2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1981 Chevrolet Malibu
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 25 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1981 Chevrolet Malibu. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1981 Chevrolet Malibu would be higher. At 3,790 cc (6 cylinders), 1981 Chevrolet Malibu is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 318 kg more than 1981 Chevrolet Malibu.
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. 1981 Chevrolet Malibu has automatic transmission and 2006 Cadillac CTS has manual transmission. 2006 Cadillac CTS will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1981 Chevrolet Malibu will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 1981 Chevrolet Malibu | |
| Make | Cadillac | Chevrolet |
| Model | CTS | Malibu |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1981 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2597 cc | 3790 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 179 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1794 kg | 1476 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 4920 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1780 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1390 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2760 mm |
