mmarshall

By CL and non-CL interest, a Condensed Review of the 2009 Cadillac STS.


http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/all.jsp


In a Nutshell: Smartly-styled, an excellent V6 drivetrain, and better dash trim than in previous models, but otherwise an OK but mediocre luxury car with below-average reliability.










(Beige/Cashmere leather shown)



(Ebony leather shown)







(Strut-tower brace not shown)


While the Cadillac STS has been overshadowed somewhat, in the auto press, by the newer, sportier, and more driver-oriented CTS (especially the CTS-V), there has been at least some interest in it, both on and off CL, and I've gotten a couple of questions about it. Since I have already written up two versions of the new CTS in full-length reviews, and getting a CTS-V test-drive is just too much of a hassle (with dealer-issues and unsold ones being too hard to find), I decided to give the new STS at least a partial-length, condensed review, for two main reasons: First, there are those considering an STS purchase or lease, though it is generally not a popular car at CL. Second, though I was able to test-drive the car long enough for a minimal-length review, suburban Maryland, outside D.C., where I did the review (most of my reviews are done in suburban Virginia), is infested with red-light and speed-photo cameras everywhere.....you have to drive like Grandma in most places. I had to take the car out on a stretch of Interstate 270 to test the acceleration, braking, and handling response.....within the safety of traffic conditions. I was, however, able to accurately gauge the car's general drivability and performance characteristics enough for a write-up. And it does seem to have an excellent V6 drivetrain.....more on that below.

The current-generation STS design itself goes back several years, although a 2008 refreshening last year (short of a major re-design) produced some much-needed interior trim upgrades. A number of different models of the 2009 STS are offered, with three different engines, RWD or AWD, and a 6-speed Sport-Shift Hydramatic transmission (no manual is offered). V6 models come with RWD or AWD and the same 302 HP, 3.6L, Direct-Injection V6 found in the upmarket, non-V model CTS. V8 Models also come with RWD/AWD and the ubiquitous, 320 HP 4.6L Northstar V8. Both V6 and V8 models come in Luxury Package, Luxury Collection, and Premium Luxury Collection models. The V8 has a Performance Collection model. (Yes, all this can get confusing). STS-V models come in RWD only and have a supercharged, 4.6L Northstar V8 with 469 HP and 439 ft-lbs. of torque....substantially less than their new CTS-V cousins. Acording to the sales people, Cadillac has taken steps to correct the Northstar's well-known oil consumption...only time will tell, of course, if they are effective.

I chose a V6, RWD model with Luxury Collection and Luxury Performance packages to review for several reasons. First, very few STS V8s are sold....dealers don't keep many in stock, because most STS buyers, when they see the small HP/torque difference between the V6 and the non-supercharged V8, opt for the v6. Second, few STS-V models are sold, because not only is it somewhat ignored in the automotive press and overshadowed by its CTS-V cousin, but the STS (V or non-V versions), in general, does not attract a large number of enthusiast drivers like the CTS does. Third, the V6 models, of course, are somewhat less expensive than the v8. Still, the STS is distinctly sportier and more driver-oriented than its DTS cousin, which sells mainly (but not exclusively) to sedate-driving senior citizens. Fourth, the V6 RWD model, besides being, in general, the lowest-priced version, is also the largest seller. The AWD option, though, IMO, is a relative bargain at $1900, and, of course, is avalable for those who want added traction or peace-of-mind while driving in foul-weather conditions or on slippery roads. And the V6, by my experience in the review with the RWD version, is a nice engine with a pretty fair amount of spunk...it should have no trouble at all with the added weight/drag of AWD.






Model Reviewed: 2009 Cadillac STS V6 Performance Sedan


Base Price: $44,515


Major Options:


V6 Premium Luxury Collection: $2740

1SC Luxury Performance Package: $8600


Destination/Freight: $775


List Price as Reviewed: $56,630




Drivetrain: RWD, Longitudional-mounted 3.6L Direct-Injection V6, 302 HP @ 6300 RPM, 272 ft-lbs. torque @ 5200 RPM,
6-speed Hydra-matic automatic transmission with manual Sport-shift, Limited-slip differential.


EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City, 26 Highway



Exterior Color: Black Raven

Interior: Cashmere Leather.





PLUSSES:


Excellent GM 5/100 drivetrain warranty.

Smooth, powerful V6 makes the V8 unnecessary.

High-RPM peak torque, but an apparant flat torque curve for low-RPM response.

Butter-smooth 6-speed automatic transmission.

AWD option a bargain at $1900...and the V6 engine can handle it.

