: Why did GM use the LC3 instead of the LS7 in the STS-V & XLR-V



tah93
03-27-13, 10:37 PM
With the announcement of the Camaro Z/28 it brought up a question I have been pondering for some time.

Why did Cadillac / GM decide to develop a custom hand built Supercharged N* instead of using the the small block 427 LS-7 they were developing for the Z06?
They were being developed at the same time.
They were both ready for production for the 2006 model year.
They were both hand built at Wixom.
The LS-7 is physically smaller than the LC3 so it should fit in the engine bay of both Vs.

Sharing the engine between vehicles should have reduced development and manufacturing costs and reduced the price of the Vs. Making them more powerful and less expensive options to people cross shopping with the AMGs and Ms
Do you think the XLR-V and STS-V would have sold better if they had the LS-7 under the hood?

PGA2B
03-27-13, 10:41 PM
Because the 4.4L is a true Northstar. They wanted an ALL Cadillac product and the LS based motors are GM.

Look up Cadillac SAE 100 and you'll see what the STS-V SHOULD have been!!

Here is the engine that we should of had.

http://files.conceptcarz.com/img/Cadillac/05-Cadillac-STS-SAE-100-SA-manu-E01.jpg

PNBLWZD
03-27-13, 11:40 PM
Wow I've never seen that before, now I really feel like we got jipped! As so many others have said, if the LS motor could go in a CTS-V, a blown version should have gone in the STS-V being a heavier car. The SAE100 even has what appears to be a version of the que system instead of a regular spedo/tach cluster, not to mention crazy looking headlight assemblies that were probably loaded with LED's and a rear bumper exhaust tip arrangement that looks like something off a Mercedes S class. Oh the way things could have been. *sigh*

Edit

Wow I just looked again and saw even more cool stuff that car has. Heated and cooled cupholders, back seat camera, a steerable backup camera, some sort of lage finned assembly underneath the rear of the car, and electric exhaust cutouts! Oh the humanity! Why GM Why?!

http://www.netcarshow.com/cadillac/2005-sts_sae_100/

tah93
03-27-13, 11:45 PM
I wish we had a lot of things from the SAE-100
Backup camera, adaptive cruise, OLED display, maybe even the headlights & foglights
and last but not least the carbon fiber magnesium 2 piece wheels.

In hindsight it seems counterproductive to create 2 low volume handbuilt engines at the same time.
They were okay with putting the LS6/2 in the 1st gen CTS-V

Dave G
03-28-13, 12:09 AM
In hindsight it seems counterproductive to create 2 low volume handbuilt engines at the same time.

Which is just one reason why GM had the problems they did.

06 STS Rob
03-28-13, 11:33 AM
Can you even imagine what those wheels would cost!!!
I'm happy with the LC3 dispite the lack of aftermarket parts and tuning market, there's enough out there to get what you need. From what I've read, it's still a strong engine.

bigburban
03-28-13, 04:00 PM
I was under the impression that it would be followed up with the ultra v8. The stsv was intended to be the flagship. Think that all changed when gm went bankrupt and the cts v was such a hit. The sts was a disappoint in terms of sales performance. If you look back to 2003 2005 forums the expectation was the the stsv would have and exclusive engine.

The Raven
03-28-13, 06:53 PM
It's really interesting to me that myself and many here wonder what GM was thinking when they used a Northstar instead of an LS in the STS-V. Then I go to other sections of this same site and see so many others in disbelief over how GM could have discontinued the Northstar and replaced it with "ancient" LS motors.

If you ask me, the V's should have all been switched over to LS motors as soon as was possible. Probably would have enabled GM to sell the cars a bit cheaper too. But there are ALOT of people out there who would call me insane for suggesting that an LS motor should be anywhere near a Cadillac.

carter's_sts
03-28-13, 08:37 PM
Yeah, they had really big hopes for the STS-V. Didn't even come close to panning out.

I love having a rare car, but I wish they would have done a little better. I think among other things, they priced it way too high new.



I was under the impression that it would be followed up with the ultra v8. The stsv was intended to be the flagship. Think that all changed when gm went bankrupt and the cts v was such a hit. The sts was a disappoint in terms of sales performance. If you look back to 2003 2005 forums the expectation was the the stsv would have and exclusive engine.

