2006 Ford E-150 vs. 2010 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2010 Cadillac CTS is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Ford E-150. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Ford E-150 would be higher. At 4,604 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Ford E-150 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Cadillac CTS (270 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 45 more horse power than 2006 Ford E-150. (225 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2006 Ford E-150.
Let's talk about torque, 2006 Ford E-150 (388 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 86 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Cadillac CTS. (302 Nm @ 5700 RPM). This means 2006 Ford E-150 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Ford E-150 | 2010 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Ford | Cadillac |
| Model | E-150 | CTS |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Van | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4604 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 225 HP | 270 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 7000 RPM |
| Torque | 388 Nm | 302 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 5700 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5390 mm | 4867 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 2060 mm | 1504 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 13.1 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 68 L |
