2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2012 Holden Epica
To start off, 2012 Holden Epica 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 3,564 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (252 HP) has 104 more horse power than 2012 Holden Epica. (148 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2012 Holden Epica.
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, 2012 Holden Epica, 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 (342 Nm) has 22 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Holden Epica. (320 Nm). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Holden Epica.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 2012 Holden Epica | |
Make | Cadillac | Holden |
Model | CTS | Epica |
Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3564 cc | 1991 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 252 HP | 148 HP |
Torque | 342 Nm | 320 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 4805 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 7.5 L/100km |