2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 2006 Isuzu KB
To start off, 2006 Isuzu KB is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 3,563 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS (252 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 55 more horse power than 2006 Isuzu KB. (197 HP @ 5400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2006 Isuzu KB.
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, 2003 Cadillac CTS (346 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 65 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Isuzu KB. (281 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Isuzu KB.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Cadillac CTS | 2006 Isuzu KB | |
| Make | Cadillac | Isuzu |
| Model | CTS | KB |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3563 cc | 3494 cc |
| Horse Power | 252 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6200 RPM | 5400 RPM |
| Torque | 346 Nm | 281 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3200 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 94 mm | 93.4 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 86 mm | 85 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4910 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1740 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 76 L |
