2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2002 Ford Econovan
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Ford Econovan. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Ford Econovan would be higher. At 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 310 more horse power than 2002 Ford Econovan. (90 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2002 Ford Econovan.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2006 Cadillac CTS (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 398 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Ford Econovan. (138 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Ford Econovan.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 2002 Ford Econovan | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | CTS | Econovan |
Year Released | 2006 | 2002 |
Body Type | Sedan | Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5965 cc | 1789 cc |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 90 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 536 Nm | 138 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 2500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4290 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1640 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1870 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2210 mm |