2002 Cadillac CTS vs. 2003 Ford Econoline
To start off, 2003 Ford Econoline 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 4,195 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Ford Econoline is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Cadillac CTS (220 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 23 more horse power than 2003 Ford Econoline. (197 HP @ 4700 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2002 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2003 Ford Econoline. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Ford Econoline weights approximately 707 kg more 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 Econoline (338 Nm @ 2700 RPM) has 42 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Cadillac CTS. (296 Nm @ 3400 RPM). This means 2003 Ford Econoline 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 Econoline | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | CTS | Econoline |
Year Released | 2002 | 2003 |
Body Type | Sedan | Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3173 cc | 4195 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 220 HP | 197 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4700 RPM |
Torque | 296 Nm | 338 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 2700 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1618 kg | 2325 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 5390 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 2020 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 2060 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 3510 mm |