Cadillac CTS II
Car comparison
Cadillac CTS II V 6.2 V8vsMaybach Landaulet 6.0 V12
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonMaybach Landaulet
6.0 V12
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Maybach Landaulet 6.0 V12
- Most powerful612 hp456 kW
- Highest torque1,000 Nm738 lb-ft
- Lowest combined fuel consumption15.8 L/100 km14.9 mpg US17.9 mpg UK
- Best estimated range696 km433 mi
- Largest trunk590 L
- Best economy score65/100
- Best practicality score75/100
Cadillac CTS II V 6.2 V8
- Quickest 0-100 km/h3.9 s
- Fastest top speed265 km/h165 mph Unrestricted250 km/h155 mph Restricted
- Lightest1,915 kg4,222 lb
- Best power-to-weight295 hp/t220 kW/t3.4 kg/hp
- Best overall score81/100
- Best performance score86/100
Specification comparison
| Model | CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 564hp421kW | 612hp456kW |
| Torque | 747Nm551lb-ft | 1,000Nm738lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,915kg4,222lb | 2,855kg6,294lb |
| Gross weight | - | 3,380kg7,452lb |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph Calculated | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph Calculated |
| To 99% top speed | 37.2s99% target: 262 km/h / 163 mph Calculated | 53.1s99% target: 262 km/h / 163 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 3.9s | 5.1s |
| 0-200 km/h | 11.5s Calculated | 15.6s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 3.7s Calculated | 4.9s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 16.8L/100 km14mpg US16.8mpg UK | 15.8L/100 km14.9mpg US17.9mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 19.6L/100 km12mpg US14.4mpg UK | - |
| Fuel consumption highway | 13.1L/100 km18mpg US21.6mpg UK | - |
| Quarter mile | 11.7s Calculated | 13.1s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 295hp/t220kW/t134hp/1000 lb Calculated | 214hp/t160kW/t97hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 390Nm/t261lb-ft/ton Calculated | 350Nm/t234lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 405km252mi Calculated | 696km433mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 6,162cc376cu in | 5,980cc365cu in |
| Length | 4,859mm191in | - |
| Width | 1,842mm73in | - |
| Height | 1,473mm58in | - |
| Wheelbase | 2,880mm113in | - |
| Front track | 1,575mm62in | - |
| Rear track | 1,577mm62in | - |
| Trunk volume | 385L | 590L |
| Doors | 4 | 4 |
| Seats | 5 | 4 |
| Fuel tank | 68L | 110L |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Cadillac CTS II V 6.2 V8: Power / Torque
- Maybach Landaulet 6.0 V12: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 6,100 rpm | 3,800 rpm | 6,350 rpm |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 4,800-5,100 rpm | 2,000-4,000 rpm | 5,350 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 3.7 s | 4.9 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 3.9 s | 5.1 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 11.5 s | 15.6 s |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph Likely limited | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph Limited |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.1 s | 2.4 s |
330 ft 101 m | 5.3 s | 5.9 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 7.7 s | 8.7 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 9.9 s | 11.1 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 11.7 s | 13.1 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 202 km/h 125 mph | 184 km/h 114 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 564 hp 421 kW |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 612 hp 456 kW |
Maybach Landaulet 6.0 V12 has 48 hp more than Cadillac CTS II V 6.2 V8.
The biggest power difference is between Cadillac CTS II V 6.2 V8 and Maybach Landaulet 6.0 V12: 48 hp (36 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 747 Nm 551 lb-ft |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 1,000 Nm 738 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 1,915 kg 4,222 lb |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 2,855 kg 6,294 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 3.9 s |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 5.1 s |
Although Maybach Landaulet 6.0 V12 has more power, Cadillac CTS II V 6.2 V8 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Cadillac CTS II V 6.2 V8 and Maybach Landaulet 6.0 V12: 1.2 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 16.8 L/100 km 14.0 mpg US 16.8 mpg UK |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 15.8 L/100 km 14.9 mpg US 17.9 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Maybach Landaulet 6.0 V12 and Cadillac CTS II V 6.2 V8: 1.0 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 295 hp/t 220 kW/t 3.4 kg/hp |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 214 hp/t 160 kW/t 4.7 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 405 km 252 mi |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 696 km 433 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 564 hp 421 kW | 3.9 s | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 612 hp 456 kW | 5.1 s | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 |
| 16.8 L/100 km 14.0 mpg US 16.8 mpg UK | ||||||
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 |
| 15.8 L/100 km 14.9 mpg US 17.9 mpg UK | ||||||
Maybach Landaulet 6.0 V12 is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 16.8 L/100 km 14.0 mpg US 16.8 mpg UK | 3.9 s |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 15.8 L/100 km 14.9 mpg US 17.9 mpg UK | 5.1 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | 295 hp/t 220 kW/t 3.4 kg/hp | 16.8 L/100 km 14.0 mpg US 16.8 mpg UK |
| MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | 214 hp/t 160 kW/t 4.7 kg/hp | 15.8 L/100 km 14.9 mpg US 17.9 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | CadillacCTS IIV 6.2 V8 | MaybachLandaulet6.0 V12 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 564 hp 421 kW | 612 hp 456 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 747 Nm 551 lb-ft | 1,000 Nm 738 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 3.9 s | 5.1 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,915 kg 4,222 lb | 2,855 kg 6,294 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 16.8 L/100 km 14.0 mpg US 16.8 mpg UK | 15.8 L/100 km 14.9 mpg US 17.9 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 405 km 252 mi | 696 km 433 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 385 L 13.6 cu ft | 590 L 20.8 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 295 hp/t 220 kW/t 3.4 kg/hp | 214 hp/t 160 kW/t 4.7 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Cadillac CTS II V 6.2 V8 | Maybach Landaulet 6.0 V12 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 16.8 L/100 km14 mpg US16.8 mpg UK | 15.8 L/100 km14.9 mpg US17.9 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 29.40 LC100 km | 27.65 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 47.31 LC100 mi | 44.50 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 2,520 L666 US gal554 UK gal | 2,370 L626 US gal521 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 4,410 LC/year | 4,148 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Cadillac CTS II V 6.2 V8
- Is 940 kg lighter
- Is 1.2 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 80 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Smallest trunk
Maybach Landaulet 6.0 V12
- Has 48 hp more
- Has 253 Nm more
- Uses 1.0 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 291 km (181 mi) more estimated range
- Has 205 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Heaviest
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























