2009 Cadillac SRX vs. 2004 Rover 75
To start off, 2009 Cadillac SRX is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Rover 75. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Rover 75 would be higher. At 4,601 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Rover 75 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Rover 75 (256 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 4 more horse power than 2009 Cadillac SRX. (252 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Rover 75 should accelerate faster than 2009 Cadillac SRX.
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, 2004 Rover 75 (410 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 156 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Cadillac SRX. (254 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 2004 Rover 75 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Cadillac SRX.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac SRX | 2004 Rover 75 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Rover |
| Model | SRX | 75 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3564 cc | 4601 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 252 HP | 256 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 254 Nm | 410 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 10.5 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 18.3 L/100km |
