support the type of service that BMW & Mercedes customers are accustomed to.

When I would take by M3 to Towson BMW for service, I could purchase just about any type of Dinan performance upgrade and have it installed and not hear from some high-school garage mechanic that I was voiding my warranty. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've had to waste breath educating a mechanic that he knew as much about the warranty law as he knew about my car, so perhaps you may understand why I'm reluctant to go anywhere near the place for service and I live in a major metropolitan market!

If I could make a suggestion to anyone that owns a CTS....please buy the damn CTS parts list schematic that is on a CD/DVD and learn about your car. I'll say it again.....learn about your car, because chances are you'll be giving directions to the mechanic.

The current Cadillac mechanics are just that.....they are not "TECHICIANS". Ok...it's a silly damn fancy word for mechanic, but the bottom line is that the current Cadillac mechanics are used to working on your Aunt's Coupe DeVille and a Jeep Grand Cherokee and we both know that Aunt Rosie wouldn't know a harmonic balancer from a banjo and "you/we" do know the difference with regard to our cars as we are "enthusiasts". The current Cadillac mechanic is not prepared for that type of customer interaction and Cadillac Corporate is well aware.

The clock is ticking and they have a timeline of 36 months to get it right as these current vehicles begin coming in off-lease and or trade.

On a personal note, Cadillac revealed that there were alot of considerations that had to be encountered in bringing the CTS to market. Introductory price-point was the major one in comparison to the BMW 325/330 as they didn't want to bring to maket a new chassis/vehicle (CTS)that was competing head on with a vehicle that was "tops in class' for better than 10 years running at the same price point.

There "soft approach" to pricing and building the 3.2 in 2003 and then introducing the global 3.6 VVT in such a manner that it could handle 370+ HP in it's current configuration was a true trophy winner. With the 3.6 VVT engine, Cadillac avoided any future retooling costs as the 3.6 VVT is in all actuality a 4.0 six and the bore is reduced to 3.6 due to the steel cylinder sleeves. There is tons of room to grow this 3.6 platform and it will serve Cadillac well for at least 10 years.

Cadillac has done a fantastic job of "reinventing" themselves and their product line and attracting the BMW customer. The "Cadillac service experience" will define whether the "New Cadillac" customer keeps coming back.

b4z

01-24-05, 01:38 PM

northjerseynick

01-24-05, 02:01 PM

Its the fastest production sedan isnt it?...the E55

Afreet1

01-24-05, 08:05 PM

pietroraimondi,

I agree that seeing a V car should always have a SMG (as opposed to an automatic with manual override) option or a manual gearbox like the M3 / M5 does. A normal automatic with electronic gear selection (aka tiptronic) would be ok as long as there were also paddles like the SL55 AMG.

As for the engine, I would take pride in owning an LSX engine since that is what GM's fastest car, the corvette, has under the hood. The reason why I like the naturally aspirated engines at 400 horsepower over the 440 hp supercharged engine is that I know the LS6 is a tough engine that has a world of upgrades. When I hear things like the 440 hp northstar needed a bore REDUCTION, I get concerned that the block is prone to fracture and that any potential modifications would result in a highly unstable engine.

Also if they are going the supercharger route, why not use a screw-type supercharger instead of a roots type? They have a flat torque curve and are more efficient.

This is the exact reason why I would never buy an Acura. Their engines have been so highly compressed that the only option for performance is to remove the engine and start fresh. With the CTS-V you can bolt on a supercharger with minimal boost and still get close to 500hp.

I think car and driver said it best about the STS-V in their latest issue when they said: "it doesn't exactly set new standards for the class. The R versions of the Jaguar S-type and XJ have 390 ponies. The Audi RS 6 had 450 horses. The Mercedes E55 has 476 horsepower. And the upcoming BMW M5 will have 500."

In my opinion If Cadillac is aiming for 3rd place then they have hit the mark exactly.

50cal

01-24-05, 09:54 PM

pietroraimondi,I think car and driver said it best about the STS-V in their latest issue when they said: "it doesn't exactly set new standards for the class. The R versions of the Jaguar S-type and XJ have 390 ponies. The Audi RS 6 had 450 horses. The Mercedes E55 has 476 horsepower. And the upcoming BMW M5 will have 500."

The XJR is 50hp off, that's a big difference.....although it is aluminum and that certainly helps. I find the interior rather cheap, tons of plastic and the leather is not very nice for a $75k base car (the Vanden Plas and Super V8 come with nice leather).

