1996 BMW M3 vs. 2009 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2009 Cadillac CTS is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 BMW M3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 BMW M3 would be higher. At 3,564 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 BMW M3 (326 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 67 more horse power than 2009 Cadillac CTS. (259 HP @ 6200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1996 BMW M3 should accelerate faster than 2009 Cadillac CTS.
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, 1996 BMW M3 (305 Nm) has 52 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Cadillac CTS. (253 Nm). This means 1996 BMW M3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 BMW M3 | 2009 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | BMW | Cadillac |
| Model | M3 | CTS |
| Year Released | 1996 | 2009 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3001 cc | 3564 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 326 HP | 259 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6200 RPM |
| Torque | 305 Nm | 253 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 86.2 mm | 94 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 85.9 mm | 85 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 10.2:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
