AutoWeek put the STS-V on this week's cover (http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=103670), with a rave review that concludes, "...we think the STS-V is one awesome Cadillac, possibly the best car the division has produced."

Now if I just had $77K lying around in the sofa cushions.

Good, maybe some of the anti-car rag pundits will back off a little bit now.

Also, if anyone has read the article, it seems to clearly define the car not so much as competition for the M5, but rather a refined urban Corvette for the family, with all of the technology luxury car buyers are looking for.

I like what I see.

“The STS-V casts a performance shadow over the entire Cadillac line, and gets rid of the perception that Cadillacs are big cars for old men. Changing that perception is No. 1 on our list.

Thank you God!

Good, maybe some of the anti-car rag pundits will back off a little bit now.

Also, if anyone has read the article, it seems to clearly define the car not so much as competition for the M5, but rather a refined urban Corvette for the family, with all of the technology luxury car buyers are looking for.

Do you really consider AutoWeek a real car mag? And what did they test it against?

It gets a good review and the haters still bitch. Great.

Do you really consider AutoWeek a real car mag? And what did they test it against?

MCeasar, lol.....do you think Motor Trend is?????????
Usually they test the cars up to 100 mph and usually they give no top speed numbers!!!!!
I, for myself trust the most in Road & Track.

Harry

MCeasar, lol.....do you think Motor Trend is?????????
Usually they test the cars up to 100 mph and usually they give no top speed numbers!!!!!
I, for myself trust the most in Road & Track.

Harry

So far

Not good reviews
Car & Driver
Automobile
Motor Trend

Good Review
Autoweek

The last one out is Road & Track - which I agree is the best judge of premium GT cars. Car & Driver is second as they are a little more biased to the mid priced cars.

You want to know why I am pissed? I grew up with Cadillac being the STANDARD OF THE WORLD. They lost it along the way. Now they say they are getting back there so they spend all this money and come out with a car that can't match up to the established cars forget about SURPASSING them.

THAT SUCKS

No, don't give me that crap about it being a better value because it offers 80% of the performance for less money. That is a Saturn objective! And MB is selling E55s in the low 80s so it really isn't even a better value.

When are we going to have an American car that we can say is clearly the BEST in its class - period!

So far

Not good reviews
Car & Driver
Automobile
Motor Trend

Good Review
Autoweek

The last one out is Road & Track - which I agree is the best judge of premium GT cars. Car & Driver is second as they are a little more biased to the mid priced cars.

You want to know why I am pissed? I grew up with Cadillac being the STANDARD OF THE WORLD. They lost it along the way. Now they say they are getting back there so they spend all this money and come out with a car that can't match up to the established cars forget about SURPASSING them.

THAT SUCKS

No, don't give me that crap about it being a better value because it offers 80% of the performance for less money. That is a Saturn objective! And MB is selling E55s in the low 80s so it really isn't even a better value.

When are we going to have an American car that we can say is clearly the BEST in its class - period!
Hi MCaesar,
You have already one
2006 Covette Z06
this car for that price is unbeatable.

I`ll agree with you in ranking of US auto magazins!!!!!

Harry

Personally, I think it's a good idea to read ALL the articles you can and consider the points brought up by ALL the people playing with them. Simply adopting the views of a single source is not being very objective IMO. The magazines should be looked at as a "reference" not a "bible".

Personally, I think it's a good idea to read ALL the articles you can and consider the points brought up by ALL the people playing with them. Simply adopting the views of a single source is not being very objective IMO. The magazines should be looked at as a "reference" not a "bible".

:yeah:

I agree, isn't the whole point to read all the articles you can, and form your own opinion. Taking someone's opinion as the truth can often be misleading. All it takes is one criticizing article and all the bashers take that for the undeniable truth.

PS Car & Driver actually does more extensive testing than Road & Track - particularly at high speed. On GT cars they go all the way up 0-150 and they also actually go to top speed. They ran their CTS-V to 162 and their 300C SRT8 to 173
no "est" top speed for them

Hi MCaesar,
You have already one
2006 Covette Z06
this car for that price is unbeatable.

I`ll agree with you in ranking of US auto magazins!!!!!

Harry

That is true.

The Z06 smokes the Viper for $20 grand less and keeps up with the Ford GT that is $100,000 more! It will run with the Ferrari F430 and the Lambo.

The CTS-V is another one as long as they can fix the rear end problems.

The GTO is an excellent performance value. They just need to restyle it.

But the decision to go with FWD for their mainstream cars is a huge istake.

:yeah:

I agree, isn't the whole point to read all the articles you can, and form your own opinion. Taking someone's opinion as the truth can often be misleading. All it takes is one criticizing article and all the bashers take that for the undeniable truth.

Obviously your own needs and driving experience are most important. But when all the articles but one are not good doesn't that tell you something?

We will see what Road & Track says.

That is true.

The Z06 smokes the Viper for $20 grand less and keeps up with the Ford GT that is $100,000 more! It will run with the Ferrari F430 and the Lambo.

The CTS-V is another one as long as they can fix the rear end problems.

The GTO is an excellent performance value. They just need to restyle it.

But the decision to go with FWD for their mainstream cars is a huge istake.

MCeasar, you talking about the wheel-hop on the CTS V but as you might know I´m a german and drove most of all fast cars over here, do you know that any Porsche have the wheel-hop. Interresting no one talks about this!!!
The same with the 2000 M5, depends on road surface but there is wheel-hop too, I can go on and on with this!!!!
The GTO is a very good car but looks too much like a Sunfire or Cavalier, you are right!
Did you went on Cadillacfaq.com and watched some Videos of hard launching CTS V´s? Check it out!!!!:)

Harry

Do you really consider AutoWeek a real car mag? And what did they test it against?

Nope. I think its BETTER than alot of the ones out there. More objective.

MCeasar, you talking about the wheel-hop on the CTS V but as you might know I´m a german and drove most of all fast cars over here, do you know that any Porsche have the wheel-hop. Interresting no one talks about this!!!
The same with the 2000 M5, depends on road surface but there is wheel-hop too, I can go on and on with this!!!!
The GTO is a very good car but looks too much like a Sunfire or Cavalier, you are right!
Did you went on Cadillacfaq.com and watched some Videos of hard launching CTS V´s? Check it out!!!!:)

Harry

That is true. 911s have always had bad wheel hop. Good point.

