1982 Bristol Brigand vs. 2004 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2004 Cadillac CTS is newer by 22 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Bristol Brigand. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Bristol Brigand would be higher. At 5,898 cc (8 cylinders), 1982 Bristol Brigand is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 22 kg more than 1982 Bristol Brigand.
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. 1982 Bristol Brigand has automatic transmission and 2004 Cadillac CTS has manual transmission. 2004 Cadillac CTS will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1982 Bristol Brigand will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1982 Bristol Brigand | 2004 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Bristol | Cadillac |
Model | Brigand | CTS |
Year Released | 1982 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5898 cc | 2597 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 179 HP |
Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 83.2 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 90.9 mm | 79.6 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 8.0:1 | 10.0:1 |
Top Speed | 241 km/hour | 223 km/hour |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1758 kg | 1780 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5010 mm | 4830 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1800 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2910 mm | 2950 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 82 L | 68 L |