2006 Cadillac STS-V vs. 2010 Dodge Dakota
To start off, 2010 Dodge Dakota is newer by 4 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 230 more horse power than 2010 Dodge Dakota. (210 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS-V should accelerate faster than 2010 Dodge Dakota.
Because 2010 Dodge Dakota 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, 2010 Dodge Dakota 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 265 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Dodge Dakota. (319 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac STS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Dodge Dakota.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS-V | 2010 Dodge Dakota | |
| Make | Cadillac | Dodge |
| Model | STS-V | Dakota |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4376 cc | 3700 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 440 HP | 210 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 584 Nm | 319 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 5560 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1950 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1750 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 3340 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 11.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 83 L |
