1950 Austin A 40 vs. 2009 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2009 Cadillac CTS is newer by 59 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1950 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1950 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 3,564 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac CTS (259 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 210 more horse power than 1950 Austin A 40. (49 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1950 Austin A 40.
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, 2009 Cadillac CTS (253 Nm @ 3100 RPM) has 170 more torque (in Nm) than 1950 Austin A 40. (83 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2009 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1950 Austin A 40.
Compare all specifications:
| 1950 Austin A 40 | 2009 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Austin | Cadillac |
| Model | A 40 | CTS |
| Year Released | 1950 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Convertible | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1198 cc | 3564 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 49 HP | 259 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 6200 RPM |
| Torque | 83 Nm | 253 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3100 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 65.5 mm | 94 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 89 mm | 85 mm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
