: How many cubic inches is a N*?



STS127
01-20-07, 09:09 AM
How many cubic inches is the Northstar? In my owners manual it says 279 but whenever I do a parts search on a website it will say 281. Which is it?

ewill3rd
01-20-07, 09:31 AM
I wouldn't call this gospel, but the conversion factor I always used is Liters times 61.02 = cubic inches.
It works mostly, but it is not anything scientific.
That would put the N* at just over 280.

An online volume calculator that I found says :4.6 liter = 280.709221649 cubic inch

It looks like 281 would be the winner, but it depends on who is doing the math I guess.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-20-07, 09:34 AM
I've heard the Northstar is 279 and the Ford 32 Valve 4.6 is 281.

Dadillac
01-20-07, 09:48 AM
Also keep in mind that the N* technically could be as low as a 4.55 liter engine. Manufacturers round off the number, and are supposed to do so to the nearest tenth. So the conversion for a 4.55 engine is 277 ci.

Don

eldorado1
01-20-07, 10:27 AM
A northstar has a 3.66" bore and a 3.31" stroke, for a total displacement of 278.6 cubic inches

Flynn
01-20-07, 12:44 PM
1/2 bore, squared x pi x stroke x No. of cylinders = displacement

(for you who want the formula for future reference)

ewill3rd
01-20-07, 03:31 PM
Sure... then there is that.... :D
There is a little space in the combustion chambers too. ;)

AaronZ34
01-20-07, 03:38 PM
Sure... then there is that.... :D
There is a little space in the combustion chambers too. ;)

That has absolutely nothing to do with displacement.

Flynn
01-20-07, 03:43 PM
Displacement is defined as the "swept" volume of the cylinders per 1 complete cycle, so that excludes the combustion chambers.

ewill3rd
01-20-07, 04:46 PM
Wow, you sure showed me up.
;)

Cadillacboy
01-20-07, 04:59 PM
We have already 10 replies in such a thread .:bouncy:
No wonder why an oil related thread hit 10+ pages
:hide: :bump: :nox:

1997BlackETC
01-20-07, 07:20 PM
So 300 hp really is pretty good for a such a small V8, heck too bad they didnt double the cubic inches it would be 600 hp out of a 562 CI motor, lol. Can you imagine the torque it would have, hehehe.

Cad tech
01-20-07, 09:02 PM
Engine Mechanical Specifications L37 (VIN 9)
Application
Specification

