NOOOOOO...no 2004 STS - Page 3
Cadillac
 

Cadillac Forums | Help Us Help You | Advertise | Cadillac Parts | Cadillac News | Cadillac Classifieds / (Old System)

Cadillac Technical Archive | Cadillac Dealers | Cadillac Reviews | Cadillac Dealer Reviews | Cadillac Vendors

CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 55
Cadillac Seville / Cadillac Eldorado Forum Discussion, NOOOOOO...no 2004 STS in Past Cadillac Vehicle Discussion; Sorry for the double post, but this comment deserves more props than I've given it: Originally posted by Brett Infiniti ...
  1. #31
    Jinx is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2013 CTS-V estate
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,198
    Sorry for the double post, but this comment deserves more props than I've given it:

    Originally posted by Brett
    Infiniti is rebuilding their whole image around a great V-6, so if the engine is right, the configuration is moot.
    You are right.

    But prejudice against Cadillac as a domestic brand means their V6 would have to be spectacular to get any respect for the car wrapped around it. And the specs on GM's high-feature V6 are merely adequate at this point. They would have an easier time getting attention (and sales) with a more prestigious configuration.

    Cadillac understood this when they built their V8 with DOHC heads, and the coming V12 certainly shows understanding of the high end. I suppose limited engineering resources dictate that CTS remain adequate. But I fantasize about that V12 being sliced the other way, and I fantasize about XV8-powered rear-drive sedans. I fantasize about Jesse Jane in a tub of chocolate syrup too, but I doubt anyone wants to read about that here.

    .Jinx

  2. #32
    Jinx is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2013 CTS-V estate
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,198
    Originally posted by Brett
    Really my only gripe i have with you, is that you impuned the engine originally only because it was a V6. When you and I both know that there are good V6's out there.
    Not just because it's a V6. Because it's a V6, and its specs and GM's position on it already color it as average in a field of excellence. An alternate engine configuration can provide distinction that transcends performance stats. Subaru, Porsche, VW, Ducati, and Harley-Davidson all benefit from this. As does BMW.

    Besides, it chaps my ass that kids today drool over a 186hp BMW econobox as a performance car and I'd like to see Cadillac shove that inline-six superiority complex right up those haughty Germans' hineys.

    .Jinx
    (How the heck do you spell hiney?)

  3. #33
    Brett's Avatar
    Brett is offline Watching the Watchers
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Tampa
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,965
    "Once again, Cadillac doesn't get it.

    BMW would never do anything so plebian as place a V6 between its fenders. BMWs use inline sixes.

    Lexus knows this. Why doesn't Cadillac?"

    I assumed this statement was meant to impune V6's, but hey i could have taken it the wrong way. Maybe Cadillac will listen and we'll have a CTS with a trailblazer engine

  4. #34
    gspencer914's Avatar
    gspencer914 is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Age
    37
    Posts
    56
    kcnewell
    Right on target. No V8 no sale. I dont think caddi will undermine the reputation of their premium line of seville though. I do think however they are trying to put the consumers on the spot. No STS for 2004, easy way to get rid of overstocked 2003s. I dont think we are at the end of the STS. They may have something tricky up their sleeves LETS hope so.

    George

  5. #35
    kcnewell is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Nevada, Still the land of the free!
    Posts
    2,236
    Yes, Let's!

  6. #36
    gspencer914's Avatar
    gspencer914 is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Age
    37
    Posts
    56
    OH one more thing,
    Speaking on behalf of gm's 6 cyl.s does anyone remeber the good old GRAND NATIONAL with the 3.8L turbocharged V6. I do recall that being on the of fastest most dependable engines on the market. A leader ahead of its time for sure. 1984 to 1987. Shoot the grandnational ran a better quatermile time with the A/C on go figure. Just wanted to throw that one out there.

    George

  7. #37
    Brett's Avatar
    Brett is offline Watching the Watchers
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Tampa
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,965
    I had one, I loved it. I guess the problem some people have is that the 3.8 is essentially still being used in 3800 form 15 years later

  8. #38
    Elvis's Avatar
    Elvis is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Automobile(s): '05 Expedition
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,651
    I had a 3.8 in a Cutlass. I thought it sucked.

    But I sold it to a neighbor of mine and he drove it 100,000 miles after I had already put 42,000 on it, so it must not have sucked too badly.

  9. #39
    Brett's Avatar
    Brett is offline Watching the Watchers
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Tampa
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,965
    Of course if you would have kept it, it would have seized at 55k

  10. #40
    Elvis's Avatar
    Elvis is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Automobile(s): '05 Expedition
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,651
    Originally posted by Brett
    Of course if you would have kept it, it would have seized at 55k
    No doubt in my mind. It's a karmic thing with me and cars. Back then I traded about every 18-24 months.

    One of the headlights burned out, and that's how I knew it was time to trade. (that was for KC)

  11. #41
    Katshot's Avatar
    Katshot is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Newtown, PA
    Age
    55
    Posts
    6,472
    My God, you guys have covered a lot of ground on this GM V6 issue.
    Point 1. First of all let me say that even though a V6 CAN be built properly, and CAN be both durable AND powerful, the layout is flawed from the get-go. A V6 is a lousy design to start with and it must overcome many issues just to be on par with a V8.
    Point 2. Can GM build a "World-Class" high performance V6? Hell yeah, you only need to look as far as open-wheel racing to find it too. The two main engines for several years have been from Infiniti and Oldsmobile. GM HAS proven it's V6 thoroughly.
    Point 3. What about the Grand National's 3.8? Sure it was powerful, but it had a VERY short lifespan because of it's output. Average lifespan was 60K miles. So even though it was a hell of an attention getter for GM, I think in the long-run it only proves that if you want to BAD enough, you can even make a V6 a powerhouse.

  12. #42
    Ralph's Avatar
    Ralph is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): Cadillac
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    16,028
    Don't they use some V6's in Nascar, etc. They did a little while ago and they ran with the 8's and I thought they won some too?

  13. #43
    ljklaiber's Avatar
    ljklaiber is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 1995 SLS 200K miles
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Age
    73
    Posts
    372
    V6 design is inherently unbalanced...just look at the cranks. offset journals etc.. V8 is configured correctly and requires little to get within 1 gram on balance. V6 was a costly loser in NASCAR racing...V8 rules.
    No Buick or Chevy V6 ever came close to old relaiable SB Chev...
    Period

  14. #44
    ljklaiber's Avatar
    ljklaiber is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 1995 SLS 200K miles
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Age
    73
    Posts
    372
    Forgot to add. V6 effort in Nascar was in Busch series and now small ones in Goodys Dash. They were never in Winston Cup....!

    V8 rules.

  15. #45
    gspencer914's Avatar
    gspencer914 is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Age
    37
    Posts
    56
    Originally posted by ljklaiber
    V6 design is inherently unbalanced...just look at the cranks. offset journals etc.. V8 is configured correctly and requires little to get within 1 gram on balance. V6 was a costly loser in NASCAR racing...V8 rules.
    No Buick or Chevy V6 ever came close to old relaiable SB Chev...
    Period
    What???
    No doubt I would rather own a SB chevy than an old V6 but the 3.8 V6 has proven itself. Not only in the Grand National or any other application with the 3800 engine. If you dont think that engine was balanced or the cranks were made poorly then you obviously didnt realize they still produce these motors today with very little problems. Chevy has had their blunders though like the 2.8L V6 or the 3.1 same motor same problems. But all in all chevy as a whole makes very good v6 motors.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting