Why is the STS-V going to only have a 4.4 liter engine when the North Star has a 4.6? I heard the 4.6 will come perhaps next year. If GM thinks I am going to pay $60,000+ for this they are crazy! I will wait another year and cast a spell on my 1996 STS for it to last until then. I am quite upset as I am ready to sign on the dotted line, but I will not be made a fool of.

Why is the STS-V going to only have a 4.4 liter engine when the North Star has a 4.6? I heard the 4.6 will come perhaps next year. If GM thinks I am going to pay $60,000+ for this they are crazy! I will wait another year and cast a spell on my 1996 STS for it to last until then. I am quite upset as I am ready to sign on the dotted line, but I will not be made a fool of.

Hi Frankma,

I´m a german who loves and drives Cadillacs. But I´m sure they will not bring a SC engine with 4.6 liters a year after. BTW do you really think this 200 cc (4.4 to 4.6) would make much difference????
Did you see the SAE STS V ? this car got the LS2 engine supercharged with 505 hp and I guess this will be next. Bu t maybe in 2-3 years, maybe or later.

Thanks

Harry

As I've said many times, and this proves it, the Northstar could not support the forced induction "reliably". The clamping area of the heads is just plain insufficient for that application. Funny how Ford manages to pump 500-700hp through THEIR blown 4.6 huh? :hide:

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33307

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33307

Thank goodness......

Katshot,

Let's not go thru this again.

I want you to acknowledge the fact that FORD blew up so many 4.6L engines that they had to do it in IRON.

Is that what you want? An IRON Northstar?

Reading some of your posts makes me not want to participate here anymore.

It can be tedious and unrelenting at times.

Sorry for the rant but when I saw the thread headline I just knew you would give one side of this displacement thing again.

Katshot. Aside from the exchange in the referenced post and previous exchanges on this subject, why do you consider it "proof" that the existing design is inferior when the design is changed to accomodate an additional 180 horsepower? Please explain your logic. With the hard-on you have to make a negative comment wherever possible you would have accused the factory of not beefing the engine up to take the extra power if the cylinder bores were kept the same diameter.

Technically, you're incorrect with your statement. Any one with a grain of common sense would expect a variety of changes to the engine to handle an additional 180 plus horsepower. The engine has laminated, multilayer steel headgaskets instead of the composite gasket on the NA engine as well as the reduced bore diameter to gain additional material between the cylinder walls. The sand cast block has a closed deck design to add in strength. The sand case deck allows for a thicker sealing surface to handle the deflection with the dramatically increased cylinder pressures. In addition, the head deck surface is thicker than the head deck on the NA cylinder heads to imrove the structure there. Interestingly enough, to further invalidate your point of deficiency in the clamp load, the head bolts and head bolt tensioning is exactly the same for the NA application. It has proved to be perfectly adequate even at 500 plus horsepower. To imply that the Northstar, or any engine, is deficient in the base design because of the need to upgrade the design for an additional 180 horsepower is stupidity and demonstrates how little you know about the engine.

If you would please stop bringing up this nonsense I'll be able to type less and abuse you less. :thepan:


Remember that a 440+ horsepower supercharged engine is giving up at least 60 horsepower to drive the supercharger at maximum output. So the basic engine parts are making well over 500 horsepower in the supercharge application to deliver 440+ out the crank.

Why is the STS-V going to only have a 4.4 liter engine when the North Star has a 4.6? I heard the 4.6 will come perhaps next year. If GM thinks I am going to pay $60,000+ for this they are crazy! I will wait another year and cast a spell on my 1996 STS for it to last until then. I am quite upset as I am ready to sign on the dotted line, but I will not be made a fool of.

Go ahead and order your STS-V. You won't be disappointed with the power and torque levels... Trust me. And you won't be upstaged by a 4.6 version of the engine next year. The 4.4 was designed for the power levels of the engine in the supercharged configuration and maxed out from the beginning. Much like the original Northstar was done years ago. Notice that it never changed from a 4.6 in all these years.

i can hear it now.
STS-V owner: "Hello GM, I have a question for ya.....why did my engine blow up when I threwa smaller pulley on it?"

GM Rep: "ummm.....no comment"

When the 4.9 was replaced with the 4.6 northstar, were people asking "where's my 300cc?" No, they were saying "this kicks ass because I get 75-100 more hp..." So be quiet and enjoy the 140 extra hp you're getting.

i can hear it now.
STS-V owner: "Hello GM, I have a question for ya.....why did my engine blow up when I threwa smaller pulley on it?"

GM Rep: "ummm.....no comment"

Could you explain this to me? I don't understand the logic of why the engine should be designed to accomodate every aftermarket modification that someone can dream up. If it did blow up because someone put a smaller pulley on it then it is their responsibility, not GM or any other manufacturer. If GM sold you the pulley, then, yes, it would be GM's concern. Otherwise, you're a big boy. Take responsibility for your actions yourself.

Could you explain this to me? I don't understand the logic of why the engine should be designed to accomodate every aftermarket modification that someone can dream up. If it did blow up because someone put a smaller pulley on it then it is their responsibility, not GM or any other manufacturer. If GM sold you the pulley, then, yes, it would be GM's concern. Otherwise, you're a big boy. Take responsibility for your actions yourself.

Funny, I don't hear too much trouble from guys replacing pullies on their supercharged 3800's. Face it, the engine should've been replaced years ago with something that could dish out approx. 400hp naturally aspirated. Then Cadillac wouldn't have to be installing Chevy engines in their performance cars.
Like it or not, we're just always going to have a difference of opinion on the Northstar. I'm able to live with that.

When the 4.9 was replaced with the 4.6 northstar, were people asking "where's my 300cc?" No, they were saying "this kicks ass because I get 75-100 more hp..." So be quiet and enjoy the 140 extra hp you're getting.

Speak for yourself, my 4.9 liter kicks ass :tease: :p

Why is the STS-V going to only have a 4.4 liter engine when the North Star has a 4.6? I heard the 4.6 will come perhaps next year. If GM thinks I am going to pay $60,000+ for this they are crazy! I will wait another year and cast a spell on my 1996 STS for it to last until then. I am quite upset as I am ready to sign on the dotted line, but I will not be made a fool of.

Who the hell cares about .2 litres when you look at all the extra horsepower you are getting! I cannot believe you are whinning about this! I'd much rather they increase the strength of the cylender walls then have problems down the road. If that takes away .2 litres, BIG DEAL!!!! Good grief!

Read a little and learn before complaining.. :helpless:

"its specific output of 100-horsepower-per-liter makes it one of the world’s highest specific output production V-8 engines."

http://www.fast-autos.net/cadillac/cadillacstsv.html

Now I realize how truly spoiled we are in North America if we start whinning about issues as petty as this.

Who the hell cares about .2 litres when you look at all the extra horsepower you are getting! I cannot believe you are whinning about this! I'd much rather they increase the strength of the cylender walls then have problems down the road. If that takes away .2 litres, BIG DEAL!!!! Good grief!

Read a little and learn before complaining.. :helpless:

"its specific output of 100-horsepower-per-liter makes it one of the world’s highest specific output production V-8 engines."

http://www.fast-autos.net/cadillac/cadillacstsv.html

Now I realize how truly spoiled we are in North America if we start whinning about issues as petty as this.

Yes, 4.4 liters putting out 440 ponies is quite impressive, and that's even considering that the E55-AMG has a 5.5 (it's actually a 5.4 liter engine from Benz) liter putting down a supercharged 469 ponies...Good job Cadillac :thumbsup:

Yes, 4.4 liters putting out 440 ponies is quite impressive, and that's even considering that the E55-AMG has a 5.5 (it's actually a 5.4 liter engine from Benz) liter putting down a supercharged 469 ponies...Good job Cadillac :thumbsup:

I'm willing to bet my virginity that it will even beat that Benz because I'm sure it would be a lot lighter!!! :p

Yes, GOOD JOB CADILLAC!!!!!

I'm willing to bet my virginity that it will even beat that Benz because I'm sure it would be a lot lighter!!! :p

Actuall, it should't touch the Benz on the quarter mile.

The Mercedes runs the quarter in 12.4 while the Cadillac runs it in 13 seconds flat according to some publications. And the Benz is a few pounds lighter at that, I think.

Actuall, it should't touch the Benz on the quarter mile.

The Mercedes runs the quarter in 12.4 while the Cadillac runs it in 13 seconds flat according to some publications. And the Benz is a few pounds lighter at that, I think.

Take out the spare tire and the wrenches and there ya go! :p :sneaky:

Funny, I don't hear too much trouble from guys replacing pullies on their supercharged 3800's. Face it, the engine should've been replaced years ago with something that could dish out approx. 400hp naturally aspirated. Then Cadillac wouldn't have to be installing Chevy engines in their performance cars.
Like it or not, we're just always going to have a difference of opinion on the Northstar. I'm able to live with that.
The supercharger will live for brief intervals then it will scuff the rotors due to the over speed condition and fail. Just because one gets away with it does not mean that all of them will for all the time.

A difference of opinion is one thing. Making up shit to make the engine look bad is just wrong and mean spirited.

No publication has seen an STS-V run the quarter mile so how could they quote numbers slower than the E55-AMG?

The E55-AMG is not only a 5.5/5.4 depending on who you listen to but it has a (supposedly) superior screw compressor. We're making far more power per cubic inch with a "plain ole' roots blower" than the AMG Mercedes is with the screw compressor. What's wrong with them?

No publication has seen an STS-V run the quarter mile so how could they quote numbers slower than the E55-AMG?

The E55-AMG is not only a 5.5/5.4 depending on who you listen to but it has a (supposedly) superior screw compressor. We're making far more power per cubic inch with a "plain ole' roots blower" than the AMG Mercedes is with the screw compressor. What's wrong with them?

Mercedes and BMW HP numbers are typically conservative. Also, the 5.4L V8 has had its last romp, Mercedes has already replaced it to make sure to keep up with power trends.

I don't understand what the big deal with engine displacement is. As long as the engine provides the power you need, who cares?

Take the Porsche 962 for example:

http://www.fast-autos.net/porsche/porsche962race.html

Look at that! A THREE LITER, SIX CYLINDER ENGINE. They managed to squeeze out 780 HP and 524lb-ft of torque out of that thing.

I mean, who cares about it.

No publication has seen an STS-V run the quarter mile so how could they quote numbers slower than the E55-AMG?

I actually think it was a Motor Trend estimate. Nothing for real, so my bad.

I still don't think however that the STS-V will be able to take the Mercedes in the quarter...I hope I'm wrong though... :yup:

I'm willing to bet my virginity that it will even beat that Benz because I'm sure it would be a lot lighter!!! :p

Yes, GOOD JOB CADILLAC!!!!!

Your virginity?! :hmm:
Okay, virginity or not, I'd take that bet. I doubt an E55 has anything to worry about. I'd be happy just to see it match the CTS-V's 1/4 mile.

i dont understand why it matters if it is 4.6 or 4.2 or whatever. If it makes the advertised horsepower isnt that OK. Unless they told you it was a 4.6 and it really was a 4.2, that would be wrong

i dont understand why it matters if it is 4.6 or 4.2 or whatever. If it makes the advertised horsepower isnt that OK. Unless they told you it was a 4.6 and it really was a 4.2, that would be wrong

I tend to agree, however I think the original poster's intent was to say that technically you get shortchanged because if they had been able to maintain those .2L of Displacement, wed have even MORE than 440hp on tap if all else remained constant.