Here is forum review:


Drove the STS-V this weekend at the Cadillac Drive Summit. Aesthetically, very nice front end with the front grill flowing very nicely into that scooped hood. Rear end kinda ugly with that spoiler sticking up looking like an upturned shovel. Drive-wise - lots of power on tap and very smooth power band. Steering/handling was a big disappointment though - no road feel like the V; no taut feedback through the steering wheel and suspension seemed soft. (And I miss the shifts and watching the tach.) Turning effort was light with no feedback. Feels like a big sedan with lots of power but no road feel. I think I'll stick with my old '04 V and all its shortcomings. Don't need a refined V that has no temperamental, bad boy manners. :stirpot:

MCeasar, you talking about the wheel-hop on the CTS V but as you might know I´m a german and drove most of all fast cars over here, do you know that any Porsche have the wheel-hop. Interresting no one talks about this!!!
The same with the 2000 M5, depends on road surface but there is wheel-hop too, I can go on and on with this!!!!
The GTO is a very good car but looks too much like a Sunfire or Cavalier, you are right!
Did you went on Cadillacfaq.com and watched some Videos of hard launching CTS V´s? Check it out!!!!:)

Harry

The issue is not with the wheel hop itself, although it isn't pleasant. The real issue is what wheel hop does to rear end longevity. I'm on my 4th rear differential and I firmly believe that wheel hop has shortened the lifespan of my diff's.

As for the STS-V. The sales will be the ultimate test. I smell huge overstocks and big discounts in their future. Who buys an uber-sedan that can't keep up. I've got to meet these people. As previously stated given the choice of a $75,000 sports sedan that's almost as fast and one that is the fastest for $5K more? Well that's just too easy.

But the decision to go with FWD for their mainstream cars is a huge istake.

No, FWD for mainstream cars isn't a bad idea. FWD is fine for daily drivers. If the STS-V was FWD you'd have a point.

As for the STS-V. The sales will be the ultimate test. I smell huge overstocks and big discounts in their future.

Huge overstocks on a car that will only number 2000 to begin with? We'll see.

No, FWD for mainstream cars isn't a bad idea. FWD is fine for daily drivers. If the STS-V was FWD you'd have a point.



Huge overstocks on a car that will only number 2000 to begin with? We'll see.

No FWD for mid sized/large cars is a big mistake. Do you see anyone lining up to buy the Bonneville or Lucerne? Nope.

Why is the Impala SS dogmeat compared to the Charger? Because it is FWD!

FWD is fine for economy cars and small cars. No one but a 65 year old DeVille buyer wants FWD on a decent car.

Or maybe it is just my imagination that GM is in the toilet and Chrysler is making money?

Front Wheel Fiasco

In my opinion, all of these magazines articles are nothing more than someone elses opinons based on their own preferences - preferences and priorities I may not share with these writers who I don't really know.

If I had based my decision on the magazine articles I read, I would never have purchased my CTS-V, but after I drove it I fell in love with it and bought it.

The reviews are interesting as much for what they say about the writers and magazines as for what they purport the car being reviewed to be, but I'll reserve judgement on the STS-V for when I actually test drive one for myself.

I love my CTS-V, but I recently test drove an AWD STS and I loved that car too, I have a hard time believing the STS-V wouldn't also make me a very happy owner.

I liked what the Autoweek article said about the car, but I too would have been a lot happier if Cadillac had put an LS7 in it so this performance delta wouldn't be there to make the STS-V look inadequate against its competition.

i like autoweek as well. to me, they seem the fairest of all. if i had the money to get an STS-V i would do it in a heartbeat. it's just so frickin bad anus! that's my review. kinda biased, i know, heh.:hide:

It's worth noting the STS V's gas mileage is poor considering its smaller displacement engine (over 1 liter less).It is true that may not matter to some buyers but it does indicate a lack of mechanical efficiency. Yes I know they were hotting it around. Just like the other cars.

In my opinion, all of these magazines articles are nothing more than someone elses opinons based on their own preferences - preferences and priorities I may not share with these writers who I don't really know.

If I had based my decision on the magazine articles I read, I would never have purchased my CTS-V, but after I drove it I fell in love with it and bought it.

The reviews are interesting as much for what they say about the writers and magazines as for what they purport the car being reviewed to be, but I'll reserve judgement on the STS-V for when I actually test drive one for myself.

I love my CTS-V, but I recently test drove an AWD STS and I loved that car too, I have a hard time believing the STS-V wouldn't also make me a very happy owner.

I liked what the Autoweek article said about the car, but I too would have been a lot happier if Cadillac had put an LS7 in it so this performance delta wouldn't be there to make the STS-V look inadequate against its competition.

Rodster111,
you are so right:thumbsup:
I hope we get the first STS V export model here to germany by march 2006 than I´ll test drive one and see if I TAKE IT.
When I switched after 3 C5 Vettes to an XLR I thought I would miss the power, especially in the 200 - 300 kph range (120-180) mph but it wasn`t.
Well, in this range the Vette is a little faster but I´ve had my XLR top end up to 289 kph (179 mph) with the Corsa - exhaust. before it was top end 278 kph (172 mph)
The fastest I´ve had my last 02 Vette 6 speed was 304 kph (189 mph)

Harry

Rodster111,
I just forgot, your gallery of your V is great.:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Harry

In the latest Car & Driver magazine the Charger SRT8 ran 4.8 seconds 0-60, 13.2@109 in 1/4, and..........it beat the $77,000 Cadillac STS-V around the road course by 1 full second and was only 0.1 sec behind the $92,000 Mercedes CLS55.

However, they did say the STS-V was outstanding in many areas and it had more than enough power for the job. In fact, they ranked it ABOVE the vaunted Mercedes CSL55.

Just read the Car & Driver story that was in my mailbox today. I was pleasantly surprised, expecting the STS-V to land a distant third. The Benz is drop-dead gorgeous, but if I did find $100K under the sofa cushions, the STS-V is the one that would park in my garage. I hate the looks of the Bangle-ized Bimmers and their asinine iDrive.

