2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1966 Mercury Comet
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Mercury Comet. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Mercury Comet would be higher. At 3,563 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS (252 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 134 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Comet. (118 HP @ 4400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Comet.
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. Let's talk about torque, 2003 Cadillac CTS (346 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 88 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Mercury Comet. (258 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Mercury Comet.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Cadillac CTS | 1966 Mercury Comet | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mercury |
| Model | CTS | Comet |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1966 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3563 cc | 3279 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 252 HP | 118 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6200 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Torque | 346 Nm | 258 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3200 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 94 mm | 103.1 mm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 5180 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1390 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2950 mm |
