2002 Bristol Blenheim vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 11 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Bristol Blenheim. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Bristol Blenheim would be higher. At 5,900 cc (8 cylinders), 2002 Bristol Blenheim is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 438 kg more than 2002 Bristol Blenheim.
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:
| 2002 Bristol Blenheim | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Bristol | Cadillac |
| Model | Blenheim | CTS |
| Year Released | 2002 | 2013 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5900 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 266 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1395 kg | 1833 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4680 mm | 4859 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1120 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 105 L | 68 L |
