2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2013 Ford E-Series
To start off, 2013 Ford E-Series is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Cadillac CTS 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 148 more horse power than 2013 Ford E-Series. (252 HP @ 4500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2013 Ford E-Series.
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 62 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Ford E-Series. (474 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Ford E-Series.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 2013 Ford E-Series | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | CTS | E-Series |
Year Released | 2006 | 2013 |
Body Type | Sedan | Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5965 cc | 5400 cc |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 252 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Torque | 536 Nm | 474 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 2500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 12 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 5504 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 2017 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 2111 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 3505 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.6 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 21.4 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 181 L |