2009 Cadillac CTS vs. 1988 Ford Thunderbird
To start off, 2009 Cadillac CTS is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1988 Ford Thunderbird. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1988 Ford Thunderbird would be higher. At 3,797 cc (6 cylinders), 1988 Ford Thunderbird is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac CTS (259 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 119 more horse power than 1988 Ford Thunderbird. (140 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1988 Ford Thunderbird.
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, 1988 Ford Thunderbird (292 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 39 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Cadillac CTS. (253 Nm @ 3100 RPM). This means 1988 Ford Thunderbird will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Cadillac CTS. 1988 Ford Thunderbird 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. 1988 Ford Thunderbird will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac CTS | 1988 Ford Thunderbird | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | CTS | Thunderbird |
| Year Released | 2009 | 1988 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3564 cc | 3797 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 259 HP | 140 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6200 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Torque | 253 Nm | 292 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3100 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 94 mm | 96.8 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 85 mm | 86 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.2:1 | 9.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
