2011 Cadillac
CTS 3.6
vs. 2012 Lincoln
MKZ

2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6

9.7

starting from

$42,605
"The biggest surprise though, would have to be the transmission...we were glad to have it."
automobilemag.com | talking about the CTS's transmission
"The FE3 suspension on our tester manages the car’s considerable weight with supreme competence, keeping body motions in check through quick switchbacks."
automobilemag.com | talking about the CTS's ride quality

Reasons to buy the Cadillac CTS 3.6

Badge
Good braking distance from 60mph
108 ft
Badge
Mediocre cornering
0.84 g
Badge
Worse drivetrain traction
rear-wheel drive
Badge
Average 0-60 time
6.5 seconds
2012 Lincoln MKZ

9.6

starting from

$35,520
"There are no complaints about the power."
edmunds.com | talking about the MKZ's engine
"Smart electronics integration."
edmunds.com | talking about the MKZ's controls

Reasons to buy the Lincoln MKZ

Badge
More airbags
6
Badge
Plenty of cupholders
8
Badge
Power outlets
Standard
Badge
Has a semi-automatic transmission
Entertainment System 10.0 vs 8.3
2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6 Winner: CTS 3.6
[details]
  • The CTS 3.6's subwoofer accurately reproduces deep bass notes in music
  • Both cars offer an entertainment system for passengers, but it'll cost extra to get it on the MKZ
  • The CTS 3.6 has 1 more speaker, providing a better entertainment experience, 10 vs 9
Practicality 9.2 vs 10.0
2012 Lincoln MKZ Winner: MKZ
[details]
  • The MKZ has 4 more cupholders, 8 vs 4
  • The MKZ 's standard power outlets will keep your gadgets charged; not available on the CTS 3.6
  • A standard folding rear seat on the MKZ is a great way to free up space for road trips; requires optional upgrade on the CTS 3.6
Safety Features 9.6 vs 10.0
2012 Lincoln MKZ Winner: MKZ
[details]
  • The MKZ has 1 more airbag (including Rear Side), 6 vs 5
Cost 9.8 vs 10.0
2012 Lincoln MKZ Winner: MKZ
[details]
  • The best price we've seen is $7,085 cheaper (around 20% less), $35,520 vs $42,605
Luxury Features 10.0 vs 10.0
Too close to call
[details]
  • Neither offers a sun roof
Performance - vs -
Missing information
[details]
  • Neither has an air compressor to maximize power output
  • Neither offers paddle shifters
  • Neither has a good drivetrain for off-road or bad weather driving
Crash Test Ratings - vs 10.0
Missing information
[details]
  • Poor protection, 10% to 20% chance of rolling over during emergency lane change
Road Tests 10.0 vs -
Missing information
[details]
  • Both have subpar cornering abilities
Overall 9.7 vs 9.6

Entertainment System

Cadillac
CTS 3.6
2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6
2012 Lincoln MKZ Lincoln
MKZ
Help
Number of speakers 10 vs 9 Average number of speakers
Help
Has speed sensitive volume No vs No Neither offers speed-sensitive volume
Help
CD player Standard vs Standard CD player comes standard
Help
premium radio Standard vs Standard Both come standard with satellite radio
Help
Has auxiliary audio input Yes vs Yes Both have an audio-in jack so you can plug in your own MP3 player to the stereo
Help
Has subwoofer Yes vs No The CTS 3.6 has a subwoofer to accurately produce deep bass frequencies in music
Help
entertainment system Standard vs Optional Both cars offer an entertainment system for passengers, but it'll cost extra to get it on the MKZ

Practicality

Cadillac
CTS 3.6
2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6
2012 Lincoln MKZ Lincoln
MKZ
Help
Passengers 5 vs 5 People mover
Help
Highway driving range 486 miles vs 473 miles Average highway range
Help
Cargo space 13.6 ft3 vs 16.5 ft3 Both have OK cargo room
Help
front seats 54.0 ft3 vs 54.0 ft3 Both average size front seats
Help
folding rear seats Optional vs Standard A standard folding rear seat on the MKZ is a great way to free up space for road trips; requires optional upgrade on the CTS 3.6
Help
power outlets Not Available vs Standard The MKZ 's standard power outlets will keep your gadgets charged; not available on the CTS 3.6
Help
roof rails Not Available vs Not Available Neither offers roof rails
Help
navigation system Optional vs Optional Both offer an upgrade to a navigation system
Help
Cupholders 4 vs 8 The MKZ has an absurd number of cupholders, 2 extra in front and 2 extra in rear
Help
front air conditioning Standard vs Standard A/C for hot summer days comes standard

