General STS thread
Re: General STS thread
I made an MDX who was riding my ass last night on my commute home disappear in my rear view mirror through an S curve exit ramp. I put it in Performance for that. It felt pretty damn good. Despite the tires being high performance all seasons, the chassis is still clearly tire limited.
Re: General STS thread
I think I can make sense of my fleet once I get rid of the Caprice.
You have the wife mobile which really could be anything. In my case it's something very related to some of my other vehicles (luxury/sport grade platform) that is in a more family-friendly package. That's one.
Then there's the truck. My philosophy is spend as little as possible here. It doesn't need to be a daily or anything like that. It is helpful if it could substitute as a spare vehicle in a pinch, and the Ram can.
Enthusiast vehicle #1: CTS-V. This is the sport/speed/handling type vehicle. Mostly a stock affair, could do a few mods but no real plans to completely rip the car apart or anything. I like it for what it is. Occasional driver to keep it nice. Honestly this one doesn't really even need back seats and I could throw a Corvette in the garage someday. Who knows.
Enthusiast vehicle #2: Roadmaster. It sits in stock, perfectly functional form but the plan is to fill a niche in the muscle segment with this one. It will handle and stop alright (hopefully better than alright). But the body on frame, solid rear axle, V8 thing is what this provides. I would try for a sleeper/muscle thing, so not doing exhaust out of the hood or anything stupid.
Daily (enthusiast?) vehicle: STS. This one is kind of key in that it combines some speed, handling and luxury into a nice usable package for daily use. The only work on this is repairs and maintenance. No modifications required.
So the 3 main vehicles I think all have their own offering. Now I admit that some newer vehicles may combine elements of all 3 into a single vehicle. Something like the Chevy SS might do that. Or a CTS-V3. The V3 traps 125 which is probably about as fast as the Roadmaster will ever go under my watch. And is nicer than my STS. And higher performance than my CTS-V. But would I want to daily drive a V3? I mean I could. I don't see that happening. Also my three cars cost a lot less than newer vehicles such as the ones I've mentioned.
You have the wife mobile which really could be anything. In my case it's something very related to some of my other vehicles (luxury/sport grade platform) that is in a more family-friendly package. That's one.
Then there's the truck. My philosophy is spend as little as possible here. It doesn't need to be a daily or anything like that. It is helpful if it could substitute as a spare vehicle in a pinch, and the Ram can.
Enthusiast vehicle #1: CTS-V. This is the sport/speed/handling type vehicle. Mostly a stock affair, could do a few mods but no real plans to completely rip the car apart or anything. I like it for what it is. Occasional driver to keep it nice. Honestly this one doesn't really even need back seats and I could throw a Corvette in the garage someday. Who knows.
Enthusiast vehicle #2: Roadmaster. It sits in stock, perfectly functional form but the plan is to fill a niche in the muscle segment with this one. It will handle and stop alright (hopefully better than alright). But the body on frame, solid rear axle, V8 thing is what this provides. I would try for a sleeper/muscle thing, so not doing exhaust out of the hood or anything stupid.
Daily (enthusiast?) vehicle: STS. This one is kind of key in that it combines some speed, handling and luxury into a nice usable package for daily use. The only work on this is repairs and maintenance. No modifications required.
So the 3 main vehicles I think all have their own offering. Now I admit that some newer vehicles may combine elements of all 3 into a single vehicle. Something like the Chevy SS might do that. Or a CTS-V3. The V3 traps 125 which is probably about as fast as the Roadmaster will ever go under my watch. And is nicer than my STS. And higher performance than my CTS-V. But would I want to daily drive a V3? I mean I could. I don't see that happening. Also my three cars cost a lot less than newer vehicles such as the ones I've mentioned.
Re: General STS thread
1,500 miles into oil change. Oil is still halfway on dipstick.
The other day I was thinking "you know this thing doesn't really ride that well." It has been warmer. I noticed the tire pressures were sneaking up to like 37 psi cold. One day I decided to air them down to like 33/31. Oh man what a huge difference. The ride actually has some suppleness to it again. However, overall it also feels like I switched to a lower performance tire. Response isn't as good as I don't think the grip is as good, either. But since, to quote Bill, "we drive on the moon," this seems like the right compromise.
