2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2005 Jaguar XJ
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Jaguar XJ. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Jaguar XJ 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 10 more horse power than 2005 Jaguar XJ. (390 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2005 Jaguar XJ.
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) has 11 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Jaguar XJ. (525 Nm). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Jaguar XJ.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 2005 Jaguar XJ | |
Make | Cadillac | Jaguar |
Model | CTS | XJ |
Year Released | 2006 | 2005 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5965 cc | 4195 cc |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 390 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 536 Nm | 525 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 5100 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1950 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2920 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.6 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.5 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 84 L |