2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1967 Mini MK II
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Mini MK II. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Mini MK II 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 @ 6000 RPM) has 347 more horse power than 1967 Mini MK II. (53 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1967 Mini MK II.
Because 2006 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 2006 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1967 Mini MK II, 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. Let's talk about torque, 2006 Cadillac CTS (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 459 more torque (in Nm) than 1967 Mini MK II. (77 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1967 Mini MK II.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 1967 Mini MK II | |
Make | Cadillac | Mini |
Model | CTS | MK II |
Year Released | 2006 | 1967 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5965 cc | 998 cc |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 53 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5800 RPM |
Torque | 536 Nm | 77 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 3060 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1420 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1360 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2040 mm |