1988 BMW 520 vs. 2007 Cadillac STS
To start off, 2007 Cadillac STS is newer by 19 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1988 BMW 520. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1988 BMW 520 would be higher. At 3,556 cc (6 cylinders), 2007 Cadillac STS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Cadillac STS (255 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 126 more horse power than 1988 BMW 520. (129 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2007 Cadillac STS should accelerate faster than 1988 BMW 520.
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, 2007 Cadillac STS (342 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 168 more torque (in Nm) than 1988 BMW 520. (174 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2007 Cadillac STS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1988 BMW 520.
Compare all specifications:
1988 BMW 520 | 2007 Cadillac STS | |
Make | BMW | Cadillac |
Model | 520 | STS |
Year Released | 1988 | 2007 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1989 cc | 3556 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 129 HP | 255 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6500 RPM |
Torque | 174 Nm | 342 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3200 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 10.2:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4780 mm | 4990 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1810 mm | 1850 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2770 mm | 2960 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 7.8 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.5 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.9 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 64 L |