2005 Chrysler 300 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 Chrysler 300. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Chrysler 300 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 60 more horse power than 2005 Chrysler 300. (254 HP @ 6400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2005 Chrysler 300. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Chrysler 300 weights approximately 22 kg more than 2013 Cadillac CTS.
Let's talk about torque, 2013 Cadillac CTS (373 Nm) has 41 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Chrysler 300. (332 Nm). This means 2013 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Chrysler 300.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Chrysler 300 | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Chrysler | Cadillac |
Model | 300 | CTS |
Year Released | 2005 | 2013 |
Body Type | Station Wagon | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3518 cc | 3600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 254 HP | 314 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6800 RPM |
Torque | 332 Nm | 373 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 96 mm | 94 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 81 mm | 86 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.9:1 | 11.3 |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1880 kg | 1858 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5010 mm | 4788 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1882 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1442 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3160 mm | 2880 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 72 L | 68 L |