Know your enemy

[TripleTransAm]

No, not the almighty Honda Civic...

Having landed in Atlanta at 12:30 am on Friday early early early morning and seeing myself faced with a 2+ hour drive in the rain to Chattanooga, I decided to upgrade my rental car, and flirt with the "enemy": a Cadillac Deville.

http://www.tripletransam.com/2004/DSCF1071a.jpg

Having been a GM guy all my life, I always felt a sense of curiousity at how the Cadillac version of the luxury 4 door compared with the Marauder... there certainly was no shortage of comparisons back when I first joined mm.net.

So here are my observations... both pro and con.

The powertrain: the Northstar is nice. Not "phenomenal" but nice. The torque characteristics are different between the Ford and GM versions of the 4.6l DOHC V8 package. Perhaps it was a difference in weight, but the Caddy seemed to get into its power band much sooner, with what seemed like a slightly lower converter stall speed, and unknown final drive ratio. At cruising and idle, it is deathly silent, but under load it has a very small-block-Chevy type of sound. Very pleasant, but otherwise not very muscular (especially at start-up). Fuel mileage appears fairly good, at least equivalent to the Marauder (perhaps a lighter weight? Less powertrain losses?).

I suspect the Marauder pulls harder at higher RPM than the Caddy would, but my workload here in Chattanooga has precluded any hard testing across all engine operating ranges.

http://www.tripletransam.com/2004/DSCF1075a.jpg


The transmission is adequate. GM makes good trannies overall, but I never liked FWD automatics much to begin with. There is not much torquer steer under load, and the front end lights up WAY too easy on a somewhat hard launch... factor in a combination of smaller less-hipo tires and FWD weight transfer before jumping to too many conclusions. Regular open throttle upshifts are positive but torque-management-laden, and manual upshifts are unsatisfying when compared to the Marauder's "screw you, PCM, I'm shifting right NOW" kind of manual 1-2 shifts.

The suspension is v a g u e . No steering feedback, and I guess I'm just not ready to resort to that kind of numbing of the wheel. I'm not sure if this is a result of that new kind of steering assist (magnetic?) that they are touting (if it is indeed so-equipped) but I recall some magazines complaining about the same thing. I find this kind of car harder to drive on long distances... it takes more of my attention to keep the car going straight, since I can't feel the road through the wheel.

http://www.tripletransam.com/2004/DSCF1072a.jpg


Inside, the electronic dash is VERY complete, right down to individual tire pressure displays, tach, oil and tranny fluid life (will try to get that number down somewhat before returning the car :up: ), instant and average fuel mileage, and a bunch of other pieces of info. The display will also recommend caution when there is a risk of icy road conditions and will suggest headlight operation when dark. Leather seating surfaces, a thumping radio (possibly stronger than the MM stereo and sub combo), but unfortunately saddled with a column shifter that ultimately gets in the way of the climate controls (wtf?). No cupholders that I could find, ironically enough... ???

The trunk appears longer than the MM's, mostly because it is not hobbled by an intrusive "shelf" due to rear axle and tank issues. But it is not nearly as deep... will have to compare with my MM when I get home.

Styling: I used to think the 3-4 year old models were handsome, trim and tasteful. The new Caddy borders on bloated, in my opinion. There really isn't anything about this car that grabs your attention. If you're looking for subdued luxury cars, this is it (hood ornament notwithstanding).

So the verdict is:
Powertrain may appear more torquey but may not have it up top (will check tomorrow)
Interior may be feature-filled, but overall cheesier than tasteful luxurious MM interior.
Ride and handling... well, I guess the two cars are not in the same class, but the Panther platform feels better overall (having driven Town Cars etc.)
Styling... well, they target different buyers, that's for sure.

I imagine the sportier Caddys might pose a greater threat to the MM, but it takes more than just a harsher suspension and better tires to make a contender.

I can safely put my curiousity about these cars behind me now...


edit: would have liked to hook up with the Atlanta crew, but my work schedule and flight times prevented me from being too far away from Chattanooga at any given time (leaving Atlanta Sunday morning at 11:23am).

[Bigdogjim]

Good report.

Sometimes travel has hidden perks.

I think the Caddy would look better in a "color" other that white.

[TAF]

/Steve,

I HATE havin you this close and not hookin-up...if you get ANY time...let me know.

[TripleTransAm]

Well, I guess I'll be pulling into Atlanta for a 9:15 rental car drop off... wanna escort me in? :lol:

I agree, would have liked to meet more Atlanta MM.net folks, for sure. Did manage to hook up with Paul Casey late this afternoon, though.

[TAF]

Well, I guess I'll be pulling into Atlanta for a 9:15 rental car drop off... wanna escort me in? :lol:

I agree, would have liked to meet more Atlanta MM.net folks, for sure. Did manage to hook up with Paul Casey late this afternoon, though.Paul's a good man!!! Eh?

Did he have his lovely wife with him? She's GREAT too...just don't give your keys to your Marauder to her...she starts street racing with whomever pulls up next to her :lol:

I'll meetchya at 8:30 at the Starbucks off the West Paces Ferry Exit of I-75 @ 8:30...if ya want. It's just north of downtown and on a Sunday morning you'll be less than 15 minutes from rental drop-off. Of course...that would mean you need to leave Chattanooga by 6:30....