Dave G
03-28-13, 11:16 PM
The problem was the Northstar had already developed a pretty bad reputation regardless of how great the LC3 is.

PGA2B
03-29-13, 10:46 AM
The bigger problem is that they never advertised it properly. Anyone remember any commercials other than this one?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADLzyIe0zYs

I don't even remember seeing it until after I bought my STS-V in 2009 and it was on TV in mid to late 2005.

Dave G
03-29-13, 08:18 PM
I forgot about that commercial.

Nimoch
03-30-13, 09:42 AM
Now that I've seen it again, I remember it. However, I had forgotten about it completely, even when purchasing my STS-V a couple of weeks ago.

RippyPartsDept
03-30-13, 10:58 AM
ok in case you all didn't go searching around for more info here's what i found

best site for info and pictures on the STS SAE 100
http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-2005-Cadillac-STS-SAE-100.htm






---- Specifications ----







Price

--

Production

--



Engine
6 liter LS2 V8

Weight
--



Aspiration
supercharger

Torque
520 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm



HP
505 @ 5600 rpm

HP/Weight
--



HP/Liter
84.2 hp per liter

1/4 mile
--



0-62 mph
--

Top Speed
--



General Motors revealed the most technologically integrated vehicle ever at today's opening of the 2005 SAE World Congress. The Cadillac STS SAE 100, which pays homage to SAE's 100th anniversary, will serve as a working laboratory that will aid engineers in developing future production vehicles.

"We have challenged our engineers to take the best of today's vehicle technologies and integrate them with promising future technologies to demonstrate how they will function together in a real-world driving environment," said Jim Queen, GM vice president, Global Engineering and general chairperson of the 2005 SAE World Congress. GM is the host company for this year's World Congress.

GM worked with 38 suppliers to integrate 50 different technologies into the STS SAE 100, ranging across safety, chassis, powertrain, electrical and comfort and convenience categories. Nineteen have never been in production, 22 are in production somewhere other than the 2005 STS and nine are currently on the production 2005 STS.

The vehicle, commissioned by Queen and executed by the GM Performance Division Vehicle Development Center, is much more than a "dream team" of technologies: Engineers will use it to document how the various technologies interface with each other and how they can be applied to future production vehicles.

"Vehicle integration is behind game-changing safety features like electronic stability control, which we are rolling out across our entire fleet," said Queen.

"Our goal with this vehicle was not simply to see how many different technologies can be incorporated into one vehicle. We want to learn how a variety of relevant current and future technologies can be made to function harmoniously while enhancing the total driving experience."

STS SAE 100 technologies include (see accompanying sheet for full list of technologies and their suppliers):


3-D navigation system: This prototype system uses actual pictures taken by satellites to provide the driver with a "bird's-eye-view" of the vehicle's surroundings. The images are so detailed that even trees and lampposts are visible. This detail helps the driver to relate the images on the navigation screen to his surroundings.

Oil condition sensor: An industry first in new vehicle features, this oil probe can determine and detect the actual level and remaining engine oil life. It can reduce the need for costly engine repairs due to poor oil maintenance as well as prevent unnecessary oil changes.

Inside rear-view mirror with embedded organic LED screen: This new device offers clear images from the rear seat (via a rear seat camera) or back-up camera, depending on what gear the vehicle is in. In addition to improving visibility behind the vehicle, it can reduce the distraction associated with tending to rear seat passengers.

Electronic limited slip differential: Unlike passive LSD, this technology enhances vehicle traction without brake/engine intervention, as well as provides additional vehicle stability from the differential yaw dampening effect. It also is easier to integrate with electronic stability control systems.

Two-piece carbon fiber wheel with magnesium spokes: This two-piece wheel is designed to be the lightest yet strongest wheel in production, which reduces unsprung weight. Reducing unsprung weight improves acceleration, braking efficiency, handling and fuel consumption.

Lane departure warning: Using a real-time vision system, it detects road markings and notifies the driver with a visual signal and a vibration (haptic alert) in the seat when a vehicle traveling at more than 35 mph crosses over the markings unintentionally. This technology could be especially promising in curbing drowsy-driving crashes.

