2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2013 Cadillac ATS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac ATS is newer by 7 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 2013 Cadillac ATS. (268 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2013 Cadillac ATS.
Because 2013 Cadillac ATS is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2006 Cadillac CTS. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac ATS will offer significantly more control. 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 183 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Cadillac ATS. (353 Nm @ 5500 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Cadillac ATS.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 2013 Cadillac ATS | |
Make | Cadillac | Cadillac |
Model | CTS | ATS |
Year Released | 2006 | 2013 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5965 cc | 2000 cc |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 268 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 536 Nm | 353 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | AWD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4643 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1806 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1420 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2776 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.6 L/100km | 7.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 61 L |