[TripleTransAm]

Paul's a great guy, took me to a great barbecue place not too far from where I was working, made me less nervous in case I got paged or called to head in for an emergency troubleshooting session. Kind of shows the dazed state of mind I was in, with barely 4 hours of sleep after all-night work, by having left my own rental at the hotel. Sometimes my lack of intelligence surprises me... sometimes it doesn't...

He did share the story of his wife and your car. 'Nuff said....

Paul's car rode amazingly well, I enjoyed my seat time as a passenger. I suspect the smoothness in the ride is due in great part to Paul's driving technique, but it certainly showed how the driveability of a chipped/flashed MM can be beneficial in regular city traffic scenarios.

[TripleTransAm]

I'll meetchya at 8:30 at the Starbucks off the West Paces Ferry Exit of I-75 @ 8:30...if ya want. It's just north of downtown and on a Sunday morning you'll be less than 15 minutes from rental drop-off. Of course...that would mean you need to leave Chattanooga by 6:30....

I'll give it my best shot... 514-823-9161 is how to reach me.

[cruzer]

TTA, got a good look at the Caddie Convertible at the Ft Worth Auto Show today--boy, did L/M miss the boat--if they had produced the MM convert in 2002, Caddie wouldn't be able to sell his VERY expensive boat--It makes me sick to think how the MM was shelved and delayed-now everybody has a BLACK<4-door sedan with "big power", including the ricers--- H--- I'm just going to enjoy my "original" new muscle car--let them catch up!!!

[TripleTransAm]

Seems L/M was a victim of the Ford cash crunch. Vicious circle... it takes money to make money, but at some point when you can't invest money into your own operation, the company will first stagnate then eventually deteriorate. I've seen it all too often with US car companies... alternating from super-tight purse strings to all-out spending in an attempt to curb the downward slide, then back again.

I've said it many times, L/M has (or had, depending on what rumour you believe) a real winner with the MM. A ragtop would have certainly continued the excitement for 2004 or 2005, and then an eventual s/c option would have prolonged the momentum. However, judging by the lack of marketing push available for the 2003 MM, seems like we should be glad we ever got the car in the first place!

[RCSignals]

The display will also ...................... suggest headlight operation when dark.


now there is a feature I'd like. always have trouble figuring out when I should turn on my headlights



unfortunately saddled with a column shifter

The concept of a floor shift and when to use one in a car is something GM always has difficulty with




Styling: I used to think the 3-4 year old models were handsome, trim and tasteful. The new Caddy borders on bloated, in my opinion. There really isn't anything about this car that grabs your attention. If you're looking for subdued luxury cars, this is it (hood ornament notwithstanding).



Yes, the styling of this Cad is very bland. Looks like it could pass for something from Nissan, Kia, or Hyundai etc.
Just doesn't look like an expensive luxury car, and I don't think it's just the white

[TripleTransAm]

now there is a feature I'd like. always have trouble figuring out when I should turn on my headlights

:lol:

In its defense, I think it probably has something to do with the electronic dash. When I bought my GTA (also equipped with LCD digital dash) I found myself forgetting to turn on the headlights now and again when heading out in the evening. Now, in a 3rd gen T/A, headlight operation is very noticeable (rectangular air brakes visible up front) but I was sometimes tricked by the lighting of the dash itself into not realizing the lights were off. Usually the simple fact of not being able to read the instrument panel is enough to trigger most folks into turning on their headlights, but this is never the case with my '87. Only after realizing I couldn't make out the gage markings would I remember I needed to flick on the lights.

Another point is that the Caddy is equipped with a slider controlling the auto headlights. I have it set off at the moment, so perhaps it's a reminder to the average rich slob who will buy this car and gets used to having the car do everything for him/her/it, and one day finds themselves in a situation where the sentinel is off. I can relate to this (the auto lights part, not the rich slob part) in that my '98 WS6 was equipped with auto headlamp operation, triggered by a signal from the dash-pad-mounted light sensor. I got tired of the lamp doors flinging open and shut whenever I was caught at low speed in an underpass or a tunnel, so I defeated the system. But after 3 years of taking it for granted, I had to remind myself every now and again to turn on the lights (luckily, this car's analog instrument panel results in the "can't see the gages for *****" alarm going off in my head fairly quick).

Not making excuses for the Caddy, just presenting what may have been the reason for this "feature".

[Smokie]

Steve, excellent report. Useful comparison, based on real world experience instead of a magazine article.

I attempted to add to your reputation based on my honest appreciation of a good solid post, the forums electronic monitors did not allow me to do this, so I just wanted to let you know, the post was worthy, perhaps someone else will agree with me. Javier.

[TAF]

It'll be interesting for /Steve to complete this thread, telling what it was like getting back into the Caddy to go to the airport this morning after driving my car...of course...he had a full "escort" to the airport :up:


Great finally meeting you this a.m. /Steve!!!

[TripleTransAm]

Oh Todd, drop the charade. :up: Be honest, you just want me to fawn all over your car in public, and tell everyone you have the most badass Marauder! ;)

Well, in all honesty, all Marauders are badass. Your mods definitely bring out a certain aspect of the Marauder in a BIG way. It's not for everyone, and I invite anyone who gets the chance to take advantage of Todd's test-drive offer... to do so. It's the ONLY way to witness it for yourself.

