2005 Buick Rainier vs. 2009 Cadillac STS-V
To start off, 2009 Cadillac STS-V is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Buick Rainier. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Buick Rainier would be higher. At 4,376 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac STS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac STS-V (469 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 194 more horse power than 2005 Buick Rainier. (275 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac STS-V should accelerate faster than 2005 Buick Rainier.
Because 2005 Buick Rainier is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Cadillac STS-V. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Buick Rainier will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2009 Cadillac STS-V (595 Nm) has 221 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Buick Rainier. (374 Nm). This means 2009 Cadillac STS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Buick Rainier.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Buick Rainier | 2009 Cadillac STS-V | |
| Make | Buick | Cadillac |
| Model | Rainier | STS-V |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4163 cc | 4376 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 275 HP | 469 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6400 RPM |
| Torque | 374 Nm | 595 Nm |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4920 mm | 5030 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1920 mm | 1850 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1900 mm | 1480 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2740 mm | 2960 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 11.8 L/100km | 12.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 18.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.8 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 83 L | 64 L |
