2004 Cadillac CTS vs. 2012 Suzuki Equator
To start off, 2012 Suzuki Equator is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 3,954 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Suzuki Equator is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Suzuki Equator (261 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 41 more horse power than 2004 Cadillac CTS. (220 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Suzuki Equator should accelerate faster than 2004 Cadillac CTS. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 297 kg more than 2012 Suzuki Equator.
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, 2012 Suzuki Equator (381 Nm) has 83 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Cadillac CTS. (298 Nm). This means 2012 Suzuki Equator will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Cadillac CTS | 2012 Suzuki Equator | |
Make | Cadillac | Suzuki |
Model | CTS | Equator |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3179 cc | 3954 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 220 HP | 261 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5600 RPM |
Torque | 298 Nm | 381 Nm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.0:1 | 9.5:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1592 kg | 1295 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 5250 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1790 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 3200 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.2 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 12.5 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.4 L/100km | 7.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 66 L | 80 L |