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:

Too bad they didn't make it feel more like the CTS-V. I don't care for power on a platform that won't let you handle it confidently. Mushy suspensions, numb steering and tremendous power don't belong together.

Did it have wheel hop?

This needs to be in the STS-V Forum or at least a similar post over there for those looking to purchase one.

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:

Have you driven an E55 or M5 for comparison?

Its too bad to see that the STS-V doesnt have a direction quite as chiseled as the M5 and E55, but I think that Cadillac is content to let the CTS-V take the raw balls to the wall driving experience, while the STS-V was designed for those who just want the fastest sedan possible without giving up any of the comforts they are used to in the normally aspirated version. I guess refined is in fact a good word for it, hopefully this wont deter the buyers coming over from the MB and BMW showrooms.

It's been stated to death.

Make it handle competently - check
Load it with features - check
Sell it for thousands less than your competitor - check
Make it faster than the competition - Uh oh.

It should've had the LS7. Now you can't tell me that a debored, supercharged, one off version of the Northstar was easier or cheaper to produce than just dropping the LS7 in. And it should've been at least as fast as the E55. If you want to break in to the ultra competitive, ultra exclusive world of premium sports sedan you don't do it with a triple. YOU HIT A HOMERUN. You make it a "no-brainer" for every perspective customer to at least look at it. Now GM made it easy to discount the Caddy offering and in the process tarnished the V legacy. You blew it fellas, you just plain blew it!

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.

Which is exactly how it is supposed to be. This isn't a hot rod Caddy, folks.

Which is exactly how it is supposed to be. This isn't a hot rod Caddy, folks.

Why can't you have both? The E55 is refined and super powerful. Since we are late coming to the market you would think we could have at least hit those points.

The STS V would not seem like such a let down except for that 300SRT! Simply outstanding results when the Benz engineers have to sign off on everything. Maybe VW needs to takeover GM. After all they added 50 to 55 mph top end to the Bentleys!

Complaints about refinement combined with demands for the LS7. This thread is all over the place!

Complaints about refinement combined with demands for the LS7. This thread is all over the place!

SOme folks are just dissapointed that the new V can't run with the big dogs while others are trying to justify that.

The STS V would not seem like such a let down except for that 300SRT! Simply outstanding. Maybe VW needs to takeover GM. After all they added 50 to 55 mph top end to the Bentleys! The Germans sure turned Chrysler around.
I bet Cadillac isn't worried about the SRT8 when it comes to STS-V sales.

VW sucks in quality and design.

If the Germans couldn't make Chrysler better than it already was...

I bet Cadillac isn't worried about the SRT8 when it comes to STS-V sales.

VW sucks in quality and design.

If the Germans couldn't make Chrysler better than it already was...

yeah, you got that right Vrocks,
VW sales the Golf`s and others now for 23% under sticker! I just wonder for how much the dealers get them!!!!

Harry

The Germans sure turned Chrysler around.
Don't think VW has some very good reputation here in Europe. After all, last week it was me and my 98 Seville going for my friend's parents to the airport because his 00 VW Golf broke.

I bet Cadillac isn't worried about the SRT8 when it comes to STS-V sales.

VW sucks in quality and design.

If the Germans couldn't make Chrysler better than it already was...

Perhaps they are not. But the Charger SRT8 smoking the STS-V around a road course is nothing to be proud of either. Although the interior of the STS is so much nicer you are right that they probably won't lose many sales to it.

It also worth noting in that article Car & Driver ranked the STS-V above the CLS55 despite the huge power deficit - especially at high speeds.

Apparently GM put together a very nice car that is just slightly down on high speed acceleration from the 55 and M5

I will say that I was too harsh in my initial assessment and in person I do love the styling.

Wow, I cant believe this thread went this far with no one realizing VW DOESNT OWN CHRYSLER. ITS DAIMLER-CHRYSLER. i.e. MERCEDES??

Secondly, the 300C SRT is a nice car, but its full of cheap interior bits and is simply not at the level of the STS-V in terms of fit and finish... Sorry SRT guys.

Thirdly, if the STS-V does not fall into the category of a "hot-rod Caddy"... What the hell does?

Perhaps they are not. But the Charger SRT8 smoking the STS-V around a road course is nothing to be proud of either. Although the interior of the STS is so much nicer you are right that they probably won't lose many sales to it.

