2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2000 Smart ForFour
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Smart ForFour. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Smart ForFour would be higher. At 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 292 more horse power than 2000 Smart ForFour. (108 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2000 Smart ForFour.
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, 2000 Smart ForFour, 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 | 2000 Smart ForFour | |
| Make | Cadillac | Smart |
| Model | CTS | ForFour |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2000 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5965 cc | 1499 cc |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 108 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 3760 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1690 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1460 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.5 L/100km | 6.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 47 L |
