1982 Dodge Omni 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 Dodge Omni. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Dodge Omni would be higher. At 2,597 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 785 kg more than 1982 Dodge Omni.
Because 2004 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 2004 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1982 Dodge Omni, 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 Dodge Omni | 2004 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Dodge | Cadillac |
Model | Omni | CTS |
Year Released | 1982 | 2004 |
Body Type | Hatchback | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1716 cc | 2597 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 179 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
Top Speed | 146 km/hour | 223 km/hour |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 995 kg | 1780 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4400 mm | 4830 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1800 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1300 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2530 mm | 2950 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 49 L | 68 L |