1959 Alpine A 106 vs. 2010 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2010 Cadillac CTS is newer by 51 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1959 Alpine A 106. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1959 Alpine A 106 would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Cadillac CTS (270 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 233 more horse power than 1959 Alpine A 106. (37 HP @ 6200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1959 Alpine A 106.
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:
1959 Alpine A 106 | 2010 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Alpine | Cadillac |
Model | A 106 | CTS |
Year Released | 1959 | 2010 |
Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
Engine Position | Rear | Front |
Engine Size | 904 cc | 3000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 37 HP | 270 HP |
Engine RPM | 6200 RPM | 7000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 3700 mm | 4867 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1450 mm | 1842 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1280 mm | 1504 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2110 mm | 2880 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 28 L | 68 L |