Headlights on the new style DeVille DTS

[caddydaddy]

I've heard the reliability ratings of the LS aren't that good. Any truth to that? They are about the only Lincoln I like!

[OldRelayer]

Originally Posted by caddydaddy

I've heard the reliability ratings of the LS aren't that good. Any truth to that? They are about the only Lincoln I like!

Yes, they had some start up problems with the line that lead to some unreliable vehicles and I would stay away from anything older than a 2003. I learned my lesson I bought a 1988 Continental(first production run on an all new car), was a horrible car, no where near the car the Mark is. I had an 84 Mark, had the 88 Continental for 6 mos and then traded it for an 88 Mark. They made some major improvements in 2003 and some more in 2004 to the LS. I never see anything bad anymore about the reliablity of the newer ones, and even the older ones with some problems, the people wouldn't give them up, they really like them. I believe the 2004 would be a great car. We drove a 2001 (I think) a couple of years ago, at the time lincoln had done a very stupid thing and had a 2 way power seat (how idiotic is that) on the passenger side and it was not very comfortable. The safety rating is quite high as well, higher than the Deville, I didn't check the Seville. The car is a little narrower than we are use to but I don't think it is any narrower than the STS, but can't say for sure. It has a tad less horsepower than your STS at 280 but it is quick with a pretty broad power range and a silky smooth shifting transmission that keeps the engine in a great power range, and of course you can shift it if you like. The version I drove had much less horsepower than the newer ones and it was still very acceptable, so the newer ones should be quite nice. It is not a sports car by any means but a nice touring sedan that competes with the best of them, especially in its price range. Take one for a ride, I would be very anxious to hear how you rate it with the STS.

Thanks
Barry

** I have been frustrated trying to find auto parts. I have an idea that may or may not be a good one, where consumers can post what they need and then either individuals or dealers can offer to fulfill their need. Take a look if you have time and let me know what you think.
http://www.priceoffuel.com/CarParts/...BB2/index.html

[caddydaddy]

I've seen them, and I'd say they are more along the size of the Cadillac CTS, maybe a little bigger. The STS is definetely a bigger car.
I should test drive one! I'm curious as well as to how it would stack up and ride! I love my STS though, so I don't think I'll trade if for an LS.
As for the safety rating, the STS rates very high, my insurance company gave me a discount because of it. The rep even commented about how high it scored. It does have front and side airbags, ABS, traction control and stability control, so you're pretty safe driving one! Much safer than the Ford Focus that just scored a horrible rating! Not to compare a luxury car with a econo-box, but safety is safety!
One of my favorite quotes:
"1972 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham: 4,700 pounds of classic highway safety" LOL!

Well, good luck in your search for a new car!

[OldRelayer]

Of course I wasn't suggesting you trade your vehicle, I would be curious to see how it ranked in your opinion.

The LS is definitely bigger than the CTS, I sat in one and hit my head on the door frame getting out and it is quite narrow. Although once in it, it was quite comfortable.

I wouldn't mind driving an STS if I could find one. There are a few new ones down state but nothing in the price range that I am looking at. That one on the NET looked quite nice and had all the right stuff, but I sure would want to drive one before making any decisions. The new rear drive STS sounds interesting, not really in love with the looks of most of the new vehicles. But I have found in cars, that even an ugly car can become quite pretty if it treats you right. I had a 71 Duster that was Lime Green, bought it cheap obviously, it still ran great when I drove it to the junk yard with 235Kmiles, but it had no frame it was all rotted. I never did a thing to that car but normal maintenance, it didn't look so ugly after a while.

Thanks
Barry

[OldRelayer]

I just did some research on the size of these 3 vehicles, LS, CTS and STS (a lot of letters).

All the overall length of the STS is quite a bit longer than than both the CTS and the LS but it has a shorter wheel base. Which probably explains why it is about 300 lbs heavier than the LS and about 400 lbs heavier than the CTS. I purposely looked at a 2004 STS, knowing that the 2005 is a completely different design.

Vehicle...............STS............. LS..............CTS........... Mark VIII
Length...............201..............193.9....... ....190.1...........207.3
Height.................55.4.............56.1...... .......56.1............53.6
width...................74.7............73.2______ __70.6________74.8
Wheel base______112.2______114.5_______113.4_______113.0
Curb Wieght_____ 3989_______3674________3568_______3768

There are some surprises for me in this little exercise. The Mark has a shorter wheelbase than either the LS or the CTS. There is only a 100 lbs difference between the Mark and the LS and the STS is heavier than the mark by 200 lbs. There is only a 1.6" difference in the width of the Mark and the width of the LS, it felt like more and the STS and Mark are closer in width. The LS is clearly bigger than the CTS by 3.8" in length and 2.6" in width. The STS is clearly bigger than both in the all important width of the vehicle 1.2" wider than the LS and a whooping 4.1" wider than the CTS.

I can only find one STS in the state, about 200 miles away. I would like to drive one, maybe in the next few weeks one will show up in the area.

