2002 Cadillac CTS vs. 2009 Jaguar XF
To start off, 2009 Jaguar XF is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 4,196 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Jaguar XF is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Jaguar XF (420 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 200 more horse power than 2002 Cadillac CTS. (220 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Jaguar XF should accelerate faster than 2002 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. Let's talk about torque, 2009 Jaguar XF (560 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 264 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Cadillac CTS. (296 Nm @ 3400 RPM). This means 2009 Jaguar XF will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Cadillac CTS | 2009 Jaguar XF | |
| Make | Cadillac | Jaguar |
| Model | CTS | XF |
| Year Released | 2002 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3173 cc | 4196 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 220 HP | 420 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 296 Nm | 560 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.0:1 | 9.1:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4970 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2910 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 66 L | 70 L |
