2004 Ford Econoline 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 Econoline. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Econoline would be higher. At 4,195 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Econoline is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Cadillac CTS (318 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 121 more horse power than 2004 Ford Econoline. (197 HP @ 4700 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Econoline. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford Econoline weights approximately 547 kg more than 2012 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, 2012 Cadillac CTS (372 Nm @ 4900 RPM) has 34 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Ford Econoline. (338 Nm @ 2700 RPM). This means 2012 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Ford Econoline.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Ford Econoline | 2012 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Ford | Cadillac |
Model | Econoline | CTS |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Van | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4195 cc | 3600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 318 HP |
Engine RPM | 4700 RPM | 6800 RPM |
Torque | 338 Nm | 372 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2700 RPM | 4900 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 2325 kg | 1778 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5390 mm | 4859 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2020 mm | 1842 mm |
Vehicle Height | 2060 mm | 1473 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 2880 mm |