2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1966 Lotus Elan
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Lotus Elan. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Lotus Elan 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 75 more horse power than 1966 Lotus Elan. (104 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1966 Lotus Elan. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 924 kg more than 1966 Lotus Elan. 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 | 1966 Lotus Elan | |
Make | Cadillac | Lotus |
Model | CTS | Elan |
Year Released | 2003 | 1966 |
Body Type | Sedan | Convertible |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2597 cc | 1558 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 179 HP | 104 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1620 kg | 696 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 3700 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1430 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1180 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2240 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 45 L |