https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oytUg50mI9E
This really is an upgrade from the CTS in terms of luxury and the quality of the interior (color combo notwithstanding). Even keyless start. The previous owner of my CTS-V upgraded to an STS-V. They only came with the 6L80.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBF9vXv02Xs
I hate the whine though. All I think of is the Mustang Terminator (early 2000s Cobra). Kinda like why I don't like Flowmaster Series 40 because it reminds me of the 302.
STS-V
Re: STS-V
Since it's kind of the final send off of the Northstar (and I'll remind that it's debored to 4.4L from 4.6L), I think the engine itself is alright. Though it can't be as solid as an LS6. But overall the powertrain is probably alright. I do feel like the car as a whole is probably less reliable, if only due to complexity but I have nothing to base that on. I do like the idea of the car though, as well as the fact that (like the CTS-V) it was an earlier attempt at real performance/luxury.
Of course, looking back, it is easy to see that the CTS was more of the success story and the STS-V was not destined to continue. The CT6 is going to be a rung or three above where the STS was so that's not really the replacement. Though given where the CTS is currently positioned, perhaps the CT6 is what an STS would be in the current product hierarchy.
Of course, looking back, it is easy to see that the CTS was more of the success story and the STS-V was not destined to continue. The CT6 is going to be a rung or three above where the STS was so that's not really the replacement. Though given where the CTS is currently positioned, perhaps the CT6 is what an STS would be in the current product hierarchy.
Re: STS-V
469hp @ 6400rpm and 439lb-ft @ 3800rpm. Unfortunately it weighs 4,371 lbs. For reference, that was only 50 lbs heavier than a MB CLS55 AMG.
Here's a test where it finished ahead of said MB and behind the M5.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons ... rison-test
It's more of a cruiser with competent performance, not a track hot lapper. That makes sense I think.
One thing the test revealed, for example, is track performance behind a Charger SRT-8 of the day. I think this car had the MR shocks, too. I guess they just didn't have their chassis shit quite together yet. EDIT: Did NOT have MR shocks. Same as CTS-V (Sachs):
But in the interest of full disclosure, the difference between the way GM rated HP (SAE or something similar) and the way the Germans rate, is very different. Despite the same HP and only a 50 lb advantage, the Mercedes trapped a whole 7 mph faster in the 1/4. In fact the CLS55 AMG is C5 Z06 fast. The STS-V is "only" CTS-V fast. Which isn't bad for carrying an extra 500 lbs.
Here's a test where it finished ahead of said MB and behind the M5.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons ... rison-test
It's more of a cruiser with competent performance, not a track hot lapper. That makes sense I think.
One thing the test revealed, for example, is track performance behind a Charger SRT-8 of the day. I think this car had the MR shocks, too. I guess they just didn't have their chassis shit quite together yet. EDIT: Did NOT have MR shocks. Same as CTS-V (Sachs):
It is also interesting to note that in 2006, the Cadillac had 1 additional transmission gear than the Mercedes, and made the same HP from 1 fewer liter of supercharged displacement. For folks who derive technical achievement from the number of transmission gears or specific output, it's interesting that such a time even existed. 2006 was the first year for the 6L80, of course.Suspension tuning is about 15 percent stiffer than that of a standard STS, thanks to Sachs shocks and bigger front and rear anti-roll bars
But in the interest of full disclosure, the difference between the way GM rated HP (SAE or something similar) and the way the Germans rate, is very different. Despite the same HP and only a 50 lb advantage, the Mercedes trapped a whole 7 mph faster in the 1/4. In fact the CLS55 AMG is C5 Z06 fast. The STS-V is "only" CTS-V fast. Which isn't bad for carrying an extra 500 lbs.
Re: STS-V
The M5 is impressive here, delivering CTS-V2 performance 3 years ahead of time. 12.5 @ 118mph, from an N/A V10. Some folks would say last great M5 engine. Only $92k (in 2006).
The M5 is the most track-oriented of the group, to the point where it suffers in the daily grind (trans and ride quality). The M5 definitely softened up in later generations. This would be the last M5 in the vein of the old mission (as opposed to the new mission: sell fancy cars to people who don't necessarily like to drive all that much).
BMW literally handed Cadillac the torch after this M5, and they sort of swapped places when you look at the characteristics of the STS-V here.
The M5 is the most track-oriented of the group, to the point where it suffers in the daily grind (trans and ride quality). The M5 definitely softened up in later generations. This would be the last M5 in the vein of the old mission (as opposed to the new mission: sell fancy cars to people who don't necessarily like to drive all that much).
BMW literally handed Cadillac the torch after this M5, and they sort of swapped places when you look at the characteristics of the STS-V here.
Re: STS-V
M6 doing a controlled launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fttRPS023uk#t=171
So many steps and buttons. I think German car people eat this stuff right up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fttRPS023uk#t=171
So many steps and buttons. I think German car people eat this stuff right up.