2006 Cadillac STS-V vs. 2008 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2008 Mazda CX-9 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 @ 6400 RPM) has 170 more horse power than 2008 Mazda CX-9. (270 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS-V should accelerate faster than 2008 Mazda CX-9.
Because 2008 Mazda CX-9 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2006 Cadillac STS-V. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2008 Mazda CX-9 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, 2006 Cadillac STS-V (584 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 214 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 Mazda CX-9. (370 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac STS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS-V | 2008 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
| Model | STS-V | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2008 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4376 cc | 3726 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 440 HP | 270 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 584 Nm | 370 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 5080 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1730 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 76 L |
