2005 Dodge Neon 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 Dodge Neon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Dodge Neon 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 84 more horse power than 2005 Dodge Neon. (230 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2005 Dodge Neon. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 542 kg more than 2005 Dodge Neon. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 2005 Dodge Neon, 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. Let's talk about torque, 2013 Cadillac CTS (373 Nm) has 34 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Dodge Neon. (339 Nm). This means 2013 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Dodge Neon.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Dodge Neon | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Dodge | Cadillac |
| Model | Neon | CTS |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2425 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 230 HP | 314 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 373 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 87 mm | 94 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 101 mm | 86 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 8.1:1 | 11.3 |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1315 kg | 1857 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 4877 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 7.8 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 10.7 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.4 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 47 L | 68 L |
