1978 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow vs. 2006 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 28 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1978 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1978 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow would be higher. At 6,750 cc (8 cylinders), 1978 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1978 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow weights approximately 460 kg more than 2006 Cadillac CTS.
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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1978 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | 2006 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Rolls-Royce | Cadillac |
| Model | Silver Shadow | CTS |
| Year Released | 1978 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6750 cc | 3564 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 252 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Top Speed | 190 km/hour | 236 km/hour |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2206 kg | 1746 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5280 mm | 4830 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3050 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 15.2 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 107 L | 66 L |
