2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1998 Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1998 Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1998 Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph 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 82 more horse power than 1998 Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph. (318 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1998 Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph.
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 47 more torque (in Nm) than 1998 Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph. (489 Nm @ 3900 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1998 Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 1998 Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph | |
| Make | Cadillac | Rolls-Royce |
| Model | CTS | Silver Seraph |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1998 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5965 cc | 5377 cc |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 318 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 536 Nm | 489 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3900 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 5400 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 3070 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 94 L |