Well-done shift-lever and shift gates.

Fairly flat cornering.

Limited-slip differential included on Luxury/performance package, even on non-V models.

Well-done brakes.

Acceptably good underhood layout despite large plastic covers.

Vastly better dash/interior trim than before.

Generally easy-to-use dash buttons, *****, etc....

Fairly nice seat leather.

Nice interior color choices.

Comfortable, well-trimmed steering wheel.

Nice, plush-fabric sun visors.

Paint job better-than-average for a GM vehicle.

Fairly good interior hardware a step up from previous models.

Numerous Luxury, Tech, and Performance packages available.





MINUSES:


GM's future in doubt with Congressional bailout money.

Consumer Reports'shows a Worse-than-average reliability record.

Ride/handling combination OK but not up to German competition.

OK but not overly-quick steering response.

Magna-Ride computer-controlled suspension not available on V6 models.

Jerky, over-sensitive steering-column power tilt/telescope motors.

Tire noise on coarse road surfaces.

Slight but noticeable wind noise.

Tight headroom for taller people under the sunroof housing.

Somewhat tight legroom in back for tall people.

Lower front-dash bumps knees of tall people.

Difficult (for me) to find a comfortable driving position.

Somewhat tinny-closing doors for a luxury car.

Lower-bodywork, even on non-V models, gives low ground clearance.

Annoying, Infiniti-type, Lane-Departure beeper.

OK but not first-rate stereo sound.

Overloaded, complex, turn-signal stalk.

First-Aid kit an option, not standard.

Fix-a-Flat tire-inflation bottle standard; temporary spare tire optional.

Generally dull paint colors.

Extra charge for some paint colors.





EXTERIOR:

The first reaction, walking up to the new STS, is that it is just one more member of the Cadillac family, with the by-now-ubiqutous chised-angle look of Cadillac styling. That's not necessarily a bad thing, however.....I, for one, happen to like the general look. The headlights and taillights have the usual chisel-chopped, vertical Cadillac look. There is the usual, non-V Cadillac, garish, well-chromed grille with the company's wreath-and-crest logo (V-spec Cadillacs get a nice wire-mesh grille). The exterior sheet metal, IMO, is not the best I've seen....it did not have a particularly solid feel, and the doors, hood, and trunk shut with a rather tinny sound for this class of car. The paint job is pretty well-done, with Cadillacs, in general, having better paint jobs than lower-line GM cars, but it doesn't quite equal the superb paint job that Chevy does on the fiberglass Corvettes. The paint colors, wth the exception of the smart-looking White Diamond Tri-Coat and Crystal Red Tint-Coat, weren't my cup of tea either......they were pretty much out of the local funeral home, although the Black Cherry, a very dark red-purple, IMO, looked nice. Cadillac, and some other GM divisions, seem to have joined the annoying Euro-manufacturer trend of charging extra for some paint colors.

The exterior trim/hardware was generally well-done and reasonably solid, but some of the old GM plastic is still there. The lower-body flares under the doors and the lower front air dam, even on the non-V models, unnecessarily intrude on ground clearance and make it more dificult than necessary going over speed bumps and getting a hose underneath to wash the underbody. I don't understand why this so-called "sporty" lower-bodywork is added to so many vehicles...it adds little, if any, aerodynamics or down-force at legal speeds, screws up underbody access unlees the car is on a lift, and makes it more difficult to go over ramps or speed bumps without damaging something or tearing it off.




UNDERHOOD:

Lift the rather lightweight hood, and a single large gas strut mounted on the left holds it up for you. There is the expected underhood insulation pad, but the whole hood assembly feels rather lightweight....either of aluminum or a thin grade of sheet steel (hard to tell). The general underhood layout is not bad, despite the large plastic engine cover and the accessory plastic covers on both the left and right. The longitudinal-mounted 3.6L V6 engine engine sits well back in the compartment, towards the firewall, so there is room to reach several main components under the engine cover. The battery is well-back, on the left, but is uncovered and easily accessable for terminal-cleaning and jump-starts. Dipsticks, reservoir caps, and filler caps are likewise fairly easily accessed. Plastic covers line the engine on both left and right, but are easily removed if needed to reach components underneath. A large, silver-colored cross-tower strut brace connects the two front suspsension towers for added body rigidity and handling response......they didn't seem to make much difference (more on that below).




