2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1994 Rover Range Rover
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 Range Rover. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1994 Rover Range Rover 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 175 more horse power than 1994 Rover Range Rover. (225 HP @ 4750 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1994 Rover Range Rover.
Because 1994 Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2006 Cadillac CTS. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1994 Rover Range Rover will offer significantly more control. 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 161 more torque (in Nm) than 1994 Rover Range Rover. (375 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1994 Rover Range Rover.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 1994 Rover Range Rover | |
Make | Cadillac | Rover |
Model | CTS | Range Rover |
Year Released | 2006 | 1994 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5965 cc | 4552 cc |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 225 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4750 RPM |
Torque | 536 Nm | 375 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1830 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2750 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 100 L |