2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1976 Volvo 66
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 27 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Volvo 66. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Volvo 66 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 123 more horse power than 1976 Volvo 66. (56 HP @ 5400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1976 Volvo 66.
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 151 more torque (in Nm) than 1976 Volvo 66. (94 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1976 Volvo 66.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Cadillac CTS | 1976 Volvo 66 | |
Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
Model | CTS | 66 |
Year Released | 2003 | 1976 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2597 cc | 1289 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 179 HP | 56 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5400 RPM |
Torque | 245 Nm | 94 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 2800 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 83.3 mm | 73 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 79.6 mm | 77 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.2:1 | 8.5:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 3910 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1550 mm |