2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1986 Caterham 1700
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 17 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Caterham 1700. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Caterham 1700 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 11 more horse power than 1986 Caterham 1700. (168 HP @ 6500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1986 Caterham 1700.
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 | 1986 Caterham 1700 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Caterham |
| Model | CTS | 1700 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1986 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2597 cc | 1692 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 179 HP | 168 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.2:1 | 11.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 3390 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1590 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1050 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2260 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 36 L |