It also worth noting in that article Car & Driver ranked the STS-V above the CLS55 despite the huge power deficit - especially at high speeds.

Apparently GM put together a very nice car that is just slightly down on high speed acceleration from the 55 and M5

I will say that I was too harsh in my initial assessment and in person I do love the styling.


Perhaps i was as well, but I'm still disappointed because of it. I was really hoping for something extraordinary, but I'm still thrilled at the quality of the interior.

Wow, I cant believe this thread went this far with no one realizing VW DOESNT OWN CHRYSLER. ITS DAIMLER-CHRYSLER. i.e. MERCEDES??

Secondly, the 300C SRT is a nice car, but its full of cheap interior bits and is simply not at the level of the STS-V in terms of fit and finish... Sorry SRT guys.

Thirdly, if the STS-V does not fall into the category of a "hot-rod Caddy"... What the hell does?
from what i have gathered up, the cts-v falls into the "hot-rod Caddy" role a lot moreso than the sts-v.

and the cts-v has the engine to do so. the ls6/ls2 are hot rod engines compared to the refined supercharged N*.


i personally am happy with the new sts-v overall but what gets me is not that the car is a little slower than the competition, but its A LOT slower than the competition. At high speeds there is no race and in the quarter mile a 13.3 (moter trend) will not do when the MB is already around 12.5 with a 114.5 mph. that MB couild easily be rolling through the traps at low 12's.

On the plus side, the sts-v is cheaper and comes fully loaded. i think the price will take some buyers away from MB and BMW considering a MB cls55 amg could cost you more than $15,000 more.

the quarter mile a 13.3 (moter trend) will not do

C+D just received last night:
They also report STS-v Quarter Mile as: 13.3
(Comparison test with MB and BMW M5.)
- Ray
Unable to recall any other numbers . . .

I think everyone here knows VW does not own Chrysler. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I think everyone here knows VW does not own Chrysler. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I dont think I have any problem with the mistake, I think it can be easy to make that mistake. But people immediately started slamming VW and they didnt have anything to do with the discussion at all. :shhh:

from what i have gathered up, the cts-v falls into the "hot-rod Caddy" role a lot moreso than the sts-v.

and the cts-v has the engine to do so. the ls6/ls2 are hot rod engines compared to the refined supercharged N*.


i personally am happy with the new sts-v overall but what gets me is not that the car is a little slower than the competition, but its A LOT slower than the competition. At high speeds there is no race and in the quarter mile a 13.3 (moter trend) will not do when the MB is already around 12.5 with a 114.5 mph. that MB couild easily be rolling through the traps at low 12's.

On the plus side, the sts-v is cheaper and comes fully loaded. i think the price will take some buyers away from MB and BMW considering a MB cls55 amg could cost you more than $15,000 more.

I think the CTS-V certainly qualifies for hot rod status, but the XLR-V and STS-V were designed from the beginning to fit into that niche as well, just in different demographics. XLR-V for the SL55 crowd, CTS-V for the M3 crowd, and STS-V for the E55 crowd.

C+D just received last night:
They also report STS-v Quarter Mile as: 13.3
(Comparison test with MB and BMW M5.)
- Ray
Unable to recall any other numbers . . .

0-60: 4.6
0-100: 11.4
0-150: 36.3
1/4 mile: 13.2@107
70-0: 170 ft
skidpad: 0.87
lane change: 63.5
test mpg: 12
lap time:1:33.55

For comparison, the CLS55 was the 2nd fastest and it did

0-60: 4.2
0-100: 9.8
0-150: 24.9
1/4 mile: 12.6@114
70-0: 161 ft
skidpad: 0.93
lane change: 63.7
test mpg: 13
lap time:1:32.55

But really adding insult to injury was the Charger SRT8

0-60: 4.8
1/4 mile: 13.2@109
skidpad: 0.90
70-0: 168 ft
lap time:1:32.65

Let's put this in a different context. The SRT8 is a modern-day muscle car. It's being compared to luxury sedans. Let's go back to 1968 and compare a GTO with an Imperial, a Coupe DeVille, and a Mark III. It's not exactly the same but it's similar. The luxury vehicles are in a different class of quality, build, refinement, etc. You can't say a Chrysler is in the same league as MB and Cadillac. So what if it's as fast, it's still a Chrysler.

