2009 Cadillac STS vs. 2007 Lincoln MKZ
To start off, 2009 Cadillac STS is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2007 Lincoln MKZ. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2007 Lincoln MKZ would be higher. At 3,564 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac STS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac STS (300 HP) has 37 more horse power than 2007 Lincoln MKZ. (263 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac STS should accelerate faster than 2007 Lincoln MKZ.
Because 2007 Lincoln MKZ is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Cadillac STS. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2007 Lincoln MKZ 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, 2007 Lincoln MKZ (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 65 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Cadillac STS. (273 Nm @ 5200 RPM). This means 2007 Lincoln MKZ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Cadillac STS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac STS | 2007 Lincoln MKZ | |
| Make | Cadillac | Lincoln |
| Model | STS | MKZ |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2007 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3564 cc | 3494 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 300 HP | 263 HP |
| Torque | 273 Nm | 338 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5200 RPM | 4500 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 | 4990 mm | 4850 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1840 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2730 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10 L/100km | 9.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 58 L | 76 L |