That being said, the only way I can do the end result justice is to comment on it item by item. In my opinion, it's the only way I feel will convey a better sense of what the amalgamation of these parts comes down to.

The exhaust note: right there, we have a winner. I'm used to a quick shifting stock program, and the exhaust note takes a vacation once the 4R70W hits 3rd and TCC-locked. The combination of the improved shift schedule with the exhaust mods results in an engine that is always communicating with you through the different combinations of tones, burbles and barks. Personally I have to make sure I don't ever go overboard on the exhaust note, with kids back there to worry about, and a somewhat mod-sensitive wife to look out for (there's only so much I can pull off before I run outa luck). I'm sure the 4.10s have a hand in keeping the engine in a more vocal range, too.

... ah yes, the 4.10s. Right off the bat, the moment I moved the car a few feet in the parking lot at crawl speeds, I noticed what seemed like an increased ability to move forward with less throttle input. The end psychological result is that one almost begins to believe that the throttle pedal has become harder to move, firmer perhaps. This is probably due to the increased forward motion that occurs before we have a chance to move deeper into the throttle, in 1st gear. Todd assures me there is no fuel mileage hit... I'm gonna have to trust him on this one, because it's a mod that manages to somehow shave a few thousand pounds off this behemoth (the car, not Todd).

And speaking of shaving pounds, the suspension mods also transform the car a great deal, both aesthetically and functionally. So much so, I think they deserve separate treatment. As far as looks go, the springs are a dramatic drop. Perhaps not in absolute numerical terms, but the whole look of the car is changed. More aggressive, longer looking almost... I wish I had seen the car with the front wheels unturned, as the aggressive caster of these cars plays with the front height when the wheels are not straight ahead. All I kept thinking of was what it could do to the ride quality...

...and here comes the functional part: the ride does not appear to have become harsh. Just firmer (best word I can think of). I believe Todd when he states the OEM shocks are of good quality, and they can take a hard hit off a pothole and dampen the heck out of it, without any jiggling or slamming. Would I do it? Tough call... the notion of tightening the car's handling to something equivalent of a smaller sporty car is enticing. But whereas Todd's Marauder took what the North Atlanta potholes had to offer, they can't hold a candle (in either frequency or severity) to those lunar craters we enjoy up here in Montreal (God bless our efficient and frugal city administrators, you slimy bast.... er, I digress). Every year we probably lose 200-300 citizens to these worm holes, their bodies never to be found as they probably burned up once they got too close to the Earth's molten core. You get my drift... the springs are nice, but I wonder if the Marauder's structure is up to the task of dealing with our road surfaces. But the sway bar certainly must have a great role in this tightening of the car's manners... Pontiac has always been a big "sway bar" type of company, and my old Parisienne certainly benefitted from this. Todd's car brought back many memories of the sense of control I enjoyed with that old car. I'm fairly sure a sway bar is in my future, but the springs will have to wait pending more feedback over time. I already have one massive rattler ('87 GTA), my sanity cannot afford a second one.

Truth be told, I didn't get a chance to sample the braking potential of Todd's upgrade. But the lack of nose dive once again scores big points for the springs... damn. *sigh*

And believe it or not, the one aspect of Todd's Marauder that I enjoyed the most... I enjoyed while not even in the bloody car. While following him to the airport in that bulbous white tampon with a Caddy hood ornament rental car, I was surprised to HEAR his exhaust note so clearly. :eek: Hypnotic, I found myself suffering from tunnel vision as I stared at the back end of his car, cruising at 70-80 mph, letting that muted growl block out all other senses. Now the Caddy is well insulated, acoustically speaking, so I can only imagine how nice it really sounded out there, to motorists as we passed them. Just as BillyGman searched for the holy grail of tire smoking launches, so have I searched for a way to make my Marauder announce its presence a little more loudly on the highways.

So there you have it... a combination of upgrades that have resulted in "Todd's car". Just one path in a myriad of choices that we now enjoy when upgrading our newcomers to the muscle market. Between riding in Paul's car on Saturday and analyzing Todd's car on Sunday, I can begin to map out where I want to go with my own car... taking bits and pieces from their (and others') chosen paths. Unfortunately, whether I can pull off a one-shot upgrade or simply break it down to a series of short little hops is anyone's guess... the upcoming house upgrade is as yet an unknown quantity, financially speaking... 2950 sq.ft of living space and 3 garages will certainly deplete my reserves, but to what extent? The coming months will tell the tale....


Personal note to Paul: so much for my self-inflicted code of conduct regarding driving other people's cars. :rolleyes: But it was all I could do to keep Todd from making a spectacle of himself in front of that Starbucks. He was on his knees begging and pleading, and folks were starting to stare. *sigh* oh well, good thing he didn't know I was operating on 8 hours total of sleep, spread equally over the 2 previous nights. :sleepy: Again, I repeat that it was great meeting up with you, I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to converse with you.


Personal note to Todd: was real nice of you to take the time to meet up with me on my way into Atlanta. The escort was an added bonus, I can never tire of staring at a Marauder from any angle I can. And I thoroughly enjoyed meeting you in person... hopefully next time I will be in better shape (I must have looked like crap, with so little sleep over the weekend).

[TAF]

I...I...I think I'm going to :bigcry:


I'm touched /Steve...I think I'll print this and frame it.

[teamrope]

... I enjoyed while not even in the bloody car. While following him to the airport in that bulbous white tampon with a Caddy hood ornament rental car,

:lol: That :lol: has :lol: GOT :lol: to be the :lol: BEST :lol: description....
Of Cadillac's styling in general these last few years! :lol:

(Lucky I wasn't drinking anything when I read that :) )

[Fourth Horseman]

Just wanted to say: that's a sweet ride. If I had the cash, I'd love a big, soft-n-comfy Caddy like that. I think that it's a totally different kind of ride than a Marauder. Where the Marauder is all bold and ornery, the Caddy is all about creature comfort. For what it was designed to be, though, I think it's perfect. It's coughing up the 50 large that's the problem for me. :)

Great review! :up:

[Paul T. Casey]

Well, I had a good time hooking up with Steve this weekend, the word "Gentleman" comes to my mind. On the Caddy front, one thing I noticed or at least felt, was that despite it's gargantuan (sic) size, it seemed to lack room in the front passenger's seat. It could be an illusion as I seemed to have enough leg room, but it looked tight. Maybe I was expecting more like the mid eighties El Durado Barritz front compartment size (I think a family of three lived in my wife's '82 when we weren't looking). As for me, I'll keep the Marauder. Hope the return trip to Montreal was good and we'll have to do it again.

[TripleTransAm]

Just wanted to say: that's a sweet ride. If I had the cash, I'd love a big, soft-n-comfy Caddy like that. I think that it's a totally different kind of ride than a Marauder. Where the Marauder is all bold and ornery, the Caddy is all about creature comfort. For what it was designed to be, though, I think it's perfect. It's coughing up the 50 large that's the problem for me. :)


Yeah, like I initially thought, it would have been nice to compare the 'sport' versions of the Caddy lineup, but beggars can't be choosers. *shrug* But I was curious about the drivetrain portion more than anything... the Caddies all share the same tranny (and engine too, I think). Final drive ratio, I'm not sure...

But I got to sample a Northstar and I'm happy I did. I was expecting something smoother but I was kind of let down.

As far as the creature comforts go... I guess it all depends on one's definition of creature comforts. In my case, relaxed driving comes about as a result of steady positive feedback through the steering, and stable driving through a controlled suspension. While this rental car seems to have led a hard life until we crossed paths, I was disappointed in the vagueness of the steering and the wallowing of the suspension. I rented this particular car that Thursday night at 12:00 am (Friday morning, actually) knowing I had a long drive to Chattanooga on very little sleep. I needed something exciting and driver-oriented... I got neither. It was MORE tiring trying to keep the car in its lane.

If you want to compare luxury barges, take my word for it: the Lincoln Town Car I rented in Jan '03 in San Diego (as much as I hated the fluffy jiggly ride) still managed to feel better than the Caddy. GM FWD platforms just were NOT made for me, no matter what the price tag.

[TripleTransAm]

On the Caddy front, one thing I noticed or at least felt, was that despite it's gargantuan (sic) size, it seemed to lack room in the front passenger's seat. It could be an illusion as I seemed to have enough leg room, but it looked tight.
You're not alone, I thought the same. Looking at the exterior, you would think that it was a huge collosseum on the inside... wrong.

Like I said, I'm so much more relieved that I chose the Marauder...

[Paul T. Casey]

Well at least it didn't have bow tie exhaust tips. :lol:

[Patrick]

Steve brought up some good points. If I had that kind of money and the choice, TOWNCAR!!!! Hands down. My folks have owned Towncars for the last 20 yrs. They have a 2001 right now (Dad was down at the dealership today looking around) Will probably have one soon!!!

But I just cant do that front wheel drive thing!!! And when you head back up this way again. 339-2452. give me ayell if ya get time!

[TripleTransAm]

Well at least it didn't have bow tie exhaust tips. :lol:


Oh Lord, that was funny! I honestly thought that car had crushed exhaust outlets until you mentioned they were bowties. :lol:

[TripleTransAm]

Steve brought up some good points. If I had that kind of money and the choice, TOWNCAR!!!! Hands down. My folks have owned Towncars for the last 20 yrs. They have a 2001 right now (Dad was down at the dealership today looking around) Will probably have one soon!!!

But I just cant do that front wheel drive thing!!! And when you head back up this way again. 339-2452. give me ayell if ya get time!


I must admit I find the 2003+ Town Car VERY handsome. (of course, styling is subjective...). I wonder if they did something to the hood for the '04... I don't recall so many creases on it. If it is the same as 2003, I like it... if it's new for '04, I like it better.

I might be in the Carolinas or Virginia sometime in the next 4 weeks, that's about as much as I know about the trip at the moment. Will keep the group informed... will definitely give you a shout next time I'm in the neighborhood.

[jgc61sr2002]

Sounds like you all had a great time. :D

[the_pack_rat]

I've heard the ride & handling is the best it's ever been as with all the Panther cars ..

But IMHO, a 98+ Town Car looks like a jellyfish that swallowed a canister of metamucil.

Funny back in 1990 when the TC went thru a major re-design I thought it would never grow on me ...

But I ended up being quite fond of the 95-97's.