Just read the Car & Driver story that was in my mailbox today. I was pleasantly surprised, expecting the STS-V to land a distant third. The Benz is drop-dead gorgeous, but if I did find $100K under the sofa cushions, the STS-V is the one that would park in my garage. I hate the looks of the Bangle-ized Bimmers and their asinine iDrive.

BMW really screwed up with both Bangle and I Drive. What the heck were they thinking? But I am a power NUT. There is no way I could take the STS-V over the M5 if money was no object. 0-150 in 20 seconds versus 36 seconds is an eternity of difference. And, yes, I do drive that fast frequently. Even more to the point, if I ever am rich enough to lay out $100,000 for a car I do want the most powerful - especially when the gap is so large.

BUT

Put a blown LS7 under the hood and it is not even close!

harryctsv - Thanks for the compliment on my gallery. It's hard to take a bad shot of the CTS-V though!

Put a blown LS7 under the hood and it is not even close!

You could just about do that for the price difference vs the CLS55. Well, maybe not an expensive ass LS7 but a different powerful smallblock. :stirpot:

You don't even have to go LS7

You could use a blown LS2 that would beat the competition. Look at it this way, the NA LS2 already has 400HP. Any decent blower application would net you at least 525HP and well over 500lb-ft of torque.

In short, a blown LS2 would be more powerful than either the M5 or E55.

After seeing some posts about the STS with the 6.0L engine set up for some show in June or July I realized the Cadillac suits had no desire to be the No 1 out of the chute with the STS-V. Go part of the way and a certain number of the suckers will follow with their money. Well, yesterday I cancelled my STS-V order..maybe my wife will allow me to drive her '06 Z06 after it arrives. A fellow can hope, can't he?:yup:

After seeing some posts about the STS with the 6.0L engine set up for some show in June or July I realized the Cadillac suits had no desire to be the No 1 out of the chute with the STS-V. Go part of the way and a certain number of the suckers will follow with their money. Well, yesterday I cancelled my STS-V order..maybe my wife will allow me to drive her '06 Z06 after it arrives. A fellow can hope, can't he?:yup:
Hi Troll, you`ve might make a big mistake by cancelling your STS V but I´m sure your dealer wasn`t dissapointed about this, I´ll bet he sells your cancelled car sooner as you can look.

I wished we would have them also available in dec. here in Germany because I WANT ONE!!!!

Have a nice weekend

Harry

Just read the Car & Driver story that was in my mailbox today. I was pleasantly surprised, expecting the STS-V to land a distant third. The Benz is drop-dead gorgeous, but if I did find $100K under the sofa cushions, the STS-V is the one that would park in my garage. I hate the looks of the Bangle-ized Bimmers and their asinine iDrive.

I'll take the CLS myself. I just can't help drooling everytime I see one. VERY sharp looking car IMO.
Also, IF it ever happens, a Chevy-powered STS (super)-V would be hot stuff. According to what I read, the engine was the only drawback to the current STS-V, so if you eliminate that, you have a winner I guess, right?

You could just about do that for the price difference vs the CLS55. Well, maybe not an expensive ass LS7 but a different powerful smallblock. :stirpot:

A blown LS2 would have probably 75 more HP and 100 more lb-ft of torque for the same price.

Cadillac brought a supercharged LS2 to the SAE 100th Anniversary that had over 500HP and 500LB-ft. The articles didn't mention any Head or Cam work done to the motor so I'd say the 100/100 gain for forced induction on an LS2 is accurate

Cadillac brought a supercharged LS2 to the SAE 100th Anniversary that had over 500HP and 500LB-ft. The articles didn't mention any Head or Cam work done to the motor so I'd say the 100/100 gain for forced induction on an LS2 is accurate

I bet they will monitor sales and if sales slump they will put it in. Not many people buy a high performance car to come in 3rd by a wide margin.

Similarly, I bet if CTS-V sales don't pick up they will offer an automatic. The power curve of the LS2 will work great with an auto.

Harryctsv, I spent, in the early '60's, 18 months with the American Rock of the Marne Division, headquartered at the kaserne above Wurtzburg. Deutchland was good in those days. I'll bet marks (euros) that the STS-V will have a push-rod engine before next year is out; then, the M5 will be dusted for sure. Big bore, big torque-little bore, less torque e.g. the M5. My '02 Firebird has more torque than the M5.

Cadillac brought a supercharged LS2 to the SAE 100th Anniversary that had over 500HP and 500LB-ft. The articles didn't mention any Head or Cam work done to the motor so I'd say the 100/100 gain for forced induction on an LS2 is accurate

Man, talk about speculation!

I bet they will monitor sales and if sales slump they will put it in. Not many people buy a high performance car to come in 3rd by a wide margin.

Similarly, I bet if CTS-V sales don't pick up they will offer an automatic. The power curve of the LS2 will work great with an auto.

Not sure I'd agree with the first statement concerning the STS but I believe you're correct about the CTS. I would also agree about the LS2 and it's good fit with an automatic. I drove a new GTO and I was quite impressed by the low end grunt of the LS2.

Katshot: There is a second problem with the STS-V-a softer Cadillac style suspension when compared to the M5. Many of us who enjoy sedans with style and power also enjoy performance suspensions. Based on what GM has done with the STS at recent car shows, and what CTS-V has shown on the track and road, I do think we will see a version of the 6.0L engine soon. I hope, I hope. In the meantime, I think I will supercharge my Firebird and race my wife and her Z06 when it gets here.

Apparently it is admittedly so, as evidenced by Cadillac statements concerning the car. So I think it depends on whether Cadillac is just blowing smoke to cover for the lack of performance, or are being frank about their intentions for the car. Either way, they can certainly change their minds, it's been known to happen. ;)

Not sure I'd agree with the first statement concerning the STS but I believe you're correct about the CTS. I would also agree about the LS2 and it's good fit with an automatic. I drove a new GTO and I was quite impressed by the low end grunt of the LS2.

