2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1984 Rover 3500
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 22 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1984 Rover 3500. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1984 Rover 3500 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 213 more horse power than 1984 Rover 3500. (187 HP @ 5280 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1984 Rover 3500.
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 238 more torque (in Nm) than 1984 Rover 3500. (298 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1984 Rover 3500.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 1984 Rover 3500 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Rover |
| Model | CTS | 3500 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1984 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5965 cc | 3532 cc |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 187 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5280 RPM |
| Torque | 536 Nm | 298 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4730 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1390 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2820 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 66 L |
