2002 Daewoo Kalos vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 11 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Daewoo Kalos. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Daewoo Kalos would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac CTS (266 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 174 more horse power than 2002 Daewoo Kalos. (92 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2002 Daewoo Kalos. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 738 kg more than 2002 Daewoo Kalos. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 2002 Daewoo Kalos, 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. Let's talk about torque, 2013 Cadillac CTS (373 Nm @ 4900 RPM) has 243 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Daewoo Kalos. (130 Nm @ 3400 RPM). This means 2013 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Daewoo Kalos. 2013 Cadillac CTS has automatic transmission and 2002 Daewoo Kalos has manual transmission. 2002 Daewoo Kalos will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2013 Cadillac CTS will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Daewoo Kalos | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Daewoo | Cadillac |
| Model | Kalos | CTS |
| Year Released | 2002 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1399 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 92 HP | 266 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 130 Nm | 373 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 4900 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 77.9 mm | 94 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 73.4 mm | 86 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 11.3 |
| Acceleration 0-100mph | 11.4 seconds | 7.3 seconds |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1030 kg | 1768 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3890 mm | 4788 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1680 mm | 1882 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1500 mm | 1422 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 6.1 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 8.6 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 45 L | 68 L |
