2006 Cadillac STS vs. 2010 Chrysler 300
To start off, 2010 Chrysler 300 is newer by 4 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 5,700 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Chrysler 300 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Chrysler 300 (360 HP @ 5150 RPM) has 40 more horse power than 2006 Cadillac STS. (320 HP @ 6400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Chrysler 300 should accelerate faster than 2006 Cadillac STS.
Because 2010 Chrysler 300 is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2006 Cadillac STS. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Chrysler 300 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, 2010 Chrysler 300 (527 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 99 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac STS. (428 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2010 Chrysler 300 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Cadillac STS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS | 2010 Chrysler 300 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Chrysler |
| Model | STS | 300 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4556 cc | 5700 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 320 HP | 360 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5150 RPM |
| Torque | 428 Nm | 527 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 4250 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4999 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1882 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1483 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 3048 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.1 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 72 L |