Mercedes and BMW HP numbers are typically conservative. Also, the 5.4L V8 has had its last romp, Mercedes has already replaced it to make sure to keep up with power trends.

Ah... No. Horsepower levels for Europe require a witness test to be run in front of an impartial governmental witness to "certify" the power levels. There is no conservativeness to it. Some of the laws, regulations and taxes/tariffs in Europe relate to the advertised power so the European's are subjected to the witness testing to certify power much the way the manufacturers in the US have to certify emission levels. So, I'd suspect that the advertised power ratings of both Mercedes and BMW are pretty close to real. Keep in mind that the mindset of the "witness" is to make sure the numbers are not deliberately biased low as that could affect the taxes on the car - so they're trying to catch manufacturers testing conservatively.

The "Witness" was just into GM and witnessed the advertised power testing for the STS-V and XLR-V engines, in fact. The 440 horsepower number is conservative. :sneaky:

Even the latest US Advertised Power ratings are subject to a "witness test" If the manufacturer uses the SAE J1349 procedure and markets the power rating according to that it requires an SAE witness to see the actual power test, check the correction factors and certify the test as accurate. This is new this year really and the LS7 Corvette engine was the first engine tested according to this procedure.

You are complaining about losing .2 Liters and you are getting a stronger engine, with A LOT more HP and a motor that can be modified with a pulley?:confused:

I guess I shouldn't have built that 1100HP 4.1L Grand National.....

Ah... No. Horsepower levels for Europe require a witness test to be run in front of an impartial governmental witness to "certify" the power levels. There is no conservativeness to it. Some of the laws, regulations and taxes/tariffs in Europe relate to the advertised power so the European's are subjected to the witness testing to certify power much the way the manufacturers in the US have to certify emission levels. So, I'd suspect that the advertised power ratings of both Mercedes and BMW are pretty close to real. Keep in mind that the mindset of the "witness" is to make sure the numbers are not deliberately biased low as that could affect the taxes on the car - so they're trying to catch manufacturers testing conservatively.

The "Witness" was just into GM and witnessed the advertised power testing for the STS-V and XLR-V engines, in fact. The 440 horsepower number is conservative.

Even the latest US Advertised Power ratings are subject to a "witness test" If the manufacturer uses the SAE J1349 procedure and markets the power rating according to that it requires an SAE witness to see the actual power test, check the correction factors and certify the test as accurate. This is new this year really and the LS7 Corvette engine was the first engine tested according to this procedure.

That will be interesting, especially since a few late model GM cars have come up short on power as evidenced by some Dyno pulls. Maybe not as bad as the Ford Cobra debacle but they HAVE come up short. On the other hand, I've been seeing a fairly common trend at Chrysler of "under-stating" power figures. I've heard and read of several SRT cars that have dyno'd above their OEM claimed numbers.

Which GM cars are short on power? Do some research on dynos, their calibration, instrument accuracy, reproducability, repeatability, bias, hysteresis, discrimination, noise, stability, effect of tire pressures, ambient conditions, auxilliary air flow, etc. General public accessable, pay a $100 dynos are far from accurate enough to make a statement about an entire engine line.

My V put down ~315 RWHP its first time on the rollers. Yet I can walk away from a C5 and run neck and neck with a blown Mustang Cobra w/ mods. Is my V making 400+ HP at the crank? I know the answer, do you? :sneaky:

I personally know of a CTS-V that put down 360+ RWHP with nothing but a cat-back and made 390+ RWHP after tuning. Is that car any different than my CTS-V? No, they are identical. Was it tested on a different dyno? Yes.

Dynos are a tool, not the rule.

Not sure why I'm even posting this as there will be a million and one reasons why you'll disagree. Dyno number arguments aren't much better than bench racing and fuel for stupid debates such as this and the SRT8 discussion.

That will be interesting, especially since a few late model GM cars have come up short on power as evidenced by some Dyno pulls. Maybe not as bad as the Ford Cobra debacle but they HAVE come up short. On the other hand, I've been seeing a fairly common trend at Chrysler of "under-stating" power figures. I've heard and read of several SRT cars that have dyno'd above their OEM claimed numbers.

More BS. What GM engines come up short on power?

When you can describe the advertised power testing process to me I will listen to your nonsense. Until then, please stop printing your erroeous information.

Engines are tested on a dyno and the power is corrected for atmospheric pressure, temperature and humidity per SAE standard J1349. It's very hard to duplicate those conditions on a chassis dyno on a summer day. For starters, the standard inlet temperature for power rating per SAE J1349 is about 77 degrees F. If you test the engine at a hotter inlet temperature then you will get less power. That's the way engines work. GM didn't make up the 77 degrees, that is an SAE standard that everyone tests to to be consistent. So, to even start to compare, test the engine on the chassis dyno with 77 degree inlet air. Testing with 100 degree inlet air is going to make it read "low", yes, that's why there are power testing standards because the engine output varies greatly depending on atmospheric pressure (barometer), temperature and humidity. The dyno cells for advertised power testing supply conditioned air for temperature / pressure / humidity control to minimize the correction necessary. The results are representative according to the standard and are very repeatable under those conditions. And those are the same conditions that every one else uses for rating and comparison. If you can't duplicate the standard conditions then you can't reproduce the power. It is not GM nor the engines fault. It's the testers fault. Period. If the engines are tested in a representative fashion they will reproduce the advertised power. If the conditions are not representative, they won't. Not the engines fault.

For automobile engines, SAE standards allow power testing of the point of maximum output during a transient acceleration. Not sustained power for a long period of time. This is analygous to the power you would feel during a zero to 60 blast or a WOT passsing maneuver....not the power at the end of a 30 mile WOT run. The exhaust backpressure is critical to accurate advertised power testing. Allowing the exhaust system to heat soak on a chassis dyno with no air flow increases backpressure significantly to throw off the results by 10 to 20 horsepower right there - or more. Engine dynos duplicate the transient exhaust backpressure with a variable valve so that the same backpressure can be maintained on the dyno exhaust for hours at a time. Something that is impossible with a car exhaust system or a car exhaust running on a chassis dyno.

There are many many variables in power testing. Even estimating the amount of power sucked up in the accessories, accessory drive, driveline losses, tire losses, etcetera can easily account for the difference people have seen in chassis dyno comparisons. Chassis dyno's are notoriously inaccurate as far as absolute power numbers go. They're great tuning tools and good for comparative testing if the proper controls are in place but they're very very difficult to use to measure the exact engine power output accurately and thus are a poor tool to try and question the advertised power rating of the engine from the factory.

GM didn't write the test standards for advertised power testing. They use the standards just like everyone else. The latest standards include the "witness" approach. The LS7 has already been witness tested so it'll be interesting when everyone starts saying that they're not getting the full rated power or that the engine will not repeat the power rating. It's making the power advertised ACCORDING TO THE ADVERTISED POWER STANDARDS... Your results may vary.

Dude, don't have a friggin canary! :rolleyes:
You need to take a vacation and have a couple Pina Coladas!
I've read in a few magazines (one of which was GM High-Tech Performance) that there have been a few GM cars that have NOT been able to generate pulls that are consistent with the advertised power ratings for the engines. I seem to recall at least one of them being a recent Z06 and a CTS-V. Like I said before, this is nothing like the Ford/Cobra issue but it DID seem to point at the possibility that GM over-rates their engines at times. Hell, many CTS-V dyno pulls reported here are NOT up to par either. Write it off to individual equipment issues all you want but why are you so opposed to the notion that these dyno's "could" be accurate? Also, as I stated, it seems that Dodge SRT cars have a tendancy to be "under-rated" as reported by several magazines as well.

Anthony,

Your knowledge ALWAYS amazes me. Thank you for sharing. I learn so much from your posts. Thanks for taking the time to write them up!

Anthony,

As the post above says, I too find your depth of knowledge a great counterpoint to the drivel that some other members here offer as fact.

Come over to the CTS forum, and describe the 3.6L V6, I would be interested in your analysis of that engine also.

Why is the STS-V going to only have a 4.4 liter engine when the North Star has a 4.6? I heard the 4.6 will come perhaps next year. If GM thinks I am going to pay $60,000+ for this they are crazy! I will wait another year and cast a spell on my 1996 STS for it to last until then. I am quite upset as I am ready to sign on the dotted line, but I will not be made a fool of.


It is my most fervent wish that there is no way in God's creation that someone as stupid as you has somehow obtained enough money to buy an STS-V...

"will not be made a fool of"? Too late, I'm afraid.

-Rav

P.S. We really need a "Special Ed" smiley...

No publication has seen an STS-V run the quarter mile so how could they quote numbers slower than the E55-AMG?

The E55-AMG is not only a 5.5/5.4 depending on who you listen to but it has a (supposedly) superior screw compressor. We're making far more power per cubic inch with a "plain ole' roots blower" than the AMG Mercedes is with the screw compressor. What's wrong with them?


Ok, I hate to pipe in like this but a couple of minor things... We're pulling more per liter than the benz, mostly because Benz didnt want to put forth the effort to get the tranny and rear to take the full power. The engine and compressor on the AMG 5.4 can be stepped up to numbers close to the 700 range if I recall correctly. Plus, while they have only 29 horses, they carry 76 torque (469/516 combo vs the 440/440 combo. Or is is 440/430 combo?) over us.
Additionally, the roots style vs their screw type.... Both can produce equal boosts, but, the screws have a better curve than the roots. The roots blower is stronger down low, and then begins to pant up top (relatively speaking) The screws type gives up a bit bottom end, but runs strong up top. However, the roots blower is much less expensive to use. That's why I doubt even a V motor will cost the staggering 50-60k that a benz AMG motor does. (I was asking them recently about this, I was floored by their prices.

As for the power ratings, who hits the advertised and so forth... That's mostly a quality control thing there, and sadly, the US is still a bit behind... So, between 10 motors that roll off a line, there may be as much as a 2-5% difference in one from another. This can be bad, or good for an individual. Some of the cars will run a bit stronger than they should, coming up with an extra 5-10 horses than the ads say. The Euro cars, and the Jap cars, for the most part, run slightly less "tolerance" for error. I believe both gun for closer to 1% tolerances.

Additionally, is a sort of unoffical trend of GM cars. They get stronger in midlife than at the beginning or end of their lives. So, while your 4.6 may put down 270 horses when you drive it off the showroom floor, 30k miles in, it may put 280-285. (Using the old 275 horse 4.6 version i was familiar with.) It's strange, but an oddly common thing in GM cars, they like their break in time.

I don't think that there is nearly the variability in power that you're imagining on the production engines. The production engines are very close for power - certianly as close together as any German or Oriental motor.

What factors would you suppose would be that far off or variable to make more difference in power in a domestic engine vs. an import?

