2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2009 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2009 Holden Commodore is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 2,801 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Holden Commodore (240 HP) has 30 more horse power than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (210 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster than 2006 Cadillac CTS.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 (263 Nm) has 23 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Holden Commodore. (240 Nm). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Holden Commodore.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 2009 Holden Commodore | |
| Make | Cadillac | Holden |
| Model | CTS | Commodore |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2801 cc | 2564 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 210 HP | 240 HP |
| Torque | 263 Nm | 240 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.7 L/100km | 10.9 L/100km |
