2002 Alfa Romeo 156 vs. 2009 Cadillac DTS
To start off, 2009 Cadillac DTS is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Alfa Romeo 156. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Alfa Romeo 156 would be higher. At 4,565 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac DTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac DTS (271 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 108 more horse power than 2002 Alfa Romeo 156. (163 HP @ 6400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac DTS should accelerate faster than 2002 Alfa Romeo 156.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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, 2009 Cadillac DTS (296 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 90 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Alfa Romeo 156. (206 Nm @ 3250 RPM). This means 2009 Cadillac DTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Alfa Romeo 156. 2009 Cadillac DTS has automatic transmission and 2002 Alfa Romeo 156 has manual transmission. 2002 Alfa Romeo 156 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2009 Cadillac DTS will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2002 Alfa Romeo 156 | 2009 Cadillac DTS | |
Make | Alfa Romeo | Cadillac |
Model | 156 | DTS |
Year Released | 2002 | 2009 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1910 cc | 4565 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 163 HP | 271 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 206 Nm | 296 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3250 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 6 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Width | 1750 mm | 1910 mm |