1983 Audi 80 vs. 2006 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 23 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1983 Audi 80. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1983 Audi 80 would be higher. At 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 310 more horse power than 1983 Audi 80. (90 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1983 Audi 80.
Because 2006 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 2006 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1983 Audi 80, 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. Let's talk about torque, 2006 Cadillac CTS (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 389 more torque (in Nm) than 1983 Audi 80. (147 Nm @ 3300 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1983 Audi 80.
Compare all specifications:
1983 Audi 80 | 2006 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Audi | Cadillac |
Model | 80 | CTS |
Year Released | 1983 | 2006 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1780 cc | 5965 cc |
Horse Power | 90 HP | 400 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 147 Nm | 536 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3300 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4390 mm | 4870 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1800 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2550 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 67 L | 64 L |