1982 Lancia A 112 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 Lancia A 112. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Lancia A 112 would be higher. At 3,173 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 1135 kg more than 1982 Lancia A 112.
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 Lancia A 112, 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. 2004 Cadillac CTS has automatic transmission and 1982 Lancia A 112 has manual transmission. 1982 Lancia A 112 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2004 Cadillac CTS will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1982 Lancia A 112 | 2004 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Lancia | Cadillac |
| Model | A 112 | CTS |
| Year Released | 1982 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Sedan |
| Engine Size | 903 cc | 3173 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 215 HP |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 655 kg | 1790 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3230 mm | 4830 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1490 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2040 mm | 2750 mm |
