1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass vs. 2003 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 27 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 3,344 cc (6 cylinders), 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS (179 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 19 more horse power than 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass. (160 HP @ 3600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass.
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, 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass (251 Nm) has 6 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Cadillac CTS. (245 Nm). This means 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass | 2003 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Oldsmobile | Cadillac |
| Model | Cutlass | CTS |
| Year Released | 1976 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3344 cc | 2597 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 160 HP | 179 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 251 Nm | 245 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.0:1 | 10.2:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4840 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2890 mm |
