2006 Cadillac STS vs. 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
To start off, 2006 Cadillac STS is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow would be higher. At 6,230 cc (8 cylinders), 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow weights approximately 324 kg more than 2006 Cadillac STS.
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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac STS | 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | |
| Make | Cadillac | Rolls-Royce |
| Model | STS | Silver Shadow |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1967 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3563 cc | 6230 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 253 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
| Top Speed | 229 km/hour | 193 km/hour |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1782 kg | 2106 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 5180 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1530 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 3040 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.4 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 66 L | 109 L |
