1965 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 48 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1965 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac CTS (266 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 58 more horse power than 1965 Cadillac Sixty. (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1965 Cadillac Sixty. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1965 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 294 kg more than 2013 Cadillac CTS.
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:
| 1965 Cadillac Sixty | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Cadillac | Cadillac |
| Model | Sixty | CTS |
| Year Released | 1965 | 2013 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 266 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 7000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2115 kg | 1821 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5790 mm | 4877 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3390 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 95 L | 68 L |
