bcs296

The 3800 may be decent when it shifts down to 2nd, but I always thought it was rather unimpressive once it shifted to 3rd at what, 75-80? At that point, the short gearing of 2nd isn't there to make up for the engine's incredibly weak top end. I seriously doubt that a car with 40 more hp and shorter gearing is slower than a 3800 powered equivalent.

Let's trace the changes of the Northstar. Step 1. Bump from 295hp to 300hp. Step 2. OBDI --> OBDII. Step 3. Lowered compression allows it to run on regular. Step 4. Coil on plug ignition. Step 5. Rotate sideways. Step 6. Add VVT. It may not be the same as the Northstar in the 93 Allante, but OVER 13 YEARS, it's hardly changed. Let's look at it this way: In 1993, the Lexus LS400 has 250hp. Today, it's got 380. In 1993, the STS was making 295hp. Today, it's got 320. This can be seen with Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Infiniti, etc. Their engines of today are COMPLETELY different from their 15 year old counterparts. Someone has been resting on their laurels a little bit TOO much.

Hmm... I didn't think I had seen the pictures, and I know for sure I hadn't seen the video which was pretty cool. Oh well.

Sorry, I didn't realize I had to spell it out word for word. My point is that people ARE switching from American cars in general to Toyotas.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Featu...latestnews..2.* EDIT: Has this already been posted? I realized afterwards that it isn't very recent.

Is it really? My neighbor, a LONG time Jeep Grand Cherokee buyer (3 in the 10 years I've been her neighbor), went to trade in her Jeep for a new one as she usually does and came home with a Toyota Highlander Hybrid.

Good to see I'm not the only one who realizes how overwhelmed these new engines are going to be when in the Lambdas.

Don't the GMT900's get the 6speed across the line after this first year? I'm thinking this is going to make for a BIG improvement when it comes to performance, so we will have to reevaluate 0-60 and 1/4mi times. If you ask me, the 4speed is crippling the new trucks. It's only what, like 20 years old or so?

I haven't turned out less than 32-33mpg this summer in my 8 year old Civic even with mostly city driving. No matter how hard I drive it I can't get less than 30. Last time I filled up I was right around 37. Would you like a cookie?

Has anyone who subscribes to Motor Trend read their one-on-one comparison of the XLR-V vs SL550? I have to give MT credit here; they gave a MUCH, MUCH fairer and non-biased review. Conclusions were that the XLR's styling, performance, and sound system trumped the Benz. On the other hand, the SL was more composed with the top down, had less ergonomic issues, and handled slightly better. Of course, this is one area that has irked me since the XLR came out. Due to the incredibly narrow tires that Caddy insists on equipping the XLRs with, it is always outperformed in the twisties which is just a crime considering the Vette chassis that lies underneath. In the end, they gave first place to the SL but stated that when it comes to the two of them, each attracts a different buyer. Old money people wanting to fit in will go for the Benz; Younger buyers who rate performance as a higher priority and want to be uniquely different will go for the XLR.

Just thought I would add that BMW is now selling the 3 series with a 300hp twin turbo I6.

With all of the technologies today, displacement of an engine simply doesn't matter. As is seen throughout this thread, ultra refined, high horsepower engines can be achieved through any number of different designs. Whether it be superchargers, turbochargers, overhead cams, pushrods, direct injection, Honda-like tweaking, tuning, and multiple cam lobes (VTEC), or a combination of these, the power can be made. In the end, it really doesn't matter all that much HOW GM decides to do it with the Caddies as long as they actually DO it and do it well. I think the Northstar is an excellent engine and has been since its debut in 1993, but it is now 2007 and the engine has seen minimal changes in terms of performance. In 1993, the STS with the Northstar blew away every other car in its segment performance-wise. Even in 1997, it was still a performance leader. When 1998 came around, the GS400 was the performance king. Slowly and steadily since then the Northstar cars became dated as 5 and 6 speed autos came out along with higher horsepower. Sure, today's STS is competitve. But is there anyone else who would like to see an STS that flat out smokes the competition the way it did in 1993?

