2009 Cadillac SRX vs. 2012 Chevrolet Malibu
To start off, 2012 Chevrolet Malibu is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Cadillac SRX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Cadillac SRX would be higher. At 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Chevrolet Malibu is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 252 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar.
Because 2009 Cadillac SRX is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2009 Cadillac SRX. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Chevrolet Malibu, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 Chevrolet Malibu (340 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 86 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Cadillac SRX. (254 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 2012 Chevrolet Malibu will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Cadillac SRX.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac SRX | 2012 Chevrolet Malibu | |
| Make | Cadillac | Chevrolet |
| Model | SRX | Malibu |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3564 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 252 HP | 252 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6300 RPM |
| Torque | 254 Nm | 340 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 3200 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed shiftable automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1786 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 9.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
