1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK
To start off, 2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK is newer by 17 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Caterham 1700. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Caterham 1700 would be higher. At 1,796 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Caterham 1700 (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 1 more horse power than 2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK. (167 HP @ 5750 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1986 Caterham 1700 should accelerate faster than 2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK.
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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1986 Caterham 1700 | 2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK | |
| Make | Caterham | Mercedes-Benz |
| Model | 1700 | CLK |
| Year Released | 1986 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1692 cc | 1796 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 168 HP | 167 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 5750 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 10.7:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4530 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1750 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2720 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 36 L | 62 L |
