2006 Cadillac STS vs. 2010 Suzuki SX4
To start off, 2010 Suzuki SX4 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 4,556 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac STS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac STS (320 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 170 more horse power than 2010 Suzuki SX4. (150 HP @ 6200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS should accelerate faster than 2010 Suzuki SX4.
Because 2010 Suzuki SX4 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 Suzuki SX4 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 (428 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 238 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Suzuki SX4. (190 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac STS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Suzuki SX4.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS | 2010 Suzuki SX4 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Suzuki |
| Model | STS | SX4 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4556 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 320 HP | 150 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6200 RPM |
| Torque | 428 Nm | 190 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | CVT |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4135 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1755 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1605 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2499 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.1 L/100km | 7.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 45 L |
