2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1974 Rover 3.5
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1974 Rover 3.5. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1974 Rover 3.5 would be higher. At 3,532 cc (8 cylinders), 1974 Rover 3.5 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (211 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 62 more horse power than 1974 Rover 3.5. (149 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1974 Rover 3.5. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1974 Rover 3.5 weights approximately 46 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. Let's talk about torque, 1974 Rover 3.5 (276 Nm @ 2600 RPM) has 13 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (263 Nm @ 3300 RPM). This means 1974 Rover 3.5 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 1974 Rover 3.5 | |
Make | Cadillac | Rover |
Model | CTS | 3.5 |
Year Released | 2006 | 1974 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2786 cc | 3532 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 211 HP | 149 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 263 Nm | 276 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3300 RPM | 2600 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1592 kg | 1638 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4750 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1550 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2820 mm |