2009 Cadillac STS-V vs. 2005 Suzuki Liana
To start off, 2009 Cadillac STS-V is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Suzuki Liana. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Suzuki Liana would be higher. At 4,376 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac STS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac STS-V (469 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 365 more horse power than 2005 Suzuki Liana. (104 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac STS-V should accelerate faster than 2005 Suzuki Liana.
Because 2005 Suzuki Liana is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Cadillac STS-V. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Suzuki Liana 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, 2009 Cadillac STS-V (595 Nm @ 3900 RPM) has 451 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Suzuki Liana. (144 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2009 Cadillac STS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Suzuki Liana.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Cadillac STS-V | 2005 Suzuki Liana | |
Make | Cadillac | Suzuki |
Model | STS-V | Liana |
Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4376 cc | 1586 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 469 HP | 104 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 595 Nm | 144 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3900 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5030 mm | 4360 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1700 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1550 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2490 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 18.1 L/100km | 10.3 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 15.7 L/100km | 8.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 50 L |