Let's put this in a different context. The SRT8 is a modern-day muscle car. It's being compared to luxury sedans. Let's go back to 1968 and compare a GTO with an Imperial, a Coupe DeVille, and a Mark III. It's not exactly the same but it's similar. The luxury vehicles are in a different class of quality, build, refinement, etc. You can't say a Chrysler is in the same league as MB and Cadillac. So what if it's as fast, it's still a Chrysler.

Yeah but you cant say with a straight face that the caddy is twice the car of the chrysler to justify the twice the price.

GM screwed up big time by using the northslug engine.This engine is also a joke in N/A form also .The ls7 engine would have been cheaper for gm to develop ,would have been more powerful,likely better on fuel and would have been in the running rather than a has been.The lower costs would have also enabled GM to lower the price point substantially to make this car a category killer.

The only way GM will recoup the development costs on this engine will be if it supercharges the regular northslug engine although this will only be feasible if the fuel consumption can be improved.

Yeah but you cant say with a straight face that the caddy is twice the car of the chrysler to justify the twice the price.
Is a Porsche GT2 twice the car of a C6 Z06? Of course it isn't and they don't sell nearly as many but people buy them because that's what they want. 2000 STS-V's are being produced for this model year, do you think they can sell 1 every 10 days in the US (In 48 states, not including Hawaii or Alaska)?


GM screwed up big time by using the northslug engine.This engine is also a joke in N/A form also .The ls7 engine would have been cheaper for gm to develop ,would have been more powerful,likely better on fuel and would have been in the running rather than a has been.The lower costs would have also enabled GM to lower the price point substantially to make this car a category killer.
Use your head. The N* performs very well for its size, nearly as well as the LSx series of engines. The output / L is greater for the N* compared to every LSx engine but the LS7, and it runs smoother. They would have needed to re-engineer the LS7 to use it in the STS-V, not to mention a reworking of the transmission and other components. Having said that, I would rather have a 600HP SC LS7 with a smoother cam over the SC 4.4L N*.


The only way GM will recoup the development costs on this engine will be if it supercharges the regular northslug engine although this will only be feasible if the fuel consumption can be improved.
Do you think there's another 5-10mpg that they can magically pull out of their asses? If you want to go fast in a heavy sedan you're going to use gas, lots of it. DOD would add a couple of mpg to it's rating for highway cruising but that's about it. Or maybe DI but we're talking about small improvements that cost big bucks to implement. I'm sure their accountants and financial planners cruched numbers for a long time before the project got the go ahead. They have the best strategy already lined out and if it says they'll need to SC all the N*'s, great.

Yeah but you cant say with a straight face that the caddy is twice the car of the chrysler to justify the twice the price.

GM screwed up big time by using the northslug engine.This engine is also a joke in N/A form also .The ls7 engine would have been cheaper for gm to develop ,would have been more powerful,likely better on fuel and would have been in the running rather than a has been.The lower costs would have also enabled GM to lower the price point substantially to make this car a category killer.

The only way GM will recoup the development costs on this engine will be if it supercharges the regular northslug engine although this will only be feasible if the fuel consumption can be improved.

Name me another NA engine that makes 1hp/cubic inch that get stuck into a luxury car, not a vette

Yeah but you cant say with a straight face that the caddy is twice the car of the chrysler to justify the twice the price.
Is a Porsche GT2 twice the car of a C6 Z06? Of course it isn't and they don't sell nearly as many but people buy them because that's what they want. 2000 STS-V's are being produced for this model year, do you think they can sell 1 every 10 days in the US (In 48 states, not including Hawaii or Alaska)?


GM screwed up big time by using the northslug engine.This engine is also a joke in N/A form also .The ls7 engine would have been cheaper for gm to develop ,would have been more powerful,likely better on fuel and would have been in the running rather than a has been.The lower costs would have also enabled GM to lower the price point substantially to make this car a category killer.
Use your head. The N* performs very well for its size, nearly as well as the LSx series of engines. The output / L is greater for the N* compared to every LSx engine but the LS7, and it runs smoother. They would have needed to re-engineer the LS7 to use it in the STS-V, not to mention a reworking of the transmission and other components. Having said that, I would rather have a 600HP SC LS7 with a smoother cam over the SC 4.4L N*.


