2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1981 Zastava 102
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 25 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1981 Zastava 102. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1981 Zastava 102 would be higher. At 2,786 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (211 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 144 more horse power than 1981 Zastava 102. (67 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1981 Zastava 102. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 818 kg more than 1981 Zastava 102. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 1981 Zastava 102, 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.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 1981 Zastava 102 | |
Make | Cadillac | Zastava |
Model | CTS | 102 |
Year Released | 2006 | 1981 |
Engine Size | 2786 cc | 1302 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 211 HP | 67 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Weight | 1592 kg | 774 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 3500 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1550 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1340 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2160 mm |