1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 61 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford 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 209 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 338 kg more than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2013 Cadillac CTS (373 Nm @ 4900 RPM) has 189 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2013 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Cadillac |
| Model | Tickford | CTS |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 314 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 373 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4900 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1868 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4859 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2880 mm |
