How About This ...the New Sts V - Page 7
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 7 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 116
Cadillac STS-V Series Forum Discussion, How About This ...the New Sts V in Cadillac V-Series Forums; I've driven an 04 XJR which has the aluminum chassis and liked it a lot. I like it a lot ...
  1. #91
    berkin is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    129

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    I've driven an 04 XJR which has the aluminum chassis and liked it a lot. I like it a lot more than the Audi A8, the MB S class, and the BMW 7 series.

    Some might think the Jaguar uses a Ford V-8, but that isn't true.

    http://www.jagweb.com/aj6eng/v8_performance.html

    I think the STS-V is sweet.

  2. #92
    50cal is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    19

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Quote Originally Posted by berkin
    I like it a lot more than the Audi A8, the MB S class, and the BMW 7 series.
    As do I, much more entertaining car to drive.......which isn't a surprise really. The car is lighter, sportier, and has more power than both the A8 (V8), S430/500 and 745.

    Interior wise.

    1. A8 (by far)
    2. Sclass
    3. Jag
    4. 745 (nicer materials than the Jag, but the design is weird and i-drive is for the birds).

  3. #93
    berkin is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    129

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Does the new STS-V have a limited-slip differential?

  4. #94
    BeelzeBob's Avatar
    BeelzeBob is offline I'm a Cadillac Fanatic!
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    Age
    49
    Posts
    9,577

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Quote Originally Posted by Afreet1

    Also if they are going the supercharger route, why not use a screw-type supercharger instead of a roots type? They have a flat torque curve and are more efficient.

    Not entirely true....you really have to look at the pressure ratio of the supercharger. The roots blowers are actually more efficient at lower pressure ratios. It will not heat up the charge air as much and will take less power to turn it compared to the screw compressor at the same pressure ratio. If the engine is going over 1 bar boost then the screw compressor is the obvious choice but below that the roots is considered better.

    Neither blower has a "more flat torque curve". That is based purely on the blower set up, the tuning of the engine, cam timing and availability of VVT, etc...

    One advantage of the roots style blower is that it works well with a bypass valve. The bypass valve, when open, allows the blower elements to basically windmill. The improves part throttle fuel efficiency as the only parasitic load on the engine at that point is the belt drive. The blower is basically windmilling and not taking any power.

    A big disadvantage of the screw style compressor is that fact that it does not work with a bypass valve. The compressor is always compressing air and therefore is always a parasitic load on the engine even when not making boost. To get around this the screw compressor applications are generally clutched. This adds even more complexity and requires a very large clutch to handle the load of the larger screw compressors.

    The Mercedes system, for instance, uses a screw purely because it is the only large displacement blower large enough for their application. They are not really "using" the screw compressor to the maximum advantage, however, as there is no clutch to disconnect the compressor (so fuel econom suffers dramatically) and the boost pressure is not in the range that a screw is more efficient than a roots blower. Case in point is that the application is not near the 100 HP/liter tuning point even with the screw compressor.

    The STS-V application is very well sized and uses a roots blower correctly. It is in the optimum range of pressure ratio to be efficient and has a very efficient bypass circuit for fuel economy efficiency at part throttle.

    You do not get the engine to a state of tune of 100 HP per liter by using the device incorrectly.....

  5. #95
    pietroraimondi's Avatar
    pietroraimondi is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 07 SRX V8 AWD Diamond White Sport Edition & 08 C6 LS3/418ci
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    742

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Quote Originally Posted by b4z
    pietro,

    I share your frustration with Cadillac's service experience.
    It starts with the service advisors, the waiting room, and that fact that things are rarely fixed the first time.
    I wish the whole dealership experience was at a higher level.
    It is kind of embarassing to tell you the truth.

    I think where we part ways to some extent is with the powertrain.
    Several months ago I started a thread about getting OHC motors in the"V".
    Some very educated engine guys on this thread gave me the some very convincing arguements that pushrods are not so bad.

    Since that time I have bought a Pontiac GTO and I love the LS1 motor.
    It pulls like a freight train at higher rpms. Much beter than te 2valve Ford mod motor.
    Does it shake a little at idle. Yes. Could it be fee dbs quieter? Yes.
    But it is a fantastic motor. Period.

