2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1968 Jaguar 240
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 Jaguar 240. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 Jaguar 240 would be higher. At 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 269 more horse power than 1968 Jaguar 240. (131 HP @ 5550 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1968 Jaguar 240.
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, 2006 Cadillac CTS (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 332 more torque (in Nm) than 1968 Jaguar 240. (204 Nm @ 3700 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1968 Jaguar 240.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 1968 Jaguar 240 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Jaguar |
| Model | CTS | 240 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1968 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5965 cc | 2483 cc |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 131 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5550 RPM |
| Torque | 536 Nm | 204 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3700 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4600 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2740 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.5 L/100km | 12.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 54 L |
