Jaguar XF (X260)
Car comparison
Jaguar XF (X260) 3.0d V6vsCadillac CTS III 2.0
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonCadillac CTS III
2.0
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Jaguar XF (X260) 3.0d V6
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.2 s
- Fastest top speed265 km/h165 mph Unrestricted250 km/h155 mph Restricted
- Most powerful300 hp224 kW
- Highest torque700 Nm516 lb-ft
- Best power-to-weight171 hp/t128 kW/t5.8 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption5.5 L/100 km42.8 mpg US51.4 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption6.6 L/100 km35.6 mpg US42.8 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption4.8 L/100 km49.0 mpg US58.9 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions144 g/km
- Best estimated range1,200 km746 mi
- Largest trunk505 L
- Best overall score72/100
- Best performance score70/100
- Best economy score92/100
- Best practicality score76/100
Cadillac CTS III 2.0
- Lightest1,640 kg3,616 lb
Specification comparison
| Model | JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | CadillacCTS III2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 300hp224kW | 276hp206kW |
| Torque | 700Nm516lb-ft | 400Nm295lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,750kg3,858lb | 1,640kg3,616lb |
| Gross weight | 2,350kg5,181lb | - |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph Calculated | 250 km/h 155 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 64.7s99% target: 262 km/h / 163 mph Calculated | 69.5s99% target: 248 km/h / 154 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.2s | 6.8s |
| 0-200 km/h | 19.0s Calculated | 22.9s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 5.9s Calculated | 6.5s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 5.5L/100 km42.8mpg US51.4mpg UK | 8.7L/100 km27mpg US32.5mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 6.6L/100 km35.6mpg US42.8mpg UK | 11.8L/100 km19.9mpg US23.9mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 4.8L/100 km49mpg US58.9mpg UK | 7.8L/100 km30.2mpg US36.2mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 14.1s Calculated | 14.7s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 171hp/t128kW/t78hp/1000 lb Calculated | 168hp/t125kW/t76hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 400Nm/t268lb-ft/ton Calculated | 244Nm/t163lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 1,200km746mi Calculated | 828km514mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 2,993cc183cu in | 1,998cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,954mm195in | 4,966mm196in |
| Width | 1,987mm78in | 1,833mm72in |
| Height | 1,457mm57in | 1,454mm57in |
| Wheelbase | 2,960mm117in | 2,911mm115in |
| Front track | 1,605mm63in | 1,560mm61in |
| Rear track | 1,594mm63in | 1,568mm62in |
| Ground clearance | 116mm5in | - |
| Trunk volume | 505L | 447L |
| Doors | 4 | 4 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 66L | 72L |
| CO2 emissions | 144g/km | 204g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Jaguar XF (X260) 3.0d V6: Power / Torque
- Cadillac CTS III 2.0: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 4,000 rpm | 2,000 rpm | 4,250 rpm |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 5,500 rpm | 1,700-5,500 rpm | 7,000 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | CadillacCTS III2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 5.9 s | 6.5 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 6.2 s | 6.8 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 19.0 s | 22.9 s |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph Likely limited | 250 km/h 155 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.6 s | 2.6 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.4 s | 6.6 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.4 s | 9.8 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.0 s | 12.5 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.1 s | 14.7 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 173 km/h 107 mph | 164 km/h 102 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 300 hp 224 kW |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 276 hp 206 kW |
Jaguar XF (X260) 3.0d V6 has 24 hp more than Cadillac CTS III 2.0.
The biggest power difference is between Cadillac CTS III 2.0 and Jaguar XF (X260) 3.0d V6: 24 hp (18 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 700 Nm 516 lb-ft |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 1,750 kg 3,858 lb |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 1,640 kg 3,616 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 250 km/h 155 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 6.2 s |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 6.8 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Jaguar XF (X260) 3.0d V6 and Cadillac CTS III 2.0: 0.6 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 5.5 L/100 km 42.8 mpg US 51.4 mpg UK |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 8.7 L/100 km 27.0 mpg US 32.5 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Jaguar XF (X260) 3.0d V6 and Cadillac CTS III 2.0: 3.2 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 171 hp/t 128 kW/t 5.8 kg/hp |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 168 hp/t 125 kW/t 5.9 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 1,200 km 746 mi |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 828 km 514 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 300 hp 224 kW | 6.2 s | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 276 hp 206 kW | 6.8 s | 250 km/h 155 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| CadillacCTS III2.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 |
| 5.5 L/100 km 42.8 mpg US 51.4 mpg UK | ||||||
| CadillacCTS III2.0 |
| 8.7 L/100 km 27.0 mpg US 32.5 mpg UK | ||||||
Jaguar XF (X260) 3.0d V6 is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 5.5 L/100 km 42.8 mpg US 51.4 mpg UK | 6.2 s |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 8.7 L/100 km 27.0 mpg US 32.5 mpg UK | 6.8 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | 171 hp/t 128 kW/t 5.8 kg/hp | 5.5 L/100 km 42.8 mpg US 51.4 mpg UK |
| CadillacCTS III2.0 | 168 hp/t 125 kW/t 5.9 kg/hp | 8.7 L/100 km 27.0 mpg US 32.5 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | JaguarXF (X260)3.0d V6 | CadillacCTS III2.0 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 300 hp 224 kW | 276 hp 206 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 700 Nm 516 lb-ft | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.2 s | 6.8 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | Unrestricted 265 km/h165 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph | 250 km/h 155 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,750 kg 3,858 lb | 1,640 kg 3,616 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 5.5 L/100 km 42.8 mpg US 51.4 mpg UK | 8.7 L/100 km 27.0 mpg US 32.5 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 1,200 km 746 mi | 828 km 514 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 144 g/km | 204 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 505 L 17.8 cu ft | 447 L 15.8 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 171 hp/t 128 kW/t 5.8 kg/hp | 168 hp/t 125 kW/t 5.9 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Jaguar XF (X260) 3.0d V6 | Cadillac CTS III 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 5.5 L/100 km42.8 mpg US51.4 mpg UK | 8.7 L/100 km27 mpg US32.5 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 9.63 LC100 km | 15.22 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 15.49 LC100 mi | 24.50 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 825 L218 US gal181 UK gal | 1,305 L345 US gal287 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,444 LC/year | 2,284 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Jaguar XF (X260) 3.0d V6
- Has 24 hp more
- Has 300 Nm more
- Is 0.6 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 15 km/h (9 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 3.2 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 3 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 372 km (231 mi) more estimated range
- Has 58 L more trunk volume
- Emits 60 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Heaviest
Cadillac CTS III 2.0
- Is 110 kg lighter
Pros
- Lightest
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
- Highest CO2 emissions
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























