Last post on Feb 09, 2013 at 10:09 AM
You are in the Cadillac CTS/CTS-V
What is this discussion about?
Cadillac CTS, Cadillac CTS-V, Sedan
#5946 of 6595 Re: CTS 2004 Engine Shakes at Idol [richerry]
Dec 24, 2004 (11:37 am)
richerry what grade of gasoline are you using? 91 as suggested by Cadillac, or a lower grade? However I will say that my '03 LuxSport does have an occasional engine shake at idle even though I always use 91 octane.
You say that going uphill the rear end is noisy but not a whine or a grind. Is it a clunking noise? Do you have anything loose in the trunk, such as loose tools in the spare tire well? I had what I thought was a rear end clunk which turned out to be bad front shocks which Cadillac replaced.
As to your CD problems, I would insist the dealer find the problem or replace the CD unit or the entire radio, or take it to another dealer. I know that my dealer would pursue the problem until it was fixed as they have done so on a previous car purchased from them.
P.S. An idol is an effigy or a statue of a god.
Dec 27, 2004 (5:34 pm)
I just traded in my 2003 CTS for a 2005 CTS with the 255 hp engine.The manual says that 87 fuel can be used but with loss of performance.On my old car I only used 93 fuel because the engine was underpowered and I needed every last horse avaiable.I am now so happy with the incresed horsepower that I can't judge loss of power with 87 fuel.Has anybody out there tried the diferent fuels and see any diference in power?Thanks.
#5948 of 6595 Re: CTS 2004 Engine Shakes at Idol [bingoman]
Dec 28, 2004 (4:41 pm)
Thanks for the response. I use 87 as that is what is called for on the 2004 CTS.
No the rear end does not clunk, just noisy when going up hill, relative to my Rivera 1995 front wheel drive. Sounds ok on a flat road at 70, but still noisy and hard to hear the radio.The Rivera was quiter at 70mph
Dec 29, 2004 (10:44 am)
The 3.6 CTS is much better in terms of power and refinement. Did you even test?
#5950 of 6595 Re: golfnut [vanman1]
Dec 29, 2004 (5:23 pm)
Never tested it.The refinement of the 3.6 over the 3.2 is like night and day.With the 3.2 engine, it always sounded underpowered and felt underpowered.Now it is smooth.
#5951 of 6595 Re: golfnut [vanman1]
Dec 29, 2004 (7:03 pm)
I never did test drive a CTS with the 3.6, I had several reliability issues with my 03 CTS and was ready to trade. There is no way the 3.6 is more refined than the 3.2 Acura TL. If you don't believe me test drive one. As for power, below are the run times posted in the most recent issue of Motor Trends New Car Buyer's Guide: Automatic Transmissions
Acceleration, sec to mph
0-30 (TL 2.3 sec) (CTS 2.3 sec)
0-60 (TL 6.3 sec) (CTS 6.6 sec)
0-100 (TL 17.3 sec) (CTS 19.4 sec)
#5952 of 6595 Interesting logic
Dec 30, 2004 (5:46 pm)
Golfnut I find your logic most interesting. You suggest that the reader test drive the the Acura TL to prove that it is more refined (or at least as refined) as the CTS 3.6, although you have not driven the CTS 3.6 yourself. So please tell me how you know that there is 'no way' that the CTS 3.6 is more refined than the Acura TL 3.2.
And by the way how do you define 'refined'. And what does acceleration times have to do with refined, as they are as much a product of horespower, weight, gearing and aerodynamics, as they are of 'refinement'.
#5953 of 6595 Re: Interesting logic [bingoman]
Dec 30, 2004 (6:57 pm)
Bingoman, I have a business client with a 2004 CTS 3.6 and I have ridden in his CTS. The 3.6 sounded only slightly more refined than my 3.2 CTS. Engine refinement to me means silky smooth (quiet). After having driven over 50,000 miles in my 2003 CTS I can't believe how much more refined the engine in the TL is when compared to the CTS. The TL does not shake at idle either.
#5954 of 6595 Re: Interesting logic [golfnut5]
Dec 30, 2004 (9:36 pm)
The TL is a very nice car, but to me it being a FWD car puts it in a very different category than the CTS.
I have driven a 6-spd TL on several occasions and was very impressed. Great interior and very fast. My only complain is that I found it difficult to shift smoothly.
I am still looking forward to driving a CTS 3.6 with a manual.
Dec 31, 2004 (9:53 am)
The Honda, Cadillac and BMW sixes... there ain't a nickel's difference between them.
Once the TL has been owned for awhile (assuming it's used as sports sedan), the torque steer will become irritating. I'm not buying any more FWD cars for sporting purposes.... in the future all of those type vehicles will have proper RWD or RWD based AWD powertrains.