1966 Triumph 2000 vs. 2010 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2010 Cadillac CTS is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Cadillac CTS (270 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 179 more horse power than 1966 Triumph 2000. (91 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1966 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 586 kg more than 1966 Triumph 2000. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2010 Cadillac CTS (302 Nm @ 5700 RPM) has 144 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2010 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Triumph 2000 | 2010 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Triumph | Cadillac |
Model | 2000 | CTS |
Year Released | 1966 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1998 cc | 3000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 91 HP | 270 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 7000 RPM |
Torque | 158 Nm | 302 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 5700 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1170 kg | 1756 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4420 mm | 4867 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1660 mm | 1842 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1504 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2880 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 68 L |