2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1994 Rover 200
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 12 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1994 Rover 200. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1994 Rover 200 would be higher. At 2,786 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (211 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 13 more horse power than 1994 Rover 200. (198 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1994 Rover 200. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 407 kg more than 1994 Rover 200. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2006 Cadillac CTS (263 Nm @ 3300 RPM) has 26 more torque (in Nm) than 1994 Rover 200. (237 Nm @ 2100 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1994 Rover 200.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 1994 Rover 200 | |
Make | Cadillac | Rover |
Model | CTS | 200 |
Year Released | 2006 | 1994 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2786 cc | 1994 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 211 HP | 198 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 263 Nm | 237 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3300 RPM | 2100 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 8.5:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1592 kg | 1185 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4230 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1410 mm |