    I also own a SRX with the 3.6L VVT.
    Lots of low and midrange power.
    You did not say whether your's is a '04 or '05.
    This is a great motor too, but my '04 has a noisy valvetrain.
    It could be quieter and it could be smoother.
    For '05 changes were made to quiet it down.
    There are better V6's out there than the 3.6L. Honda's comes to mind.

    I am really not sure why you are so fascinated with the 3.6L and down on the LS6?

    IMHO opinion the LS has taken the pushrod to new heights. The 3.6L is just adequate. Cadillac needs to come out with the 270-280hp version, as it is a little weak in the high end.

    Anyway, I agree with your criticisms in general, but i think you are being a little hard on some of the fine points.
    Again, I am not disspointed in the STS-V and don't think that Cadillac has overrated hp in the CTS-V.

    P.S.
    The LS6 is a GM motor not a Chevy motor.
    The Escalade is still 80-90% Chevy Tahoe/ GMC Denali.
    B4Z:

    I stand corrected; the LS6 is in fact a GM motor and not a Chevrolet Motor per se. My point which was unfortunately miscommunicated was the fact that IMO, the LS6 did not belong in a Cadillac CTS-V to begin with. Cadillac's reasoning for using the LS6 was simply because the small block fit the parameters of the engine bay compartment and without the luxury of time for retooling and designing a higher output VVT OHC motor that was capable of producing 400 BHP and still provide the dba quality that should be "expected" of a company attempting to launch a new product to the marketplace, it would have put Cadillac beyond the timeframe of BMW's launch of the new M5 and as you know the "horsepower" wars had just begun and Cadillac fired the first shot with the V.

    If Cadillac had the luxury of time with the CTS-V, we would have seen a similiar supercharged Northstar engine that will appear in the STS-V, SRX-V (still in question) and the XLR-V. But as we all know.......that SC-Northstar engine was two years away from production. You will however see that same SC-Northstar engine in the 2007 CTS-V and the LS6 will be relegated back to the Corvette, GTO and perhaps later when the Camaro is reintroduced.

    My simple point was that the LS6 pushrod; although a very fine pushrod V-8 didn't belong in a "cutting edge" new technology vehicle that the CTS-V was touted to be. As most know, there are still problems with the V with regard to rear wheel hop, undersized rear toe rods as well as undersized trailing arms.

    There is also severe problems with regard to rear brake bias on the CTS-V. The four piston rear Brembo caliper pistons are oversized and were actually designed, rather engineered by Brembo for front brake application. Cadillac took a front brake Brembo 4 piston same bore 4 piston caliper and shaved the outer body of the caliper in order to "make it fit the rear" spindle/knuckle and clear the wheel spokes. Are you still holding onto your hat after hearing that one?......They actually took a radial mount Brembo 4 piston front "off the shelf" same bore large piston front brake caliper and shaved the outer body case to make it fit the rear without any regard to brake bias. That rear Brembo 4 piston CTS-V caliper is now a proprietary GM Cadillac product and Brembo will have nothing to do with it. Brembo doesn't sell it, doesn't stock it, nor do they support it. You can however buy the front Brembo 4 pot caliper directly from Brembo for your CTS-V, but that rear caliper is a mess and Brembo will have nothing to do with it! In fact, Cadillac had to machine a 14.4 " rear rotor to get the shave Bembo caliper to fit and clear the rear wheel spokes in comparison to the 14" front rotors that provide 75% or better of your braking pressure. Now tell me when was the last time you saw any performance vehicle running a larger diameter rear rotor sweep than what was on the front based on proper brake bias? There is no logical explanation except that had to "make that rear Brembo caliper fit".

    With regard to my personal CTS; it is a 2004 Luxury Sport. I am running 245/45/18 rubber on 18x8.5 rims. My braking system is custom built and comprises Wilwood 6 piston staggered bore front radial mount calipers and Wilwood 4 piston small bore rear radial mount calipers. My front rotors are 13.1 x 1.25 and the rear rotors are 13.1 x1.0. The rotors portions are directional vane cross-drilled and gas slotted as well as cryo treated and cadium plated. The front rotor hats are anodized aluminum and the rear hats are also two piece design, however the rear rotor hats are machined of steel to accomodate the OEM functioning parking drum assembly brake.

