2005 Ford Explorer 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 Ford Explorer. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Ford Explorer would be higher. At 4,014 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Ford Explorer is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac CTS (314 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 104 more horse power than 2005 Ford Explorer. (210 HP @ 5500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2005 Ford Explorer. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 498 kg more than 2005 Ford Explorer. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2013 Cadillac CTS (373 Nm) has 43 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Ford Explorer. (330 Nm). This means 2013 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Ford Explorer.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Ford Explorer | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Ford | Cadillac |
| Model | Explorer | CTS |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2013 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4014 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 210 HP | 314 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 330 Nm | 373 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 100 mm | 94 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 84 mm | 86 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.7:1 | 11.3 |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1280 kg | 1778 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4820 mm | 4859 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1820 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2870 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 85 L | 68 L |