The huge differences in power readings after the fact are mainly a difference in the measuring method and assumptions made to correct for drivetrain losses. The same engine will test differently in the car on a chassis dyno due to differences in exhaust systems and inlet systems in the car and how they react to a chassis dyno. Even corrected vs. observed power readings are often used and confused where the dyno testing is done under very standardized conditions.

The advertised power testing for Europe is very standardized what with the witness approach to reviewing the testing so the engines compare very closely for the advertised dyno test results.

Last I had heard, The US automakers were running an acceptable range of error, in most cases, of like 2-5% So basically, they called it accurate to within .001 inches. The Japs and Germans, running stricter, were like accurate to .00001 inches. (Those inch measurements are for example usage only, and are not indicative of actual tolerances.) At least Bob, that is what I had understood from some things I've seen and read.

Nonsense... Where or who did you "hear" that from?

Standards and accuracy are not expressed that way. There are many tolerances maintained on engine and transmission parts, for example, that are expressed in microns. One micron is .00004 inches. That is four one hundred thousands of an inch. Some tolerances on things like hydraulic lifter element parts are in the millionths of an inch. Equating 2 percent to .002 inch is like comparing apples to grapefruit or pears or elephants. It just isn't comparable and/or you can't convert it that way.

There is absolutely no difference in the tolerances accepted or capability of maintaining those tolerances between any of the manufacturers I'd say. And certainly not the extreme like you imagine. Not at all.

There's no specific "tolerance" anyway. Different parts on the car have different tolerances. A casting tolerance might be 4mm on some non-critical surface that is relatively unimportant while the tolerance on wrist pin diameter is in the fraction of a micron. Since the technology for achieving these kinds of accuracy and tolerances is commonly available there's simply no case whatsoever for thinking that any manufacturer can or would maintain stricter tolerances. All will try to marketing hype to make you think they do - but none really do.

Furthermore, many of the same suppliers supply parts and assemblies for Oriental and European and US manufacturers from the exact same plant. Do you think the US companies buy the discards? They don't.

As far as accuracy and tolerances go, automatic transmissions require some of the highest accuracy machining in the world. GM has been manufacturing the automatic transmissions for BMW for years and years. Do you think that GM made closer tolerance parts for BMW than for themselves?

I'll hunt on the journal I saw it in. It's not that big a deal. As for my % to inch conversions, i said those were simple used as illustrations, not as specific values. I think visual comparisons more.

A jump up to Katshots comment about the dodge SRT's being underrated. It's a delibrate thing by dodge as marketing. They state what they know is a lowball number for the motor. Then, when owners buy it, and test/find out that their car is pushing 370 horse vs the 345 they were told to expect, people feel like they got a factory freak/ got more than what they paid for. It's a good feeling to feel like your car is better/faster/stronger than others of its same model.

Kind of like when Chrysler released their V6 back in 98 and rated it at 275 horsepower and a 215 horsepower V6 would walk away from it at every opportunity. It happens both ways.

Kind of like when Chrysler released their V6 back in 98 and rated it at 275 horsepower and a 215 horsepower V6 would walk away from it at every opportunity. It happens both ways.

Horsepower ratings and vehicle acceleration data aren't always naturally correlated. It IS quite possible for a car with lower horsepower figures to out accelerate an "apparently" more powerful car. Take for instance the "new" Pontiac Grand Prix. More power than the old model, yet slower in acceleration. Why? Ask a Pontiac exec. or engineer why they decided to pair an engine with a transaxle that couldn't handle the load. Pontiac engineers had to "dial-back" the output on the engine via PCM programming which unfortunately killed the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I haven't read whether that "issue" has been handled yet but I think it illustrates my point pretty well.

Horsepower ratings and vehicle acceleration data aren't always naturally correlated. It IS quite possible for a car with lower horsepower figures to out accelerate an "apparently" more powerful car. Take for instance the "new" Pontiac Grand Prix. More power than the old model, yet slower in acceleration. Why? Ask a Pontiac exec. or engineer why they decided to pair an engine with a transaxle that couldn't handle the load. Pontiac engineers had to "dial-back" the output on the engine via PCM programming which unfortunately killed the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I haven't read whether that "issue" has been handled yet but I think it illustrates my point pretty well.

Katshot. Has GM ever done anything that you approve of or think was the right thing to do? Just curious. Are you talking about the V8 in the new GrandPrix GTP? If you think the 3800 engine that was in the GTP in that car will out accelerate the V8 you are absolutely nuts.

Honestly, when it comes to the acceleration of the new 5.3 V8 Grand Prix vs the older GTP's, I wouldn't be surprised if launch issues make the new one slower on average. I drove one, and found it was hard to launch very well. TC was too strong, and when off, had to feather back too much.

And when it comes down to cars that have less power being quicker than something with more power?... My 99 Cutlass with the 3.1 at 150/180 combo outran the V6 mustang at 190/225 combo. (Previous gen) Would do it all day long, both cars weighed about the samed (Mustang 3114 on base V6, cutlass 3084) So, more power isnt everything.

Katshot. Has GM ever done anything that you approve of or think was the right thing to do? Just curious. Are you talking about the V8 in the new GrandPrix GTP? If you think the 3800 engine that was in the GTP in that car will out accelerate the V8 you are absolutely nuts.

OMG!!!
Would you stop friggin' WHINING about everything I post!!!
I just happen to remember a bit in a semi-recent GMHTP issue that mentioned the goof-up on the Grand Prix, and it seemed to fit in with what you had said.
God you can be a raw nerve, take a pill already.

Raw or not, Anthony does a great job of keeping this forum honest.

Just asked an honest question.

I'll stop whining about what you post when you get your facts straight and post something accurate.

Besides, if it weren't for me, the contrarian, what would you argue about? :hmm:

Anthony

I usually don't reply but these young Hotrodders are dim as hell when it comes to their idea that Automobiles are nuthin but dragrace vehicles. If straightline speed is so important, they can, (if they can), build a straightliner a lot cheaper than bitchin about their ride. ..or blamin Cadillac for their ignorance.

Was priveleged to have Butch Elkins of Diamond Racing, in Warren, as a friend during the late 70's and early 80's when I worked as a headporter and engine specialist for Valvoline and the NASCAR team of Cale Yarborough. Last time I visited Butch, he had some 2005 Cadillac heads that he was working on. Bout two or three years ago. Carry on Bro! Nice ride these Cadillacs

JMO! :coolgleam

Why is the STS-V going to only have a 4.4 liter engine when the North Star has a 4.6? I heard the 4.6 will come perhaps next year. If GM thinks I am going to pay $60,000+ for this they are crazy! I will wait another year and cast a spell on my 1996 STS for it to last until then. I am quite upset as I am ready to sign on the dotted line, but I will not be made a fool of.

this is just moronic...I say you just keep the 96 STS and live with that. It's sorta obvious you can't appreciate a well made car.

Funny, I don't hear too much trouble from guys replacing pullies on their supercharged 3800's. Face it, the engine should've been replaced years ago with something that could dish out approx. 400hp naturally aspirated. Then Cadillac wouldn't have to be installing Chevy engines in their performance cars.
Like it or not, we're just always going to have a difference of opinion on the Northstar. I'm able to live with that.

3800's can have lots of problems with pulley upgrade. The w-body's have a really restrictive exhuast system, for the most part. An extremely small downpipe, a u-bend that goes to and 1.5 " diameter, an on top of that, the airbox doesn't breathe as well as I do. I've seen a stock GTP with a 3.4 pulley hit 9 degrees of knock! I call that trouble! And I've seen guys with a 3.2, u-bend delete, res.delete, air box gut, and STILL hit 5 degrees. You can't just say guys drop pulley's and are fine. You don't do pulley upgrades without scanning.

I actually think it was a Motor Trend estimate. Nothing for real, so my bad.

I still don't think however that the STS-V will be able to take the Mercedes in the quarter...I hope I'm wrong though... :yup:

The Mercedes is lighter by aboput 50 lbs, and it has a slightly more agressive gear ratio, IIRC. You can dL video's of a stock E55 pulling a 12.1. Unless the STS-V comes with more power, it's not touching the E55 in the 1/4. But, it'll be a great race against a v10 M5! :)

That will be interesting, especially since a few late model GM cars have come up short on power as evidenced by some Dyno pulls. Maybe not as bad as the Ford Cobra debacle but they HAVE come up short. On the other hand, I've been seeing a fairly common trend at Chrysler of "under-stating" power figures. I've heard and read of several SRT cars that have dyno'd above their OEM claimed numbers.
GM underrates more then you think. A new Cobalt SS puts down around 210 whp dyno'd consistently and around 190 lbs-ft. GM says that it has 205 hp and 195 lbs-ft(i think). That's overrating in my books. I've seen stock CTS-V's pull about 30 hp more then they were quoted to pull.

Kat....has GM ever done anything that you approve of or think was the right thing to do...??? Just curious....

Are you talking about the V8 in the new GrandPrix GTP...??? If you think that the 3800 engine that was in the GTP in that car will out accelerate the V8 you are absolutely nuts....end of story.

I would assume he's talking about the new L32 Gen5 M90 GTP with 260 hp. If so, he's right. They dutuned for a few reasons, 1 being the weak transaxle. Also mileage and tranny issues were a concern. I also think this was a plow by Pontiac to get more people into new GTP's. There are quite a few people who bought new GTP's because they were so detuned. ALL THAT POTENTIAL!!!

ill tell ya what, my buick regal GS stock was pulling 14.4's on a 70degree day stock on president tires with 2.35 60fts, horrible launching. 14.4 in a 3600lb V6 car is impressive in its own right, being FWD and old pushrod technology.
ive raced plenty of northstar V8 's in the 95 STS, and 99 STS like the one i have now, and stock to stock theres not a chance in hell the STS would come even close to out launching my GS off the line....now a 60mph launch would be a different story, from 60mph, the northstar pretty much destroys my GS until i had to modify it. but our launches are where we get our power from, stock we have 280lb of torque.

if u had a STS weighing at 3600lbs, i wouldnt deny the fact it would walk my GS stock vs stock, its the wieght issue of the STS that makes it a slug off the line. as well as my max torque kicks in a little sooner than the northstar.

getting back to the fact that how come you can add a smaller pulley to a 3800 and not have problems. Its a basic pushrod motor, not as complicated as the Northstar . and it depends a lot of the mechanic, i can run 12lbs of boost with Zero KR on a rich car, i will not detonate. and if my timing is up around 20 degrees -22 degrees, im running real hard, thats what i was doing. buick has one well made motor , 3.8 rated at most reliable V6 on the market, outdoing toyota camry for those years. Ive driven my GS daily and to the track, and raced every saturday on a stock transmission putting 103,000 miles on that engine and tranny without a problem, best time 12.63@ 107.9mph with a 3.25 pulley, ported m90 supercharger, , LS1 corvette TB , thrasher intake, DHP PCM tuning, 42.5ln lucas injectors, Dual exhaust setup with hi flow cat, TOG headers with 3inch Downpipe, and Eagle GA street tires pulling 1.9 60fts on 104 octane gas. the motr i never had one problem with it, for all the miles i traveled, and buddies of mine that have the same engine in thier GS here on Long Island have 60,000, 80,000 miles daily driven , heavy mods, no problems. the engine and tranny are great. its all about how you taKE care of your car. i had a tranny cooler, maintained every aspect of that tranny and engine myself with proper fuilds, cleanliness etc...
the car has a great modification backing with power to be made and handle !

northstar doesnt have much unfortunatly. but im not concerned about the Benz and BMW imports, thier prices surpass the STS-V, that AMG mercedes is 120,000 dollars and does 12.6's stock on a bigger blower, and engine with a lot of work done to it to make it pump out those numbers.
if you compare the STS-V to the ford mustang cobra, thats what i would be concerned about, and didnt the cobra pump out 390hp 390 torque on a 4.6L blown intercooled DOHC motor 24V.stick shift, lighter than the STS-V?? and talk about problems, the new 300hp GT had to be recalled or they pro longed the production b.c thier 3 valve per cylinder setup wasnt working properly and a lot of the motors were blowing. Ford has thier share of problems as well.

the new STS-V has slightly smaller displacement, and banmgs out 440HP, id say GM is on top in my Book.

just like the Ls1, Ls2 are the best flowing V8 engine dominating the V8 class at the track as well, the hemi cant touch it, and neither can a cobra against a modified Vette or camaro/firehawk

you slap a blower on a Vette, lets see what these AMG's can do in the 1/4 against that sucker.

