2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 19 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass 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 300 kg more than 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass.
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, 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass, 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 | 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass | |
| Make | Cadillac | Oldsmobile |
| Model | CTS | Cutlass |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1984 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2597 cc | 2260 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 179 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1620 kg | 1320 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4850 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1780 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2680 mm |
