2006 Cadillac STS 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. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Cadillac STS 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 (320 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 3 more horse power than 2009 Nissan Armada. (317 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS 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. 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, 2009 Nissan Armada (522 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 94 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac STS. (428 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2009 Nissan Armada will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Cadillac STS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS | 2009 Nissan Armada | |
| Make | Cadillac | Nissan |
| Model | STS | Armada |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4556 cc | 5551 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 320 HP | 317 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 428 Nm | 522 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 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 | 1470 mm | 1990 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 3140 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.1 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 19.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 106 L |