    My fascination with the 3.6 VVT is basically the fact that it is a "global engine" that will support with its current architecture more than 370 HP and more than 350 lbs.-ft torque with excellent fuel consumption and outstanding noise control and harshness control. My own CTS was dyno'd at 363 on its last dyno run, but then again I've made some significant induction modifications that this engine unlike the Honda or Infiniti G30 are incapable of.

    To take a 3.6 factory engine that is rated at 255 BHP and increase that to more than 370 without having to change out the pistons, crankshaft and connecting rods would be impossible on your 6 cylinder Honda, unless of course your looking to end up with a very large immovable paperweight. And we haven't even touched upon the transmission or rear end.

    Our CTS came "stock" with dual ovehead cams and four valves per cylinder and a roller follower valvetrain as do most well built 6's. But that is where the similiarities end. Where Cadillac separated themselves from the pack was when they introduced 4 cam phasing, forged aluminum pistons with floating wrist pins and oil jet capability, a forged steel crankshaft and sinter forged(cryo treated) connecting rods and the list goes on and on and on. FORGED, FORGED, FORGED! Not a single bit of sand cast steel or aluminum in the combustion chamber....neither Honda or Infiniti or Lexus can make that claim. The bottom line is that Lund can bolt up a 120 to 150 HP supercharger to a factory built 3.6 VVT OEM engine and not even have to change a spark plug and deliver a 400 HP 6 cylinder engine without a single internal engine modification.

    I would question what the inside of that Honda engine might look like with that kind of boost given the fact that the internal combustion chamber is cast and not forged.

    One of the more fascinating things about the 3.6 VVT is it's absolute without question, state of the art 32 bit, 25 MHZ Bosch Motronic ME9 microprocessor----it is the most powerful and sophisticated "self learning" ECU processor in the entire automotive industry. Here's the quick answer as to why there is no tuner software for the 3.6 VVT......add the supercharger,or the cold air intake or remove the valve cylinder sleeves and use the factory 4.0 cylinder bore with replacement pistons and the ECU recognizes the hardware and adjusts accordingly.

    The noisy valvetrain on your SRX is a bit perplexing, but given the cost of that vehicle, I would park it at the Dealership until they get it right or make them replace the entire damn engine.

    We also own a 2004 SRX AWD Northstar V-8. That of course belongs to my wife. We bought both vehicles in the same evening....the CTS and the SRX. Truth be told, if the V had been available in a tiptronic type of automatic tranny, I would have probably opted for the V at the time, but as of now I have no regrets given the upgrades that I have put into my CTS.

    We drove the 3.6 VVT SRX and then the 4.6 Northstar AWD SRX and it was like comparing a prop plane to a lear jet....no kidding aside! The SRX is quite a heavy vehicle and 260 HP is not alot of HP for a vehicle of that weight IMO. Yes the 3.6 VVT is adequate for the SRX, but unless you have driven the 4.6 Northstar version, you are literally comparing apples to oranges. I installed a Catback system on her SRX and a Volant Cold Air Box and upgraded the MAF and installed a throttle body spacer. I was able to justify it to my wife by telling her that I could not live with 14.9 mpg and I had to make those changes in order to squeeze some more mpg's out of each tank of gas. She bought my story and I probably got my extra 25 or 30 so horsepower out of the deal. So I would guess that the SRX is now around 350 HP at the flywheel and I have to admit that it one "fun" vehicle to drive.

    Take a look at the following website: www.60degreev6.com

    This website will give you some very informative data on the 3.6 VVT and I think it may paint a different picture for you on how you perceive the architecture of this engine compared to a Honda when you realize that that the 3.6 has just scratched the surface at 255-260 HP. There is more than a 100 HP left "in reserve" by simply changing the method of induction.

    Good conversation and thank you for your thoughts. - Pete

  6. #96
    berkin is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    129

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Pushrods came out after OHC engines.