Ok, so let's evaluate this again. BMW 4.8: 360hp Audi 4.2: 335/340hp Infiniti 4.5: 335/340hp Lexus 4.6: 380hp Mercedes 5.5: 382hp Jaguar: not even on the map Looks like that 320hp quickly fell behind. Sure, numbers and on the road performance aren't always directly proportional, but tests have shown the STS isn't quite up there with BMW, Infiniti, and Mercedes. They are competitive right now, but it would be nice, for once, if GM wasn't the last one to catch on to the trend after the press rips them a new one. Anyways -- the topic is about the CTS v6. With a whole new redesign of the CTS, why not take the perfect opportunity to put in a new class leading engine right off the bat that blows away the competition. Lexus did it. It's about time Caddy made EVERYTHING about a new car class leading, rather than making some stuff excellent and leaving other aspects mediocre. With the car market the way it is right now, there are WAY too many incredibly nice cars out there to expect to make it with even a few shortcomings.

I've heard the rumors of a 280-300hp V6, but is it just speculation? Being "good enough" is typical GM thought and I'm fearing that they are going to seriously drop the ball and stick with the same 255hp engine they have now. A ~300hp V6 would greatly step on the [underperforming] 4.6l Northstar's toes with just 320hp. I suppose this just emphasizes the need for the Northstar to be revamped. They didn't feel it was necessary to upgrade the GMT900's small block/4speed combo which is the same crime.

I think it is important for the new Cadillac ads to focus on the cars' style and FEATURES. The cars need to look good and the ad should show exactly what makes Cadillacs unique, special, and desirable. Like some have already said, the cars should be able to sell themselves.

That looks awesome.

Bingo. If the stuff can't last for the time it's advertised without eating gaskets, then it is just plain lies. The anti-corrosive part of the equation is equally as important as the "anti-freeze" part. Lying to customers about a 150k interval is not something to be proud of, and it is absolutely the worst way to try to sell a few extra cars. Nobody will convince me that this junk actually lasts that long. I have seen just in this thread plenty of people who believe that frequent coolant changes would eliminate most of the issues brought up in the lawsuit and I agree. Unfortunately, while GM shouldn't have overestimated their "super coolant", there would still be lazy dirtbags who would completely ignore service intervals, even if they were supposed to change the coolant every 5k miles, and then try to suck GM out of even more money that they DON'T have.

Well that's a rather poor way to think about the situation. I bet there were plenty of people 20 years ago who said "What are car companies going to do to get 300hp out of a 6 cylinder?" It used to be that 300hp was reserved only for V8's and 200hp was limited to V6's. Now we have I4's with a minimum of ~150hp and climbing all the way to 250+. You can't deny technology, especially with the way Toyota is spending its money to advance it.

In typical GM fashion, they are too far behind the 8 ball. Let's see, by 2008 Toyota and Nissan will be pumping out 350hp from their V6's. If not, GM will be competitive at the very least and only for a year or two before the Japs up the ante again and GM finds themselves caught with their pants down.

Regardless, they were doing something wrong to be a full second slower that other tests.

Edmunds is full of crap, and their bias is disgusting. Motor Trend, who I usually also find to be biased, LOVED the interior of the Escalade, specifically noting the excellent build quality and precision of the dash/gauge cluster. In addition, they tested the Escalade at 6.5 seconds to 60mph, a full second quicker than these jokers. Car and Driver even got 6.3 seconds, and yes, that was an AWD model. Edmunds can stuff it. Oh, and how DARE GM put slightly cheaper plastics in the CARGO area where CARGO would be placed. I'd much rather have super expensive, soft, handmade bling plastic so that I can scratch it up with all my CARGO. I know that it certainly justifies trashing interior materials as a whole.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? FWD IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. Any decision to move forward with FWD (other than economical compact cars) at this point would be asking for failure and disaster.

We're not getting into this debate. The Passat is faster and I'm betting more fuel efficient than a Northstar powered Lucerne. Split hairs all you want, these facts remain the same. I'm not putting the Northstar down; my family has a 96 SLS and a 97 STS -- back in the early to mid 90's it simply could not be beat. Unfortunately, GM has milked this one WAY too long as it sat back and watched the competition run away from them in terms of new technology.

Oh great, a V8 that is less powerful and with the 13 year old 4 speed, is also a good second slower. As always, it's case of GM needing to "get with the times."

All I can say is that the interior of this thing better be drop dead gorgeous -- flat out amazing. Everyone exploded over the STS interior when it came out and a year later, Infiniti and Lexus have shown Caddy how it is DONE. I hope the CTS does not prove a repeat. I sat in the new IS at the Boston Auto Show and it is just awesome. Caddy has got their hands full with this one and I hope they do what needs to be done.