2003 cadillac northstar,120,000 mi =iffy buy?

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

C

cfz2882

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
2,513
Location
Belle Fourche,SD
I am not interested,but my dad is looking at it,$3900 I have heard northstars have had headgasket problems because the head bolts stretch and release clamp on the gaskets...Other problems have been reported as well...Anyone here have any negative evperience with a northstar or Cadillac of this era in general?
 
In my opinion...

<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">Oh no, here comes all the bad press concerning the Northstar V8. My little 1998 Eldorado, although having very few miles, is the most trouble-free engine I have ever owned in over 50 years of driving V8 cars. The one piece of garbage I had was a Japanese Mitsubishi engine in a Chrysler K car. The Northstar engine was probably one of the most technologically complex electronic V8's produced and GM made tens of thousands of them if not more. They continue to be <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span> the car you take to Gomer at the fillin station to work on.  As with buying any previously owned car (aka used) mileage and how the vehicle was cared for are important. </span>

 

<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">20 years later, purrs like a kitten, leaks nothing, as powerful as day one</span>

[this post was last edited: 12/8/2017-16:34]

twintubdexter-2017120813380203933_1.jpg
 
better than the former

Cadillac V8 mill for sure, 4.1 through 4.9 litres. Just not as good as a cast iron V8.

Good fuel economy though. It's aluminum, so don't let it overheat. Light on the gas pedal, and they are fine. Doesn't take a heavy foot to move out either.

The head bolts were lengthened in about 2005, I think.
Higher mileage cars are known to have minor electrical issues, and loose steering racks, but won't break the bank. Also oil pan leaks, coolnat pumps, alternator bearing noises, like any late model cars.
 
I have a 98 Seville SLS. It has the 4.6l NorthStar.

IF the car has had all of the fluid changes done in a timely matter and the motor mounts are sound, I probably wouldn't have any issues buying another one.

That being said if it hasn't been taken care of, don't even bother with it.

Those engines are meant to be ran hard, they are a great performer. They need their coolant changed quite frequently or the head gasket issues happen. When the head gasket issue happens, you may as well have the thing time-serted because thats really the only way to put it all back together.

Most mechanics won't touch a northstar because they are.. a pita.

It is normal for a northstar to use about a quart or two of oil in between oil changes. More than that, something is off.

But I love my seville. Here before long I'll probably find a good used DTS with the performance package.

Here's a bit of production data:

2010 was the last year of engine production at the Livonia, Michigan engine plant, but enough were produced to use in some 2011 model Cadillacs.

We have totalled Northstar Engine production from 1993 Onward. Obviously crate engines, Shelby 4.0's, warranty replacement engines are not counted in these totals.

Cadillac SLS:

1994 - 24,308
1995 - 21,186
1996 - 20,465
1997 - 22,657
1998 - 13,221
1999 - 15,371
2000 - 16,951
2001 - 14,595
2002 - 15,137
2003 - 12,061
2004 - 6,240
--------------------
Total: 182,192

Cadillac STS (Seville)

1993 - 20,560
1994 - 22,406
1995 - 17,745
1996 - 17,677
1997 - 22,100
1998 - 21,300
1999 - 27,081
2000 - 17,533
2001 - 13,461
2002 - 11,440
2003 - 7,775
2004 - 274

Cadillac STS (Sigma body)

2005 - 18,087
2006 - 8,348
2007 - 4,094
2008 - 216
2009 - 1,737
2010 - N/A
--------------------
Total: 231,834

Cadillac STS-V

2006 - 1,306
2007 - 642
2008 - 396
2009 - 96
--------------------
Total: 2,440

Cadillac Deville (Base)

1996 - 100,250
1997 - 92,059
1998 - 101,834
1999 - 102,501
2000 - 68,052
2001 - 65,260
02 - 68,268
03 - 61,452
04 - 59,254
05 - 50,240
--------------------
Total: 769,170

