1982 Austin Princess vs. 2003 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Austin Princess. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Austin Princess would be higher. At 2,597 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 460 kg more than 1982 Austin Princess.
Because 2003 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 2003 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1982 Austin Princess, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1982 Austin Princess | 2003 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Austin | Cadillac |
| Model | Princess | CTS |
| Year Released | 1982 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1700 cc | 2597 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 179 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1160 kg | 1620 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4460 mm | 4840 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2690 mm | 2890 mm |
