1969 Dodge Challenger vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1969 Dodge Challenger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1969 Dodge Challenger would be higher. At 6,286 cc (8 cylinders), 1969 Dodge Challenger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac CTS (266 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 66 more horse power than 1969 Dodge Challenger. (200 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1969 Dodge Challenger. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 202 kg more than 1969 Dodge Challenger. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1969 Dodge Challenger (422 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 49 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Cadillac CTS. (373 Nm @ 4900 RPM). This means 1969 Dodge Challenger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 1969 Dodge Challenger | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Dodge | Cadillac |
| Model | Challenger | CTS |
| Year Released | 1969 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Convertible | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6286 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 200 HP | 266 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 422 Nm | 373 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 4900 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.0:1 | 11.3 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1566 kg | 1768 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4788 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1882 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1290 mm | 1422 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 68 L |
