2004 Subaru Outback vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS-V
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS-V is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Subaru Outback. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Subaru Outback would be higher. At 6,200 cc (8 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac CTS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac CTS-V (548 HP @ 6100 RPM) has 335 more horse power than 2004 Subaru Outback. (213 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS-V should accelerate faster than 2004 Subaru Outback. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS-V weights approximately 276 kg more than 2004 Subaru Outback. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2004 Subaru Outback is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2013 Cadillac CTS-V. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Subaru Outback will offer significantly more control. 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, 2013 Cadillac CTS-V (747 Nm) has 462 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Subaru Outback. (285 Nm). This means 2013 Cadillac CTS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Subaru Outback.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Subaru Outback | 2013 Cadillac CTS-V | |
| Make | Subaru | Cadillac |
| Model | Outback | CTS-V |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2999 cc | 6200 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | boxer | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 213 HP | 548 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6100 RPM |
| Torque | 285 Nm | 747 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 89 mm | 103 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 80 mm | 92 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.7:1 | 9.1 |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1637 kg | 1913 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4690 mm | 4788 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1750 mm | 1884 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1422 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.1 L/100km | 12.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 68 L |
