2006 Cadillac STS-V vs. 2009 Dodge Durango
To start off, 2009 Dodge Durango is newer by 3 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 4,701 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Dodge Durango is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac STS-V (440 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 137 more horse power than 2009 Dodge Durango. (303 HP @ 5650 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS-V should accelerate faster than 2009 Dodge Durango.
Because 2009 Dodge Durango 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, 2009 Dodge Durango 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 137 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Dodge Durango. (447 Nm @ 3950 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac STS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Dodge Durango.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS-V | 2009 Dodge Durango | |
| Make | Cadillac | Dodge |
| Model | STS-V | Durango |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4376 cc | 4701 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 440 HP | 303 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5650 RPM |
| Torque | 584 Nm | 447 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 3950 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 | 5110 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1890 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 3030 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 11.8 L/100km | 13.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 18.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 15.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 102 L |
