2000 Ford TS-50 vs. 2006 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford TS-50. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford TS-50 would be higher. At 2,792 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (212 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 84 more horse power than 2000 Ford TS-50. (128 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2000 Ford TS-50. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 412 kg more than 2000 Ford TS-50. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 (262 Nm) has 87 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Ford TS-50. (175 Nm). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Ford TS-50.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford TS-50 | 2006 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Ford | Cadillac |
| Model | TS-50 | CTS |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1989 cc | 2792 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 128 HP | 212 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 175 Nm | 262 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Vehicle Weight | 1208 kg | 1620 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 66 L |