Metric
English

General

Engine Type
V-8

Piston Displacement
4.6 Liter
279 cu in

RPO
L37

VIN
9

Compression Ratio
10.0:1

Compression Pressure at Cranking Speed, Throttle Open
965-1172 KPa
140-170 psi

Power
224 kW @ 5,600 RPM
300 hp @ 5,600 RPM

Torque
400 Nm @ 4,000 RPM
295 lb ft @ 4,000 RPM

Firing Order
1-2-7-3-4-5-6-8

Bearings

Crankshaft, Main, Bearing Material
Aluminum

Production Clearance
0.015-0.055 mm
0.0006-0.0022 in

Service - Maximum
0.0635 mm
0.0025 in

Connecting Rod Bearing Material
Aluminum

Production Clearance
0.025-0.076 mm
0.0010-0.0030 in

Service - Maximum
0.076 mm
0.0030 in

Camshaft

Camshaft Material
Hardened Cast Gray Iron

Bearing Number
5

Bearing Number on Left Cylinder Head Intake
6

Bearing Journal Diameter
26.948-26.972 mm
1.0610-1.0619 in

Bearing Bore Diameter, In Cylinder Head
27.013-27.033 mm
1.0635-1.0642 in

Bearing Clearance
0.051-0.076 mm
0.0020-0.0030 in

Production Limits
0.040-0.090 mm
0.0016-0.0035 in

Service Limits - Maximum
0.090 mm
0.0035 in

Runout
0.050 mm
0.0020 in

Out-of-Round
0.006 mm
0.0002 in

Straightness
0.007 mm
0.0003 in

Thrust Width
22.990-23.090 mm
0.9051-0.9091 in

Timing, @ 0.150 mm [0.006 in] Lift, Intake Opens
0 degrees

Intake Centerline
122 degrees ATDC

Intake Closes
251 degrees ATDC

Exhaust Opens
225.5 degrees BTDC

Exhaust Centerline
106 degrees BTDC

Exhaust Closes
20.5 degrees ATDC

Camshaft Lift, Intake
6.15 mm
0.2421 in

Exhaust
5.94 mm
0.2339 in

Valve Lift, Intake
10.500 mm
0.4134 in

Exhaust
10.000 mm
0.3937 in

Duration, @ 0.150 mm [0.006 in] Lift, Intake
251 degrees

Exhaust
246 degrees

Overlap, @ 0.150 mm [0.006 in] Lift
2.04 degrees

Left Intake Water Pump Drive End, Diameter
15.852-15.902 mm
0.6241-0.6261 in

Diameter within last 19.5 mm (0.7677 in)
15.872-15.882 mm
0.6249-0.6253 in

Runout
0.150 mm
0.0059 in

Camshaft Drive

Primary Drive Type
Endless Chain

Adjustment
Hydraulic, Automatic

Pitch
8 mm
0.315 in

Width
Single Row

Secondary Drive Type
Endless Chain

Adjustment
Hydraulic, Automatic

Pitch
8 mm
0.315 in

Width
Single Row

Connecting Rods

Diameter, Crankshaft End, Without Bearings
57.136-57.152 mm
2.2495-2.2501 in

Taper, Maximum
0.005 mm
0.0002 in

Piston Pin End, With Bushing
21.002-21.016 mm
0.8268-0.8274 in

Taper, Maximum
0.007 mm
0.0003 in

Without Bushing
23.453-23.493 mm
0.9234-0.9421 in

Width
21.774 mm
0.8572 in

Center to Center
151.000 mm
5.9449 in

Side Clearance, Pair of Connecting Rods on Crankpin
0.200-0.500 mm
0.0079-0.0197 in

Crankshaft

Journals Crankshaft, Main, Diameter
64.350-64.366 mm
2.5335-2.5341 in

Runout #1, #5
0.022 mm
0.0009 in

Runout #2, #3, #4
0.025 mm
0.0010 in

Round
0.005 mm
0.0002 in

Taper
0.005 mm
0.0002 in

Width, #1, #2, #4, #5
24.540-24.660 mm
0.9661-0.9709 in

Thrust #3, Wall Width
25.150-25.250 mm
0.9902-0.9941 in

Runout
0.040 mm
0.0016 in

Square
0.010 mm
0.0004 in

Crankpin, Connecting Rod, Diameter
53.947-53.963 mm
2.1239-2.1245 in

Round
0.005 mm
0.0002 in

Taper
0.005 mm
0.0002 in

Width
43.840-43.960 mm
1.7260-1.7307 in

End Play, Production
0.050-0.500 mm
0.0020-0.0197 in

Service - Maximum
0.500 mm
0.0197 in

Flange, Engine Flywheel, Face Runout
0.025 mm
0.0010 in

Rear Seal, Diameter
95.880-95.980 mm
3.7748-3.7787 in

Runout
0.025 mm
0.0010 in

Nose Diameter, 0.0-21.0 mm (0.000-0.827 in), From Front Face
34.500-34.750 mm
1.3583-1.3681 in

Runout
0.100 mm
0.0039 in

21.0-53.00 mm (0.827-2.087 in), From Front Face
34.892-34.912 mm
1.3737-1.3745 in

Runout
0.030 mm
0.0012 in

53.00 mm (2.087 in), From Front Face, to Rolled Fillet
33.450-33.550 mm
1.3169-1.3209 in

Runout
0.100 mm
0.0039 in

89.94-110.54 mm (3.541-4.352 in), From Front Face
44.950-45.000 mm
1.7697-1.7717 in

Runout
0.025 mm
0.0010 in

Crankshaft Balancer

Hub Inside Diameter
34.847-34.864 mm
1.3719-1.3726 in

Outside Diameter, Without Wear Sleeve
50.730-50.870 mm
1.9972-2.0028 in

Runout
0.100 mm
0.0039 in

Cylinder Block

Material
Aluminum with Cast-in Grey Iron Sleeves

Length
528.45 mm
20.8100 in

Cylinder Bore Diameter @ 41 mm (1.6100 in) Below Deck Face
92.992-93.008 mm
3.6611-3.6617 in