The E55 bases at $80k (a comparable E55 feature wise to the STS-V would bring the price to about $85k). Next, the RS6 had an MSRP of $82,700. The M5 won't be a dime less than $80k and while it has 500hp, it has 384lbs of torque. At best the STS-V loaded will be $75k, maybe even a bit lower.

I personally do not feel the E55 and M5 are direct competitors to the STS-V. The XJR and CLS55 I do believe are direct competitors (similar size vehicles).

With how well the CTS-V handles, I wouldn't write the STS-V off just right yet.

Afreet1

01-24-05, 10:47 PM

I honestly hope the STS-V can dominate its class. However, given the available data it just doesn’t seem likely. I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong here. The two things that really stand out are the weight issue and what seems like a lackluster engine that is pushed to its limits to get near the competitive horsepower range.

BeelzeBob

01-24-05, 11:16 PM

The two things that really stand out are the weight issue and what seems like a lackluster engine that is pushed to its limits to get near the competitive horsepower range.

Please explain to me how an engine that makes 100 HP per liter could be classified as "lackluster"...???? There are very very few engines in production in the world that achieve that specific output supercharged or otherwise. None of the STS-V's competitors come close to this state of tune. Lackluster..???...hardly.

berkin

01-24-05, 11:17 PM

I've driven an 04 XJR which has the aluminum chassis and liked it a lot. I like it a lot more than the Audi A8, the MB S class, and the BMW 7 series.

Some might think the Jaguar uses a Ford V-8, but that isn't true.

http://www.jagweb.com/aj6eng/v8_performance.html

I think the STS-V is sweet. :thumbsup:

50cal

01-24-05, 11:25 PM

I like it a lot more than the Audi A8, the MB S class, and the BMW 7 series.

As do I, much more entertaining car to drive.......which isn't a surprise really. The car is lighter, sportier, and has more power than both the A8 (V8), S430/500 and 745.

Interior wise.

1. A8 (by far)
2. Sclass
3. Jag
4. 745 (nicer materials than the Jag, but the design is weird and i-drive is for the birds).

berkin

01-24-05, 11:40 PM

Does the new STS-V have a limited-slip differential?

BeelzeBob

01-25-05, 12:09 AM

Also if they are going the supercharger route, why not use a screw-type supercharger instead of a roots type? They have a flat torque curve and are more efficient.

Not entirely true....you really have to look at the pressure ratio of the supercharger. The roots blowers are actually more efficient at lower pressure ratios. It will not heat up the charge air as much and will take less power to turn it compared to the screw compressor at the same pressure ratio. If the engine is going over 1 bar boost then the screw compressor is the obvious choice but below that the roots is considered better.

Neither blower has a "more flat torque curve". That is based purely on the blower set up, the tuning of the engine, cam timing and availability of VVT, etc...

One advantage of the roots style blower is that it works well with a bypass valve. The bypass valve, when open, allows the blower elements to basically windmill. The improves part throttle fuel efficiency as the only parasitic load on the engine at that point is the belt drive. The blower is basically windmilling and not taking any power.

A big disadvantage of the screw style compressor is that fact that it does not work with a bypass valve. The compressor is always compressing air and therefore is always a parasitic load on the engine even when not making boost. To get around this the screw compressor applications are generally clutched. This adds even more complexity and requires a very large clutch to handle the load of the larger screw compressors.

The Mercedes system, for instance, uses a screw purely because it is the only large displacement blower large enough for their application. They are not really "using" the screw compressor to the maximum advantage, however, as there is no clutch to disconnect the compressor (so fuel econom suffers dramatically) and the boost pressure is not in the range that a screw is more efficient than a roots blower. Case in point is that the application is not near the 100 HP/liter tuning point even with the screw compressor.

The STS-V application is very well sized and uses a roots blower correctly. It is in the optimum range of pressure ratio to be efficient and has a very efficient bypass circuit for fuel economy efficiency at part throttle.

You do not get the engine to a state of tune of 100 HP per liter by using the device incorrectly.....

pietroraimondi

01-25-05, 01:11 AM

pietro,

I share your frustration with Cadillac's service experience.
It starts with the service advisors, the waiting room, and that fact that things are rarely fixed the first time.
I wish the whole dealership experience was at a higher level.
It is kind of embarassing to tell you the truth.

I think where we part ways to some extent is with the powertrain.
Several months ago I started a thread about getting OHC motors in the"V".
Some very educated engine guys on this thread gave me the some very convincing arguements that pushrods are not so bad.