The only way GM will recoup the development costs on this engine will be if it supercharges the regular northslug engine although this will only be feasible if the fuel consumption can be improved.
Do you think there's another 5-10mpg that they can magically pull out of their asses? If you want to go fast in a heavy sedan you're going to use gas, lots of it. DOD would add a couple of mpg to it's rating for highway cruising but that's about it. Or maybe DI but we're talking about small improvements that cost big bucks to implement. I'm sure their accountants and financial planners cruched numbers for a long time before the project got the go ahead. They have the best strategy already lined out and if it says they'll need to SC all the N*'s, great.

The "for its size" argument just doens't wash with super sedans. The Northstar underperforms PERIOD. That is like two guys get in a fight and a big one kicks the crap out of a little one but the observers say "the little guy put up a decent fight before getting knocked out!"

No, he got knocked out.

The Northstar needs to be retired. It is just too small. It actually would have worked better in the CTS or a lighter car.

And the perception that no one will cross-shop Chrysler is the same one that Mercedes and BMW have that no one will cross-shop Cadillac with their products. The STS-V does not have even close to the same status level as the CLS55 or M5. If it offered the same performance at this $15K savings then it would be a great deal - like the Z06 does.

What is the difference? Its the engine stupid (not you, GM). The Chevy boys realize that if you want to build a special PERFORMANCE car it is all about the engine. Using an undersized, 13 year old engine is not going to cut it.

Name me another NA engine that makes 1hp/cubic inch that get stuck into a luxury car, not a vette

How about every single one of them!

Where have you been hiding?

The BMW 550i has a 290 cubic inch engine with 360HP

The Mercedes E500 (even with the old engine) is 302 cubic inches and has 302HP and it is about to be replaced. The Lexus LS430 has a 260 cubic inch V8 with 278HP.

The Northstar's time has passed.

0-60: 4.6
0-100: 11.4
0-150: 36.3
1/4 mile: 13.2@107
70-0: 170 ft
skidpad: 0.87
lane change: 63.5
test mpg: 12
lap time:1:33.55



Thanks for correcting my mistake - and adding the additional data points.
They also quote EPA gas mileage as 14 / 20 - though GMBuypower still shows 13 / 17.

- Ray
Should know better than to rely on memory . . .

Thanks for correcting my mistake - and adding the additional data points.
They also quote EPA gas mileage as 14 / 20 - though GMBuypower still shows 13 / 17.

- Ray
Should know better than to rely on memory . . .

5 years ago those would have been good times for this price range

The "for its size" argument just doens't wash with super sedans. The Northstar underperforms PERIOD. That is like two guys get in a fight and a big one kicks the crap out of a little one but the observers say "the little guy put up a decent fight before getting knocked out!"
No, he got knocked out.
The Northstar needs to be retired. It is just too small. It actually would have worked better in the CTS or a lighter car.
And the perception that no one will cross-shop Chrysler is the same one that Mercedes and BMW have that no one will cross-shop Cadillac with their products. The STS-V does not have even close to the same status level as the CLS55 or M5. If it offered the same performance at this $15K savings then it would be a great deal - like the Z06 does.
What is the difference? Its the engine stupid (not you, GM). The Chevy boys realize that if you want to build a special PERFORMANCE car it is all about the engine. Using an undersized, 13 year old engine is not going to cut it.
As a potential buyer for these cars I'd be more likely to cross shop between the Cadillac, BMW, and MB. If you look at it as a Top Tier perfromace sedan market segment, the manufacturers that I'd include would be 1. MB, 2. BMW, 3. Cadillac. Chrysler doesn't make it into that tier for myself and people that I know, and Cadillac didn't belong in that tier until recently. That's just based on looks, build quality, features / spohistication, performace, and ride quality. Reliability and other factors would push me more towards Cadillac or BMW.

In todays dollars $77,000 or a few grand less than that buys a premium sport sedan that'll run low 13's to 13.0 all day long. I really don't see how someone can see this car as a failure. To me, there was only one true disappointment with the STS-V. They only offer it in RWD, if they offered an AWD version I would have waited for that car. Fuel economy would have sucked, and acceleration would have been a hair slower (unless they changed the final drive ratio, image the car with a 3.73 rear :thumbsup: ) but living in the PA means looking for an AWD vehicle. I personally think it would have suited this style of car better than RWD because it's really a competent handler, not excellent like the CTS-V, with a silky smooth ride and a highly spohisticated drivetrain.

