2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2009 Mercedes-Benz C
To start off, 2009 Mercedes-Benz C 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 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 132 more horse power than 2009 Mercedes-Benz C. (268 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2009 Mercedes-Benz C.
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 (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 186 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mercedes-Benz C. (350 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mercedes-Benz C.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 2009 Mercedes-Benz C | |
Make | Cadillac | Mercedes-Benz |
Model | CTS | C |
Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5965 cc | 3497 cc |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 268 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 536 Nm | 350 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 2400 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4640 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2770 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.6 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.5 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 66 L |