Vette Doctors by me has a 5.7Liter Blown Vette cranking down the track in 10.9's with terrible traction problems, too much torque.

id say every aspect of racing GM is dominating all!

Kind of like when Chrysler released their V6 back in 98 and rated it at 275 horsepower and a 215 horsepower V6 would walk away from it at every opportunity. It happens both ways.

There's a bit more to it. Chrysler's automatic transmissions, especially throughout the 90s, have a reputation for being woefully inefficient, sucking the life out of any motor they're mated to.

Someone's got a small wiener!:histeric:



Why is the STS-V going to only have a 4.4 liter engine when the North Star has a 4.6? I heard the 4.6 will come perhaps next year. If GM thinks I am going to pay $60,000+ for this they are crazy! I will wait another year and cast a spell on my 1996 STS for it to last until then. I am quite upset as I am ready to sign on the dotted line, but I will not be made a fool of.

anyways, why would they make a 4.4 ltr and decide to bring a 4.6 ltr back in another year? That makes no sense at all...

The decrease in .2L was required for increased structural intergrity in the supercharged N* block and heads. Wth an engine putting out well over 100hp per liter it makes perfect sense, from an engineering standpoint.



anyways, why would they make a 4.4 ltr and decide to bring a 4.6 ltr back in another year? That makes no sense at all...

On the underrated HP issue of cars, on the Cobra since i own an 03. K&N used mine as a test mule to develop the FIPK kit for it. Mine was new with 3k on the clock and stock down to the paper filter Dyno test from them was 365HP and 356TQ. Which equals 425 hp to the crank. Put that FIPK kit on and a cat back and people are getting 400hp and more to the rear wheels. easily approaching 460 to the flywheel with not much money. The nice thing with the new 4.4 supercharged as it will probably love these types of modes as well and be a real screamer so don't count them out. People changing pulley's on any these cars and are asking for big trouble for long term reliability and expect the factory to fix them they are going to laugh at you as they void your warranty. Once you mod you are on your own...As far as people putting S/C on Camaro's and Vettes, it is the same people who do this to NA 4.6 mustangs. It's not a long term deal since the high compression of these engines it is only a matter of when not if they blow up. It was a toss up between the V and Escalade when i bought my 1st Cadillac i needed more room for work. There is always next time...:yup: :yup: :yup:

ill tell ya what, my buick regal GS stock was pulling 14.4's on a 70degree day stock on president tires with 2.35 60fts, horrible launching. 14.4 in a 3600lb V6 car is impressive in its own right, being FWD and old pushrod technology.
ive raced plenty of northstar V8 's in the 95 STS, and 99 STS like the one i have now, and stock to stock theres not a chance in hell the STS would come even close to out launching my GS off the line....now a 60mph launch would be a different story, from 60mph, the northstar pretty much destroys my GS until i had to modify it. but our launches are where we get our power from, stock we have 280lb of torque.

if u had a STS weighing at 3600lbs, i wouldnt deny the fact it would walk my GS stock vs stock, its the wieght issue of the STS that makes it a slug off the line. as well as my max torque kicks in a little sooner than the northstar.

getting back to the fact that how come you can add a smaller pulley to a 3800 and not have problems. Its a basic pushrod motor, not as complicated as the Northstar . and it depends a lot of the mechanic, i can run 12lbs of boost with Zero KR on a rich car, i will not detonate. and if my timing is up around 20 degrees -22 degrees, im running real hard, thats what i was doing. buick has one well made motor , 3.8 rated at most reliable V6 on the market, outdoing toyota camry for those years. Ive driven my GS daily and to the track, and raced every saturday on a stock transmission putting 103,000 miles on that engine and tranny without a problem, best time 12.63@ 107.9mph with a 3.25 pulley, ported m90 supercharger, , LS1 corvette TB , thrasher intake, DHP PCM tuning, 42.5ln lucas injectors, Dual exhaust setup with hi flow cat, TOG headers with 3inch Downpipe, and Eagle GA street tires pulling 1.9 60fts on 104 octane gas. the motr i never had one problem with it, for all the miles i traveled, and buddies of mine that have the same engine in thier GS here on Long Island have 60,000, 80,000 miles daily driven , heavy mods, no problems. the engine and tranny are great. its all about how you taKE care of your car. i had a tranny cooler, maintained every aspect of that tranny and engine myself with proper fuilds, cleanliness etc...
the car has a great modification backing with power to be made and handle !

northstar doesnt have much unfortunatly. but im not concerned about the Benz and BMW imports, thier prices surpass the STS-V, that AMG mercedes is 120,000 dollars and does 12.6's stock on a bigger blower, and engine with a lot of work done to it to make it pump out those numbers.
if you compare the STS-V to the ford mustang cobra, thats what i would be concerned about, and didnt the cobra pump out 390hp 390 torque on a 4.6L blown intercooled DOHC motor 24V.stick shift, lighter than the STS-V?? and talk about problems, the new 300hp GT had to be recalled or they pro longed the production b.c thier 3 valve per cylinder setup wasnt working properly and a lot of the motors were blowing. Ford has thier share of problems as well.

the new STS-V has slightly smaller displacement, and banmgs out 440HP, id say GM is on top in my Book.

just like the Ls1, Ls2 are the best flowing V8 engine dominating the V8 class at the track as well, the hemi cant touch it, and neither can a cobra against a modified Vette or camaro/firehawk

you slap a blower on a Vette, lets see what these AMG's can do in the 1/4 against that sucker.

Vette Doctors by me has a 5.7Liter Blown Vette cranking down the track in 10.9's with terrible traction problems, too much torque.

id say every aspect of racing GM is dominating all!

Im guessing you post on RegalGS.org.... Whats your username over there?

whats the deal with this forum and everyone from regalGS coming here now...??

im ScottyRegal.

the northstar engine was one of the greatest engines ever built it was voted into one of the top ten and had more hp output per liter then mercedes and bmw the northstar may need to be updated but not replaced. as i can tell you are not very educated on the northstar history or it future plans. there are problems with any engine the northstar is at the pinnicle of american engineering

Well I didn't take the time to read all the drama in this one... but here goes.

The reason they reduced the displacement of this engine is because of two words.... "heat dissipation".
I am not sure how hard they tried but they determined that they just can't keep up with the heat generated by this engine in 4.6 trim so they bumped it down.
Remember folks, they have to make this thing so it will go fast AND last for about 5 years while people beat on them.
I am sure it had to do with reliability in the long term.

Now... please, continue bickering minutia.

I hated this thread when it was started and hate it now that it has been
re.....started.

Well I didn't take the time to read all the drama in this one... but here goes.

The reason they reduced the displacement of this engine is because of two words.... "heat dissipation".
I am not sure how hard they tried but they determined that they just can't keep up with the heat generated by this engine in 4.6 trim so they bumped it down.
Remember folks, they have to make this thing so it will go fast AND last for about 5 years while people beat on them.
I am sure it had to do with reliability in the long term.

Now... please, continue bickering minutia.

How does reducing the displacement affect the "heat dissipation"....???

The only dimension changed was the cylinder bore diameter. While decreasing the cylinder bore decreases displacement it also increases the amount of material between the bores. Possibly the reason for this change was to increase the amount of material between the cylinder bores to aid in cylinder head gasket longevity under high, continous levels of boost...???? I suspect the decrease in displacement was a byproduct of this change, not the reason for it. Since the supercharged version of the engine is making almost double the output of the normally aspirated engine (including the "lost" power generated to drive the supercharger) one might expect changes to the design to improve durability and enhance the engine's ability to live under continous load.

I'm willing to bet my virginity that it will even beat that Benz because I'm sure it would be a lot lighter!!! :p

Yes, GOOD JOB CADILLAC!!!!!

Ouch, did it hurt?

the northstar engine was one of the greatest engines ever built it was voted into one of the top ten and had more hp output per liter then mercedes and bmw the northstar may need to be updated but not replaced. as i can tell you are not very educated on the northstar history or it future plans. there are problems with any engine the northstar is at the pinnicle of american engineering

The Northstar, and especially the Ford 4.6, were built too small. GM and Ford were a decade early guessing on the gas crunch and built engines with too small bore size. The result is that they don't naturally produce a lot of torque. It took Ford 10 years to come up the the 3 valve head to finally get to the level of performance they could have gotten out of an LT1 that would have cost less to build and not taken up any more space under the hood.

The LS2 is a superior engine to the Northstar by far. It has torque the Northstar can only reach with a blower. Add a blower to an LS2 and it will smoke the blown Northstar.

Pinnacle of american engineering? Not even close. I would take the LS2, LS6, LS7, 6.1 hemi, and even the 5.7 hemi over it. Heck, the LS1 and LT1 engines are on the same level when you weigh all the factors.

Honestly, when it comes to the acceleration of the new 5.3 V8 Grand Prix vs the older GTP's, I wouldn't be surprised if launch issues make the new one slower on average. I drove one, and found it was hard to launch very well. TC was too strong, and when off, had to feather back too much.

And when it comes down to cars that have less power being quicker than something with more power?... My 99 Cutlass with the 3.1 at 150/180 combo outran the V6 mustang at 190/225 combo. (Previous gen) Would do it all day long, both cars weighed about the samed (Mustang 3114 on base V6, cutlass 3084) So, more power isnt everything.

The tests that I have seen have the new 5.3 significantly FASTER than the older GTP - 14.3 versus 15.1.

The Northstar, and especially the Ford 4.6, were built too small. GM and Ford were a decade early guessing on the gas crunch and built engines with too small bore size. The result is that they don't naturally produce a lot of torque. It took Ford 10 years to come up the the 3 valve head to finally get to the level of performance they could have gotten out of an LT1 that would have cost less to build and not taken up any more space under the hood.

