Motor Trend's January 2006 issue has the STS-V versus the CLS55 and it isn't even close.

STS-V
0-60 4.8
0-100 11.9
1/4 Mile 13.3@105.7
60-120 13.3
100-140 15.7
130-0 553 ft
100-0 317
Skidpad 0.90
mpg 17

CLS55
0-60 4.3
0-100 9.8
1/4 Mile 12.5@114.5
60-120 9.7
100-140 10.4
130-0 546 ft
100-0 320
Skidpad 0.91
mpg 18

That's not so good... :mad:

.8 seconds at 114MPH is about 133 feet :thepan:

the 3.6 second differential in the race from 60-120 makes me wonder just what the hell the engineers were basing the design / performance requirements for this car on... :annoyed:

Side note: Did they mention any axle tramp / wheel hop?

wow.....and it gets better mileage too!

That's not so good... :mad:

.8 seconds at 114MPH is about 133 feet :thepan:

the 3.6 second differential in the race from 60-120 makes me wonder just what the hell the engineers were basing the design / performance requirements for this car on... :annoyed:

Side note: Did they mention any axle tramp / wheel hop?

Like I said on the other thread, it is hard to make 4.6 liters run like 5.5.

On the positive side they said the new 6 speed tranny is great. No mention of wheel hop. Perhaps the 4376 lb weight cures that along with the Pirelli Euphoria tires.

If you wanted to pocket $30,000 for a truck you could go with this:

300C SRT8

0-60 4.9
0-100 11.7
1/4 Mile 13.2@108.1
100-0 317
Skidpad 0.88


It looks like the STS launches a little harder. It has a 6 speed transmission and 275s on the rear. But the 300 catches and passes it - all for $30,000 less.

Motor Trend's January 2006 issue has the STS-V versus the CLS55 and it isn't even close.

STS-V
0-60 4.8
0-100 11.9
1/4 Mile 13.3@105.7
60-120 13.3
100-140 15.7
130-0 553 ft
100-0 317
Skidpad 0.90
mpg 17

CLS55
0-60 4.3
0-100 9.8
1/4 Mile 12.5@114.5
60-120 9.7
100-140 10.4
130-0 546 ft
100-0 320
Skidpad 0.91
mpg 18

I have to say I'm dissapointed in the numbers but I'll wait until more reviews come out. Lately the auto magazines have come out with very different perfromance results for the same cars.

Although, the hp/lb ratios for the STS-V and CTS-V are very close, and 13.2@108 in the 1/4 is about what the CTS-V runs... damn... :(

I can very easily see joining the SRT-8 family. The numbers for the Jeep are nothing short of incredible. The 300C carries 5 in luxury. The Charger for the boy racers. The Magnum for the soccer dads (some moms too) and finally the SRT-10 for when you want to carry 12 bags of mulch home at say 135mph.

Pretty compelling vehicles at even more compelling prices.

I can very easily see joining the SRT-8 family. The numbers for the Jeep are nothing short of incredible. The 300C carries 5 in luxury. The Charger for the boy racers. The Magnum for the soccer dads (some moms too) and finally the SRT-10 for when you want to carry 12 bags of mulch home at say 135mph.

Pretty compelling vehicles at even more compelling prices.

I think most people will have a hard time justifying a STS-V for $77K when they can get a Chrysler 300C SRT8 with the same performance for $30K less or a CTS-V with better performance and a stick for $30K less.

They should have used a blown LS2 and just worked on good engine mounts for more smoothness.

The 4.6 is too small to play in the league of the E55 and M5

I still think they'll sell all they build. It's the car I want to buy in 2 years definitely, for 25 grand less with depreciation.

I think most people will have a hard time justifying a STS-V for $77K when they can get a Chrysler 300C SRT8 with the same performance for $30K less or a CTS-V with better performance and a stick for $30K less.
I can't see anyone considering the 300C SRT-8 over and STS-V for performance or price. Just like a person looking for an M5 or E55 won't try to save some money by getting an STS-V.

They should have put the XV12 (maybe add TT's) into it, along with AWD and charged around $90K for it. That car would have dominated the AMG's, M5, and Audi RS6-S8.

I can't see anyone considering the 300C SRT-8 over and STS-V for performance or price. Just like a person looking for an M5 or E55 won't try to save some money by getting an STS-V.

They should have stuffed the XV12 (maybe add TT's) into it, along with AWD and charged around $90K for it. That car would have dominated the AMG's, M5, and Audi RS6-S8.

They might consider the V if offered equivalent performance for 30k less! Plus, the status diff between Caddy and Chrysler is not nearly as large as the diff between the Germans and Caddy.

Dang! The Caddy got OWNED! Well, ummm.... At least it isn't ugly like the CLS! :tease:

Motor Trend's January 2006 issue has the STS-V versus the CLS55 and it isn't even close.

STS-V
0-60 4.8
0-100 11.9
1/4 Mile 13.3@105.7
60-120 13.3
100-140 15.7
130-0 553 ft
100-0 317
Skidpad 0.90
mpg 17

CLS55
0-60 4.3
0-100 9.8
1/4 Mile 12.5@114.5
60-120 9.7
100-140 10.4
130-0 546 ft
100-0 320
Skidpad 0.91
mpg 18

Hi MCeasar,
Motor Trend Mag. is known to be the Cadillac unfriendliest magazin and there are the numbers. I´ll wait to see the numbers of Road & Track!

Harry

I can't see anyone considering the 300C SRT-8 over and STS-V for performance or price. Just like a person looking for an M5 or E55 won't try to save some money by getting an STS-V.

They should have put the XV12 (maybe add TT's) into it, along with AWD and charged around $90K for it. That car would have dominated the AMG's, M5, and Audi RS6-S8.

While I could not have afforded an STS-V, if I could have I still would have traded my CTS-V for an 06 300C SRT-8. I think you are flattering Caddy by thinking that a Caddy owner would not go to Chrysler. What other Caddy has ever been in the $77k price range except the XLR? The answer is none, so Caddy has no previous customer base in that price range. I can see a Mercedes customer sticking to their brand. Performance, price, and name brand sell cars, and right now Caddy's name is not near what it used to be> So there is 3 strikes going against it. Still trying to figure out how bone stock 300C SRT-8's were running in the 12's weighing just about the same as the STS-V and the STS-V having 44 more HP. There has to be some Mega drivetrain loss there. I whole-heartedly expected the STS-V to be a 12.5 @ 114mph car just based on CTS-V and 300C SRT-8 numbers.

While I could not have afforded an STS-V, if I could have I still would have traded my CTS-V for an 06 300C SRT-8. I think you are flattering Caddy by thinking that a Caddy owner would not go to Chrysler. What other Caddy has ever been in the $77k price range except the XLR? The answer is none, so Caddy has no previous customer base in that price range. I can see a Mercedes customer sticking to their brand. Performance, price, and name brand sell cars, and right now Caddy's name is not near what it used to be> So there is 3 strikes going against it. Still trying to figure out how bone stock 300C SRT-8's were running in the 12's weighing just about the same as the STS-V and the STS-V having 44 more HP. There has to be some Mega drivetrain loss there. I whole-heartedly expected the STS-V to be a 12.5 @ 114mph car just based on CTS-V and 300C SRT-8 numbers.

Hi GNSCOTT,
what I just said a post before, don`t give the Motor Trend mag too much trust in their numbers. You are right, with 40 more horses and the six speed automatic the numbers should be better and I think they gona be better.
Wait for Road & Track! The biuld-quality and materials of the STS are far better than of the Chrysler 300.
Harry

While I could not have afforded an STS-V, if I could have I still would have traded my CTS-V for an 06 300C SRT-8. I think you are flattering Caddy by thinking that a Caddy owner would not go to Chrysler. What other Caddy has ever been in the $77k price range except the XLR? The answer is none, so Caddy has no previous customer base in that price range. I can see a Mercedes customer sticking to their brand. Performance, price, and name brand sell cars, and right now Caddy's name is not near what it used to be> So there is 3 strikes going against it. Still trying to figure out how bone stock 300C SRT-8's were running in the 12's weighing just about the same as the STS-V and the STS-V having 44 more HP. There has to be some Mega drivetrain loss there. I whole-heartedly expected the STS-V to be a 12.5 @ 114mph car just based on CTS-V and 300C SRT-8 numbers.

It is very easy to figure out. The 6.1 liter hemi was purposely underrated by Chrysler. If you run the 1/4 mile calculator programs on it you will see that. The 300C SRT8 hits 108+ in the 1/4 and weighs 4,190 pounds.

Further, most of the stock ones have been dynoed at ~370 RWHP. If you use a 20% drivetrain loss for an automatic that would give you 444 HP.

Lastly, the SRT8 has consistently run the same times as the GTo which is 400 pounds lighter and allegedly only down 25 HP.

now consider that the STS-V weights 150 pounds more and it starts to add up

Also consider the STS MT tested may have been pre-production.

I use Car & Driver as the best barometer by far

They might consider the V if offered equivalent performance for 30k less! Plus, the status diff between Caddy and Chrysler is not nearly as large as the diff between the Germans and Caddy.
I myself and a lot of people I know consider Cadillac to be clearly out of Chryslers league. They put the old MB transmissions in some of the new cars but MB isn't know for drivetrain greatness. The Chrysler SUV's (Jeeps)? Biggest pieces of junk on the road. <--- period. Talk about shit box transmissions and a crappy ride, Jeeps take the cake.

The euro cars like BMW and MB are over rated. Before I could even drive my family had several MB (S, transmission failure) and BMW's(7's, 5's electronic time bombs). Every model we owned had several problems, especially the BMW's. The MB were smooth but they handled like boats (and they still don't feel very good to this day, while the BMW's are excellent). If the STS-V could match the speed of an E55 I'd definitely purchase the STS-V.

Hi MCeasar,
Motor Trend Mag. is known to be the Cadillac unfriendliest magazin and there are the numbers. I´ll wait to see the numbers of Road & Track!

Harry
yep. It should be closer but I doubt the V will win.

I myself and a lot of people I know consider Cadillac to be clearly out of Chryslers league. They put the old MB transmissions in some of the new cars but MB isn't know for drivetrain greatness. The Chrysler SUV's (Jeeps)? Biggest pieces of junk on the road. <--- period. Talk about shit box transmissions and a crappy ride, Jeeps take the cake.

The euro cars like BMW and MB are over rated. Before I could even drive my family had several MB (S, transmission failure) and BMW's(7's, 5's electronic time bombs). Every model we owned had several problems, especially the BMW's. The MB were smooth but they handled like boats (and they still don't feel very good to this day, while the BMW's are excellent). If the STS-V could match the speed of an E55 I'd definitely purchase the STS-V.

I think you are mistaken what I believe versus what I believe general public opinion to be. The reliablity and build quality on MBs is no better than Cadillac - if as good. But the status of owning one of those is much higher for most people and that counts a lot.

the V doesn't even have to be as fast as the E55 but it has to be a lot closer than it was in this test where basically the MB walked away from it.

Hopefully GM is at work designing a 5.5 liter version of the Northstar with a bigger block to compete with BMW and MB

I think you are mistaken what I believe versus what I believe general public opinion to be. The reliablity and build quality on MBs is no better than Cadillac - if as good. But the status of owning one of those is much higher for most people and that counts a lot.

the V doesn't even have to be as fast as the E55 but it has to be a lot closer than it was in this test where basically the MB walked away from it.

