1966 BMW 2000 vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 47 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 BMW 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 BMW 2000 would be higher. At 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 674 kg more than 1966 BMW 2000.
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:
| 1966 BMW 2000 | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | BMW | Cadillac |
| Model | 2000 | CTS |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2013 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1991 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 314 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1104 kg | 1778 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4530 mm | 4859 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2560 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 68 L |
