2004 Cadillac CTS vs. 2009 Lincoln MKZ
To start off, 2009 Lincoln MKZ is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 3,495 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Lincoln MKZ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Lincoln MKZ (261 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 41 more horse power than 2004 Cadillac CTS. (220 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Lincoln MKZ should accelerate faster than 2004 Cadillac CTS. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Lincoln MKZ weights approximately 763 kg more than 2004 Cadillac CTS. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2004 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 2004 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Lincoln MKZ, 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, 2004 Cadillac CTS (298 Nm) has 48 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Lincoln MKZ. (250 Nm). This means 2004 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Lincoln MKZ.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Cadillac CTS | 2009 Lincoln MKZ | |
| Make | Cadillac | Lincoln |
| Model | CTS | MKZ |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3179 cc | 3495 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 220 HP | 261 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 298 Nm | 250 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.0:1 | 10.3:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1592 kg | 2355 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4850 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1840 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2730 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.2 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.5 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.4 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 66 L | 66 L |