    The 440 hp Northstar V-8 SC (supercharged) would add weight to the CTS-V. I think an LS2 or a detuned LS7 would be great for the CTS-V. I think most people would rather have a V-8 than a supercharged V-6. I know I would.

    Here is info on the LS2

    http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/...wertrain.shtml

  7. #97
    Nocturn is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    36

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    While DOHC may appear to be higher tech, they are no better than pushrods, its just reputation. DOHC does allow for higher RPMs, but that isn't anything that can't be done in a pushrod engine with stronger valve springs.

    And to the guy with the loud GTO, the GTO was engineered to have a louder exhaust note than on the original Monaro.

    Also, the CTSV is the last car to use the LS6, the GTO/Corvette/ and SSR all now use the larger displacment LS2, with the new Z06 using the 7.4L 427ci LS7. Which I believe has a 7000 RPM redline.

  8. #98
    BeelzeBob's Avatar
    BeelzeBob is offline I'm a Cadillac Fanatic!
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    Age
    49
    Posts
    9,577

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocturn

    While DOHC may appear to be higher tech, they are no better than pushrods, its just reputation. DOHC does allow for higher RPMs, but that isn't anything that can't be done in a pushrod engine with stronger valve springs.
    The great and eternal DOHC vs. pushrod debate will go on forever. Lots has been posted on this already if you search...try "OHV" and some posts will come up that may be informative. The bottom line is that there is NO SINGLE BEST ANSWER. Both pushrod and DOHC engines have certain advantages that the other cannot achieve. Anyone who insists that one is better than the other does not understand all the factors affecting engine design....period. Regardless of the application a DOHC or pushrod engine would be a compromise in some respect.

    Personally, given the packaging and displacement range variation capable with a pushrod engine they are very attractive for most any appliction. Given the RPM capability and specifid output of todays "pushrod" engines they are anything but low tech and outdated.

    One advantage of a DOHC engine, however, that a pushrod engine cannot approach is the ability to run dual cam phasing on the inlet and exhaust cams thus being able to alter overall cam timing AS WELL AS valve overlap... The pushrod/cam-in-block/OHV designs benefit somewhat from "phasing" the single cam but the overlap is fixed. DOHC engines can vary the overlap by individual control of the inlet and exhaust cams. This always makes the DOHC engine more tractible with better low end response and much better idle quality. The Northstar SC engine makes 100 HP/liter yet idles like a complete kitten. It's low end response and idle quality belies it's true performance potential. This one area is important in separating a true luxury car engine from a simple hot rod powerhouse......

  9. #99
    BeelzeBob's Avatar
    BeelzeBob is offline I'm a Cadillac Fanatic!
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    Age
    49
    Posts
    9,577

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Quote Originally Posted by pietroraimondi

    Cadillac's reasoning for using the LS6 was simply because the small block fit the parameters of the engine bay compartment .......If Cadillac had the luxury of time with the CTS-V, we would have seen a similiar supercharged Northstar engine that will appear in the STS-V,

    There is also severe problems with regard to rear brake bias on the CTS-V. The four piston rear Brembo caliper pistons are oversized and were actually designed, rather engineered by Brembo for front brake application. Cadillac took a front brake Brembo 4 piston same bore 4 piston caliper and shaved the outer body of the caliper in order to "make it fit the rear" spindle/knuckle and clear the wheel spokes. Are you still holding onto your hat after hearing that one?......They actually took a radial mount Brembo 4 piston front "off the shelf" same bore large piston front brake caliper and shaved the outer body case to make it fit the rear without any regard to brake bias.

    FORGED, FORGED, FORGED! Not a single bit of sand cast steel or aluminum in the combustion chamber....

    and sinter forged(cryo treated) connecting rods

    Per the above comments...

    True in a sense...but...if you do a detailed engineering layout...or take the time to try and shoehorn one in...you will find that a RWD Northstar will just not fit into the confines of the CTS or CTS-V engine bay....just won't fit. The CTS-V/LS6 exploits the packaging advantages of a pushrod engine, period. Pushrod engines can be made smaller for a given displacement, plain and simple. So the 400 HP can "fit" into the CTS-V. The RWD Northstar and the Northstar SC will not fit.