Out-of-Round, Production
0.010 mm
0.0004 in

Service - Maximum Allowed
0.100 mm
0.0039 in

Taper, Production
0.010 mm
0.0004 in

Service - Maximum Allowed
0.100 mm
0.0039 in

Piston Clearance @ 41 mm (1.6100 in) Below Deck Face
0.020-0.051 mm
0.0008-0.0020 in

Stroke
84 mm
3.3071 in

Deck Height
224.55 mm
8.8406 in

Clearance - Above Deck Surface
0.45 mm
0.0177 in

Face Flatness - Maximum Allowed
0.100 mm
0.0039 in

Crankshaft Bearing Bore, Mains, Diameter
72.430-72.442 mm
2.8516-2.8521 in

Crankshaft Rear Seal Bore, Diameter
115.962-116.038 mm
4.5654-4.5684 in

Runout - Maximum Allowed
0.250 mm
0.0098 in

Cylinder Head

Type
DOHC -- 4 Valves Per Cylinder

Material
Aluminum

Combustion Chamber Volume
48.6 cc
2.965 cu in

Chamber Depth to Surface
10.470-10.710 mm
0.4122-0.4217 in

Flatness, Without Resurfacing - Maximum
0.050 mm
0.0020 in

Resurfacing Amount - Maximum
0.200 mm
0.0079 in

Distance to Camshaft Bore Centerline
136.000 mm
5.3543 in

Inside Diameter
5.969-5.989 mm
0.2350-0.2358 in

Valve Guide-to-Valve Stem Clearance Production, Exhaust
0.050-0.100 mm
0.0020-0.0039 in

Intake
0.028-0.068 mm
0.0011-0.0027 in

Service, Exhaust
0.120 mm
0.0047 in

Intake
0.110 mm
0.0043 in

Valve Seating Surface, Angle
45.75 degrees

Width, Exhaust
1.300-1.700 mm
0.0512-0.0669 in

Intake
0.420-0.820 mm
0.0165-0.0323 in

Runout - Maximum
0.050 mm
0.0020 in

Relief, Angle
20 degrees

Width, Exhaust
0.160-0.360 mm
0.0063-0.0142 in

Intake
0.110-0.310 mm
0.0043-0.0118 in

Runout - Maximum
0.050 mm
0.0020 in

Undercut Angle, Exhaust
65 degrees

Intake
60 degrees

Oil System

Oil Pump Type
Gerotor

Minimum Pressure at Normal Operating Temperature @ Idle
35 kPa
5 psi

Minimum Pressure at Normal Operating Temperature @ 2,000 RPM
250 kPa
35 psi

Oil Pressure Recirculation
Internal Piston Valve

Oil Filter Type
PF 58

Oil Capacity with Filter
7.098 Liter
7.5 Quarts

Without Filter
6.625 Liter
7 Quarts

Pistons

Material
Aluminum

Diameter
92.957-92.972 mm
3.6597-3.6603 in

Taper
No Taper Measurement

Pin Bore Diameter
21.003-21.008 mm
0.8269-0.8271 in

Ring Groove Width, 1st Compression, Top
1.230-1.255 mm
0.0484-0.0494 in

2nd Compression
1.530-1.555 mm
0.0602-0.0612 in

Oil Control
2.530-2.555 mm
0.0996-0.1006 in

Inside Diameter, 1st Compression, Top,
84.720-84.970 mm
3.3354-3.3453 in

2nd Compression
83.260-83.510 mm
3.2779-3.2878 in

Oil Control
85.570-85.820 mm
3.3689-3.3787 in

Piston Pins

Material
Steel

Diameter
20.995-21.000 mm
0.8266-0.8268 in

Length
62.000-61.500 mm
2.4409-2.4212 in

Retention
Snap Rings (2)

