2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2001 Rover 75
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2001 Rover 75. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2001 Rover 75 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 286 more horse power than 2001 Rover 75. (114 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2001 Rover 75.
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, 2001 Rover 75, 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 276 more torque (in Nm) than 2001 Rover 75. (260 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2001 Rover 75.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 2001 Rover 75 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Rover |
| Model | CTS | 75 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2001 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5965 cc | 1951 cc |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 114 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 536 Nm | 260 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4800 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1780 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2830 mm |
