First STS-V for sale in Sweden!!

[Jan Olsson]

I was just browsing around looking for prices on a 2004 and newer STS.

I haven't got tired of mine yet but I would sure like to have the 6 speed auto, adaptive cruise control, a navigator that GM actually supports (got the Denso one and there is new maps available, just not the needed software update ) etc. etc.

It would also be nice to be able to use tires that aren't close to perfect without too much trouble...

Anyway, I found a brand new 2008 STS-V..thunder gray....

Could anyone send me some money fast? 695000 SEK...equals about $115000

Finally the STS-V made it's way to Sweden...in only like 5 years I will be able to buy it

You got to love depreciation!

[Bruce Nunnally]

I think the current STS-V and XLR-V will become collector's items very quickly. We may look back very soon and realize that the current STS's were the last large (116" wheelbase) Cadillacs. When you consider that the engineering/design team was given so much of a free hand on the STS-V to tune it so delicately between luxury and performance so that it can perform on the track or the boulevard you have to appreciate the art and technology. It has that jewel of a powerplant, the 4.4L Supercharged Northstar engine. With the new CTS-V getting the LSA 6.2L Supercharged engine, I suspect that the 4.4L S/C NS will fade away. A great engine, but certainly with the 556hp LSA making over 100+ additional hp and the LS9 at 620hp, I am not sure there is room for a hand-built 440-469 hp engine.

[Jan Olsson]

I think the current STS-V and XLR-V will become collector's items very quickly. We may look back very soon and realize that the current STS's were the last large (116" wheelbase) Cadillacs. When you consider that the engineering/design team was given so much of a free hand on the STS-V to tune it so delicately between luxury and performance so that it can perform on the track or the boulevard you have to appreciate the art and technology. It has that jewel of a powerplant, the 4.4L Supercharged Northstar engine. With the new CTS-V getting the LSA 6.2L Supercharged engine, I suspect that the 4.4L S/C NS will fade away. A great engine, but certainly with the 556hp LSA making over 100+ additional hp and the LS9 at 620hp, I am not sure there is room for a hand-built 440-469 hp engine.

You are propably right about that. Hopefully GM will change their minds and continue to develop V8-engines exlusively for Cadillac in the future. After all BMW, Mercedes etc. are able to offer 8+ cylinders in their most luxurious models.

No matter how great the Corvette engines are, it's still not Cadillac..

I think that a car like this deserves an unique soul

Still it's good for the depriciation rate that GM has such a lousy support for Cadillacs here in Sweden.

No one knows about Cadillacs at the dealers, they do know a little about SAAB

But as long as I can fix the most parts and have a trusty mechanic if I don't have the tools or time I'm not worried.

Cadillac has moved in to my garage for good.

[Cadillac Jim]

What about fuel economy? One of the major advantages of the Northstar is its potential for fuel economy, and the STS-V has only 20% less EPA mileage than the STS V8. I would bet that a new version of the 4.4 liter supercharged V8 could produce more horsepower and better fuel economy. Then, there's weight -- more important to the coming smaller cars; the Chevrolet small block can match the Northstar for weight only if the block is also aluminum and other measures are taken that aren't cheap, like hollow crankshaft throws and such.

Of course, an integrated supercharger on the DI V6 is probably more likely than either. Or, we could see something fundamentally different, like an all-new supercharged flat 6 or whatever.

[Jan Olsson]

What about fuel economy? One of the major advantages of the Northstar is its potential for fuel economy, and the STS-V has only 20% less EPA mileage than the STS V8. I would bet that a new version of the 4.4 liter supercharged V8 could produce more horsepower and better fuel economy. Then, there's weight -- more important to the coming smaller cars; the Chevrolet small block can match the Northstar for weight only if the block is also aluminum and other measures are taken that aren't cheap, like hollow crankshaft throws and such.

Of course, an integrated supercharger on the DI V6 is probably more likely than either. Or, we could see something fundamentally different, like an all-new supercharged flat 6 or whatever.

Why not a V12? GM's financial plans aim for a brake-through in the next coming years. Use the money to get the luxury engines back in Cadillacs

Smooth, fuel efficient, multicylinder with the cylinder cut-off technique so save fuel?

You could still use a supercharger, just smaller displacement.

[Bruce Nunnally]

The V12 and V16 are on the shelf / out of development due to planned fuel economy restrictions. Our next hope for performance will come from superchargers or turbochargers as well as continued engine advancements. Don't discount the 40 hp benefit we just got with direct injection. Homogeneous charge compression ignition for gas engines is on the horizon which will give a nice fuel economy boost.

Nice article on yahoo! about the most powerful cars for under $100K -- including 2 Cadillacs. The STS-V at 469hp and the CTS-V at 556hp.

