2009 Cadillac CTS vs. 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander
To start off, 2009 Cadillac CTS is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander would be higher. At 3,564 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac CTS (307 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 144 more horse power than 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander. (163 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 278 kg more than 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2009 Cadillac CTS (374 Nm) has 161 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander. (213 Nm). This means 2009 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac CTS | 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mitsubishi |
| Model | CTS | Outlander |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3564 cc | 2376 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 307 HP | 163 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 374 Nm | 213 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 94 mm | 87 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 85.6 mm | 100 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.0:1 | 9.5:1 |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1788 kg | 1510 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4550 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1790 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1690 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2760 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.1 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 59 L |