Since that time I have bought a Pontiac GTO and I love the LS1 motor.
It pulls like a freight train at higher rpms. Much beter than te 2valve Ford mod motor.
Does it shake a little at idle. Yes. Could it be fee dbs quieter? Yes.
But it is a fantastic motor. Period.

I also own a SRX with the 3.6L VVT.
Lots of low and midrange power.
You did not say whether your's is a '04 or '05.
This is a great motor too, but my '04 has a noisy valvetrain.
It could be quieter and it could be smoother.
For '05 changes were made to quiet it down.
There are better V6's out there than the 3.6L. Honda's comes to mind.

I am really not sure why you are so fascinated with the 3.6L and down on the LS6?

IMHO opinion the LS has taken the pushrod to new heights. The 3.6L is just adequate. Cadillac needs to come out with the 270-280hp version, as it is a little weak in the high end.

Anyway, I agree with your criticisms in general, but i think you are being a little hard on some of the fine points.
Again, I am not disspointed in the STS-V and don't think that Cadillac has overrated hp in the CTS-V.

P.S.
The LS6 is a GM motor not a Chevy motor.
The Escalade is still 80-90% Chevy Tahoe/ GMC Denali.
B4Z:

I stand corrected; the LS6 is in fact a GM motor and not a Chevrolet Motor per se. My point which was unfortunately miscommunicated was the fact that IMO, the LS6 did not belong in a Cadillac CTS-V to begin with. Cadillac's reasoning for using the LS6 was simply because the small block fit the parameters of the engine bay compartment and without the luxury of time for retooling and designing a higher output VVT OHC motor that was capable of producing 400 BHP and still provide the dba quality that should be "expected" of a company attempting to launch a new product to the marketplace, it would have put Cadillac beyond the timeframe of BMW's launch of the new M5 and as you know the "horsepower" wars had just begun and Cadillac fired the first shot with the V.

If Cadillac had the luxury of time with the CTS-V, we would have seen a similiar supercharged Northstar engine that will appear in the STS-V, SRX-V (still in question) and the XLR-V. But as we all know.......that SC-Northstar engine was two years away from production. You will however see that same SC-Northstar engine in the 2007 CTS-V and the LS6 will be relegated back to the Corvette, GTO and perhaps later when the Camaro is reintroduced.

My simple point was that the LS6 pushrod; although a very fine pushrod V-8 didn't belong in a "cutting edge" new technology vehicle that the CTS-V was touted to be. As most know, there are still problems with the V with regard to rear wheel hop, undersized rear toe rods as well as undersized trailing arms.

There is also severe problems with regard to rear brake bias on the CTS-V. The four piston rear Brembo caliper pistons are oversized and were actually designed, rather engineered by Brembo for front brake application. Cadillac took a front brake Brembo 4 piston same bore 4 piston caliper and shaved the outer body of the caliper in order to "make it fit the rear" spindle/knuckle and clear the wheel spokes. Are you still holding onto your hat after hearing that one?......They actually took a radial mount Brembo 4 piston front "off the shelf" same bore large piston front brake caliper and shaved the outer body case to make it fit the rear without any regard to brake bias. That rear Brembo 4 piston CTS-V caliper is now a proprietary GM Cadillac product and Brembo will have nothing to do with it. Brembo doesn't sell it, doesn't stock it, nor do they support it. You can however buy the front Brembo 4 pot caliper directly from Brembo for your CTS-V, but that rear caliper is a mess and Brembo will have nothing to do with it! In fact, Cadillac had to machine a 14.4 " rear rotor to get the shave Bembo caliper to fit and clear the rear wheel spokes in comparison to the 14" front rotors that provide 75% or better of your braking pressure. Now tell me when was the last time you saw any performance vehicle running a larger diameter rear rotor sweep than what was on the front based on proper brake bias? There is no logical explanation except that had to "make that rear Brembo caliper fit".

With regard to my personal CTS; it is a 2004 Luxury Sport. I am running 245/45/18 rubber on 18x8.5 rims. My braking system is custom built and comprises Wilwood 6 piston staggered bore front radial mount calipers and Wilwood 4 piston small bore rear radial mount calipers. My front rotors are 13.1 x 1.25 and the rear rotors are 13.1 x1.0. The rotors portions are directional vane cross-drilled and gas slotted as well as cryo treated and cadium plated. The front rotor hats are anodized aluminum and the rear hats are also two piece design, however the rear rotor hats are machined of steel to accomodate the OEM functioning parking drum assembly brake.