As a potential buyer for these cars I'd be more likely to cross shop between the Cadillac, BMW, and MB. If you look at it as a Top Tier perfromace sedan market segment, the manufacturers that I'd include would be 1. MB, 2. BMW, 3. Cadillac. Chrysler doesn't make it into that tier for myself and people that I know, and Cadillac didn't belong in that tier until recently. That's just based on looks, build quality, features / spohistication, performace, and ride quality. Reliability and other factors would push me more towards Cadillac or BMW.

In todays dollars $77,000 or a few grand less than that buys a premium sport sedan that'll run low 13's to 13.0 all day long. I really don't see how someone can see this car as a failure. To me, there was only one true disappointment with the STS-V. They only offer it in RWD, if they offered an AWD version I would have waited for that car. Fuel economy would have sucked, and acceleration would have been a hair slower (unless they changed the final drive ratio, image the car with a 3.73 rear :thumbsup: ) but living in the PA means looking for an AWD vehicle. I personally think it would have suited this style of car better than RWD because it's really a competent handler, not excellent like the CTS-V, with a silky smooth ride and a highly spohisticated drivetrain.

Low 13s is not in the game when the competition is running low to mid 12s.

This is a high performance sedan, not a luxury sedan. If we were just comparing luxury models the difference would not be as significant. The whole point of the M5/E55 genre is for a top level executive to have Corvette beating power and still carry 3 fellow execs to the country club for a couple of rounds.

The STS-V can't even hang with its baby brother. It got smoked by a Dodge Charger.

From a performance standpoint, it is a failure. It is even a bigger failure when you consider that GM had a much better engine, the LS2, just sitting there waiting to be blown.

Look at it this way...

If I was not interested in keeping up with an M5 and instead valued luxury and quality wouldn't it make a lot more sense to spend my $77K on the new Lexus LS600 which will run as fast as the STS-V, has higher quality, and at least 50% better gas mileage?

You might, or you might buy a Cadillac. There are some people out there that will still buy a Cadillac over a Lexus because it's a Cadillac. However, the Lexus is a very fine vehicle.

Thinking of it the STS V Northstar shares precious little with the standard Northstar. The block is a different casting with a closed deck much stronger everything. Sounds like they should increase the boast. I read that the new 6speed is rated to 520 ft lbs torque. They have a lot of margin for increasing power and torque.

Maybe its GM's financial problems weighing heavily on any potential warranty claims that could arise. Plus risk of damaging their reputation even further.

One thing is for sure the standard Northstar needs more power! At least my 05' STS does.

Low 13s is not in the game when the competition is running low to mid 12s.

This is a high performance sedan, not a luxury sedan. If we were just comparing luxury models the difference would not be as significant. The whole point of the M5/E55 genre is for a top level executive to have Corvette beating power and still carry 3 fellow execs to the country club for a couple of rounds.

The STS-V can't even hang with its baby brother. It got smoked by a Dodge Charger.

From a performance standpoint, it is a failure. It is even a bigger failure when you consider that GM had a much better engine, the LS2, just sitting there waiting to be blown.
I guess we'll know in about 1 year just how much of a Success / failure the STS-V was.

I know I've knocked on Chrysler alot already but when you see a Dodge Charger don't you feel like puking? That's one ugly ugly disgrace of an automobile.

Stop saying the LS2 is better, lol.

The Charger is no competion to the STS in looks but it's not ugly. Most of my friends and colleagues give my Chrysler 300C the nod in looks over my STS. So do the valet attendants. Looks are subjective though as is prestige for that matter.

Driving them back to back weekly, I'll say the Chrysler is clearly better engineered than the STS. The truth hurts. The STS doors close like a Hyundai the Chrysler's like a Mercedes. High speed stability in the 300C is way ahead of the STS. This is not what you expect when paying 12K more for the STS!

Hi, does anyone of you guys can tell me if there is some testing of the STS V in the new Road & Track?????

I´ll get my R&T, C&D and MT around the 20st each month that`s why I ask!

Harry

I guess we'll know in about 1 year just how much of a Success / failure the STS-V was.

I know I've knocked on Chrysler alot already but when you see a Dodge Charger don't you feel like puking? That's one ugly ugly disgrace of an automobile.

