2006 Cadillac STS-V vs. 2012 Nissan GT-R
To start off, 2012 Nissan GT-R 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 4,376 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac STS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Nissan GT-R (530 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 90 more horse power than 2006 Cadillac STS-V. (440 HP @ 6400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Nissan GT-R should accelerate faster than 2006 Cadillac STS-V.
Because 2012 Nissan GT-R is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2006 Cadillac STS-V. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Nissan GT-R 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, 2012 Nissan GT-R (607 Nm @ 5200 RPM) has 23 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac STS-V. (584 Nm @ 3600 RPM). This means 2012 Nissan GT-R 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 Nissan GT-R | |
| Make | Cadillac | Nissan |
| Model | STS-V | GT-R |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4376 cc | 3800 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 440 HP | 530 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6400 RPM |
| Torque | 584 Nm | 607 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automated manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4671 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1895 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1369 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2779 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 74 L |