Side blind zone alert: Radar sensors warn a driver about to change lanes if another vehicle is in the driver's blind spot. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, these crashes damage 830,000 vehicles annually.

Capless fuel system: Removing a gas cap can be difficult for arthritic, disabled or elderly people. With this system, the user simply pushes an interior button and an electronically activated ball spins open to allow access to the fuel pipe, and closes when the nozzle is removed. In addition, a capless system means there's no cap to lose and no risk of a loose cap triggering a dashboard warning light.

Adaptive cruise control: Rear impacts account for nearly 29 percent of police-reported crashes, and most are due to driver inattention. Adaptive cruise control, already available on some Cadillacs, uses sensors to detect objects in the vehicle's path and slow it accordingly.

Reconfigurable color head-up display: This HUD projects digital readouts of key data (speedometer, navigation system turn prompts, tapshift, audio settings and adaptive cruise control status and alerts) onto the windshield in an easy-to-read and intuitive way.

Rear seat entertainment system: Who says only the people in the front seat can have fun? This entertainment system consists of two, 6.5-inch headrest-mounted LCD screens, wireless infrared headphones and two Microsoft Xboxes with DVD packages. Players can even "feel" the action with a haptic controller.

Rear vision camera: This system provides a wide angle view of the area behind the vehicle for detecting obstacles while backing up. The field of view is projected onto the navigation screen in the instrument panel.

The STS SAE 100 is powered by a supercharged LS2 engine yielding 505 horsepower at 5600 rpm and 520 lb.-ft. of torque at 3600 rpm. It is mated to GM HydraMatic's newly developed, longitudinal 6L90E six-speed transmission, capable of supporting more powerful engines like the supercharged LS2. The transmission features Driver Shift Control, which gives the driver the ability to shift gears sequentially with a tap up/ tap down mechanism.


The STS SAE 100 was tested at GM's proving grounds in Milford, Mich. and Mesa, Ariz.

this info (and the pictures) probably comes from a press release that GM has somewhere in its archives

carter's_sts
03-30-13, 12:48 PM
Ah, what might have been.

RippyPartsDept
03-30-13, 01:03 PM
from the sound of it i don't think they ever planned for the SAE 100 to be a production vehicle buy more of a research lab to inform future production vehicles

many of the bulleted technologies mentioned there are standard on Cadillacs these days

carter's_sts
03-30-13, 01:59 PM
Yeah, sure would have been a cool car at the time though. But I still like my STSs.

RippyPartsDept
03-30-13, 02:04 PM
except for no trunk space

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Cadillac-STS-SAE-100-Trunk-1920x1440.jpg

Nimoch
03-30-13, 02:43 PM
insert Back to the Future quotes here:

PGA2B
03-30-13, 07:02 PM
They would have been able to hide most of that. Ever seen the first computer or cell phone?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--2J7t6hEBcI/Thn6_ubsTUI/AAAAAAAAAFM/7SfmYwOxusE/s1600/mark1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FBCmMJIo8z4/StUSNMSwAOI/AAAAAAAAAB0/5oSZ4LHb8Ck/s400/mbf03.jpg

youknooow
03-31-13, 07:09 PM
Yeah, they had really big hopes for the STS-V. Didn't even come close to panning out.

I love having a rare car, but I wish they would have done a little better. I think among other things, they priced it way too high new.

Are you serious? If I remember correctly the STS-V was a 15-20K premium over a fully loaded STS, so what should it had cost having a hand-built gem and leather wrapped interior among other things?

carter's_sts
04-01-13, 11:01 AM
Yes I am serious. Look how much better the CTS sold, regular and V, probably because of price, wouldn't you think? I was commenting about pricing for the market at the time, not what you or I think the car was worth.

Regardless, the STS, and especially the V version didn't sell well at all. I assume they would have sold more if it was priced lower.

For a recent example, the MB CLS 550 was not selling that well. When they did an update to it for 2012 they also lowered the price by about 20k. So it's a better car and priced quite a bit cheaper, and they are now selling more.

youknooow
04-02-13, 07:47 AM
Yes I am serious. Look how much better the CTS sold, regular and V, probably because of price, wouldn't you think? I was commenting about pricing for the market at the time, not what you or I think the car was worth.

Regardless, the STS, and especially the V version didn't sell well at all. I assume they would have sold more if it was priced lower.

