2005 Cadillac CTS vs. 2009 Mazda 5
To start off, 2009 Mazda 5 is newer by 4 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 102 more horse power than 2009 Mazda 5. (153 HP @ 6500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda 5.
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, 2009 Mazda 5, 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, 2005 Cadillac CTS (343 Nm) has 142 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 5. (201 Nm). This means 2005 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 5.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Cadillac CTS | 2009 Mazda 5 | |
Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
Model | CTS | 5 |
Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
Body Type | Sedan | Minivan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3564 cc | 2258 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 255 HP | 153 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6500 RPM |
Torque | 343 Nm | 201 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 6 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4620 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1640 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2760 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 60 L |