STS test drive report - EAT HOT DEATH, KRAUT BOYS!!!

The CTS-V was impressive, the STS was literally stunning.

2005 Cadillac STS V8, Pearl White, Luxury Package

I now make my declaration of war:

The STS is the best luxury V8 sedan under $80,000 ON THE PLANET. No ifs, ands or buts. There are some of the others I have not driven, but they had better be very, very, very good to compete with this thing.

Interior:

This is, hands down, the best interior I have ever seen from GM for fit and finish, and is vastly better than the "fields of black and gray" characterized by BMW and MB cars. It was flawless. Everything was exactly as it should be. Gaps and flushes were spot on, and so good that I had to double take them repeatedly. I pulled out my scale (that's engineering-speak for what the unwashed call a "ruler") and started measuring stuff. This is the first car I have EVER had to actually start taking objective data on to try to isolate flaws. Usually, I can glance at a car very quickly and they'll be easily seen all over the place.

After using the scale for a couple of minutes, with the salesman looking at me like I was from Mars, I stopped myself and muttered out loud:

"Wait a second, if I can't see them with the naked eye and no tools, the interior is visually perfect."

The wood is beautiful. Eucalyptus? Koala bears eat it apparently... so, if eucalyptus starts running short, start shooting Koala bears to keep the supply accessible for Cadillac - it's THAT good looking. Alternately, order McDonald's for the Koala bears... although that would probably upset the PETA folks even more since I think that qualifys as torture.

Anyway, the seats... oh, those lovely seats... They are not what folks typically think of in an American seat in that they are considerably firmer than the pillow-like luxury seats of old, but they don't pack your rear end up into your throat like BMW seats do either (BMW seats are outrageously hard). The seats hold my considerable bulk very well, and have enough adjustments to make the driving experience a joy.

Speakers in the seats... nice touch.

The leather is wonderful. Soft, clearly a product that came from a cow and not a sticky liquid that was pumped up out of the ground, and so organic feeling. Parts of me uncovered by clothing that touched the leather made the other parts of me that were covered by clothing jealous... all clothing remained in place, but it took some self-control.

"Well officer, the seats just felt so good that I decided to drive naked."

"Step out of the car please..."

"Here, just TOUCH the leather... please..."



Keyfob automatic lock/unlock... very nice.

As good as the leather was, I kept changing my hand position on the wheel to touch the wood.

Honestly, if this interior could cook and raise children, women would become unnecessary.

The Nav system and radio was excellent. I had to get lost on purpose just to spend more time in the car.


Ride and Handling:
Not too hard, not too soft, JUST RIGHT. It's not a low-slung performance car. It's not especially light. It IS unflappable. Exquisite poise. Never shaken, never out of it's element, just a flawless interpretation of the way a luxury sedan should ride.

Braking is excellent. The body does not pitch and roll or float.

Sigma is a signal achievement in automotive engineering. A true benchmark.


Engine:

I am very familiar with the Northstar, and this one was just like every other Northstar I've driven. Powerful, amazingly smooth and lusty when the "go" pedal meets the floormat. It makes all the right noises at all the right times and validates the two-tiered V8 engine system GM uses:

If you want to blow people off the road, tow heavy objects, get amazingly fuel economy and save weight, or exhibit all of the wonderful features of the fire-breathing American V8 monsters of lore, you get the LSx family.

If smoooooooth is what you're in the market for with enough technology to impress even the most ignorant of automotive writiers, you get the Northstar.

It's a great system.

As Journey used to say:

"Any way you want it, that's the way you need it."

And GM's got it.



Flaws? None yet. I'm going to go drive it again and again and again until I find some... may take years...



Oh, one further note:

Cadillac STS V6, more options than I can count:
48 month lease, 12,000 miles per year, $2500 total at signing.

$515/month :eek:


Go look up what you can get for a $515/month lease some time. If the STS doesn't immediately move to the top of the list, go drive one.

Meh, not enough power.

Honestly, if this interior could cook and raise children, women would become unnecessary.


ROTFLMAO! :D

nice review

Well, that's a crap load better opinion than last months C&D test, although interestingly, they didn't think much of the 5 searis either. They seem to take offense at the interior materials which they DID NOT when they tested it alone. I don't remember if it was a V8 STS though.

Maybe they can use Koala pelts to line the center console?

So uh, cut to the chase, did you like it or not?

Meh, not enough power.

Have you driven one? I havnt, only reason I ask.

I don't remember if it was a V8 STS though.


The car they tested was V8, non sport suspension...cited cost as the prohibiting factor...

Hillarious review Pace...:lol::lol::lol: Did the car you drove have the sport suspension?

Well, that's a crap load better opinion than last months C&D test, although interestingly, they didn't think much of the 5 searis either. They seem to take offense at the interior materials which they DID NOT when they tested it alone. I don't remember if it was a V8 STS though.

Maybe they can use Koala pelts to line the center console?

I thought the STS interior was better than CTS....but, IMO, the upcoming Lucerne will be even better.

I thought the STS interior was better than CTS....but, IMO, the upcoming Lucerne will be even better.

That's what I've heard from everyone too, the STS is a Lutz interior, isn't it, while the CTS was pre Lutz? I may have to test drive a 3.6 5 speed CTS pretty soon to replace the ailing GP.

Meh, not enough power.

I got power handled. This car is not about acceleration contests. It's got the snot to wipe the floor with the vast majority of the automotive flotsam out there, but that's not the intent of this one.

If I want to annihilate... well... anything you've ever owned in an acceleration contest, I've got that covered... unless something you happen to have has "NASA" painted on the side of it... and even then you had better have the holeshot down to a science or you're still going to lose.

If I want a world-class V8 luxury sedan that provides the closest thing to really good sex in the automotive kingdom for less than $80,000, this is the car.

If you want a world-class V8 luxury sedan with tons of power, the STS-V is right around the corner.

That's what I've heard from everyone too, the STS is a Lutz interior, isn't it, while the CTS was pre Lutz? I may have to test drive a 3.6 5 speed CTS pretty soon to replace the ailing GP.

A six speed, 3.6 with sport package is still on my short list at new car purchase time.

Be careful though Tim. If you get one...you may never want to autocross your 4th gen again.

