2006 Land Rover LR3 vs. 2012 Cadillac CTS-V
To start off, 2012 Cadillac CTS-V is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Land Rover LR3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Land Rover LR3 would be higher. At 6,200 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Cadillac CTS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Cadillac CTS-V (556 HP @ 6100 RPM) has 340 more horse power than 2006 Land Rover LR3. (216 HP @ 4500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Cadillac CTS-V should accelerate faster than 2006 Land Rover LR3.
Because 2006 Land Rover LR3 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2012 Cadillac CTS-V. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Land Rover LR3 will offer significantly more control. 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, 2012 Cadillac CTS-V (746 Nm @ 3800 RPM) has 381 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Land Rover LR3. (365 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2012 Cadillac CTS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Land Rover LR3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Land Rover LR3 | 2012 Cadillac CTS-V | |
| Make | Land Rover | Cadillac |
| Model | LR3 | CTS-V |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4015 cc | 6200 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 216 HP | 556 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4500 RPM | 6100 RPM |
| Torque | 365 Nm | 746 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4860 mm | 4877 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1920 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1900 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 12.4 L/100km | 12.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 86 L | 68 L |
