2007 Cadillac STS vs. 2005 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2007 Cadillac STS is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Ford Ranger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Ford Ranger would be higher. At 3,556 cc (6 cylinders), 2007 Cadillac STS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Cadillac STS (255 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 107 more horse power than 2005 Ford Ranger. (148 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Cadillac STS should accelerate faster than 2005 Ford Ranger.
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 (342 Nm) has 92 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Ford Ranger. (250 Nm). This means 2007 Cadillac STS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Ford Ranger.
Compare all specifications:
| 2007 Cadillac STS | 2005 Ford Ranger | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | STS | Ranger |
| Year Released | 2007 | 2005 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3556 cc | 2983 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 255 HP | 148 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 342 Nm | 250 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 94 mm | 89.1 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 86 mm | 80 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.2:1 | 9.6:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 3 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4790 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1690 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2620 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 64 L |
