2007 Acura RDX vs. 2009 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2009 Cadillac CTS is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2007 Acura RDX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2007 Acura RDX would be higher. At 3,599 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac CTS (263 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 23 more horse power than 2007 Acura RDX. (240 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2007 Acura RDX.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or rear wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2007 Acura RDX (353 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 10 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Cadillac CTS. (343 Nm @ 3100 RPM). This means 2007 Acura RDX will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2007 Acura RDX | 2009 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Acura | Cadillac |
| Model | RDX | CTS |
| Year Released | 2007 | 2009 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2300 cc | 3599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 240 HP | 263 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6400 RPM |
| Torque | 353 Nm | 343 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 3100 RPM |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4600 mm | 4870 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1850 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1660 mm | 1480 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.2 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 68 L |
