2007 Cadillac STS vs. 2008 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2008 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2007 Cadillac STS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2007 Cadillac STS would be higher. At 3,725 cc (6 cylinders), 2008 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Mazda CX-9 (270 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 15 more horse power than 2007 Cadillac STS. (255 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2008 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2007 Cadillac STS.
Because 2008 Mazda CX-9 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2007 Cadillac STS. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2008 Mazda CX-9 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, 2008 Mazda CX-9 (370 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 28 more torque (in Nm) than 2007 Cadillac STS. (342 Nm @ 3200 RPM). This means 2008 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2007 Cadillac STS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2007 Cadillac STS | 2008 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
| Model | STS | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2007 | 2008 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3556 cc | 3725 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 255 HP | 270 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 342 Nm | 370 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3200 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 5080 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1730 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 76 L |