Safety Features

Cadillac
CTS 3.6
2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6
2012 Lincoln MKZ Lincoln
MKZ
Help
antilock brakes Standard vs Standard Both come standard with ABS brakes
Help
Stability control system Yes vs Yes Both have electronic stability control
Help
Airbags 5 vs 6 The MKZ has a good number of airbags, but the CTS 3.6 is just OK (missing Rear Side)
Help
Rear brakes Disc vs Disc Both have the usual brakes for this class of vehicle
Help
child door locks Standard vs Standard Child door locks come standard
Help
Roadside assistance system OnStar vs None

Cost

Cadillac
CTS 3.6
2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6
2012 Lincoln MKZ Lincoln
MKZ
Help
MSRP $42,605 vs $35,520 Inexpensive
Help
In-city gas mileage 18 mpg vs 18 mpg Both get OK mileage in the city
Help
basic warranty miles 50,000 mile vs 50,000 mile Average basic warranty
Help
basic warranty years 4 year vs 4 year Average lasting basic warranty

Luxury Features

Cadillac
CTS 3.6
2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6
2012 Lincoln MKZ Lincoln
MKZ
Help
moon roof Not Available vs Not Available Neither offers a sun roof
Help
power seats Standard vs Standard Both have power seats
Help
keyless entry Standard vs Standard Both have keyless entry
Help
leather Standard vs Standard Both come standard with leather interiors

Performance

Cadillac
CTS 3.6
2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6
2012 Lincoln MKZ Lincoln
MKZ
Help
Horsepower 304 HP @ 6,400 RPM vs 263 HP @ 6,250 RPM The CTS 3.6 is of average power, but the MKZ is underpowered
Help
Number of gears 6 vs 6 Average number of gears
Help
Transmission Automatic transmission vs Semi-automatic transmission The MKZ 's semi-automatic transmission is a rare find for this class of vehicle
Help
paddle shifters Not Available vs Not Available Neither offers paddle shifters
Help
Air compressor None vs None Neither has an air compressor to maximize power output
Help
Power-to-weight ratio 12.7 lb/hp vs 13.7 lb/hp Both have OK performance
Help
Drivetrain type rear-wheel drive vs front-wheel drive Neither has a good drivetrain for off-road or bad weather driving
Help
Curb-to-curb turning radius Unknown vs Unknown

Crash Test Ratings

Cadillac
CTS 3.6
2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6
2012 Lincoln MKZ Lincoln
MKZ
Help
Rollover resistance 4 stars vs 4 stars Poor protection, 10% to 20% chance of rolling over during emergency lane change
Help
Front driver crash test Unknown vs 4 stars
Help
Driver side crash test Unknown vs 5 stars

Road Tests

Cadillac
CTS 3.6
2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6
2012 Lincoln MKZ Lincoln
MKZ
Help
0-60 mph 6.5 seconds vs 7.3 seconds The CTS 3.6's 0-60 time is average for this class of vehicle, but the MKZ is sluggish
Help
Braking distance at 60mph 108 ft vs 142 ft The CTS 3.6 has above average braking ability, but the MKZ is quite bad
Help
1/4 mile 14.9 s @ 95 mph vs 15.7 s @ 93 mph The CTS 3.6's 1/4 mile time is average, but the MKZ 's is quite bad
Help
Lateral acceleration 0.84 g vs 0.76 g Both have subpar cornering abilities
Help
Top speed 146 mph vs Unknown

Other Vehicles to Consider

2011 Cadillac CTS 3.6 2011 Chrysler 300 300C CTS 3.6 vs 300 300C
2012 Lincoln MKZ 2011 Cadillac CTS CTS-V MKZ vs CTS CTS-V

Comments Which car would you recommend, and why?

Showing 1 comments

Avatar for Jay Boogie Jay Boogie (6:47 AM, November 13, 2013)
You can't really compare the 2 because the Mkz sits in it the shadow of the Fusion.Which is not necessarily a bad thing. While still a nice car offering more standard features and a hybrid option the Mkz is not a direct competitor to the Cts nor the better car.Ford is capable of dropping a Bomb Shell yet pulls out a pack of sparkles in this case. Which is upsetting because Ford has owned some very storied and premium nameplates in the luxury segment(ASTON&JAG).While those former offerings were considered high end ,What happened to the trickle down affect? Ford still has the tech,the engineers and the designers!...Come On Now Ford being gun shy will get you executed these days. and that's not a good look for the Lincoln brand