The LS2 is a superior engine to the Northstar by far. It has torque the Northstar can only reach with a blower. Add a blower to an LS2 and it will smoke the blown Northstar.

Pinnacle of american engineering? Not even close. I would take the LS2, LS6, LS7, 6.1 hemi, and even the 5.7 hemi over it. Heck, the LS1 and LT1 engines are on the same level when you weigh all the factors.


If all you are considering is the torque/HP output it is admittedly very difficult to beat cubic inches.... You are comparing 5.7, 6.0 and 7.0 liter engines to a 4.6 liter Northstar. Sort of an apples to oranges comparison.

If all you are considering is the torque/HP output it is admittedly very difficult to beat cubic inches.... You are comparing 5.7, 6.0 and 7.0 liter engines to a 4.6 liter Northstar. Sort of an apples to oranges comparison.

Actually it isn't. Displacement is a flawed measuring tool when comparing a 4 valve dohc motor with a pushrod motor. The massive heads of the dohc and the cost of building it make it more of an even comparison to compare the northstar with a 5.7 liter LS_ motor.

When you evaluate engines you have to look far beyond displacement

* overall engine size (for example, the Ford 4.6 takes up a lot more space under the hood than the old 5.0/302 did)

* weight - many of the cammer engines have heavy heads and valvetrains which may be offset if the pushrod engine has an iron block

* cost to build - this one is huge. In most cases the pushrod engine is much less expensive to build

* low end torque - high peak HP numbers look great but most Americans drive on torque 90% of the time. Look at how the 260HP Impala SS can mop the floor with the 302HP dohc Marauder. A CTS V will walk away from a non-blown Northstar. I bet the LS2 motor costs no more to produce and maybe is even cheaper.

When you get to large V8s you really don't need ohc and 4 valves for most driving.

I love what Caddy did with the new STS-V but I would love it even more with a blown LS2 or LS7!

[quote=Frankma]Why is the STS-V going to only have a 4.4 liter engine when the North Star has a 4.6? I heard the 4.6 will come perhaps next year. If GM thinks I am going to pay $60,000+ for this they are crazy! I will wait another year and cast a spell on my 1996 STS for it to last until then.


">I am quite upset as I am ready to sign on the dotted line, but I will not be made a fool of."<

Frank, buddy...don't worry about signing on the dotted line. You're doing a great job all on your own..

The Northstar, and especially the Ford 4.6, were built too small. GM and Ford were a decade early guessing on the gas crunch and built engines with too small bore size. The result is that they don't naturally produce a lot of torque. It took Ford 10 years to come up the the 3 valve head to finally get to the level of performance they could have gotten out of an LT1 that would have cost less to build and not taken up any more space under the hood.

The LS2 is a superior engine to the Northstar by far. It has torque the Northstar can only reach with a blower. Add a blower to an LS2 and it will smoke the blown Northstar.

Pinnacle of american engineering? Not even close. I would take the LS2, LS6, LS7, 6.1 hemi, and even the 5.7 hemi over it. Heck, the LS1 and LT1 engines are on the same level when you weigh all the factors.

I'm not familiar with the testing and specifications of the LS series of engines, but I do have a fair amount of information regarding the N*, mostly from reading about it here.

The N* was designed for more the HP and Torgue. It's design goal included a 250k life span, if I recall correctly. Because of the life expectancy, it was engineered far better then most of the pushrod V8's.

I could be wrong about the milage, but that number sticks in my mind.

Actually it isn't. Displacement is a flawed measuring tool when comparing a 4 valve dohc motor with a pushrod motor. The massive heads of the dohc and the cost of building it make it more of an even comparison to compare the northstar with a 5.7 liter LS_ motor.

When you evaluate engines you have to look far beyond displacement

* overall engine size (for example, the Ford 4.6 takes up a lot more space under the hood than the old 5.0/302 did)

* weight - many of the cammer engines have heavy heads and valvetrains which may be offset if the pushrod engine has an iron block

* cost to build - this one is huge. In most cases the pushrod engine is much less expensive to build

* low end torque - high peak HP numbers look great but most Americans drive on torque 90% of the time. Look at how the 260HP Impala SS can mop the floor with the 302HP dohc Marauder. A CTS V will walk away from a non-blown Northstar. I bet the LS2 motor costs no more to produce and maybe is even cheaper.

When you get to large V8s you really don't need ohc and 4 valves for most driving.

I love what Caddy did with the new STS-V but I would love it even more with a blown LS2 or LS7!


Well...I don't totally disagree with you but I think you are downplaying the effect of displacement.

Certainly there are MANY factors that can be used to compare engines including the ones you mentioned and many more.

The fact is that ALL engines are simply air pumps. The more air it pumps the more fuel it can burn and the more HP/torque it can make.

To improve the power output of any given engine you must pump more air and you have four options:
1. increase the size of the air pump..i.e..the displacement.
2. pump more air by revving the engine faster.
3. increase the volumetric efficiency of the engine.
4. cram more air into the engine (effectively increasing the
displacement) with a supercharger or turbocharger.

Any modification falls into one of the four categories.

If you want more torque there is really only one answer. Increase the displacement. You can get minor gains by increasing the compression but the big player for more torque is to increase the displacement....or supercharge it. This is the only option that lets you increase air flow significantly to get more torque at the lower RPMs.

I am simplifying this a bit for the sake of not writing a book here but you must assume that a production engine runs on pump gas and must meet emissions and must idle smooth. Rumpy camshafts and ultrahigh compression just do not hack it.

Multivalve engines certainly utilize the "improve the volumetric efficiency" route to more HP but they generally lack torque at the lower RPM's due to less displacement. Multivalves does not make more torque and does not make up for lack of displacement when low end torque is desired. You simply need displacement for that. No substitute.

I'm not familiar with the testing and specifications of the LS series of engines, but I do have a fair amount of information regarding the N*, mostly from reading about it here.

The N* was designed for more the HP and Torgue. It's design goal included a 250k life span, if I recall correctly. Because of the life expectancy, it was engineered far better then most of the pushrod V8's.

I could be wrong about the milage, but that number sticks in my mind.

I would bet the ranch that the longetivity of the pushrod engines is the same or greater. I put 250,000 hard miles on an LT1 Impala SS and it never even burned oil. I gave it two tune ups over the course of its life and 1 distributor.

That is it.

I put 188,000 miles or very hard driving on my 88 Mustang 5.0 liter engine that I midly modified. Again, the car around the engine gave out before the engine even got tired.

There are very few American V8s that won't outlast the car around them as long as you take care of them. My engines get fresh Mobil 1 every 3,000 and they never let me down.

Chevelle

I am in no way minimizing the effect of displacement on an engine in terms of making more power.

Where I am minimizing it is in comparisons with ohc engines and even there only in 1 way. That way is when someone says a 5.7 LS1 should outproduce the 4.6 N because it is bigger that is not telling the whole story. In terms of total exterior dimensions an ohc motor - especially a doch 4V - may actually be as large or larger than a pushrod motor with a much greater displacement. It usually costs more to produce.

If the pushrod motor is made in aluminum I really can't see too many advantages for the cammer save ultra high speeds or that revving feel with a manual transmission.

I would love to see the cost, weight, and external dimension comparison of the LS7 and the blown 4.6.

Better yet, I bet with just a little bit of engineering the LS2 could match the power output of the blown 4.6 while being much cheaper to produce and more reliable.

The mistake is comparing multivalve engines to pushrod two valve engines and assuming that there is one single BEST answer for all applications. There isn't.

Large displacement pushrod engines that rev slower and only have two valves can make excellent torque and power and be manufactured quite reasonably. Where mass is not as big of an issue (trucks) the engines can be made of cast iron futher reducing costs.

High performance passenger cars with all aluminum engines that have multivalves, rev higher and make much higher specific output have their place, too.

Making a pushrod engine perform at the same level of a multivalve engine is "possible" but not as simple as you might think or imply.

The LS7 is an excellent example of what it takes. THAT engine is probably just as expensive (if not more) than a supercharged multivalve Northstar engine due to the parts and components required. Titanium rods and titanium intake valves are not cheap. Getting a small block LS1 type engine out to 427 cubic inches is not cheap either. The block used for the LS7 is the Corvette LeMans race block that used to be in the Performance parts catalog for several thousand dollars for the block alone. With an extra 2.6 liters of displacement (7 liters compared to 4.4) the LS7 engine makes just a little more power than the supercharged Northstar (505 vs. 470) and the Northstar engine idles very quietly and smoothly. It is a kitten around town compared to the LS7 that has a cammy idle and is relatively noisy and in-your-face. Fine for a Corvette but not for a true luxury car. Ask BMW M5 or M6 owners of their cars shake at idle or idle rough? Not in a luxury car.

The LS7 performs outstandingly in the platform it was developed for and is the right engine for the job. The multivalve engine also performs for similar costs and has the ability with the added breathing ability of the multivalve head and variable cam timing to provide similar power levels yet idle smooth and quiet and provide excellent low end torque to move a heavier luxury car around. Remember that the STS-V weighs at least 1300 pounds more than a Z06 and it has an automatic transmission (also required for a true luxury car) so the engines have to have completely different power delivery requirements and behave totally differently to be acceptable.

Remember, there is no single BEST engine design. The pushrod vs overhead cam vs multvalve arguement will rage forever and the only real answer is that there is no real answer. Each type of engine has excellent qualifications and applications. You just cannot do everything with either engine type. You need both.

Wow, I am rather pleased with myself surverying the "damage" this thread has caused. While some of you have questioned my motivation, the fact remains it is almost a certainly that a 4.6 STS-V will be released within 2 model years. Since the STS-V I buy I plan to run into the ground, it definitely makes sense for me to wait for this to happen. That's it. Given GM's troubles, they shouldn't be pulling things like this.

The LS7 is an excellent example of what it takes. THAT engine is probably just as expensive (if not more) than a supercharged multivalve Northstar engine due to the parts and components required. Titanium rods and titanium intake valves are not cheap. Getting a small block LS1 type engine out to 427 cubic inches is not cheap either. The block used for the LS7 is the Corvette LeMans race block that used to be in the Performance parts catalog for several thousand dollars for the block alone. With an extra 2.6 liters of displacement (7 liters compared to 4.4) the LS7 engine makes just a little more power than the supercharged Northstar (505 vs. 470) and the Northstar engine idles very quietly and smoothly. It is a kitten around town compared to the LS7 that has a cammy idle and is relatively noisy and in-your-face. Fine for a Corvette but not for a true luxury car. Ask BMW M5 or M6 owners of their cars shake at idle or idle rough? Not in a luxury car.



You miss the point by comparing an extreme engine in the LS7.

The basic LS2 is a vastly superior engine to the normally aspirated Northstar and I bet it cost less to build. It idles smoothly and will blow a 4.6 away. In overall size including the heads it is not any bigger.

As for the LS7 versus blown 4.4, the LS7 not only makes more power but I would bet its long-term durability will be better without a blower.

The only reason Cadillac keeps pushing the inferior Northstar design has nothing to do with engine ability and performance. It is the marketing guys who think the public feels they must have a dohc 4V motor for it to be a premium motor. If the decision was simply based on cost, performance, and durablity the Northstar would be put out to pasture.

