2006 Cadillac STS vs. 1982 Mitsubishi Colt
To start off, 2006 Cadillac STS is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Mitsubishi Colt. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Mitsubishi Colt 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 246 more horse power than 1982 Mitsubishi Colt. (74 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS should accelerate faster than 1982 Mitsubishi Colt.
Because 2006 Cadillac STS 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 STS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1982 Mitsubishi Colt, 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 STS (428 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 316 more torque (in Nm) than 1982 Mitsubishi Colt. (112 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac STS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1982 Mitsubishi Colt.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac STS | 1982 Mitsubishi Colt | |
Make | Cadillac | Mitsubishi |
Model | STS | Colt |
Year Released | 2006 | 1982 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4556 cc | 1597 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 320 HP | 74 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 428 Nm | 112 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4120 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1600 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1360 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2390 mm |