I have seen GTO guys on other forums who say the automatic is actually 0.1 faster

I've heard that too. Matter of fact, even GM themselves state that the GTO w/automatic is quicker than with the manual trans. I've used this very application as a perfect example of how automatics can certainly be the better choice, even when looking for the ultimate acceleration.
Matter of fact, I believe the auto buying public has been hood-winked for some time by the OEMs into thinking that we NEED manual transmissions for performance. Even worse is that they have people thinking that we need all the gears they force on us in these new cars. I mean come on, I need a 6-speed in a car that's got 500lb/ft of torque?! Please!:thehand:

If I'm not mistaken, f-bodies have been faster as automatics for a long time...

I don't know if Cadillac executives spend any time here.. I wish they did. It does appear that most people (here) want a raw performance STS-V. I still think they'll get more people buying the STS the way it IS - a softer version of the CTS-V - and maybe that's what they think as well..

Only time will tell. If the STS-V doesn't sell well, then maybe they'll stiffen the suspension and add more power.

Yes, in "stock" trim most sports cars are quicker with the stick but that's because the particular vehicle is optimized for the manual trans, plus the OEM doesn't want to spend the time and money setting up an automatic for the performance applications. Look back and you'll see there were plenty of vehicles over the years that were aknowledged as the fastest or quickest at the time and they were automatics. Think Buick Grand National, Chevy/GMC Syclone/Typhoon. That's just two I can think of right off the top of my head but also if you look at the pro racers, they all use automatics. But I'm getting off on a tangent here, sorry. Didn't mean to start a manual vs. automatic battle here.

Not having the choice of an automatic in my 2005 CTS-V is the only big dissapointment I have with the car. I would much rather have had an automatic, but tolerated the manual because I absolutely loved almost everything else the car offered. I can shift fairly well, and even occasionally enjoy doing it, but in 99% of my driving I would be much happier with the automatic, and probably faster too.

I do agree with Sal about the STS-V being intended as a softer version of the CTS-V and I agree that Cadillac will probably sell a lot of them that way. I still don't understand why Magnaride couldn't have been made to have an adequate range to achieve both goals based on its setting - luxurious ride or stiffer performance.

That said, I still think it was a mistake not using the LS7 in the car. It would have been great to have the performance bragging rights the LS7 would've given the car over its competition just like the CTS-V has.

I've heard that too. Matter of fact, even GM themselves state that the GTO w/automatic is quicker than with the manual trans. I've used this very application as a perfect example of how automatics can certainly be the better choice, even when looking for the ultimate acceleration.
Matter of fact, I believe the auto buying public has been hood-winked for some time by the OEMs into thinking that we NEED manual transmissions for performance. Even worse is that they have people thinking that we need all the gears they force on us in these new cars. I mean come on, I need a 6-speed in a car that's got 500lb/ft of torque?! Please!:thehand:

Great points

I have also been saying for years that manufacturers have gone overboard. Now MB has a 7 speed - GIVE ME A BREAK.

If you make engines with good torque you don't need 7 or even 6 speeds!

As for the manual transmissions - there were two points there.

For a couple of decades the public was buying nothing but small displacement 4 cylinders from Japan that DO need a stick because they have no low end torque. Many of those cars are 1 to 2 seconds slower just to 60 with an auto!

But with a proper American V8 you don't need all those gears.

If I'm not mistaken, f-bodies have been faster as automatics for a long time...

I don't know if Cadillac executives spend any time here.. I wish they did. It does appear that most people (here) want a raw performance STS-V. I still think they'll get more people buying the STS the way it IS - a softer version of the CTS-V - and maybe that's what they think as well..

Only time will tell. If the STS-V doesn't sell well, then maybe they'll stiffen the suspension and add more power.

Exactly

They have better engines at their disposal to do so.

And if CTS-V sales don't pick up, bet the house that an automatic will be introduced for 07

I bet they will monitor sales and if sales slump they will put it in. Not many people buy a high performance car to come in 3rd by a wide margin. [Was in referance to LS7/LS2 with a blower]

Similarly, I bet if CTS-V sales don't pick up they will offer an automatic. The power curve of the LS2 will work great with an auto.
I think since anyone could have seen SC Northstar from a mile away (the SC Northstar of the Evoq concept car was raved about) we might see the XV12 Northstar of the Cien that pumps out 750 horsepower and 450 lb-ft of torque with the SIZE of a V8 (which was also raved about and in my opinion should have been the XLR). I think Cadillac is heading that way so they can say when they finaly do reach the top "We did it with our in house engines, not Chevys." Why do you think Chevy only lets Corvette have the most powerful "LSX" engine. Its shareing the LS6 with the CTS-V was just because they knew the vette was getting the LS7 soon and releaseing the LS2 for the "share around" engine. Thats why the firs year the GTO got the LS1 and not the LS6, now both the CTS-V and GTO share an LS2.

I honestly would prefer stick with a car that I want to "drive". Its one thing to go from point A to B, thats what any car do, but another to actaully "drive" there. Controlling the engine yourself, makeing the car do what you want. Thats what a performance car is about. Sticking a manual in the only V with a true drivers car feel is a mistake in my opinion. That just an opinion though as it'll be awhile before I can even dream of buying such cars. Just maybe a used CTS for me, and if I can find one, w/ an manual.

Exactly

They have better engines at their disposal to do so.

And if CTS-V sales don't pick up, bet the house that an automatic will be introduced for 07

I too think the only way the CTS-V series will continue is with an Auto option. I think it's been said there is not one currently that will fit the v8 in the CTS, the only reason so far it is not offered in my opinion. GM would love to sell another 10-15 thousand CTS-V a year with the LS2 and auto.
We will see it with the new body style..

I think since anyone could have seen SC Northstar from a mile away (the SC Northstar of the Evoq concept car was raved about) we might see the XV12 Northstar of the Cien that pumps out 750 horsepower and 450 lb-ft of torque with the SIZE of a V8 (which was also raved about and in my opinion should have been the XLR). I think Cadillac is heading that way so they can say when they finaly do reach the top "We did it with our in house engines, not Chevys." Why do you think Chevy only lets Corvette have the most powerful "LSX" engine. Its shareing the LS6 with the CTS-V was just because they knew the vette was getting the LS7 soon and releaseing the LS2 for the "share around" engine. Thats why the firs year the GTO got the LS1 and not the LS6, now both the CTS-V and GTO share an LS2.

