2009 Cadillac STS vs. 2007 Kia Amanti
To start off, 2009 Cadillac STS is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2007 Kia Amanti. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2007 Kia Amanti would be higher. At 3,778 cc (6 cylinders), 2007 Kia Amanti is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac STS (302 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 42 more horse power than 2007 Kia Amanti. (260 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac STS should accelerate faster than 2007 Kia Amanti.
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, 2007 Kia Amanti, 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, 2009 Cadillac STS (369 Nm @ 5200 RPM) has 108 more torque (in Nm) than 2007 Kia Amanti. (261 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2009 Cadillac STS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2007 Kia Amanti.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Cadillac STS | 2007 Kia Amanti | |
Make | Cadillac | Kia |
Model | STS | Amanti |
Year Released | 2009 | 2007 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3599 cc | 3778 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 302 HP | 260 HP |
Engine RPM | 6300 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 369 Nm | 261 Nm |
Torque RPM | 5200 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1860 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.1 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |