2004 Audi A6 vs. 1982 Jaguar XJR
To start off, 2004 Audi A6 is newer by 22 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Jaguar XJR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Jaguar XJR would be higher. At 5,343 cc (12 cylinders), 1982 Jaguar XJR is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Audi A6 weights approximately 762 kg more than 1982 Jaguar XJR.
Because 1982 Jaguar XJR 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 Jaguar XJR. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Audi A6, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Audi A6 | 1982 Jaguar XJR | |
| Make | Audi | Jaguar |
| Model | A6 | XJR |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1982 |
| Engine Position | Front | Middle |
| Engine Size | 2496 cc | 5343 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 12 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 180 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1662 kg | 900 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4940 mm | 4680 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1990 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1050 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 2870 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 90 L |
