2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 23 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow would be higher. At 6,749 cc (8 cylinders), 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow weights approximately 586 kg more than 2003 Cadillac CTS.
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. 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow has automatic transmission and 2003 Cadillac CTS has manual transmission. 2003 Cadillac CTS will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Cadillac CTS | 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | |
| Make | Cadillac | Rolls-Royce |
| Model | CTS | Silver Shadow |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1980 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2597 cc | 6749 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 179 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1620 kg | 2206 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 5280 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 3040 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 107 L |
