1963 BMW 502 vs. 2006 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 BMW 502. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 BMW 502 would be higher. At 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 242 more horse power than 1963 BMW 502. (158 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1963 BMW 502.
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, 2006 Cadillac CTS (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 296 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 BMW 502. (240 Nm @ 3600 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 BMW 502.
Compare all specifications:
1963 BMW 502 | 2006 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | BMW | Cadillac |
Model | 502 | CTS |
Year Released | 1963 | 2006 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3168 cc | 5965 cc |
Horse Power | 158 HP | 400 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 240 Nm | 536 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4740 mm | 4870 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1800 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1540 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 54 L | 64 L |