2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1962 Volvo 220
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Volvo 220. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Volvo 220 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 105 more horse power than 1962 Volvo 220. (74 HP @ 4500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1962 Volvo 220. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 605 kg more than 1962 Volvo 220. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2003 Cadillac CTS (245 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 101 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Volvo 220. (144 Nm @ 2300 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Volvo 220.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Cadillac CTS | 1962 Volvo 220 | |
Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
Model | CTS | 220 |
Year Released | 2003 | 1962 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2597 cc | 1778 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 179 HP | 74 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Torque | 245 Nm | 144 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 2300 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1620 kg | 1015 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4460 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1620 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1510 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2610 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 45 L |