Stop saying the LS2 is better, lol.

I don't know, the only thing of a Dodge Charger SRT8 the STS-V will see are its tail lights.

You have to be 100% joking if you think the Northstar can hold a candle to the LS2. The LS2 is far more powerful, less expensive to build, and takes up about the same amount of overall space under the hood.

GM will either have to add more power to the V or watch it go the way of the Allante. You can't call yourself a premium sports sedan when cars half your price, like the Charger SRT8, broom you off the road course. And that is a very nice looking car that Chrysler is having no trouble selling every single one at or over sticker. The STS-V, OTOH, will have to see deep discounts or watch it collect dust.

Thinking of it the STS V Northstar shares precious little with the standard Northstar. The block is a different casting with a closed deck much stronger everything. Sounds like they should increase the boast. I read that the new 6speed is rated to 520 ft lbs torque. They have a lot of margin for increasing power and torque.

Maybe its GM's financial problems weighing heavily on any potential warranty claims that could arise. Plus risk of damaging their reputation even further.

One thing is for sure the standard Northstar needs more power! At least my 05' STS does.

That makes it even more incredibly stupid that they used this engine for the V.

"the standard Northstar needs more power"

Yeah, it needs another liter of displacement!

You might, or you might buy a Cadillac. There are some people out there that will still buy a Cadillac over a Lexus because it's a Cadillac. However, the Lexus is a very fine vehicle.
I am one of those people. If at all possible, I will buy American and Cadillac has always been the premium American car. But that doesn't mean they can put out substandard product for my money.

Most Americans don't feel like I do and they will buy Lexus over Caddy. There huge quality differences - mostly perceived but some are real - that sway that.

Hi, does anyone of you guys can tell me if there is some testing of the STS V in the new Road & Track?????

I have it and they didn't test the V. Remember, Car & Driver and Road & Track are now owned by the same company so it is rare when they test the same car in the same month.

Look for R&T to do a comparison of the STS-V, M5, E55/CLS55, and the latest Audi supersedan in either Feb or Mar issues.

I am one of those people. If at all possible, I will buy American and Cadillac has always been the premium American car. But that doesn't mean they can put out substandard product for my money.

I agree, but I don't think you'd be getting a sub-standard product. A high-quality product that's a little slower than it's competition, but not sub-standard. But I'm glad you'll stick with American. If Cadillac can find 2000 people just like you, then the STS-V will do fine.

I am one of those people. If at all possible, I will buy American and Cadillac has always been the premium American car. But that doesn't mean they can put out substandard product for my money.

Most Americans don't feel like I do and they will buy Lexus over Caddy. There huge quality differences - mostly perceived but some are real - that sway that.



I have it and they didn't test the V. Remember, Car & Driver and Road & Track are now owned by the same company so it is rare when they test the same car in the same month.

Look for R&T to do a comparison of the STS-V, M5, E55/CLS55, and the latest Audi supersedan in either Feb or Mar issues.

Thanks MCeasar, I´ll have to wait for R&T one month more to see what the STS V does there.
You talking about the Audi S 8 I`ve got already the numbers
V 10 - 450 hp - 0-100 kph (62 mph) 5.1 sec - top speed (as always 250 kph) 155 mph

Well, thanks again
Harry

I agree, but I don't think you'd be getting a sub-standard product. A high-quality product that's a little slower than it's competition, but not sub-standard. But I'm glad you'll stick with American. If Cadillac can find 2000 people just like you, then the STS-V will do fine.

If they put a blown LS2 or LS7 in there they would have me right now!

I don't know, the only thing of a Dodge Charger SRT8 the STS-V will see are its tail lights.

You have to be 100% joking if you think the Northstar can hold a candle to the LS2. The LS2 is far more powerful, less expensive to build, and takes up about the same amount of overall space under the hood.

GM will either have to add more power to the V or watch it go the way of the Allante. You can't call yourself a premium sports sedan when cars half your price, like the Charger SRT8, broom you off the road course. And that is a very nice looking car that Chrysler is having no trouble selling every single one at or over sticker. The STS-V, OTOH, will have to see deep discounts or watch it collect dust.
The N* is technologically superior to the LS2. I've had plenty of NA LSx engines and they all ran rough. We already agree that a SC LS7 with a smaller cam would have been the perfect engine for Cadillac's STS and XLR-V's. However, VVT and DOHC help to sell a premium automobile, mostly because "the other engines have them".

