2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2010 GMC Yukon
To start off, 2010 GMC Yukon is newer by 4 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 6,000 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 GMC Yukon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 68 more horse power than 2010 GMC Yukon. (332 HP @ 5100 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2010 GMC Yukon.
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 39 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 GMC Yukon. (497 Nm @ 4100 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 GMC Yukon.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 2010 GMC Yukon | |
Make | Cadillac | GMC |
Model | CTS | Yukon |
Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5965 cc | 6000 cc |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 332 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5100 RPM |
Torque | 536 Nm | 497 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 4100 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 8 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 5131 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 2007 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1953 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2946 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.6 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 91 L |