    This is hogwash. Do you really think that the brake system was engineered, tested extensively on many different racetracks and low coefficient of friction surfaces around the world and validated for the car "with no regard to brake bias"...???? Really now. I better let the chassis and brake guys know that they totally "overlooked" or "forgot" to check the brake bias. Ha Ha.....duh.

    Are you forgetting the cylinder head material. It is not forged. It is cast aluminum. Over 1/2 of the "combustion chamber" is cast aluminum, not forged. Same as all other engines. Unless you get into top fuel cylinder heads that are CNC'd out of billet with no water passages I don't think you are going to find a "forged" cylinder head anywhere. The water jackets of the V6 cylinder head are cast with sand cores and a semipermanent mold for the combustion chamber and deck surface details.

    In addition....I am holding a piston from the DOHC VVT CTS engine in my hand and it isn't forged...it is a cast piston. Don't know of where your info for forged pistons is but it is wrong or there is some confusion.

    Last I checked the con rods were sintered powdered metal rods that are coined (forged) after sintering with the caps cracked off at room temperature. There is no cryogenic process involved. The rods are powdered metal compacted, sintered, coined, premachined with a notch at the cap split line and the caps are cracked using a propriatary GM process. The rods are not cryogenically treated nor is cryogenics involved with the cap cracking process.

  10. #100
    b4z
    b4z is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2014 Standard SrX grey/black
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chas. SC
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,702

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    pietro,

    Enjoying the discussion.
    How long do you think your tranny will last with 400hp?
    I would be curious to know since it has the lower torque rating than the one that is in the Northstar powered RWD Sigmas.

    My SRX had 2 new camshafts put in when it had 1300 miles.
    This noise is unrelated to that event.
    All '04 3.6Ls are noiser than the '05s. And not that smooth on the top end.

  11. #101
    Afreet1's Avatar
    Afreet1 is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    28

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    My complaint is the overall lack of displacement. I am sure that the specific output is a nice statistic but I am interested in TOTAL output and the upgrade potential of the engine. Couldn't you have 100Hp/liter if you had a 4 cylinder engine and only 1 total liter of displacement? Would it be impressive then? What about other nifty statistics such as if the compression ratio was only 6:1?

    As for the supercharger, the Whipple is a screw-type supercharger and it DOES have a bypass valve. (http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/...sp?ProdID=1204)

    I was waiting for the 2006 models to arrive before I made my V purchase (haven't decided on a CTS-V or STS-V), but if I can't get a NA engine with at least 400 HP like the 2004 and 2005 CTS-V, then I am going with something else and break a lifetime worth of GM loyalty UNLESS the supercharged version is very close to 500HP. (All my cars / truck have been GM so far)

    Quote Originally Posted by bbob
    Please explain to me how an engine that makes 100 HP per liter could be classified as "lackluster"...???? There are very very few engines in production in the world that achieve that specific output supercharged or otherwise. None of the STS-V's competitors come close to this state of tune. Lackluster..???...hardly.

  12. #102
    Reckamech is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Not to sit hear and say I have all the enginering know how in the world, but I have really been enjoying the technical discussions that have been going on here. A lot more than just rag tops and chrome . When the STS was first introduced I loved it but questioned if it will it have the technical fan base like the BMW's, Audi's and Mercs. When you get one of those cars it's like joining a club (BMWCCA) and everyone helps everyone. I wondered if I could get support for the STS after purchase. After what's been going one here in the last couple of months I see I couldn't be more wrong. Hopefully when my new car purchase moment arrives < 1 year I will opt for the STS V8. Right now my decision is still up in the air with the 545i or 550i ahead by a nose.

  13. #103
    BeelzeBob's Avatar
    BeelzeBob is offline I'm a Cadillac Fanatic!
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    Age
    49
    Posts
    9,577

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Quote Originally Posted by Afreet1
    My complaint is the overall lack of displacement. I am sure that the specific output is a nice statistic but I am interested in TOTAL output and the upgrade potential of the engine. Couldn't you have 100Hp/liter if you had a 4 cylinder engine and only 1 total liter of displacement? Would it be impressive then? What about other nifty statistics such as if the compression ratio was only 6:1?

