2009 Chevrolet HHR vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Chevrolet HHR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Chevrolet HHR would be higher. At 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac CTS (314 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 142 more horse power than 2009 Chevrolet HHR. (172 HP @ 5800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2009 Chevrolet HHR.
Because 2013 Cadillac CTS is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Chevrolet HHR. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 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, 2013 Cadillac CTS (373 Nm @ 4900 RPM) has 147 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Chevrolet HHR. (226 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2013 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Chevrolet HHR.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Chevrolet HHR | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Cadillac |
| Model | HHR | CTS |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2401 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 172 HP | 314 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5800 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 226 Nm | 373 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4900 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 4877 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2640 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.3 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 10.8 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 68 L |
