2004 Cadillac CTS vs. 1988 Mazda 626
To start off, 2004 Cadillac CTS is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1988 Mazda 626. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1988 Mazda 626 would be higher. At 3,173 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 2004 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 2004 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1988 Mazda 626, 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:
2004 Cadillac CTS | 1988 Mazda 626 | |
Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
Model | CTS | 626 |
Year Released | 2004 | 1988 |
Body Type | Sedan | Station Wagon |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3173 cc | 1998 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 215 HP | 0 HP |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 4600 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1700 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2580 mm |