A six speed, 3.6 with sport package is still on my short list at new car purchase time.

Be careful though Tim. If you get one...you may never want to autocross your 4th gen again.

Hmmm...and I'm sure it'll be a sweet ride for those east coast trips as well...... :think: Maybe I'm trading in two cars.....

Well, that's a crap load better opinion than last months C&D test, although interestingly, they didn't think much of the 5 searis either.

Note that PacerX did not instruct our friends from the east to join in the buffet. ;) :D

Note that PacerX did not instruct our friends from the east to join in the buffet. ;) :D

True...and it was an 'easterner' that won it all last month

True...and it was an 'easterner' that won it all last month
What are you guys talking about?

The CTS-V was impressive, the STS was literally stunning.

2005 Cadillac STS V8, Pearl White, Luxury Package

I now make my declaration of war:

The STS is the best luxury V8 sedan under $80,000 ON THE PLANET. No ifs, ands or buts. There are some of the others I have not driven, but they had better be very, very, very good to compete with this thing.

Interior:

This is, hands down, the best interior I have ever seen from GM for fit and finish, and is vastly better than the "fields of black and gray" characterized by BMW and MB cars. It was flawless. Everything was exactly as it should be. Gaps and flushes were spot on, and so good that I had to double take them repeatedly. I pulled out my scale (that's engineering-speak for what the unwashed call a "ruler") and started measuring stuff. This is the first car I have EVER has to actually start taking objective data on to try to isolate flaws. Usually, I can glance at a car very quickly and they'll be easily seen all over the place.

After using the scale for a couple of minutes, with the salesman looking at me like I was from Mars, I stopped myself and muttered out loud:

"Wait a second, if I can't see them with the naked eye and no tools, the interior is visually perfect."

The wood is beautiful. Eucalyptus? Koala bears eat it apparently... so, if eucalyptus starts running short, start shooting Koala bears to keep the supply accessible for Cadillac - it's THAT good looking. Alternately, order McDonald's for the Koala bears... although that would probably upset the PETA folks even more since I think that qualifys as torture.

Anyway, the seats... oh, those lovely seats... They are not what folks typically think of in an American seat in that they are considerably firmer than the pillow-like luxury seats of old, but they don't pack your rear end up into your throat like BMW seats do either (BMW seats are outrageously hard). The seats hold my considerable bulk very well, and have enough adjustments to make the driving experience a joy.

Speakers in the seats... nice touch.

The leather is wonderful. Soft, clearly a product that came from a cow and not a sticky liquid that was pumped up out of the ground, and so organic feeling. Parts of me uncovered by clothing that touched the leather made the other parts of me that were covered by clothing jealous... all clothing remained in place, but it took some self-control.

"Well officer, the seats just felt so good that I decided to drive naked."

"Step out of the car please..."

"Here, just TOUCH the leather... please..."

Keyfob automatic lock/unlock... very nice.

As good as the leather was, I kept changing my hand position on the wheel to touch the wood.

Honestly, if this interior could cook and raise children, women would become unnecessary.

The Nav system and radio was excellent. I had to get lost on purpose just to spend more time in the car.


Ride and Handling:
Not too hard, not too soft, JUST RIGHT. It's not a low-slung performance car. It's not especially light. It IS unflappable. Exquisite poise. Never shaken, never out of it's element, just a flawless interpretation of the way a luxury sedan should ride.

Braking is excellent. The body does not pitch and roll or float.

Sigma is a signal achievement in automotive engineering. A true benchmark.


Engine:

I am very familiar with the Northstar, and this one was just like every other Northstar I've driven. Powerful, amazingly smooth and lusty when the "go" pedal meets the floormat. It makes all the right noises at all the right times and validates the two-tiered V8 engine system GM uses:

If you want to blow people off the road, tow heavy objects, get amazingly fuel economy and save weight, or exhibit all of the wonderful features of the fire-breathing American V8 monsters of lore, you get the LSx family.

If smoooooooth is what you're in the market for with enough technology to impress even the most ignorant of automotive writiers, you get the Northstar.

It's a great system.

As Journey used to say:

"Any way you want it, that's the way you need it."

And GM's got it.



Flaws? None yet. I'm going to go drive it again and again and again until I find some... may take years...



Oh, one further note:

Cadillac STS V6, more options than I can count:
48 month lease, 12,000 miles per year, $2500 total at signing.

$515/month :eek:


Go look up what you can get for a $515/month lease some time. If the STS doesn't immediately move to the top of the list, go drive one.

I'm pretty far from convinced that a V6-powered Cadillac STS is worth more than a Chrysler 300C SRT-8.

Note that PacerX did not instruct our friends from the east to join in the buffet. ;) :D

They aren't worth anybody's time.

I'm pretty far from convinced that a V6-powered Cadillac STS is worth more than a Chrysler 300C SRT-8.

Then you haven't driven the Cadillac.

Then you haven't driven the Cadillac.

That is ok he probably hasn't driven the 300 yet either he just listens to the media and they make his mind up for him, it is SO hard thinking for yourself.

Then you haven't driven the Cadillac.

Nope, I haven't bothered to drive a new STS - and I probably won't. This car is little more than a slightly more polished, but not much larger, update on the CTS. The STS-V might have been of some interest, but I can't take a Cadillac with a hilarious $75K+ MSRP all that seriously.

The car that I'm waiting to testdrive is the Chrysler 300C SRT-8. Or any SRT-8, for that matter.

Nope, I haven't bothered to drive a new STS - and I probably won't. This car is little more than a slightly more polished, but not much larger, update on the CTS. The STS-V might have been of some interest, but I can't take a Cadillac with a hilarious $75K+ MSRP all that seriously.

The car that I'm waiting to testdrive is the Chrysler 300C SRT-8. Or any SRT-8, for that matter.

Then live in ignorance, since you're never going to know what you are missing.

I'm pretty far from convinced that a V6-powered Cadillac STS is worth more than a Chrysler 300C SRT-8.

Are you only worried about strait line perforamce? Is a SRT-8 worth more a GTO than?


