1966 Mercury Comet vs. 2005 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2005 Cadillac CTS is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Mercury Comet. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Mercury Comet would be higher. At 3,279 cc (6 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Comet is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Cadillac CTS (179 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 61 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Comet. (118 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2005 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Comet.
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, 1966 Mercury Comet (258 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 13 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Cadillac CTS. (245 Nm @ 3400 RPM). This means 1966 Mercury Comet will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Mercury Comet | 2005 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Mercury | Cadillac |
Model | Comet | CTS |
Year Released | 1966 | 2005 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3279 cc | 2597 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 118 HP | 179 HP |
Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 258 Nm | 245 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 3400 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 103.1 mm | 83.2 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 5180 mm | 4830 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1800 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1390 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 2830 mm |