Piston Rings

Compression
2

Oil Ring
1

Side Clearance, 1st Compression, Top
0.040-0.095 mm
0.0016-0.0037 in

2nd Compression
0.040-0.095 mm
0.0016-0.0037 in

Oil Control
None - Side Sealing

Ring End Gap, 1st Compression, Top
0.250-0.400 mm
0.0098-0.0157 in

2nd Compression
0.350-0.050 mm
0.0138-0.0020 in

Oil Control
0.250-0.760 mm
0.0098-0.0299 in

Rocker Arms, Followers

Type
Roller

Ratio
1.68 to 1

Roller Diameter
17.740-17.800 mm
0.6984-0.7008 in

Valves

Exhaust, Length from Tip to Face OD
91.730-91.990 mm
3.6114-3.6217 in

Head, Diameter
27.880-28.140 mm
1.0976-1.1079 in

Runout - Maximum
0.380 mm
0.0150 in

Chamfer, Angle
30 degrees

Width - Minimum
0.380 mm
0.0150 in

Margin Width
1.070 mm
0.0421 in

Face, Angle
45 degrees

Width - Minimum
1.500 mm
0.0591 in

Runout - Maximum
0.038 mm
0.0015 in

Valve Stem Diameter
5.920-5.940 mm
0.2331-0.2339 in

Out-of-Round - Maximum Deviation
0.008 mm
0.0003 in

Straightness - Maximum Deviation
0.013 mm
0.0005 in

Intake, Length from Tip to Face OD
110.600-110.860 mm
4.3543-4.3646 in

Head Diameter
36.090-36.350 mm
1.4209-1.4311 in

Runout - Maximum
0.380 mm
0.0150 in

Chamfer, Angle
30 degrees

Width - Minimum
0.380 mm
0.0150 in

Margin Width
0.890 mm
0.0350 in

Face, Angle
45 degrees

Width - Minimum
1.000 mm
0.0394 in

Runout - Maximum
0.038 mm
0.0015 in

Valve Stem Diameter
5.920-5.940 mm
0.2331-0.2339 in

Out-of-Round - Maximum Deviation
0.008 mm
0.0003 in

Straightness - Maximum Deviation
0.013 mm
0.0005 in

Valve Lifters, Stationary Hydraulic Lifter Adjuster - SHLA

Type
Stationary Hydraulic

Diameter
11.986-12.000 mm
0.4719-0.4724 in

Lifter Bore Diameter, In Cylinder Head,
12.013-12.037 mm
0.4730-0.4739 in

Clearance
0.037-0.041 mm
0.0015-0.0016 in

Valve Springs

Length Installed
35 mm
1.3780 in

Free
40.790-43.690 mm
1.6059-1.7201 in

Valve Closed
35 mm
1.3780 in

Valve Open
24.500 mm
0.9646 in

Force, Valve Closed
211.4-233.4 Nm
47.5-52.5 lb

Valve Open
579.0-631.0 Nm
130.2-141.9 lb

Diameter Inside
17.750-18.250 mm
0.6988-0.7185 in

Outside
26.23 mm
1.0327 in

Wire, Ovate
4.110 x 3.280 mm
0.1618 x 0.1291 in

Coil Direction
Clockwise

Total Number of Coils
6.90 - 7.10

there lol......how do you like those apples??????????????

1997BlackETC
01-20-07, 09:52 PM
Wow, everything I always wanted to know about the Northstar and more :)

AaronZ34
01-20-07, 11:25 PM
So 300 hp really is pretty good for a such a small V8, heck too bad they didnt double the cubic inches it would be 600 hp out of a 562 CI motor, lol. Can you imagine the torque it would have, hehehe.

It really isn't actually. The specific output of the Northstar is actually pretty docile in today's standards. GM is the king of low specific outputs, and has even made a few better than the N*. I just like it for the good design and potential. All aluminum, 4v heads, good OHC design (Unlike its predecessors), and really good EFI. But the factory specific output is not exactly awe-inspiring.

eldorado1
01-21-07, 09:55 AM
Engine Mechanical Specifications L37 (VIN 9)


TMI.

Flynn
01-21-07, 10:13 AM
Also keep in mind that the N* technically could be as low as a 4.55 liter engine. Manufacturers round off the number, and are supposed to do so to the nearest tenth. So the conversion for a 4.55 engine is 277 ci.


For pedantics (I include myself), a N* 4.6L is really 4.56483L :duck:

GreenMachine
01-21-07, 10:38 AM
It really isn't actually. The specific output of the Northstar is actually pretty docile in today's standards. GM is the king of low specific outputs, and has even made a few better than the N*. I just like it for the good design and potential. All aluminum, 4v heads, good OHC design (Unlike its predecessors), and really good EFI. But the factory specific output is not exactly awe-inspiring.

When you consider it was class leading for almost 10 years, maybe more (came out in 93 right?), still pretty close in the full size sedan traditional market (towncar like vehicles), and now that it can breath in a RWD formula with VVT there is no need for a torque and HP version, its all rolled up into one making 320HP, that ain't bad. Plopped the SC on it and made it much smaller (with other changes) at 4.4L to make 470HP.