They made a _slight_ improvement in the exterior of the 03 TC ... but still not enough to make me want one again.

The TC interiors after 97 do nothing for me either.

If I owned a limo service ...

I would have been buying GM/CV's since 98.

PS -

For the record I don't like that "playtex" edition Caddy either.

:lol:

Eric < --- 97 TC

[RCSignals]

the Caddies all share the same tranny (and engine too, I think). Final drive ratio, I'm not sure...



Maybe the FWD ones and some of the upcoming RWD, but I don't think they used the Northstar in the CTSV.

[TripleTransAm]

No. I guess I should have been more clear, as I was subconsciously thinking of the big 4 doors (Deville, DTS, STS, etc.). The new platform'ed CTS and CTS-V are different beasts altogether, and I can't pass judgment on those until I've had a chance to introduce their accelerator pedals to their floor carpets in person.

I'm not sure what motor is in the CTS (small Northstar?) but the CTS-V benefits from a good ole honest-to-goodness LS6. :up:

[ADE 1000]

Comparing a DTS to a Marauder would have been a more valid comparison, but I know you can't rent those. The base Deville and DHS is more a Town Car competitor. And I think it is a better car for the money than the Town Car.

I almost bought a DTS instead of the Marauder. It was a close call, the DTS would have been a better winter car, but the Marauder won out due to its lower price, rarity, and RWD platform.

I like Cadillacs quite a bit, I think a blk/blk DTS is as bad*** as anything. I also like the STS, we have had several in the family. I would definetly buy a CTS-V in a heartbeat if I had the resources.

[Fourth Horseman]

If you want to compare luxury barges, take my word for it: the Lincoln Town Car I rented in Jan '03 in San Diego (as much as I hated the fluffy jiggly ride) still managed to feel better than the Caddy. GM FWD platforms just were NOT made for me, no matter what the price tag.

Yeah, I like the Town Cars, too. In my experience, though, the interiors on the Cadillacs are a bit more plush. But I agree about the front drive, thing. That's a definite bummer. In truth, it'd probably keep me from buying one as well. For that kind of money the car had better be absolutely what I want.

EDIT: went to www.cadillac.com and used the "build your own" option and I couldn't get out of there with a DTS configured the way I'd like it for less than $54k. Ouch!

[RCSignals]

I'm not sure what motor is in the CTS (small Northstar?) but the CTS-V benefits from a good ole honest-to-goodness LS6. :up:

CTS has a V6. Imagine a Cadillac with a six cylinder engine. :(

Yes that's right, CTS V has an LS6. What's the world coming to when a Cadillac has to stoop to being powered by a Chevrolet engine :(

[TripleTransAm]

Yes that's right, CTS V has an LS6. What's the world coming to when a Cadillac has to stoop to being powered by a Chevrolet engine :(


No, not a Chevy engine. Whole new design, and powertrain is now a separate entity within GM. Has been for about 10 years now. Not much is shared between the LS1/LS6 and the small block Chevy, except for maybe bore spacing. It's as much a Chevy engine as it is a Holden or Caddy or Pontiac (well, USED to be able to be called a Pontiac before they axed the F-bird).

You might as well be calling the Viper V10 a Mercedes engine. :lol:

Nonetheless, even if it was a Chevy engine, I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of when it comes to the LS1 and LS6. Not trying to brag... take a drive in a well-broken-in example of either and you'll see what I mean.

[RCSignals]

You might as well be calling the Viper V10 a Mercedes engine. :lol:

well it is now ;) I've heard though that Daimler actually wants to phase it out though


Nonetheless, even if it was a Chevy engine, I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of when it comes to the LS1 and LS6. Not trying to brag... take a drive in a well-broken-in example of either and you'll see what I mean.

Ah yes, but that really isn't the point. Especially historically, as far as GM divisions are concerned.
Was a time that Cadillac lead the way for pretty much everything within GM, had and held it's own.
But of course Bean counters creating one powertrain division killed everything unique between GM divisions in that regard.
One of the reasons it was so easy to kill off Oldsmobile I guess

[TripleTransAm]

I do have to admit I am surprised the Northstar hasn't been pushed to greater power outputs, to power the CTS-V. Ford has pushed over 400 net hp out of its 4.6l with the DOHC and blower, yet the Northstar seems to have stagnated. Using the LS6 in the CTS-V smells like it was a stop-gap choice... not a totally undesirable one, but I see your point in wondering why the Caddy powertrain wasn't beefed appropriately.

Probably a cost issue...

Regarding the powertrain division thing... how is this different than Ford? When was the last time the Ford divisions had independent powertrains? Not while I've been on this Earth, I think...

[ADE 1000]

CTS has a V6. Imagine a Cadillac with a six cylinder engine. :(

Yes that's right, CTS V has an LS6. What's the world coming to when a Cadillac has to stoop to being powered by a Chevrolet engine :(

:rolleyes: The LS6 is only offerred in the Z06, a Corvette and one of the best sports cars out there. I would hardly call it demeaning for this engine to be used in the CTS-V. Cadillac never paved the way for mega horsepower engines within GM, those belonged to mainly to Corvettes and little has changed.

I personally would rather have a naturally aspirated engine like the LS6, over a supercharged Northstar. Although a supercharged Northstar is likely to show up in the STS-v and XLR-v.