The other day I was thinking "you know this thing doesn't really ride that well." It has been warmer. I noticed the tire pressures were sneaking up to like 37 psi cold. One day I decided to air them down to like 33/31. Oh man what a huge difference. The ride actually has some suppleness to it again. However, overall it also feels like I switched to a lower performance tire. Response isn't as good as I don't think the grip is as good, either. But since, to quote Bill, "we drive on the moon," this seems like the right compromise.
Re: General STS thread
On the drive home tonight, I encountered an ambulance responding ahead of me. I was many cars back but it never really added distance apparently, at the speed I was driving. After some traffic on Rt 4 I noticed a later model Pathfinder looking aggressive behind me so I preemptively passed a car on the right before he could pass me on the right (it was open, but someone was in the left lane in front me - very typical around here). I put some distance on him. Then I came to the next light. The right lane was open and only 2 slowing down in the left (strange, yes). At the last second, the ~2010 Sonata moved in front of me to be in front in the right lane, leaving the late model Cruze hatch in the left (NH plates). Off the light, both cars kind of punched it and I paced them at part throttle. Eventually the Sonata pulled ahead and kept accelerating. Eventually he settled at like 75 or 80 and I slowly began passing him on the left. He came to some cars and just at the last second (again) moved in front of me, while I was going at least 85. Right after he did that, the light was yellow and there was no way, even at his speed, that he would make it. But he did the best he could and ended up running the light going at least 85. At the last second, when he was basically in the intersection I saw him slam on the brakes for a second and then give up. I stopped for the red. I looked to my left (big 4 way). Holy shit, NK cop second in line. I'm like....GO GET 'EM! His light turns green....nothing. I threw up my hands and I think the Cruze (now behind me) thought that was funny. Anyway, since I was in front, on the green, I just mashed it right to the floor and did a 0-120 or so. I had to slow down towards my exit for some traffic. But then I put it to the floor again and went like 65-95, around that ramp, and then heavy brakes (again) for the light. They had some fade, a little judder, and some smell. I need Brembos on this thing.
Re: General STS thread
I stripped a good 1.5 mpg off my average yesterday. And apparently glazed the rotors yesterday. So this morning I did more hammering just because.
I have a few additional observations:
- This engine has a pretty satisfying power curve. The way it charges to redline is pretty fun, and it still possesses strong midrange. Winding out 2nd into 3rd feels like it could just keep pulling 2nd forever the way the HP builds. Yet when it does shift, the power doesn't really seem to drop off, partly due to the healthy midrange and partly due to the close trans ratios and the way the converter keeps it on the boil. Overall a well calibrated powertrain (except that blasted tip-in off the line). There is no free lunch; this car will not win any fuel economy awards (on 93).
- Up there in the upper register of the tach, I will say that even with my shot engine mounts, there is really no NVH at all. I am not used to this. Between some loud music and wind noise, you really can't even tell what RPM it is at because there are no indicators other than the tach position. I will always like torque and midrange but I also like horsepower. I don't think I like the trend of modern turbo cars where the top end of the tach is basically defined as the unsatisfying shift point area. The luxury brands have added some excitement and worked hard to maintain a good feel but mainstream engines all have tiny turbos and breathless top end.
I have a few additional observations:
- This engine has a pretty satisfying power curve. The way it charges to redline is pretty fun, and it still possesses strong midrange. Winding out 2nd into 3rd feels like it could just keep pulling 2nd forever the way the HP builds. Yet when it does shift, the power doesn't really seem to drop off, partly due to the healthy midrange and partly due to the close trans ratios and the way the converter keeps it on the boil. Overall a well calibrated powertrain (except that blasted tip-in off the line). There is no free lunch; this car will not win any fuel economy awards (on 93).
