2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, both 2006 Cadillac CTS and 2006 Mazda 3 were released in the same year (2006). Therefore the support and the availability on parts for both vehicles should be relatively similar. 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 252 more horse power than 2006 Mazda 3. (148 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2006 Mazda 3.
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, 2006 Mazda 3, 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 (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 349 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda 3. (187 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
Model | CTS | 3 |
Year Released | 2006 | 2006 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5965 cc | 1999 cc |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 148 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 536 Nm | 187 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4500 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2650 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.5 L/100km | 7.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 55 L |