Hopefully GM is at work designing a 5.5 liter version of the Northstar with a bigger block to compete with BMW and MB
MB's status is declining, even in the eyes of the moderately knowledagble consumer. I don't even consider MB to be a staus car, I simply see them as very fast cars. I also don't purchase cars on their percieved status, I go by past expereinces (back 5 - 10 years, so I will try something again even if it was bad the first time. But that hurts Cadillac because current BMW and MB aged buyers grew up when GM and Caddy sucked for 20+ years), looks, materials, panel gaps and alignment / fit and finish.

If Chrysler offered a car that was good looking, great on the road, fast, and the build quality was excellent I'd consider the car, even if it was $77K (I would lease it because the depreciation right off the lot would be terrible due to the brands current perception. A few more cars like that would change things in a hurry.).

I think you are mistaken what I believe versus what I believe general public opinion to be.
I thought it was your opinion, sorry for the misunderstanding.

While Cadillac failed to impress you all in 1/4 mile prowess, they seem to have managed to impress the editors at Autoweek with the overall package. Just read the latest edition and they had a glowing report on the STS-V. They admit that it's NOT the racing edge car the CTS-V is but they seem to be shooting for a more rounded aproach to a sport sedan in the STS-V. It sounds like they hit the mark from the tone of the article. Yeah it's not as fast as the E55 or M5 but then it's a good deal less expensive too.
The problem I see is this, Cadillac again seems to want to compete against a certain group of cars yet ends up carving a middle ground niche with their supposed competitor. They bring the STS-V to market seemingly to compete with the likes of the BMW M-series and MB AMG series yet they bring a car that can't compete head to head and claim to be trying to hit a more price conscious middle ground. In the end, they come up short on hardware and try to claim a better value for the dollar. Do they not understand that someone willing to pay over $80 large for a car is NOT a penny-pincher? IMO, they skimped on the drivetrain by using that lame-ass Northstar. Come on, de-boring it to be able to handle a blower and then certifying it at 469HP & 439lb/ft of torque and giving it the identical acceleration times of the CTS-V? Who are they kidding? In THAT league it's "go big or go home" with respect to power, and a 4.4 liter supercharged Northstar AIN'T gonna cut it.
I've seen a 300 SRT-8 run a 12.9 1/4 totally stock! Hell he even had the stock air cleaner installed! I haven't priced one out yet but if past history tells us anything about Cadillac pricing, that $77,000 "base" price of the STS-V will swell quite rapidly once the options start getting added. I'd like to see how the STS-V compares pricewise when they are all LOADED.
One other thing, the article made it quite plain that Cadillac farmed out the interior to the same company that MB uses for the Maybach. Can't wait to see the interior!

Cadillac again seems to want to compete against a certain group of cars yet ends up carving a middle ground niche with their supposed competitor. They bring the STS-V to market seemingly to compete with the likes of the BMW M-series and MB AMG series yet they bring a car that can't compete head to head and claim to be trying to hit a more price conscious middle ground. In the end, they come up short on hardware and try to claim a better value for the dollar. Do they not understand that someone willing to pay over $80 large for a car is NOT a penny-pincher? IMO, they skimped on the drivetrain by using that lame-ass Northstar. Come on, de-boring it to be able to handle a blower and then certifying it at 469HP & 439lb/ft of torque and giving it the identical acceleration times of the CTS-V? Who are they kidding? In THAT league it's "go big or go home" with respect to power, and a 4.4 liter supercharged Northstar AIN'T gonna cut it.


You hit the nail squarely on the head.

You can't call yourself "The Standard" if you are significantly outperformed by a car that has been on the market for years. I don't see how they could roll out the STS-V and not have it be very close to the E55 in performance.

Where are all the dohc guys now? Are you sure you woudn't prefer a blown LS2 with 525HP and 550lb-ft of torque right now?

Watch them have a special edition like that in a year or two

"Value" is for Hyundais

Cadillac should beat the best the world has to offer.

.... if past history tells us anything about Cadillac pricing, that $77,000 "base" price of the STS-V will swell quite rapidly once the options start getting added. I'd like to see how the STS-V compares pricewise when they are all LOADED.....

Actually, the available options list on the STS-V is as follows:

1-Sunroof delete

2-Engine block heater

Whew! Those options really drove up the price!

Now.... Click this to head over to Mercedes' website (http://www.mbusa.com/brand/models/CLS55.jsp) and configure a CLS 55 AMG. By the time you add all the optional features that are standard on the STS-V (like COMAND Navigation, ventilated seats, 6-CD changer(!?!), upgraded brakes, etc....) you've now topped $100,000.

How often are you going to do a drag launch 0-60 run, and is the extra half a second worth $30,000? Your answer determined whether the CLS or the STS is the car for you.

~Fin.

While Cadillac failed to impress you all in 1/4 mile prowess, they seem to have managed to impress the editors at Autoweek with the overall package. Just read the latest edition and they had a glowing report on the STS-V. They admit that it's NOT the racing edge car the CTS-V is but they seem to be shooting for a more rounded aproach to a sport sedan in the STS-V. It sounds like they hit the mark from the tone of the article. Yeah it's not as fast as the E55 or M5 but then it's a good deal less expensive too.
The problem I see is this, Cadillac again seems to want to compete against a certain group of cars yet ends up carving a middle ground niche with their supposed competitor. They bring the STS-V to market seemingly to compete with the likes of the BMW M-series and MB AMG series yet they bring a car that can't compete head to head and claim to be trying to hit a more price conscious middle ground. In the end, they come up short on hardware and try to claim a better value for the dollar. Do they not understand that someone willing to pay over $80 large for a car is NOT a penny-pincher? IMO, they skimped on the drivetrain by using that lame-ass Northstar. Come on, de-boring it to be able to handle a blower and then certifying it at 469HP & 439lb/ft of torque and giving it the identical acceleration times of the CTS-V? Who are they kidding? In THAT league it's "go big or go home" with respect to power, and a 4.4 liter supercharged Northstar AIN'T gonna cut it.
I've seen a 300 SRT-8 run a 12.9 1/4 totally stock! Hell he even had the stock air cleaner installed! I haven't priced one out yet but if past history tells us anything about Cadillac pricing, that $77,000 "base" price of the STS-V will swell quite rapidly once the options start getting added. I'd like to see how the STS-V compares pricewise when they are all LOADED.
One other thing, the article made it quite plain that Cadillac farmed out the interior to the same company that MB uses for the Maybach. Can't wait to see the interior!

