2004 Mitsubishi eK vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mitsubishi eK. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mitsubishi eK would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 978 kg more than 2004 Mitsubishi eK.
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, 2004 Mitsubishi eK, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Mitsubishi eK | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Mitsubishi | Cadillac |
| Model | eK | CTS |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 657 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 266 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 790 kg | 1768 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3400 mm | 4788 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1480 mm | 1882 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1560 mm | 1422 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2350 mm | 2880 mm |
