2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 2010 Jaguar XF
To start off, 2010 Jaguar XF is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Jaguar XF is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Jaguar XF (271 HP) has 60 more horse power than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (211 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Jaguar XF should accelerate faster than 2006 Cadillac CTS.
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, 2010 Jaguar XF (600 Nm) has 337 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (263 Nm). This means 2010 Jaguar XF will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac CTS | 2010 Jaguar XF | |
Make | Cadillac | Jaguar |
Model | CTS | XF |
Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2786 cc | 3000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 211 HP | 271 HP |
Torque | 263 Nm | 600 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4961 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1877 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1461 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2908 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 6.3 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 70 L |