2006 Cadillac DTS vs. 2009 Mazda RX-8
To start off, 2009 Mazda RX-8 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Cadillac DTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Cadillac DTS would be higher. At 4,572 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac DTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac DTS (275 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 43 more horse power than 2009 Mazda RX-8. (232 HP @ 8500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac DTS should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda RX-8.
Because 2009 Mazda RX-8 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 2009 Mazda RX-8. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac DTS, 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 DTS (396 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 180 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda RX-8. (216 Nm @ 5500 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac DTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda RX-8.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac DTS | 2009 Mazda RX-8 | |
Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
Model | DTS | RX-8 |
Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4572 cc | 1308 cc |
Engine Type | V | dual-disk rotary |
Horse Power | 275 HP | 232 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 8500 RPM |
Torque | 396 Nm | 216 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5280 mm | 4470 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1350 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2940 mm | 2710 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.4 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 64 L |