I hate to agree with you, Katshot, but I think that you are correct for once. :p
One thing though, I think that the STS-V will come fully loaded. Maybe a single option or two, just like the CTS-V.

While Cadillac failed to impress you all in 1/4 mile prowess, they seem to have managed to impress the editors at Autoweek with the overall package. Just read the latest edition and they had a glowing report on the STS-V. They admit that it's NOT the racing edge car the CTS-V is but they seem to be shooting for a more rounded aproach to a sport sedan in the STS-V. It sounds like they hit the mark from the tone of the article. Yeah it's not as fast as the E55 or M5 but then it's a good deal less expensive too.
The problem I see is this, Cadillac again seems to want to compete against a certain group of cars yet ends up carving a middle ground niche with their supposed competitor. They bring the STS-V to market seemingly to compete with the likes of the BMW M-series and MB AMG series yet they bring a car that can't compete head to head and claim to be trying to hit a more price conscious middle ground. In the end, they come up short on hardware and try to claim a better value for the dollar. Do they not understand that someone willing to pay over $80 large for a car is NOT a penny-pincher? IMO, they skimped on the drivetrain by using that lame-ass Northstar. Come on, de-boring it to be able to handle a blower and then certifying it at 469HP & 439lb/ft of torque and giving it the identical acceleration times of the CTS-V? Who are they kidding? In THAT league it's "go big or go home" with respect to power, and a 4.4 liter supercharged Northstar AIN'T gonna cut it.
I've seen a 300 SRT-8 run a 12.9 1/4 totally stock! Hell he even had the stock air cleaner installed! I haven't priced one out yet but if past history tells us anything about Cadillac pricing, that $77,000 "base" price of the STS-V will swell quite rapidly once the options start getting added. I'd like to see how the STS-V compares pricewise when they are all LOADED.
One other thing, the article made it quite plain that Cadillac farmed out the interior to the same company that MB uses for the Maybach. Can't wait to see the interior! Is this really Katshot? I think someone else hijacked his screen name :highfive: . Just kidding, I can't believe we agree on something related to Cadillacs.
The asteroid should hit any minute now.... :duck:

Actually, the available options list on the STS-V is as follows:

1-Sunroof delete

2-Engine block heater

Whew! Those options really drove up the price!

Now.... Click this to head over to Mercedes' website (http://www.mbusa.com/brand/models/CLS55.jsp) and configure a CLS 55 AMG. By the time you add all the optional features that are standard on the STS-V (like COMAND Navigation, ventilated seats, 6-CD changer(!?!), upgraded brakes, etc....) you've now topped $100,000.

How often are you going to do a drag launch 0-60 run, and is the extra half a second worth $30,000? Your answer determined whether the CLS or the STS is the car for you.

~Fin.

It is much more than half a second. At higher speeds the CLS simply walks away. Also, it looks like nothing else on the market. Some people will love it. Some will hate it. But it sure doesn't look like its $30,000 cheaper little brother.

I actually thought the 92-96 Seville was the best looking ever

The STS is not in the same league with the CLS. The CTS-V beat or matched the S4, M3, M5 and C32 in performance and value. The STS-V beat the.........the........the.........:suspense: . Hey how 'bout that sticker price? :hide: If your argument for the STS-V is that it's cheaper than the Mercedes or BMW your barking up the wrong tree. You see what made the CTS-V work was that it DOES beat the competition. It wasn't JUST that is was less expensive, more importantly it outperformed the others. If I'm in the $77,000 car market, I'll spend another 10% and get the E55 thank you.

One other thing, the article made it quite plain that Cadillac farmed out the interior to the same company that MB uses for the Maybach. Can't wait to see the interior!

I believe you are referring to Draexlmaier, which also provides interior parts for the $300,000-plus Maybach.

It's not an argument, I was simply correcting the mistaken assumption that there would be many expensive options on the STS-V. Katshot said the following:

I'd like to see how the STS-V compares pricewise when they are all LOADED.

I obliged with some information. It wasn't my idea to "play the value card".

I still find it ridiculous that people pore over every last .1 second on cars of this caliber. Once you get to sub 5 second 0-60 and 13's in the quarter mile, you're just nit-picking. Both are stupid fast, and it comes down to personal preference of brand, styling and price.

I believe you are referring to Draexlmaier, which also provides interior parts for the $300,000-plus Maybach.

Yes, that's correct.
I'm actually kind of surprised you guys are having the reactions you are to my post. My post was pretty much the same thing I've said in previous posts. Maybe my first paragraph supporting the STS-V threw you all.
I guess I was just kind of taken aback by the title of the thread. Like 469lb/ft of torque isn't enough? I must admit, I find the numbers kind of misleading though. With the kind of hp and torque figures the car has, I'd expect better performance. Is it possible that either the test car was not up to par, or is Cadillac overstating the specs? Either way, I just wish they would at least match the competition and then see how the car fairs. Bringing the cars out with sub-standard performance and setting the price a little lower as a reason for it sets up the car to be seen as sub par for the market it's supposedly intended for. I mean what would happen if the Z06 were nowhere near as fast or as good handling as the Viper? Who would care that it's lower priced. It would be lost in the shuffle because the lower priced car would be EXPECTED to not perform at the level of the more expensive cars. What makes the Z06 so special is that even though it is a lower priced car, it DOES perform at or above the level of the more expensive cars. So how does the same company that understands the need for the Z06 to do what it does, not understand the need for the Cadillac cars to do the same?

