2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1966 MG MGC
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 MG MGC. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 MG MGC would be higher. At 2,912 cc (6 cylinders), 1966 MG MGC is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS (179 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 31 more horse power than 1966 MG MGC. (148 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1966 MG MGC.
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 (245 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 71 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 MG MGC. (174 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 MG MGC.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Cadillac CTS | 1966 MG MGC | |
| Make | Cadillac | MG |
| Model | CTS | MGC |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1966 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Convertible |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2597 cc | 2912 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 179 HP | 148 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 245 Nm | 174 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 3500 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 Length | 4840 mm | 4530 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1530 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2560 mm |