Even if Caddy wanted to keep a 4V dohc engine, they should design something new with larger displacement than the 4.6. It simply is not big enough. When Mercedes starts blowing the new 6.3 all you will see is their tailights.

The LS2 is a superior engine to the Northstar by far. It has torque the Northstar can only reach with a blower. Add a blower to an LS2 and it will smoke the blown Northstar
Not true and the LS7 isn't any more impressive than a non-sc N*.
Power / L:
4.6L N* @ 320HP = 69.6
6.0L LS2 @ 400HP = 66.7
7.0L LS7 @ 505HP = 72.1 (although some are saying it's under rated, even at 530HP it's @ 75.7 HP/L)
4.4L SC N* @ 443HP = 100.7 (maybe this engine is under rated as well... plus the parasitic loss caused by the SC and the engine is really making about 510HP or 116 HP/L)
4.4L SC N* @ 469HP = 106.6 :eek:

For comparison
MB E63 AMG NA 6.3L @ 505HP = 80.2
M5 V10 5.0L @ 500HP = 100 (damn good for a NA engine, interested to see how it holds up when certain owners push it to 8,500 rpm on a daily basis. I know that's what I'd do if I bought one)
SL55 AMG SC 5.5L @ 493HP = 89.6

The N* isn't a whole lot bigger than the LSX series of engines. It fits in the XLR just fine. The only difference is that many of the cars listed above will feel faster than the XLR-V because they have more torque and the M5 has very agressive gearing.

Power per liter is meaningless

When evaluating power for different engines there are far more important factors

* overall exterior dimensions of the engine
* weight
* cost to manufacture
* and if this were a family sedan we could add efficiency

If I can fit the LS2 in the same space as the Northstar and get 80 more HP and lb-ft of torque for a motor that costs less to build it is a no-brainer. The only reason Cadillac even uses the NA Northstar instead of the LS2 is this misconception that premium engines need dohc and 4Vs to compete with the Europeans and Japanese.

Not me, give me usable torque for American driving conditions. This is not the autobahn. From 0-70 a pushrod V8 that is well developed like the LS2 or Chrysler Hemi will eat a Northstar for lunch while being less expensive to build and taking up the same space under the hood.

Look at it this way, the smallest small block, the 5.3, installed in the Grand Prix runs the same times as the Northstar STS

I read that it was because of fuel economy that they made it smaller, just to get past a numerical MPG threshold...

To think GM took away 0.2L to produce less power is illogical. They could have just detuned the 4.6 to the same HP as the current 4.4. Actually, it is easier to get the same HP from a larger engine (4.6) than a smaller one (4.4). To make the same HP the smaller engine will need more pressure in the cylinder, so there goes the theory about more material between the bores, as the higher pressure would offset any gains there. The engine is heavily modified from the stock motor anyway, so 4.6, 4.4 or even 4.2 would not be an issue anyway at any HP between 400-500 (now the 4.4 is rated at 469 anyway). GM could make a 4.6 based on the 4.4 with the same HP but it would EAT more FUEL.

Imagine that the 4.6 was on the borderline of going one less MPG, a BIG deal by any means. Thus by going to 4.4, they could have just squeaked by not having to post a lower EPA MPG...

SYROB

The only reason Cadillac even uses the NA Northstar instead of the LS2 is this misconception that premium engines need dohc and 4Vs to compete with the Europeans and Japanese.
But the N* and other OHC engines idle and run smoother than LSx pushrod engines (while making the same amount of hp/L, which isn't very important but it is relevant). I liked the LS6 in my V but that engine will never make it in a luxury car, or high end sport sedan. People that want a car like the M5 or E55 don't want any muscle car shaking going on while they're sittting at a light.

The LS2 motor and the chrysler hemi both not only make a lot more power than a NA Northstar, they easily are smooth enough of for a luxury car. How refined is it to hear a supercharger whining in a high end luxury car like the Jag and 55s?

Have you driven the LS2 and hemi? Besides, not only is a V8 inherently smooth but proper chassis mounting is what really makes a difference.

People don't want muscle car shaking? Neither of them do that. They really don't want to be sucking on someone's tailpipes after shelling out a lot of money. The regular STS will be sucking on many of tailpipes with its mid 14s 1/4 mile.

The 550i wil chew it up and spit it out and even the old tech E500 will leave it behind.

If Cadillac wants to produce dohc motors because it feels they are more refined that is fine with me. But a 4.6 liter motor is NOT going to cut it in this field. Tell them to add a liter and then we can talk.

Drive the new 550i and then drive the STS and tell me the Northstar is good enough.

The LS2 motor and the chrysler hemi both not only make a lot more power than a NA Northstar, they easily are smooth enough of for a luxury car. How refined is it to hear a supercharger whining in a high end luxury car like the Jag and 55s?
Have you driven the LS2 and hemi? Besides, not only is a V8 inherently smooth but proper chassis mounting is what really makes a difference.
People don't want muscle car shaking? Neither of them do that. They really don't want to be sucking on someone's tailpipes after shelling out a lot of money. The regular STS will be sucking on many of tailpipes with its mid 14s 1/4 mile.
The 550i wil chew it up and spit it out and even the old tech E500 will leave it behind.
If Cadillac wants to produce dohc motors because it feels they are more refined that is fine with me. But a 4.6 liter motor is NOT going to cut it in this field. Tell them to add a liter and then we can talk.
Drive the new 550i and then drive the STS and tell me the Northstar is good enough.
The 550 and E500 cost more than the STS.

I've driven cars with the LS1 and LS6 and found neither to be even close to smooth enough but maybe the LS2 is better. They also don't feel as smooth through the power band as a N* or import OHC engines.

I'd like to see a 5.5L+ N* and I don't think Cadillac can really compete with MB or BMW until they make something better than the N*. By better I mean something with more power and displacement. However, for its size the N* is an excellent engine.

We agree. For 4.6 liters it is a great engine. It took Ford years to get their 4.6 close in power. However, the market has changed since the N was designed in the late 80s.

You need over 5 liters now as your standard engine. Being lower cost doesn't help too much in the luxury car market as sometimes the higher price actually helps sell the car!

since the N was designed in the late 80s.
Sometimes I forget just how old the N* really is... a few more years and it'll be 20 years old (if you include the design years). Fuel prices aren't a problem right now, and if the oil companies don't rip us off again they shouldn't be for a long time.

Back to the subject:
Give me more HP and torque!

The CLS55 tears the STS-V a new one in the Jan Motor Trend.

boooo

will someone shoot me if I BUMP this? Very interesting read.

Not true and the LS7 isn't any more impressive than a non-sc N*.
Power / L:
4.6L N* @ 320HP = 69.6
6.0L LS2 @ 400HP = 66.7
7.0L LS7 @ 505HP = 72.1 (although some are saying it's under rated, even at 530HP it's @ 75.7 HP/L)
4.4L SC N* @ 443HP = 100.7 (maybe this engine is under rated as well... plus the parasitic loss caused by the SC and the engine is really making about 510HP or 116 HP/L)
4.4L SC N* @ 469HP = 106.6 :eek:

For comparison
MB E63 AMG NA 6.3L @ 505HP = 80.2
M5 V10 5.0L @ 500HP = 100 (damn good for a NA engine, interested to see how it holds up when certain owners push it to 8,500 rpm on a daily basis. I know that's what I'd do if I bought one)
SL55 AMG SC 5.5L @ 493HP = 89.6

The N* isn't a whole lot bigger than the LSX series of engines. It fits in the XLR just fine. The only difference is that many of the cars listed above will feel faster than the XLR-V because they have more torque and the M5 has very agressive gearing.
You forgot the king of hp per liter! The Honda S2000 has a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder with 237 hp so that equals out to 107.7 hp/liter! Not bad for a N/A 4 banger?

The CLS55 tears the STS-V a new one in the Jan Motor Trend.

booooI just read the new R&T magazine and they tested the new BMW M5 & M6 and they both ran 12.4 but the M5 trapped at 115.8 mph and the M6 trapped at 118.1 mph!

You forgot the king of hp per liter! The Honda S2000 has a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder with 237 hp so that equals out to 107.7 hp/liter! Not bad for a N/A 4 banger?

I don't think that has any place in a comparison of all the V8s with twice the displacement. Suzuki makes an engine with 134.6 hp/liter. Does it have anything to do with an STS-V or its competition? Nope. Hp/liter still doesn't win races.

I don't think that has any place in a comparison of all the V8s with twice the displacement. Suzuki makes an engine with 134.6 hp/liter. Does it have anything to do with an STS-V or its competition? Nope. Hp/liter still doesn't win races.Well everybody was making a big deal out of the hp/liter talk and there were even V10's brought into the discussion so why not a 4 banger?

As I've said many times, and this proves it, the Northstar could not support the forced induction "reliably". The clamping area of the heads is just plain insufficient for that application. Funny how Ford manages to pump 500-700hp through THEIR blown 4.6 huh? :hide:

Sorry everyone for bringing this back up. But I was just searching for dyno's of the blown 4.4 and kept seeing comments about how great Ford's engine is since it can run 4.6L blown.

So I wanted to point out, what did Ford have to change to SC their 4.6L? Not the displacement, something else. Try sticking a magnet on the block of a NA 4.6L and a blown 4.6L. Notice a difference? Yeah, hundreds of pounds of iron. Compare the curb weight of a 2004 GT and a 2004 Cobra. Notice anything? Like that you have to add over 300lbs to the GT's weight to get the Cobra's?

I'd take a .2L reduction in displacement over a huge gain in weight any day.

And in what application does Ford put a 500-700hp 4.6L motor? Where do they even have a 400hp one? The Cobra was rated at 390hp, which if you plug it into a calculator, is less than 469hp. I asked a few of my smarter friends, and they all agreed 469 is greater than 390.

So I wanted to point out, what did Ford have to change to SC their 4.6L? Not the displacement, something else. Try sticking a magnet on the block of a NA 4.6L and a blown 4.6L. Notice a difference? Yeah, hundreds of pounds of iron. Compare the curb weight of a 2004 GT and a 2004 Cobra. Notice anything? Like that you have to add over 300lbs to the GT's weight to get the Cobra's?

I'd take a .2L reduction in displacement over a huge gain in weight any day.2004 Cobra = 390 hp with 3665 lbs = 9.4 hp/lb. STS-V = 469 hp with 4233 lbs = 9.0 hp/lb. So the Cobra has a better power to weight ratio to that of the STS-V with its "added weight". And BTW the hp numbers are undderrated. They are putting out around 400 or more hp in stock trim. but that was a nice attempt at trying to act like you have a clue as to what you are talking about:yup:

And in what application does Ford put a 500-700hp 4.6L motor? Where do they even have a 400hp one? The Cobra was rated at 390hp, which if you plug it into a calculator, is less than 469hp. I asked a few of my smarter friends, and they all agreed 469 is greater than 390.Your "smarter" friends are on the same boat as you and just look at advertised hp claims. And the SC 4.6 has had extensive testing done to it and the stock internals are good for 1000 hp. Try doing that with the SC'd 4.4 N*. I would say before you put your foot into your mouth even more to go over to some SVT forums or Mustang/Cobra forums and get to know about these cars before you start running off with the mouth. BTW has anyone dyno'd a stock STS-V yet? It would be interesting to see as to what kinda numbers they re putting out compared to what Caddy is claiming.