Since it is so old, compare it other engines over the years and it still stacks up well, the next gen Northstar...ok high feature DOHC V8 engine, will build upon what they've learned and I'm sure it will bring cadillac another class leading V8. They lead the FWD market for awhile, now they need to lead the RWD and Performance, or offer big bang for one buck, their on their way.

LINK: http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=32358

eldorado1
01-21-07, 11:28 AM
Honda (synonymous with "cheap") has been making 100hp/l naturally aspirated for years. I wouldn't mind a 460hp northstar - without a turbo/blower.

GreenMachine
01-21-07, 11:53 AM
yeah in 4 cylinder form, in economy cars, not V8's, different ball park. Those have no regard for "quite sound" or "refinement". Making the northstar sound not noticeable is the key, the hondas clearly make a lot of noise :) Can't always have both worlds.

eldorado1
01-21-07, 03:14 PM
Screw quiet sound and refinement! I want power!!

Cadillacboy
01-21-07, 03:38 PM
When '00 STS first arrived I couldn't believe how quite it was . I presumed it would be as loud as '96 STS and '03 lade . They brought the car,started the engine and I lead the way where to park it . I was talking to other guy at that moment and driver parking my car came near us .
Later, I walked thru the car and was saying why did he stop the engine and I was a few meters away from car while I was saying that . When I came near the car I said OMG the car was running ?
This is how quite and smooth car I have .The engine sound is totally different than earlier cars :stirpot:

GreenMachine
01-21-07, 06:26 PM
Screw quiet sound and refinement! I want power!!
then buy a camaro, firebird, GTO, Mustang, a cadillac usually isn't the first place someone looks for power, but instead craftmanship and refinement, 15-16 second quarter miles don't scream performance...well for FWD land yachts that ain't bad :P

eldorado1
01-21-07, 07:36 PM
Build me an XLR-V that doesn't cost as much as a house, and I'll buy it.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-21-07, 08:36 PM
This is how quite and smooth car I have .The engine sound is totally different than earlier cars :stirpot:

But see that's what I don't like about the newer ones, they don't have that aggressive sound the earlier ones do. The '93 STS, '94 SLS and '95 Eldorado I drove all had that louder, more aggressive sounding Northstar, and the N* is a hell of a nice soundin motor. When I drove that '99 ETC, 98 deVille or '98 Concours, the Northstar was silenced..it felt more isolated, more hoity toity, less fun to drive.

AaronZ34
01-21-07, 11:08 PM
Build me an XLR-V that doesn't cost as much as a house, and I'll buy it.

Instead of preaching ignorance on the subject, why not share with us your way of building an XLR-V, that doesn't cost as much as a house to produce.

Here are the requirements. Your engine must make 440+ hp, last 200,000 miles, warranty for 10 years, 100,000 miles (Of course you incur the costs if it can't), satisfy the luxurious demanding of Cadillac owners, be able to sit at redline for an hour straight, through the desert, without the temp gauge going over halfway, and doing everything else a XLR-V can do. Remember you need to hire engineers that can design this (You obviously can't, otherwise you'd have built one yourself), you have to pay for robots that can build it, you have to pay for the factory that it gets built in, and you still need to turn a profit to put food on your plates.

And by God, if ONE thing doesn't work, your buyer is going to be PISSED.

ewill3rd
01-22-07, 07:09 AM
My next door neighbor's house is for sale for more than 7 times the price of an XLR-V, maybe you could buy that, then you would feel better about the price tag on the XLR-V? :D

In this part of the country you can't buy a shed for the price of an XLR-V, and there are reasons the car costs as much as it does.

eldorado1
01-22-07, 08:23 AM
there are reasons the car costs as much as it does.

Because it says "cadillac" on the back.

If chevy/pontiac/saturn built it, it would cost half as much - literally.

eldorado1
01-22-07, 08:29 AM
Instead of preaching ignorance on the subject, why not share with us your way of building an XLR-V, that doesn't cost as much as a house to produce.

Here are the requirements. Your engine must make 440+ hp, last 200,000 miles, warranty for 10 years, 100,000 miles (Of course you incur the costs if it can't), satisfy the luxurious demanding of Cadillac owners, be able to sit at redline for an hour straight, through the desert, without the temp gauge going over halfway, and doing everything else a XLR-V can do.


