1967 Audi Variant vs. 2006 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Audi Variant. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Audi Variant would be higher. At 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 321 more horse power than 1967 Audi Variant. (79 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1967 Audi Variant.
Because 2006 Cadillac CTS is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2006 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1967 Audi Variant, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2006 Cadillac CTS (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 403 more torque (in Nm) than 1967 Audi Variant. (133 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1967 Audi Variant.
Compare all specifications:
| 1967 Audi Variant | 2006 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Audi | Cadillac |
| Model | Variant | CTS |
| Year Released | 1967 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1696 cc | 5965 cc |
| Horse Power | 79 HP | 400 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 133 Nm | 536 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4390 mm | 4870 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2500 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 58 L | 64 L |