[HandofDoom]

I happened to be looking around on ebay and forund this really clean STS.Its a 2002.You said your sife likes Pearl White,this one is.Moonroof is a must,its got it.Its even got the navigation screen.Also what looks like a car phone to the right of the screen.Looks like some custom chrome door pillars too.Its even still got the tags on the leather seats.Its also got the reverse sensors.Its got the high intensity headlights.I don't believe the seller mentions,but I know the started using Xenons in these cars starting with the 2002 year.Its in Missouri.60,000 miles on the clock.Reserve is set at $19,500.Sounds like a walk in the park to me.

If yah want a little background info,I had a '99 STS before trading.Loved the car.It didn't have the navi screen but my '05 does and boy there nice.You said you look for power and performance in a luxury car.With the STS you get the upgraded sport suspension,that handles like a dream.I used to take turns in that car at speeds that I couldn't dream of doing in most other luxury cars.You also get the 300 horse upgrade from the 275 horse in the SLS.And when I wanted to I could pass anything I wanted with ease.Like they werent even there.These cars are rated 0-60 in 6.5 seconds and the 1/4 in 14.8.Not bad for a near 4,000 lb car.It hauled ass when I had it.Thought you might be interested.

[OldRelayer]

I guess I can find it but posting the address would make it easier.

Thanks
Barry

[OldRelayer]

That wasn't hard to find it was the first listing. Looks nice but a little higher than I would like for miles, but I suspect if I was closer and drove it the miles would melt away. We were looking at a Park Ave Ultra local with similar miles for 1500 less, but I doubt the Buick would have the handling capabilities of the STS.

But while I have you on the line could I get you comment on the differences between your 99 that is Front Drive and your 2005 that is rear drive? I haven't tried too many front drive cars with that kind of HP but when I do they feel weird to me. Although I drove a new I think it was a 92 but could have been a 93 STS when they first came out, at the time we had an 88 Mark and it was a very nice car. I thought the DTS would be as nice, but it clearly isn't and I just can't get close to an STS around here, they are just not around. In the two major cities near me there are no 2005's even but down state there is a dealer that has a fist full of 05's not sure what the difference is, and only one used one within 200 miles. I am sorry if some of this is redundant, not sure how much of the posts your have read. The good news is we have plenty of time, our Mark is under a lot of snow. Once we dig it out need to have the brakes done and maybe tires, but I guess tires if we keep it and not if we don't.


Thanks
Barry

[HandofDoom]

Oh damn.Don't see how I forgot that link.Sorry about that man.

[HandofDoom]

There is obviously a big difference being rear wheel drive.Being as fun as my old one was when I drive my 05 it feels like Im driving a sports car.With the magnetic ride control,it handles better than my old one.And with 20 more horse its faster,and you notice it.Its a good thing Cadillac went back to rear wheel drive,take my word on that.

[OldRelayer]

Originally Posted by HandofDoom

There is obviously a big difference being rear wheel drive.Being as fun as my old one was when I drive my 05 it feels like Im driving a sports car.With the magnetic ride control,it handles better than my old one.And with 20 more horse its faster,and you notice it.Its a good thing Cadillac went back to rear wheel drive,take my word on that.

Thank you for the comment, I wouldn't get a chance to drive both or even speak to someone that even drove both never mind owned both, so this is such good information. Yes, I have to think there is a very good reason for Cadillac to go back to rear drive cars. If they really want to compete for the Beemer/Mercedes crowd your not going to do that with a front drive car. You saved me a long trip to try a 2001 or 2002 which is what I can afford, no way at this time I can even think about a 2005 that has the equipment level I would want. I still don't think they are a very attractive car but if it performed well, I would get over that. We still dont' really want a sedan at all, but there just arn't any Coupes being made in my price range, even a 2000 Mercedes CL series is way out of my price range and I am not even sure if they make the 8-series Beemer anymore. The Lexus SC400 was a very nice looking car, but the SC430(I think) is gawd aweful ugly.

Probably by mid summer we will have made a decision as to what we will be doing. Frankly, but for the safety issues, it would be a very easy decision just to put some money into our Mark and keep it a very long time. But the newer cars offer so much more safety than my old death trap. I keep on comming badk the the Lincoln LS. The 03 and newer don't have the problems the earlier ones did and I can pick up an 03 or even an 04 with short miles for what I can afford to spend. It is smaller than the front drive STS not sure how it stacks up size wise to the 05 STS. An earlier post, I did a size comparision. The LS also offers something they call AdvanceTrac which I think is comparable to the magnetic ride but it is an option. It clearly will not have the zip of your 05 with 40 less HP but good enough for our kind of driving and only 10 HP less than the Mark but 100 #s lighter. But HP doesn't tell the whole tale in this case, the LS has a 5 speed tranny which will help keep the vehicle in a good power range, I suspect it would easily out perform our old Mark and would handle the curves a lot better, but the big thing is it is just a whole lot safer. Safety is obviously not the only issue or we would be looking at an ugly volvo. But we had a bit of an awakening recently when someone we know was killed because he didn't have a side air curtain that would have protected him from a head injury.


I don't know how much time you have on your hands or if there is a Lincoln dealer close by, but you would be the perfect person to drive an LS and let me know what you think.

I have driven an older 2000 or 2001 LS but my wife has not, just like the STS they are hard to find on car lots around here, but around here is rural Maine and every car lot has a million trucks.

Thanks again for your posts.
Barry