Why the heck did this thread get resurrected? Instead of arguing about what 4.X engine is best, you should be understanding that regardless of the HP or Torque, the displacement is too small for this class of car. The price of addmission these days is quickly approaching 500HP in this class of car, and that is NOT going to happen with a 4.X liter V8 unless you force-feed it. Anyone buying a car like this is not only looking for power but refinement, and having to put up with excessive engine/drivetrain harshness probably won't be tolerated very well. Hearing a roaring exhaust/intake, or blower whine is great, maybe even a plus in an edgy sports car but NOT in a $70K+ luxury sedan. Of couse that's only my opinion. I still say GM must up the ante on the Cadillac product line with regards to its engines. Yeah you "can" coax a decent amount of power from a small displacement engine, hell the imports have been doing it for years, but I think a high-dollar luxury car should have a big-ass engine that can provide the expected grunt without breaking a sweat.
After all, wasn't that the whole idea behind the old Caddy engines? Didn't Cadillac USUALLY have the biggest displacement (let alone cylinder count) engines of any GM brand? Why is the same train of thought no longer true? I think it should be.

Why the heck did this thread get resurrected? Instead of arguing about what 4.X engine is best, you should be understanding that regardless of the HP or Torque, the displacement is too small for this class of car. The price of addmission these days is quickly approaching 500HP in this class of car, and that is NOT going to happen with a 4.X liter V8 unless you force-feed it. Anyone buying a car like this is not only looking for power but refinement, and having to put up with excessive engine/drivetrain harshness probably won't be tolerated very well. Hearing a roaring exhaust/intake, or blower whine is great, maybe even a plus in an edgy sports car but NOT in a $70K+ luxury sedan. Of couse that's only my opinion. I still say GM must up the ante on the Cadillac product line with regards to its engines. Yeah you "can" coax a decent amount of power from a small displacement engine, hell the imports have been doing it for years, but I think a high-dollar luxury car should have a big-ass engine that can provide the expected grunt without breaking a sweat.
After all, wasn't that the whole idea behind the old Caddy engines? Didn't Cadillac USUALLY have the biggest displacement (let alone cylinder count) engines of any GM brand? Why is the same train of thought no longer true? I think it should be.


Kinda bums me out. I am really interested in that car....really. But I am struggling with the issue your speaking too.....for nut much more I can get an e55 or an m5. Guess what...I actually think I like the look ofthe sts-v the best of those three (although I like them all).

Why the heck did this thread get resurrected? Instead of arguing about what 4.X engine is best, you should be understanding that regardless of the HP or Torque, the displacement is too small for this class of car. The price of addmission these days is quickly approaching 500HP in this class of car, and that is NOT going to happen with a 4.X liter V8 unless you force-feed it. Anyone buying a car like this is not only looking for power but refinement, and having to put up with excessive engine/drivetrain harshness probably won't be tolerated very well. Hearing a roaring exhaust/intake, or blower whine is great, maybe even a plus in an edgy sports car but NOT in a $70K+ luxury sedan. Of couse that's only my opinion. I still say GM must up the ante on the Cadillac product line with regards to its engines. Yeah you "can" coax a decent amount of power from a small displacement engine, hell the imports have been doing it for years, but I think a high-dollar luxury car should have a big-ass engine that can provide the expected grunt without breaking a sweat.
After all, wasn't that the whole idea behind the old Caddy engines? Didn't Cadillac USUALLY have the biggest displacement (let alone cylinder count) engines of any GM brand? Why is the same train of thought no longer true? I think it should be.


Kind of bums me out...I rally like this car and am interested, but struggle with this issue...for not much more I could get the E55 of M5

Why the heck did this thread get resurrected? Instead of arguing about what 4.X engine is best, you should be understanding that regardless of the HP or Torque, the displacement is too small for this class of car. The price of addmission these days is quickly approaching 500HP in this class of car, and that is NOT going to happen with a 4.X liter V8 unless you force-feed it. Anyone buying a car like this is not only looking for power but refinement, and having to put up with excessive engine/drivetrain harshness probably won't be tolerated very well. Hearing a roaring exhaust/intake, or blower whine is great, maybe even a plus in an edgy sports car but NOT in a $70K+ luxury sedan. Of couse that's only my opinion. I still say GM must up the ante on the Cadillac product line with regards to its engines. Yeah you "can" coax a decent amount of power from a small displacement engine, hell the imports have been doing it for years, but I think a high-dollar luxury car should have a big-ass engine that can provide the expected grunt without breaking a sweat.
After all, wasn't that the whole idea behind the old Caddy engines? Didn't Cadillac USUALLY have the biggest displacement (let alone cylinder count) engines of any GM brand? Why is the same train of thought no longer true? I think it should be.

Somebody needs to bring back the big blocks :).

2004 Cobra = 390 hp with 3665 lbs = 9.4 hp/lb. STS-V = 469 hp with 4233 lbs = 9.0 hp/lb. So the Cobra has a better power to weight ratio to that of the STS-V with its "added weight". And BTW the hp numbers are undderrated. They are putting out around 400 or more hp in stock trim. but that was a nice attempt at trying to act like you have a clue as to what you are talking about:yup:

Your "smarter" friends are on the same boat as you and just look at advertised hp claims. And the SC 4.6 has had extensive testing done to it and the stock internals are good for 1000 hp. Try doing that with the SC'd 4.4 N*. I would say before you put your foot into your mouth even more to go over to some SVT forums or Mustang/Cobra forums and get to know about these cars before you start running off with the mouth. BTW has anyone dyno'd a stock STS-V yet? It would be interesting to see as to what kinda numbers they re putting out compared to what Caddy is claiming.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/images/smilies/iamwithstupid.gifYou obviously missed the entire point. And I can see why the ">" thing threw you. Just look at your math. If the STS-V had 9.0 hp/lb, it would make 38,000 hp. The STS-V has a better power to weight ratio using the numbers you provide. 9.4 lbs/hp for the Cobra, 9.0 lbs/hp for the much larger STS-V.

Tell me again about acting like I have a clue or putting my foot in my mouth?

Why the heck did this thread get resurrected? Instead of arguing about what 4.X engine is best, you should be understanding <clipped change of tune>
The reply before mine was from three days ago, not exactly a huge ressurection. I couldn't help but notice in numerous threads you spewing the same baseless line about Ford's motor being great and the Northstar having some fatal flaw, that you feel is somehow evidenced by Ford blowering a 4.6L, while GM blowered a 4.4L.

You said it numerous times in numerous threads, did you actually forget already?

errr....

the higher the hp/lbs, the "better" it is... so if one car has 9.4hp/lbs that means it has more power per every pound then a 9.0hp/lbs car...

Kat just dosn't like the Northstar, any version of it :) We all accept it though... he does like the 4.9 though :).

Yeah thiis thread was brought back form the dead though... maybe not by you, but it still was... not a bad, or good thing.. just weird to see it brought back.. I remember when it was first started :).

Aurora40 was trying to point out there was an error. Blackout quoted hp/lb when it should be lb/hp, get it?
As for my views about the Northstar, I'm trying to get away from that here. I was trying to direct the topic onto a more useful one, namely that whether the force-fed Northstar is good or not REALLY shouldn't be the issue. The size of it is wrong IMO. I think that in thise arena, the engine should be a larger displacement and N/A rather than supercharged. Again this is IMO. Take it or leave it and stop trying to start trouble.

double post. sorry

The reply before mine was from three days ago, not exactly a huge ressurection. I couldn't help but notice in numerous threads you spewing the same baseless line about Ford's motor being great and the Northstar having some fatal flaw, that you feel is somehow evidenced by Ford blowering a 4.6L, while GM blowered a 4.4L.

You said it numerous times in numerous threads, did you actually forget already?If anything you have the most baseless line about an engine that you know nothing about. "Oh the Cobra has 390 hp! Me and my smarter friends all think 469 > 390 hp!" :thumbsup: keep telling yourself that buddy!

Kat just dosn't like the Northstar, any version of it :) We all accept it though... he does like the 4.9 though :). I loved my 4.5 fom my 1990 Sedan Deville and from what i hear the 4.9 is even better so it sounds like one hell of an engine! BTW how's your car running Night Wolf?

If anything you have the most baseless line about an engine that you know nothing about. "Oh the Cobra has 390 hp! Me and my smarter friends all think 469 > 390 hp!" :thumbsup: keep telling yourself that buddy!

Well, engine wise... 469 > 390hp. I'm not saying an STS-V will beat a Cobra stock for stock, but strictly on engine output it's better. And it damn well should be, it's 3 years newer than the s/c 4.6 Cobra and in a more upscale car.

This is what's strange about that. Taking the "specs" out of the picture, a '03-'04 Cobra will dust a CTS-V but a CTS-V posts a better 1/4 mile than the STS-V. Figure that one out. :hmm:

Well, engine wise... 469 > 390hp. I'm not saying an STS-V will beat a Cobra stock for stock, but strictly on engine output it's better. And it damn well should be, it's 3 years newer than the s/c 4.6 Cobra and in a more upscale car.Like i said Dave that 390 hp figure is underrated. Cobra's are putting out 400+ hp in stock trim. Guys are running mid to high 12's in a stock 03-04 Cobra. I doubt that anyone will run those kinda times in a stock STS-V.

If anything you have the most baseless line about an engine that you know nothing about. "Me and my smarter friends all think 469 > 390 hp!" :thumbsup: keep telling yourself that buddy!
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ok, I'll keep telling myself that 469 > 390. :histeric:

If you think there is something to know about, what is it? Let me ask you, what do you know about the 4.4L SC motor? Do you own a car with one? Ever driven one? Ever worked on it? That doesn't seem to stop you from spouting off about it. Maybe you aren't familiar with sarcasm, but the "smarter friends" is sarcasm. You see, it's because saying 469 is greater than 390 is like saying water is wet. It's a no-****ter.

Never once did I say a stock STS-V would beat a stock Cobra. Again, you are missing the point. Read and understand before you reply. I don't care what kind of times Cobras run, and they aren't relevant to anything being discussed. It's a much smaller car and supposedly a sports car. One would hope it was faster than a tricked out Seville.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ok, I'll keep telling myself that 469 > 390. :histeric:What that was in reference too was you and your "smarter" friends thinking that Cobra's only put out 390 hp. That 469 number for the STS-V is at the crank and not to the wheels. While the 390 hp number for the Cobra is to the wheels and not the crank. Like I said I would like to see what kinda numbers the STS-V's put out to the wheels.

That doesn't seem to stop you from spouting off about it. Maybe you aren't familiar with sarcasm, but the "smarter friends" is sarcasm. You see, it's because saying 469 is greater than 390 is like saying water is wet. It's a no-****ter.Well the way you played it off did not seem like sarcasm. And at the sametime it is kinda hard to tell the difference when your talking online.