The Charger and 300 aren't in the same league. They're obnoxious looking and they only sell because they're cheap. I really wouldn't worry about losing to one a road course (or the street), after all, neither the Charger SRT-8 or the STS-V belong on a race track. GM and Dodge make street cars that can be taken to the race track, the Z06 and Viper.

Even though I'm arguing in favor of the STS-V it wouldn't be my first choice for a sport sedan. There's no doubt in my mind that the M5 is the car I'd get. Black with a black interior loaded is how I'd order it, no doubt about it. I'll tell you why I'd get the M5:
- The V10 sounds awesome at 8,000+ rpm.
- It's the fastest and best handling sport sedan on the market.
- Looks acceptable in black (I've seen it).
- I'll take my chances with the electrical gremlins they're notorious for in order to have the best sport sedan on the
road when it's running.
- When everything's said and done it'll be about $15,000 more than the STS-V. I usually lease my cars, so the
payments should be relatively similiar.

I'll wave to you as I pass you in my 300CSRT at 173 mph. Your right, that will be obnoxious.

While we're all complaining and worried about the STS-V, there's a whole group of buyers who want the extra power who don't care about the ability (or lack thereof) to pass a BMW or Mercedes (or Chrysler, or Corvette or Camaro, for God's sake) at 180mph on the highway. The car is aimed right at the people who want it.

Which is exactly how it is supposed to be. This isn't a hot rod Caddy, folks.

Huh? Isnt the V series touted as hot rod cars meant to be driven hard (look at their adverts). It is indeed a hot rod caddy.

F

The N* is technologically superior to the LS2. I've had plenty of NA LSx engines and they all ran rough. We already agree that a SC LS7 with a smaller cam would have been the perfect engine for Cadillac's STS and XLR-V's. However, VVT and DOHC help to sell a premium automobile, mostly because "the other engines have them".

The Charger and 300 aren't in the same league. They're obnoxious looking and they only sell because they're cheap. I really wouldn't worry about losing to one a road course (or the street), after all, neither the Charger SRT-8 or the STS-V belong on a race track. GM and Dodge make street cars that can be taken to the race track, the Z06 and Viper.

Even though I'm arguing in favor of the STS-V it wouldn't be my first choice for a sport sedan. There's no doubt in my mind that the M5 is the car I'd get. Black with a black interior loaded is how I'd order it, no doubt about it. I'll tell you why I'd get the M5:
- The V10 sounds awesome at 8,000+ rpm.
- It's the fastest and best handling sport sedan on the market.
- Looks acceptable in black (I've seen it).
- I'll take my chances with the electrical gremlins they're notorious for in order to have the best sport sedan on the
road when it's running.
- When everything's said and done it'll be about $15,000 more than the STS-V. I usually lease my cars, so the
payments should be relatively similiar.

Looks are in the eye of the beholder. There are many people who think the 300C looks better than the STS. There are also many people who think both look like old man's cars and prefer the Charger SRT8s look.

As for the STS-V, it clearly is supposed to be a sports sedan yet it is underwhelming compared to the competition.

As for the Northstar, it is clearly an inferior engine to the LS2. It costs more to produce, delivers far less power, and takes up just as much space under the hood.

It is time to put the 4.6 out to pasture.

When you are playing with the big boys you need to bring a big gun.

Let me put it another way

It is a WHOLE LOT easier to make the case for spending an addtional $5K for an E55 or $15K for a M5 over the STS-V then it is to make a case for spending an additional $32K for the STS-V over the 300C SRT8 or CTS-V.

And the difference isn't even close.

The STS-V needs either more power or a much lower price.

Let me put it another way
It is a WHOLE LOT easier to make the case for spending an addtional $5K for an E55 or $15K for a M5 over the STS-V then it is to make a case for spending an additional $32K for the STS-V over the 300C SRT8 or CTS-V.
And the difference isn't even close.
The STS-V needs either more power or a much lower price.
Speak for your self.

Like I said before, I'd spend the extra $15K for the M5 but that's because I want a sport sedan with an emphasis sport. The M5 isn't the right car for a lot of people because of its transmission and it has a racy engine that has to be revved to 6500+ rpm in order to go fast.

