2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2006 Jaguar XJ
To start off, both 2006 Cadillac CTS and 2006 Jaguar XJ were released in the same year (2006). Therefore the support and the availability on parts for both vehicles should be relatively similar. At 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 400 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar.
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 Jaguar XJ (561 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 25 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2006 Jaguar XJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 2006 Jaguar XJ | |
| Make | Cadillac | Jaguar |
| Model | CTS | XJ |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5965 cc | 4195 cc |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 400 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6100 RPM |
| Torque | 536 Nm | 561 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 5220 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1950 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 3170 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 | 12.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 84 L |
