2009 Cadillac BLS vs. 1982 Chevrolet Malibu
To start off, 2009 Cadillac BLS is newer by 27 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Chevrolet Malibu. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Chevrolet Malibu would be higher. At 3,790 cc (6 cylinders), 1982 Chevrolet Malibu is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Cadillac BLS weights approximately 160 kg more than 1982 Chevrolet Malibu.
Because 1982 Chevrolet Malibu 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 1982 Chevrolet Malibu. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac BLS, 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. 1982 Chevrolet Malibu has automatic transmission and 2009 Cadillac BLS has manual transmission. 2009 Cadillac BLS will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1982 Chevrolet Malibu will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac BLS | 1982 Chevrolet Malibu | |
| Make | Cadillac | Chevrolet |
| Model | BLS | Malibu |
| Year Released | 2009 | 1982 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2792 cc | 3790 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 252 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Vehicle Weight | 1635 kg | 1475 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4690 mm | 4900 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1830 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1390 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2760 mm |
