2004 Ford E-250 vs. 2012 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2012 Cadillac CTS is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Ford E-250. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford E-250 would be higher. At 4,605 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford E-250 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Cadillac CTS (318 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 93 more horse power than 2004 Ford E-250. (225 HP @ 6150 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford E-250. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford E-250 weights approximately 592 kg more than 2012 Cadillac CTS.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Ford E-250 (389 Nm) has 17 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Cadillac CTS. (372 Nm). This means 2004 Ford E-250 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Ford E-250 | 2012 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Ford | Cadillac |
Model | E-250 | CTS |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Van | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4605 cc | 3600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 225 HP | 318 HP |
Engine RPM | 6150 RPM | 6800 RPM |
Torque | 389 Nm | 372 Nm |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 3 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2370 kg | 1778 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5900 mm | 4859 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2020 mm | 1842 mm |
Vehicle Height | 2140 mm | 1473 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 2880 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 68 L |