2005 Chevrolet Equinox vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS 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 CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac CTS (314 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 129 more horse power than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. (185 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 198 kg more than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2013 Cadillac CTS is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS 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 (373 Nm) has 88 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. (285 Nm). This means 2013 Cadillac CTS 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 CTS | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Cadillac |
| Model | Equinox | CTS |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2013 |
| Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
| 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 | 314 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 285 Nm | 373 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 92 mm | 94 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 84 mm | 86 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 11.3 |
| Drive Type | Front | AWD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1660 kg | 1858 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4800 mm | 4788 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1882 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1442 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.6 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.5 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.4 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 68 L |