- Up there in the upper register of the tach, I will say that even with my shot engine mounts, there is really no NVH at all. I am not used to this. Between some loud music and wind noise, you really can't even tell what RPM it is at because there are no indicators other than the tach position. I will always like torque and midrange but I also like horsepower. I don't think I like the trend of modern turbo cars where the top end of the tach is basically defined as the unsatisfying shift point area. The luxury brands have added some excitement and worked hard to maintain a good feel but mainstream engines all have tiny turbos and breathless top end.
Re: General STS thread
Looked up brake pads. Hawk makes HPS for the front, but not the rear. Really annoyingly, if I had the base brakes, there are pads for the rear. So I'd have to find a rear pad that I thought was similar to an HPS (if I want to run HPS). Sigh.
Re: General STS thread
Really odd that they don't offer front and rear. Don't they know brakes are supposed to be balanced?
Re: General STS thread
This may have also happened on my Caprice. Maybe they have it in for GM.
Re: General STS thread
Drove the STS into work yesterday after having taken the Roadmaster all last week. I love driving cars back to back like this, but for long enough that certain differences really emerge. I find it interesting.
And those differences are pretty noticeable.
Powertrain
The powertrain setup and calibration in the STS is so much more conducive to the way I drive. The LT1 is a good engine, despite the fact that the LS1 and old school SBC probably have more positive reputations. But the transmission itself (with 4 fairly widely spaced gears and tight torque converter) and calibration (lazy downshifts and somewhat on/off approach to acceleration through downshifts) really let it down. The STS drives like a "modern era" luxury car, with plenty of power, and plenty of fine grained response with or without downshifting. I also really loathe the exhaust tick in the Roadmaster. I partially wound out the STS in 1st off a light and I really noted that the engine had such a quiet, tight and refined sound to it. And the way the transmission upshifts is just so much better than the old school 4L60-E. Despite the Roadmaster being a lazy, body on frame old school car, the STS shifts considerably more smoothly, in every direction. All that said, I think a few changes would make a huge difference without touching anything but the transmission:
- Of course I must mention the T56 but assuming we stick to the automatic conversation,
- Looser, "better" torque converter. The tight converter feels good only at a very specific, and fairly light, throttle position. Otherwise, it is just too tight and hammers the non-torque-managed transmission needlessly on shifts. It also hampers the engine even with the torque it does have. A better converter would stay reasonably tight at part throttle, keeping most of that part throttle snap I do like, but let RPMs rise into the meat at heavier throttle which would motivate the car noticeably.
- Rear axle. I am pretty sure my 3.42 axle is going to do wonders, even all by itself.
- Shift calibration. This is also a big one. Even with the existing ratios and old architecture of this transmission (dates back to ~1981 or so), the shift calibration could do a MUCH better job
The good news is, I can probably do a lot to help the last two without major changes. But the fact is, the STS, as built, just drives so much better overall, due to all of the differences I have just pointed out.
Chassis
This is another area that has very stark differences. The STS platform is SO much more rigid, and obviously the steering is actually good. Plus the seats and somewhat cramped seating position keeps you in place to be able to comfortably use the chassis in various situations. Part of this may be the lack of upper body cushions in those few, key areas in the front frame of the Roadmaster. My Caprice had a more nailed down feeling and really the suspension setups aren't that different. What I am feeling isn't really the shocks (though they are fairly worn out) but more of a flexing/shaking over bumps that the Caprice didn't have. Maybe I will look into doing that yet because back to back, the difference was quite noticeable. Overall it is hilarious to think these cars weigh basically the same. They feel night and day different from each other. It also means that, due to physics, I could dial up the Roadmaster's handling to whatever I want. But due to the old chassis and suspension design, ride will fall off quickly so that is a hard trade (between ride and handling).
Audio
I probably don't need to belabor this but I think it is quite worthwhile having good stock audio. The Roadmaster will need all kinds of help to be what I'd define as acceptable. The STS is good right out of the box.
So taken together, these three things, at least a little bit, help explain why I might be willing to own such a complex automobile and devote some time and cost to maintaining it. You do sacrifice something with an older (albeit more simple) vehicle. No free lunch. One type of car guy says "I don't need all that crap, my 90s stuff is fine" (Ed). That's fine but the same DIY skills I've honed on my 90s stuff I can apply on the STS, even though everything is harder and more expensive. There is also a bigger payoff.
