2009 Cadillac STS vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Cadillac STS is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mazda 3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda 3 would be higher. At 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac STS is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Cadillac STS weights approximately 320 kg more than 2006 Mazda 3.
Because 2009 Cadillac STS 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 STS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 3, 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. 2009 Cadillac STS has automatic transmission and 2006 Mazda 3 has manual transmission. 2006 Mazda 3 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2009 Cadillac STS will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Cadillac STS | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
Model | STS | 3 |
Year Released | 2009 | 2006 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3600 cc | 1598 cc |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 302 HP | 0 HP |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1560 kg | 1240 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5000 mm | 4500 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2650 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.9 L/100km | 8.9 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 55 L |