2006 Cadillac STS-V vs. 2008 Acura CSX
To start off, 2008 Acura CSX is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Cadillac STS-V. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Cadillac STS-V would be higher. At 4,376 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac STS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac STS-V (440 HP) has 243 more horse power than 2008 Acura CSX. (197 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS-V should accelerate faster than 2008 Acura CSX.
Because 2006 Cadillac STS-V is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2006 Cadillac STS-V. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2008 Acura CSX, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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. 2006 Cadillac STS-V has automatic transmission and 2008 Acura CSX has manual transmission. 2008 Acura CSX will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2006 Cadillac STS-V will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS-V | 2008 Acura CSX | |
| Make | Cadillac | Acura |
| Model | STS-V | CSX |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2008 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4376 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 440 HP | 197 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4544 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1752 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1435 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2700 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 6.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