INTERIOR:

Inside, the 2009 STS has vastly better trim than previous models, especially on the dash and steering wheel. GM, responding to complaints from owners and the auto press, has been hard at work on the interiors of a number of its vehicles, and it shows. There was a 2005 STS in the showroom, and I had fun comparing the old and new interiors, though the car has not been redesigned and the interior dimensions, of course, are identical. The new dash is much better-done, with smart-looking plastic-wood trim all across the dash, console, and door panels. A nice (meaning non-cheap-looking/feeling) brushed-metal trim covers the center-dash and steering-wheel spokes. The leather used on the seats is not quite as smooth as I'd like to see and feel it, but still is a fairly nice grade. Chrome surrounds the shifter and door handles. The seats are comfortable, but not particularly supportive. The gauges are clear and easy-to-read. The interior hardware is generally well-done....a noticeable improvement from older STS models. The stereo and climate buttons/***** are generally nicely designed and easy-to-use, and the dash center-screen, with the particular packages on my test car, has some easy-to-use touch-screen modes for AM, FM, satellite, CD, etc.....that are much easier to use than I-Drive controllers. The steering wheel leather cover is well-stiched and is comfortable to hold. The sun visors were extremely nice, comfortable to pull, and had thick, plush fabric on them. The wood on the steering wheel (yes, it's real wood), looked and felt nice.

But there are a number of problems inside, too.....this is not a no-annoyance interior by any means. The turn-signal stalk, on the left side of the steering column, while smooth-operating, is unnecessarily complex, with a number of other functions/controls built into it. Headroom is somewhat tight for tall adults in both the front and rear seats, under the sunroof housing. I had the power-front seat cushions as low as they would go, some rake dialed into the seatback, and could still barely clear the roof....even without my traditional cap on (I'm 6' 2"). Rear legroom is not impressive for tall adults either, despite this being a fairly long, large car, by today's standards. The steering column had the power-operated tilt/telescope steering-column expected in a car of this class, but its operation was somewhat jerky and too quick...it was hard to adjust it in small increments for precise column placement. It also did not telescope back far enough, even at full-travel, for some people....I like it fairly close to me for comfort, within air-bag safety standards. The stereo sounded OK, but was not up to the level in many other luxury cars......particularly Lexus. And, while the wood-tone trim on the dash certainly looked nice, it had a cheap, GM-plastic feel to it.....GM, for all the work it did on the new STS interior, probably should have used real wood instead of plastic....this is, in fact, a $56,000 car. Last, (and like on
the first-generation CTS), the lower-left part of the dash hits the knees of some people (I'm one of them) when the seats are otherwise adjusted
where you want them.




CARGO AREA/TRUNK:

Open the trunk lid (like the doors, it is OK but not particularly impressive sheet metal), and a fairly good-sized cargo area greets you. The rear-slant of the rear roofline, like on most contemporary sedans, cuts into the size of the trunk lid opening somewhat, but the opening is large enough to get most luggage and packages in without any problems. A standard cagro net helps hold up grocery bags and soft packages. A trunk-mounted first-aid kit is available, but it is an option, not standard (it is standard on many luxury cars). Here's some real cost-cutting......a Fix-a-Flat bottle is apparantly standard. Even with conventional tires, you still have to pay extra for even a temporary, compact spare. (the STS-V comes with run-flat tires that don't need either a bottle or a spare). If GM gets their bail-out money from Congress, I'll expect to see something a little better then this. However, the carpet in the trunk seems to be of a reasonably good, plush variety, and the trunk itself, as befits a luxury car, appears fairly well-finished.




ON THE ROAD:

Start up the nice, 3.6L V6 with a proximity "key" and a rocker button/switch similiar to the one on last week's Corvette....press the top of the button to start, the bottom to stop. The V6 fires up smoothly and silently (after all, this is a Cadillac, and, especially in non-V-spec models, civility/refinement is expected). I like this engine. As I just noted, it is smooth, quiet, and refined, and has almost the same kick as the non-supercharged Northstar V8. The peak torque, on paper, is at a rather high 5200 RPM (a result of the VVT valve-timing), but the actual torque response feels much less peaky than that. There is noticeable torque as low as 2500-3000 RPM, and you get a fairly good shove in the back as RPMs build, without a lot of annoying engine or exhaust noise to go with it. I can see why GM chose this as the bread-and-butter STS powerplant....it is also available in upmarket, non-V-spec, CTS models.

I also like the 6L50-E Hydramatic transmisson....as much or more so than the engine. It is smooth and quiet, shifts smooth as butter even under load, and the six gears give you all the flexibility you need, without the 7 and 8-gear overkill you find on some Mercedes, Infinti, and Lexus models. The shifter operates smoothly and slickly as well, going back and forth in a fore/aft motion without those annoying zig-zags in some cars. It slides off to the right, into a manual-shift gate, for Sport-shifting. There are no paddles on the steering column for shifting, but the lever is so slick you don't miss them.

