2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1963 Reliant Sabre Six
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Reliant Sabre Six. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Reliant Sabre Six would be higher. At 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP) has 292 more horse power than 1963 Reliant Sabre Six. (108 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1963 Reliant Sabre Six.
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, 2006 Cadillac CTS (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 351 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Reliant Sabre Six. (185 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Reliant Sabre Six.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 1963 Reliant Sabre Six | |
| Make | Cadillac | Reliant |
| Model | CTS | Sabre Six |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5965 cc | 2553 cc |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 108 HP |
| Torque | 536 Nm | 185 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4060 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1280 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2290 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 38 L |