#10: STS-V

If you seen any Cadillac with a "V" at the end of its name, watch out. These high-performance variants pack lots of power. The STS-V is what car buffs call a "sleeper" — you'd never suspect it to be a fast and furious speedster just by looking at it. A potent V8 engine, along with a host of other performance upgrades, transforms this mild-mannered midsize sedan into a four-door Corvette, with an equal helping of luxury to go with the scorching performance.

#3 CTS-V

We recently drove this high-performance variant of Cadillac's recently overhauled CTS sedan both on the road and track, and having done so, we wonder why anyone would ever need a sports car again. It's that good. It snakes through turns and sprints down straight-aways like a race car but remains coddling and quiet on streets and highways. And because of its massive torque, there's power available anytime in any gear — just mash the throttle and go.

[Jan Olsson]

With a supercharger and direct injection paired to a smaller and lighter car it still seems possible to make a small displacement V8 with good fuel efficiency. How about a 3.0 liter Smallstar?

With displacement om demand?

I'm stubborn..oh yes

[Bruce Nunnally]

When the Ultra V8 was in development, it would have been a V8 version of the technology in our 3.6L V6s. This is the same engine family as the ecotec DOHC VVT 4 cylinder turbo's. So if you squint a bit, you might say that the current 3.6L V6 IS the 6 cylinder version of the next generation NS V8 (the ultraV8 which never got produced), and the ecotec 4 turbo at 260hp now as found in the kappa cars (Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Sky, Opel GT; soon to be 280-290 hp) is the 4 cylinder variant.

Sadly the kappa cars have lost their planned update to kappa 2 in 2012-2013 so they are a run til done then finished branch of the family tree.

We are still missing the turbo 3.6L, or the upgrade of the 3.6L to the maximum 4L design capacity. It all comes down to the compromise between performance and economy of course. Most Cadillac owners want snappy performance but excellent fuel economy, and don't want to trade a few mpg for any additional performance. The customers who DO want max performance have the V-series line to shop (thankfully).

[Cadillac Jim]

The inline 6 can be very smooth, as some BMW and older American car drivers can testify. The flat 4 and flat 6 engines are as smooth as the inline configurations; see Corvair, Porche, and Subaru drivers for consumer opinions. The flat engines have the advantage of lower overall center of gravity over V configurations, which, in 6-cylinder versions, require staggered crankshafts (for 90 degree V6s but not 60 or 120 degree V6s) and extra counterweighting to achieve the smoothness of the inline and flat configurations -- but this is routinely done in most production V6 engines.

The flat engines have a design consideration disadvantage that V engines don't: what to do with the exhaust. In Cadillac V engines through 1948, flow-through heads weren't used, and the exhaust manifold was under the intake manifold, and they were joined at the heat riser, just line an inline engine. This meant two carburetors, but what they hey, it was just fine from 1915 through 1948, even on the V12 and V16 engines. If the exhaust comes out the bottom, you must raise the engine a bit for ground clearance and a good free-flowing design that allows unfettered access to the oil filter and oil pan is a challenge. See Porche, VW, and others for their solutions.

I do agree that high-tech V6's are the likely near future of Cadillacs.

[Jan Olsson]

The inline 6 can be very smooth, as some BMW and older American car drivers can testify. The flat 4 and flat 6 engines are as smooth as the inline configurations; see Corvair, Porche, and Subaru drivers for consumer opinions. The flat engines have the advantage of lower overall center of gravity over V configurations, which, in 6-cylinder versions, require staggered crankshafts (for 90 degree V6s but not 60 or 120 degree V6s) and extra counterweighting to achieve the smoothness of the inline and flat configurations -- but this is routinely done in most production V6 engines.

The flat engines have a design consideration disadvantage that V engines don't: what to do with the exhaust. In Cadillac V engines through 1948, flow-through heads weren't used, and the exhaust manifold was under the intake manifold, and they were joined at the heat riser, just line an inline engine. This meant two carburetors, but what they hey, it was just fine from 1915 through 1948, even on the V12 and V16 engines. If the exhaust comes out the bottom, you must raise the engine a bit for ground clearance and a good free-flowing design that allows unfettered access to the oil filter and oil pan is a challenge. See Porche, VW, and others for their solutions.

I do agree that high-tech V6's are the likely near future of Cadillacs.

I agree. I-6 engines can be really smooth, but I think someone has to make a stand and defend the V8 which is a really good engine type. Imagine a small V8 with a turbo and a supercharger?

By the way? Has anyone seen the 3.0 liter I-6 in a Volvo S80 (with twin turbos).

