2006 Cadillac STS-V vs. 2009 Mercedes-Benz CLS
To start off, 2009 Mercedes-Benz CLS 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 5,461 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Mercedes-Benz CLS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac STS-V (440 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 58 more horse power than 2009 Mercedes-Benz CLS. (382 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS-V should accelerate faster than 2009 Mercedes-Benz CLS.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 54 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mercedes-Benz CLS. (530 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac STS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mercedes-Benz CLS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS-V | 2009 Mercedes-Benz CLS | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mercedes-Benz |
| Model | STS-V | CLS |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4376 cc | 5461 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 440 HP | 382 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 584 Nm | 530 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 2800 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4910 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2860 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 80 L |
