I can't wait until the reviews for the STS-V come out. I have some thoughts about what to expect. I just wondered if anyone else has ideas as to how this vehicle will be received by the press. Bold predictions, anyone? I happen to think that it will received mildly favorable reviews. In light of the fact that the horsepower doesn't overshadow it's competition, value is what they will say is the car's trump card. Not that what they say is the final word by any means. I for one think the STS-V is one of the hottest looking cars around and is a great ambassador for Cadillac.

I can't wait until the reviews for the STS-V come out. I have some thoughts about what to expect. I just wondered if anyone else has ideas as to how this vehicle will be received by the press. Bold predictions, anyone? I happen to think that it will received mildly favorable reviews. In light of the fact that the horsepower doesn't overshadow it's competition, value is what they will say is the car's trump card. Not that what they say is the final word by any means. I for one think the STS-V is one of the hottest looking cars around and is a great ambassador for Cadillac.

I am going to bet that the reviews for this car are going to be very favorable. I know they will love the engine, trans, performance and interior.

Value will be the trump card here. That is where Caddy might lose some serious points.

I hope to see the first review some time mid summer.

They will probably complain it rides too firm or rough for a Cadillac. Cadillac is giving people what they want with their new image and performance to back it up and before they were complaining that Cadillac was too much like an "old man's car" and too traditional.

They will probably also say the engines too loud when you step on it hard, well Duuuuhh, it's got 440 hp!

Can never please everyone it seems.

I'd bet that the STS-V will beat the M5 in as many catagories as it will loose. The STS-V will beat the M5 in many exceleration tests, breaking tests, and overall comfort, but will 'loose' to the Bimmer in handling and other subjective tests like steering feel and the infamous "GOTTA HAVE IT FACTOR"
I'm only talking M5 here cause I believe that was the target for designers.

I too think the M5/STS-V match up will be a close one. But, before everyone starts saying, "but the M5 has 60 more hp than the STS", look at these:

STS: 440 bhp @ 6400 rpm
M5: 500 bhp @ 7750 rpm

STS: 430 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
M5: 384 lb-ft @ 6100 rpm

Not only does the STS-V produce gobs more torque than the BMW, but it's peak torque and horsepower come on much sooner in the powerband and last longer than the M5's.

BMW wanted to hit the magic 500hp number to sell cars. Do you see any more performance over the more reasonable (non-V10) previous version? Sure, but the differences are measured in tenths, and BMW will not allow the V10 to exceed 155mph, which is where those extra cylinders would actually justify their existance.

...and not performance oriented, but worth noting due to the current trend in gas pricing:

STS:
City: 16 mpg
Highway: 25 mpg

M5:
City: 10 mpg
Highway: 23 mpg

I believe the M5 to be a very nice car, but I can't justify the $15,000 premium over the STS-V for a car that so far looks to only be it's equal (not even considering the fact that BMW still hasn't massaged the ugliness out of it).

Wait and see, I have a feeling that Cadillac will surprise the bavarians yet again.


And is there really any question about which design is more aesthetically pleasing? (as long as you don't order the STS with that horrid red interior option, that is)

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/1108200415275747.jpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/1026200416519.jpg


http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/0104200512334742.jpg
http://www.manusnigrum.com/gothicaleigh/STS-V10.jpg

As much as I don't want to admit this, I feel the STS-V has missed the mark on two accounts.

First, the car is too heavy. It is difficult to be agile when the inertia of that much mass is working against you. The E55 routinely was beaten by the old M5 in comparison tests where straight line acceleration wasn't the only criteria. At 4300 the V is 100 pounds heavier than an E55 with less under the hood to make up for the extra LBS.

Second, the 440 / 430 sc northstar should have been the 500 / 520 sc ls2 that gm showed in the STS at the SAE event earlier this year. While the STS may have a torque advantage over the BMW, the added weight virtually negates this (M5 = 10.4LBS/LB-FT vs STS = 10LBS/LB-FT). Combine this with the closer ratios BMW will have in it's 7 speed transmission and stop light racing should be uneventful. Tenths of a second may not be much on a stop watch, but at an estimated 110mph trap speed (at the end of a quarter mile) a tenth equals 161ft or about 9 car lengths.

I completely agree

I see your point on the weight difference. The STS is admittedly the larger vehicle (depends on your preference if that is a good or bad thing) and this puts it at a disadvantage performance-wise. The point I was making was do you feel that a tick of a second justifies going from a $75,000 price tag to $90,000, for a car that offers nothing more than that tick or two?

STS
Wheelbase: 116.4 in
Length/width/height: 197.6/72.6/58.2 in
Curb weight: 4300 lb

M5
Wheelbase: 113.7 in
Length/width/height: 191.1/72.7/57.8 in
Curb weight: 4050 lb

Another thing that you may find interesting is how the CTS-V compared against the new M5 in a recent German publication (going head to head on their own turf; beautiful). It matches the M5 in just about every category. As has been debated here before, do you think that the STS will be that far off from the CTS' mark?
Because if it ranks anywhere close, it will be serious competition for the M5...

http://bb.1asphost.com/topman/AUTOVISI.jpeg

Damn you gothicaleigh! Two seconds before I was gonna click to submit... Ah well. You said it better than I did anyway.....

I'm hopeful, but not confident. The CTS handles better than the STS and, unfortunately, I believe that difference will carry over to the V versions.

Interesting that the test included a C55 rather than an E55.

Edit: I have not commented on value intentionally because I believe that at $70K or $90K, it's hard to justify the existance of either car. For about $75K I'd rather buy a CTS to drive to work / shop and buy a used Z06 to race around on weekends.

I think that the above comparison shows more of an acceleration and braking edge with the V over the M5 than a handling edge. I also think the the STS-v will slightly out accelerate the CTS-V in many of the speed contests due to the automatic trans and reduced chance of wheel hop. (assuming the 30hp/tq advantage is "used up" on overcoming the weight difference)
Also, Bbobynski certainly hints that the STS-v engine is capable of quite a bit more HP than 440 in the the right situations.
I can't wait!

above tests were done in a wet track meaning it might have been a whole different story if the track was dry

above tests were done in a wet track meaning it might have been a whole different story if the track was dry
the cts-v has a hard time finding traction even on dry surfaces. I can only think that the V times would be better on dry surfaces.