just Qurious about caddy!
-
nuQ
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:39 pm
- Car: 2003 Infiniti M45
2009 Dodge Caliber SXT - Location: Bethlehem PA
just Qurious about caddy!
just a thought, saw a caddy sts with northstar engine today, how does that car stack up against a first gen. Q. performance, interior, build, reliability, etc, etc. like i said, just wondering, jeff
-
greg_atlanta
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 4:37 pm
- Car: 2008 G35 Journey Sedan, silver/black (no sunroof), 1992 Q45 (in a past life)
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54541
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
Strong powerplant - One of GM's best. Not as technlogically advanced, but I've driven a 97 STS and it FELT as fast as my Q.
Fit and finish not on a par with even the first Q's, but better than most Detroit iron. The ETC is one of the sharper domestic cars on the road, especially when they leave off all the trimmings.
Comfortable, but geared toward the geriatric set, with terrible interior ergonomics and antiquated GM switchgear.
No way you'll get 280K out of one like a Q. AND its FWD - Ick.
Fit and finish not on a par with even the first Q's, but better than most Detroit iron. The ETC is one of the sharper domestic cars on the road, especially when they leave off all the trimmings.
Comfortable, but geared toward the geriatric set, with terrible interior ergonomics and antiquated GM switchgear.
No way you'll get 280K out of one like a Q. AND its FWD - Ick.
-
Dave 88 LSC
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 2:07 pm
92-95 had Motor problems, the oil pan seal would leak, and to change it takes a lot of work. The body/frame of the car is not one of the tightest.And the worst of all, its 300hp attached to FWD, torque steer is an issue, and the engine mounts don't last too long f driven hard. My friends father had a 98, it was great when new, but after 70k miles it starts falling appart.
The '98 STS I had for two years is still one of my personal favorites. Some nostalgic weakness will make me buy another when good examples reach the sub-$10K range.
But Dave's right, that 300h.p. to the front wheels just never felt "right." No precision.
Also, the $30K in depreciation I took over two years completely turned me off of ever buying another NEW car.
But Dave's right, that 300h.p. to the front wheels just never felt "right." No precision.
Also, the $30K in depreciation I took over two years completely turned me off of ever buying another NEW car.
After my first Q was totalled in an accident, I made the mistake of buying the first cousin (same platform and 4.0L variant of the motor) to the Seville STS, an Oldsmobile Aurora. It confirmed every preconceived notion I had about GM reliability. In the 18 months I owned it, it broke constantly. I probably would have spent more on repairs than I paid for the car if I hadn't done the work myself. It is one of those cars that sounds better on paper than it feels when you drive it. It feels like it weighs 1000 lbs. more than a Q even though they are similar in weight. It is a big unrepsonsive WWD platform that isn't fun to drive fast. The only good thing about car is the motor, which makes power everywhere, and feels a lot stronger at low rpms than the Q motor. The transmission also allows high rpm downshifts to first gear, so the car isn't dead in the water at ~30 mph. I test drove a couple of 98ish STSs and they felt pretty much the same. A first generation Q is a MUCH better car overall and a lot more fun to drive.
-
elwesso
- Posts: 30810
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:52 pm
- Car: 94 Infiniti Q45t 5 spd
2007 BMW M Coupe
2007 Infiniti G35 S 6MT - Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Ok, let me clear some things up. I have a caddy and I am part of caddy boards.
The Northstar comes in 2 HPs, the 275 and the 295 (after 1995 it was 280/300). The 275 produces 300ft/lbs of torque, and the 300 produces 295 ft/lbs (not sure why the lesser HP make more).
As far as problems, there are a few things. Remember, this is american quality not Japanease. Anyway, the oil pan leak isnt too common, although there can be some oil leakage. It also consumes some oil, but does NOT burn it. According to GM, 1qt every oil change is satisfactory. Another problem is the head gasket. What happens is the head bolts pull out of the head, and cause the gasket to fail. This only happens when the engine overheats. The correction is you have to get the holes time-serted, and new bolts installed. Since this is a FWD car, and the engine is sideways, you have to take out the engine and transmission to do this job. A shop can charge about 2000+ for this. Like I said earlier, they are very solid engines if they are properly maintained, they are great. If not, well you get the idea......
