2001 Ford Econoline vs. 2012 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2012 Cadillac CTS is newer by 11 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2001 Ford Econoline. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2001 Ford Econoline would be higher. At 4,194 cc (6 cylinders), 2001 Ford Econoline is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Cadillac CTS (270 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 73 more horse power than 2001 Ford Econoline. (197 HP @ 4700 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2001 Ford Econoline. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2001 Ford Econoline weights approximately 577 kg more than 2012 Cadillac CTS.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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. Let's talk about torque, 2001 Ford Econoline (338 Nm @ 2700 RPM) has 36 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Cadillac CTS. (302 Nm @ 5700 RPM). This means 2001 Ford Econoline will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
2001 Ford Econoline | 2012 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Ford | Cadillac |
Model | Econoline | CTS |
Year Released | 2001 | 2012 |
Body Type | Van | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4194 cc | 3000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 270 HP |
Engine RPM | 4700 RPM | 7000 RPM |
Torque | 338 Nm | 302 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2700 RPM | 5700 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 2325 kg | 1748 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5390 mm | 4788 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2020 mm | 1842 mm |
Vehicle Height | 2060 mm | 1422 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 2880 mm |