2009 Cadillac CTS vs. 2012 Suzuki Equator
To start off, 2012 Suzuki Equator is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 3,599 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac CTS (263 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 113 more horse power than 2012 Suzuki Equator. (150 HP @ 5600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2012 Suzuki Equator. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 660 kg more than 2012 Suzuki Equator. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2009 Cadillac CTS is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2012 Suzuki Equator. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac CTS will offer significantly more control. 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, 2009 Cadillac CTS (343 Nm @ 3100 RPM) has 172 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Suzuki Equator. (171 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2009 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Suzuki Equator.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac CTS | 2012 Suzuki Equator | |
| Make | Cadillac | Suzuki |
| Model | CTS | Equator |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3599 cc | 2501 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 263 HP | 150 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 343 Nm | 171 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3100 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 11.3:1 | 9.5:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1635 kg | 975 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 5250 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1790 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 3200 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.4 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 7.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 80 L |
