1960 Seat 600 vs. 2003 Cadillac CTS

To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Seat 600. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Seat 600 would be higher. At 2,597 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS (179 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 160 more horse power than 1960 Seat 600. (19 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1960 Seat 600. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 1045 kg more than 1960 Seat 600. 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. Let's talk about torque, 2003 Cadillac CTS (245 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 205 more torque (in Nm) than 1960 Seat 600. (40 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1960 Seat 600.

Compare all specifications:

1960 Seat 600 2003 Cadillac CTS
Make Seat Cadillac
Model 600 CTS
Year Released 1960 2003
Engine Position Rear Front
Engine Size 598 cc 2597 cc
Engine Cylinders 4 cylinders 6 cylinders
Engine Type in-line V
Valves per Cylinder 2 valves 4 valves
Horse Power 19 HP 179 HP
Engine RPM 4600 RPM 6000 RPM
Torque 40 Nm 245 Nm
Torque RPM 3000 RPM 3400 RPM
Fuel Type Gasoline Gasoline
Drive Type Rear Rear
Vehicle Weight 575 kg 1620 kg
Vehicle Length 3300 mm 4840 mm
Vehicle Width 1390 mm 1800 mm
Vehicle Height 1360 mm 1450 mm
Wheelbase Size 2010 mm 2890 mm