Cool review PacerX, I'm going to take a closer look at a STS now. I love the way they look with 7 spoke 18" rims. Some day I'd love to have a CTS or STS as a "daily driver". Used CTS-V will be competing with the new Camaro for my next vehicle purchase. I really hope the F5 goes Sigma.

That's what I've heard from everyone too, the STS is a Lutz interior, isn't it, while the CTS was pre Lutz? I may have to test drive a 3.6 5 speed CTS pretty soon to replace the ailing GP.

Yup, STS interior is Lutz. So is Impala & the upcoming Buick.

Cobalt and G6's materials were influenced, and the Grand Prix and CTS were under the old school GM management.



STS may be an exceptional car, but still.... $60,000 for a V8 with sport suspension? :shock:

STS may be an exceptional car, but still.... $60,000 for a V8 with sport suspension? :shock:

~$70,000 with a V8, AWD, and all the toys... and worth every damned penny.

STS may be an exceptional car, but still.... $60,000 for a V8 with sport suspension? :shock:

That's the rebate driven price, isn't it? I've heard GM is going to restructure their pricing to eliminate rebates and better compare to the competition.

Has anyone else heard this or what the adjustment will be? I find it interesting I can get an Izuzu 'Trailblazer' for $3000 less than the Chevy.

STS may be an exceptional car, but still.... $60,000 for a V8 with sport suspension? :shock:

Compare the competition:
BMW:
$59,795 for sport package 545i without navigation, satellite radio, and heated seats.
$62,940 for all those options.
Benz:
$63,420 E500 with sport package, no nav, satellite radio, HID headlights, sunroof, heated seats
$70,189 with all those options :eek:
Infiniti:
$50,760 M45 with sport package: no nav, satellite radio,
$56,660 with those options(satellite radio has to be ordered in a $1700 package :rolleyes: )
Lexus:
$53,400 GS430, NO sport package option, no sunroof, no nav
$58,124 with the sunroof, nav, and mark levision audio
Cadillac:
$58,785 STS V8 luxury sport with navigation, sunroof, sport suspension, and satellite radio standard.
STS V8 can be had for as little as $48,000.

The only thing I can fault Caddy on is not offering a stand alone sport package option, sport option automatically puts the price at $58,785 makes nav, sunroof, etc. all standard, regardless if you want those options. I think the Car and Driver test would have been a lot different if the STS had a sport package for less than $55,000.

The CTS-V was impressive, the STS was literally stunning.

...I kept changing my hand position ...to touch the wood.




:eek:

That was a great review....thanks for sharing :bow:

~$70,000 with a V8, AWD, and all the toys... and worth every damned penny.

And I suppose that you actually own a "~$70,000" vehicle that's "worth every damned penny?"

Cant...stop....laughing....

Pacer, that was classic. I also got to drive a V8 STS at some Caddy event last year, and the car deffinatly has what it takes to but the scare into the Europeans.

sounds like Pacer has fallen for sigma? I cant blame you at all :D

Ya the CTS's interior is the only thing i am not particularly a fan of but its driving dynamics easily make up for it.

I think that the BLS's interior is the most attractive interior GM has and should be retrofitted into the CTS.
STS 's interior is a close second.

Lucern's interior is nice, and a definate improvement for buick. but i still think the STS and BLS beat it.

BTW Pacer, both your reviews are some of the best written reviews with the right amount of humor in it. :bow:

I'm pretty far from convinced that a V6-powered Cadillac STS is worth more than a Chrysler 300C SRT-8.

Although i havent driven ths 300C, its handeling from nearly all reviews i can remember is really pretty bad. I would easily get the STS over the 300C. but if you want straight line performance, get a GTO and have good handling characteristics in addition to power.

Although i havent driven ths 300C, its handeling from nearly all reviews i can remember is really pretty bad. I would easily get the STS over the 300C. but if you want straight line performance, get a GTO and have good handling characteristics in addition to power.

The SRT-8 he is talking about isn't that bad a handler. It's biggest downfall is weight though. It's a pig. But it corners well given its size and weight.

Good article on a 3 way shootout with GTO, 300C SRT-8, and CTS-V. Good read.
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0502_trio/

And I suppose that you actually own a "~$70,000" vehicle that's "worth every damned penny?"

At this rate, and depending on currently proceeding negotiations, I shall answer said question in a matter of two weeks or so.

What are you guys talking about?

Road and Track - May 05 - the $55,000 Question

6th - BMW
5th - Audi
4th - M-B

3rd - Lexus
2nd - Acura
1st - Infiniti

Caddy, minus the sport suspension finished 7th.

Road and Track - May 05 - the $55,000 Question

6th - BMW
5th - Audi
4th - M-B

3rd - Lexus
2nd - Acura
1st - Infiniti

Caddy, minus the sport suspension finished 7th.

Utter crap.

The SRT-8 he is talking about isn't that bad a handler. It's biggest downfall is weight though. It's a pig. But it corners well given its size and weight.


"Isn't a bad handler"?
"It's a Pig"? :think:

Well, lets see here:

Cadillac STS V8 ($47,025)
196" length, 72.6 width
320 horsepower
6.0 seconds 0-60 mph
4026#
.86g (Car & Driver 8/04)



Chrysler 300C SRT-8 ($39,370)
196.8 length, 74.1 width
425 horsepower
4.9 seconds 0-60 mph
4160#
.90g (Road & Track 3/05)

Higher skidpad?
A mere 134 pounds heavier than the STS?

Sound like it handles a bit better than "not bad".

It doesn't sound like a pig next to the competition either, huh? ;)

Unbelieveable.

Stack the Chrysler pseudo-sorta-well-not-really luxury car with the CTS-V if you must, but if folks don't get the difference between a Cadillac and a Chrysler then there is no helping them whatsoever.

"Isn't a bad handler"?
"It's a Pig"? :think:

It doesn't sound like a pig next to the competition either, huh? ;)

"bad" and "horrible" were the words some here were using to describe the 300:D. I used it too when i said "not that bad a handler", but in a different context. For a large sedan, it is very impressive. Not better than the smaller CTS-V, but not far behind either performance wise for a good less $$$.

Good review Pacer. I like the humor you put into them. Funnier than sheit :D

However I will say my "sex on wheels" is the C6 Z06 right now...

