2012 Suzuki Equator vs. 2013 Cadillac XTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac XTS is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2012 Suzuki Equator. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2012 Suzuki Equator would be higher. At 3,564 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac XTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac XTS (314 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 164 more horse power than 2012 Suzuki Equator. (150 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac XTS should accelerate faster than 2012 Suzuki Equator. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac XTS weights approximately 842 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 2012 Suzuki Equator 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 2012 Suzuki Equator. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac XTS, 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, 2013 Cadillac XTS (358 Nm @ 5200 RPM) has 187 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Suzuki Equator. (171 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2013 Cadillac XTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Suzuki Equator.
Compare all specifications:
| 2012 Suzuki Equator | 2013 Cadillac XTS | |
| Make | Suzuki | Cadillac |
| Model | Equator | XTS |
| Year Released | 2012 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Pickup | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2501 cc | 3564 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 150 HP | 314 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 171 Nm | 358 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 11.5 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 975 kg | 1817 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5250 mm | 5131 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1852 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1790 mm | 1510 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3200 mm | 2831 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.2 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 72 L |
