We thought it a good exercise to compare the dimensions of the third-gen Cadillac CTS to those of the new Cadillac CT6, since many seem to be under the impression that the two vehicles are similar in size. So, without further ado, here they are.
| Metric | 2016 Cadillac CTS | 2016 Cadillac CT6 | + / – CT6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exterior | |||
| Wheelbase: | 114.6 | 122.4 | +7.8 |
| Length: | 195.5 | 204 | +8.5 |
| Height: | 57.2 | 57.9 | +0.7 |
| Width: | 72.2 | 74 | +1.8 |
| Track (front): | 61.4 | 63.4 | +2.0 |
| Track (rear): | 61.7 | 64 | +2.3 |
| Base curb weight: | 3652 | 3657 | +5.0 |
| Weight distribution: | 50 / 50 | 51 / 49 | Not applicable |
| Interior | |||
| Legroom (front): | 42.6 | 42.4 | -0.2 |
| Legroom (rear): | 35.4 | 40.4 | +5.0 |
| Headroom (front): | 39.2 | 40.1 | +0.9 |
| Headroom (rear): | 37.5 | 38.1 | +0.6 |
| Shoulder room (front): | 56.9 | 58.2 | +1.3 |
| Shoulder room (rear): | 54.8 | 56.2 | +1.4 |
| Hip room (front): | 53.8 | 55.9 | +2.1 |
| Hip room (rear): | 53.3 | 53.5 | +0.2 |
| Metric | 2016 Cadillac CTS | 2016 Cadillac CT6 | + / – CT6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exterior | |||
| Wheelbase: | 2910 | 3109 | +199 |
| Length: | 4966 | 5184 | +218 |
| Height: | 1454 | 1472 | +18 |
| Width: | 1833 | 1879 | +46 |
| Track (front): | 1560 | 1610 | +50 |
| Track (rear): | 1588 | 1626 | +38 |
| Base curb weight: | 1656 | 1659 | +3 |
| Weight distribution: | 50 / 50 | 51 / 49 | Not applicable |
| Interior | |||
| Legroom (front): | 1081 | 1077 | 4 |
| Legroom (rear): | 899 | 1027 | +128 |
| Headroom (front): | 995 | 1020 | +25 |
| Headroom (rear): | 952 | 965 | +13 |
| Shoulder room (front): | 1446 | 1410 | -36 |
| Shoulder room (rear): | 1392 | 1427 | +35 |
| Hip room (front): | 1366 | 1420 | +54 |
| Hip room (rear): | 1353 | 1358 | +5 |
Compared to the CTS, the CT6 is larger inside and out in every dimension except for front legroom, which is roughly the same as the CTS. The magnitude of the CT6 is most notable in overall vehicle length, wheelbase, and width, which translate to significant gains in shoulder room, rear-seat legroom and front-seat hip room.
The GM Authority Take
The difference in size between the CTS and CT6 shows a clear delineation in classes, while also clearly demonstrating that there is room for both a midsize (CTS and its forthcoming replacement) and full-size (CT6) sedan in the Cadillac lineup.
Comments
There was never a doubt that there is a clear delineation in class between the CTS and CT6. There is going to be a next Gen CTS despite the lackluster sales volume of the current model.
Things become a little more muddled when comparing dimensions of the CT6 to the XTS.
I’m surprised there are only about 2″ difference in width. The CTS feels much narrower when sitting in the driver’s seat. The overall proportions of the CT6 seem just about right. If only there was a coupe…
Agree that a coupe version on the Omega platform could be really sexy.
It feels so narrow because the transmission tunnel is so large.
Which engines were used to determine the weight in both cars?
2.0 turbo 4 cylinder.
It says base curb weight, so assuming the 2.0L Turbo?
Not sure who ever got the dimensions of bothe cars confused and plus they are in a completely different class or segment . The major reason for the extra rear legroom was for the Chinese market so Cadillac wouldn’t have to build an extended length version of the CT6 . GM did not want to have to do that .
The comparison should be of the XTS vs. CT6 since Cadillac is going to hold on to the XTS longer than what was at one point going away in 2020 . I’m to lazy to look it up but i would bet the CT6 is 2-4 inches longer in over all length than the XTS .
Cadillac should have a CT8 and a new design theme by 2025 and the XTS will be long gone by than…..we’ll see.