I don't think Ford powertrain can hold a candle to GM powertrain. Slapping a supercharger on is the easy way out. GM does not need to supercharge its motors to get big power. Ford's dismal record in terms of getting the 4.6L DOHC to perform properly resulted in them giving up and resorting to a blower.

[RCSignals]

I do have to admit I am surprised the Northstar hasn't been pushed to greater power outputs, to power the CTS-V. Ford has pushed over 400 net hp out of its 4.6l with the DOHC and blower, yet the Northstar seems to have stagnated. Using the LS6 in the CTS-V smells like it was a stop-gap choice... not a totally undesirable one, but I see your point in wondering why the Caddy powertrain wasn't beefed appropriately.

Probably a cost issue...

probably. If it's cheap and easy, it's go at GM. ;) But I agree, it's surprising they haven't done more with the Northstar.


Regarding the powertrain division thing... how is this different than Ford? When was the last time the Ford divisions had independent powertrains? Not while I've been on this Earth, I think...
Ford is a completely different issue. Generally and historically engines have been shared across Divisions at Ford. Not every engine was always available in all platforms though, just as today. The largest V8 engine in a Ford was at one time usually the smallest V8 engine available in a Mercury.

This was not the case with GM, where divisions, which were mostly bought up ot taken over independent auto companies, were run proudly independently to a great extent, especially powertrain.
A number of years back GM was in trouble over putting Chevrolet engines in Pontiacs. Remember that?

[RCSignals]

:rolleyes: The LS6 is only offerred in the Z06, a Corvette and one of the best sports cars out there. I would hardly call it demeaning for this engine to be used in the CTS-V. Cadillac never paved the way for mega horsepower engines within GM, those belonged to mainly to Corvettes and little has changed.

I personally would rather have a naturally aspirated engine like the LS6, over a supercharged Northstar. Although a supercharged Northstar is likely to show up in the STS-v and XLR-v.

I don't think Ford powertrain can hold a candle to GM powertrain. Slapping a supercharger on is the easy way out. GM does not need to supercharge its motors to get big power. Ford's dismal record in terms of getting the 4.6L DOHC to perform properly resulted in them giving up and resorting to a blower.

:rolleyes: It's demeaning, because it's, despite the "new" GM powertrain division, essentially a low end Chevrolet Division engine in an high end Cadillac Division car.
But those things are acceptable today.

Cadillac never paved the way for high horsepower? Really?

Corvettes certainly didn't start out their existence as paving the way to high horsepower. That took many years.

Explain what is "dismal" about Ford's record of getting the 4.6L DOHC engine to perform? ford giving up? That's kinda funny. Adding a S/C only pushes the horsepower envelope. It isn't the only way it "performs"

The current edition of the 4.6L SOHC engine in the CVPI performed at this years MSP trials as well as or better than the "famed" 5.7L of the Caprice 9C1s always touted. No supercharger, just a new airbox and MAF.

[ADE 1000]

:rolleyes: It's demeaning, because it's, despite the "new" GM powertrain division, essentially a low end Chevrolet Division engine in an high end Cadillac Division car.
But those things are acceptable today.

Cadillac never paved the way for high horsepower? Really?

Corvettes certainly didn't start out their existence as paving the way to high horsepower. That took many years.

Explain what is "dismal" about Ford's record of getting the 4.6L DOHC engine to perform? ford giving up? That's kinda funny. Adding a S/C only pushes the horsepower envelope. It isn't the only way it "performs"

The current edition of the 4.6L SOHC engine in the CVPI performed at this years MSP trials as well as or better than the "famed" 5.7L of the Caprice 9C1s always touted. No supercharger, just a new airbox and MAF.

1. I don't think the Corvette can be bundled together with the rest of the "low end" Chevy division. It has been as much a show case for GM technology as any Cadillac.

2. Sure the first Corvettes were not exactly stellar performers. I'd say for most of the Corvettes 50 year history, it has been GM's performance flagship.Name a year when a Cadillac motor was significantly more powerful than the top Corvette motor?

3. I like the DOHC 4.6L for what it is, I've had several vehicles with this engine. But in a performance car application, it does not deliver the goods in stock form. I consider the performance of the Marauder inadequate in stock form, the same goes for the non-supercharged Cobras that used this engine. Sure they respond well to mods, but the LT1/LS1/LS6 perform as they are suppossed to out of the box.

4. The fact that the Crown Vic finally performs as well as the 9C1 Caprice at the MSP trials is a testament to how behind the curve they are. They finally produced a police vehicle that could compete withe a vehicle GM introduced 10 years ago. Bravo.

[TripleTransAm]

Ford is a completely different issue. Generally and historically engines have been shared across Divisions at Ford. Not every engine was always available in all platforms though, just as today. The largest V8 engine in a Ford was at one time usually the smallest V8 engine available in a Mercury.

Again, I have to ask... how is this different than what has happened with GM since the late late 70s? I restate once again... since before my birth, there have not been engines built specifically by either Mercury or Lincoln. While there may have been specific "displacements" not offered in certain model lines and divisions, the basic engine family has been shared.

In contrast, you cannot put a Pontiac intake manifold on a Chevy. You cannot put a Buick head on an Oldsmobile. You cannot put a Chevy anything on an LS1 / LS6.


This was not the case with GM, where divisions, which were mostly bought up ot taken over independent auto companies, were run proudly independently to a great extent, especially powertrain.
A number of years back GM was in trouble over putting Chevrolet engines in Pontiacs. Remember that?
Yes, as I remember, what got them in trouble was the substitution of alternative engines without the consent of the customer. Now, honestly, most people wouldn't have cared... a buyer who opts for a 350 2Bbl - equipped 1978 Lesabre won't really care if he ends up with an Oldsmobile V8, unless he needed that particular Buick 350 2Bbl for some particular reason. However, put this same scenario in the Land of the Lawsuits and you get a big Nader-ish fiasco. Now, I can understand wanting a 220-hp version of the Pontiac 400 V8 in your 1978 Trans Am and getting ticked off when you see you got the 185 hp Oldsmobile 403 V8 instead... but I'm assuming GM felt they could perform the swap on model ranges where enthusiasts might not roam. They were wrong, or were at least taken advantage of by opportunists who saw a chance for lawsuits.

(by the way, the above T/A scenario never happened... worst case, you got a 185 hp 403 in places where the base 180 hp Pontiac 400 could not pass emissions... while not as grunty below 1600 RPM, the Olds engine outpulled the base Pontiac at the upper midrange RPM).

Nonetheless, my point still stands... GM simply adapted to a common powertrain division over the course of 10-15 years, whereas all engines in Ford products are equipped with shared blocks since at least the late 60s.

[Paul T. Casey]

Nice thread Steve, I'm even starting to see some of the good ole Ford vs. Chevy debate popping up. Shootout time, maybe someone can set up something in Steele AL, 1/4 miles, Impala/Caprice vs. Crown Vic/Marauder. Run what ya brung, 2 ton minimum......

[RCSignals]

1. I don't think the Corvette can be bundled together with the rest of the "low end" Chevy division. It has been as much a show case for GM technology as any Cadillac.

I do. It may be the most interesting car from GM, and the best performing, but it's still from the "low end" Chevrolet division


2. Sure the first Corvettes were not exactly stellar performers. I'd say for most of the Corvettes 50 year history, it has been GM's performance flagship.Name a year when a Cadillac motor was significantly more powerful than the top Corvette motor?

Name a year? 1953, 1954, ......


3. I like the DOHC 4.6L for what it is, I've had several vehicles with this engine. But in a performance car application, it does not deliver the goods in stock form. I consider the performance of the Marauder inadequate in stock form, the same goes for the non-supercharged Cobras that used this engine. Sure they respond well to mods, but the LT1/LS1/LS6 perform as they are suppossed to out of the box.

That's why LT1/LS1/LS6 have so may peope wanting to mod them out of the box


4. The fact that the Crown Vic finally performs as well as the 9C1 Caprice at the MSP trials is a testament to how behind the curve they are. They finally produced a police vehicle that could compete withe a vehicle GM introduced 10 years ago. Bravo.

No, they were always fairly close. It's not like Ford did much of anything to make the 69 cu in smaller engine perform as well, or better.
The question is why did they not just do it sooner.

[RCSignals]

Again, I have to ask... how is this different than what has happened with GM since the late late 70s? I restate once again... since before my birth, there have not been engines built specifically by either Mercury or Lincoln. While there may have been specific "displacements" not offered in certain model lines and divisions, the basic engine family has been shared.




It is a complete change of business practise for GM. It's not a change of any practise for Ford.
The comparison has no basis.

sbc V8s were the cheapest made engines possible, in com to V8s of other Divisions. There was more to people being upset about discovering their Pontiac came with a sbc engine instead of a PMD division engine. (of course many likely never knew the difference, which is likely what GM was counting on)
Completely different engines.

GM has blurred the lines between it's divisions, so it makes sense for them to do what they do today with one powertrain division.
With the exception of Cadillac, which so far still holds it's own with the Northstar. I think though that they could do more with the Northstar for Cadillac division.

As far as Ford goes, I think they should never have put the SOHC 4.6 in the Lincoln TC. It should have had the DOHC engine as it's base from the beginning. Putting the SOHC in the TC is as bad as Cadillac using a Chev engine.

[RCSignals]

Run what ya brung, 2 ton minimum......

that's car weight alone, without driver :lol:

[ADE 1000]

I do. It may be the most interesting car from GM, and the best performing, but it's still from the "low end" Chevrolet division



Name a year? 1953, 1954, ......



That's why LT1/LS1/LS6 have so may peope wanting to mod them out of the box



No, they were always fairly close. It's not like Ford did much of anything to make the 69 cu in smaller engine perform as well, or better.
The question is why did they not just do it sooner.

1. The Corvette is GM's performance flagship. If you can't distinguish it from the rest of the Chevy lineup, thats your problem.

2. 1953, 1954??? And how far can you go beyond that? You are obviously stuck in a forgotten time. As I said, shortly after its introduction the Corvette quickly became more powerful than a Cadillac and has maintained its advantage for most of its 50 year history.

3. And your point is? Everyone wants to mod everyting out of the box, regardless of how fast. My Z06 was plenty fast in stock form, but I chose to mod because I always try to get more out of my car. The Marauder on the other hand, need mods to keep up with comparable vehicles.

4. :lol: Close? You have got to be kidding me. An LT-1 Caprice will smoke a similiar vintage 4.6 Crown Vic. Any day, any time.

[RCSignals]

1. The Corvette is GM's performance flagship. If you can't distinguish it from the rest of the Chevy lineup, thats your problem.

not my problem


2. 1953, 1954??? And how far can you go beyond that? You are obviously stuck in a forgotten time. As I said, shortly after its introduction the Corvette quickly became more powerful than a Cadillac and has maintained its advantage for most of its 50 year history.

Cadillacs have always been large vehicles. In a head to head competition there may be no comparison. But we are talking about engines. You asked for a year, I gave you two.
There are more, check it out if you are really interested.
The whole point is, that Cadillac by using the LS6, instead of a unique Cadillac design engine, or a performance version of the Northstar, is not following it's traditions of being GMs flagship Division.


3. And your point is? Everyone wants to mod everyting out of the box, regardless of how fast. My Z06 was plenty fast in stock form, but I chose to mod because I always try to get more out of my car. The Marauder on the other hand, need mods to keep up with comparable vehicles.

ah yes, point being that many people are not satisfied with the "out of the box" performance of those wonderful GM engines.


4. :lol: Close? You have got to be kidding me. An LT-1 Caprice will smoke a similiar vintage 4.6 Crown Vic. Any day, any time.
displacement for displacement yes. Compare the other closer to 4.6L sized, and more common, V8 equipped Caprice.
Yes an LT1 Caprice may smoke a similar year 4.6 Crown vic, in a straight line competition. They often did not in the "pursuit" competitions.

Point being in my previous comment was that all it took for Ford's little 4.6 to "catch up" with the 5.7L was a new airbox and MAF. Not a S/C, not more displacement.
Ford obviously could have done this earlier. Only they know the reason why they didn't.


Anyway, here's a little levity for the thread

http://www.theonion.com/4005/news1.html

[TripleTransAm]

As far as Ford goes, I think they should never have put the SOHC 4.6 in the Lincoln TC. It should have had the DOHC engine as it's base from the beginning. Putting the SOHC in the TC is as bad as Cadillac using a Chev engine.

*sigh*

Next thing you know, I'll start hearing about the 4.6l DOHC being a Mazda engine, too...

[RCSignals]

*sigh*

Next thing you know, I'll start hearing about the 4.6l DOHC being a Mazda engine, too...

They were too bug for any Mazda, so they gave them to Ford. You didn't know?


I just read that FRPP is going to make available a 4bbl carb intake, and a distributor ignition for mod motors.
Also Edelbrock has developed a 4bbl intake for the LS1.
What's the world coming to......

[ADE 1000]

not my problem



Cadillacs have always been large vehicles. In a head to head competition there may be no comparison. But we are talking about engines. You asked for a year, I gave you two.
There are more, check it out if you are really interested.
The whole point is, that Cadillac by using the LS6, instead of a unique Cadillac design engine, or a performance version of the Northstar, is not following it's traditions of being GMs flagship Division.



ah yes, point being that many people are not satisfied with the "out of the box" performance of those wonderful GM engines.


displacement for displacement yes. Compare the other closer to 4.6L sized, and more common, V8 equipped Caprice.
Yes an LT1 Caprice may smoke a similar year 4.6 Crown vic, in a straight line competition. They often did not in the "pursuit" competitions.

Point being in my previous comment was that all it took for Ford's little 4.6 to "catch up" with the 5.7L was a new airbox and MAF. Not a S/C, not more displacement.
Ford obviously could have done this earlier. Only they know the reason why they didn't.


Anyway, here's a little levity for the thread

http://www.theonion.com/4005/news1.html

1. :sleepy:

2. Yes, as I expected you gave me years from when the Corvette was first introduced with a wimpy 150hp six. :shake: Your argument is weak, based on the 1950s when Cadillac was established and the vette a strugling new product at GM. Why don't you provide some examples of how Cadillac had more potent engines in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s? This talk of "divisions" having their own powertrain development at GM is also obsolete. GM powertrain designs all of the engines for all of the GM products. Nothing is exclusive, even the Northstar has found its way into the Bonneville GXP. And the same setup goes for pretty much every other major automaker out there.

3. The rate of people modding their cars is no reflection of the performance of the base engine. It is clear that the LT1/LS1 was a much better low cost/big power engine than the Ford 4.6L throughout the 90s. The Mustang did not deserve any respect until the 2003 Cobra.

4. The Caprice 4.3L made more horsepower than the 4.6L Vic in 1996. I think a LT-1 Caprice will smoke any 4.6L Crown Vic regardless of year. I would not count on the MSP trials for acceleration numbers. I know a 9C1 Caprice can run low 15s in stock form, and I guarantee you a Crown Vic can not. And a lot more has gone into the 2V 4.6L than a airbox and MAF to get it where it is today. And even with these changes, they are still not where the 5.7L was years ago.

[TripleTransAm]

I just read that FRPP is going to make available a 4bbl carb intake, and a distributor ignition for mod motors.
Also Edelbrock has developed a 4bbl intake for the LS1.
What's the world coming to......

I dunno, but I'll freak if the 4.6l underdrive pulleys package comes with a hand-crank!!