2005 Chevrolet Equinox vs. 2013 Cadillac ATS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac ATS is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Chevrolet Equinox would be higher. At 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac ATS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac ATS (317 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 132 more horse power than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. (185 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac ATS should accelerate faster than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Chevrolet Equinox weights approximately 143 kg more than 2013 Cadillac ATS.
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 ATS (373 Nm) has 88 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. (285 Nm). This means 2013 Cadillac ATS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Chevrolet Equinox | 2013 Cadillac ATS | |
Make | Chevrolet | Cadillac |
Model | Equinox | ATS |
Year Released | 2005 | 2013 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3425 cc | 3600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 185 HP | 317 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6800 RPM |
Torque | 285 Nm | 373 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 92.1 mm | 94 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 84 mm | 86 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 11.5 |
Drive Type | 4WD | AWD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1713 kg | 1570 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4800 mm | 4643 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1806 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1417 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2810 mm | 2776 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.4 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 61 L |