Hi gang. I'm Mike from suburban Minneapolis. Being a retired small car dealer and growing up in the '60s driving, building and drag racing 442s & GTOs, I guess I know enough about cars "to be dangerous"! Nice to see a good Cadi Seville site to exchange ideas & info!
I recently purchased a 2000 STS (apx. 96k on it). It's appears to have been taken care of, and looks all original.
On a recent 400 mile trip on the interstate, cruise set at 70 mph, the car gets about 22.7 mpg (using the digital mpg readout). Slowing it down to mid 60s mph, mileage increases - slightly - to about 23.3 - 23.4.
My experience with most GM cars has been they can generally achieve their listed EPA ratings - under ideal conditions, if not in everyday driving. As an example, our 1999 Aurora is rated at 26 mpg highway... in fact, under ideal conditions, it achieves between 27 & 28 mpg. My son's '01 Impala LS (3800) is rated at 30 mpg highway... in fact, it averages between 31 and 32.5 mpg (again, under ideal conditions - no passing, cruise set, etc). Last week I purchased a 2000 Deville (apx. 86K), and find I'm able to get a whopping 28 mpg (again, ideal conditions).
I realize the STS is designed to favor acceleration vs. mileage, but having said that, the car is EPA rated at 28 mpg highway. I'm wondering if this might be more than a bit optimistic..? A full 5 mpg less seems significant.
I'm wondering what other 2000 & up STS owners are experiencing. I'm a bit spoiled, having recently owned several 3800 Park Avenues & Ultras, and regularly getting in the 27 to 30 mpg range on the highway. I seem to recall a '99 SLS I owned for a short time getting in the 26+ mpg range. I'm wondering if Cadi's change to regular grade gas in 2000 might not have hurt their mileage. Also, while the car seems to run great, I plan on changing the plugs (I'm guessing they've never been done), and probably the two ox sensors in the exhaust manifolds in an effort to improve things.
Any experience or insight in this area would be appreciated. No question about it, the Sevilles are nice cars and great buys on the used car market!
I recently purchased a 2000 STS (apx. 96k on it). It's appears to have been taken care of, and looks all original.
On a recent 400 mile trip on the interstate, cruise set at 70 mph, the car gets about 22.7 mpg (using the digital mpg readout). Slowing it down to mid 60s mph, mileage increases - slightly - to about 23.3 - 23.4.
My experience with most GM cars has been they can generally achieve their listed EPA ratings - under ideal conditions, if not in everyday driving. As an example, our 1999 Aurora is rated at 26 mpg highway... in fact, under ideal conditions, it achieves between 27 & 28 mpg. My son's '01 Impala LS (3800) is rated at 30 mpg highway... in fact, it averages between 31 and 32.5 mpg (again, under ideal conditions - no passing, cruise set, etc). Last week I purchased a 2000 Deville (apx. 86K), and find I'm able to get a whopping 28 mpg (again, ideal conditions).
I realize the STS is designed to favor acceleration vs. mileage, but having said that, the car is EPA rated at 28 mpg highway. I'm wondering if this might be more than a bit optimistic..? A full 5 mpg less seems significant.
I'm wondering what other 2000 & up STS owners are experiencing. I'm a bit spoiled, having recently owned several 3800 Park Avenues & Ultras, and regularly getting in the 27 to 30 mpg range on the highway. I seem to recall a '99 SLS I owned for a short time getting in the 26+ mpg range. I'm wondering if Cadi's change to regular grade gas in 2000 might not have hurt their mileage. Also, while the car seems to run great, I plan on changing the plugs (I'm guessing they've never been done), and probably the two ox sensors in the exhaust manifolds in an effort to improve things.
Any experience or insight in this area would be appreciated. No question about it, the Sevilles are nice cars and great buys on the used car market!