1963 Austin A 99 vs. 2009 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2009 Cadillac CTS is newer by 46 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Austin A 99. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Austin A 99 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 152 more horse power than 1963 Austin A 99. (107 HP @ 4750 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1963 Austin A 99.
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 29 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Austin A 99. (224 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2009 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Austin A 99.
Compare all specifications:
| 1963 Austin A 99 | 2009 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Austin | Cadillac |
| Model | A 99 | CTS |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2009 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2912 cc | 3564 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 107 HP | 259 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4750 RPM | 6200 RPM |
| Torque | 224 Nm | 253 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 3100 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 83.4 mm | 94 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 88.9 mm | 85 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 8.3:1 | 10.2:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