Cadillac Concours (Deville)

94 - 32,490
95 - 17,655
96 - 11,022
97 - 9,873
98 - 9,330
99 - 9,752
--------------------
Total: 90,122

Cadillac DHS (Deville)

00 - 12,864
01 -13,657
02 - 12,041
03 - 8,470
04 - 7,453
05 - 3,954
--------------------
Total: 58,439

Cadillac DTS (Deville)

2000 - 17,012
01 - 14,615
02 - 14,376
03 - 10,381
04 -8,717
05 -4,183

Cadillac DTS

06 - 59,937
07 - 44,714
08 - 38,201
09 - 17,123
10 - N/A
11 - N/A
--------------------
Total: 229,259

Cadillac DTS Performance

2006 - 7,798
2007 - 3,810
2008 - 3,240
2009 - 1,163
2010 - N/A
2011 - N/A
--------------------
Total: 16,011

Eldorado (Base/ESC)

1994 - 15,199
1995 - 15,559
1996 - 12,197
1997 - 11,368
1998 - 11,664
1999 - 9,321
2000 - 8,308
2001 - 5,744
2002 - 3,127
--------------------
Total: 92,487

Cadillac Eldorado Touring Coupe (ETC)

1993 - 9,336
1994 - 9,748
1995 - 9,671
1996 - 8,573
1997 - 8,648
1998 - 6,751
1999 - 6,851
2000 - 5,634
2001 - 4,343
2002 - 2,205

Total: 71,758

Cadillac XLR

2004 - 4,387
2005 - 4,190
2006 - 2,989
2007 - 1,095
2008 - 1,150
2009 - 653
2010 - N/A
2011 - N/A

Total: 14,464

Cadillac XLR-V

2006 - 1,147
2007 - 410
2008 - 392
2009 - 239
2010 - N/A

Total: 2,188

Cadillac Allante

1993 - 4,670

Buick Lucerne CXS (VIN Y Northstar)

2006 - 7,312
2007 - 3,884
2008 - 4,207
--------------------
Total: 15,403

Buick Lucerne Super (VIN 9 Northstar)

2008 - 680
2009 - 712
2010 - N/A
2011 - N/A
--------------------
Total: 1,392

Pontiac Bonneville GXP

2004 - 2,420
2005 - 4,193
--------------------
Total: 6,613

Cadillac SRX

04 - N/A
05 - 7,857
06 - 4,792
07 - 2,912
08 - 2,321
09 - 637
--------------------
Total: 18,519

Complete Total Northstars (4.6 only) 1993-2009: 1,806,961 (2010/11 years not accounted for)

Oldsmobile Aurora:

1995 - 47,823
1996 - 24,133
1997 - 27,927
1998 - 25,721
1999 - 19,635
2000 - Not produced that year
2001 - 14,575
2002 - 1,672
2003 - N/A
--------------------
Total (4.0L): 161,486

Total Northstar Engine figures: 4.0 & 4.6 : 1,968,447. Some years are not accounted for in this total.

Mods please make this a sticky if you deem it worthy. If anyone else can complete the missing years please do so; but also please respect this information as property of www.cadillacforums.com (http://www.cadillacforums.com) and www.northstarperformance.com (http://www.northstarperformance.com). Credits to Evrett as well as Submariner409 for suggesting the use of Comp9 to compile this info[this post was last edited: 12/8/2017-18:32]
 
My uncle in TX has a '99 DeVille with 6x,xxx miles on it. It has held up well for him. You're right about the Northstar liking to be run hard, that engine had no problem revving and seemed eager to do so. It sounded just like Fords 4.6 V8 which I quite like the sound of. Not a big fan of the sound of other GM V8's like the 5.3, which is also not as eager to rev like Fords 5.0 is.
 
