2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1983 Citroen BX
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 23 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1983 Citroen BX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1983 Citroen BX 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 328 more horse power than 1983 Citroen BX. (72 HP @ 5750 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1983 Citroen BX.
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, 1983 Citroen BX, 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 428 more torque (in Nm) than 1983 Citroen BX. (108 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1983 Citroen BX.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 1983 Citroen BX | |
| Make | Cadillac | Citroen |
| Model | CTS | BX |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1983 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5965 cc | 1358 cc |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 72 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5750 RPM |
| Torque | 536 Nm | 108 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4240 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1670 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2660 mm |