    As for the supercharger, the Whipple is a screw-type supercharger and it DOES have a bypass valve. (http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/...sp?ProdID=1204)

    I was waiting for the 2006 models to arrive before I made my V purchase (haven't decided on a CTS-V or STS-V), but if I can't get a NA engine with at least 400 HP like the 2004 and 2005 CTS-V, then I am going with something else and break a lifetime worth of GM loyalty UNLESS the supercharged version is very close to 500HP. (All my cars / truck have been GM so far)

    I didn't mean to imply that you cannot put a bypass valve with a screw compressor...it just isn't that effective at reducing the parasitic losses as it is with a roots. The screw compressors will still compress and then relieve the air pressure thru the bypass. With the roots blower the rotors basically windmill freely. A roots blower with the belt off will windmill the rotors due to the air flow thru the engine...a screw compressor will not do that. That is why they still have high parasitics even with a bypass open. The whipple needs a by pass for boost control due to the fact that they are putting a very large screw compressor on the engines they kit for. They "size" them with the bypass. This is a very ineffient way to design a production engine... Whipple just says that their bypass is better than others...none of the bypasses on a screw compressor are really as effective as those on a roots.

    Yes, the 100 HP can be considered "lame" in the sense that it is just a statistic I guess. You'll just have to drive an STS-V and see what 440 HP feels like with 90% of the torque available from 2200 to 6500 RPM. The torque band is so wide that it really makes the car fast. If the 100 HP per liter were measured at 8500 like the BMW V10 and the engine only made 350 ft lbs of torque and it had to be at 4000 or above to do that it is one thing. The Northstar SC makes 100 HP per liter at just over 6000 RPM and it ALSO makes 435 ftlb of torque and the torque curve is extremely flat and wide. That is what is required for a heavier luxury car...not a peaky high revving high output engine. The Northstar SC does both really.

    Having said all that...no question...you cannot beat displacement.... wish the Northstar could be expanded in the displacement area. Practical limitations mean it cannot be larger than 4.6 liters.

    BTW....the 440 HP rating is rather conservative. The rating is one of the first done by the new, more restrictive SAE J1349 guidelines. Rating according to the older standards could have resulted in an additional 15 HP or more....not that it would affect the performance of the car but it would have widened the gap from perceived output vs. the advertised number. The newer advertised HP rating standards that will be adopted by all the auto manufacturers as time goes on limits some of the "loop holes" that could be exploited to boost the advertised power figure.

    In adddition, with the supercharged, intercooled package the HP is much less affected by underhood air temp as is commonly seen on chassis dyno testing. As long as the intercooler sees cold/cool/ambient air the charge temp will be controlled. The advertised power ratings are run with a relatively "hot" intercooler circuit temperature to simulate real world, hot, stabilized temperatures. Colder weather, intercooler spray bars, etc... will definitely add more power to the advertised number....

  14. #104
    b4z
    b4z is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2014 Standard SrX grey/black
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chas. SC
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,702

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Afreet1,

    Seems like you are more interested in having a hp number than an overall great handling and performing car at an "more affordable" price.

    The new 6 speed auto will have a 4.02 1st gear which offers about 30% more torque multiplication than the current GM RWD 4 speed auto.
    And about 15% more than the current 5 speed.

    I am assuming the purpose of the smaller cylinders on the "V" Northstar is to give it a little more ability to handle the higher cylinder pressures.
    Remember that Ford HAD to go to an iron block in the Cobra because they blew up too many aluminum 4.6L mod motors.
    That decision added extra weight and hurt handling.

    If Cadillac had gone to an iron block Northstar we would have ALL been crying bloody murder. And they would have deserved our criticism.
    The 4.4L is an excellent solution because it has VVT and is probably more
    powerful than a 4.6L without (Ford).(Mach1 excepted)

    Wouldn't an increase in boost get you the 500hp you want in your STS-V?
    I am sure the aftermarket will step up.