'95 Aurora

Dad does have a '95 Aurora:bought in 2000,now with 140000,it has been pretty decent.Related to the northstar,aurora v8 apparently far more trouble free than the cadi engine.With the Aurora,have had to replace fuel pump,radiator tanks twice,and the instrument cluster needed repair.Amazingly,original battery-dated 8/94,mounted under rear seat,lasted until this summer and only failed because terminal post crumbled :)That was a good run!.Thanks for all the great Northstar info so far guys :)-sounds like a lot of the trouble was solved by 2003.
 
How could I have forgotten

this issue the Northstar can have; Olds and Cadillac both. Stalling, and hard starting. It is very intermittent at first.
Some repair shops are not ethical, and will stop at nothing to make you spend thousands, or just trade it in.
Most often than not, it's the fuel pressure regulator, a $20 part located on the fuel rail. Takes 5 minutes to change and if you can change an air filter, you can do it.
 
Truth versus Fiction

1) The Northstar family was the most advanced engine of it's era (yes, pedantic ones, but I'm talking about commercially available cars). It was to replace the 1950's GM engines (not that there's a thing wrong with them, heck they replaced the Northstar family after the problems became too great).

2) When it's working, it's a great engine.

3) Sadly, and not at all unlike other GM engines of that era, gasket failure can be a problem - the head gasket problems aren't made up but they also aren't exclusive to that particular engine. Look up the 3.1/3.8 engine and you'll know why $35,000 Buick Century cars in otherwise mint condition are going for <$1000 all over the place.

4) Unlike the 3.1/3.8, however, the Northstar was never designed for major repair work. It was a throw-away engine. That's the real source of the problem. (Before the fanboyz attack me, do show the the GM rebuild number for any Northstar family member, do, puh-lease? Polestar doesn't count, dahlinks. Oh, right, you can't because, GM didn't offer them.....)

 

So, here's the deal: If the gasket problem was fixed and the engine otherwise well maintained, then, yes, you can pick up some really beautiful Caddies at excellent prices with one and you'll be happy. But, if the head gasket wasn't fixed in it then, yes, sooner or later it will cause problems which are enormously expensive and time consuming to fix.

 

There's tons of good articles out there, written by people who love Cadillac and who (understandably) feel this engine family was brilliant. Their performance and reliability were otherwise great. Again, though - Cadillac went back to a 1950s engine because the damage to their reputation was just too great. Yes, pedantic ones, it's been updated a wee bit.

 

Personally, I'd go for it if everything else is OK and the money is there to deal with the 'when' not 'if'. But, then, excepting our 1989 Fleetwood Brougham d' Disaster, I've never met a Cadillac I didn't like. 

 
 
OK with the right tlc, yes they can be made to work...

and we knew a guy with 200k on his notorious PRV V-6 too, but with a used car it's hard to know. The point is why bother when there are other better, more bulletproof engines out there? Ward's annual "10 Best Engines" is always an informative read and imo CUs reliability charts are quite accurate, at least over my 50 years of watching them.
 
Caddy

Hi so I see no one has mentioned that rattlellac v-8 is of same design of the 4100 engine the best one ever made that one could idle at 400 rpms unlike anything else at 600 to 1000 but anyways I feel that they are not durable nor reliable for a poor boy like moi however they have made beautiful cars in their big car time just not for me no rattlellac/ battlelaccs or Cadillacs for me I'll stick to my Volvo's sattys s series thanks
 
No gm for me

Growing up in the 80’s/90’s, I never saw a gm product that wasn’t a turd. Body gaps, the Cadillac cimarron, I can go on.

I briefly (like 15-20 days) owned a 2000 something cavalier, that car still had a pushrod engine. It was painfully slow and got only 19mpg. Who would buy something like that.

The north star engine was a great idea, but gm managed to ruin it.

It’s also hard for me to respect a company that went bankrupt. I will say that the new corvette is probably the first gm product I’ve ever seen that I can say is good looking.
 
