2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1993 Mini MK VI
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1993 Mini MK VI. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1993 Mini MK VI 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 359 more horse power than 1993 Mini MK VI. (41 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1993 Mini MK VI.
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, 1993 Mini MK VI, 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 468 more torque (in Nm) than 1993 Mini MK VI. (68 Nm @ 2600 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1993 Mini MK VI.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 1993 Mini MK VI | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mini |
| Model | CTS | MK VI |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1993 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5965 cc | 998 cc |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 41 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 536 Nm | 68 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 2600 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 3060 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1450 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1360 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2040 mm |
