Jump to content
CaddyInfo Cadillac Forum

95-97, or98-02 sts/sls which is quicker?


wotmode

Recommended Posts

My 95 STS was totaled the other day. I've been test driving newer ones (98 - 01) and they don't seem as quick. Especially at freeway speed. I do remember smokin' a 99 sls on the freeway last year from 65 mph+. It may have been a fluke(like his car was out of tune or had a dirty MAF sensor wire). My 95 is stock. Will probably buy another older one if they are quicker.

I just want honest opinions, please no pissing match. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The horsepower ratings are pretty obvious:

1993-1994: STS/ETC, 295 hp; SLS/ESC, 270 hp

1995-1999: STS/ETC, 300 hp; SLS/ESC, 275 hp

2000+: 300 hp, 320 hp for VVT models, 295 hp for DTS models

The more telling change was the Seville platform change in 1998, which added a couple of hundred pounds and made the radiator stiffening braces optional (and absent in most cars). Even this reduced the published 0-60 mph times only about 0.2 seconds.

My thinking is that if you are really primarily interested in performance, throttle response, and high-speed Authbahn passing power, then

  • Be sure and get a 300 hp or 320 hp model.
  • Avoid heavier models such as Devilles.
  • Avoid options that add a lot of weight such as vinyl roof.

Once you get the car and put it in tip-top tune, then, if you want more power, add the Borlas and look for high-performance tires -- they will have lower rolling resistance as well as better grip, feel and handling.

If your budget is amenable and you are willing to take a 25% hit on gas mileage, consider a used STS-V.

CTS-V_LateralGs_6-2018_tiny.jpg
-- Click Here for CaddyInfo page on "How To" Read Your OBD Codes
-- Click Here for my personal page to download my OBD code list as an Excel file, plus other Cadillac data
-- See my CaddyInfo car blogs: 2011 CTS-V, 1997 ETC
Yes, I was Jims_97_ETC before I changed cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 95 STS was totaled the other day. I've been test driving newer ones (98 - 01) and they don't seem as quick. Especially at freeway speed. I do remember smokin' a 99 sls on the freeway last year from 65 mph+. It may have been a fluke(like his car was out of tune or had a dirty MAF sensor wire). My 95 is stock. Will probably buy another older one if they are quicker.

I just want honest opinions, please no pissing match. Thanks.

Your deceased 95 STS (I always keep my eye out for one) was one of the lightest models produced if not thee lightest. Several improvements over the previous model years and it only manages to edge them out in tests. However, at a starting speed of 65 mph Any STS has an advantage over any SLS. With more horsepower and gearing suited for higher speeds..... it wouldn't have mattered if your friends SLS was running at peak. Now if that race had been from a dead stop it would have been a lot more interesting.

"Burns" rubber

" I've never considered myself to be all that conservative, but it seems the more liberal some people get the more conservative I become. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i weighed my 96 sts last month and it was 3680 with a 1/4 tank of gas. why do you think the 99 you raced was going all out? he might have backed off. 1 race does not make a very good benchmark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We went several times from 65 -100+. Even when he had a junp on me, my car was obviously pulling harder. It was a friendly competition that we both enjoyed seeing another Northstar running hard, instead of being babied to death. While the STS does have 300hp, the SLS 275 hp version does make more horsepower and torque up to 4200 rpm. If they are both the same year, I don't think there is much difference between STS and SLS(one has better torque curve, the other has better gearing). I'm most curious about the difference between the '95 body and the '98 body. I'm too much of a cheap *smurf* to buy a car new enough to be a "V" series, but at the same time I don't like stock pick up trucks or Nissan Altimas giving me a hard run. What have people done for mods? It seems every thread on "mods" is never backed by track slips, or dyno sheets. They only turn into how effective removing the MAF screen is. I'll stop now -getting into too many different subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i weighed my 96 sts last month and it was 3680 with a 1/4 tank of gas. why do you think the 99 you raced was going all out? he might have backed off. 1 race does not make a very good benchmark.

Do you want to sell your '96? I've been looking online and it is slim pickin's. Where did you weigh it at? I live just south of you in Minnetonka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you want to sell your '96? I've been looking online and it is slim pickin's. Where did you weigh it at? I live just south of you in Minnetonka.

I'm in Minnesota too. There's a couple on craigslist, have you checked there?

EDIT: http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/car/692025826.html

WARNING: I'm a total car newbie, don't be surprised if I ask a stupid question! Just trying to learn.

Cheers!

5% discount code at RockAuto.com - click here for your discount!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Havn't been there yet. I really want another maroon with black leather, but I can't find one anywhere nation wide. I just did my head gaskets (with time serts) and resealed block halves, new motor mounts, water pump and alternator. Wasn't the most fun I've ever had, and I'm sure the next one will need leaks fixed also. I'm going to go test drive some 98+ Sevilles and see if they are quick enough for me. I've also heard that the SLS gets better MPG. Too bad they don't get the body moldings and valences of the STS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought my 1995 from a private dealer in Robbinsdale. He does a lot of Cadillacs, when I got mine he also had a 1997 and a 2004. PM me and I can give you his info. He picks them up from auctions sometimes, and has decent prices.

WARNING: I'm a total car newbie, don't be surprised if I ask a stupid question! Just trying to learn.

Cheers!

5% discount code at RockAuto.com - click here for your discount!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know my 93 STS was far quicker than my 2000 STS. When I complained about the lack of power in the 2000, they told me that they had changed things to eliminate the torque steer that the earlier models had. It's not reflected in the horse power; but something sure changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did my headgaskets last summer so i know what a pain that is. my wife drove the car till i got it last summer so this is the first chance i have really had to play with it. i plan on keeping it thru the summer at least. its amethyst paint with light cream interior. very nice shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know my 93 STS was far quicker than my 2000 STS. When I complained about the lack of power in the 2000, they told me that they had changed things to eliminate the torque steer that the earlier models had. ...

:bsmeter:

CTS-V_LateralGs_6-2018_tiny.jpg
-- Click Here for CaddyInfo page on "How To" Read Your OBD Codes
-- Click Here for my personal page to download my OBD code list as an Excel file, plus other Cadillac data
-- See my CaddyInfo car blogs: 2011 CTS-V, 1997 ETC
Yes, I was Jims_97_ETC before I changed cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know my 93 STS was far quicker than my 2000 STS. When I complained about the lack of power in the 2000, they told me that they had changed things to eliminate the torque steer that the earlier models had. ...

:bsmeter:

Are you claiming Dasher is full of BS, or the dealer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2000 STS did pretty well in magazine acceleration tests. The 93 STS was more visceral, in that it had a louder exhaust note and less noise, harshness & vibration management. Because it was somewhat lighter also I think it would feel quicker than the 00, but they tested out about the same.

Bruce

2023 Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing

Follow me on: Twitter Instagram Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2000 STS did pretty well in magazine acceleration tests. The 93 STS was more visceral, in that it had a louder exhaust note and less noise, harshness & vibration management. Because it was somewhat lighter also I think it would feel quicker than the 00, but they tested out about the same.

And we all know that if you line up 10 cars of the same model and year that all ten will perform slightly different. Didn't Texas Jim experience just that with his two caddys? Both were the same model and year I believe. So it's more than possible that what Dasher experienced could be true. The B.S. Meter should at most be on "Put On Boots". ;)

"Burns" rubber

" I've never considered myself to be all that conservative, but it seems the more liberal some people get the more conservative I become. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the B.S. meter is being applied to what the dealer said in this case, and I agree with where the needle reads. ;)

Jason(2001 STS, White Diamond)

"When you turn your car on...does it return the favor?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...