13 city 17 hwy vs. the CTS-V at 16 city 25 hwy. Hey, if you've got $77K burning a hole in your pocket who give a damn about fuel efficiency. :lildevil:

13 city 17 hwy vs. the CTS-V at 16 city 25 hwy. Hey, if you've got $77K burning a hole in your pocket who give a damn about fuel efficiency. :lildevil:

I have a theory! If I wanted good MPG I would'a bought a Honda!

If you can't take the heat get a girlieman car with a V6! I don't drive no stinking 6cyl cars! (Unless it's my wife's) :banana:

My V runs 10 in town, 19 on long, long hwy runs. The EPA rating is BS.

Do you have a link for that information?

You could always give up the luxury stuff and buy a SRT-8 and use the extra $30K to pay for gas!

I seriously doubt anyone who will pay the $70K+ really cares!

CG
99 STS 118K

http://www.gmbuypower.com/vehicleList.bp?make=Cadillac&model=All&modelId=all&makeId=006&identifyThumbnail=showAllMake&


Link as requested. I'm getting 15 in the V when I'm on it. 22-24 on the hwy. My quess is the STS-V will be in the 12 range. :hmm:

Not that bad for a powerful heavy sedan. My 1998 S600 makes 11-13mpg in the City, worse than my old ESV Platinum.

I was hoping that the 6th gear would heelp with mileage a little.
I will bet money that if thecar is retested next year that mileage will be higher.
Especially the hwy number.

A lot of times the ratings are a calculation based on many factors.

I have seen the 3800 Impala go from 30mpg hwy down to 29mpg hwy and back up to 30mpg hwy.

My '99 Intrigue was rated at 27mpg hwy and would get 29mpg.
By the time the car was killed of the hwy rating was 28 or 29 mpg.

b4z,

I think you may be on to something there. It just so happens the fuel ratings match the Escalade EXT. Hard to belive that the little S/C 4.4 liter is more thirsty than a 6.0 liter, 5,000 lb. behemoth.

I have seen the 3800 Impala go from 30mpg hwy down to 29mpg hwy and back up to 30mpg hwy.


NO WAY!? :histeric:

For comparison sakes:

2006 BMW M5

MSRP: $81,200
City Mileage: 12 mpg Hwy Mileage: 18 mpg


2006 Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG

MSRP: $80,800 - $82,600
City Mileage: 15 mpg Hwy Mileage: 21 mpg

2006 Chrysler 300C SRT-8

MSRP: $39,370 - $39,920
City Mileage: 14 mpg Hwy Mileage: 20 mpg


Who would have thought the fastest car would be the most fuel efficient?!

I wouldn't put much stock in the 17mpg hwy rating.

Look at how much the STS V6 changed from this year to last.
I think it was rated at 24mpg last year and is now 27mpg or more(?)

That why they went with 4.4 vs 4.6, MPG would probably have been even worse with 4.6...

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). 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. 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

I bet the reason it is 4.4 vs 4.6 is they destroked the motor to handle the supercharger. Ever see a supercharged motor puke a connecting rod out of the block? I have many times. It is usually one of the weakest links. I don't think it has anything to do with mpg. Put a pulley and a rich tune on that new motor, and watch the mpg fall even further.

I bet the reason it is 4.4 vs 4.6 is they destroked the motor to handle the supercharger. Ever see a supercharged motor puke a connecting rod out of the block? I have many times. It is usually one of the weakest links. I don't think it has anything to do with mpg. Put a pulley and a rich tune on that new motor, and watch the mpg fall even further.

What are the strokes of the two anyway? Usually with a superchanrger they reduce the stroke to reduce pressure in the cylinder, detonation. Going to a smaller BORE with the same HP means higher pressure...

SYROB

Both the 4.6 and 4.4 liter Northstar engines have the exact same stroke of 84 mm.

The difference in displacement is due to a slight decrease in the bore.

If the 4.4 supercharged engine is making more power than the normally aspirated 4.6 liter engine is HAS to have much higher cylinder pressures. This affects the load on the conn rods similarily regardless of bore (or stroke) changes. Someone thought of this and changed the metallurgy of the rods and the rod bolts to make the supercharged version conn rods much stronger.

I bet the reason it is 4.4 vs 4.6 is they destroked the motor to handle the supercharger. Ever see a supercharged motor puke a connecting rod out of the block? I have many times. It is usually one of the weakest links. I don't think it has anything to do with mpg. Put a pulley and a rich tune on that new motor, and watch the mpg fall even further.

Actually, the bore is smaller not the stroke. The piston walls most likely need to be more sturdy with a SC on the top.

People that are willing to spend $75k on a car probably don't care about how much gas it uses. 17mpg is pretty pitiful for a car that doesn't beat its $30k cheaper brother in performance or efficiency though.

Once again, I will bet anybody on this board that the STS-V will get better than 17mpg hwy. And I will say that even at 70mph it will get better than 17mpg.

I would guess the following:

STS-V - 21 HWY
CTS-V - 25 HWY

The automatic will cost the STS-V some efficiency.

Car & Driver complains about the STS V 6speed being slow. Sounds like the same problem my 05 STS V8 5speed has. GM is probably trying to save transmission warranty work. Perhaps the GM trannys just are not as good as they should be.

Gm did a crappy job on the STS-V. They would have been better off waiting and doing it right.

From what I've read, the only thing lacking in the STS-V is straignt line punch, and IMO, that's due to their decision to move away from the Chevy engine and to go with a supercharged version of the Northstar. Is it not apparent to all that Cadillac NEEDS another engine? IMO, the Northstar is sufficient to compete in the standard car market but is sorely lacking in the sports sedan application. Come on GM, go BIG or go home. A fine car deserves a fine engine too. It's not fair to leave the 'V' series hanging out in the cold with only the Northstar for power.

the Northstar is sufficient to compete in the standard car market but is sorely lacking in the sports sedan application. Come on GM, go BIG or go home. A fine car deserves a fine engine too. It's not fair to leave the 'V' series hanging out in the cold with only the Northstar for power.


That is it exactly. At first I wasn't crazy over the styling until I saw one in person this weekend. Man it looks sharp.

But 4.6 liters is 1 too small to be a player in the sports sedan market.

Exactly Katshot - why they spent all that money to SC the Northstar when GM has a perfectly good LS7 already developed that could have been used is beyond me. Would've saved them a ton of costs and made the STS-V into a real competitor.

EPA #s are now available here:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2005selemakef.jsp?year=2006

14 / 20 as published in C+D.
Not 17 highway . . .
Notwitstanding what GMBuypower (still) shows.
- Ray
Wondering who is responsible for GM's website data accuracy . . .