1956 AC Aceca vs. 2003 Cadillac CTS-V
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS-V is newer by 47 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1956 AC Aceca. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1956 AC Aceca would be higher. At 5,666 cc (8 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS-V (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 326 more horse power than 1956 AC Aceca. (74 HP @ 4500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS-V should accelerate faster than 1956 AC Aceca. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Cadillac CTS-V weights approximately 855 kg more than 1956 AC Aceca. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1956 AC Aceca | 2003 Cadillac CTS-V | |
| Make | AC | Cadillac |
| Model | Aceca | CTS-V |
| Year Released | 1956 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1971 cc | 5666 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 74 HP | 400 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 890 kg | 1745 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4070 mm | 4870 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1330 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2290 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 66 L |