For a recent example, the MB CLS 550 was not selling that well. When they did an update to it for 2012 they also lowered the price by about 20k. So it's a better car and priced quite a bit cheaper, and they are now selling more.

Its a fact that the CTS was a success, but I don't think the STS-V sales are a direct reflection of the price. What me or you think the car is worth is subjective, I based my statement on the STS-V's content. Feature for feature the 06-09 STS-V's outshine the 09-13 CTS-V's, despite the fact the CTS-V's performance stats are higher. Features like heated steering wheel, HUD, hand built motor, etc these features drive and drove costs and remember the STS-V debuted in 05 and some of these features are still premium features in any price class today. The grade of the materials used in the STS-V were top notch as well; I had a ATS 2.0T as a loaner vehicle beautiful interior but I could tell it was of a lower grade, and that is just one example another is an S550, but I could name more. IMO few cars even to this day can compete with the STS-V's interior, and I'm pretty sure Dräxlmaier suggested a suede headliner but GM was still GM, lol.

Also marketing, the CTS 1 & 2, were thrown in your face all the time as performance cars, V trim or not, thats how that vehicle was pushed. Who could forget the CTS from the Matrix or how BOLDLY the CTS-V2 challenged the M5, other than 1 combined commercial how would one have learned about the STS-V?

Its also possible that the STS-V was ahead of its time, people overall didn't look to Cadillac for performance vehicles. Or maybe minor tweaks were needed that would have attracted more buyers like an exhaust with an note, lower ride height, more aggressive wheels...
Last but not least people do embrace innovation, the LS motors are awesome but they couldn't compete with the LC3 in the arena of technology.

When did the CLS not sale well? The CLS's price was never cut by 20K...

----------

Perception vs. reality

http://www.g8board.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-56063.html

TimmyC
04-02-13, 07:30 PM
Wow, lots of misinformation there!

bigburban
04-02-13, 10:52 PM
I wonder how many current owners got their v because of the lc3. I know it was one of the reasons I got mine. I have reread this article several times. http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/cadillac/0504em_cady/viewall.html

carter's_sts
04-03-13, 12:32 AM
I couldn't find the review I read when the 2012s came out, but I could swear I remember them saying 20k. But I might be remembering wrong. This review says:

http://www.edmunds.com/mercedes-benz/cls-class/2012/#fullreview

"What's New for 2012

The Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class has been completely redesigned for 2012 with bold new styling, an upgraded cabin, a choice of twin-turbo V8s and a significantly cheaper price."

For sales from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_CLS-Class

it shows US sales went up in 2012 (and 2011, when it came out) after not selling too well relative to how they sold earlier on:

Calendar year US sales
2004 n/a[55]
2005 14,835[56]
2006 10,763
2007 7,906[57]
2008 5,775
2009 2,527[58]
2010 2,135[59]
2011 5,665
2012 8,065







When did the CLS not sale well? The CLS's price was never cut by 20K...

youknooow
04-04-13, 08:05 AM
I couldn't find the review I read when the 2012s came out, but I could swear I remember them saying 20k. But I might be remembering wrong. This review says:

http://www.edmunds.com/mercedes-benz/cls-class/2012/#fullreview

"What's New for 2012

The Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class has been completely redesigned for 2012 with bold new styling, an upgraded cabin, a choice of twin-turbo V8s and a significantly cheaper price."

For sales from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_CLS-Class

it shows US sales went up in 2012 (and 2011, when it came out) after not selling too well relative to how they sold earlier on:

Calendar year US sales
2004 n/a[55]
2005 14,835[56]
2006 10,763
2007 7,906[57]
2008 5,775
2009 2,527[58]
2010 2,135[59]
2011 5,665
2012 8,065

Did you factor in the recession and the 2012 model was a redesign? Other than powertrain that car had no major visual updates from 05-11. If I remember correctly I think that car originally started around 75-80K

carter's_sts
04-04-13, 10:32 AM
Cars.com says the 2012 had a price range of 66 to 87k. Yes there are other factors, but I'm pretty sure simple economics supports that price has to do with sales even if they didn't lower it as much as I thought.

What if someone sold a luxury car for 10k? There'd be a mad rush to those dealers.