2005 Cadillac CTS vs. 1973 Chrysler 160
To start off, 2005 Cadillac CTS is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1973 Chrysler 160. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1973 Chrysler 160 would be higher. At 3,564 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Cadillac CTS (255 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 176 more horse power than 1973 Chrysler 160. (79 HP @ 5600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1973 Chrysler 160. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 527 kg more than 1973 Chrysler 160. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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. Let's talk about torque, 2005 Cadillac CTS (343 Nm) has 218 more torque (in Nm) than 1973 Chrysler 160. (125 Nm). This means 2005 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1973 Chrysler 160.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Cadillac CTS | 1973 Chrysler 160 | |
Make | Cadillac | Chrysler |
Model | CTS | 160 |
Year Released | 2005 | 1973 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3564 cc | 1638 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 255 HP | 79 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5600 RPM |
Torque | 343 Nm | 125 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1592 kg | 1065 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4540 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1730 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2680 mm |