As far as technology, IMO the powertrain is more sophisticated than the Q. There are more computer controls for it, and you can access the cars computer right from the dash. It then can display trouble codes, and then you go and see what the code means (you can find tables on the internet all over). I dont know if you can do this on the Q without a special tool, if you can let me know.
I personally like the interior of the Q better. The STS/ETC have nice interiors after 96, but before that they were a little outdated. Interior wise they are not as sophisticated.
Performace wise they are equal, and would be better if they were RWD. They are lighter, more HP and more torque.
The Northstar comes in 2 HPs, the 275 and the 295 (after 1995 it was 280/300). The 275 produces 300ft/lbs of torque, and the 300 produces 295 ft/lbs (not sure why the lesser HP make more).
As far as problems, there are a few things. Remember, this is american quality not Japanease. Anyway, the oil pan leak isnt too common, although there can be some oil leakage. It also consumes some oil, but does NOT burn it. According to GM, 1qt every oil change is satisfactory. Another problem is the head gasket. What happens is the head bolts pull out of the head, and cause the gasket to fail. This only happens when the engine overheats. The correction is you have to get the holes time-serted, and new bolts installed. Since this is a FWD car, and the engine is sideways, you have to take out the engine and transmission to do this job. A shop can charge about 2000+ for this. Like I said earlier, they are very solid engines if they are properly maintained, they are great. If not, well you get the idea......
As far as technology, IMO the powertrain is more sophisticated than the Q. There are more computer controls for it, and you can access the cars computer right from the dash. It then can display trouble codes, and then you go and see what the code means (you can find tables on the internet all over). I dont know if you can do this on the Q without a special tool, if you can let me know.
I personally like the interior of the Q better. The STS/ETC have nice interiors after 96, but before that they were a little outdated. Interior wise they are not as sophisticated.
Performace wise they are equal, and would be better if they were RWD. They are lighter, more HP and more torque.
-
nuQ
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:39 pm
- Car: 2003 Infiniti M45
2009 Dodge Caliber SXT - Location: Bethlehem PA
i agree about the interior of the sts, i couldn't find one used sts that didn't have an interior that didn't look like it had been through the ringer!!!!!(and remember, most sts's owned by the geriatric set). they just had the look of materials not designed for the long haul. can't argue with the engine, however. strong, strong, strong!!! what was gm thinking with the front wheel drive???? i'm sure there was a board room decision on that, along with a specially picked focal group! the Q was my first love, and seeing the condition of first generation Q's as oppossed to 93 to 96 sts's, it was no question.
My little Bro has (had) a 95 Seville STS. Very powerful car! Crushed my 95Q with less miles off the line. Actually embarrassed me. However, it was right before my 60K (first) tune up. The caddy pulls hard from 0-30 where my Q just sat there.....but once I got going he stopped pulling away, and I was cathing him a tiny bit. Not sure if I would have caught him as we ran out of room @100. On another note, a few days later he lost a piston. Dealership blamed the oil pump.....I've put about 30K on the Q since 
-
elwesso
- Posts: 30810
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:52 pm
- Car: 94 Infiniti Q45t 5 spd
2007 BMW M Coupe
2007 Infiniti G35 S 6MT - Location: Indiana
- Contact:
nuQ wrote:can't argue with the engine, however. strong, strong, strong!!! what was gm thinking with the front wheel drive???? i'm sure there was a board room decision on that, along with a specially picked focal group!
GM put it FWD because they wanted to use the GM 48TE transmission. It was the only transmission that could handle the power of the northstar. In 93 and up, even the camaro trannys couldnt handle its power. I guess Gm had good sucess with it in the early years, so they kept it going.