This is, IMO, a superb powertrain, and easily the car's best feature, with the brakes and dash trim tied for a close second....more on the brakes below.

Unfortunately, the chassis enginering and noise isolation, IMO, didn't quite measure up to the nicely-done drivetrain. There was noticeable wind noise, though not serious, at all but the lowest speeds, even with the windows up tight. There was also some road noise from the Michelin Pilot MXM4 tires, though it was more noticeable on coarse surfaces and tended to quiet down a little on smooth asphalt. Steering feel was OK but certainly not in the BMW class. Steering response was fairly quick, but not what I have seen in some of its German competitiors. Body roll was fairly well-damped, with only a small amount of it being noticeable under the conditions I was testing it. Ride comfort was fairly good....borderline firm on bumps, but not uncomfortable. Part of the problem here, as I see it, is with Cadillac/GM's marketers. They won't offer GM's superb Magna-Ride computer-controlled suspension, with the magnetic-field iron particles in the shocks that constantly adjust damping as you drive, in the V6 model STS, even as an option.....you have to upgrade to the V8 model to get it. As most STS buyers don't want the V8, and get the V6, GM should seriously consider offering it in the v6 as an option.

My car may (?) have also had an unbalanced or out of round rear tire/wheel (the tire pressures were OK). There was a very small shimmy, at speed, that could be felt in the car's seats and structure, but not in the steering wheel......a vibration like that is often a sign of a rear-wheel/tire balance or runout problem. That is not an enginering problem, of course, but a sample defect....more likely balance, as Michelin makes superb tires that are rarely out-of-round, and it is rare for an alloy wheel to be out-of-round either. There are also blind-spot indicators on the outside mirrors and an Infiniti-style Lane-Departure warning beeper indicator on the dash....the beeps and flashes can get annoying. Fortunately, the beeper can be turned off.

Brakes, IMO, were also one of the car's best features. I liked the firm pedal, relatively sponge-free response, and relatively good braking action, though the STS obviously doesn't stop Porsche-911 quick. The pedals were also well-placed, so I didn't have any hang-up problems under either the gas or brake pedals with my size-15 clodhopper shoe.




THE VERDICT:

I obviously had mixed feelings about this car. The drivetrain is superb, especially for a V6, the interior dash trim is far better than just a few years ago, the brakes are nicely done, the underhood is not a do-it-yourselfer's nightmare despite the big plastic covers, the paint job is slick, and it comes with a nice drivetrain warranty.


But there are numerous downsides as well. There are a number of quirks and limitations inside despite the new trim, the chassis engineering is not quite up to the level of the drivetrain (let's hope GM makes the MagnaRide suspension available in the V6), the sheet metal, while not bad, cold be improved,and the spare-tire setup is ridiculous for a car of this class. And Consumer Reports does not give a very good reliability rating for this car's history.

The closest domestic competitor to the STS is probably the Lincoln MKS (which I reviewed several months ago). Like the STS, the new MKS offers optional AWD and a V6, with a new supercharged V6 about to become an option, but no V8. The Lincoln also does not offer a high-performance V8 model to match the STS-V. I'd rate the two cars as about equal overall.....I liked the STS's V6 drivetrain, brake, and interior trim better, but I prefered the Lincoln's chassis and overall build solidity/sheet metal more.

pagemaster

Yeah I was disappointed with the 2005+ Cadillac STS. Didn;t really feel like a luxury car. Powertrain was outstanding. Too bad they are killing the 4.6.

Cadillac should of built upon the 1996-2004 style. They had an outstanding interior in those vehicles.



Too bad they messed it all up.

Now they thinking of killing the STS>

mmarshall

The 4.6 Northstar in this car doesn't sell well today, though, simply because the 3.6L V6 is so good. The difference between the two engines is minimal; therefore few STS buyers opt for the more expensive V8. Those that do might as well go for the STS-V, where the supercharged 4.6L makes a REAL difference.

I agree that the chassis and noise isolation doesn't feel like a true luxury car. That's partly because of GM's marketing. The superb Magna-Ride suspension is unnecessarily restricted from V6 versions, for no practical reason.


The interior of the last-generation (96-04) STS looked nice on the surface (and had some nice wood) but, like most Cadillacs of the period, had a lot of sub-standard plastics/hardware as well. That, to an extent, has finally been remedied in the last couple of years, with the 2008 refreshing.

