2000 Cadillac XLR vs. 2003 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2003 Ford Ecosport is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Cadillac XLR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Cadillac XLR would be higher. At 4,565 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Cadillac XLR is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Cadillac XLR (301 HP) has 192 more horse power than 2003 Ford Ecosport. (109 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Cadillac XLR should accelerate faster than 2003 Ford Ecosport.
Because 2000 Cadillac XLR is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2000 Cadillac XLR. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. 2000 Cadillac XLR has automatic transmission and 2003 Ford Ecosport has manual transmission. 2003 Ford Ecosport will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2000 Cadillac XLR will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Cadillac XLR | 2003 Ford Ecosport | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | XLR | Ecosport |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2003 |
| Body Type | Convertible | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4565 cc | 1600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 301 HP | 109 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4520 mm | 4228 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1980 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1290 mm | 1679 mm |
