2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1996 Mitsubishi FTO

To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 10 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Mitsubishi FTO. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Mitsubishi FTO would be higher. At 2,597 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Mitsubishi FTO (195 HP) has 16 more horse power than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (179 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Mitsubishi FTO should accelerate faster 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 Mitsubishi FTO, 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, 2006 Cadillac CTS (232 Nm) has 30 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Mitsubishi FTO. (202 Nm). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Mitsubishi FTO. 1996 Mitsubishi FTO has automatic transmission and 2006 Cadillac CTS has manual transmission. 2006 Cadillac CTS will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1996 Mitsubishi FTO will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: