2005 Cadillac CTS vs. 1990 Mazda 626
To start off, 2005 Cadillac CTS is newer by 15 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1990 Mazda 626. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1990 Mazda 626 would be higher. At 2,786 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 2005 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 2005 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1990 Mazda 626, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Cadillac CTS | 1990 Mazda 626 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
| Model | CTS | 626 |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1990 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2786 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 3 valves |
| Horse Power | 210 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4460 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2520 mm |