It's not an argument, I was simply correcting the mistaken assumption that there would be many expensive options on the STS-V. Katshot said the following:



I obliged with some information. It wasn't my idea to "play the value card".

I still find it ridiculous that people pore over every last .1 second on cars of this caliber. Once you get to sub 5 second 0-60 and 13's in the quarter mile, you're just nit-picking. Both are stupid fast, and it comes down to personal preference of brand, styling and price.

You have got to be joking right?

0.8 in the 1/4 mile is HUGE. That is 8 car lengths - walking away.

If you were comparing pure luxury cars like the STS and the LS400 it would not be important. But we are comparing the high performance versions.

0.8 in the 1/4 mile and 5 seconds over 100mph is enormous.

The performance gap between them is so great that it is an embarrassment to GM since the E55 drivetrain has been out for 2 years!

The V boys should be ashamed it can't even beat its little brother.

I just KNEW this would happen when I heard they were going with a Northstar engine rather than using the tried and true Chevy engine. Is there supposed to be a AWD version of the STS-V coming too?

The V boys should be ashamed it can't even beat its little brother.

Not trying to pick a fight here, but the previous M5 rarely beat the M3 at anything. We'll have to wait and see how the new pair match up.

Not trying to pick a fight here, but the previous M5 rarely beat the M3 at anything. We'll have to wait and see how the new pair match up.

Good point but....

1. The 5 series was never built on the same platform as the 3 series like STS and CTS are

2. The new 5 series is much faster than the M3

3. Caddy is the new guy in town and can't do what others did in the past to gain market share.

I don't know if there is enough distincition between the CTS and STS like there is between the 3 and 5

Cadillac is barking up the wrong tree with value. I don't understand why Cadillac isn't competing directly with MB. People will pay the price if you build a car worthy of it, and Cadillac is definately a company that COULD built it, if they weren't selling with the wrong idea in mind. When the ULS makes its debut, hopefully we'll see a true competitor to the AMG, but for now, the STS-V isn't a bad vehicle, it's just not quite there. I agree, a S/C LS2 would be a better engine, but the fact it's a Cadillac engine is good. Cadillac is doing a good job of changing their image, who knows, maybe the next generation STS-V will have a Cadillac V-12 or something like that.

One big problem Cadillac has to solve - which BMW and MB don't have - is a way to distance themselves from their lesser siblings at GM. Cadillac is supposed to be a premium brand but it is still under the umbrella of GM. MB, BMW and a host of others don't have that issue to deal with. A BMW engine is a BMW engine etc, etc. Whereas Cadillac is trying to establish and maintain some standalone personality by utilizing the Northstar engine rather than the Chevy engine. It's a tough spot to be in. They have a ton of off the shelf parts to use yet if they do, they must deal with the stigma of having a premium car sharing parts with a much lower priced car. If they had produced a good solid engine line, call it Northstar if you want, that would have continually expanded to meet the ever growing needs of the entire model line, they might have had a chance. But now what they have is an engine that is seriously long in the tooth and at it's maximum potential (IMO). And what makes matters even worse, they are all of a sudden sharing the Northstar with other model lines (Buick and Pontiac). Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. GM just doesn't ever seem to have a cohesive plan that gets carried through. They go one way, then another, then another.
This is basically what I told Cadillac execs years ago in meetings. I felt that in order for them to get back to the "standard of the world" they needed to:
1. Build a stand alone car division
2. Share as little componentry as possible (especially drivetrain)
3. Elevate quality to a level that could compete with anyone
4. Limit their models to a few DISTINCT vehicles that had unique personalities and designs
5. Revamp the dealer network so customers KNEW Cadillac was not just another GM car
6. Eat warranty repairs without squabbling. Whatever it takes to make the customer happy goes
7. Set a competitive price but don't offer stripped-down models to draw in price shoppers
8. Stick with the plan for enough years until the market comes around. In other words be patient, it takes years to gain a reputation like they want.

But instead, they have:
1. A car line that is fairly distinctively styled but all the models look the same.
2. Option lists that allow any model to be both a high-end car and a low-end car.
3. Quality control issues that don't get solved quickly.
4. An engine line that is no longer able to fulfill the mission of the company.
5. Dealers that are paired with all kinds of vehicles (our local one is paired with Hyundai).
6. They alienate customers by not fixing problems.
7. They think that just because they bring out a good car, they should be respected in the industry no questions asked.

What planet are they on?

Katshot

OUTSTANDING analysis!

Lutz needs to bring you on.

Ford dropped their engine program that was going to produce a hemi-beating V8 to replace the undersized modulat V8 and now they suffer. Cadillac needs to develop a new dohc motor that would be around 5.5 liters in V8 form and 7 liters in V12 form. They could destroke the 12 somewhat to give it more revs.

Not trying to pick a fight here, but the previous M5 rarely beat the M3 at anything. We'll have to wait and see how the new pair match up.

In 2004, the M5 was faster than the M3 in ALL acceleration tests. The M3 was faster on the track.

In 2006 this will again be true.

In 2004, the M5 was faster than the M3 in ALL acceleration tests. The M3 was faster on the track.

In 2006 this will again be true.

I would bet the ranch that the M5 will be faster on any course faster than a parking lot

I was thinking about the STS-V after I read the motor trend review tonight. I'm beginning the think the car will sell like Cadillac Executives expect it to. 2,000 cars per year is peanuts to GM, or even Porsche and it's a 1/4 of Ferrari's annual production.

