2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2013 Lotus Evora
To start off, 2013 Lotus Evora 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. In terms of performance, 2013 Lotus Evora (276 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 65 more horse power than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (211 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Lotus Evora should accelerate faster than 2006 Cadillac CTS. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 153 kg more than 2013 Lotus Evora.
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, 2013 Lotus Evora (350 Nm @ 4600 RPM) has 87 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (263 Nm @ 3300 RPM). This means 2013 Lotus Evora will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 2013 Lotus Evora | |
| Make | Cadillac | Lotus |
| Model | CTS | Evora |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Middle |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 211 HP | 276 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6400 RPM |
| Torque | 263 Nm | 350 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3300 RPM | 4600 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1592 kg | 1439 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4350 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 2047 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1229 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2575 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.7 L/100km | 6.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 13.3 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 60 L |
