1982 Cadillac Cimarron vs. 1996 Ford Thunderbird
To start off, 1996 Ford Thunderbird is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Cadillac Cimarron. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Cadillac Cimarron would be higher. At 4,601 cc (8 cylinders), 1996 Ford Thunderbird is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Ford Thunderbird weights approximately 468 kg more than 1982 Cadillac Cimarron.
Because 1996 Ford Thunderbird 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 1996 Ford Thunderbird. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1982 Cadillac Cimarron, 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 Cadillac Cimarron | 1996 Ford Thunderbird | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | Cimarron | Thunderbird |
| Year Released | 1982 | 1996 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2844 cc | 4601 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 123 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1152 kg | 1620 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4530 mm | 5050 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1660 mm | 1850 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2880 mm |
