2003 Cadillac CTS-V vs. 2012 BMW 320
To start off, 2012 BMW 320 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Cadillac CTS-V. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Cadillac CTS-V would be higher. At 5,666 cc (8 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS-V (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 218 more horse power than 2012 BMW 320. (182 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS-V should accelerate faster than 2012 BMW 320.
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, 2003 Cadillac CTS-V (529 Nm @ 4800 RPM) has 149 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 BMW 320. (380 Nm @ 2750 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 BMW 320.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Cadillac CTS-V | 2012 BMW 320 | |
Make | Cadillac | BMW |
Model | CTS-V | 320 |
Year Released | 2003 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5666 cc | 1995 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 400 HP | 182 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 529 Nm | 380 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4800 RPM | 2750 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 99.1 mm | 90 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 92 mm | 84 mm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4624 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1811 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1384 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2810 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 66 L | 57 L |