2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1974 Datsun 260Z
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1974 Datsun 260Z. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1974 Datsun 260Z 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 237 more horse power than 1974 Datsun 260Z. (163 HP @ 5600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1974 Datsun 260Z.
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 323 more torque (in Nm) than 1974 Datsun 260Z. (213 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1974 Datsun 260Z.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 1974 Datsun 260Z | |
Make | Cadillac | Datsun |
Model | CTS | 260Z |
Year Released | 2006 | 1974 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5965 cc | 2565 cc |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 163 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5600 RPM |
Torque | 536 Nm | 213 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4135 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1630 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1290 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2310 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.6 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 12 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 60 L |