Surprisingly, I still appreciate each car for what it is. And just when some complexity on the STS may begin to annoy me, the Roadmaster is the perfect antidote.
And those differences are pretty noticeable.
Powertrain
The powertrain setup and calibration in the STS is so much more conducive to the way I drive. The LT1 is a good engine, despite the fact that the LS1 and old school SBC probably have more positive reputations. But the transmission itself (with 4 fairly widely spaced gears and tight torque converter) and calibration (lazy downshifts and somewhat on/off approach to acceleration through downshifts) really let it down. The STS drives like a "modern era" luxury car, with plenty of power, and plenty of fine grained response with or without downshifting. I also really loathe the exhaust tick in the Roadmaster. I partially wound out the STS in 1st off a light and I really noted that the engine had such a quiet, tight and refined sound to it. And the way the transmission upshifts is just so much better than the old school 4L60-E. Despite the Roadmaster being a lazy, body on frame old school car, the STS shifts considerably more smoothly, in every direction. All that said, I think a few changes would make a huge difference without touching anything but the transmission:
- Of course I must mention the T56 but assuming we stick to the automatic conversation,
- Looser, "better" torque converter. The tight converter feels good only at a very specific, and fairly light, throttle position. Otherwise, it is just too tight and hammers the non-torque-managed transmission needlessly on shifts. It also hampers the engine even with the torque it does have. A better converter would stay reasonably tight at part throttle, keeping most of that part throttle snap I do like, but let RPMs rise into the meat at heavier throttle which would motivate the car noticeably.
- Rear axle. I am pretty sure my 3.42 axle is going to do wonders, even all by itself.
- Shift calibration. This is also a big one. Even with the existing ratios and old architecture of this transmission (dates back to ~1981 or so), the shift calibration could do a MUCH better job
The good news is, I can probably do a lot to help the last two without major changes. But the fact is, the STS, as built, just drives so much better overall, due to all of the differences I have just pointed out.
Chassis
This is another area that has very stark differences. The STS platform is SO much more rigid, and obviously the steering is actually good. Plus the seats and somewhat cramped seating position keeps you in place to be able to comfortably use the chassis in various situations. Part of this may be the lack of upper body cushions in those few, key areas in the front frame of the Roadmaster. My Caprice had a more nailed down feeling and really the suspension setups aren't that different. What I am feeling isn't really the shocks (though they are fairly worn out) but more of a flexing/shaking over bumps that the Caprice didn't have. Maybe I will look into doing that yet because back to back, the difference was quite noticeable. Overall it is hilarious to think these cars weigh basically the same. They feel night and day different from each other. It also means that, due to physics, I could dial up the Roadmaster's handling to whatever I want. But due to the old chassis and suspension design, ride will fall off quickly so that is a hard trade (between ride and handling).
Audio
I probably don't need to belabor this but I think it is quite worthwhile having good stock audio. The Roadmaster will need all kinds of help to be what I'd define as acceptable. The STS is good right out of the box.
So taken together, these three things, at least a little bit, help explain why I might be willing to own such a complex automobile and devote some time and cost to maintaining it. You do sacrifice something with an older (albeit more simple) vehicle. No free lunch. One type of car guy says "I don't need all that crap, my 90s stuff is fine" (Ed). That's fine but the same DIY skills I've honed on my 90s stuff I can apply on the STS, even though everything is harder and more expensive. There is also a bigger payoff.
Surprisingly, I still appreciate each car for what it is. And just when some complexity on the STS may begin to annoy me, the Roadmaster is the perfect antidote.
Re: General STS thread
Took a mostly highway trip to CT. Decided to mix it up and set the cruise at like 67. I hate to admit it but, especially with the family in the car, it was a lot less stressful than usual. Also, I think this car can pull down an honest 23 mpg at these speeds. That's up from like 17-18 on my commute, so pretty big increase. That was with the A/C on, also.