2006 Ford Ranger vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Ford Ranger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Ford Ranger would be higher. At 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac CTS (314 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 166 more horse power than 2006 Ford Ranger. (148 HP @ 4900 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2006 Ford Ranger. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 126 kg more than 2006 Ford Ranger. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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 Cadillac CTS (373 Nm @ 4900 RPM) has 129 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Ford Ranger. (244 Nm @ 3950 RPM). This means 2013 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Ford Ranger.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Ford Ranger | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Ford | Cadillac |
Model | Ranger | CTS |
Year Released | 2006 | 2013 |
Body Type | Pickup | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2983 cc | 3600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 148 HP | 314 HP |
Engine RPM | 4900 RPM | 6800 RPM |
Torque | 244 Nm | 373 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3950 RPM | 4900 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 88.9 mm | 94 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 78.7 mm | 86 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.3:1 | 11.3 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 3 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1642 kg | 1768 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5160 mm | 4788 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1882 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1442 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3200 mm | 2880 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.2 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 74 L | 68 L |