2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1982 Dodge Omni
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Dodge Omni. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Dodge Omni would be higher. At 2,597 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 625 kg more than 1982 Dodge Omni.
Because 2003 Cadillac CTS is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2003 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1982 Dodge Omni, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 Dodge Omni | |
Make | Cadillac | Dodge |
Model | CTS | Omni |
Year Released | 2003 | 1982 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2597 cc | 1716 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 179 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1620 kg | 995 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4400 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1300 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2530 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 49 L |