My fascination with the 3.6 VVT is basically the fact that it is a "global engine" that will support with its current architecture more than 370 HP and more than 350 lbs.-ft torque with excellent fuel consumption and outstanding noise control and harshness control. My own CTS was dyno'd at 363 on its last dyno run, but then again I've made some significant induction modifications that this engine unlike the Honda or Infiniti G30 are incapable of.

To take a 3.6 factory engine that is rated at 255 BHP and increase that to more than 370 without having to change out the pistons, crankshaft and connecting rods would be impossible on your 6 cylinder Honda, unless of course your looking to end up with a very large immovable paperweight. And we haven't even touched upon the transmission or rear end.

Our CTS came "stock" with dual ovehead cams and four valves per cylinder and a roller follower valvetrain as do most well built 6's. But that is where the similiarities end. Where Cadillac separated themselves from the pack was when they introduced 4 cam phasing, forged aluminum pistons with floating wrist pins and oil jet capability, a forged steel crankshaft and sinter forged(cryo treated) connecting rods and the list goes on and on and on. FORGED, FORGED, FORGED! Not a single bit of sand cast steel or aluminum in the combustion chamber....neither Honda or Infiniti or Lexus can make that claim. The bottom line is that Lund can bolt up a 120 to 150 HP supercharger to a factory built 3.6 VVT OEM engine and not even have to change a spark plug and deliver a 400 HP 6 cylinder engine without a single internal engine modification.

I would question what the inside of that Honda engine might look like with that kind of boost given the fact that the internal combustion chamber is cast and not forged.

One of the more fascinating things about the 3.6 VVT is it's absolute without question, state of the art 32 bit, 25 MHZ Bosch Motronic ME9 microprocessor----it is the most powerful and sophisticated "self learning" ECU processor in the entire automotive industry. Here's the quick answer as to why there is no tuner software for the 3.6 VVT......add the supercharger,or the cold air intake or remove the valve cylinder sleeves and use the factory 4.0 cylinder bore with replacement pistons and the ECU recognizes the hardware and adjusts accordingly.

The noisy valvetrain on your SRX is a bit perplexing, but given the cost of that vehicle, I would park it at the Dealership until they get it right or make them replace the entire damn engine.

We also own a 2004 SRX AWD Northstar V-8. That of course belongs to my wife. We bought both vehicles in the same evening....the CTS and the SRX. Truth be told, if the V had been available in a tiptronic type of automatic tranny, I would have probably opted for the V at the time, but as of now I have no regrets given the upgrades that I have put into my CTS.

We drove the 3.6 VVT SRX and then the 4.6 Northstar AWD SRX and it was like comparing a prop plane to a lear jet....no kidding aside! The SRX is quite a heavy vehicle and 260 HP is not alot of HP for a vehicle of that weight IMO. Yes the 3.6 VVT is adequate for the SRX, but unless you have driven the 4.6 Northstar version, you are literally comparing apples to oranges. I installed a Catback system on her SRX and a Volant Cold Air Box and upgraded the MAF and installed a throttle body spacer. I was able to justify it to my wife by telling her that I could not live with 14.9 mpg and I had to make those changes in order to squeeze some more mpg's out of each tank of gas. She bought my story and I probably got my extra 25 or 30 so horsepower out of the deal. So I would guess that the SRX is now around 350 HP at the flywheel and I have to admit that it one "fun" vehicle to drive.

Take a look at the following website: www.60degreev6.com

This website will give you some very informative data on the 3.6 VVT and I think it may paint a different picture for you on how you perceive the architecture of this engine compared to a Honda when you realize that that the 3.6 has just scratched the surface at 255-260 HP. There is more than a 100 HP left "in reserve" by simply changing the method of induction.

Good conversation and thank you for your thoughts. - Pete

berkin

01-25-05, 01:22 AM

Pushrods came out after OHC engines.

The 440 hp Northstar V-8 SC (supercharged) would add weight to the CTS-V. I think an LS2 or a detuned LS7 would be great for the CTS-V. I think most people would rather have a V-8 than a supercharged V-6. I know I would.

Here is info on the LS2

http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2005/powertrain.shtml

Nocturn

01-25-05, 03:08 AM

While DOHC may appear to be higher tech, they are no better than pushrods, its just reputation. DOHC does allow for higher RPMs, but that isn't anything that can't be done in a pushrod engine with stronger valve springs.