  15. #105
    ktills45 is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    North of Philly
    Posts
    493

    Re: How About This ...the New Sts V

    Quote Originally Posted by pietroraimondi
    No for sure!....you are not the only one that is disappointed in the CTS-V. At least the STS-V is a true genuine proprietary Cadillac Northstar engine that has been reduced in size to a 4.4 Liter Northstar engine from its current 4.6 and then re-engineered to handle the additional HP of the supercharger to arrive at the base rated 440HP. The dyno slip for sure will tell the tale, but there is some comfort in knowing that in spending $75K f, I received a Cadillac Northstar Engine.

    I sat on the fence for all of about 10 seconds when deciding NOT to buy the CTS-V versus the 3.6 VVT CTS and none of it was a cost factor. In fact the cost spread between my "off the lot" 3.6 versus the CTS-V was only about $6000 take or leave a few bucks. I have more $$ in my 3.6 with it's rebuild and the dyno slips to prove that my 3.6 will outperform the CTS-V on the dyno, as I have yet to see a CTS-V crack the 357 mark at even the flywheel, so I'm not quite sure where Cadillac has derived there 400 BHP rating from.

    But truth be told, If I'm buying a damn Cadillac CTS-V, I expect a 400 HP Cadillac built engine. I don't expect to pay for a Cadillac and then have them "shoehorn" in a 5.7 liter pushrod Chevrolet engine and call it a damn Cadillac! Where in the hell is the truth in advertising there?

    The bottom line is that the next generation of CTS-V's will find that Chevy 5.7 liter pushrod in the boneyard in favor of a better engineered Northstar engine with perhaps a 450+ BHP rating by 2007.

    In my mind, the current 2004 CTS-V was nothing more than a CTS LUXURY SPORT, with some trim mods, and suspension modifications that were designed to support nothing more than a Chevrolet crate motor that Cadillac stuffed into the CTS engine bay simply because it fit because the market asked for more HP and quite frankly nothing else would fit the engine bay without extensive retooling and the marketplace clock was ticking.

    It sort of reminds you of the first generation of Escalades. They too started of as GMC Yukon Denali's with a bit of Cadillac badge trim and gingerbread aesthetics to justify the MSRP price line. Two years later, the Escalade was a proprietary Cadillac engineered product from front tag to rear tag. The CTS-V will also follow the same suit with a Cadillac engineered Northstar Engine that will utilize the same supercharger system that will be installed in the STS-V as well as the XLR-V. The STS-V will be rated at 440 HP with a 4.4 liter Northstar in comparison to it's current 4.6 liter Northstar.

    I would expect to see the new CTS-V to be rated somewhere between the 450+ and/or 475 with a genuine Northstar supercharged engine. When Cadillac does that; they'll have my attention as well as my check!

    I realize that the above may sound like a bit if conjecture, however I have had some extensive discussions as part of a "marketing focus group" with Cadillac and the above statements concerning the new supercharged CTS-V will prove to be true. There is ongoing discussion as we speak with the "powers to be" at Cadillac about installing a tiptronic type sequential gear management transmission and move away from the standard 6 speed manual fits all thinking. The thinking is that at $55,000 and adding triptronic, you bring back into the buying fold all those that stayed away because they did't want a manual or in my case a Chevrolet engine stuffed into a Cadillac chassis!

    Cadillac realizes that if they are going to build the true "American Ultimate Driving Machine" that fits form, function, luxury and satisfies the true American driving enthusiast; they need to be prepared to meet BMW "heads on" in both the product and the service experience.

    They realize that they MUST install a triptronic SGM (SMG) manuamatic transmission in order for this CTS-V vehicle to be successful in catering to the BMW crowd.

    They also realize that the current Cadillac Service Department model is still lacking miserably and is delivering a "Chevrolet service" experience. Over the next 3 to 4 years you will no longer see Cadillac dealerships sharing showroom floor space with other GM brands. The Cadillac Showroom and Service Dept will be standalone units.

    This may sound silly, but as an example when I would take my BMW M3 in for service, I was greeted by a Service Advisor in a business suit. We would review the car and sit in his private office for a review of my scheduled service and any recommended services.

