2009 Cadillac CTS vs. 1985 Mercedes-Benz 260
To start off, 2009 Cadillac CTS is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1985 Mercedes-Benz 260. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1985 Mercedes-Benz 260 would be higher. At 3,564 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac CTS (259 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 91 more horse power than 1985 Mercedes-Benz 260. (168 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1985 Mercedes-Benz 260.
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, 2009 Cadillac CTS (253 Nm @ 3100 RPM) has 25 more torque (in Nm) than 1985 Mercedes-Benz 260. (228 Nm @ 4600 RPM). This means 2009 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1985 Mercedes-Benz 260. 1985 Mercedes-Benz 260 has automatic transmission and 2009 Cadillac CTS has manual transmission. 2009 Cadillac CTS will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1985 Mercedes-Benz 260 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac CTS | 1985 Mercedes-Benz 260 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mercedes-Benz |
| Model | CTS | 260 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 1985 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3564 cc | 2599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 259 HP | 168 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6200 RPM | 5800 RPM |
| Torque | 253 Nm | 228 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3100 RPM | 4600 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 94 mm | 82.9 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 85 mm | 80.3 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.2:1 | 9.2:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
