2006 Cadillac STS vs. 1973 Chrysler 160
To start off, 2006 Cadillac STS is newer by 33 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1973 Chrysler 160. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1973 Chrysler 160 would be higher. At 4,556 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac STS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac STS (320 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 219 more horse power than 1973 Chrysler 160. (101 HP @ 5600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS should accelerate faster than 1973 Chrysler 160.
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 STS (428 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 275 more torque (in Nm) than 1973 Chrysler 160. (153 Nm @ 3400 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac STS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1973 Chrysler 160.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS | 1973 Chrysler 160 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Chrysler |
| Model | STS | 160 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1973 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4556 cc | 1812 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 320 HP | 101 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 428 Nm | 153 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4540 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1730 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1440 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2680 mm |
