2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1962 Volkswagen 1500
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Volkswagen 1500. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Volkswagen 1500 would be higher. At 2,597 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS (179 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 127 more horse power than 1962 Volkswagen 1500. (52 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1962 Volkswagen 1500. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 760 kg more than 1962 Volkswagen 1500. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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:
2003 Cadillac CTS | 1962 Volkswagen 1500 | |
Make | Cadillac | Volkswagen |
Model | CTS | 1500 |
Year Released | 2003 | 1962 |
Engine Position | Front | Rear |
Engine Size | 2597 cc | 1493 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 179 HP | 52 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1620 kg | 860 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4230 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1620 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1480 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2410 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 40 L |