2002 Cadillac CTS vs. 2003 Ford 427
To start off, 2003 Ford 427 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 6,997 cc (10 cylinders), 2003 Ford 427 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford 427 (582 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 362 more horse power than 2002 Cadillac CTS. (220 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford 427 should accelerate faster than 2002 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, 2003 Ford 427 (704 Nm @ 5500 RPM) has 408 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Cadillac CTS. (296 Nm @ 3400 RPM). This means 2003 Ford 427 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Cadillac CTS | 2003 Ford 427 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | CTS | 427 |
| Year Released | 2002 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3173 cc | 6997 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 10 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 220 HP | 582 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Torque | 296 Nm | 704 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