"Isn't a bad handler"?
"It's a Pig"? :think:

Well, lets see here:

Cadillac STS V8 ($47,025)
196" length, 72.6 width
320 horsepower
6.0 seconds 0-60 mph
4026#
.86g (Car & Driver 8/04)



Chrysler 300C SRT-8 ($39,370)
196.8 length, 74.1 width
425 horsepower
4.9 seconds 0-60 mph
4160#
.90g (Road & Track 3/05)

Higher skidpad?
A mere 134 pounds heavier than the STS?

Sound like it handles a bit better than "not bad".

It doesn't sound like a pig next to the competition either, huh? ;)

well, when i said the 300C was a bad handler (i didnt know about the SRT8 so i used the next closest thing.) That much of a weight difference doesnt make that much of difference (compared to if it was 1000 lbs+ difference) I know the 300C is supposed to have very soft and mushy suspension and that is what makes it such a bad handler. if they firmed up the suspension it probably wouldnt be so bad.

Seems like Car & Driver didn't agree with your sentiment at all.

I know, I know... they're biased toward Foreign cars, right?

And you're, uh, not domestically biased in the least, either, right?;)

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=9391&page_number=3

Hilarious :D Good read

"Isn't a bad handler"?
"It's a Pig"? :think:

Well, lets see here:

Cadillac STS V8 ($47,025)
196" length, 72.6 width
320 horsepower
6.0 seconds 0-60 mph
4026#
.86g (Car & Driver 8/04)



Chrysler 300C SRT-8 ($39,370)
196.8 length, 74.1 width
425 horsepower
4.9 seconds 0-60 mph
4160#
.90g (Road & Track 3/05)

Higher skidpad?
A mere 134 pounds heavier than the STS?

Sound like it handles a bit better than "not bad".

It doesn't sound like a pig next to the competition either, huh? ;)

skidpad numbers dont detirmine how agile a car is in different direction turns. skidpad numbers detirmine a cars ability to hold the road in one steady direction and certain speeds. they do have some influence on each other but is detirmined a lot by how good its tires are.

"Isn't a bad handler"?
"It's a Pig"? :think:

Well, lets see here:

Cadillac STS V8 ($47,025)
196" length, 72.6 width
320 horsepower
6.0 seconds 0-60 mph
4026#
.86g (Car & Driver 8/04)



Chrysler 300C SRT-8 ($39,370)
196.8 length, 74.1 width
425 horsepower
4.9 seconds 0-60 mph
4160#
.90g (Road & Track 3/05)

Higher skidpad?
A mere 134 pounds heavier than the STS?

Sound like it handles a bit better than "not bad".

It doesn't sound like a pig next to the competition either, huh? ;)

I don't think it's fair to compare the STS V8 with the Chrysler 300C SRT-8.

The only Cadillac that can come close to the 300C SRT-8 is the STS-V:)

Your opinion of the interior is similar to what I thought after sitting in one, except the one I was in just had the base interior. :lol: I'd love to own one, but that won't happen unless GM decides to sell them for less than $10k. :o

I don't think it's fair to compare the STS V8 with the Chrysler 300C SRT-8.

The only Cadillac that can come close to the 300C SRT-8 is the STS-V:)

Then the price jumps to what??? $70-75,000?

Buy an 300 SRT-8 for the weekends, and a 300C as a spare.

... or buy a SRT-8 for about 40 grand, invest about $5,000 on upgrades, and take the other spare $30 grand and make a down payment on a house. :lol:

I read the Car and Driver article, and as typical, they're $55,000 price cap kept the top-shelf Cadillac off of the comparison. Basically they tested a car with V6 equipment and a V8 engine that was decidedly biased towards understeer to keep the suspension soft... and then complained about it.

Wouldn't one expect a gentler ride in a Cadillac tuned for comfort instead of performance?

Next time, bring out the big guns...

Hopefully a full-book AWD STS-V against all comers.

My opinion hasn't changed. It's the finest true production car I've ever driven.



Chryslers... for the love of Pete...

From the way that article read, it seemed like they wanted all these cars to handle like balls to the walls sports cars, ride quality and tire noise be damned. They should have tested the CTS-v if that was their perrogaritve. Its about the same size as other cars in that test(on the smaller side of that range though). And it would have blown the doors off all those other cars by a long shot. Granted, the interior isn't as nice, but I think it would have won that comparision test by a wide margin.

Unbelieveable.

Stack the Chrysler pseudo-sorta-well-not-really luxury car with the CTS-V if you must, but if folks don't get the difference between a Cadillac and a Chrysler then there is no helping them whatsoever.

It's not that I can't tell the difference, but I think you might be right when you say that I don't get the difference - as in, I don't get why I'd ever spend an extra $30K to buy a loaded STS over a 300C SRT8, when that difference would buy me a small hunting cabin on 20-40 acres in the U.P. When you start talking about getting nice wood and better panel fits, or building a nice pole barn, I think I know which one I'll pick.

It comes down to value, and frankly I don't see the value in a luxury car (or luxury SUV, for that matter). I drive to work in a 14-year-old Caprice, my wife's got a 4-year-old Accord, and so perhaps I'm not the person that's going to be most-receptive to your ideas of automotive snootiness despite the fact that we've got the household income to put much nicer machinery in the driveway.

Can I understand and respect the difference between a $40K car and a $70K car? My employeer's customers would tell you that I can, given the compliments that my co-workers and I have gotten for sweating the details. Does that mean that those details are worth a goddamn penny to me? Nope. $30K would buy me a lot of nice machine-shop tools that'll still be churning out custom parts for my projects well after your STS has depreciated into the sort of fancy used car that teenage boys use to pry open the legs of unsupecting girls.

What's really funny to me, though, is that you've got the same attitude of the Germans. When I was over there last week, I heard no end to the comments that the Japanese are eating the American car companies for lunch. But yet suggest that the same might be happening in Germany as well, and their comments echo yours nearly exactly - the Asians aren't worth consideration. You may not be respectful of Lexus, Infinity, and Acura, but I can damn well assure you that the boys at Cadillac are using them as benchmarks.

The CTS-V was impressive, the STS was literally stunning.



