2019 Cadillac CT6 MPG is between 14 MPG and 27 MPG depending on engine:
The 2019 Cadillac CT6 MPG to weight ratio is shown in the graph:
We calculated that 2019 Cadillac CT6 MPG is up to 47% worse than the world average consumption.
Vehicle | Consumption (city / highway) | Consumption to weight ratio | Difference from world average consumption | Driving range (full tank) | Consumption per passenger |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.6 V6 |
18
/
27 MPG
(13.1 / 8.7 L per 100 km) |
1.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 34% worse |
373—497 miles
(600—800 km) |
2.2 L per 100 km / person |
Blackwing 4.2 V8 |
14
/
25 MPG
(16.8 / 9.4 L per 100 km) |
1.5 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 47% worse |
249—497 miles
(400—800 km) |
2.8 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 3.6 V6 |
---|---|
Consumption (city / highway) |
18
/
27 MPG
(13.1 / 8.7 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 1.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 34% worse |
Driving range (full tank) | 373—497 miles (600—800 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 2.2 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | Blackwing 4.2 V8 |
Consumption (city / highway) |
14
/
25 MPG
(16.8 / 9.4 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 1.5 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 47% worse |
Driving range (full tank) | 249—497 miles (400—800 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 2.8 L per 100 km / person |
2016 Cadillac CT6 MPG is between 18 MPG and 168 MPG depending on engine:
The 2016 Cadillac CT6 MPG to weight ratio is shown in the graph:
We calculated that 2016 Cadillac CT6 MPG is up to 333% better than the world average consumption.
Vehicle | Consumption (city / highway) | Consumption to weight ratio | Difference from world average consumption | Driving range (full tank) | Consumption per passenger |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.6 V6 |
18
/
27 MPG
(13.1 / 8.7 L per 100 km) |
1.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 34% worse |
373—559 miles
(600—900 km) |
2.2 L per 100 km / person |
2.0 |
22
/
30 MPG
(10.7 / 7.8 L per 100 km) |
1.8 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 22% worse |
435—559 miles
(700—900 km) |
1.9 L per 100 km / person |
3.0 V6 |
18
/
26 MPG
(13.1 / 9 L per 100 km) |
1.7 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 34% worse |
373—497 miles
(600—800 km) |
2.2 L per 100 km / person |
2.0T LTG |
118
/
168 MPG
(2 / 1.4 L per 100 km) |
11.8 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 333% better |
1864—2610 miles
(3000—4200 km) |
0.3 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 3.6 V6 |
---|---|
Consumption (city / highway) |
18
/
27 MPG
(13.1 / 8.7 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 1.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 34% worse |
Driving range (full tank) | 373—559 miles (600—900 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 2.2 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Consumption (city / highway) |
22
/
30 MPG
(10.7 / 7.8 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 1.8 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 22% worse |
Driving range (full tank) | 435—559 miles (700—900 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 1.9 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 3.0 V6 |
Consumption (city / highway) |
18
/
26 MPG
(13.1 / 9 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 1.7 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 34% worse |
Driving range (full tank) | 373—497 miles (600—800 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 2.2 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 2.0T LTG |
Consumption (city / highway) |
118
/
168 MPG
(2 / 1.4 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 11.8 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 333% better |
Driving range (full tank) | 1864—2610 miles (3000—4200 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 0.3 L per 100 km / person |