1972 Mazda Cosmo vs. 2003 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 31 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1972 Mazda Cosmo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1972 Mazda Cosmo would be higher. At 2,597 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS (179 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 86 more horse power than 1972 Mazda Cosmo. (93 HP @ 7000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1972 Mazda Cosmo. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 678 kg more than 1972 Mazda Cosmo. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2003 Cadillac CTS (245 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 112 more torque (in Nm) than 1972 Mazda Cosmo. (133 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1972 Mazda Cosmo.
Compare all specifications:
1972 Mazda Cosmo | 2003 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Mazda | Cadillac |
Model | Cosmo | CTS |
Year Released | 1972 | 2003 |
Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1964 cc | 2597 cc |
Horse Power | 93 HP | 179 HP |
Engine RPM | 7000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 133 Nm | 245 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 3400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 942 kg | 1620 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4150 mm | 4840 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1600 mm | 1800 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1170 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2890 mm |