The wood is beautiful. Eucalyptus? Koala bears eat it apparently... so, if eucalyptus starts running short, start shooting Koala bears to keep the supply accessible for Cadillac - it's THAT good looking. Alternately, order McDonald's for the Koala bears... although that would probably upset the PETA folks even more since I think that qualifys as torture.


They eat the leaves not the wood. I believe there is plantations of Eucalyptus tree's in California so maybe the Koala's are safe for now. ;)

The SRT-8 he is talking about isn't that bad a handler. It's biggest downfall is weight though. It's a pig. But it corners well given its size and weight.

Good article on a 3 way shootout with GTO, 300C SRT-8, and CTS-V. Good read.
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0502_trio/

I think Top Gear did the same comparision between those three. From memory they rubbished the 300 C.

.

Haven't seen you post in awhile.

It's not that I can't tell the difference, but I think you might be right when you say that I don't get the difference - as in, I don't get why I'd ever spend an extra $30K to buy a loaded STS over a 300C SRT8, when that difference would buy me a small hunting cabin on 20-40 acres in the U.P. When you start talking about getting nice wood and better panel fits, or building a nice pole barn, I think I know which one I'll pick.

It comes down to value, and frankly I don't see the value in a luxury car (or luxury SUV, for that matter). I drive to work in a 14-year-old Caprice, my wife's got a 4-year-old Accord, and so perhaps I'm not the person that's going to be most-receptive to your ideas of automotive snootiness despite the fact that we've got the household income to put much nicer machinery in the driveway.

Can I understand and respect the difference between a $40K car and a $70K car? My employeer's customers would tell you that I can, given the compliments that my co-workers and I have gotten for sweating the details. Does that mean that those details are worth a goddamn penny to me? Nope. $30K would buy me a lot of nice machine-shop tools that'll still be churning out custom parts for my projects well after your STS has depreciated into the sort of fancy used car that teenage boys use to pry open the legs of unsupecting girls.

What's really funny to me, though, is that you've got the same attitude of the Germans. When I was over there last week, I heard no end to the comments that the Japanese are eating the American car companies for lunch. But yet suggest that the same might be happening in Germany as well, and their comments echo yours nearly exactly - the Asians aren't worth consideration. You may not be respectful of Lexus, Infinity, and Acura, but I can damn well assure you that the boys at Cadillac are using them as benchmarks.

You make a very excellent point.

I think Top Gear did the same comparision between those three. From memory they rubbished the 300 C.

technically it was a vauxhall monaro and a normal 300c and they put in a jag supercharges stype for england to have a car. They loved the vauhall :D

technically it was a vauxhall monaro and a normal 300c and they put in a jag supercharges stype for england to have a car. They loved the vauhall :D

Thats right, thanks for clearing that up!

They eat the leaves not the wood. I believe there is plantations of Eucalyptus tree's in California so maybe the Koala's are safe for now. ;)

Actually, isn't Eucalyptus an extremely fast growing "junk" wood?

Of course, Koala's are cute but have big, sharp claws - how do you think they climb trees?:) - and a nasty odor.

Actually, isn't Eucalyptus an extremely fast growing "junk" wood?

Of course, Koala's are cute but have big, sharp claws - how do you think they climb trees?:) - and a nasty odor.


I believe you are right, they where blamed for the extent of the bushfires in LA a few years back yeah??

What's really funny to me, though, is that you've got the same attitude of the Germans. When I was over there last week, I heard no end to the comments that the Japanese are eating the American car companies for lunch. But yet suggest that the same might be happening in Germany as well, and their comments echo yours nearly exactly - the Asians aren't worth consideration. You may not be respectful of Lexus, Infinity, and Acura, but I can damn well assure you that the boys at Cadillac are using them as benchmarks.


First, the rough equivalent of a $30,000 Chrysler is a $30,000 Buick. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Chrysler was just full of engineering skill when they made the 300 family of cars, I mean they really hit it out of the park. Do you, as a technical individual, think for a second that that can make up for a $20,000 deficit in sales price relative to engineering, features, quality of materials, etc...???

The simple answer is no, it can't. Car companies design to a cost target, much like a mass or fuel economy target, and that target is immutable as a law of nature.

So, where do the corners get cut? Well, if they're smart, they do so in things you can't see or touch or easily understand as a consumer.

Cadillac didn't have those constraints with the STS. The interior is literally flawless dimensionally. Big money got spent on the leather. The car is quiet as a tomb because all the right sound deadening is in all the right places. The engine does exactly what is asked of it, without harshness, when it is asked. State-of-the-art powertrain, chassis and electronic control systems are present. Every electronic convienience is there.

The evidence is right there in the two cars. It takes a little digging, but it's there, and no under $40,000 Chrysler can match it.

Now, if you decide that the extra money isn't worth it to you, well that's a personal choice and one I understand... I do own a Camaro, you know... so I'm no stranger to the "big motor + fields of plastic" formula.

Obviously, for the less money I could buy a GTO, but the STS is just something else entirely...

And until you really drive both, I don't think you'll get it.

BTW - Chryslers don't stack up well with Lexus or BMW or MB either. It's not just Cadillac.

Now a Buick, on the other hand, they stack up well with a Buick for sure.

Cadillac didn't have those constraints with the STS. The interior is literally flawless dimensionally. Big money got spent on the leather. The car is quiet as a tomb because all the right sound deadening is in all the right places. The engine does exactly what is asked of it, without harshness, when it is asked. State-of-the-art powertrain, chassis and electronic control systems are present. Every electronic convienience is there.

The evidence is right there in the two cars. It takes a little digging, but it's there, and no under $40,000 Chrysler can match it.


What does a STS offer that can't be had on a Chrysler 300C? Nothing that I know off.

The sad truth is that Cadillacs are dramatically overpriced.

Keep in mind that the Sigma is a partially failed, low-volume standalone platform project. Chrysler's LX is spawned from Mercedes' latest E-class platform (not the last-generation one as DCX claims) and enjoys all of the economies of scale of a true shared platform.

What does a STS offer that can't be had on a Chrysler 300C? Nothing that I know off.

The sad truth is that Cadillacs are dramatically overpriced.


