1999 Alfa Romeo 145 vs. 2006 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1999 Alfa Romeo 145. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1999 Alfa Romeo 145 would be higher. At 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 296 more horse power than 1999 Alfa Romeo 145. (104 HP @ 6300 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1999 Alfa Romeo 145.
Because 2006 Cadillac CTS 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 2006 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1999 Alfa Romeo 145, 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, 2006 Cadillac CTS (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 412 more torque (in Nm) than 1999 Alfa Romeo 145. (124 Nm @ 4600 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1999 Alfa Romeo 145.
Compare all specifications:
| 1999 Alfa Romeo 145 | 2006 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Alfa Romeo | Cadillac |
| Model | 145 | CTS |
| Year Released | 1999 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1369 cc | 5965 cc |
| Horse Power | 104 HP | 400 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6300 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 124 Nm | 536 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4600 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4070 mm | 4870 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2550 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 6.3 L/100km | 9.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 5.9 L/100km | 14.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.7 L/100km | 12.5 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 51 L | 64 L |
