2009 Cadillac BLS vs. 2004 Mazda 6
To start off, 2009 Cadillac BLS is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 2,966 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Mazda 6 (220 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 44 more horse power than 2009 Cadillac BLS. (176 HP @ 5500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2009 Cadillac BLS. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Cadillac BLS weights approximately 29 kg more than 2004 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, 2009 Cadillac BLS (265 Nm) has 8 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda 6. (257 Nm). This means 2009 Cadillac BLS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Cadillac BLS | 2004 Mazda 6 | |
Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
Model | BLS | 6 |
Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1998 cc | 2966 cc |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 176 HP | 220 HP |
Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 265 Nm | 257 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1566 kg | 1537 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4690 mm | 4780 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1460 mm | 1790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2680 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 15.7 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 58 L | 68 L |