I honestly would prefer stick with a car that I want to "drive". Its one thing to go from point A to B, thats what any car do, but another to actaully "drive" there. Controlling the engine yourself, makeing the car do what you want. Thats what a performance car is about. Sticking a manual in the only V with a true drivers car feel is a mistake in my opinion. That just an opinion though as it'll be awhile before I can even dream of buying such cars. Just maybe a used CTS for me, and if I can find one, w/ an manual.

It doesn't matter what you or I "feel". Luxury/performance sedans without automatics generally don't sell and die off. The M5 has been the exception and it is of such low volume that usually Detroit companies can't make a profit at that level.

Caddy doesn't have to use the LS2. They could take the design of the Northstar and upgrade it with a larger bore block to add another 1+ liters. The problem is size.

Size mattes

4.6 liters just doesn't get the job done unless you go to real exotic plumbing and add a stick. If you want to sell an automatic only for a car of this weight you need more size.

It doesn't matter what you or I "feel". Luxury/performance sedans without automatics generally don't sell and die off. The M5 has been the exception and it is of such low volume that usually Detroit companies can't make a profit at that level.

Caddy doesn't have to use the LS2. They could take the design of the Northstar and upgrade it with a larger bore block to add another 1+ liters. The problem is size.

Size mattes

4.6 liters just doesn't get the job done unless you go to real exotic plumbing and add a stick. If you want to sell an automatic only for a car of this weight you need more size.

Yep, thats why I think the V12 Northstar will see more than concept showrooms in the future...I hope anyway.

::EDIT::Found this on GMInsdienews.com-"Super Sedan- Cadillac is considering building a Super Sedan in the image of the Sixteen show car. It would be a technology showpiece that started price wise above the STS, and went well into the hundred thousands. The top model would have a version of the V12 shown in the Cien concept of a few years ago."

I too think the only way the CTS-V series will continue is with an Auto option. I think it's been said there is not one currently that will fit the v8 in the CTS, the only reason so far it is not offered in my opinion. GM would love to sell another 10-15 thousand CTS-V a year with the LS2 and auto.
We will see it with the new body style..

I agree.

Otherwise the CTS-V may suffer the same fate as another car that was ahead of its time: the Taurus SHO. By the time they finally got around to putting an auto in it was too late.

This thread has put up a lot of excellent ideas and observations; it is a real shame GM takes so long to see or care to see what is being talked about here. If I were Lutz, I would have already placed an automatic in the CTS-V, and optioned a larger engine in the STS-V. Why wait 'till the damage is done before acting?
I looked at a M5 after I declined the STS-V. I really like the Cadillac style better, but the Cadillac was made to be a lesser auto. Shame, shame.

I absolutely hate, hate, hate manual shifting so if the CTS-V came in an automatic, I'd buy one. My C4 Vette was an automatic and I was very happy with that. If I could get a fast Cadillac that I didn't have to shift for a reasonable price, I'd buy it. The STS-V is too expensive...

I'm no fan of shifting either but IMO, certain vehicles just SHOULDN'T come with automatics. I really think sports cars, and off-roaders should only be manuals. The CTS-V is a tough call. Yeah it's a "sporty" car but not what I would call a "sports car". So I think a car like that SHOULD have both available. To me, cars like 'Vettes, Vipers, Jeep Wranglers, etc, etc should only come in manual trans. I've always felt that putting autos in vehicles like those "water-down" the vehicle. I had to battle my wife to get my new Wrangler in a stick but she finally conceded since it was mainly MY car! ;)

katshot: how about "my manly car'?

katshot: how about "my manly car'?
?????? What car? HUH?

I completely disagree with my main man Kat - what else is new - about autos.

1. Offering an auto does in no way detract from your pleasure in a manual

2. Many people live in urban areas that area so congested that shifting is a pain

3. True muscle cars with high torque V8s are just as fast with an auto as a stick - some are faster.

4. Offering an automatic increases sales to the point where the manufacturer can keep the car going!

I completely disagree with my main man Kat - what else is new - about autos.
1. Offering an auto does in no way detract from your pleasure in a manual
2. Many people live in urban areas that area so congested that shifting is a pain
3. True muscle cars with high torque V8s are just as fast with an auto as a stick - some are faster.
4. Offering an automatic increases sales to the point where the manufacturer can keep the car going!

I agree with you in most ways here. My point is purely personal. I just can't imagine getting a Mustang, Corvette, Viper, Miata, Wrangler without a stick. The whole point to those types of vehicles is to get involved in the driving experience, not just to ride in them. Obviously over the years, my opinion has not been the popular one in this country since even in sports cars, generally automatics vastly outnumber manuals. Outside the US though, it's a different story. I think it's just another reason why our market is so hard to nail down here. Americans are different from all other markets. I remember years ago, an engineer from a bus manufacturer over in Belgium told me that the rest of the world has "drivers" but in American we have "steerers". I think he was right.

:yup: :yup: My Firebird makes 420hp/400+fpt, has a 6 speed manual and is more interesting to drive than my wife's former C4 with an auto. On the other hand my brother swears by his SL 55 AMG with the auto with the manuel feature. On the other hand there is the '06 Z06. ' Interesting' is the key word:imagine how interesting the STS-V would be if one had the option of a 6.0L with a manual and performance suspension to go into one?

I think the problem you have is a "dollars and cents" issue. Unless a manufacturer commonly uses manual transmissions in their cars, installing one in a particular car is expensive. Unless they feel there is a real market for it, they will usually go without offering one. These cars are already a small market car, so narrowing the appeal by offering only one trans is sometimes offset by the additional cost of providing one. IMO, the 'V' series cars should include a manual trans option at least. The problem is GM doesn't have a ready supply of manual transmissions to play with. The T56 is about it for anything with a high output engine. They've been spending their collective engineering dollars on automatics over the years instead.

I agree with you in most ways here. My point is purely personal. I just can't imagine getting a Mustang, Corvette, Viper, Miata, Wrangler without a stick. The whole point to those types of vehicles is to get involved in the driving experience, not just to ride in them. Obviously over the years, my opinion has not been the popular one in this country since even in sports cars, generally automatics vastly outnumber manuals. Outside the US though, it's a different story. I think it's just another reason why our market is so hard to nail down here. Americans are different from all other markets. I remember years ago, an engineer from a bus manufacturer over in Belgium told me that the rest of the world has "drivers" but in American we have "steerers". I think he was right.