I don't care what kind of times Cobras run, and they aren't relevant to anything being discussed.And our telling me this why? Your the one who brought it up

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ok, I'll keep telling myself that 469 > 390. :histeric:

If you think there is something to know about, what is it? Let me ask you, what do you know about the 4.4L SC motor? Do you own a car with one? Ever driven one? Ever worked on it? That doesn't seem to stop you from spouting off about it. Maybe you aren't familiar with sarcasm, but the "smarter friends" is sarcasm. You see, it's because saying 469 is greater than 390 is like saying water is wet. It's a no-****ter.

Never once did I say a stock STS-V would beat a stock Cobra. Again, you are missing the point. Read and understand before you reply. I don't care what kind of times Cobras run, and they aren't relevant to anything being discussed. It's a much smaller car and supposedly a sports car. One would hope it was faster than a tricked out Seville.

Not to be knit-picking but I think the Cobra is less than two hundred pounds less than the STS-V, so it's not REALLY out of the realm of reality to compare their performance. It's like I said in my last post, I find it odd that the STS-V is so slow considering it's advertised power output.

Solution: Just to be fair, add two more doors to the Cobra, Bose Surround, Adaptive Cruise Control, Automatic Transmission with manual shifting option, Rain sensing wipers, heated seats, electric seats, self dimming mirrors, nuance leather, and more rear leg and headroom, and then we'll compare them again.

Maybe comparing the XLR-V with the Cobra is more of a fair comparison in terms of weight; however the XLR-V, too, is way beyond the league of the Cobra. See what I mean?

So, the Ford GT will smoke all of them and so who cares? The bottom line: The Cadillac is competing with the Beemers and Benzos, attempting to remain on the lower end of the price range, in a different class altogether than the Cobra. Apples to Oranges here.

Or were we comparing engines alone?

Well then the 469>390 wins.


Engine displacement comparison, you say? The trend, obviously, was for smaller high-tech, high-revving DOHC multiple valve aluminum engines?

Is iron more reliable? Yeah. But if they started putting iron blocks and heads back in the numbers would not be favorable vs. those who still would use aluminum due to lesser mass, etc.

Aurora40 was trying to point out there was an error. Blackout quoted hp/lb when it should be lb/hp, get it?
As for my views about the Northstar, I'm trying to get away from that here. I was trying to direct the topic onto a more useful one, namely that whether the force-fed Northstar is good or not REALLY shouldn't be the issue. The size of it is wrong IMO. I think that in thise arena, the engine should be a larger displacement and N/A rather than supercharged. Again this is IMO. Take it or leave it and stop trying to start trouble.

I wasn't trying to start trouble.... gosh...

I agree, larger NA engine would be better off... but I think Cadillac scored a good hit with their s/c Northstar.

I loved my 4.5 fom my 1990 Sedan Deville and from what i hear the 4.9 is even better so it sounds like one hell of an engine! BTW how's your car running Night Wolf?

Yup, the 4.9 takes all the good of the 4.5... and just makes it a whole bunch sweeter :)

The Coupe is running great! Heh... the 4.9 just survived hydrolock, and not driving it for 5 days while i got it all strightened out... made me miss it alot... now shes running like a top! :) 115k and still strong.

Not to be knit-picking but I think the Cobra is less than two hundred pounds less than the STS-V, so it's not REALLY out of the realm of reality to compare their performance. It's like I said in my last post, I find it odd that the STS-V is so slow considering it's advertised power output.
Um...
2004 Cobra = 3665 lbs. STS-V = 4233 lbs.
4233 - 3665 is a lot bigger than 200. I'll save you the trouble, that's 568 pounds difference.

While the 390 hp number for the Cobra is to the wheels and not the crank.
Um, where do you get that from? Do you have a reference to a Ford press release, product description, or anything that indicates that they rated this car at the wheels? What standard did they use for that?

And our telling me this why? Your the one who brought it up
Please quote where I asked about, cited, or mentioned Cobra 1/4 mile times.

None of this has anything to do with anything, though. My initial post was in response to Katshot's numerous comments about the superiority of the Ford modular 4.6L over the Northstar. He's since said he isnt' interested in discussing it, so I'll call it quits right here.

Solution: Just to be fair, add two more doors to the Cobra, Bose Surround, Adaptive Cruise Control, Automatic Transmission with manual shifting option, Rain sensing wipers, heated seats, electric seats, self dimming mirrors, nuance leather, and more rear leg and headroom, and then we'll compare them again.

Maybe comparing the XLR-V with the Cobra is more of a fair comparison in terms of weight; however the XLR-V, too, is way beyond the league of the Cobra. See what I mean?

So, the Ford GT will smoke all of them and so who cares? The bottom line: The Cadillac is competing with the Beemers and Benzos, attempting to remain on the lower end of the price range, in a different class altogether than the Cobra. Apples to Oranges here.

Or were we comparing engines alone?

Well then the 469>390 wins.


Engine displacement comparison, you say? The trend, obviously, was for smaller high-tech, high-revving DOHC multiple valve aluminum engines?

Is iron more reliable? Yeah. But if they started putting iron blocks and heads back in the numbers would not be favorable vs. those who still would use aluminum due to lesser mass, etc.

I agree and disagree with you here.
Yes, the two cars are definately in two different classes, we were only comparing the engines as you suggested. And yes, I think the XLR-V would be a closer comparison to the Cobra.
Where I disagree is:
Engines alone, if you do some reading you'll find that the specs for these two engines are misleading. It's very well known that the Cobra engine is under-rated, and I'm not sure what to think about the 4.4 Northstar yet but the performance of the car doesn't seem to jive with the advertised power (example: the STS-V has substantially more power than the CTS-V yet is much slower). So I'll wait to see what shows up in inductry pubs and dyno charts before saying much more about the 4.4 Caddy motor.
The real statement I disagree with is where you elude to a "trend" toward "...smaller high-tech, high-revving DOHC multiple valve aluminum engines..." Are you suggesting that just because Cadillac made that move, there's some kind of "trend"?

Um...

4233 - 3665 is a lot bigger than 200. I'll save you the trouble, that's 568 pounds difference.


Um, where do you get that from? Do you have a reference to a Ford press release, product description, or anything that indicates that they rated this car at the wheels? What standard did they use for that?


Please quote where I asked about, cited, or mentioned Cobra 1/4 mile times.

None of this has anything to do with anything, though. My initial post was in response to Katshot's numerous comments about the superiority of the Ford modular 4.6L over the Northstar. He's since said he isnt' interested in discussing it, so I'll call it quits right here.

My bad, for some reason, I thought there was an AWD option on the STS-V and therefore used the standard STS weight for a more direct comparison. I just went to the Cadillac site and can't seem to find any reference of an AWD version so I guess the STS-V really is just a RWD and it really is that much heavier than a standard STS.

Dosn't the Cobra also have alot better gearing.. not only in the transmission, but final drive as well? plus its a manual....

Wheres my .2 Liters HELLO I think I am the only owner on the pages with a 4.4 XLR-V let me tell you you will not miss that.2 ltr at all coming from a XLR 4.6 Northstar its like night a day. PS 4.6 normal NorthStar ROCKS too. GReat it makes 443 HP feels like 500, Great it runs amazing 1/4 miles time and great 0 to 60. The part I think everyone is missing is how dos it drive as a evey day driver. Lauch off the line to get in front of others ..YUP. Pass on back roads from 60 to 100 no problem. Take the on ramp from 40 to 80 flys. How do I normally drive every day 2000 rpm. and I am past the legal speed limit in no time. Some times it not all about the numbers but how a car drives and the skill of that driver to get the car to do what you want it to do. And how can anyone compare a Mustang to XLR?????? A Regular XLR can take most years of any mustang MY XLR-V i can say with no problem that nothing has even come close to keeping up with me light to light not even the "pocket rockets" WRX, and other 4 banger awd things..... HATE them or is it the 19 year old " NASCAR " drivers.... they are just crazy but fun to race from light to light.

AND JUST A LITTLE FUN FACT MY 1981 CAMARO with a 4.4 V8 and 2 Barrell carb only made 115 HP That same size engine 4.4 (267 CI) now with all the great electronic trickery now has output of 443 to 469. AMAZING.

Well, after reading that post...

I really gotta hand it to Cadillac for totally screwing up a cars name... my gosh... XLR-V... say that out loud excel-arrghh-vee... These multi-letter mumbo jmobo to try and compete with MB/BMW just sucks. Isn't Eldorado so much more fluid? Instead of using random letters or numbers to name a car... stick with an actual name that has meaning... ugh... probably the same guy that woke up one day and said Hey, lets kill Oldsmobile!.

/meaningless rant.

Like I said before, the 4.4L s/c Northstar is a great package. If the issue is that its too small... well... back in the day the object was for the largest, most powerful V8. Cadillac succeeded very good. Then, the "industry" said no.... large V8's aren't cool, we want smaller, high revving, complex engines. So with imports coming out with this, the mind set of "It's Honda (Toyota, BMW whatever) its gotta be good!" so now the classic iron is thought to be "old" so then Cadillac makes their own modern, small displacement, high revving, complex engine, surpassing MB/BMW... fast forward 10 years, and all of a sudden, small high revving engines aren't the "in" thing anymore, and larger displacement is desired, despite actual power ratings.

I use quotations, because that is the general car buying public, which are idots when it comes to anything technical. I still am not sold on high revving DOHC engines... sorry, I just don't like it. Give me a high-torque, low-RPM beast any day. Unlike what alot of people want to think, engine RPM has nothing to do with how fast a car is, as gearing can totally change that, so you can have a big block V8 that sits at 2,000RPM making gobs of torque keep up with a DOHC 4banger that has to rev thru the RPM range just to get power. Personally, I like to watch the tach as something as simple as a 300RPM change in 3rd gear will make the car swiftly accelerate from 30mph to 60mph.

/meaningless rant #2.

2 meaningless rants in one post?!
Rick, you really need sleep! ;)
Actually, I think your timeline is correct. There WAS a time, not too long ago that the focus was on small-displacement/high-output engines but now the pendelum is swinging back to large-displacement/high-output engines, especially in trucks, muscle cars, and high-end luxury cars. This is where Cadillac "claims" to want to compete. IMO, if they do, they need to offer the same level of equipment the competition does. Hell, have you seen what they're doing with the Escalade? I understand that Cadillac is going to offer a "special Cadillac only" version of the V8 that will be in the new GM900 trucks (6 liter I think?) Bigger, more powerful. They get it with their trucks, so why not with their cars? IMO, regardless of how much they keep pumping up the output on the Northstar, it's still the wrong engine for this market. Too small.

Well, aren't they coming out with the V12 Northstar for the Escalade?

If I was in charge, I would be slamming that thing out, then jamb it under the hood of all the V-series....

Ya know, I've been hearing guys talk about a V10 or V12 Northstar for a LONG-ASS time but I'm not sure Cadillac wants to do it. Will they? I'm just not sure. It would work in the trucks but I doubt they could package it right in the cars. Maybe if they actually do a new "ultra-luxury" car....