2006 Cadillac STS-V vs. 2012 Jaguar XK
To start off, 2012 Jaguar XK is newer by 6 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 5,000 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Jaguar XK is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Jaguar XK (510 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 70 more horse power than 2006 Cadillac STS-V. (440 HP @ 6400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Jaguar XK should accelerate faster than 2006 Cadillac STS-V.
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, 2012 Jaguar XK (624 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 40 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac STS-V. (584 Nm @ 3600 RPM). This means 2012 Jaguar XK will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Cadillac STS-V.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS-V | 2012 Jaguar XK | |
| Make | Cadillac | Jaguar |
| Model | STS-V | XK |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4376 cc | 5000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 440 HP | 510 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 584 Nm | 624 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 2500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed shiftable automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4793 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1892 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1321 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2751 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 61 L |