    If I was going to work that day, there was a new BMW loaner waiting for me outside....not a single bit of paperwork to fill out as everything was on file.

    If I was waiting for service, the waiting area rivaled that of a lobby/business center of a fine hotel. Free continental breakfast, capuccino & coffee machines, all of the major newspapers, various plasma screens for tv watching and at least a dozen cubicle desk stations with computers, internet access and a telephone. In some ways, I got more accomplished work wise at there then I would once I arrived at my office!

    When I take my Cadillac in for service, (which I don't)....I'm greeted; rather looked at quite strangely is a better description, but a guy wearing a pair of blue coveralls who lacks the common sense to even put protective plastic covers over my sheepskin seat covers. It is quite a sight to be seen and from what I understand it is also a "countrywide problem".

    I was asked by Cadillac Communication to join there focus marketing group as I had owned BMW's exclusively for the since 1985. Cadillac realizes first hand that they only have 3 years to fix the service department problem that they now face. They have done a wonderful job at engineering the overall vehicle, (exception noted on the 5.7 CTS-V) and in training the dealerships in how to sell the product. Service however was an afterthought and they are hearing first hand that the 30-40 something driving enthusiast expects his mechanic to know at least as much as I dwe about our vehicles, when in reality they are very lacking in product knowledge.

    They laughed a bit at focus group web meeting when I made the analogy of that famous philospher, "Gomer Pyle", when I said; "fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me".

    The point is that in order for Cadillac to bring us all back for the second CTS or STS.....they need to keep the "service experience promise"; and they have failed miserably in that arena. They are aware of it and are taking action as we speak. In fact, you will actually see some Cadillac Dealerships that will be closed by GM because they lack the physcial space for a first class service department to support the type of service that BMW & Mercedes customers are accustomed to.

    When I would take by M3 to Towson BMW for service, I could purchase just about any type of Dinan performance upgrade and have it installed and not hear from some high-school garage mechanic that I was voiding my warranty. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've had to waste breath educating a mechanic that he knew as much about the warranty law as he knew about my car, so perhaps you may understand why I'm reluctant to go anywhere near the place for service and I live in a major metropolitan market!

    If I could make a suggestion to anyone that owns a CTS....please buy the damn CTS parts list schematic that is on a CD/DVD and learn about your car. I'll say it again.....learn about your car, because chances are you'll be giving directions to the mechanic.

    The current Cadillac mechanics are just that.....they are not "TECHICIANS". Ok...it's a silly damn fancy word for mechanic, but the bottom line is that the current Cadillac mechanics are used to working on your Aunt's Coupe DeVille and a Jeep Grand Cherokee and we both know that Aunt Rosie wouldn't know a harmonic balancer from a banjo and "you/we" do know the difference with regard to our cars as we are "enthusiasts". The current Cadillac mechanic is not prepared for that type of customer interaction and Cadillac Corporate is well aware.

    The clock is ticking and they have a timeline of 36 months to get it right as these current vehicles begin coming in off-lease and or trade.

    On a personal note, Cadillac revealed that there were alot of considerations that had to be encountered in bringing the CTS to market. Introductory price-point was the major one in comparison to the BMW 325/330 as they didn't want to bring to maket a new chassis/vehicle (CTS)that was competing head on with a vehicle that was "tops in class' for better than 10 years running at the same price point.

    There "soft approach" to pricing and building the 3.2 in 2003 and then introducing the global 3.6 VVT in such a manner that it could handle 370+ HP in it's current configuration was a true trophy winner. With the 3.6 VVT engine, Cadillac avoided any future retooling costs as the 3.6 VVT is in all actuality a 4.0 six and the bore is reduced to 3.6 due to the steel cylinder sleeves. There is tons of room to grow this 3.6 platform and it will serve Cadillac well for at least 10 years.

    Cadillac has done a fantastic job of "reinventing" themselves and their product line and attracting the BMW customer. The "Cadillac service experience" will define whether the "New Cadillac" customer keeps coming back.
    Would you mind posting the mods you've done to your 3.6 to hit a dynoed 363hp? I'm assuming that's rear wheel.

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