The word is that the STS/DTS will be combined into an all-new sedan. Cadillac is mum on the details. I personally think this is a bad idea. The current DTS has a big, dedicated core group of mostly senior-citizen buyers who are intensely loyal to the present car (and I don't say that lightly.....the DTS is enormously popular with older buyers). If Cadillac makes large-scale changes to it, particularly in the chassis/suspension, they will lose a lot of potential new sales.....demand for used DTS models (and their used-car values) will rise markedly. Cadillac has already screwed the present DTS up some in the last several years with firmer suspension/tires....they better be careful about screwing it up even more.

pagemaster

If you can give an idea of the details of this. I would like to read about it.

Disagree. The quality was excellent. Especially in the 1990s. The Zebrano wood and Nuance leather was the best in the industry. The carpets where very plush. The 2000+ used some lesser grade plastic but it wasnt bad.

Disagree again. Lack of investment in this engine. Cadillac did improve the Northstar to VVTi but they decided not upgrade to dual VVTi like the 4.6 used in the LS460/GS460.

mmarshall

Generally involved better-quality materials inside. I can't necessarily list every single part in detail.



I don't think we really disagree here. I said in my last post that the 96-04 models had nice wood but some sub-standard plastics inside (I reviewed and test-drove a FWD SLS sedan of the period to try out the Northstar......back then, the SLS version was offered as well). The 2005 redesign switched real wood for coated plastic (except for the steering wheel). The 2008 interior upgrade gave it better-looking/feeling plastic, and some NICE brushed-metal trim, but the dash/console is still not real wood.

Drive a 3.6L direct-injection Cadillac, then compare it with a non-supercharged Northstar 4.6L. I think you will come to the same conclusion that I......and many STS buyers.......did. That is why the N/A 4.6L does not sell well in the STS.

If you don't come to the same conclusion I did, then we will just agree to disagree.

pagemaster

Right. But if the 4.6 Northstar at least had dual VVTi (like the LS460) than there would be a difference. The 3.5 does not offer dual VVTi. It does offer VVTi.

But the 4.6 would have much better performance if it was dual VVti. The 4.6 is outdated compared to the 3.6....thats why there is a difference.

Anyways. Yes we disagree.

mmarshall

Next planned review: Audi Q5

IS-SV

Is that the new smallish SUV? If so it's attractive and that should be a competitive class including the new GLK and upcoming X3.

mmarshall

Yes. It's smaller and less bulky than the big Q7, which is almost like a tank. I have a review request for it, and will look at it when it is available in my area.

I suspect (?) that it is done on the VW Tiguan platform, and that there will be some similiarities. I like the Audi All-Road, though (which is similiar to the Volvo XC70 and Subaru Outback), for a more car-like AWD driving experience.....I wish Audi had kept it.

IS-SV

That's the one (Q5) I saw at the SF car show, it's very good looking. I think it's derived from the Audi A4 platform, kind of like the GLK which is derived from C-class platform. Should be a modern and capable small SUV.

LexBob2

Several months ago C&D tested the Q5 and GLK in the same issue (not a comparo). As I recall the Audi got the more favorable review. Don't remember why though.

IS-SV

I probably have those mags at home. Not sure they were both full road tests. The Q5 certainly looks sleeker.

mmarshall

I'll get to the Q5 review as soon as I can.

Do you guys have any comments or questions on the STS?

IS-SV

IMHO, STS is so-so car at best. My retired neighbor has one and he's over 75 years old and so he considers it to be a suitable car.

Comments about STS:

Too big, too ugly, too much fake wood, makes a nice rental car when you need the passenger space. And financially the rate of depreciation on one these new is probably unacceptable.

mmarshall

Many other people his age are driving a cocoon-like DeVille/DTS. He must want a car that is slightly more driver-oriented than that.......which the STS does fill, but not by a huge amount. I agree that, overall, by luxury-car standards, the STS is mediocre....as I stated in the review. It does have a superb engine/transmission combo for a luxury car, and the dash trim is better than before, but the sheet metal, interior design quirks, some of the hardware, and, especially, the (standard) chassis engineering, are not impressive.

GM might have something here if they would make the superb Magna-Ride suspension an option for the V6, but only the V8 STS gets it....a serious marketing goof, IMO.

I can't totally agree. A Cadillac, in most cases, is supposed to be fairly big. Yes, the chassis is mediocre, but I think it has sharp, good-looking styling, the wood is nice (though it would be nicer if it was real wood), and, as far as depreciation goes, many expensive luxury cars have high depreciation rates these days....the STS is not alone.