2006 Cadillac STS vs. 2012 Volvo S60
To start off, 2012 Volvo S60 is newer by 6 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, 2012 Volvo S60 (325 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 5 more horse power than 2006 Cadillac STS. (320 HP @ 6400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Volvo S60 should accelerate faster than 2006 Cadillac STS.
Because 2012 Volvo S60 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, 2012 Volvo S60 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 Volvo S60 (479 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 51 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac STS. (428 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2012 Volvo S60 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Cadillac STS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS | 2012 Volvo S60 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
| Model | STS | S60 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4556 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 320 HP | 325 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Torque | 428 Nm | 479 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed shiftable automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4628 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1864 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1483 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2776 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.1 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 67 L |