Done.

4.4L SC crate engine - $11,820.

Now you're telling me - that you can't build the rest of the car for $30,000?

ewill3rd
01-22-07, 08:44 AM
you can't build the rest of the car for $30,000?

Um...... yeah, you couldn't touch that 30K pricetag for the "rest of the car".
The electronics alone probably cost more than that.
Perhaps you might be able to buy the parts for 30 (which I doubt), but are you going to put them together for free and then offer a warranty?
What about the body and paint? Not to mention the parts for the folding top.
Heck, I had to replace the linkage on one side of the folding top and repaint the top and trunk and the bill was almost $10,000. (don't fold the top down with a bowling ball in the trunk by the way :D)

Heck the "base" XLR is almost $80,000... you take a 12K engine and put it in that car and you are protesting that it is still not worth 100K for a limited production car????
You sure lost me dude.

Okay, it is someone else's turn to bring some logic to this discussion.

eldorado1
01-22-07, 09:16 AM
Um...... yeah, you couldn't touch that 30K pricetag for the "rest of the car".
The electronics alone probably cost more than that.

I don't know what "electronics" you're talking about, but if it's got a nav or stereo system or something, I say tear it out.

2007 mustang convertable with a 4.6L 300hp engine has an MSRP of $31,000. You're telling me, that you can't massage the sheet metal of the car so it looks exactly like an XLR, and insert an $11k engine and not have it cost $100k?

A base (v6) mustang costs $19k (MSRP). +11k = $30k... and you get a free v6 engine.

It's not that it costs infinity dollars to mass produce a cool car - it's that cadillac wants to keep brand appeal - which means expensive cars limited to the rich.

ewill3rd
01-22-07, 10:04 AM
Wow, you are right.
Thanks for setting me straight.

:horse:

AaronZ34
01-22-07, 04:04 PM
Done.

4.4L SC crate engine - $11,820.

Now you're telling me - that you can't build the rest of the car for $30,000?

And how do you plan on starting this? Eith an ECU that you're going to build and program? Is it going to pass federal emissions after you program it? Is it going to make 440+ hp, and be reliable to 200,000 miles after you program it? Is it still going to enable you to get some 30mpg?

Now how many of you trust Mr. Eldorado to reinvent your entire electronic fuel delivery system? I don't. That's why I'd need to hire a computer programmer, to work with a very highly skilled group of automotive engineers and mathematical geniuses. They'd be able to reason that with this much CFM flowing in, at this air temperature, with the engine's water and oil at this temperature, the vehcile needs to inject this much fuel. THen it needs to fire the spark at exactly this time, based upon how much engine knock has been recorded, how much air/fuel is going in, the air/water/oil temperatures, and so much more. That's odd, all of this work I'd need to do, GM HAS ALREADY DONE. That's why the car doesn't cost 30 grand, it costs 80.

And the reason the car says Cadillac on the back, is so that when somebody buys it, it doesn't just SAY Cadillac, it IS a Cadillac. With that comes high standards. Standards that I am absolutely positive you could not match, especially not within the $80,000 budget.

Do yourself a favor, stop typing. Or, get off your ass and build a car that matches a XLR-V in EVERY category, and beats it in price.

AaronZ34
01-22-07, 04:23 PM
I don't know what "electronics" you're talking about, but if it's got a nav or stereo system or something, I say tear it out.

2007 mustang convertable with a 4.6L 300hp engine has an MSRP of $31,000. You're telling me, that you can't massage the sheet metal of the car so it looks exactly like an XLR, and insert an $11k engine and not have it cost $100k?

A base (v6) mustang costs $19k (MSRP). +11k = $30k... and you get a free v6 engine.

It's not that it costs infinity dollars to mass produce a cool car - it's that cadillac wants to keep brand appeal - which means expensive cars limited to the rich.

But when the back end says Cadillac, I EXPECT the car to have satelite navigation and a kickass stereo. That's part of what a Cadillac IS. If you don't want that, go buy a SS Camaro. Just as fast as an XLR-V, handles just as good, gets better economy, etc. But you'll have to deal with the loud, lumpy idle from that tuned LS1 small block. You're going to have to deal with the vibrations. You're going to have to deal with feeling every pothole on the road. You're going to have to deal with not having navigation, DVD, etc. In short, you're going to have to deal with the fact that you're in a Camaro, not a Cadillac. It simply amazes me as to how truly ignorant you are on the Cadillac platform. I'd expect a Cadillac owner to KNOW what is behind a Cadillac, what to expect when they sit in one, and quite simply, what Cadillac means. You don't.

