2000 Chrysler Sebring vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Chrysler Sebring. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Chrysler Sebring would be higher. At 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 381 kg more than 2000 Chrysler Sebring.
Because 2013 Cadillac CTS 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 2013 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Chrysler Sebring, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Chrysler Sebring | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Chrysler | Cadillac |
| Model | Sebring | CTS |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3000 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 314 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1476 kg | 1857 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4877 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2640 mm | 2880 mm |
