2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1996 Mercury Villager
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 10 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Mercury Villager. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Mercury Villager would be higher. At 2,960 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Mercury Villager is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (179 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 30 more horse power than 1996 Mercury Villager. (149 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1996 Mercury Villager. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Mercury Villager weights approximately 6 kg more than 2006 Cadillac CTS.
Because 2006 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 2006 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Mercury Villager, 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:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 1996 Mercury Villager | |
Make | Cadillac | Mercury |
Model | CTS | Villager |
Year Released | 2006 | 1996 |
Body Type | Sedan | Minivan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2597 cc | 2960 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 179 HP | 149 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4800 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Weight | 1794 kg | 1800 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 4950 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1910 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1790 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2860 mm |