2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 2012 Holden Cruze
To start off, 2012 Holden Cruze is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 2,597 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS (179 HP) has 18 more horse power than 2012 Holden Cruze. (161 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2012 Holden Cruze.
Because 2003 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 2003 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Holden Cruze, 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, 2012 Holden Cruze (360 Nm) has 115 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Cadillac CTS. (245 Nm). This means 2012 Holden Cruze will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Cadillac CTS | 2012 Holden Cruze | |
| Make | Cadillac | Holden |
| Model | CTS | Cruze |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2597 cc | 1991 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 179 HP | 161 HP |
| Torque | 245 Nm | 360 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4597 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1788 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1477 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2685 mm |