And to the guy with the loud GTO, the GTO was engineered to have a louder exhaust note than on the original Monaro.

Also, the CTSV is the last car to use the LS6, the GTO/Corvette/ and SSR all now use the larger displacment LS2, with the new Z06 using the 7.4L 427ci LS7. Which I believe has a 7000 RPM redline.

BeelzeBob

01-25-05, 11:13 AM

While DOHC may appear to be higher tech, they are no better than pushrods, its just reputation. DOHC does allow for higher RPMs, but that isn't anything that can't be done in a pushrod engine with stronger valve springs.

The great and eternal DOHC vs. pushrod debate will go on forever. Lots has been posted on this already if you search...try "OHV" and some posts will come up that may be informative. The bottom line is that there is NO SINGLE BEST ANSWER. Both pushrod and DOHC engines have certain advantages that the other cannot achieve. Anyone who insists that one is better than the other does not understand all the factors affecting engine design....period. Regardless of the application a DOHC or pushrod engine would be a compromise in some respect.

Personally, given the packaging and displacement range variation capable with a pushrod engine they are very attractive for most any appliction. Given the RPM capability and specifid output of todays "pushrod" engines they are anything but low tech and outdated.

One advantage of a DOHC engine, however, that a pushrod engine cannot approach is the ability to run dual cam phasing on the inlet and exhaust cams thus being able to alter overall cam timing AS WELL AS valve overlap... The pushrod/cam-in-block/OHV designs benefit somewhat from "phasing" the single cam but the overlap is fixed. DOHC engines can vary the overlap by individual control of the inlet and exhaust cams. This always makes the DOHC engine more tractible with better low end response and much better idle quality. The Northstar SC engine makes 100 HP/liter yet idles like a complete kitten. It's low end response and idle quality belies it's true performance potential. This one area is important in separating a true luxury car engine from a simple hot rod powerhouse......

BeelzeBob

01-25-05, 11:31 AM

Cadillac's reasoning for using the LS6 was simply because the small block fit the parameters of the engine bay compartment .......If Cadillac had the luxury of time with the CTS-V, we would have seen a similiar supercharged Northstar engine that will appear in the STS-V,

There is also severe problems with regard to rear brake bias on the CTS-V. The four piston rear Brembo caliper pistons are oversized and were actually designed, rather engineered by Brembo for front brake application. Cadillac took a front brake Brembo 4 piston same bore 4 piston caliper and shaved the outer body of the caliper in order to "make it fit the rear" spindle/knuckle and clear the wheel spokes. Are you still holding onto your hat after hearing that one?......They actually took a radial mount Brembo 4 piston front "off the shelf" same bore large piston front brake caliper and shaved the outer body case to make it fit the rear without any regard to brake bias.

FORGED, FORGED, FORGED! Not a single bit of sand cast steel or aluminum in the combustion chamber....

and sinter forged(cryo treated) connecting rods

Per the above comments...

True in a sense...but...if you do a detailed engineering layout...or take the time to try and shoehorn one in...you will find that a RWD Northstar will just not fit into the confines of the CTS or CTS-V engine bay....just won't fit. The CTS-V/LS6 exploits the packaging advantages of a pushrod engine, period. Pushrod engines can be made smaller for a given displacement, plain and simple. So the 400 HP can "fit" into the CTS-V. The RWD Northstar and the Northstar SC will not fit.

This is hogwash. Do you really think that the brake system was engineered, tested extensively on many different racetracks and low coefficient of friction surfaces around the world and validated for the car "with no regard to brake bias"...???? Really now. I better let the chassis and brake guys know that they totally "overlooked" or "forgot" to check the brake bias. Ha Ha.....duh.

Are you forgetting the cylinder head material. It is not forged. It is cast aluminum. Over 1/2 of the "combustion chamber" is cast aluminum, not forged. Same as all other engines. Unless you get into top fuel cylinder heads that are CNC'd out of billet with no water passages I don't think you are going to find a "forged" cylinder head anywhere. The water jackets of the V6 cylinder head are cast with sand cores and a semipermanent mold for the combustion chamber and deck surface details.

In addition....I am holding a piston from the DOHC VVT CTS engine in my hand and it isn't forged...it is a cast piston. Don't know of where your info for forged pistons is but it is wrong or there is some confusion.

