2007 Cadillac STS-V vs. 2012 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2012 Ford Falcon is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2007 Cadillac STS-V. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2007 Cadillac STS-V would be higher. At 4,376 cc (8 cylinders), 2007 Cadillac STS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Cadillac STS-V (469 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 229 more horse power than 2012 Ford Falcon. (240 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Cadillac STS-V should accelerate faster than 2012 Ford Falcon.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front 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 Cadillac STS-V (595 Nm @ 3900 RPM) has 242 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Ford Falcon. (353 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2007 Cadillac STS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Ford Falcon.
Compare all specifications:
2007 Cadillac STS-V | 2012 Ford Falcon | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | STS-V | Falcon |
Year Released | 2007 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4376 cc | 1999 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 469 HP | 240 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 595 Nm | 353 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3900 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5030 mm | 4967 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1868 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1433 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2838 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 6.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 12.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 68 L |