Using that logic, the BMW 5 series must also be overpriced....as well as a similar Benz, Lexus, Infinity, etc. :rolleyes:

You'd have to wonder who in their right mind would buy one of the traditional luxury cars at all, given the 300 has "everything" you could ever want for tens of thousands of dollars cheaper.....oddly enough I doubt many perspective Benz owners cross-shop the Chrysler..... :lol:

You'd have to wonder who in their right mind would buy one of the traditional luxury cars at all, given the 300 has "everything" you could ever want for tens of thousands of dollars cheaper.

And that's exactly how I feel, PacerX's well-stated points notwithstanding. I know where the $20-30K extra goes, and it goes into areas that just don't make me want to whip out the ol' checkbook because, in the end, it's a depreciating asset. And that's why I find no reason - absolutely none - to ridicule someone for picking a 300C over the STS. To me, value is all about finding that knee on the curve of the plot of price vs. function, and that point on the graph typically occurs somewhere way south of $60K (and yet somewhere north of most compact cars).

Now, if I were looking for a sedan in that price range, would I consider the Caddy? Damn straight - and I'm not sure I'd even shop the German makes. But that's a decision straight out of the "what if?" file, considering that building a new garage/workshop is somewhat more important to me right now than getting Keyless Go and good panel fits. Kudos to Caddy for building such a machine, though, since crafting vehicles that are out of the reach of common men is exactly the purpose of such a nameplate.

What does a STS offer that can't be had on a Chrysler 300C? Nothing that I know off.


How about magnetic ride control, Intellibeam headlights, remote start/keyless access, automatic load leveling, ventilated seats, heated rear seats, rear power outlets, heated steering wheel, memory passenger seat, heads up display, DVD player, oh, and Onstar too. So there is a lot more than you think. Maybe you could at least look and do a little homework before you start running off at the mouth like you do here so often?


The sad truth is that Cadillacs are dramatically overpriced.

Until you ride in a NEW Cadillac or two, you don't have jack to back up your mouth except for what you hear everyone else saying. Hell, you didn't know that there was anything that the Caddy offered that you couldn't get on a 300C, so how can you say that they are dramatically overpriced if you don't even know what kind of options are on the cars? :confused:



Keep in mind that the Sigma is a partially failed, low-volume standalone platform project.


:no: Honestly man, once in a while I'll agree with you, but you are WAY off base here.

I think you're talking out your ass because your mouth knows better.

Sigma is a partially failed, low-volume stand alone platform project? Please man, lay the crack pipe down and slowly step away. How does the Sigma platform which underpins the CTS, STS and SRX constitute a partially failed LOW VOLUME project?

Chrysler's LX is spawned from Mercedes' latest E-class platform (not the last-generation one as DCX claims) and enjoys all of the economies of scale of a true shared platform.

Hmmmm. How about you come back with some facts to back this up before you lose what remaining credibilty you have here?

And that's exactly how I feel, PacerX's well-stated points notwithstanding. I know where the $20-30K extra goes, and it goes into areas that just don't make me want to whip out the ol' checkbook because, in the end, it's a depreciating asset.

Which makes sense as a purely personal monetary choice. Remember, I bought a Camaro for the same reasons... I didn't want to take the lifestyle hit required if I bought a Corvette. BUT that does not then mean that the Corvette is not worth the extra money.


And that's why I find no reason - absolutely none - to ridicule someone for picking a 300C over the STS. To me, value is all about finding that knee on the curve of the plot of price vs. function, and that point on the graph typically occurs somewhere way south of $60K (and yet somewhere north of most compact cars).

See above. An entirely reasonable personal choice.

Nobody is ridiculing a prospective 300C buyer, but I am stating that in any way reasonably measurable with the frame of reference associated with a top-flight luxury sedan, the Cadillac just lays waste to the 300C... If the SRT-8 or 300C outpowers and performs it in a straight line or handling, I can live with that. I wouldn't lay my money down on that car for the reason of those performance parameters. If performance is the only criteria, GM has many other choices for far less money that can handle that.

From the article I read, the CTS-V beat up the SRT-8 pretty good performance-wise even though it gave up 25hp or so to it, so there's the immediate option... and it's still a Cadillac.




Oh... one more thing to consider...

The plant the Cadillac is built in is considered by both JD Powers and Harbour as the #1 vehicle assembly plant in North America.

Pacer, your points are well-taken, but there's one BIG fly in the ointment:

Among the marketing-brainwashed masses, Cadillac is NOT thought of as top-flight luxury in the same realm as Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus. Most people still won't cross-shop those brands with Cadillac. And when they see Cadillacs with BMW-esque stickers, they'll think, "What are they smoking?" and exit the dealer at roughly light speed.

Chrysler's pricing is bringing in buyers. They can't ignore it. It's simply TOO low, TOO shocking. If Cadillac wants to gain market share, they'd be wise to adopt a similar strategy.

Pacer, your points are well-taken, but there's one BIG fly in the ointment:

Among the marketing-brainwashed masses, Cadillac is NOT thought of as top-flight luxury in the same realm as Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus. Most people still won't cross-shop those brands with Cadillac. And when they see Cadillacs with BMW-esque stickers, they'll think, "What are they smoking?" and exit the dealer at roughly light speed.

Chrysler's pricing is bringing in buyers. They can't ignore it. It's simply TOO low, TOO shocking. If Cadillac wants to gain market share, they'd be wise to adopt a similar strategy.

I'll agree that the brainwashed masses don't get it yet, but I'll take issue with the idea that people are being shocked by the prices. Cadillacs are selling and selling well.

Cadillac SHOULD NOT drop it's prices. The name and desired place in the market demand the pricing.

Chrysler's pricing is bringing in buyers. They can't ignore it. It's simply TOO low, TOO shocking. If Cadillac wants to gain market share, they'd be wise to adopt a similar strategy.

I think Caddy's more-or-less happy where they are right now in terms of market share. GM has plenty of other brands to scoop up the buyers in the sub-30k market so there's no need to cheapen the brand to extend its reach. Unlike, say, BMW or Merc. Don't forget, Cadillac still has the largest market share of all luxury vehicle makers when considering vehicles priced as luxury cars (not $25,000 BMWs or $20,000 Acuras).