Personally I agree with you 100%

Corvettes, Porsches, etc should not be sold with automatics! Heck, I am not even a big fan of semi-automatics. But the buying public disagrees.

Now certain performance cars are better suited to an automatic - I can't think of an S65 with a stick. Many turbo cars are faster in auto as they keep the boost up.

I guess that makes sense about the turbo cars. Today, there's so damn many different classes of cars, it's hard to decide what should have what! I think the current classes pertinent to this conversation would be called 1) Sports cars, 2) Sporty cars, and 3) Sport sedans/coupes. Ridiculous really. But anyways, I guess I'd say that IMO, Sports cars should only be manuals but the other two could go either way. I really only figure manual trannies for "hard-core" drivers. Commuters and posers can easily be identified by the automatic trans. They're the ones that want to "look" hot in their cars but don't really care what they are designed for.
Here's a good question for you. Who would you rather buy a sports car from?

Everytime I see a Mustang GT with an automatic I cringe. I also cringe when behing the wheel driving is a rich school girl.

I guess that makes sense about the turbo cars. Today, there's so damn many different classes of cars, it's hard to decide what should have what! I think the current classes pertinent to this conversation would be called 1) Sports cars, 2) Sporty cars, and 3) Sport sedans/coupes. Ridiculous really. But anyways, I guess I'd say that IMO, Sports cars should only be manuals but the other two could go either way. I really only figure manual trannies for "hard-core" drivers. Commuters and posers can easily be identified by the automatic trans. They're the ones that want to "look" hot in their cars but don't really care what they are designed for.
Here's a good question for you. Who would you rather buy a sports car from?

Manufacturer?

I think Porsche does the best job sweating the details but Ferrari is my dream car.

No. I mean who as far as an owner who drove the car as an ethusiast or a non-enthusiast.

Give me the enthusiast every time. I don't mind someone who drives a car hard as long as they take good care of the car. I beat on my cars and get 200,000 miles from American cars by just taking care of them. I got 188K from my Mustang and 235K from my Impala SS and both of them could have (and did with the next owner) go much farther.

Generally, I must admit I'll take the car that was driven by the little old lady rather than the enthusiast. I usually find them in better overall condition. Usually much less use. IMO, I'd buy a stick-shift Mustang from a middle-aged guy WAY before I'd buy one from a real young guy too.

In light of competition's horsepower superiority, do you feel Cadillac will offer a STS with a 6.0L engine?

In light of competition's horsepower superiority, do you feel Cadillac will offer a STS with a 6.0L engine?

I think it depends on sales. If they have a lot of trouble moving them with the Northstar they will

A lot goes into producing ANY car.

A few things people seem to not be considering.

1. Tooling cost to put the LS2 (blown or not) into the STS-V "might" not be cost effective for the amount of cars sold. This could also include drivetrain tooling as well as chassie tooling.

2. Assembly cost. The STS-V and the CTS-V assembly plants are the same, but the assembly lines are not. The Northstar is already set to go into the STS...so a blown version requires little assembly/tooling change.

What "could" GM do vs. "will" GM do vs. "should" GM do is based on estimated cars sold vs. cost.....PERIOD.

While "we" would all buy the "super" Cadillac ANYTHING...the fact remains that they will never sell that many for the increased cost and subsiquent price increase.

But ..... The CTS-V and the STS-V are UNBELIEVABLE cars for the money. No performance car is perfect, but these achieve a level not seen in Cadillac to date.

-jm2c

btw....I have not driven a 400hp anything (with tc) that does not have some sort of "wheel hop" it is what it is.

A lot goes into producing ANY car.

A few things people seem to not be considering.

1. Tooling cost to put the LS2 (blown or not) into the STS-V "might" not be cost effective for the amount of cars sold. This could also include drivetrain tooling as well as chassie tooling.

2. Assembly cost. The STS-V and the CTS-V assembly plants are the same, but the assembly lines are not. The Northstar is already set to go into the STS...so a blown version requires little assembly/tooling change.

What "could" GM do vs. "will" GM do vs. "should" GM do is based on estimated cars sold vs. cost.....PERIOD.

While "we" would all buy the "super" Cadillac ANYTHING...the fact remains that they will never sell that many for the increased cost and subsiquent price increase.

But ..... The CTS-V and the STS-V are UNBELIEVABLE cars for the money. No performance car is perfect, but these achieve a level not seen in Cadillac to date.

-jm2c

btw....I have not driven a 400hp anything (with tc) that does not have some sort of "wheel hop" it is what it is.

1. If GM is too chicken-shi! to get into the game and spend the proper money needed to develop a performance sedan then they should just fold up right now. How can much smaller companies do it and the General can't?

2. Don't kid yourself, performance lines like AMG, M, and SRT are NOT business case decisions. They are halo products. Really as long as they don't lose too much money they are winners because they improve image and attract people and excitement.

3. The LS2 is already in the CTS-V which is basically the SAME PLATFORM so don't tell me it would cost much to put in the STS-V

4. The CTS-V is a great performance value but the STS-V is not. It costs $30,000 more than the CTS-V and 300C SRT8 with no increase in performance. 30 grand is a lot to pay for nicer styling and upgraded interiors.

5. The STS-V gets blown away by its two main competitors which are much more established in the market. That is plain stupid.

If you are going to come out with a new car in a tight market you better at least match the performance of the leaders and the STS-V is not even in the game.

btw....I have not driven a 400hp anything (with tc) that does not have some sort of "wheel hop" it is what it is.

Perhaps you should stop driving turbo Hyundais?

Go drive an E55 and see if you have any wheel hop.

1. If GM is too chicken-shi! to get into the game and spend the proper money needed to develop a performance sedan then they should just fold up right now. How can much smaller companies do it and the General can't?

2. Don't kid yourself, performance lines like AMG, M, and SRT are NOT business case decisions. They are halo products. Really as long as they don't lose too much money they are winners because they improve image and attract people and excitement.