The STS-V is a very fast sport sedan, not the fastest but it's quick enough. It's also about $15,000 cheaper than the M5 and E55 (It's actually going to compete with the E63 because the 55 is going away soon, which will probably cost more than the 55. Plus, the German labor rates are rising) which will make a difference to the people that can stretch to $75K but not $90 - $100K+.

We should remember that they're not trying to sell 10K or even 5K per year. If they don't sell very well I'm sure they'll move for around $72 - $73K no problem. Actually, the M5 isn't flying off of the dealers lots, the store around the corner from me had one for 2 weeks, and they finally got list price for it ($91-$92K). I personally think there's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on with reports about our economy, especially with the real estate market (when you look at the margin for error on their "esitimated" growth reports you'll see it's around 15%), so $90 grand is really pushing it for a sport sedan. The more important new Cadillac is the Escalade.

Katshot
OUTSTANDING analysis!
Lutz needs to bring you on.


Anytime Mr. Lutz wants a little help, I would be more than happy to help him shake things up a bit.

I was thinking about the STS-V after I read the motor trend review tonight. I'm beginning the think the car will sell like Cadillac Executives expect it to. 2,000 cars per year is peanuts to GM, or even Porsche and it's a 1/4 of Ferrari's annual production.

The STS-V is a very fast sport sedan, not the fastest but it's quick enough. It's also about $15,000 cheaper than the M5 and E55 (It's actually going to compete with the E63 because the 55 is going away soon, which will probably cost more than the 55. Plus, the German labor rates are rising) which will make a difference to the people that can stretch to $75K but not $90 - $100K+.

We should remember that they're not trying to sell 10K or even 5K per year. If they don't sell very well I'm sure they'll move for around $72 - $73K no problem. Actually, the M5 isn't flying off of the dealers lots, the store around the corner from me had one for 2 weeks, and they finally got list price for it ($91-$92K). I personally think there's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on with reports about our economy, especially with the real estate market (when you look at the margin for error on their "esitimated" growth reports you'll see it's around 15%), so $90 grand is really pushing it for a sport sedan. The more important new Cadillac is the Escalade.

That is a lot of excuses for a car that doens't peform up to market standards!

Just like I told you last month, the Northstar is the weak link. It is too small to play with the big boys. You might be able to accept Cadillac being a lesser performing, cheap alternative.

I can't.

I want the STANDARD OF THE WORLD - not a luxury division of Hyundai.

This is a flagship car - not a mass market production mover. It is supposed to represent the finest sedan that GM can build and it can't even match cars out on the road for a couple of years (the E55 drivetrain).

Buyers who don't care about 0.8 in the 1/4 mile are not the type of buyers who buy M5s and E55s anyway!

You can get away with the reg STS being 0.8 sec slower in the 1/4 than the new 550i. You can't get away with it in the limited production high performance models.

GET A NEW MOTOR CADILLAC

Anytime Mr. Lutz wants a little help, I would be more than happy to help him shake things up a bit.

If I had his email address I would be sending him a note!

BIG BORE V8 and Kats for President!

You said it.

The January Car & Driver is just as disappointing. The STS was off the pace of the others by 12-16 seconds to 155 mph! Even while lagging in power by just 5 or 6%? I did note the top speed for STS V is 155. Even though the German cars have now discarded that figure and gone higher. GM is so slavish to its dated perception of European performance. The 300SRT8 will pass them all with top speed of 171! Of course the SRT8 gas mileage is atrocious but I noticed only 12 mpg for STS V. I have to say they will have trouble getting 77K. In my opinion the STS V should more less be the standard power for STS. My 05' STS V8 is no match for my 05' 300C. Amazing. Cadillac has its work cut out for it. I doubt if I will shell out 35K more for the STS V over the 300SRT.

STS V , back to the drawing board.

Come to think of it, STS base model back to the drawing board.

We purchased an 05 300C and an 05 STS V8 this year. You're wrong. Chrysler 300C is superior to Cadillac STS in almost everyway including transmission. GM has its work cut out for it.

We purchased an 05 300C and an 05 STS V8 this year. You're wrong. Chrysler 300C is superior to Cadillac STS in almost everyway including transmission. GM has its work cut out for it.

No, never!!
The STS and the 300C are two different classes. The interior in the 300 is so much plastic and look at the swiches! The leather looks like the made of synthetic cows!

I´m pretty sure almost all of the future STS V customers will be very happy with their cars. We wait of the comments of these, I hope very soon.

Harry

That is a lot of excuses for a car that doens't peform up to market standards!
Not true. They're moving in the right direction and from the sound of the reviews the car is woth every penny of $77K.

Just like I told you last month, the Northstar is the weak link. It is too small to play with the big boys. You might be able to accept Cadillac being a lesser performing, cheap alternative.
They should have a bigger version of the N* or a new DOHC design. I wish GM would stop making the weird crap like the SSR, HHR and Azteks and put those billions into new engines. Once the XV10 or 12 come out and if they can get it in anything besides the Escalade they'll be in business.

I can't.

I want the STANDARD OF THE WORLD - not a luxury division of Hyundai.
There are some bad decisions being made at GM but they're trying to turn things around as quickly as they can. The union contracts really have them screwed to the wall, while companies like Toyota don't have unionized employees at their American plants.

This is a flagship car - not a mass market production mover. It is supposed to represent the finest sedan that GM can build and it can't even match cars out on the road for a couple of years (the E55 drivetrain).
Not really. The ULS will be their flagship, the STS-V is their sport sedan.

Buyers who don't care about 0.8 in the 1/4 mile are not the type of buyers who buy M5s and E55s anyway!
I think you're over valuing .8 of a second.

You can get away with the reg STS being 0.8 sec slower in the 1/4 than the new 550i. You can't get away with it in the limited production high performance models.
But the 5 series is stone cold ugly, so the only one worth buying is the M5 for its performance.