I will agree that Caddy is not quite in the same league as BMW and Mercedes as far as perception goes, but that gap is closing with Caddy's reputation increasing and the Germans' diminishing. But Chrysler is way below Cadillac. They're not really direct competitors at all.

Count me as another who doesn't see a need for Cadillac to lower prices. It has been stated by GM's brass they have no interest in aggressively challenging Lexus for the top spot in luxury sales. The roughly $30,000 base CTS is as low as they'll go, and since perception can work both ways (cheap "luxury" cars are an oxymoron) , it is the right decision.

As far as comparing Cadillac to Chrysler as a whole....Chrysler still sells those little PT Cruisers and Sebrings, right? Get real....

I understand that pricing perception works both ways, but Cadillac needs to think of its current position as "re-entering the top-notch luxury market", not "already there."

When Lexus was entering the luxury market, they offered retail prices that were substantially lower than Mercedes. People had to pay attention to them. The result? They built a successful brand, and their retail prices have risen accordingly.

Chrysler knew that people would laugh at the 300c at 40-50k, so they underpriced it. The result? You get people cross-shopping them with a broad range of cars, just because they can't ignore it. How many are they going to sell this year?

You should have seen the look of panic on the Cadillac dealer's face when we mentioned the 300. They know it's a good car. Maybe not top-notch, but good enough and cheap enough many people don't care.

If Cadillac wants to take back share lost to other marques, they need to be able to offer a compelling pricetag. Especially here on the left coast, where BMW 5-series sales seem to be running about 10X the STS rate.

I want Cadillac to succeed--I'd be VERY happy if every 5-series/LS430/E-class buyer ended up in an STS.

Just pointing out some financial realities that might be needed to get there.

Count me as another who doesn't see a need for Cadillac to lower prices. It has been stated by GM's brass they have no interest in aggressively challenging Lexus for the top spot in luxury sales. The roughly $30,000 base CTS is as low as they'll go, and since perception can work both ways (cheap "luxury" cars are an oxymoron) , it is the right decision.

As far as comparing Cadillac to Chrysler as a whole....Chrysler still sells those little PT Cruisers and Sebrings, right? Get real....

You state they have no interest in chasing Lexus to the top sales spot, and then immediately follow with "30k base is as low as they'll go". Lexus doesn't really go any lower. Their ES330 starts at 32,500 or so, and the IS300 starts at just a hair under 30. The new IS250 is rumored to be starting a tad under 30 as well, but nobody knows if it's going to be 100 dollars below or 2000 dollars below. But regardless, that's their cheapest model to date.

GM doesn't need to drop the price of their lowest priced car to compete. They need to drop the price of their higher priced cars to compete. Once they build up enough SALES momentum and enough word of mouth that "Caddies are better these days" then when they raise their prices, people might actually cross-shop them to see what Caddy is so proud of these days.

As stated, Lexus, when unproven, had unheard of low prices on all of its models. Their prices have increased dramatically since then; then again so have all car prices, but even relatively speaking, Lexus is now charging a nominal fee for their cars because they can. Caddy can't, at least for now.

You state they have no interest in chasing Lexus to the top sales spot, and then immediately follow with "30k base is as low as they'll go". Lexus doesn't really go any lower. Their ES330 starts at 32,500 or so, and the IS300 starts at just a hair under 30. The new IS250 is rumored to be starting a tad under 30 as well, but nobody knows if it's going to be 100 dollars below or 2000 dollars below. But regardless, that's their cheapest model to date.

GM doesn't need to drop the price of their lowest priced car to compete. They need to drop the price of their higher priced cars to compete. Once they build up enough SALES momentum and enough word of mouth that "Caddies are better these days" then when they raise their prices, people might actually cross-shop them to see what Caddy is so proud of these days.

As stated, Lexus, when unproven, had unheard of low prices on all of its models. Their prices have increased dramatically since then; then again so have all car prices, but even relatively speaking, Lexus is now charging a nominal fee for their cars because they can. Caddy can't, at least for now.

Wait a second...

Am I wrong or didn't Cadillac take the top sales spot last year?

How about magnetic ride control, Intellibeam headlights, remote start/keyless access, automatic load leveling, ventilated seats, heated rear seats, rear power outlets, heated steering wheel, memory passenger seat, heads up display, DVD player, oh, and Onstar too. So there is a lot more than you think. Maybe you could at least look and do a little homework before you start running off at the mouth like you do here so often?

Thanks for reciting an entire list of completely useless and complex features that might cause maintainence nightmares down the road.

Of course, OnStar is more than useless - it's a potential invasion of privacy.






Until you ride in a NEW Cadillac or two, you don't have jack to back up your mouth except for what you hear everyone else saying. Hell, you didn't know that there was anything that the Caddy offered that you couldn't get on a 300C, so how can you say that they are dramatically overpriced if you don't even know what kind of options are on the cars? :confused:

How many times can I say. I'm unimpressed by any of overpriced Sigma-based Cadillacs, but I'm very well aware of the long and loathsome option lists. I haven't driven the STS, but there's very little reason to do so. The STS is only slightly large, and very slightly improved CTS. The two cars are even hard to tell apart on the dealer's lot.





:no: Honestly man, once in a while I'll agree with you, but you are WAY off base here.

I think you're talking out your ass because your mouth knows better.

Sigma is a partially failed, low-volume stand alone platform project? Please man, lay the crack pipe down and slowly step away. How does the Sigma platform which underpins the CTS, STS and SRX constitute a partially failed LOW VOLUME project?



Hmmmm. How about you come back with some facts to back this up before you lose what remaining credibilty you have here?

The Sigma platform was supposed to be the basis for what became the Cadillac XLR. It was also supposed to underpin the upcoming Holden Commodore. Sadly, Sigma was too inflexible and expensive.

Currently, Sigma is the basis of three look-alike Cadillacs - the CTS, STS and SRX. It was supposed to be the basis of so much more. If that isn't a partially failed platform project, I don't know what is?

Of course, OnStar is more than useless - it's a potential invasion of privacy.

If automatically calling the police in the event of an airbag deployment and then giving them the precise location of the car that had the accident is an invasion of privacy, SIGN ME UP.

Wait a second...

Am I wrong or didn't Cadillac take the top sales spot last year?