3. The LS2 is already in the CTS-V which is basically the SAME PLATFORM so don't tell me it would cost much to put in the STS-V

4. The CTS-V is a great performance value but the STS-V is not. It costs $30,000 more than the CTS-V and 300C SRT8 with no increase in performance. 30 grand is a lot to pay for nicer styling and upgraded interiors.

5. The STS-V gets blown away by its two main competitors which are much more established in the market. That is plain stupid.

If you are going to come out with a new car in a tight market you better at least match the performance of the leaders and the STS-V is not even in the game.Mcaesar, you should be elected to take that quote straight to Mr. Lutz himself. As I said earlier, Cadillac does not have the care to become world class again across its product line.

1. I don't know about being chicken shit, but a complete re-build cost MILLIONS and 2-3 years of developement. Adding a supercharger to an existing engine and assembley line is cost effective and can be done in a relitively timely manner. (this is the reality of production/engineering and a publicly traded company) I don't consider Daimlier/Chrysler a "small" company, but they do it because AMG cars are purpose built from the beginning on an assembly line (well semi-hand built) that only builds these. The STS-V was not orginally designed to be what the "V" is...so taking the existing Northstar and adding the supercharger is an easy/cheap upgrade. (again REALITY, not my like/or opinion) CAN?WILL?? GM do what they should to make the "V" line of Cadillac world class....I would say yes/no. YES...They will continue to develope the sub-brand with better and better increase. The CTS-V will benifit the MOST because the price point will sell more cars and the racing program will push the development of race/stock parts. The STS-V will ALWAYS lag because of a "smaller" market oportunity as well as NO racing development. The XLR-V will get minor upgrades and the Corvette receives them (same assembly line and platform)

2. AMG, M, and SRT ARE pure business case decisions. They make $$$ for the company. They are image based marketing designed to sell a few to a small customer based, BUT....promote the overall brand to the masses. Cars that don't make $$$ for a publicly traded company WILL BE DISCONTINUED PERIOD.

3. While "basicly" the same platform...IT's NOT and not the same assembly line. I manufacture for a living and I can tell you that the REAL WORLD COST/TIME to make the change from the Northstar to the LS2 is why it was not done.

4. CTS-V and STS-V are 2 different cars for 2 different audiances. The price difference is based on costs vs. estimated sales (part runs cost are based on the runs and this is a VERY limited production car). If GM doesn't sell them @ 77K there won't be a STS-V in the future. Comparing performance on the CTS-V and the SRT 8 are fine, but the STS-V is a different animal. Although, I would have personally liked to see a more nimbal (lighter) car, but the audiance for this car is not like me.

5. The STS-V's competitors are not the E55 or M5 imho. (mabey this is why you are having a problem with the STS-V) Both of these cars offer a completly different driving experiance. As well, neither can be had for under 90K with real world options. At 77K the STS-V fills a void for the "american buyer" who will NEVER notice the difference between the M5 and E55 as most day to day driving will never see ANY of these cars potential.

LOOK...I'm not a fan of the STS-V. I would not own one. TOO BIG for my tastes. I am getting an CTS-V (over the C55 AMG) in FEB.

I think you are GROSSLY under estimating the cost of tooling and production as well as the time it takes to bring an COMPLETLY NEW platform to market.



1. If GM is too chicken-shi! to get into the game and spend the proper money needed to develop a performance sedan then they should just fold up right now. How can much smaller companies do it and the General can't?

2. Don't kid yourself, performance lines like AMG, M, and SRT are NOT business case decisions. They are halo products. Really as long as they don't lose too much money they are winners because they improve image and attract people and excitement.

3. The LS2 is already in the CTS-V which is basically the SAME PLATFORM so don't tell me it would cost much to put in the STS-V

4. The CTS-V is a great performance value but the STS-V is not. It costs $30,000 more than the CTS-V and 300C SRT8 with no increase in performance. 30 grand is a lot to pay for nicer styling and upgraded interiors.

5. The STS-V gets blown away by its two main competitors which are much more established in the market. That is plain stupid.

If you are going to come out with a new car in a tight market you better at least match the performance of the leaders and the STS-V is not even in the game.

Perhaps you should drive a Turbo FWD ANYTHING with over 250 hp. It makes the wheel hop on a CTV-S seem just fine.

I have (btw the dealer WILL NOT let you drive a E55 so you better know someone with one) and it also has wheel hop with the TC on or off. The 06 CTS-V wheel hop in no where near the earlier versions I have driven. The E55 is a much more refined car than the CTS-V (as well it should be for 40Kish more). I have not driven and STS-V yet...so I can't make a comparison, but on paper I would say that it won't hold a candle to the E55 or M5. (I have also not driven the M5 either so I have no real comparsion of the E55 vs M5 either)

If you want some real unexpected wheel hop, go drive Porsches.



Perhaps you should stop driving turbo Hyundais?

Go drive an E55 and see if you have any wheel hop.

I drive an E55 every week as my cousin who lives around the corner has one.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think the STS-V's comp is the E55 and M5. ANd you can buy a brand new E55 for $82K.

You are also way off the costs - the CTS and STS are the same platform!

The only reason the crappy Northstar is put in the STS is marketing - not manufacturing. The marketing guys think they need a dohc motor in the STS.

GM comes to the market with the STS-V that offers no performance improvement over the CTS-V and is 30K more. If they offer an automatic in the CTS-V they will never sell the STS-V.

The STS can't compete with its main competitors and GM wonders why it is losing market share!

Beyond wheel hop, you can't have performance cars eating up multiple rear ends in just the first couple of years of ownership. That is poor quality. GM can't afford that at all.

The STS-V is going to need some major help to be competitive in the market. It is down on power so they will need to discount it to get it significantly under the price of the E55.

Unfortuantely, GM had a great idea that they didn't do all the work on to make it the market leader. It is decent and not embarrassing, but those of us who grew up on GM wanted to see a car that BEAT the competition, not just stayed in the game.

GM has to get back to LEADING the market with its products instead of producing something close at a lower price. That does not get you back to being the best car company in the world.

I guess you don't read what I type. I have repedely stated the E55 and M5 are better than the STS-V. And you "can" order a base E55 for 82K and around 85K our the door....BUT...you will not find one on a dealers show room for less than 92K w/options as NO dealer brings in a BASE E55 to sit on the show room. But you would know this as your cousin has one and is around the corner.