GET A NEW MOTOR CADILLAC, The XV12 or 10 haven't been officially cancelled...
....

We agree in some areas and others....

Not true. They're moving in the right direction and from the sound of the reviews the car is woth every penny of $77K.


No way. My cousin is getting a new performance sedan. We went to the MB dealer on Sat and they have a brand new E55 they will sell for close to $80K. It is a no-brainer over the STS-V.

Not really. The ULS will be their flagship, the STS-V is their sport sedan.


So you bring out a sport sedan that can't keep up with its comp?

I think you're over valuing .8 of a second

Hardly. Next you go to the strip see how large a difference that is just in the 1/4 mile. At highway speeds the E55 will leave it like it is standing still. THese cars were meant for highway speeds and there the difference is even greater. You can't be last to market with the slowest car and the lowest status and expect people to go crazy buying it.

But the 5 series is stone cold ugly, so the only one worth buying is the M5 for its performance.

I have never been a Bangle fan at all. Now Mercedes has made the new S Class BUTT UGLY with that Bangle-clone rear end.

They should have a bigger version of the N* or a new DOHC design. I wish GM would stop making the weird crap like the SSR, HHR and Azteks and put those billions into new engines. Once the XV10 or 12 come out and if they can get it in anything besides the Escalade they'll be in business.


WE agree 100%

Heck, they don't even have to go V10 - just make a 6 liter dohc V8 and look at the difference in power - especially torque.

4.6 liters just doesn't cut it.

Also, if they decide to go more cylinders I hope they go V12 and not 10. 10 cylinders are an unbalanced engine that sounds like crap. Dodge spents years trying to make the Viper sound like something other than a powerful tractor.

The ULS is a car that's still WAY out in the future from what I've heard. Cadillac themselves refers to the STS as their "flagship" model. It has been for years IMO.
You may refer to the BMW as ugly, but it's STILL considered the benchmark of that market.
Whether the STS-V or any other Cadillac is up to the task of being compared to the best in the world is anybody's guess. The only thing I can say is that they must realize that ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS. They can claim to be a true competitor all they want but unless they truely prepare the car for the battle, they are only talking out their ass, and that will get them nowhere. The CTS-V proved they could run with the best at least as far as performance went, now they bring the STS-V out and that seems to be the only thing it DOESN'T match up with the competition in. Okay GM the first shot (the CTS-V) was left of center, the second (the STS-V) is to the right. Can we try for the bulls-eye now? Give us a car that nails both the performance AND the refinement of the competition.

The ULS is a car that's still WAY out in the future from what I've heard. Cadillac themselves refers to the STS as their "flagship" model. It has been for years IMO.
You may refer to the BMW as ugly, but it's STILL considered the benchmark of that market.
Whether the STS-V or any other Cadillac is up to the task of being compared to the best in the world is anybody's guess. The only thing I can say is that they must realize that ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS. They can claim to be a true competitor all they want but unless they truely prepare the car for the battle, they are only talking out their ass, and that will get them nowhere. The CTS-V proved they could run with the best at least as far as performance went, now they bring the STS-V out and that seems to be the only thing it DOESN'T match up with the competition in. Okay GM the first shot (the CTS-V) was left of center, the second (the STS-V) is to the right. Can we try for the bulls-eye now? Give us a car that nails both the performance AND the refinement of the competition.
I honestly think the next gen CTS and CTS-V will tell us where they're heading in the pecking order. That'll be the first 2nd generation vehicle of the art and science idea. I feel like the Escalade is a let down after all of their talk that it would be more unique compared to the other GM SUVs. Total horse shit. No keyfob type of start mechanism like the XLR, STS. I know they say the column shifter leaves more space for storage but it looks old and like a normal truck, this is nearly a $70,000 truck! Gives us seomthing cool like the gear selector in the M5 or M6. One more thing, the wheel wells look like they should have 30" off road tires in there. Lower the damn truck, 99% of it's life will be on pavement, and get rid of some of the excess space.................

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

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

Idiot marketing department convinced them a Cadillac had to have a 32V dohc engine!

idots

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

Hey, no fair copying posts! I thought I was going nuts. Talk about Dejavu! :bonkers:

Why they spent all the development money to SC the Northstar when GM has a perfectly good LS7 that could have been used is beyond me. Would've saved them a ton and made the STS-V into a real competitor.
If they could make it run as smooth as a N* or a good DOHC engine then there really wasn't an intelligent reason behind not putting it in. I know my LS1 and 6 engined cars would wobble at a stop light. However, with the LS7's added displacement they could have put a less agressive cam on it + a SC and pulled it off. It would probably put out over 530HP and 500lb-ft of torque, while being as smooth as the N* (unless there's an inherent difference with the V angle between the blocks (90 vs 85...).

- edit
I meant to say it would probably put around 530HP to the ground.

I think you nailed it with a lesser cam and blower. The cam is the only thing making it bump - not the engine design. Many ohv V8s idle smoothly

Having purchased an 05 Chrysler 300C and an 05 Cadillac STS V8 this year affords me a unique perspective. For starters the doors on the 300C close like a bank vault, the doors on the STS,like a Hyundai! Unless you have the Tuscany leather in the STS, the Nuance leather and the 300C leather are too close in quality to be concerned with. The plastics in the STS are not exactly up to international standards anymore than the 300C. The seat comfort and position in the 300C are superior. The gauges are more expensive looking in the 300C. The STS rear armrest is superior though.

I think you nailed it with a lesser cam and blower. The cam is the only thing making it bump - not the engine design. Many ohv V8s idle smoothly

The LT1 in the Fleetwoods idles so smooth that you can't even feel it, even in gear.

