2007 Cadillac XLR vs. 2010 Ford E-250
To start off, 2010 Ford E-250 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2007 Cadillac XLR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2007 Cadillac XLR would be higher. At 4,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Ford E-250 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Cadillac XLR (443 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 178 more horse power than 2010 Ford E-250. (265 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Cadillac XLR should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford E-250.
Because 2007 Cadillac XLR 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 2007 Cadillac XLR. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Ford E-250, 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, 2007 Cadillac XLR (561 Nm @ 3900 RPM) has 222 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Ford E-250. (339 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2007 Cadillac XLR will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Ford E-250.
Compare all specifications:
2007 Cadillac XLR | 2010 Ford E-250 | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | XLR | E-250 |
Year Released | 2007 | 2010 |
Body Type | Convertible | Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4376 cc | 4600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 443 HP | 265 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 561 Nm | 339 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3900 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Vehicle Length | 4520 mm | 4717 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1925 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1290 mm | 1702 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2690 mm | 2824 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 72 L |