2006 Cadillac STS-V vs. 2009 Nissan Armada
To start off, 2009 Nissan Armada 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 5,551 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Nissan Armada is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac STS-V (440 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 123 more horse power than 2009 Nissan Armada. (317 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS-V should accelerate faster than 2009 Nissan Armada.
Because 2009 Nissan Armada 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 Nissan Armada 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 62 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Nissan Armada. (522 Nm @ 3400 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac STS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Nissan Armada.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS-V | 2009 Nissan Armada | |
| Make | Cadillac | Nissan |
| Model | STS-V | Armada |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4376 cc | 5551 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 440 HP | 317 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 584 Nm | 522 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 3400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 8 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 5280 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 2020 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1990 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 3140 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 11.8 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 19.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 106 L |