I wouldn't look at the 300C SRT-8, even though it's $32K less. Some of it is a perception thing, even Cadillac has been using the phrase "percieved quality" for interior materials being used.

I think you overestimate the status of Cadillac in the minds of the people outside of us.

I think you overestimate the status of Cadillac in the minds of the people outside of us.
Maybe

Changes in perception take time (I might even like Chrysler in the future, and I did say that I'd buy the M5 over the E63 or STS-V). :D

Huh? Isnt the V series touted as hot rod cars meant to be driven hard (look at their adverts). It is indeed a hot rod caddy.
F

My point exactly. "CADILLAC UNDER 5"... Sounds hot-rod to me.

Not to bore with auto history, but Cadillac really reached its pre-war heights by offering very similar quality and prestige to the much much more expensive dream cars of the day. Cars like the Duesenberg ,Stutz ,Rolls etc. The fact that Cadillac offered V12 and V16 engines in addition to the V8s actually out did some of the lower production custom brands of the day.

They did it at a much different price point though. GM should try that approach again. For instance a supercharged V8 should be standard along with all options at about the same price as a basic V8 import.

I mean it's frustrating that features like memory seats that Cadillac practically invented are once again optional on a $48K STS. By contrast such luxuries are standard on the imports. Also on much lesser cars such as Hyundia!

How about you guys look at it a new way? Who will be driving these 2 cars (ChargerRT8 , STSV) in 10 years? 5 years? Charger? Every redneck and his half-almost could have been-brother will have it. You will never see an STS-V parked under a rickety worn down canopy at the base of some minind mountain in the middle of butt-**** nowhere.
In 5 years, you'll have young aspiring doctors and lawyers, businesspeople driving used V's until they can afford a brand new car. What does that say?

That being said, I still think the STS-V is horribly over-priced. Not because of the SRT. Nobody who looks at an STS cares about SRT's. (And yes a few of you will shout, I DO....whatever..) It's a whole different way of thinking.
I thik the STS is pverpriced simply vecause the CTS-V is luxurious enough to persuade buyers from the way more expensive STS. I think the only factor in play is the tranny. Lets not forget the the new CTS will be here next year, which means a new CTS-V soon. What if it has heated/ventilated seats and bi-xenons, etc? Uh oh to the STS.
The STS-V really needs to separate itself more from the CTS-V.

<rant off>

My point exactly. "CADILLAC UNDER 5"... Sounds hot-rod to me.

There's a big difference between "supersedan" and "hot rod," people. CTS-V = Hot Rod, it's got a SBC in it for crying out loud. STS-V, like it or not, is too refined to be considered a hot rod.

How about you guys look at it a new way? Who will be driving these 2 cars (ChargerRT8 , STSV) in 10 years? 5 years? Charger? Every redneck and his half-almost could have been-brother will have it. You will never see an STS-V parked under a rickety worn down canopy at the base of some minind mountain in the middle of butt-**** nowhere.
In 5 years, you'll have young aspiring doctors and lawyers, businesspeople driving used V's until they can afford a brand new car. What does that say?

That being said, I still think the STS-V is horribly over-priced. Not because of the SRT. Nobody who looks at an STS cares about SRT's. (And yes a few of you will shout, I DO....whatever..) It's a whole different way of thinking.
I thik the STS is pverpriced simply vecause the CTS-V is luxurious enough to persuade buyers from the way more expensive STS. I think the only factor in play is the tranny. Lets not forget the the new CTS will be here next year, which means a new CTS-V soon. What if it has heated/ventilated seats and bi-xenons, etc? Uh oh to the STS.
The STS-V really needs to separate itself more from the CTS-V.

<rant off>

You raise a good point as to why Caddy may not want to offer and auto in the CTS-V

It might cannibalize sales from a much more profitable STs LINE

The real problem is that the STS was built off the same platform so it is only slightly larger and is no faster

Something that must be understood here for LS engine advocates: The Northstar is more refined and better at delivering the power smoothly. Its that extra bit of class, from the engine to the suspension to the interior, that separates Cadillac from Chrysler. The word for it is "sophistication." You can shoe-horn a big engine into anything and call it a day [you can do that in your garage], but extra time and energy invested into every aspect of the car heightens it to a new level.

A real luxury car with a real luxury badge is indeed worth twice the price.