Ok, you obviously know more about a production than I do. The STS is a produced with the NORTHSTAR as a standard engine. Tooling/assembly is ALREADY IN PLACE...so adding a SC is the way to go UNLESS you want to spend MILLIONS (as in 10's of) plus wait 2-3 years for it to come out (although the complete update may be going this way in 1-2 years). MARKETING has almost no say in post production changes that will REQUIRE MILLIONS to produce in upgraded production costs.

GM made a STS-V to sell to STS buyers that want more power. They are expecting to sell 5K a year and they will not have a problem do this...imho

I would agree with the "wheel hop" problem...but the majority of CTS-V buyers will never experiance "wheel hop" as they are not launching their cars on a regular basis. Most problems effect only a small portion of the buyers and are BLOWN UP because of dealer related service problems and not the original problems. I would bet you the the small amount of dissatisfied "V" owners were not given the service expected for the problems...but this is my opinion.

CTS-V w/an automatic is "again" not going to happen until a MAJOR platform change occures. The "base" CTS's auto will not handle the power and the COST to tool and produce the CTS-V with an auto is TOO MUCH. I would say that they "should" have done this from jump street though. They would have sold more cars.

*****IF YOU ARE GOING TO READ ANYTHING PLEASE READ THIS*****(Please understand that changing parts such as engines and tranny on a car in production in NOT an easy/cheap/quick process. It cost MILLIONS (as in 10's of) per par change. These parts are produces by Tier-1-2-3 suppliers and the cost of tooling HAS to be eaten by someone and not to mention the testing and time to produce. New parts "just" don't get desgined and put into production over night. They are also not DROP IN so pulling the Northstar and putting in the LS2 is not a bolt in change.)

I still do not believe that the STS-V was put into production to be a competiter to the E55 or M5. But I would say it's a GREAT alternative to these cars for (92K-77K) 15K less.

******IF YOU ARE GOING TO READ ANYTHING PLEASE READ THIS******
GM is losing market share because it's Trucks no longer dominate this market (most of their market share) and their Buick/Pontiac/GM base brand (2nd largest part of their market share) are NO ATTRACTING new buyers and ARE NOT SELLING.

The fact that they are not producing a STS-V that beats the E55 or M5 or for that matter excites you....IS NOT THE REASON GM IS LOOSING MARKET SHARE OR FOR THAT MATTER PROFITABLE. FUTHERMORE...if they did make the changes, to the STS-V, you ask for WOULD NOT CHANGE THE ABOVE

GM needs to fix it pention/union problems, as well as, start designing 20-40k cars that people want to buy, along with holding the their remaining truck market share.

I drive an E55 every week as my cousin who lives around the corner has one.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think the STS-V's comp is the E55 and M5. ANd you can buy a brand new E55 for $82K.

You are also way off the costs - the CTS and STS are the same platform!

The only reason the crappy Northstar is put in the STS is marketing - not manufacturing. The marketing guys think they need a dohc motor in the STS.

GM comes to the market with the STS-V that offers no performance improvement over the CTS-V and is 30K more. If they offer an automatic in the CTS-V they will never sell the STS-V.

The STS can't compete with its main competitors and GM wonders why it is losing market share!

Beyond wheel hop, you can't have performance cars eating up multiple rear ends in just the first couple of years of ownership. That is poor quality. GM can't afford that at all.

The STS-V is going to need some major help to be competitive in the market. It is down on power so they will need to discount it to get it significantly under the price of the E55.

Unfortuantely, GM had a great idea that they didn't do all the work on to make it the market leader. It is decent and not embarrassing, but those of us who grew up on GM wanted to see a car that BEAT the competition, not just stayed in the game.

YES, we now agree. BUT, this will take more than a mid-platform life SC'd Northstar vs. SC'd LS2 change.

It WILL require a union/pention/worker reduction and a core design philosphy change from Management.

They will take YEARS for a company the size of GM to do. Thank god the subs are profitable and only the "car division" has issues.



GM has to get back to LEADING the market with its products instead of producing something close at a lower price. That does not get you back to being the best car company in the world.

I drive an E55 every week as my cousin who lives around the corner has one.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think the STS-V's comp is the E55 and M5. ANd you can buy a brand new E55 for $82K.

You are also way off the costs - the CTS and STS are the same platform!

The only reason the crappy Northstar is put in the STS is marketing - not manufacturing. The marketing guys think they need a dohc motor in the STS.

GM comes to the market with the STS-V that offers no performance improvement over the CTS-V and is 30K more. If they offer an automatic in the CTS-V they will never sell the STS-V.

The STS can't compete with its main competitors and GM wonders why it is losing market share!

Beyond wheel hop, you can't have performance cars eating up multiple rear ends in just the first couple of years of ownership. That is poor quality. GM can't afford that at all.

The STS-V is going to need some major help to be competitive in the market. It is down on power so they will need to discount it to get it significantly under the price of the E55.

Unfortuantely, GM had a great idea that they didn't do all the work on to make it the market leader. It is decent and not embarrassing, but those of us who grew up on GM wanted to see a car that BEAT the competition, not just stayed in the game.Hear! Hear! Please, dear Administrator, pray the GM suits read this thread. The way I read GM, as being led? by Mr Wagoner, is that the Board of Directors have no hint of inspiration; therefore, the Board cannot instill into management any sense of that magical word. I have sat on boards of large organizations, and inspiration is hard to come by. Usually, those who do not possess it wither and are surpassed.

If you look at the board of directors, you see a bunch of bankers and bakers. Obviously, us ranting here won't change the board of directors or their attitudes, but what else can we do?

If you look at the board of directors, you see a bunch of bankers and bakers. Obviously, us ranting here won't change the board of directors or their attitudes, but what else can we do?Well, a great many of us are buying other brands, mostly foreign; this alone should already informed GM's so-called leaders. Here is where Inpiration comes into play: Mr Lutz was recruited to help turn the tide, and he has done much good work and has inspired both GM and some of us. What GM must do is find more people of his caliber to continue the product development and adding of inspiration. But, always remember: Inspiration must come from GM's leaders. Otherwise, it all become rote (the use of memory, usually with little intelligence).