2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2012 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2012 Holden Commodore is newer by 6 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 5,976 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Holden Commodore is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Holden Commodore (360 HP) has 149 more horse power than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (211 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 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, 2012 Holden Commodore (290 Nm) has 27 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (263 Nm). This means 2012 Holden Commodore will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 2012 Holden Commodore | |
| Make | Cadillac | Holden |
| Model | CTS | Commodore |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2786 cc | 5976 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 211 HP | 360 HP |
| Torque | 263 Nm | 290 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 14.4 L/100km |