Eugene,

GM's quality hit a low point in the last '80s. Our Fleetwood Brougham d'Disaster (the top of the line Cadillac) was the worst car I have ever owned or driven, and that includes YUGOs.

Seriously.

But our 1974 Sedan deVille is really well built, my Chevy Malibu (98) was excellent, our '98 Buick Century (now that the head gasket problem *cough*, *cough* has been fixed) is safe and really well made). Our S10? OK, yikes, yeah.

I won't compare any of them to the Subaru or the Chrysler mini-van in terms of build quality - but there is a clear improvement that set in in 1997 and continues to this day. Heck, Buick is frequently the best built American car in tests.

So, yeah - it's a mixed bag. I feel about Ford the same way I feel about Whirlpool, and the fact that Chrysler's quality has improved so much under FIAT speaks volumes, not just for those of us from Europe.

Roger Smith's damage wasn't done overnight, it's not fair to judge GM of today by the horrors he inflicted upon them back then.

Still, though, you're right - when you buy a Cadillac, you are looking at the same level of unreliability as a when you buy a UK made car. Given the record of GMC and Buick and Chevy, that's pretty sad.
 
'98 Buick Century (now that the head gasket problem *cough*, *cough* has been fixed) is safe and really well made). Our S10? OK, yikes, yeah.

 

I knew someone who had a Buick in the 90s. I was a person who was (then) a believer that US cars were total junk that fell totally apart at 100K miles, and I was absolutely amazed by that car. The last time I saw it, it had well over 100K miles, and it still looked and rode well.

 

One of the bus drivers I ride with today buys only American. She apparently got 200K miles out of a Chevrolet truck...which then was moved onto someone else in her family, who put many more miles on it.
 
Fleetwood Brougham d'Disaster

I really love " Fleetwood Brougham d'Disaster". It really does seem like a good "name" for a lot of 1980s American cars--pretentious sounding name (which GM often loved) that sums up the ugly reality of how bad so many of those cars were!
 
I remember at one point the cadillac dealer here had pallets and pallets of warranty-replaced northstar engines waiting to go back to where ever they were going.

I can only imagine how many northstars were replaced under warranty, or how many were fully rebuilt.

That being said, it is still an awesome engine for the power. I am very attached to my seville. I have always wanted the next gen seville, in all wheel drive with the 6 speed transmission and northstar engine, but I just never could bring my self to buy one when I've had the opportunities.

Now, if I could find a 92 brougham d'elegance with the 5.7, I'd buy that in a heart beat if it was in good condition. "Mary, Alice, Louise...this isn't a car - it's a land yacht!"
 
To those of us of a certain age (1974 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance Talisman with acres and acres of velour and (effectively) rear bucket seats, anyone?), all these model year distinctions make complete sense. However, I've found those who are NOT are frequently baffled.

This is my latest explanation. If anyone can make it shorter and more accurate, PLEASE jump in:

Any GM car whose life cycle was set in stone when the Oil Embargo hit in 1973 was largely unaffected by the "GM Woes" In practice this means full-sized before '77 and mid-sized before '78. In response to the Energy Crisis GM introduced new, 'fuel efficient', downsized models. Quality control took a nose dive and didn't really improve until the mid-late 90's. Pretty much the same happened with Chrysler and Ford, although one could argue the quality control issues started a few years later, didn't get quite as bad, and recovery started a year or two earlier.

This is why you'll find people who say their '76 Buick Estate wagon was the best car they ever owned and those who state their '77 was the WORST.

Yes, there are always exceptions. My family owned an '86 Chrysler LeBaron GTS (not to be confused with unrelated Chrysler products with the LeBaron name) with the lighter of the 2 Turbo packs. As of the late '90's it had close to 200,000 trouble free miles.

Jim
 

Similar threads

C
cadillac eldorado 1967-85
2
Replies
21
Views
22
cuffs054
C
peteski50
LG Complaints
Replies
2
Views
15
bingwsguy
B

Latest posts

Back
Top