Now this Mustang of your's. First of all, why does it weigh so goddamn much? 4,000lbs? Where is the hardtop convertible? Why are the brakes so unimpressive? Why does it only have 4 gears? Why doesn't it have 19" rims? Why doesn't it have 50/50 weight ditribution? Why doesn't it rip a flat 13 1/4mi and a 4.5 second 0-60? Why can't it stop from 60 in just 114ft? Why can't it turn just 1500rpm at 60mph? Why doesn't it have stability AND traction control? Why doesn't it have electronic brake distribution? Why doesn't it have a limited slip differential? Why doesn't it have Projector beam lens Bi-Xenon headlights? Why doesn't it have automatic wipers? Why doesn't it have anti-theft? Why doesn't it have EVERYTHING ELSE that the Caddy has? Here's a link, read the rest for yourself. I could go on and on.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2006/cadillac/xlr_v/specifications/index.html

Now I'll answer those questions. Because, the Cadillac is a Cadillac XLR-V. It's expected to have those things. With that, comes the obvious (Not to you because you're missing some brain cells) increase in cost, because those things are not free, and are not invented, assembled, tested, and marketed by water. They're done by Professionals, Humans, Humans that need to be paid for what they do.

JoCan
01-22-07, 04:39 PM
Oops !!! :confused: I thought this was about how many cubic inches is a N*?

:gun2: :Offtopic: :hijacked:

GreenMachine
01-22-07, 07:14 PM
www.cadillac.com

Ok go threw there and look at the options and features these vehicles have. Then compare them to what a Mustang has. Interiors alone are more costly. How much does that blown Gt-500 mustang cost? 40-50 thousand. How much does a decent setup for a blown GT cost? 5-10 grand? See it adds up when you start adding in the engineering, PCM programs and such......you could probibly make an XLR cheaper with out all the electronic goodies...but why??? then you could just get a Corvette which has more horsepower!

I think your exactly right, Cadillac wants to keep its brand as a luxury, high-end vehicle, not something to be in the class of a civic, mustang, camaro, remember Cadillac is a division of General Motors, the luxury division, its not like BMW that has entry level cars that have features that compare to an impala. Pontiac is getting shaped into the small hot-ride division, Camaro's coming back, not sure why if you want pure speed and power you would get a Cadillac? It offers some power, with the amenities of a living room :)

Submariner409
01-22-07, 09:44 PM
Chill out. This is supposed to be an intelligent exchange of maintenance and upgrade information between human beings. It almost seems as if 10-12 persons have hijacked the whole N*/Seville site and turned it into a private pissing contest. We're messing with a 280 c.i. (+ or -) engine that does a hell of a job in a variety of applications. IT IS NOT AN ALLISON OR ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN 1680 HP V-12 !!!

ewill3rd
01-23-07, 07:49 AM
This topic became pretty nuts after about 4 posts if you ask me.
The original question was answered within those 4 posts (without having looked back) and then people just wanted to posture and try to prove other people wrong or be "more correct".
From there it spiraled downwards.
It is worthless at this point if you ask me.

The question has been answered in spades 10 times over.

mtflight
01-25-07, 12:12 AM
It simply amazes me as to how truly ignorant you are on the Cadillac platform. I'd expect a Cadillac owner to KNOW what is behind a Cadillac, what to expect when they sit in one, and quite simply, what Cadillac means. You don't.


Hmmm. Noone said he's a Cadillac owner. He owns a Northstar, transplanted into a Fiero. It obviously does not run with the stock PCM. I think it's a Holley commander. He's all about power, and mods. I don't doubt that if he had the budget and the time he'd try.

Let's be cordial to eachother, eldorado1 is a valuable forum member and he has helped many of us (including yours truly) many times. :thumbsup:


I do like your thinking, AaronZ34, and I agree with most of what you typed, as do most Caddi owners. :thumbsup:

eldorado1 is a fan of the Northstar engine, for obvious reasons which none of us question.

Speaking of the XLR-V, I hate this dude in the video (Top Speed host, BBC)
sgZNj7JcTlM