2005 Cadillac CTS vs. 2006 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2006 Toyota Matrix is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 3,564 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Cadillac CTS (255 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 137 more horse power than 2006 Toyota Matrix. (118 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2006 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2006 Toyota Matrix is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2005 Cadillac CTS. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Toyota Matrix will offer significantly more control. 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, 2005 Cadillac CTS (343 Nm) has 187 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Toyota Matrix. (156 Nm). This means 2005 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Cadillac CTS | 2006 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Cadillac | Toyota |
| Model | CTS | Matrix |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3564 cc | 1786 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 255 HP | 118 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 343 Nm | 156 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4360 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1780 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1570 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2610 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.7 L/100km | 7.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 9.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 45 L |