If you're talking overall brand sales, then no they were third or fourth. However as I noted above, if you're talking sales of luxury-priced cars, then they were #1 by a long shot, and have been for quite a while.

If you're talking overall brand sales, then no they were third or fourth. However as I noted above, if you're talking sales of luxury-priced cars, then they were #1 by a long shot, and have been for quite a while.

Well then I agree with you, if it ain't broke...

:think: Source? Lexus has been #1 in North American luxury brand sales for years now and never stopped to my knowledge. In fact Lexus' North American sales are actually a bit higher than Caddilac's international sales totals IIRC.

Thanks for reciting an entire list of completely useless and complex features that might cause maintainence nightmares down the road.


To you they may be completely useless. Hell, even to me they might be completely useless, but uhhh...these kinds of items are what make a luxury car a luxury car...and part of why the Cadillac is a higher priced luxury car and why the SRT 300 is just a bonzai-fast family sedan. Get it? :rolleyes: You didn't respond to my question of what makes a 5 Series worth more than a SRT 300....or an E-class....or the Lexus GS.... :shrug:

The Sigma platform was supposed to be the basis for what became the Cadillac XLR. It was also supposed to underpin the upcoming Holden Commodore. Sadly, Sigma was too inflexible and expensive.

Currently, Sigma is the basis of three look-alike Cadillacs - the CTS, STS and SRX. It was supposed to be the basis of so much more. If that isn't a partially failed platform project, I don't know what is?

Well let's see, of the three Sigma vehicles you mention....the CTS started the revival of Cadillac and still sells briskly more than 2 years after its intro....the SRX is regarded as being in the upper echelon of luxury SUVs....Car and Driver best luxury SUV last year in fact (wow C&D likes it! :D )....and the new STS by every review I have seen is better than the Japanese competition and certainly on the level with what Germany has to offer.

Yup all on Sigma. The "failure" platform. :rolleyes:

My goodness, anyone who argues that the Sigma platform has been a failure for Cadillac should be lobotomized. Seriously.

It's interesting to note that in the classical sense, "luxury" meant things like fancy interior materials, proper ride tuning, big power, and reliability. I mean, the 15-year-old Mercedes 300D that my friend had in high school was the pinnicle of automotive engineering, feeling brand-new with a quarter-million miles on the clock and the car I'd want to drive into a nuclear blast site.

Nowadays, one can get those characteristics in any number of "low-end" vehicles. The reason the 300C is so impressive to me is that it offers dang nearly everything that a 750iL or S-class offered 10 years ago, at a inflation-adjusted price that's well less than what a Caprice cost.

So how to differentiate modern luxury cars? Apparently, through a bunch of useless (to me) features. And that's why I don't see myself purchasing a vehicle in that segment any time soon, if ever. That $75K market has been reduced to the sort of silliness that previously defined the $100K+ market, and for us mortals, that's actually a good thing.

So how to differentiate modern luxury cars? Apparently, through a bunch of useless (to me) features. And that's why I don't see myself purchasing a vehicle in that segment any time soon, if ever. That $75K market has been reduced to the sort of silliness that previously defined the $100K+ market, and for us mortals, that's actually a good thing.

My feelings exactly.

:think: Source? Lexus has been #1 in North American luxury brand sales for years now and never stopped to my knowledge. In fact Lexus' North American sales are actually a bit higher than Caddilac's international sales totals IIRC.When looking at vehicles considered "luxury" (for taxation purposes? I don't remember the standard), something like vehicles priced north of 40 grand, Cadillac is actually the highest.

Lexus has the ES, the IS, and the RX that all can be had for far below the 40 grand mark. Same with the 3 Series (BMWs bread and butter). Whereas at Caddy, the Deville/DTS is sort of their bread and butter car (along with the CTS now, of course).

Of course, that "luxury" cutoff is probably based on MSRP, not actual transaction price, so in reality ALL the manufacturers have more cars below 40 grand than one might guess based on MSRP alone.

There was an article or two about it in the last few months, IIRC. You can probably do a search.

You are right though, in terms of full line sales of a "luxury brand" (Lexus, Caddy, BMW, etc.), Caddy is not number 1.

When looking at vehicles considered "luxury" (for taxation purposes? I don't remember the standard), something like vehicles priced north of 40 grand, Cadillac is actually the highest.

Lexus has the ES, the IS, and the RX that all can be had for far below the 40 grand mark. Same with the 3 Series (BMWs bread and butter). Whereas at Caddy, the Deville/DTS is sort of their bread and butter car (along with the CTS now, of course).

Of course, that "luxury" cutoff is probably based on MSRP, not actual transaction price, so in reality ALL the manufacturers have more cars below 40 grand than one might guess based on MSRP alone.

There was an article or two about it in the last few months, IIRC. You can probably do a search.

You are right though, in terms of full line sales of a "luxury brand" (Lexus, Caddy, BMW, etc.), Caddy is not number 1.

Ah, I see. That's a good question about the MSRPs, though. GM has a habit of having an MSRP that is much higher than anyone would ever actually buy the car for.

FWIW in regards to Lexus' entry level models:

ES330 starts at $32,175 + dest and gets up to $40,479 + dest with every option under the sun (Mark Lev, Nav, heated/cooled seats, adaptive variable suspension, vehicle stability control, upgraded wheels, etc)

IS300 (only months away from a ground-up redesign) starts at $29,735 + dest and goes to $38,450 loaded up. (plus dest)

RX330 (not the RX400h hybrid) starts at $36,025 and gets up to 48,150 (plus dest)

You didn't respond to my question of what makes a 5 Series worth more than a SRT 300....or an E-class....or the Lexus GS.... :shrug:

Actually, I'm not really sure is a BMW 545i is really worth more than a Chrysler 300C SRT-8 - unless you're a sucker for BMW's "European delivery" program. The same goes for the E-class (which I like less than the Chrysler 300 that's based on the same platform) or the very disappointing Lexus GS300/430.

Still, BMW's customer service and quick ordering are tempting.:)





My goodness, anyone who argues that the Sigma platform has been a failure for Cadillac should be lobotomized. Seriously.

Is a lobotomy a prerequisite for Cadillac ownership?:lol: