2006 Mazda 6 vs. 2010 Cadillac BLS
To start off, 2010 Cadillac BLS is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 2,262 cc, 2006 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda 6 (160 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 12 more horse power than 2010 Cadillac BLS. (148 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2010 Cadillac BLS. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Cadillac BLS weights approximately 249 kg more than 2006 Mazda 6.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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, 2010 Cadillac BLS (320 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 110 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda 6. (210 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2010 Cadillac BLS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Mazda 6 | 2010 Cadillac BLS | |
Make | Mazda | Cadillac |
Model | 6 | BLS |
Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2262 cc | 1910 cc |
Horse Power | 160 HP | 148 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 210 Nm | 320 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1386 kg | 1635 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4750 mm | 4690 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1480 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2680 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.7 L/100km | 6.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 58 L |