Last I checked the con rods were sintered powdered metal rods that are coined (forged) after sintering with the caps cracked off at room temperature. There is no cryogenic process involved. The rods are powdered metal compacted, sintered, coined, premachined with a notch at the cap split line and the caps are cracked using a propriatary GM process. The rods are not cryogenically treated nor is cryogenics involved with the cap cracking process.

b4z

01-25-05, 11:57 AM

pietro,

Enjoying the discussion.
How long do you think your tranny will last with 400hp?
I would be curious to know since it has the lower torque rating than the one that is in the Northstar powered RWD Sigmas.

My SRX had 2 new camshafts put in when it had 1300 miles.
This noise is unrelated to that event.
All '04 3.6Ls are noiser than the '05s. And not that smooth on the top end.

Afreet1

01-25-05, 12:46 PM

Reckamech

01-25-05, 01:22 PM

Not to sit hear and say I have all the enginering know how in the world, but I have really been enjoying the technical discussions that have been going on here. A lot more than just rag tops and chrome :) . When the STS was first introduced I loved it but questioned if it will it have the technical fan base like the BMW's, Audi's and Mercs. When you get one of those cars it's like joining a club (BMWCCA) and everyone helps everyone. I wondered if I could get support for the STS after purchase. After what's been going one here in the last couple of months I see I couldn't be more wrong. Hopefully when my new car purchase moment arrives < 1 year I will opt for the STS V8. Right now my decision is still up in the air with the 545i or 550i ahead by a nose.

BeelzeBob

01-25-05, 01:29 PM

My complaint is the overall lack of displacement. I am sure that the specific output is a nice statistic but I am interested in TOTAL output and the upgrade potential of the engine. Couldn't you have 100Hp/liter if you had a 4 cylinder engine and only 1 total liter of displacement? Would it be impressive then? What about other nifty statistics such as if the compression ratio was only 6:1?

As for the supercharger, the Whipple is a screw-type supercharger and it DOES have a bypass valve. (http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/product.asp?ProdID=1204)

I was waiting for the 2006 models to arrive before I made my V purchase (haven't decided on a CTS-V or STS-V), but if I can't get a NA engine with at least 400 HP like the 2004 and 2005 CTS-V, then I am going with something else and break a lifetime worth of GM loyalty UNLESS the supercharged version is very close to 500HP. (All my cars / truck have been GM so far)

I didn't mean to imply that you cannot put a bypass valve with a screw compressor...it just isn't that effective at reducing the parasitic losses as it is with a roots. The screw compressors will still compress and then relieve the air pressure thru the bypass. With the roots blower the rotors basically windmill freely. A roots blower with the belt off will windmill the rotors due to the air flow thru the engine...a screw compressor will not do that. That is why they still have high parasitics even with a bypass open. The whipple needs a by pass for boost control due to the fact that they are putting a very large screw compressor on the engines they kit for. They "size" them with the bypass. This is a very ineffient way to design a production engine... Whipple just says that their bypass is better than others...none of the bypasses on a screw compressor are really as effective as those on a roots.

Yes, the 100 HP can be considered "lame" in the sense that it is just a statistic I guess. You'll just have to drive an STS-V and see what 440 HP feels like with 90% of the torque available from 2200 to 6500 RPM. The torque band is so wide that it really makes the car fast. If the 100 HP per liter were measured at 8500 like the BMW V10 and the engine only made 350 ft lbs of torque and it had to be at 4000 or above to do that it is one thing. The Northstar SC makes 100 HP per liter at just over 6000 RPM and it ALSO makes 435 ftlb of torque and the torque curve is extremely flat and wide. That is what is required for a heavier luxury car...not a peaky high revving high output engine. The Northstar SC does both really.

Having said all that...no question...you cannot beat displacement.... wish the Northstar could be expanded in the displacement area. Practical limitations mean it cannot be larger than 4.6 liters.

BTW....the 440 HP rating is rather conservative. The rating is one of the first done by the new, more restrictive SAE J1349 guidelines. Rating according to the older standards could have resulted in an additional 15 HP or more....not that it would affect the performance of the car but it would have widened the gap from perceived output vs. the advertised number. The newer advertised HP rating standards that will be adopted by all the auto manufacturers as time goes on limits some of the "loop holes" that could be exploited to boost the advertised power figure.

In adddition, with the supercharged, intercooled package the HP is much less affected by underhood air temp as is commonly seen on chassis dyno testing. As long as the intercooler sees cold/cool/ambient air the charge temp will be controlled. The advertised power ratings are run with a relatively "hot" intercooler circuit temperature to simulate real world, hot, stabilized temperatures. Colder weather, intercooler spray bars, etc... will definitely add more power to the advertised number....