GTP Cool Wall: 2005-2011 Cadillac STS

[Wiegert]

2005-2011 Cadillac STS nominated by @Tornado

Body Style: 4-door sedan
Engine: 3.6L V6, 4.6L V8, 4.4L Supercharged V8
Power: 3.6L V8 - 255 hp (later 302 hp), 4.6L V8 - 320 hp, 4.4L V8 - 469 hp
Torque: 3.6L V8 - 252 lb-ft (later 272 lb-ft), 4.6L V8 - 315 lb-ft, 4.4L V8 - 439 lb-ft
Weight: ~1780 kg (V6), ~1880 kg (V8), ~1950 kg (STS-v)
Transmission: 5-speed automatic, 6-speed automatic
Drivetrain: Front-engine, rear-wheel drive
Additional Information: "This is most definitely not a Seville don't call it that" - General Motors​

Spoiler: Additional Pics

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I enjoyed this time of Cadillac, felt it was a new turn toward the better which eventually leads us to today. However, I feel there were times Cadillac did stuff that was somewhat unnecessary. For example the more memorable car that still exist was too similar in many areas to this. It never made sense to me why GM felt they needed two mid-size exec cars that not only had regular models but also V models that were similar in performance.

The only real difference I recall is that the STS V was an original Cadillac idea, retaining the northstar and just supercharging it to get it close to 500hp which for the time was a great number in a performance production sedan. And better than the 400+ the CTS V got from the Corvette engine it was using. However, the CTS V as has been seen through it's entire production history is essentially a Corvette with a Cadillac on top of it. And to me that seemed like a more feasible long term model than the STS V. Also this was around the same time the XLR was created...and yeah let's not go there.

I gave it a meh, because what I find cool and uncool about it balance out for me to this, if it was strictly the V version I'd probably give it a cool.

 

[LM7325]

It has all the right ingredients on paper, a solid 'Ring tested chassis, the Northstar finally drove the rear tires, serious effort into NVH, the best build quality to date. If only the CTS wasn't always there, doing mostly the same things.

I will go with meh.

 

[Tornado]

This one is funny because this time they finally got all of the bones right but then instead screwed up all of the details.




And also because they essentially sabotaged the previous car in order to ensure that this one would be a hit by devoting all of their resources to it instead; and then it completely flopped on the market as badly as the one twenty years prior that looked identical to a Pontiac Grand Am.

 

[Turbo]

This, as well as the CTS, signified a renaissance era for the Cadillac brand. GM had a point when they said "it's not a Seville don't call it that." since it was extensively better than the '98-'04 Seville. The "arts and sciences" styling was modern and up-to-date, unlike the more orthodox exterior on the previous-gen Seville, or any pre-CTS Cadillac. It finally had the proper drivetrain to rival cars like the 5-Series or E-Class. Many buyers would think of it as a pretty damn good alternative to the aforementioned cars, since the STS finally had the correct drivetrain, right amount of power, as well as luxury amenities.

The STS-V and CTS-V were unarguably the first Cadillacs that were capable of vying against the European performance cars. "The Cadillac that Zigs" (Catera), was a rebadged Opel Omega that posed as a sports sedan, but failed in many ways. It was hopelessly underpowered, and too conservative, driving away import purists. '98-'04 STS validated to be a much better car than the Catera, but had the wrong drivetrain, and couldn't handle nearly as well as the competition.

STS-V however, had rear wheel drive, handled more responsively, and had almost as much power as a V10 M5. The E60 M5 and E55 AMG were still better buys, but the STS-V was a much stronger competitor than the G-body STS. It was cheaper than an M5, which won customers over. STS-V may not have been the perfect sports sedan, but in my opinion, it was Cadillac's best production car since the '60s.

I gave it a meh, because what I find cool and uncool about it balance out for me to this, if it was strictly the V version I'd probably give it a cool.

This.

The STS-V is a pretty cool car in my book, but even though the normal STS was a big leap for the brand, it's still a typical luxury sedan. It doesn't stand out from the crowd, and is primarily driven by upper-class seniors, which generally aren't the coolest of people.

STS-V: Cool
Normal STS: Uncool

Meh, it is.

 

[Aerocoupe]

It's okay I guess. The main thing holding it back is the fact that the CTS did pretty much everything better than this.

Uncool

 

[ThrasherDBS]

How pedestrian.

Meh.

 

[UltimateYosh]

I think it is ugly.

Uncool.

 

[xyloscissor]

This thing will never be cool, another one?

 

[Wiegert]

When the most obnoxious model is easily the most tastefully executed.

Uncool.

 

[Sage Ages]

Completely unaware of it's existence.

 

[Liquid]

The front end of 2005- Caddys are ugly as sin. The cars look like they have baleen plates.

Seriously Uncool

 

[Joey D]

Uncool. A decent car that was severely let down by poor design language.

 

[TheCracker]

Uncool. A decent car that was severely let down by poor design language.

It has the appearance of some other car from the GM range that's had Cadillac design clues thrust upon it rather than a fresh-sheet design. Like a Mercury Milan'ed Ford Fusion.

 

[MisterWaffles]

The STS-V weighs as much as an entire shuttle STS mission payload. It's the only car I know that gets heavier the faster it becomes.

 

[LivingWithGames]

Looks good, but the lack of manual disturbs me. Meh it is.