2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1982 Cadillac Brougham
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Cadillac Brougham. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Cadillac Brougham would be higher. At 5,031 cc (8 cylinders), 1982 Cadillac Brougham is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1982 Cadillac Brougham weights approximately 275 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Cadillac CTS | 1982 Cadillac Brougham | |
| Make | Cadillac | Cadillac |
| Model | CTS | Brougham |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1982 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3563 cc | 5031 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 252 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1675 kg | 1950 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 5630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1950 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 3090 mm |