Having purchased an 05 Chrysler 300C and an 05 Cadillac STS V8 this year affords me a unique perspective. For starters the doors on the 300C close like a bank vault, the doors on the STS,like a Hyundai! Unless you have the Tuscany leather in the STS, the Nuance leather and the 300C leather are too close in quality to be concerned with. The plastics in the STS are not exactly up to international standards anymore than the 300C. The seat comfort and position in the 300C is superior. The gauges are more expensive looking in the 300C. The STS rear armrest is superior though.

Personally, I REALLY hate some things in the 300 series cars. I think the door panels have a cheap look and feel, the carpet looks and feels cheap, and the center driveline hump being squared off causes the cheap carpet to break on the sharp edges and only makes the interior look that much cheaper.

Cadillacs have not been known for quality carpeting either.

The new issue of Automobile Magazine has a 0-60 time of 5.3 sec and a rather scathing review of the Caddy.

Who ever signed off on this car at GM should be sacked.The northslug engine is the problem.Whether it be supercharged or normally aspirated it is a boat anchor by todays standards.

Considering that this is supposed to be GMs flagship sport sedan it is living proof of GMs sinking to has been status.

The GM execs must be smoking crack if they think this car is going to enhance their status in the minds of customers.

My God. What happened to the XV12 supposedly at late stage of development in 2002! The wheels turn so slowly at GM. Never fast enough to respond to the competition in a meaningful way.

The car is an automatic. If mags got those times testing it, i do not think they are going to improve much, if at all.

Look, you can't expect a homerun on the first pitch. The STS-V is the flagship for only so long until the ULS debuts. Cadillac is revamping their entire image, creating new models, starting from scratch on a lot. You give them a few years and they'll work wonders. It takes a long time for changes to come. The 2nd generation STS-V in 3 or 4 years (i'm assuming) will be something really special. Let's not forget just how nice the car is right now. True, the drivetrain is a big part of the vehicle but it's not the only thing.

Look, you can't expect a homerun on the first pitch. The STS-V is the flagship for only so long until the ULS debuts. Cadillac is revamping their entire image, creating new models, starting from scratch on a lot. You give them a few years and they'll work wonders. It takes a long time for changes to come. The 2nd generation STS-V in 3 or 4 years (i'm assuming) will be something really special. Let's not forget just how nice the car is right now. True, the drivetrain is a big part of the vehicle but it's not the only thing.


In the market segment of this vehicle the drivetrain is critical.In typical GM fashion they are in the trailing edge again.This car would have been a player 3 yrs ago but the target is constantly moving and GM cant keep up.

GM should have saved its developement cost on this model rather than showing to the marketplace again that it doesnt have what it takes to be a big player.

If GM exists in 3 or 4 yrs and comes up with a next gen STS-V it will probably only be competitive with the previous gen competition.

GM should have made this powertrain an upgrade option on the regular STS,ditched the runcrap tires ,and incorporated the interior upgrades into all of the sts models and kept the price point down to buy market share.

GM has blown the premium image of Cadillac over the past 30yrs by producing unreliable cars with dismal resale value and trailing edge technology and is going to have a long haul in turning things around.

Look, you can't expect a homerun on the first pitch. The STS-V is the flagship for only so long until the ULS debuts. Cadillac is revamping their entire image, creating new models, starting from scratch on a lot. You give them a few years and they'll work wonders. It takes a long time for changes to come. The 2nd generation STS-V in 3 or 4 years (i'm assuming) will be something really special. Let's not forget just how nice the car is right now. True, the drivetrain is a big part of the vehicle but it's not the only thing.

Your standards are too low.

Cadillac has had plenty of years to produce a car that could run with the big boys.

But that's the thing, they really haven't. It wasn't until someone at GM got the bright idea that maybe Cadillac needed a few changes. This was only a few years ago, when the new CTS was unvieled. They've had 35 years in which to do things but 30 of those years were with a corporate image and brand that wouldn't have allowed for a true Caddy competitor.

The new issue of Automobile Magazine has a 0-60 time of 5.3 sec and a rather scathing review of the Caddy.

Who ever signed off on this car at GM should be sacked.The northslug engine is the problem.Whether it be supercharged or normally aspirated it is a boat anchor by todays standards.

Considering that this is supposed to be GMs flagship sport sedan it is living proof of GMs sinking to has been status.

The GM execs must be smoking crack if they think this car is going to enhance their status in the minds of customers.

Hi KWS6000,
I just wonder what kind of test-driver the automobile-mag has:histeric: :histeric: :histeric:

It sounds like they have some painters doing this job!!!

Harry

I know when the cts-v first came out C&D and MT showd 13.4 1/4 mile. I was not impressed. I took mine to the track and ran 13.3 and i should not be able to beat professional drivers especially with a manual. and i did. so who knows what this will really run. I am not impressed with the current numbers, i want 12.8 or less for 77K and i will get it

I know when the cts-v first came out C&D and MT showd 13.4 1/4 mile. I was not impressed. I took mine to the track and ran 13.3 and i should not be able to beat professional drivers especially with a manual. and i did. so who knows what this will really run. I am not impressed with the current numbers, i want 12.8 or less for 77K and i will get it

You can usually knock a couple of tenths off the best time from a magazine because most mags don't powershift or really dump the clutch. Some are more conservative than others. Road & Track not only doesn't powershift but they lift completely on shifts so their times are usually a tenth or two slower than Car & Driver. Also R&T does NOT correct for altitude or temperature like C&D does - a big mistake IMO.

On cars with manual transmissions the difference between what you can get and what they get is usually greater. Look at the GTO - Motor Trend got a 13.3 but the conservatives at R&T got a 13.7!

The last thing to remember is a lot of car mag writers are not really good drivers despite that being their "profession". I think some of them are more writers than they are car people.

I bet there are drivers right here on this forum that could smoke the average mag writer.