1966 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2003 Caterham 7
To start off, 2003 Caterham 7 is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 Cadillac Sixty (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 48 more horse power than 2003 Caterham 7. (160 HP @ 7500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1966 Cadillac Sixty should accelerate faster than 2003 Caterham 7. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 1615 kg more than 2003 Caterham 7. 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.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Cadillac Sixty | 2003 Caterham 7 | |
Make | Cadillac | Caterham |
Model | Sixty | 7 |
Year Released | 1966 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 7029 cc | 1794 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 208 HP | 160 HP |
Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 7500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 2115 kg | 500 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5790 mm | 3110 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1580 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 810 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3390 mm | 2230 mm |