Not enough room for a fart...and it still wont produce more than 272 bhp...

Came across this. http://craig.backfire.ca/pages/autos/v8-engines

You just got to love that Cadillac made the crossplane crankshaft (despite the uneven firing order).

Read this and tell me again that the Cadillac V8 is dead?

Especially the conclusion at the end.

[Cadillac Jim]

The V8 cross-plane crankshaft was introduced by Cadillac in 1923, and, properly counterbalanced, produces an engine with no primary or secondary imbalance. The V6 can't do that, or at least doesn't do that; I thought that an inline or opposed six cylinder could. The smaller counterweights and thus smaller rotating mass explains why the single-plane crankshaft survives for some applications, particularly medium-displacement racing.

This article also explains indirectly why Cadillac's concept engine of 2003 was a V16, not a V12.

I think that the 4 valves per cylinder arrangement will continue because of its advantage in volumetric efficiency (performance per displacement), economy and emissions. Whether this is done with DOHC, SOHC, or pushrods remains to be seen. Some motorcycles use Y-shaped rocker arms to allow one lifter to operate two valves, and this type of innovation will likely continue in the automobile engine also.

I think that the advantage of frictional losses per displacement is important. In any piston engine, the ratio of cylinder wall swept area (a measure of frictional losses) to piston area (a measure of displacement per cylinder) is 4/Bore, so, for a given displacement, a V6 with a larger bore will have lower frictional losses than a V8. However, this may turn out to be negligible when all the factors are taken into account.

[Jan Olsson]

The V8 cross-plane crankshaft was introduced by Cadillac in 1923, and, properly counterbalanced, produces an engine with no primary or secondary imbalance. The V6 can't do that, or at least doesn't do that; I thought that an inline or opposed six cylinder could. The smaller counterweights and thus smaller rotating mass explains why the single-plane crankshaft survives for some applications, particularly medium-displacement racing.

This article also explains indirectly why Cadillac's concept engine of 2003 was a V16, not a V12.

I think that the 4 valves per cylinder arrangement will continue because of its advantage in volumetric efficiency (performance per displacement), economy and emissions. Whether this is done with DOHC, SOHC, or pushrods remains to be seen. Some motorcycles use Y-shaped rocker arms to allow one lifter to operate two valves, and this type of innovation will likely continue in the automobile engine also.

I think that the advantage of frictional losses per displacement is important. In any piston engine, the ratio of cylinder wall swept area (a measure of frictional losses) to piston area (a measure of displacement per cylinder) is 4/Bore, so, for a given displacement, a V6 with a larger bore will have lower frictional losses than a V8. However, this may turn out to be negligible when all the factors are taken into account.

A V12 with a singel-plane crankshaft should act like to I6-engines with respect of the first and second order vibrations?

The I6 is going away and the V6 is here to stay..compact engine that you can counter-balance quite good, but think about the new Duramax 4.5 V8 Diesel..that's the way to go. I would really like to get my hands on a Cadillac with that engine!

[Jan Olsson]

Ok, this is rellay going of topic. I'm always like that...just ask my wife.

Thought this could be a good reading too?

http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth1.htm

I figure that the STS-V can be mine in about 5 years...

But then it will propably be "serviced to death"...typically a Swedish phenomena when it's about American cars..

You know, oil changed every 3000 miles (replaced by a much thicker one), sparkplugs changed at the same time to Bosch copper electrode plugs, change coolant? why?, not driven faster than 60 mph with looots of deposits, injector cleaner, transmission flushes ... interior all scratched up, dings everywhere, aftermarket alarm because the American alarm is no good (according to the insurance companys), soiled and cracked leather on the seats etc etc. I have driven both my previous 1988 Eldorado and my previous 1993 STS about 50000 miles each and they both looked better and ran better than when I purchased them once...just ordinary maintanance and a handwash once in a while

Sorry for the rant but I'm getting increasingly pXXXed of by the abuse the american cars must withstand over here...

You could buy a well maintained 1982 Volvo with absolutely no refinement and equipment and it's not hard to get one in mint condition even after 150000 miles. I'm considering myself lucky to get a Cadillac in mint condition if it has run over 20000 miles...People over here are not used to cars with refinement and don't even notice if it only runs on 7 cylinders or if the tires are square...sad but true

When I bought my 2002 STS for instance I tried another one first and was chocked about the hard shifts...I checked the codes and came to the conclusion that the aftermarket alarm did a reset to all the learned values for the PCM, thus the hard shifts...the salesman said "It really does shift smooth, doesn't it?" I just looked at him (a former Volvo and Renault salesman) and said "No, it shifts like hell" and took wifey along and returned home..a drive for a total of over 380 miles