2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1995 Rover 416i
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 11 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1995 Rover 416i. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1995 Rover 416i 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 290 more horse power than 1995 Rover 416i. (110 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1995 Rover 416i.
Because 2006 Cadillac CTS is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2006 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1995 Rover 416i, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 391 more torque (in Nm) than 1995 Rover 416i. (145 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1995 Rover 416i.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 1995 Rover 416i | |
| Make | Cadillac | Rover |
| Model | CTS | 416i |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1995 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5965 cc | 1587 cc |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 110 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 536 Nm | 145 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4320 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1390 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2630 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 55 L |
